Loading...
07 July 10, 2019 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, July 10, 2019 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside COMMISSIONERS Chair — Chuck Washington Vice Chair— Ben J. Benoit Second Vice Chair — Jan Harnik Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District 1 Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District 2 Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District 3 V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District 4 Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District 5 Art Welch / Daniela Andrade, City of Banning Lloyd White / Julio Martinez, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe Larry Smith / Linda Molina, City of Calimesa Randall Bonner / Jeremy Smith, City of Canyon Lake Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Megan Beaman Jacinto, City of Coachella Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Clint Lorimore / Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet Dana Reed / To Be Appointed, City of Indian Wells Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley Kathleen Fitzpatrick / Robert Radi, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Bill Zimmerman / Dean Deines, City of Menifee Victoria Baca / Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley Scott Vinton / Randon Lane, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Lisa Middleton / Jon R. Roberts, City of Palm Springs Michael M. Vargas / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Charles Townsend, City of Rancho Mirage Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto Michael S. Naggar / Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar Mike Beauchamp, Governor's Appointee Caltrans District 8 Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 10, 2019 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three -minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 12, 2019 7. PUBLIC HEARING — ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), LOCATED IN PERRIS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 215 AND PLACENTIA AVENUE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of Resolution of Necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner; and 3) Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 19-015 to "Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of a Fee Interest in Certain Real Property, By Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), Located in Perris, Riverside County, California, for the Construction of an Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California". Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 3 8. PUBLIC HEARING — RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 16 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve Fiscal Year 2019/20 Transit Operator Funding Allocations for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and the Commission's Rail Program; 3) Direct staff to add the federally funded and regionally significant projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); 4) Adopt Resolution No. 19-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate Local Transit Assistance Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds;" and 5) Approve the FY 2019/20 FTA Sections 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County (County). 9. CONSENT CALENDAR —All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 9A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 30 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4, 2018. 9B. FISCAL YEAR 2017/18 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Page 39 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for Fiscal Year 2017/18. 9C. #REBOOT MY COMMUTE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update about the Commission's #RebootMyCommute public engagement program in Riverside County. Page 47 Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 4 9D. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill position: a) HR. 2939 (Napolitano) — Support; 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. Page 60 9E. FISCAL YEARS 2019/20 — 2023/24 MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR THE LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PROGRAM Page 63 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Fiscal Years 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads (LSR) as submitted by the participating agencies. 9F. 2020 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING DISTRIBUTION AND DRAFT FUND ESTIMATE Page 66 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding distribution among the three geographic areas in Riverside County per the adopted STIP Intracounty Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 9G. 2019 TITLE VI PROGRAM REPORT UPDATE, INCLUDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN Page 70 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2019 Title VI Program Report, including the Public Participation Plan and Language Assistance Plan in compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 5 9H. CHANGE ORDER TO AMEND THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT TOLL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM USA FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/STATE ROUTE 91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT Page 131 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 6 to Agreement No. 16-31-043-00 for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (15 Express Lanes) with Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc. (Kapsch) in the amount of $2,809,286, plus a contingency amount of $290,000, for a total amount not to exceed $3,099,286; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate and execute the change order on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project. 91. CEQA REVALIDATION AND ADDENDUM FOR THE MODIFIED STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT'S EXPRESS LANE CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS Page 168 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 19-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting an Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071075) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project and Approving the Proposed Changes to the Project". 9J. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE INTERSTATE 15/STATE ROUTE 91 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT THROUGH A DESIGN -BUILD CONTRACT Page 177 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff, subject to concurrence by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to issue Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 19-31-074-00 and future addenda to design and construct the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector (15/91 ELC) project through a design -build (DB) contract; 2) Approve the selection criteria for the selection of the apparent best value (ABV) proposer; Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 6 3) Authorize the Executive Director to select the top -ranked ABV proposer for DB services, based on the criteria identified in the RFP and addenda, and to conduct subsequent limited negotiations; 4) Authorize the Executive Director to pay, to the unsuccessful shortlisted DB proposers (or potentially all DB proposers in the case that the procurement is cancelled after the proposal due date) that submit a timely and responsive proposal, a stipend of $225,000, plus a contingency amount of $25,000 per proposer, for a total amount not to exceed $1 million; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve stipend contingency up to the total amount not to exceed as deemed necessary. 9K. AGREEMENT WITH WSP USA INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT PHASE FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY NEXT GENERATION EXPRESS LANES Page185 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-058-00 to WSP USA Inc. (WSP) to provide planning and preliminary engineering services to complete the Project Initiation Document for the Next Generation Express Lanes Project (NGELP), in the amount of $1,296,110, plus a contingency amount of $99,611, for a total contract amount not to exceed $1,395,721; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve an increase not to exceed $20,000 of the total amount based on the final Caltrans Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI) and Commission's pre -award audit results; 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as may be required for the Project. 9L. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY MITIGATION SITE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 232 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-086-00 to Riverside Construction, as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, for the construction of the Mid County Parkway (MCP) Mitigation Project (Project) in the amount of $1,782,653, plus a contingency amount of $267,398, for a total amount not to exceed $2,050,051; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 7 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total not to exceed amount. 9M. AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SENATE BILL 1 FUNDING OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 248 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-45-101-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the Senate Bill (SB) 1 funding of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in an amount not to exceed $1,390,287; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 9N. AMENDMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOWING SERVICES SUPPORTING THE STATE ROUTE 60 TRUCK LANES PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 259 1) Approve the following amendments to agreements to provide Construction Freeway Service Patrol (CFSP) services for the State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project (Project) for an additional amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $500,000: 2) a) Agreement No. 15-45-060-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 15-45-060-00, with Airport Mobile Towing, Inc. (Airport); b) Agreement No. 18-45-131-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-45-131-00, with Coastal Pride Towing, Inc. (Coastal); c) Agreement No. 17-45-061-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 17-45-061-00, with Pepe's Towing, Inc. (Pepe's); and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 10. 2009 MEASURE A EXPENDITURE PLAN REVIEW & UPDATE Page 266 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan Review & Update. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 8 11. INNOVATIVE FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 272 1) Authorize staff to continue to develop a plan of finance for the 2019-2029 Western County Highway Delivery Plan (Delivery Plan) eligible projects that includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of RCTC 91 Express Lanes surplus toll revenue bonds; 2) Adopt as Commission policy that priority shall be given to Delivery Plan -supporting projects for programming of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) designated for the South Coast Air Basin, and Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds; 3) Authorize staff to pursue legislation that amends the Commission's authorizing statutes to extend the eligible use of RCTC 91 Express Lanes surplus toll revenues east to the 60/91/215 interchange and south on 1-15 to SR-74; and 4) Approve the reimbursement of all or a portion of the Measure A investment in the 91 Project that was not previously financed as an eligible use of surplus toll revenues. 12. 2019-2029 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY HIGHWAY DELIVERY PLAN Page 278 Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the 2019-2029 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan. 13. COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT & TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN AND ORDINANCE Page 282 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize staff to develop a Countywide Transportation Improvement & Traffic Relief Plan and implementation ordinance for potential presentation to Riverside County voters in November 2020; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 18-15-086-01, an amendment to Agreement No. 18-15-086-00, pursuant to legal counsel review, with AlphaVu for an additional amount not to exceed $3.85 million to enhance the Public Engagement Program to include a Countywide Transportation Improvement & Traffic Relief Plan and implementation ordinance; 3) Approve an increase of an amount not to exceed $1,997,500 in FY 2019/20 expenditures to accommodate the enhancement of the Public Engagement Program; and 4) Sponsor any legislation necessary to clarify its authorizing statutes to implement a voter -approved sales tax measure. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 9 14. COACHELLA FESTIVAL SPECIAL EVENTS TRAIN PLATFORM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 301 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-25-103-00 with the California State Transportation Agency (CaISTA) regarding a State Rail Assistance (SRA) grant to fund the Coachella Festival Special Event Train Platform Development Project (Platform Project) for an amount not to exceed $5,942,510; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 19-012, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the State Rail Assistance"; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 19-013, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for the Execution of the State Rail Assistance Project"; 4) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Agreement No. 19-25-102-00 with Los Angeles — San Diego — San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) and Amtrak for the coordination and development of the Platform Project; 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate and execute the final CaISTA and MOU agreements on behalf of the Commission; 6) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate and execute a cooperative agreement with Amtrak for construction of the Platform Project based on estimated costs established by the Commission and within the Platform Project budget estimated at $8,688,241; and 7) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate and execute agreements with LOSSAN, the city of Indio (City), Goldenvoice, Valley Music Travel, and host railroads, as may be needed for the full implementation of the Platform Project, provided that all such agreements are within the Platform Project budget estimated at $8,688,241. 15. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 16. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda July 10, 2019 Page 10 17. CLOSED SESSION 17A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Case No. RIC1616789 17B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Item APN(s) Property Owner Buyer(s) Greens 1 118-270-003 and 118-270-023 RCTC Development Inc. 18. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, August 14, 2019, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 6 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Chuck Washington at 9:36 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Victoria Baca Rusty Bailey Ben J. Benoit Brian Berkson Russell Betts Randall Bonner David Bricker Joseph DeConinck Waymond Fermon Kathleen Fitzpatrick Raymond Gregory Berwin Hanna Jan Harnik Jeff Hewitt Andrew Kotyuk Clint Lorimore* Bob Magee *Arrived after the meeting was called to order **Commissioner Kevin Jeffries assigned his proxy vote to Commissioner Jeff Hewitt. with the Clerk of the Board. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Lisa Middleton V. Manuel Perez Dana Reed Wes Speake Karen Spiegel Larry Smith Michael M. Vargas Scott Vinton Chuck Washington Ted Weill Art Welch Lloyd White Bill Zimmerman Commissioner Jan Harnik led the Commission in a flag salute. Commissioners Absent Steven Hernandez Kevin Jeffries** Linda Krupa Michael Naggar A letter was filed At this time, Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board, announced she has a letter that Commissioner Kevin Jeffries assigned his proxy vote to Commissioner Jeff Hewitt. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 8, 2019 M/S/C (Berkson/Benoit) to approve the May 8, 2019 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Betts and DeConinck 7. PUBLIC HEARING — PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 Chair Washington announced the public hearing remains open from the May 8 meeting. Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance, presented the Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2019/20 and discussed the following areas: • Budget adjustments • Budget summary • Funding sources and comparison • Summary of expenditures, expenses, and uses • Capital projects highlights • Toll operations • Functional uses breakdown • Measure A administrative costs • Next steps At this time, Commissioner Clint Lorimore joined the meeting. Commissioner Jeff Hewitt expressed appreciation for being a member of this Commission and to Anne Mayer for bringing this issue about the past -unfunded liability with the Commission's pension and taking care of it. He explained it definitely shows how responsible the Commission is however due to the new rules if the Commission goes upside down each one of these jurisdictions will be burdened with that liability. He expressed the Commission is blazing a path of fiscal responsibility for a $1 million responsibility joint powers authority, which is impressive. Commissioner Andrew Kotyuk referred to the revenue/sources comparison slide and clarified the FY 2018/19 projected is going up from the $10 million to about $13 million. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 3 Michele replied yes and stated it goes back to the Commission being extremely conservative especially when it comes to interest. She explained for years the Commission has been budgeting interest well below 1 percent and this year staff decided to get closer to what is being received as far as on the investments, which is closer to 2 percent. Commissioner Kotyuk stated the Federal Reserve has been clear about their position on rates it seems what is secured for the next 12-18 months is about a .25 to a 1/2 percent decrease. He explained if the Commission is receiving 2 percent that is a 25 percent decrease in interest income and suggested to back that off to a 1 and 1/2 percent range and to be cautious. Michele Cisneros replied staff could do that. She explained staff comes back to the Commission in January for mid -year budget adjustments and staff can monitor throughout the next six months, come back to the Commission and adjust that down depending on the Commission's performance received on its investments. Anne Mayer stated staff tracks the economic indicators on a regular basis, and usually staff comes back in January at mid -year to make whatever adjustments seen based on what is happening. She suggested for this particular one it can be changed or leave it as is and staff will track it carefully and commit to the Commission if staff realizes any trends that would require a modification prior to January staff will come back to the Commission with a recommendation. Commissioner Kotyuk concurred with Anne Mayer's suggestion and for adding this to the discussion and stated he supports with adopting as is. In response to Commissioner Karen Spiegel's clarification from the revenue/sources comparison slide the projected is what the Commission is projecting today, which is for FY 2019/20, Michele Cisneros replied the projected is for FY 2019/20, which is what the Commission expects to happen for the full 12 months ending in June 30, 2020. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's clarification the projected for FY 2018/19 was for June of last year, Michele Cisneros replied no it would end June 30, 2019. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's inquiry, Michele Cisneros replied the Commission is projecting how it will end this fiscal year. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's question about the revised budget is the mid -year, Michele Cisneros replied it is what the Commission's budget is as of today based on the original budget plus any revised budget adjustments received that the Commission has approved as of today. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Spiegel's clarification the swing in the numbers are significant when looking at the federal and local reimbursements, Michele Cisneros replied those are based on project activities. She explained at the beginning of the fiscal year when the budget is being developed staff anticipates everything will run perfectly and will be able to ask for reimbursement on those eligible incurred costs. Those do not always transition the way they are going to and they get pushed out for the next fiscal year, which is the same concept with the revenues. Commissioner Spiegel expressed appreciation the Commission was paying off the pension liability and Michele Cisneros noted about applying it appropriately to the previous years without exceeding the Commission's administrative costs. She expressed appreciation for a very well done budget and a great presentation. Anne Mayer explained concerning reimbursements not only sometimes the invoicing can be delayed due to schedules but also staff has to make submittals to other agencies and this affects the Commission, the cities, and the transit agencies. She explained as an example the reimbursements by the federal government if it takes them more than five or six months, it can have a big swing on these factors. Commissioner Wes Speake expressed appreciation for the presentation and noted raising the same concern from the May Commission meeting that the Commission is projecting a 13 percent decrease in toll revenue. He stated understanding the Commission wants to be conservative and those toll revenues go back into the system that generated them. Commissioner Speake reiterated the Commission is projecting a 13 percent decrease from $47 million to $41 million, which could affect the projects in the queue. Anne Mayer replied to Commissioner Speake his comments are being heard and stated the Commission monitors this on a regular basis and can assure that any projects slated to move forward would not be held back if a budget number does not reconcile with actuals. She explained when staff comes back for a mid -year budget adjustment staff will provide the Commission with the first six-month trends of the year and have a better target and depending what happens with the economy the budget number if the actuals are significantly higher will not constrain any project development. At this time, Chair Washington asked if there were any comments from the public. No comments were received. At this time, Chair Washington closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Vargas/Baca) to: 1) Receive input on the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2019/20; 2) Close the public hearing on the proposed Budget for FY 2019/20; Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 5 3) Approve the salary schedule effective July 4, 2019, located in Appendix E of the proposed budget; and 4) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2019/20. 8. PUBLIC HEARING — AMENDED AND RESTATED ORDINANCE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF TOLLS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF TOLL VIOLATIONS FOR THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXPRESS LANES Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager, presented the amended ordinance to administer tolls and enforce violations, highlighting the following areas: • Background: o Adopted Ordinance No. 16-001 prior to the 91 Express Lanes opening o Ordinance required to set the administrative procedures for processing toll evasion violations and to establish the penalty schedule o The penalty schedule adopted in 2016 was the same that OCTA used • Why amending? o Include the 15 Express Lanes and future Express Lanes o Correct a reference error o Change the penalty schedule • Penalty Schedule • Collection Assessment: One violation - $100 current/$100 revised; two violations - $300 current/$200 revised; and three violations $600 current/$300 revised • Benefit of reduced penalties: o Easier resolution for customers with multiple violations o Less expended on collection efforts o Expected net financial impact of zero o Consistency with other California toll operators • Other fees added — DMV fee of $3 and non -sufficient fund check fee $25 Chair Washington opened the public hearing. At this time, Chair Washington asked if there were any comments from the public. No comments were received. Commissioner Jan Harnik clarified that this would put the Commission more aligned with other transportation authorities. She explained if they receive a violation from OCTA and a violation from the Commission on the 91 Express Lanes, how is the Commission aligned with OCTA. Jennifer Crosson replied today the Commission's policies are identical and the Commission is adopting this revised ordinance and OCTA will follow with an exact revised Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 6 ordinance with the same penalty schedule. In order to allow the agencies to align the Commission is requesting an effective date of January 1, 2020, to get in place. At this time, Chair Washington closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Berkson/Benoit) to: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Ordinance No. 19-001, "An Amended and Restated Ordinance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Relating to the Administration of Tolls and the Enforcement of Toll Violations for the Riverside County Transportation Commission Express Lanes", including approval of the toll evasion penalties and fees for a violation set forth in Schedule A of the Ordinance. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Berkson/Smith) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. Abstain: Jeffries on Agenda Item 9D 9A. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 Adopt Resolution No. 19-010, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Annual Appropriations Limit", for Fiscal Year 2019/20. 9B. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2019. 9C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2019. 9D. RECURRING CONTRACTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 1) Approve the single -year recurring contracts in an amount not to exceed $16,982,780 for Fiscal Year 2019/20; Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 7 2) Approve the recurring contracts for specialized services in an amount not to exceed $3,439,000 in FY 2019/20 and $7,262,100 in FYs 2020/21 — 2021/22; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 9E. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Adopt the following bill positions: a. SB 742 (Allen) — Support; b. AB 1149 (Fong) — Support; and 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 9F. 2019 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Approve the 2019 State Route 91 Implementation Plan. 9G. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH REYES CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN LAYOVER FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT 1) Award Agreement No. 19-33-029-00 to Reyes Construction, Inc., as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, for the construction of the Riverside Downtown Layover Facility Expansion Project (Project) in the amount of $4,379,858, plus a contingency amount of $420,142, for a total amount not to exceed $4.8 million; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total amount. 9H. AMENDMENT TO ON -CALL STATION REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 1) Approve Agreement No. 18-24-001-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 18-24-001-00, with Braughton Construction Co. Inc. (Braughton) for additional station repair, maintenance and modernization services for an additional amount of $1,222,000 and a total amount not to exceed $3,942,000; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 8 91. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, MATERIALS TESTING, AND CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING AND APPROVAL OF VARIOUS AGREEMENTS FOR THE INTERSTATE 15/RAILROAD CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 1) Award Agreement No. 19-31-030-00 to Arcadis U.S., Inc. to perform construction management services, materials testing, and construction surveying for the Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Improvements Project (Project) in the amount of $ 5,450,793, plus a contingency amount of $545,079 for potential changes in scope, for a total amount not to exceed $ 5,995,872; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the Project; 3) Approve Agreement No. 10-72-016-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 10-72-016-00 with the city of Lake Elsinore (City) to identify the Commission as the implementing agency for the Construction Phase and authorize $22,248,700 in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) regional arterial funds for the construction phase; 4) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-031-00 with the City for enhanced landscaping and aesthetics and the City's contribution of $755,000; 5) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-077-00, between the Commission and Ca!trans that defines the roles and responsibilities for Project construction; 6) Approve Agreement No. 19-31-069-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for Construction Zone Enforcement Enhancement Program (COZEEP) for an amount not to exceed $477,300; and 7) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 9J. FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS 1) Authorize payment of the $2,350/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, to the existing Riverside buspool; and 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 9 9K. FISCAL YEARS 2019/20 — 2021/22 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS 1) Approve the Fiscal Years 2019/20 — 2021/22 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning (Banning), Beaumont (Beaumont), Corona (Corona), and Riverside; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and the Commission's Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve final versions of the SRTPs. 9L. POLICY UPDATE ON THE USE OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDING BY OPERATORS Approve the use of unallocated and unprogrammed State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for transit operating assistance under eligibility standards as outlined in the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Guidelines and Public Utilities Code (PUC) § 99314.6 for transit operators and PUC § 99234.9 and 99313.7 for rail services. 9M. REGIONALIZATION OF COMMUTER PROGRAMS 1) Approve Agreement No. 19-45-080-00 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for a three-year term to reimburse the Commission in an amount not to exceed $4.5 million for commuter/employer rideshare (IE Commuter) and Inland Empire 511 (IE511) programs administered by the Commission, on behalf of both agencies, and for the Commission to reimburse SBCTA an amount not to exceed $350,000, for SBCTA's provision of rideshare and vanpool program web -based software, as part of an ongoing bi-county partnership; 2) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 19-45-079-00, between Los Angeles County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (LA SAFE) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority, SBCTA, and Ventura County Transportation Commission for Metro's regional 511 deployment and operations; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 10 10. APPROVAL OF METROLINK OPERATING AND CAPITAL SUBSIDIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 AND RELATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND OF THE FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OPTIMIZED RAIL EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN STATION EXPANSION PROJECT Sheldon Peterson, Transit Manager, welcomed and introduced SCRRA's Chief Executive Officer Stephanie Wiggins and Chief Financial Officer Ronnie Campbell to present the details of the proposed Fiscal Year 2019/20 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Budget. Stephanie Wiggins expressed appreciation to the Metrolink members, which are Commissioners Karen Spiegel, Andrew Kotyuk, and Brian Berkson for being supportive. She then stated as the new CEO her vision was to create value, and exceed expectations, and highlighted the following: • Customer -First: Focusing on the customer experience, safety and security, and modernizing their business practices At this time, Ronnie Campbell presented the FY20 Metrolink Budget, highlighting the following areas: • FY20 Budget priorities: o Customers first —Supported by the pillars of safety, and Integrated System, and Modernized Business practices o Continued emphasis on safe operations with positive train control o Investments in existing assets to maintain a state of good repair o Increase ridership farebox revenue, reduce the reliance on member operating subsidy • FY20 New Service for the 91/PVL Line — Weekends/extend two Riverside — Los Angeles roundtrips to South Perris — Los Angeles; and Weekdays/extend two South Perris — Riverside roundtrips to South Perris — Los Angeles • Revenue allocation by member agency • FY20 proposed expenditures —Train Operations & Services, Maintenance -of -Way, Administration & Services, and Insurance Expense • Expense allocation and subsidy by member agency • FY20 proposed rehabilitation budget — For communications, facilities, fleet vehicle, rolling stock, signals, structures, and track • FY20 proposed new capital budget — For facilities, rolling stock, and signals • Next steps Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to Stephanie Wiggins and Ronnie Campbell for coming to present the FY20 Metrolink Budget and for the outstanding work they have been doing in partnership with all of the member agencies. There is a real focus on Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 11 financial sustainability and safety and operations for the customers and it is appreciated and are hopeful to start seeing increased ridership as well as opportunities for expanding service. Chair Washington expressed appreciation to Commissioners Spiegel and Kotyuk for their participation on the Metrolink Board. M/S/C (Berkson/Vargas) to: 1) Receive and file a report on the Commission's portion of the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget; 2) Approve the FY 2019/20 SCRRA operating and capital budget, which results in a total operating and capital subsidy of $23,475,203 from the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 19-25-078-00 with SCRRA regarding annual funding, including subrecipient matters related to pass -through of federal funding; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director to finalize and execute Agreement No. 19-33-082-00 for the Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) Program Cooperative Agreement for the Riverside - Downtown Station Expansion Project. 11. FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Jenny Chan, Management Analyst, presented the Fiscal Year 2019/20 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program funding recommendations, highlighting the following areas: • SB 821: o 2 percent of LTF revenue o Bicycle and Pedestrian projects o Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans • Past Commission actions: o March & November 2014 Commission meetings o Subcommittee formed o Commission adopted the following recommendations: ✓ Biennial Call for Project ✓ Release & close dates ✓ Evaluation criteria ✓ Minimum five evaluators Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 12 • 2019 SB 821 Call for Projects recommended for allocation — Four projects from Coachella Valley for approximately $1.3 million; eight projects from Western Riverside for approximately $2.6 million for a total of 12 projects for approximately $3.9 million • Funding recommendation — A list of the 12 projects being recommended for award M/S/C (Baca/Berkson)to: 1) Approve the Fiscal Year 2019/20 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (SB 821) program recommended project allocations in the amount of $3,901,915; 2) Direct staff to prepare memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the project sponsors to outline the project schedules and local funding commitments; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director to execute the MOUs with the project sponsors, pursuant to legal counsel review. 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 13. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 13A. Commissioner Joey DeConinck expressed appreciation to the Board of Supervisors on behalf of his city's citizens and the 4H kids to keep the cooperative extension open and to keep the whole of Riverside for the 4H kids. Chair Washington replied to Commissioner DeConinck your welcome. 13B. Commissioner Larry Smith announced having a great opportunity with Commissioner Berkson to visit the toll facilities. He expressed appreciation as it is a different prospective when it is seen administratively to be able to visit the facilities and understand what is going on. 13C. Commissioner Speake expressed appreciation to the Commissioners that serve on the State Route 91 Advisory Committee as himself and about 40 city of Corona residents attended the June 7 meeting and were able to express pushing forward what is being planned. He expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for her true leadership and pushing those projects forward on the 91, which faced some challenge. Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 13 13D. Commissioner Bill Zimmerman expressed appreciation for the funding of the Salt Creek Trail through the city of Menifee. For the last few years he served as a County Supervisor Marion Ashley's representative on the Parks & Open Space Commission and been working hard as Scott Bangle, CPRP, Parks Director/General Manager for Riverside County and his team, which have done a lot to make that happen and to see it funded and to come to fruition. 14. CLOSED SESSION 14A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (D)(2) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 Potential Number of Case(s): 1 14B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Item APN(s) Property Owner Buyer(s) 1 118-160-021 RCTC C&E Investments and Brian Tressen 2 117-122-029 RCTC Pravin Kumar 14C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Item APN(s) Property Owner Buyer(s) 1 305-060-008 Mendoza, Pedro & RCTC Teresa 2 305-060-009 Fernandez, Jesse RCTC 3 305-060-029 Swift Transportation RCTC 4 465-110-001 Dilworth, Nelson S., et al. RCTC 413-380-004 5 413-380-005 Johnson, Keith W. & RCTC 413-380-013 William C. 6 413-380-021 Bouye, Steve & Diana RCTC 413-380-022 7 414-110-058 RSI Communities RCTC Calif Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2019 Page 14 8 153-020-010 Schamber, Eutimio & Tammie Jo RCTC There were no announcements from the Closed Session Items. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, August 14, 2019, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 PUBLIC HEARING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of Fee Interest in Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), Located in Perris, Riverside County, California, for the Construction of an Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of Resolution of Necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the Resolution of Necessity; 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner; and 3) Adopt Resolution of Necessity No. 19-015 to "Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition of a Fee Interest in Certain Real Property, By Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), Located in Perris, Riverside County, California, for the Construction of an Interchange at the Intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is being asked to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity declaring its intent to acquire fee interest in all of certain real property, by eminent domain, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, as part of Mid County Parkway Project (Project). The immediate need for the property acquisitions is to proceed with the construction of the Project. The acquisitions are required for and will benefit the community by providing Agenda Item 7 1 additional lanes on Placentia Avenue between Indian Avenue and Harvill Avenue, as well as a new freeway access point with entrance and exit ramps to 1-215 from Placentia Avenue. A preliminary title report was obtained from Commonwealth Title Insurance Company to confirm and identify the record owner of the parcel affected by the Project. The Commission then served the affected property owner with a notice of the Commission's decision to appraise the property. The Commission had the properties appraised and made offer to the record owner. Negotiations have been unsuccessful for the purchase of the interests necessary for the Project. The adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the interest will not prevent negotiations from continuing. Since an agreement has not been reached with the owners of record, it may be necessary to acquire the fee interest described in the attachments by eminent domain. The initiation of the eminent domain process is accomplished by the Commission's adoption of resolution of necessity for the affected property. Description Of Property To Be Acquired: APN 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164) is owned by Jesse Fernandez. The property is located at 2756 Indian Avenue, in Perris, Riverside County, California. The property is occupied by one residential tenant and two businesses operate from the property. The Commission desires to acquire the entire parcel to accommodate construction of a detention basin for storm water runoff. The legal description and map of the property to be acquired is attached and marked as Exhibit A. Project Description: The Project is located on 1-215 In and Near Perris from south of the Ramona Expressway/Cajalco Road Overcrossing to north of the Nuevo Road Overcrossing portion of the Mid County Parkway. The purpose is to improve the existing 1-215 by adding an interchange at Placentia Avenue in the City of Perris. The proposed improvements include construction of new northbound and southbound on and off ramps on the east and west sides of 1-215 at Placentia Avenue, relocation of the East Frontage Road, removal of the West Frontage Road connection to Placentia Avenue, widen Placentia Avenue Overhead and Overcrossing bridges from two to six lanes between Harvill Avenue on the west and Indian Avenue on the east, install high occupancy vehicle by pass lane and ramp metering on the on -ramps, construct drainage improvements, install new traffic signals on Placentia Avenue at Harvill Avenue, Indian Avenue, East Frontage Road, and at the ramp intersections, and install advance freeway overhead signs. Hearings And Required Findings: The action requested of the Commission at the conclusion of this hearing is the adoption of resolution of necessity, authorizing the acquisition of real property interests by eminent Agenda Item 7 2 domain. The property owner is Jesse Fernandez. This will be a full acquisition of the entire parcel in fee. The property is further identified in the legal description and depiction attached hereto as Exhibit A. California eminent domain law provides that a public entity may not commence with eminent domain proceedings until its governing body has adopted a resolution of necessity, which resolution may only be adopted after the governing body has given each party with an interest in the affected property, or their representatives, a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on the following matters: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. A notice of the hearing was sent by first class mail to the property owner, and stated the Commission's intent to consider the adoption of a resolution, the right of the property owner to appear and be heard on these issues, and that failure to file a written request to appear would result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission has scheduled this hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date of notice was mailed may appear and be heard. The Commission's legal counsel mailed the required notices to the property owners, on June 11, 2019, in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1245.235. The property owner was also invited to meet with Commission and Caltrans staff to address any concerns the property owner may have with the design of the Project in the manner proposed and the necessity of the acquisition. The four required findings are addressed as follows: Finding 1: Public Interest And Necessity Require The Proposed Project The Project will reduce traffic congestion and enhance safety, and will ensure compliance with Caltrans' standards for design. Finding 2: The Project Is Planned Or Located In A Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With The Greatest Public Good And The Least Private Injury A thorough analysis was conducted to find the single best location for this Project. Environmental analyses and findings indicate that this and other sites uniquely satisfy the engineering, public health, and environmental issues, and these locations are the most compatible with the greatest public good. These locations will result in the least private injury. Agenda Item 7 3 Finding 3: The Property Sought To Be Acquired Is Necessary For The Proposed Project As described above, a careful analysis was performed regarding this location and what property and property rights were needed, and this parcel meets all the desired characteristics for the construction of the improvements for the Project. Based on that analysis, the acquisition of the property is necessary for construction of the Project. Finding 4: The Offer Of Just Compensation Has Been Made An appraisal was prepared by the Commission's appraiser Joyce L. Riggs, MAI, SR/WA, of Riggs & Riggs, Inc., to establish the fair market value of the real property the Commission is seeking to acquire from the interest owned by the property owner identified herein. An offer of just compensation was made to the property owner to purchase the property interest, based on the approved appraisal, as required by Section 7267.2 of the California Government Code. Although negotiated settlements may still be possible, it would be appropriate to commence the procedures to acquire the interests sought through eminent domain, to ensure that the property will be available to meet the time frames associated with the construction of the I-215/Placentia Interchange. Environmental Analysis: Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act has been satisfied by Caltrans' certification of an Environmental Impact Report in its role as lead agency on April 8, 2015. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact. Notice of Public Hearing: A notice of Hearing to Property Owners was mailed on June 11, 2019 to Jesse Fernandez, the owner of record. Attachments: 1) Resolution of Necessity No. 19-015 2) Palmieri Tyler, Attorneys at Law— Letter Dated June 25, 2019 Agenda Item 7 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 19-015 RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A FEE INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), LOCATED IN PERRIS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 215 AND PLACENTIA AVENUE, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") proposes to acquire a fee interest in certain real property, located in Riverside County, California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel No. 305-060-009 (RCPN 1164), for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue, in Riverside County, California, pursuant to the authority granted to it by section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Commission scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 9:30 a.m., at the County Administration Building, Board of Supervisors Chambers, at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, and gave to each person whose property is to be acquired and whose name and address appeared on the last equalized county assessment roll, notice and a reasonable opportunity to appear at said hearing and be heard on the matters referred to in section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and WHEREAS, said hearing has been held by the Commission, and the affected property owner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on said matters; and WHEREAS, the Commission may now adopt a Resolution of Necessity pursuant to section 1240.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure. There has been compliance by the Commission with the requirements of section 1245.235 of the California Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice and hearing. Section 2. Public Use. The public use for the fee interest in the property to be acquired is for the Mid -County Parkway Project in Riverside County, California. Section 130220.5 of the California Public Utilities Code authorizes the Commission to acquire, by eminent domain, property necessary for such purposes. 5 Section 3. Description of Property. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" are the legal description and plat map, respectively, of the interest to be acquired by the Commission, which describe the general location and extent of the property with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. Section 4. Findings. The Commission hereby finds and determines each of the following: (a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (b) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury; (c) The property defined and described in Exhibit "A" is necessary for the proposed project; and (d) The offer required by section 7267.2 of the California Government Code was made. Section 5. Use Not Unreasonably Interfering with Existing Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. The legal descriptions of these easements and rights -of -way are on file with the Commission and describe the general location and extent of the easements and rights -of -way with sufficient detail for reasonable identification. In the event the herein described use or uses will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described interest subject to such existing public use pursuant to section 1240.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6. More Necessary Public Use. Some or all of the real property affected by the interest to be acquired is subject to easements and rights -of -way appropriated to existing public uses. To the extent that the herein described use or uses will unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use as it now exists or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, the Commission finds and determines that the herein described use or uses are more necessary than said existing public use. Counsel for the Commission is authorized to acquire the herein described real property appropriated to such existing public uses pursuant to section 1240.610 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Staff is further authorized to make such improvements to the affected real property that it determines are reasonably necessary to mitigate any adverse impact upon the existing public use. 6 Section 7. Further Activities. Counsel for the Commission is hereby authorized to acquire the hereinabove described real property in the name of and on behalf of the Commission by eminent domain, and counsel is authorized to institute and prosecute such legal proceedings as may be required in connection therewith. Legal counsel is further authorized to take such steps as may be authorized and required by law, and to make such security deposits as may be required by order of court, to permit the Commission to take possession of and use said real property at the earliest possible time. Counsel is further authorized to correct any errors or to make or agree to non- material changes in the legal description of the real property that are deemed necessary for the conduct of the condemnation action, or other proceedings or transactions required to acquire the subject real property. Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day ofJuly, 2019. Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 7 LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED "Fee," also known as fee simple or fee simple absolute, grants to Riverside County Transportation ("RCTC"), absolute ownership of the interests in the portion of the property to be acquired. EXHIBIT A, PAGE 1 OF 3 8 EXHIBIT "A" THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE SOUTH 440 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST; SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF PERRIS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE ALONG THE EASTERLY SIDE THEREOF HERETOFORE DEEDED TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. ALSO THEREFROM THE SOUTH 220 FEET THEREOF. Assessor's Parcel Number: 305-060-009 9 Mt wil NIIANi010w AIu11YlY[ Nll*MONO YDLw[AV ION LOT 1 I4.CW - -WATER ASS ISOffi YIP IMOPO Of Ie.,1,lflclrAli.c,u. EXHIBIT "A" N 112, SW 114, 1SEC. 1&, T.4S., r CITY OF DERR=S -- � r�Aa��sr� LOTA 1 - - - - - " .1_- - - - _, t--- 5 1 � Pm f 1 �+ p[Y.11[sl, 5 1 i 1 6 t t� ,1 t 1 0.,r z„- 1111 AO 1rAtr•G 671A MAC Aq.16 N6 76M7 W CI API 16-01 w51iiL ZtrAi t I 1 1 I too 1 c 0 - - 6 - - DK.t 0 e _ i sv.r 136 C 2 d e A e ii3[iC:CT c 3 111u-A�yi12 cam own caws A 0 to B OI6 ACY. I o ar----4- j1 c MNIAr r.rw • tr 1B CAM A[OMSYYBl6 N.D. 601AP1 YdACUrA AVIS,4N wf 1517/ IPALLVIO. IOW W1201T e W 305106 167 10 PALM I E RI TYLE R ATTACHMENT 2 Anish J. Banker Direct Dial (949) 851-7220 Direct Fax (949) 825-5427 abanker@ptwww.com VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 25, 2019 Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 P.O. Box 19712 Irvine, CA 92623-9712 Refer To File No. 39535-000 Document I.D. 2537258.1 Re: Objection to Proposed Adoption of Resolution of Necessity for Acquisition of Certain Real Property Located at 2756 Indian Avenue, Perris, California; Assessor Parcel Number 305-060-009 (the "Subject Property") for the Interstate 215 and Placentia Avenue Interchange Project (the "Project") Dear Clerk of the Board of Supervisors: This firm represents Jesse Fernandez (the "Owner"), owner of the above - referenced Subject Property. We have received notice that Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") intends to consider adopting a resolution of necessity authorizing the taking of the Subject Property by condemnation for the above -referenced Project. The hearing on the resolution of necessity is set for July 10, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this letter is to provide written objections on behalf of the Owner to the adoption of the resolution of necessity in lieu of personally appearing at the hearing. Accordingly, we request that this letter be included as part of the formal record on that agenda item. The Owner believes that the adoption of the resolution of necessity is improper at this time, and objects to its adoption on each of the following grounds: 1. RCTC Has Failed to Extend a Legitimate Precondemnation Offer Pursuant to Government Code section 7267.2. California law requires that RCTC make a legitimate offer of just compensation based upon its approved appraisal prior to initiating a condemnation proceeding. Compliance with Government Code section 7267.2 is a mandatory prerequisite to 1900 Main Street, Suite 700, Irvine, CA 92614-73218 1 T 949.851.9400 I F 949.851.1554 I ptwww.com PALMIERI TYLER Lisa Mobley June 25, 2019 Page 2 adopting a resolution of necessity and initiating an eminent domain action. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.040, 1245.230, subd. (c)(4); City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Ca1.App.3d 1005.) Failure to strictly comply with the requirements of this section are grounds for dismissing the entire proceeding. Here, the appraiser, acting on RCTC's behalf, did not engage in a proper analysis. A cursory review of recent sales of comparable properties in the surrounding area indicate a unit rate in excess of the per square foot rate relied upon by RCTC in its precondemnation offer. As such, RCTC's precondemnation offer is invalid and cannot support the adoption of a resolution of necessity authorizing the acquisition of the sought for portions of the Subject Property. It is inappropriate to attempt to condemn first, and then suggest that an error can be corrected by a subsequent offer or subsequent appraisal after the adoption of a resolution of necessity. (See, City of Stockton v. Marina Towers (2009) 171 Ca1.App.4th 93.) RCTC cannot correct its error by simply reappraising after adopting a resolution of necessity to retroactively confer upon itself with the authority to do that for which it has already done. California's Eminent Domain Law mandates strict compliance with its statutory requirements before a public entity may confer upon itself with the awesome power of eminent domain to condemn private property for a public purpose. "The proceeding to condemn land for a public use is special and statutory and the prescribed method in such cases must be strictly pursued especially if those methods benefit the [property] owner." (City of Needles v. Griswold (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1881, 1895, quoting Harrington v. Superior Court (1924) 194 Cal. 185, 191 and City of Los Angeles v. Glassell (1928) 203 Cal. 44, 46 [emphasis added].) 2. Based Upon Information Currently Known, RCTC's Proposed Project Is Not Planned Or Located In The Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With the Least Private Injury. RCTC's consideration and adoption of a resolution of necessity requires a finding that the Project as proposed is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.340, subd. (c)(2).) In this case, however, RCTC has not provided adequate information to the property owner of any viable Project alternatives that may exist and enable RCTC to obtain all of the amenities of the Project as proposed. As far as we can tell, based upon the scant information provided, there may be other viable project 2537258.1 12 PALMIERI TYLER Lisa Mobley June 25, 2019 Page 3 alternatives that will be less disruptive and damaging to the Subject Property, the specifics of which, however, have not been disclosed to property owner. RCTC must consider all alternatives before an informed determination can be made as to whether the Project as proposed is "most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury." 3. The Property Sought To Be Acquired Is Not Necessary For the Project. One of the mandatory components to the necessity determination is that the property sought to be acquired must be necessary for the project. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1240.030, subd. (c).) The Eminent Domain Law defines "property" to include real and personal property and any interest thereon. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1235.170.) Thus, RCTC must not only consider whether the property is necessary for the project but also whether the particular interest in the property that RCTC seeks to take is necessary. In the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a determination, the resolution of necessity will be invalid. The Owner is informed and believes that viable Project alternatives exist that would provide all of the amenities of the proposed Project but at a substantially reduced cost and with less private property. Those alternatives would materially reduce the need to acquire any private property for construction of the proposed Project. Barring such consideration, RCTC cannot make an informed determination as to whether the Subject Property is actually necessary for the project. 4. RCTC Is Incapable of Conducting A Fair, Legal, And Impartial Hearing On The Proposed Adoption of The Resolution of Necessity. It is believed that RCTC has already committed itself to the proposed taking, so any hearing resulting in the adoption of the resolution by RCTC would be a predetermined result. The proposed resolution hearing is a pretense and artifice, and any resolution adopted under these circumstances would be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction. (See, Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson (1985) 173 Ca1.App.3d 1121, 1127.) 2537258.1 13 PALMIERI TYLER Lisa Mobley June 25, 2019 Page 4 As a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, a public agency "must hold a public hearing to determine whether a particular taking meets the [requirements of Civil Code section 1245.235, i.e., is for a public use, necessary, and designed in such a manner to cause the least private injury] ...." (Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Ca1.App.3d at p. 1125 [Emphasis added].) "Implicit in this requirement...is the concept that...the [a]gency engage in a good faith and judicious consideration of the pros and cons of the issue and that the decision to take be buttressed by substantial evidence...." (Id., at pp. 1125-1126.) "[A]n agency that would take private property...must...conduct a fair hearing and make its determination on the basis of evidence presented in a judicious and nonarbitrary fashion." (Id., at p. 1129.) In the absence of a fair and impartial hearing, the resolution of necessity is void. If the condemning agency fails to conduct itself in this manner, then the resolution is not entitled to its ordinary conclusive effect and the burden of proving the elements for a particular taking rests on the government agency with the court being the final adjudicator. (Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Ca1.App.3d at pp. 1128-1129.) "The governmental agency in such a situation cannot act arbitrarily and then seek the benefit of having its decision afforded the deference to which it might otherwise be entitled." (Id. at p. 1129.) In Norm's Slauson, the Court held that the condemning agency's approval of the resolution of necessity was invalid when the agency "simply 'rubber stamped' a predetermined result" because, prior to any hearing on the resolution, it (a) entered into an agreement with a developer by which the agency agreed to transfer a portion of defendant/property owner's restaurant, and the developer agreed to construct a condominium thereon; and (b) issued and sold tax exempt bonds to pay for the acquisition. (Id. at p. 1127.) "In short, the agency, without any notice to Norm's [the property owner], in effect sold the property and issued bonds to obtain the money to acquire the property all before taking any steps to condemn the property." (Id., at p. 1125.) Here, the Owner is informed and believes that RCTC has impermissibly committed itself to take the Subject Property. By having already committed to the project, RCTC has left itself no recourse but to approve the resolution. (See, e.g., Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Ca1.App.3d at pp. 1127- 1130; Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.255, subd. (b).) Accordingly, if the resolution is adopted, the hearing which led to its adoption will have been a pretense and RCTC's policy - making board will simply be "rubber stamping" a pre -determined result. If the resolution is adopted under such circumstances, it will be voidable on that basis. 2537258.1 14 PALMIERI TYLER Lisa Mobley June 25, 2019 Page 5 If RCTC has any questions or comments concerning the content of this letter, it should contact the undersigned at the number listed above. Very truly yours, cc: Mark A. Easter (via email only) Patrick A. Hennessey (via email only) Client (via email only) 2537258.1 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REQUEST OF COMMISSION THE COMM! SSI ON I S REQU I RED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION VU.9116ied1r1.i.L41411 - r•1 + _ 1-215/Placentia Ave IC P5&E Project Overview n2/21l1 S TyLININ I ERNAE IONAL RIVERSIDE FERNANDEZ PARCEL LOCATION COMMISSION71AVORTATION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMM! SSI ON ADOPT A RESOLUTI ON OF N ECESSI TY BASED ON THE FOLLOW! N G FI N DI N GS: 1. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3. The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and 4. The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner. AGENDA ITEM 8 PUBLIC HEARING RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Monica Morales, Management Analyst LoreIle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Transit Services Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 2019/20 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Conduct a public hearing at the July Commission meeting on the proposed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP); 2) Approve Fiscal Year 2019/20 Transit Operator Funding Allocations for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine); and the Commission's Rail Program; 3) Direct staff to add the federally funded and regionally significant projects into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); 4) Adopt Resolution No. 19-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate Local Transit Assistance Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds;" and 5) Approve the FY 2019/20 FTA Sections 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County (County). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its June 12 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2019/20 — 2021/22 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside; the Commission's Commuter Rail Program; Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). The core components of each agency's SRTP includes the operating and capital plans and project justifications that are utilized as the basis for receiving transit funding. The SRTPs also document each operator's system and route performance data, which provide the basis for the Commission's oversight activities to ensure compliance with the Transportation Development Act (TDA), federal regulations, state law, and Commission -adopted policies and guidelines. Agenda Item 8 16 Short Range Transit Plan Financial Overview Approximately $250.1 million in total funding is required to support the FY 2019/20 operating and capital requests for the provision of transit services in Riverside County. To implement the SRTPs for FY 2019/20, the programming plan is to utilize available funding of approximately $179.5 million for operating and $70.6 million for capital purposes. Table 1 below provides an overview of the total operating and capital costs by apportionment area. Table 1: FY 2019/20 Operating and Capital Expense Type Western Riverside Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Total Bus Rail Bus Rail Operating Capital $ 104,954,044 45,994,921 $ 32,168,000 2,508,361 $ 40,840,150 12,711,407 $ - 9,138,241 5 1,526,160 273,758 $ 17%488,354 70,526,688 Total [Operat"ng & Cap ta.r $ 150,948,965 $ 34,676,361 $ 53,551,557 $ 9,138,241 $ 1,799,918 $ 250,115,042 a Excius ve of LA Metro, OCTA & SANBAG's share and passenger fare revenues for Commuter Ra expenses Total bus transit expenses for FY 2019/20 reflect a systemwide operating expense decrease of 9 percent and capital expenses increase of 22 percent compared to FY 2018/19 funding levels (Table 2). The decline in operating is attributable mainly to RTA's one-time payment of $22.1 million to CaIPERS for its net pension liability. Bus capital funds programmed in FY 2019/20 represent an increase of significant capital outlay for replacement vehicles, fuel station enhancements, and planned construction of new operations and maintenance facilities. Rail operating costs programmed in FY 2019/20 show a decrease of 9 percent primarily due to a reduction of special projects such as rail and station studies, special train services, and marketing. Rail operating budget primarily consists of Metrolink operating costs, which for FY 2019/20 is about $30.2 million, an increase of about 7 percent from FY 2018/19 mostly attributable to new weekend service and additional weekday trips. Rail capital funding increased by about $10.9 million due to rehabilitation and maintenance required for state of good repair (SGR) and the implementation of a Special Events Platform in the city of Indio for the Coachella Valley festivals, which totals $8.7 million. Agenda Item 8 17 Table 2: FY 2019/20 and FY 2018/19 OPERATING & CAPITAL COSTS BY MODE EXPENSE TYPE Bus Rail* BUS & RAIL OP/CAP to Total BUS & RAIL OP/CAP to Total TOTAL BUS & RAIL CHANGE FY 2019/20 FY 2018/19 Change FY 2019/20 FY 2018/19 Change FY 19/20 FY 18/19 OPERATING $ 147,320,354 $ 162,484,465 -9.3% $ 32,168,000 $ 35,359,606 -9.0% $ 179,488,354 71.8% r $ 197,844,071 80.1% -9.28% CAPITAL 58,980,086 48,552,702 21.5% 11,646,602 752,084 1448.6% 70,626,688 28.2% 49,304,786 19.9% 43.25% TOTAL $ 206,300,440 $ 211,037,167 r -2.2% $ 43,814,602 $ 36,111,690 r 21.3% $ 250,115,042 100.0% $ 247,148,857 100.0% 1.20% *Excludes Station Operations and Right -of -Way Maintenance, which is primarily funded by Measure A and is approved through the Commission's budget process. Figure 1 below provides an overview of the operating and capital costs by funding source required to support the County's transit operations. State funds, primarily Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA), make up the largest share of about $159 million (63 percent) of revenues, followed by federal funds totaling about $49.4 million (20 percent). Local revenues represent about $41.7 million (17 percent). Approximately $206.5 million (83 percent) consists of federal, state, and local funds to be allocated through Commission action at this meeting. This also includes other discretionary grants such as Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) funds awarded to the cities. The remaining $43.6 million (17 percent) of the $250.1 million total operating and capital costs identified in the chart is funded by the following sources: • $25.4 million — Passenger fares (bus and rail); • $11.9 million — Carryover funds (Federal FTA Section 5307 and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) that were previously allocated by the Commission and state Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP); and • $6.4 million — Miscellaneous other revenues such as but not limited to interest income, advertising fees, compressed natural gas sales, general fund contributions, low carbon fuel standard credits, and taxi voucher sales. Agenda Item 8 18 Figure 1: FY 2019/20 Public Transit Operating and Capital Funding Sources TDA (LTF & STA Funds), $141,964,336, 57% Carryover Funds (Sec 5307/CMAQACTO P), $11,860,133, 5% Other Revenues, $6,368,449 , 2% Passenger Fares, $25,371,180, 10% Misc Grants (MSRC/Wellness), $11,000 , 0% Local (Measure A), $9,969,663 , 4% Federal Funds (Sec 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5311f, 5339) & CMAQ, $37,778,923 , 15% State Funds (SGR, SRA, Prop 16 & LCTOP) , $16,791,358, 7% Staff reviewed transit operators' funding requests for farebox ratio compliance and other eligibility requirements and recommends the approval of the FY 2019/20 funding allocations as summarized in Attachment 1 by transit operator and subsequent programming of federally - funded and regionally significant projects into the FTIP. In accordance with TDA, allocations to claimants (transit operators) shall be made and take effect by resolution adopted by the regional transportation planning agency. As such, Resolution No. 19-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate Local Transit Assistance Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds" is required for adoption. FTA Sections 5307 and 5311 POP FTA Section 5307 is authorized each year via the federal transportation bill in urbanized areas of 50,000 or more. Funds are distributed to regions by urbanized area formula based upon population served and the amount of transit service provided. The Riverside/San Bernardino Urbanized Area (UZA) receives apportionments per a formula codified in Title 49 of the US Code Agenda Item 8 19 that includes a formulaic split for buses and fixed guideway. Riverside County consists of four UZAs, namely: • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. FTA requires that a public participation process is established for the approval of Section 5307 projects. The Commission develops and approves a POP for each UZA in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Transit operators may rely on SCAG's public participation process associated with the FTIP development to satisfy this requirement; however, the Commission also conducts a supplemental public hearing to seek public feedback. If the draft POP is not amended through the public hearing process, the POP will be programmed into the FTIP, which is subsequently forwarded to SCAG for review and final approvals. Attachment 3 includes the proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County by UZA and shows a listing of requested funds by operators. FTA Section 5311 transit funding provides formula funds to rural or non -urbanized areas in the state. The program is administered by Caltrans, and the majority of the these funds are passed through the counties based on population formula. This year's program allocates a total of $956,443 for Riverside County. Eligible activities include public transportation planning, capital, operating, job access and reverse commute projects, and the acquisition of public transportation services. Remaining funds are awarded in a statewide discretionary program Section 5311(f) for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. The Commission is responsible for ensuring proposed projects selected are eligible and included in a POP, as listed in the table below, for submittal to Caltrans. FY 2019/20 Section 5311 and 5311(f) Requested Funds Agency Section 5311 Section 5311(f) RTA $ 478,221 SunLine 286,933 $ 186,051 PVVTA 191,289 Total $ 956,443 $ 186,051 Staff reviewed the requested funding requests and eligibility requirements and recommends approval of the Sections 5307 and 5311 POP for Riverside County. Agenda Item 8 20 Fiscal Impact LTF, STA, SGR, and Measure A fund allocations, as well as Rail FTA, CMAQ, and State Rail Assistance, are included in the Commission's approved FY 2019/20 budget. The various other FTA, CMAQ, LCTOP, Proposition 1B, and MSRC funds, as well as passenger fares and other revenues, received directly by the transit operators are not included in the Commission's budget. Should any funding revenue projections change, or transit operators require additional funds, staff will return to the Commission with amendments as necessary. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2019/20 FY2020/21 Amount: $99,854,720 (LTF) $34,651,535 (STA) $9,969,663 (Measure A) $3,673,608 (SGR) $7,458,081 (STA) Source of Funds: TDA (LTF and STA); Measure A; and SGR Budget Adjustment: No N/A GLA No • LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND Western County Bus STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE Western County Bus 002210 86101 601 62 86101 $59,075,035 Western County Rail 002201 86101 241 62 86101 $2,880,000 002201 86102 241 62 86102 $24,500,000 Coachella Valley Bus 002213 97001 601 62 97001 $18,787,272 Coachella Valley Bus 002202 86102 241 62 86102 $6,583,535 Coachella Valley Rail 00221186101 601 62 86101 $20,926,808 Palo Verde Valley 002202 97001 241 62 97001 $450,000 Palo Verde Valley 002212 86101 601 62 86101 $1,065,605 002203 86102 241 62 86102 $238,000 MEASURE A Western County Consolidated Transportation STATE OF GOOD REPAIR Western Riverside Bus 00222186102 242 62 86102 $2,088,347 Western Riverside Rail Service Agency Specialized Transit 270-26-86101 $856,800 Western County Operating 002224 86102 242 62 86102 $819,100 Coachella Valley Bus 269-62-86101 $2,406,500 Coachella Valley Specialized Transit 002222 86102 242 62 86102 $730,403 Palo Verde Valley 258-26-86101 $6,706,363 002223 86102 242 62 86102 $35,758 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \I-ke/Liittov� Date: 06/17/2019 Attachments: 1) FY 2019/20 Transit Operator Allocations 2) Resolution 19-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate Local Transit Assistance Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds" 3) Section 5307 Program of Projects Agenda Item 8 21 Attachment 1 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transit Operator Funding Sources* Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside WR Rail RTA SunLine CV Rail PVVTA Fund Total LTF1 $ 1,743,957 $ 2,735,230 $ 1,661,806 $ 3,912,200 $ 18,787,272 $ 49,021,842 $ 20,926,808 $ - $ 1,065,605 $ 99,854,720 STA1 325,000 2,840,000 39,674 49,619 - 31,583,788 6,583,535 450,000 238,000 42,109,616 Measure Al 3,263,300 6,706,363 9,969,663 SGR1 37,740 - 98,198 96,914 819,100 1,855,495 730,403 - 35,758 3,673,608 LCTOP2 53,765 146,842 1,496,728 1,659,331 1,287,665 50,011 4,694,342 SRA 5,942,510 5,942,510 Prop 1B 2,745,731 2,745,731 FTA 53073' 4 - 641,600 320,000 - 24,485,568 8,138,664 - - 33,585,832 FTA 53094 410,574 410,574 FTA 53104 - - - - 398,584 46,250 - - 444,834 FTA 5311 & 5311(04 478,221 472,984 191,289 1,142,494 FTA 53374 - - - 1,689,261 - - - - 1,689,261 FTA 53393 145,326 198,477 6,127,614 593,070 7,064,487 CMAQ4 - - - 3,000,000 1,000,000 1,036,741 - - 5,036,741 AQM D/M SRCs 11,000 11,000 Passenger Fares6 204,000 281,000 290,750 475,500 8,884,000 12,345,996 2,799,649 - 90,285 25,371,180 Other6 1,100 6,200 114,000 - - 2,299,328 3,818,851 - 128,970 6,368,449 Grand Total $ 2,365,562 $ 6,009,272 $ 3,002,354 $ 5,052,710 $ 34,676,361 $ 134,519,067 $ 53,551,557 $ 9,138,241 $ 1,799,918 $ 250,115,042 Based on respective agencies' FY2019/20 SRTP Table 4: Summary of funds requested. 1 Commission allocations based on FY19 projected fund balances and FY20 revenue projections. Z LCTOP funds were approved by the Commission and transit agencies in FY19 for programming in FY20. FTA funding allocations based on estimates from prior year apportionments. Final FY20 amounts to be determined. 4 May include remaining funds from prior year approved grants. s Air Quality funds such as AQMD or MSRC are applied for directly by transit agencies and do not require allocation from the Commission. 6 Passenger fares and other revenues do not require Commission allocation. Other revenues include but are not limited to interest income, advertising fees, compressed natural gas sales, general fund contributions, low carbon fuel standard credits, and taxi voucher sales. 22 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 19-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans submitted by the public transit operators and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for public transit operator claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the public transit operator claimants are making full use of federal funds available under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the public transit operator claimant allocations from the Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance Fund do not exceed the amount the public transit operator claimants are eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the public transit operator claimants are not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and WHEREAS, public transit operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. 23 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2019/20 as detailed in Attachment 1. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of July, 2019. Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 24 ATTACHMENT Page 1 of 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2019/20 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (FY19/20 Estimate based on FY18/19 full year apportionment updated March 2019) NUMBER Apportionment Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover (Estimate) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of Riverside, City of Riverside Transit Agency* PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Bus Rail Total $ 12,886,011 $ 6,655,906 $ 19,541,917 1,061,951 11,996,859 13,058,810 13,947,962 18,652,765 32,600,727 13,503,177 - 13,503,177 $444,785 $18,652,765 $19,097,550 $ 641,600 320,000 12, 541, 577 TOTAL $ 13,503,177 Corona, City of 1) Capital Cost of Operating Fixed Route & Dial -a -ride 2) Comprehensive Operational Analysis TOTAL: City of Corona Riverside, City of 4) Capitalized Preventive Maintenance 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) TOTAL FEDERAL AMOUNT SHARE $ 742,000 $ $ 48,000 $ $ 790,000 $ TOTAL: City of Riverside $ Riverside Transit Agency Capitalized preventative Maintenance Capital Cost of Contracting ADA Complementary Paratransit Service H-D CNG Bus Replacement (35) COFR Bus Replacement (41) Non -Revenue Vehicles (18) Support Vehicles Associated Transit Improvements Capitalizeed Tire Lease 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 8,750,000 8,750,000 2,175, 000 27,019,076 8,998,043 473,400 200,000 394,411 PROJECT DESIGNATED TYPE RECIPIENT 593,600 Operating SCAG 48,000 Operating SCAG 641,600 320,000 Operating SCAG 320,000 3,872,222 3,172,222 870,000 800,000 2,972,884 378,720 160,000 315,529 TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 56,759,930 $ 12,541,577 GRAND TOTAL $ 57,949,930 $ 13,503,177 Operating SCAG Operating SCAG Operating SCAG Capital SCAG Capital SCAG Capital SCAG Capital SCAG Capital SCAG *RTA Table 4 reflects a total of $13.8 million to account for additional carryover. Carryover fund balance and apportionment estimates subject to change. Final POP will be published in approved SCAG FTIP. Updated: 6/13/2019 Approved: 25 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2019/20 URBANIZED AREA: HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (FY19/20 Estimate based on FY18/19 full year apportionment updated March 2019) Bus $ 3,395,918 185,809 NUMBER 1) 2) 3) 4) TOTAL: Apportionment Carryover (estimate) Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests" Balance (Projected) PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Operating Assistance Capital Cost of Contracting COFR Bus Replacement (41) TOTAL AMOUNT $ 45,457,481 8,750,000 8,998,043 3,581,727 3,474,076 $107,651 FEDERAL SHARE $ 2,104,076 600,000 770,000 $ 63,205,524 $ 3,474,076 PROJECT TYPE Operating Capital Capital Capital ATTACHMENT Page 2 of 5 DESIGNATED RECIPIENT Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans "RTA Table 4 reflects a total of $4.6 million to account for additional carryover. Carryover fund balance and apportionment estimates subject to change. Final POP will be published in approved SCAG FTIP. Updated: 6/13/2019 Approved: 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2019/20 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (FY19/20 Estimate based on FY18/19 full year apportionment updated March 2019) Bus $ 4,935,745 982,704 Apportionment Carryover (Estimate) Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available 5,918,449 Less Current Requests 5,696,550 Balance (Projected) $ 221,899 NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) Operating Assistance 2) Replacement Fixed Route Buses (3) TOTAL: Updated: 6/13/2019 Approved: TOTAL AMOUNT FEDERAL SHARE $ 38,145,505 $ 3,630,155 4,032,000 2,066,395 $ 42,177,505 $ 5,696,550 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3 of 5 PROJECT DESIGNATED TYPE RECIPIENT Operating Capital SCAG SCAG 27 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2019/20 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (FY19/20 Estimate based on FY18/19 full year apportionment updated March 2019) Bus Apportionment $ 4,940,295 Lapsing Funds (per FTA) Carryover (Estimate) 928,663 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available 5,868,958 Less Current Requests' 5,041,338 Balance (Projected) $827,620 NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) 2) 3) TOTAL: TOTAL FEDERAL AMOUNT SHARE Capitalized Preventive Mainenance $ 8,750,000 $ 2,035,669 Capital Cost of Contracting 8,750,000 2,135,669 ADA Complementary Paratransit Service 2,175,000 870,000 $ 19,675,000 $ 5,041,338 ATTACHMENT Page 4 of 5 PROJECT DESIGNATED TYPE RECIPIENT Operating Operating Operating SCAG SCAG SCAG *RTA Table 4 reflects a total of $6 million to account for additional carryover. Carryover fund balance and apportionment estimates subject to change. Final POP will be published in approved SCAG FTIP. Updated: 6/13/2019 Approved: 28 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 5 of 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2019/20 URBANIZED AREA: LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-ANAHEIM RECIPIENT: RCTC RAIL/RTA Total Apportionment (FY19/20 Estimate based on FY18/19 full year apportionment updated March 2019) Bus/Rail $ 42,711 193,937 Apportionment Carryover Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) TOTAL: TOTAL AMOUNT FY 2019/20 Operating - General $ 46,315,272 $ 46,315,272 236,648 1,393 $ 235,255 FEDERAL SHARE PROJECT TYPE $ 1,393 Operating $ 1,393 DESIGNATED RECIPIENT SCAG *RTA Table 4 reflects a total of $13.8 million to account for additional carryover. Carryover fund balance and apportionment estimates subject to change. Final POP will be published in approved SCAG FTIP. Updated: 6/13/2019 Approved: C:\Users\mmorales\Documents\Book5 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FIAL YEAR 2019/ 2020 Monica Morales, Management Analyst Multimodal Services Department Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transit Funding Allocations STAGECOACH TOWN USA City of Banning City of Beaumont C RONA CRUISER C RONA DIAL -A -RIDE BEAUMONT -CALIFORNIA- City of Corona Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency City of Riverside Riverside Transit Awry Riverside Transit Agency Salm TARNSIT RllfNEY SunLine Transit Agency RCTC Western Riverside Rail METR❑LINK RCTC Coachella Valley Rail 2 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transit Funding Allocations Total Funding Request FY19/ 20 Operating $179.5 Million Capital $70.6 Million 3 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transit Funding Allocations Funding Request Comparison, FY 2020 vs FY2019 EXPENSE TYPE FY2019/2020 FY2018/2019 (Million) Bus (Million) Rail (Million) Total (Million) Bus (Million) Rail (Million) Total OPERATING $ 147 $ 32 $ 179 $ 162 $ 35 $ 197 CAPITAL 59 12 71 45 1 46 TOTAL $ 206 $ 44 $ 250 $ 207 $ 36 $ 243 4 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transit Funding Allocations FY 2019/ 20 TRANSITFUNDING BY REVENUE SOURCE TDA (LTF & STA Funds), $141,964,3 57% Carryover Funds (Se 5307/CMAQ/LCTOP), $11,860,133 , 5% Other Revenues, $6,368,449 , 2% Passenger Fares, $25,371,180 , 10% Misc Grants (MSRC/Wellness), $11,000 , 0% Local (Measure A), $9,969,663 , 4% Federal Funds (Sec 5307, 5309, 5310, 5311, 5311f, 5339) & CMAQ, $37,778,923 , 15% State Funds (SGR, SRA, Prop 1B & LCTOP) , $16,791,358 , 7% 5 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transit Funding Allocations FY2019/ 2020 Transit Operator Allocations* Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside VAR Rai RTA SunLine CV Rai MIA Fund Total LTF 1,743,957 2,735,230 1,661,805 3,912, 200 18, 787, 272 49,021,842 20,925,808 - 1,055, 505 99,854,720 5TA1 325,000 2,840,000 39,574 49,519 - 31,583,788 6,583,535 450,000 238,000 42,109,616 M•eaaureA2 - - - - - 3,263,300 6,706,353 - - 9,969,6.63 StiRi 37,740 - 98,198 95,914 819,100 1,855,495 730,403 - 35,758 3,673,608 LCTOP7 53,755 145,842 - - 1,496,728 1,659,331 1,287,555 - 50,011 4,694,342 SRA - - - - - - - 5,9.42,510 - 5,942,510 Priab 1B - - - - - - - 2,745,731 - 2,745,731 FTA 53O73'7 - - 541,500 320,000 - 24,485,558 8,138,564 - - 33,585,832 FTA 5309 - - - - - - 410,574 - - 410,574 FTA 5 310 - - - - - 398,584 45,250 - - 444,834 FTA 5311 & 5311(f)3 - - - - - 478,221 472,984 - 191,289 1,142,494 FTA 53377 - - - - 1,689,261 - - - - 1,589,261 FTA 53393 - - 145,326 198,477 - 6,127,514 593,070 - - 7,064,487 CMACC - - - - 3,000,000 1,000,000 1,035,741 - - 5,036,741 f1 IK Grants5 - - 11,000 - - - - - 11,000 Passenger Fares a-.,=.��, 290,750 475,500 8,884,004 12,345,996 2,799,549 - 90,285 25,371,180 Other _,-"" 6.1C0 114,000 - - 2,299,32E 3,818,851 - 128,970 6,358,449 Grand Total 2,365,562 6,009,272 3,002,354 5,052,710 34,676,361 134,519,057 53,551,557 9,138,241 1,799,918 250,115,042 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Staff Recommendations Public Hearing for FTA 5309 Program of Projects Approve Transit Operator Funding Allocations Federal Projects added to FTIP Approve FTA 5307 & 5311 POP Questions? rctc.org 951.787.7141 info@rctc.org f If O C theRCTC 8 AGENDA ITEM 9A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Deputy Director of Finance THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4, 2018. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement with MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices), an Avenu Company, for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenues generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. As part of the recurring contracts process in June 2018, the Commission approved a five-year extension through June 30, 2023. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted audits, which reported findings and submitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), as successor to the California State Board of Equalization, for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 909 businesses. Through 4Q 2018, the CDTFA approved 591 of these accounts for a cumulative sales tax recovery of $9,755,797. If CDTFA concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission will receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the Quarterly Sales Tax Digest Summary report for 4Q 2018. Most of the 4Q 2018 Measure A sales tax revenues were received in the first quarter of calendar year 2019, during January 2019 through March 2019, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary section of the 4Q 2018 report is attached and includes an overview of California's economic outlook, local results, historical cash collections analysis by quarter, top 25 sales/use tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, annual sales tax by business category, and five-year economic trend for significant business category (general retail). As reported to the Commission in November 2018, the CDTFA implemented a new automation system in May 2018, and encountered some issues that included delays in tax return processing. Agenda Item 9A 30 This included numerous sales tax returns for the first two quarters of calendar year 2018 unprocessed at the CDTFA. The CDTFA has been responsive and committed to resolving the issues and completed the 1Q, 2Q, and 3Q 2018 unprocessed sales tax return and has an insignificant amount of 4Q 2018 unprocessed sales tax returns. Staff continues to work closely with MuniServices to receive regular updates on the CDTFA unprocessed sales tax returns. Taxable transactions for the top 25 contributors in Riverside County generated 24.6 percent of taxable sales for the benchmark year ended 4Q 2018, slightly higher than the 22 percent for the benchmark year ended 4Q 2017. The top 100 tax contributors generated 39.2 percent, slightly higher than the 37.6 percent for the benchmark year ended 4Q 2017. In the Economic Category Analysis below, five of the six categories experienced new highs in the 4Q 2018 benchmark year compared to the prior eight benchmark years. The Miscellaneous category is below the 4Q 2014 benchmark year due to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) change to sales taxes being reported using a unique transaction code rather than historically as a sales tax permit. The DMV sales tax reporting change will be reflected correctly in the 1Q 2019 report. ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS of Total / %Change RCTC State Wide Orange County San Bernardino County S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast North Coast Central Coast General Retail 28.9/9.7 27.9/2.1 29.i/1.4 26.2/4.2 25.6/1.8 27.8/5.3 30.4/3.9 28.8/1.8 30.0/2.6 29.2/6.5 Food Products 17.8/6.2 20.6/2.6 20.2/3.3 15.1/5.6 21.5/2.0 17.0/4.0 16.0/2.4 22.3/2.8 16.4/0.4 30.6/6.5 Transportation 24.6 / 5.6 24.1 / 5.2 23.7 / 5.8 26.8 / 2.4 22.6 / 11.6 28.2 / 3.5 25.7 / 3.8 23.3 / 4.3 28.4 / 0.6 22.3 / 5.5 Construction 10.8/8.5 9.8/9.6 8.7/6.0 9.4/13.6 9.8/10.1 11.9/11.3 11.5/11.0 8.8/7.8 13.4/7.5 8.5/39.1 Business to Business 16.3/3.6 16.3/3.7 16.9/2.1 19.8/4.9 19.3/3.7 13.9/1.3 15.6/9.0 15.6/3.8 10.4/9.6 8.6/6.1 Miscellaneous 1.6/-26.4 1.3/5.7 1.3/8.1 2.7/7.9 1.2/19.9 1.1/4.1 0.8/11.9 1.2/12.5 1.4/1.4 0.8/11.8 Total 100.0/6.1 100.0/3.9 100.0/3.4 100.0/5.0 100.0/5.3 100.0/4.6 100.0/5.2 100.0/3.5 100.0/3.0 100.0/8.4 General Retail: Apparel Stores, Department Stores, Furniture/Appliances, Drug Stores, Recreation Products, Florist/Nursery, and Misc. Retail Food Products: Restaurants, Food Markets, Liquor Stores, and Food Processing Equipment Construction: Building Materials Retail and Building Materials Wholesale Transportation: Auto Parts/Repair, Auto Sales - New, Auto Sales - Used, Service Stations, and Misc. Vehicle Sales Business to Business: Office Equip., Electronic Equip., Business Services, Energy Sales, Chemical Products, Heavy Industry, Light Industry, Leasing, Biotechnology, I.T. Infrastructure, and Green Energy Miscellaneous: Health & Government, Miscellaneous Other, and Closed Account Adjustments An analysis of sales tax performance by quarter through 4Q 2018 is attached and illustrates fairly consistent cycles for sales tax performance for most of the economic categories since 4Q 2013. For 9 of the top 10 segments (restaurants, auto sales -new, department stores, miscellaneous retail, building materials -wholesale, food markets, apparel stores, building materials -retail, and heavy industry) during the eight benchmark year quarters, sales tax receipts reached a new high point. The segments represent 66.3 percent of the total sales tax receipts. Service stations representing 7.8 percent was higher than the last four benchmark year quarters since 4Q 2014. The top 10 segments represent 74.1 percent of the total sales tax receipts. For the other 21 segments representing 25.9 percent of the total sales tax receipts, 10 segments representing 14.4 percent of the total sales tax receipts reached new high points in the benchmark year 4Q 2018. In the Economic Segments Analysis below, auto sales -new and department stores have Agenda Item 9A 31 been in the top three economic segments. Restaurants replaced service stations in the top three economic segments beginning in 4Q 2014. The service stations segments high occurred in 4Q 2012 and declined through 1Q 2017 due to lower fuel prices; the 4Q 2018 benchmark year quarter for service stations reflects an increase over the last four benchmark year quarters since 4Q 2014 due to rising fuel prices. RCTC State Wide Orange County ECONOMIC SEGMENT San Bernardino County ANALYSIS S.F. Bay Area Sacramento Valley Central Valley South Coast North Coast Central Coast Largest Segment Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Restaurants Auto Sales - New Department Stores Restaurants Department Stores Restaurants %ofTotal /%Change 11.2/4.3 14.8/2.1 15.0/2.5 10.4/3.7 15.6/2.3 11.9/-0.9 12.2/1.9 16.6/2.2 12.0/3.9 21.9/5.9 2nd Largest Segment Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Auto Sales - New Department Stores Restaurants Auto Sales - New Restaurants Auto Sales - New %ofTotal /%Change 11.2/0.7 11.0/3.6 12.1/6.6 9.6/-3.0 12.0/13.7 11.5/13.8 10.5/2.5 10.7/2.4 10.4/0.3 11.1/2.9 3rd Largest Segment Department Stores Department Stores Misc Retail Department Stores Misc Retail Restaurants Auto Sales- New Misc Retail Service Stations Misc Retail %ofTotal /%Change 9.6/5.2 8.8/1.9 9.7/0.2 9.6/0.9 7.6/3.8 11.3/2.2 10.2/-1.8 8.6/1.6 10.3/6.0 9.8/4.7 As reported in the 3Q 2018 Sales Tax Analysis Report, staff notified the Commission of a reporting error by one of the top 25 sales/use tax contributors related to a misallocation of the district tax to the Commission during 2Q 2018 through 4Q 2018, resulting in an overpayment to the Commission estimated in the amount of $2.5 million. Staff is not certain in which period the misallocation correction will be completed; however, the FY 2019 sales tax revenues after the correction are expected to continue to reflect an increase over the FY 2018 revenues. Information regarding sales tax comparison by city and change in economic segments (two highest gains and two highest losses) from 4Q 2017 to 4Q 2018 is attached. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any adjustments to the revenue projections. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios with the complete report and receipt trends in assessing such projections. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Digest Summary 4Q 2018 2) Sales Tax Performance by Quarter 4Q 2018 3) Quarterly Sales Tax Comparison by City for 4Q 2017 to 4Q 2018 Agenda Item 9A 32 Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through December 2018 Sales through September 2018 (2018Q4) ATTACHMENT 1 CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC OUTLOOK California sales tax receipts increased by 7.3% over the same quarter from the previous year, with Northern California reporting a 6.8% increase compared to 7.8% for Southern California. Receipts for the RCTC increased by 8.9% over the same periods. Unprecedented increases were due to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration implementation of a new reporting system and processing of many sales tax returns filed for the prior three quarters in the current quarter. • GDP: Grew 2.6% in 2018Q4: 3.4% in 2018Q3; and 4.2% in 2018Q2. Consumer spending was robust due to a strong job market, tax cuts and household income gains. Business investment, after faltering in the third quarter, bounced back in final three months of the year. • The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration: announced that it will require out-of- state retailers to collect and remit use tax beginning on April 1, 2019 if in the preceding or current calendar year their sales into California exceed $100,000, or 200 or more separate transactions. • Real Estate Sales in California: Statewide sales of existing, single-family homes in January 2019 totaled 357,730, down 3.9% from December and down 12.6% from January 2018. The 30-year, fixed - mortgage interest rate averaged 4.46% in January, up from 4.03% in January 2018 (Freddie Mac). LOCAL RESULTS Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 4Q2018 Receipts Net 4Q2017 Receipts Actual Percentage Change 52,675,125 0 0 52,675,125 .00 (500,220) 52,174,905 47,892,420 8.9 Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections — Economic Basis 4Q2018 Local Collections — Economic Basis 4Q2017 Quarter over Quarter Change Quarter over Quarter Percentage Change $51,680,056 $49,044,802 2,635,254 5.4% Avenu Insights & Analytics' On -Going Audit Results Total Recovered Year to Date $10,500,671 www.avenuinsights.com (8(0 800-8181 Page 1 RCTC HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- (in thousands of $) M o $600 $500 - $400 - $300 - $200 3Q2016 4Q2016 1Q2017 2Q2017 3Q2017 4Q2017 1Q2018 2Q2018 3Q2018 4Q2018 mE Net Receipts —6—CDTFAAdmin Fees Due $100 $- TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTC's Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents sales from October 2017 to September 2018. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 24.6% of RCTC's total sales and use tax revenue. AMAZON.COM ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS BEST BUY STORES CARMAX THE AUTO SUPERSTORE CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS FERGUSON ENTERPRISES FOOD 4 LESS HOME DEPOT KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES LOWE'S HOME CENTERS MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY ROBERTSONS READY MIX ROSS STORES RALPH'S SAM'S CLUB SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES TESLA VERIZON WIRELESS WAL MART STORES www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 34 Page 2 RCTC HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from annual sales through December 2018, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years in thousands of $. • $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $- ¢44 \¢`' ya �o PJ t 1 I I t ,,y ¢5 ¢ a \¢ at�y� Q 5ce SJy, P cF \c¢/ \ a Qa`v o¢$ ANNUAL SALES TAX BY BUSINESS CATEGORY 4Q2018 3Q2018 2Q2018 1Q2018 4Q2017 3Q2017 2Q2017 1Q2017 4Q2016 3Q2016 (in thousands of $) 1 <,p \ao,� 0 ■ 4Q2018 ♦ High • Low 54,899 33,783 46,783 20,524 30,908 3,048 53,010 32,719 47,586 20,600 31,229 3,425 51,487 30,465 45,832 18,871 29,260 3,494 49,916 32,358 45,302 20,733 29,748 4,602 50,062 49,772 31,821 30,277 44,312 18,908 45,032 18,356 29,826 4,140 29,299 4,020 49,595 29,172 43,561 17,786 48,419 30,881 43,466 19,004 I 28,542 4,189 49,034 30,310 42,256 17,467 28,536 3,829 48,183 28,623 42,839 17,513 28,470 3,692 27,822 3,284 $ 0 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 140,000 $ 160,000 $ 180,000 $ 200,000 ■ General Retail ■ Food Products ■ Transportation ■ Construction ■ Business To Business ■ Miscellaneous www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 35 Page 3 RCTC FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 (in thousands of $) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .71- v .71- .71- lf7 LA L11 Ln l0 tD l0 l0 n N N N. o0 oo oo oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N o N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N www.avenuinsights.com (800) 800-8181 36 Page 4 RCTC: Sales Tax Performance Analysis by Quarter ATTACHMENT 2 TOTAL TOTAL $60,000,000 $50, 000, 000 $40, 000, 000 $30, 000, 000 $20, 000, 000 $10,000,000 $0 a 0" 0' 0- 0- Crt. 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- ti°' ti° ^y tiN. Ny ti`O ti`O y y by ti� Q1 r CATEGORY TOTAL $18,000,000 $16, 000, 000 $14,000,000 $12, 000, 000 $10, 000, 000 $8, 000, 000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 'GENERAL RETAIL Economic 2018 Q4 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $51,680,056 5.4% $2,635,254 6.1% $11,027,974 2018Q4 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $16,891,800 11.9% $1,802,043 9.7% $4,837,205 % of 2018Q4 Total: 32.7% LFOOD PRODUCTS 2018Q4 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $8,543,894 1.4% $118,258 6.2% $1,962,731 % of Total: 16.5% 'TRANSPORTATION 2018Q4 QoQ %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $11,601,051 4.5% $496,515 5.6% $2,471,197 % of Total: 22.4% CONSTRUCTION 2018Q4 Q0Q %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $5,351,579 12.3% $584,787 8.5% $1,616,423 % of Total: 10.4% BUSINESS TO BUSINESS 2018Q4 Q0Q %A QoQ $A YoY %A YoY $A $7,986,535 -0.7%-$58,964 3.6% $1,081,119 % of Total: 15.5% QoQ = 18Q4 / 17Q4 YoY = YE 18Q4 / YE 17Q4 37 ATTACHMENT 3 Quarterly Comparison of 2O17Q4 and 2O1844 (October through December Sales) RIVERSIDE COUNTY BANNING BEAUMONT BLYTHE CALIMESA CANYON LAKE CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA CORONA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DESERT HOT SPRINGS EASTVALE HEMET INDIAN WELLS INDIO JURUPA VALLEY LA QUINTA LAKE ELSINORE MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PALM DESERT PALM SPRINGS PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA WILDOMAR w z w` l7 25.8% 2.1% - 9.2% -3.2% 92.9% -8.1% - 0.3% -4.0% - 4.7% 59.9% 26.3% -0.9% 15.3% 30.6% 4.4% 3.0% 2.6% - 3.2% -4.2% - 1.3% 3.9% 5.0% 39.0% 3.4% -0.1% 5.6% -3.9% - 1.4% a' a` 0 -10.3% 2.5% -18.2% 1.5% 1.7% -0.6% -0.1% 1.8% -16.2% 7.3% -5.2 % -1.0% -0.4% -6.1% 0.7% -7.1% -3.3% -11.9% -0.7% -4.7% -2.5% -2.0% -3.6% 2.1% 18.6% Transportation -0.9% 8.5% -2.8% 6.1% 196.5% 2.7% 11.2% -5.6% 5.7% 8.1% 21.8% 5.6% 0.0% -3.0% 0.9% -0.4% -9.7% 7.2% 4.5% 1.3% 54.1% 7.4% -3.4% 17.5% 1.0% 1.6% -1.1% -56.9% 3.8% 6.1% -38.7% 8.5% -10.6% 23.1% 2.9% -0.4% -11.4% 7.4% 403.7% 19.8% 0.8% 2.1% -22.0% -5.6% -7.0% -26.1% 3.6% 3.5% -40.4% 12.5% 7.7% 0.6% 7.6% 216.9% m 0 0 H w w c � • Oct -Dec 2018 Oct -Dec 2017 m' (201804) (2017Q4) %Chg Gain Gain Decline Decline -13.2% -50.4% -0.9% 10.6% 38.2% 3.8% -25.1% -8.0% -3.9% -16.8% -49.4% -13.7% 8.3% 11.7% 32.9 % 15.4% -13.8% 3.8% 9.4% 2.6% 17.3% -23.4% -7.0% 3.1% -28.5% 6.1% 74.8% -35.4% 3.2% -53.8% -75.6% -0.1% 16.2% -41.5% -36.3 % -16.5% -69.1% 66.4% -39.5% 66.5% -19.2% -9.6% 3.0% -40.3% 38.7% -28.5% -47.8% 31.5% -13.2% 14.4% -4.8% -12.1% 6.0% -24.5% -24.1% -44.6% 633,119 647,351 -2.2% 1,167,426 1,166,072 0.1% 383,970 416,208 -7.7% 198,589 195,373 1.6% 82,769 52,744 56.9% 2,124,528 2,124,011 0.0% 809,057 786,645 2.8% 9,657,778 10,055,962 -4.0% 7,051,535 7,183,396 -1.8% 401,166 350,085 14.6% 2,104,871 1,969,729 6.9% 2,715,104 2,691,669 0.9% 258,530 229,702 12.6% 2,550,435 2,600,001 -1.9% 2,934,416 2,629,989 11.6% 2,286,975 2,225,465 2.8% 2,238,338 2,274,548 -1.6% 1,892,652 1,900,295 -0.4% 4,572,034 4,709,814 -2.9% 3,874,960 4,065,436 -4.7% 1,519,606 1,539,140 -1.3% 4,992,144 4,835,735 3.2% 3,222,042 3,076,363 4.7% 4,305,211 4,119,954 4.5% 1,354,008 1,299,259 4.2% 14,833,382 14,660,601 1.2% 699,017 698,575 0.1% 8,632,554 8,796,676 -1.9% 452,263 395,876 14.2% Miscellaneous Retail Misc. Vehicle Sales Auto Sales - New BIdg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Restaurants Light Industry Leasing Service Stations Light Industry Food Markets Auto Sales - New Service Stations Light Industry Miscellaneous Other Leasing Auto Parts/Repair Miscellaneous Retail Heavy Industry Auto Sales - Used Auto Sales - New Service Stations Furniture/Appliance Food Markets Service Stations Florist/Nursery Energy Sales Food Markets BIdg.Matls-Whsle Electronic Equipment Heavy Industry Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations Heavy Industry Apparel Stores Miscellaneous Retail Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Other Department Stores BIdg.Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Retail Food Markets Service Stations Department Stores Food Markets Miscellaneous Retail Miscellaneous Retail Restaurants Apparel Stores Heavy Industry Heavy Industry Department Stores Miscellaneous Retail Energy Sales Miscellaneous Retail Heavy Industry Light Industry Misc. Vehicle Sales Department Stores Furniture/Appliance Auto Sales - New Food Markets Department Stores Light Industry Auto Sales - New Food Markets Service Stations Food Markets BIdg.Matls-Whsle BIdg.Matls-Retail Department Stores Auto Sales - New Miscellaneous Retail Food Markets Department Stores Auto Sales - Used Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations Auto Sales - Used Service Stations Auto Sales - New BIdg.Matls-Whsle Auto Sales - New Department Stores Food Markets Restaurants Service Stations Leasing Drug Stores Restaurants Furniture/Appliance Apparel Stores BIdg.Matls-Retail Electronic Equipment Auto Sales - New BIdg.Matls-Whsle Food Markets Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle Department Stores Heavy Industry Miscellaneous Retail Service Stations Department Stores Food Markets Auto Sales - Used Chemical Products BIdg.Matls-Whsle Auto Sales - New Department Stores BIdg.Matls-Whsle Food Markets Service Stations Miscellaneous Retail Non -Confidential 38 MuniServices / Avenu Insights & Analytics AGENDA ITEM 9B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2017/18 Transportation Development Act and Measure A Audit Results AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for Fiscal Year 2017/18. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In July 2016, following a competitive procurement, the Commission awarded contracts for a five-year contract term to three audit firms to perform financial and compliance audits and agreed -upon procedures (audits) for TDA claimants and Measure A recipients: • Macias Gini O'Connell LLP (MGO) for Western County TDA claimants and Measure A local streets and roads recipients; • BCA Watson Rice LLP (BCAWR) for Western County Measure A Specialized Transit recipients; and • Conrad LLP (Conrad) for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, and county of Riverside TDA claimants and Measure A recipients. Initially, this scope of work excluded audits for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the city of Beaumont (Beaumont), as these jurisdictions elected to hire their own auditors. After its auditors completed Beaumont's FY 2015/16 audit, Beaumont requested, and Commission staff agreed, that the Commission's auditor conduct the required audits beginning with FY 2016/17. MGO, BCAWR, and Conrad along with the other agencies' auditors completed the audits and issued the audit reports. The following is a summary of the 60 audits performed: Agenda Item 9B 39 Funding Type Type of Procedure MGO BCAWR Conrad (Western (Western (Eastern County County) County) & Riverside Co.) Other Auditors Total TDA Article 3 (bicycle and pedestrian projects) TDA Article 4 (transit) Measure A specialized transit Measure A local streets and roads IFinancial and compliance audit Financial and compliance audit 4=111.1 1 EL: 7 Agreed -upon procedures 0 14 0 -..mr 14 Agreed -upon procedures 18 0 11 0 29 Based on a review of the reports, the following items are highlights of the results of these audits. TDA Article 4 (Transit) • One transit operator (Beaumont) did not meet the fare ratio requirement. Since this was the first year of noncompliance, it is considered a grace year and does not result in any penalty or loss of eligibility for these funds. Failure to meet the fare ratio requirement in future years could result in the loss of funding. • Three transit operators (Corona, Riverside, and RTA) restated their beginning balances for a total amount of approximately $5.5 million, related to a restatement of the net OPEB obligation due to the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. Measure A Specialized Transit • Two agencies (Blindness Support Services and Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County) did not meet the adjusted match requirement by a combined total of $1,615 (1 percent of the adjusted match requirement). • Two agencies (Care -A -Van and Community Connect) had excess revenues over expenditures totaling $28,720, of which approximately 47 percent may be payable to the Commission. During site visits to be conducted during FY 2018/19 or through other procedures, Commission staff will review the circumstances for the excess revenues over expenditures in order to determine the return of Measure A funds, if any, to the Commission. • Five agencies (Blindness Support Services, Forest Folk, Friends of Moreno Valley, Independent Living Partnership, and U.S. Veterans Initiative) had an excess of expenditures over revenues aggregating $6,882. Two agencies (Friends of Moreno Valley and Independent Living Partnership) submitted final invoices following the issuance of the reports in FY 2018/19 to claim a total of $3,748. The other agencies are responsible to cover the remaining deficits totaling $3,134. Agenda Item 9B 40 Measure A Local Streets and Roads • Three jurisdictions (Blythe, Calimesa, and Murrieta) met their maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements using the prior year carryover, as permitted under the MOE Guidelines. • Six jurisdictions (Banning, Eastvale, Hemet, Murrieta, Palm Desert, and San Jacinto) have fund balances in excess of three years of revenues. While the Commission policy suggests such amounts should not exceed three years, it appears that the jurisdictions reduced the amounts in excess of three years through current year expenditures. • Two jurisdictions (Wildomar and the county of Riverside) recorded overhead costs in excess of 8 percent of revenues. The Commission's policy states overhead should not exceed 8 percent of revenues. The county of Riverside's overhead allocation is based on an approved indirect cost rate, and Wildomar's overhead costs were slightly above at 8.2 percent. • One jurisdiction (Beaumont) did not account for Measure A activities in a separate fund and did not allocate interest income to the Measure A activities, which is not in accordance with the Commission's policy. Effective in FY 2018/19, the jurisdiction established a new special revenue fund for Measure A activities and will allocate interest income. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types ofTDA (Articles 3 and 4) and Measure A (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the year ended June 30, 2018, and other financial and compliance information. Attachments: 1) FY 2017/18 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule 2) FY 2017/18 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule 3) FY 2017/18 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule 4) FY 2017/18 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Agenda Item 9B 41 ATTACHMENT 1 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 3 Total revenues Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2018 Desert Hot Indian Jurupa Moreno Palm Beaumont Springs Wells' Hemet Valley Valley Springs Perris Riverside Wildomar $ 204,000 $145,000 $ 20,000 $ $ - $ 26,309 $ 348,296 $ 68,484 $ 308,575 $ 158,400 204,000 145,000 20,000 - 26,309 348,296 68,484 308,575 158,400 Total expenditures 204,000 20,000 75,000 47,898 26,309 348,296 68,484 11,358 623,928 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures 145,000 (75,000) (47,898) - 297,217 (465,528) Transfers in (out) 18,583 - Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures 145,000 - (75,000) (29,315) - 297,217 (465,528) Prior period adjustment - Fund balances at beginning of year - (145,000) - - (18,583) - - (285,355) (83,197) Fund balances at end of year $ - $ - $ - $ (75,000) $ (47,898) $ $ - $ - $ 11,862 $ (548,725) Deferred revenues at end of year $ - $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ 51,524 $ $ - $ 247 $ - $ 567,111 Due to RCTC $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ Source: 2018 Financial Statements 'Represents 2017 financial information that was audited during this audit cycle 5/30/2019 42 ATTACHMENT 2 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2018 Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside PVVTA RTA' SunLine' Total operating revenues $ 117,872 $ 234,182 $ 363,489 $ 443,070 119,828 $ 10,712,941 $ 6,949,374 Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization 223,138 518,763 473,173 714,219 253,266 14,221,349 8,501,403 Other operating expenses 1,626,239 2,679,451 2,918,211 4,053,083 1,124,884 79,372,860 32,610,394 Total operating expenses 1,849,377 3,198,214 3,391,384 4,767,302 1,378,150 93,594,209 41,111,797 Operating loss (1,731,505) (2,964,032) (3,027,895) (4,324,232) (1,258,322) (82,881,268) (34,162,423) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Grants: Local Transportation Funds 1,319,357 2,426,067 1,515,320 3,374,048 879,376 41,097,909 18,789,954 State Transit Assistance 21,550 96,671 653,517 109,004 813,283 2,496,551 Federal - - 712,692 845,941 111,387 22,682,182 10,266,693 Measure A specialized transit - - 3,395,333 5,153,400 Proposition 1 B/Low Carbon Transit Operations Program 509,735 19,014 - 36,125 690,661 355,581 Other 353,655 2,684,155 4,912,075 Interest income 1,740 4,984 9,051 2,513 50 472,563 7,460 Interest expense - (15,163) - Transfers in (out), net 18,000 (322) (31,378) - - - - Gain (loss) on sale of property - 2,637 3,833 21,309 Insurance proceeds 97,876 - - - - - Other 30,108 - 28,494 - 1,666,465 - Total nonoperating revenue (expense) 1,998,366 2,546,414 2,859,202 4,238,470 1,489,597 73,506,384 42,003,023 Net increase (decrease) 266,861 (417,618) (168,693) (85,762) 231,275 (9,374,884) 7,840,600 Prior period adjustment - (266,484) (24,327) - 5,814,788 - Net assets at beginning of year (874,611) 1,821,792 4,469,539 284,174 2,367,416 88,633,747 52,653,833 Net assets at end of year $ (607,750) $ 1,404,174 $ 4,034,362 $ 174,085 $ 2,598,691 $ 85,073,651 $ 60,494,433 Deferred revenue at end of year: Operating $ 285,844 $ 174,002 $ 369,010 $ 617,917 $ 83,715 $ 7,083,568 $ 590,848 Capital 191,467 24,358 - 634,808 30,360 34,464,028 4,445,563 Total deferred revenue at end of year $ 477,311 $ 198,360 $ 369,010 $ 1,252,725 $ 114,075 $ 41,547,596 $ 5,036,411 10.00% 10.00% 15.00% 10.00% 10.00% 17.44% 17.46% Actual fare ratio 10.31 % 9.09% 16.25% 10.93% 10.41 % 21.69% 21.49% Fare ratio compliance status Met Did not Meet Met Met Met Met Met Source: 2018 Financial Statements 5/30/2019 The audits for RTA and SunLine were completed by other auditors hired by each entity. 43 ATTACHMENT 3 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2018 Riverside County of County Boys & Girls Riverside Regional United Club of Community Community Dept of Friends of Independent Medical States Blindness Southwest Care Connect - Connect - Mental Moreno Living City of Operation Center/ Veterans Voices for Support County Care -A -Van Connexxus 211 TAP Health Forest Folk Valley Partnership Norco SafeHouse (RUNS) Initiative Children Operating revenues: Measure $ 65,353 $ 209,695 $ 324,870 $ 298,050 $ 77,059 $ 64,415 $ 200,000 $ 55,000 $ 66,262 $ 481,458 $60,000 $ 30,298 $307,659 $ 42,840 $ 95,478 In -kind match 1,000 7,229 74,455 11,556 24,387 - 40,121 18,070 862,799 - - 252,597 Cash match: other revenue 31,648 110,262 93,125 163,226 29,877 9,644 103,030 5,372 45,699 - 30,911 15,752 189,029 27,713 - Total operating revenues 98,001 327,186 492,450 461,276 118,492 98,446 303,030 100,493 130,031 1,344,257 90,911 46,050 496,688 70,553 348,075 Operating expenses -in kind 1,000 7,229 74,455 11,556 24,387 - 40,121 18,070 862,799 - - 252,597 Operating expenses -salaries & benefits 59,959 151,507 275,650 222,114 61,588 33,292 241,111 22,616 162,657 66,972 25,446 412,076 51,501 30,000 Operating expenses-nonpersonnel 37,469 113,631 135,750 204,994 18,211 29,733 61,919 37,900 115,898 307,046 19,139 17,261 84,612 19,792 65,478 Operating expenses -administrative overhead 10,792 34,168 8,761 7,285 13,389 4,800 3,343 Capital expenditures 44,027 - - Total operating expenses/capital expenditures 98,428 327,186 485,855 461,276 100,116 94,697 303,030 100,637 133,968 1,345,891 90,911 46,050 496,688 71,293 348,075 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures $ (427) $ - $ 6,595 $ - $ 18,376 $ 3,749 $ - $ (144) $ (3,937) $ (1,634) $ - $ - $ - $ (740) $ Match requirement (as adjusted) Actual match Match requirement compliance status Source: 2018 Agreed -Upon Procedures $ 33,466 $ 118,288 $ 165,191 $ 136,515 $ 34,039 $ 32,197 $ 103,030 $ 45,138 $ 35,224 $ 207,503 $30,911 $ 15,752 $159,697 $ 22,309 $ 153,722 $ 32,648 $ 117,491 $ 167,580 $ 163,226 $ 41,433 $ 34,031 $ 103,030 $ 45,493 $ 63,769 $ 862,799 $ 30,911 $ 15,752 $189,029 $ 27,713 $ 252,597 Did not meet Did not meet Met adjusted Met Met adjusted Met adjusted Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met adjusted match adjusted match match match match requirements requirements Measure A Specialized Transit 5/30/2019 44 ATTACHMENT 4 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2018 Westem County Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Corona Eastvale Hemet Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Mumeta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar I I Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure $ 563,927 $ 601,889 $ 166,168 $ 184,294 $ 4,134,306 $1,314,044 $1,762,566 $ 1,938,244 $ 1,351,409 $1,664,930 $ 3,707,442 $2,425,462 $ 677,384 $1,624,086 $ 7,732,065 $ 877,187 $3,173,344 $ 616,835 Reimbursements - - - - - - - - - - 900,929 - - - 419,465 - 35,483 Other revenues - - - - 1,919 146,458 - 275,279 12,400 - - - - - Interest income 15,802 - 4,005 (354) 7,869 40,720 24,971 2,066 8,337 3,720 60,680 82,050 25,253 8,453 76,718 36,591 33,824 Other financing sources -transfers in - - - - 89,691 - 539,725 - - - - - - - - - Total revenues 579,729 601,889 170,173 183,940 4,144,094 1,444,455 1,787,537 2,626,493 1,359,746 1,943,929 4,681,451 2,507,512 702,637 1,632,539 8,228,248 913,778 3,242,651 616,835 Expenditures and other financing uses: Engineering, construction and maintenance 147,164 60,000 175,035 2,064,074 1,591,412 1,307,954 1,383,733 - 320,119 1,556,183 4,159 1,076,660 2,194,777 - - 795,372 621,776 Administrative overhead/indirect costs - - 12,400 - - - - - 293,250 - - - 6,728 27,488 - 45,842 Capital outlay - - - 26,451 - 1,402,299 392,572 4,759,648 - Debt service 147,000 - - 493,293 - - 1,487,196 730,645 2,996,088 - - - Transfers out - - - - - 98,415 - 508,909 1,159,113 1,301,088 1,103,501 - - - - 213,823 4,455,221 50,776 Total expenditures and other financing uses 147,164 60,000 187,435 147,000 2,064,074 1,716,278 1,307,954 2,385,935 1,159,113 1,621,207 5,842,429 1,127,376 1,076,660 2,194,777 7,762,464 241,311 5,250,593 718,394 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financing uses 432,565 541,889 (17,262) 36,940 2,080,020 (271,823) 479,583 240,558 200,633 322,722 (1,160,978) 1,380,136 (374,023) (562,238) 465,784 672,467 (2,007,942) (101,559) Prior period adjustment/rounding (1) - 1 1 CO 2 - (14,825) 1 (189,313) Fund balances at beginning of year 1,768,949 - 566,862 324,917 10,882,442 4,677,775 5,336,943 (120,363) 1,545,370 686,730 5,135,340 7,150,588 2,060,218 4,928,089 17,852,987 3,235,105 6,251,531 275,786 Fund balances at end of year $ 2,201,513 $ 541,889 $ 549,601 $ 361,858 $ 12,962,462 $ 4,405,953 $5,816,526 $ 120,195 $ 1,746,002 $1,009,454 $ 3,974,362 $8,515,899 $1,686,195 $4,365,851 $ 18,318,771 $ 3,907,573 $4,243,589 $ (15,086) Fund balance by year received: 2018 $ 579,729 $ 541,889 $ 170,173 $ 183,940 $ 4,144,094 $1,444,455 $1,787,537 $ 120,195 $ 1,359,746 $1,009,454 $ 3,974,362 $2,507,512 $ 702,637 $1,632,539 $ 8,228,248 $ 913,778 $3,242,651 $ (15,086) 2017 558,909 - 195,916 170,672 8,818,368 1,262,191 1,624,564 - 386,256 - - 2,346,957 $ 643,386 1,457,511 7,316,322 847,427 1,000,938 - 2016 547,451 183,512 7,246 - 1,161,037 1,683,976 - 2,161,621 340,172 1,275,801 2,774,201 776,338 515,424 538,270 720,449 1,499,809 1,370,030 - Total fund balances by year received $ 2,201,513 $ 541,889 $ 549,601 $ 361,858 $ 12,962,462 $ 4,405,953 $5,816,526 $ 120,195 $ 1,746,002 $1,009,454 $ 3,974,362 $8,515,899 $1,686,195 $4,365,851 $ 18,318,771 $ 3,907,573 $4,243,589 $ (15,086) Cash and investments $2,063,687 $ 322,749 $ 336,971 $ 346,130 $ 12,220,912 $4,147,200 $5,521,873 $ 263,643 $ 1,414,467 $ 335,930 $ 3,214,348 $8,146,191 $2,207,172 $4,018,832 $ 15,560,783 $ 389,230 $3,475,927 $ MOE Base Year requirement $ 164,325 $ 343,939 $ 2,401 $ 28,873 $ 2,208,200 $ 38,949 $ 18,924 $ - $ 960,771 $ 214,225 $ 1,459,153 $ 595,702 $ 22,536 $1,218,470 $ 12,449,203 $ 156,391 $1,431,799 $ Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 310,797 $ 710,094 $ 16,441 $ 147,770 $ 15,910,751 $ 131,964 $ 758,349 $ - $14,629,655 $3,692,379 $ 6,501,322 $ 254,625 $ 62,252 $1,748,331 $ 40,233,322 $ 623,648 $8,635,450 $ MOE compliance status Met Met Met with use Met Met Met Met N/A Met Met Met Met with use Met Met Met Met Met N/A of carryover of carryover Source: 2018 Agreed -Upon Procedures Measure A Local Streets Roads 4 of 5 5/30/2019 45 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2018 I I Palo Verde 1 I 1 Coachella Valley 1 Valley 1 I Cathedral Desert Hot J 1 County of 1 City Coachella Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Blythe ! Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: - MeasureA $ 1,474,000 $ 632,653 $ 454,537 $ 261,780 $ 1,934,623 $ 761,138 $ 2,765,692 $ 2,093,402 $ 810,467 $ 755,441 $ 6,788,097 Reimbursements - - - 488,050 200,450 210,665 - - Other revenues 57,793 - - 536,854 11,147 75,000 (28,489) - - - Interest income 2,372 (814) - 231 7,219 254,693 34,490 3,632 14,076 33,456 Other financing sources -transfers in 80,562 - - - 737,481 23,675 - - - - Total revenues 1,614,727 631,839 454,537 261,780 3,697,239 803,179 3,295,835 2,310,068 814,099 769,517 6,821,553 Expenditures and other financing uses: Engineering, construction and maintenance 1,511,975 - 206,384 210,833 2,614,731 - 2,871,083 2,704,571 - 5,569,295 Administrative overhead/indirect costs - - 15,338 - 386,972 - - - 60,435 1,668,442 Capital outlay - - - 2,009,876 - - Debt service - - 200,000 617,267 - 1,098,050 236,211 Transfers out 117,920 421,744 - - 49,242 412,422 - - 1,279,026 - Total expenditures and other financing uses 1,629,895 421,744 421,722 210,833 3,668,212 412,422 2,871,083 3,802,621 2,009,876 1,575,672 7,237,737 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (15,168) 210,095 32,815 50,947 29,027 390,757 424,752 (1,492,553) (1,195,777) (806,155) (416,184) Prior period adjustment/rounding - - - (114,681) - - 1 Fund balances at beginning of year 446,496 1,263,691 45,572 20,520 725,555 854,791 21,545,267 7,369,067 3,349,388 2,332,281 1,735,443 Fund balances at end of year $ 431,328 $ 1,473,786 $ 78,387 $ 71,467 $ 639,901 $ 1,245,548 $ 21,970,019 $ 5,876,514 $ 2,153,611 $ 1,526,126 $ 1,319,260 Fund balance by year received: 2018 $ 431,328 $ 631,839 $ 78,387 $ 71,467 $ 639,901 $ 803,179 $ 3,295,835 $ 2,310,068 $ 814,099 $ 769,517 $ 1,319,260 2017 - 561,279 - - - 442,369 4,172,229 2,671,339 971,911 756,609 - 2016 280,668 6,885,291 895,107 367,601 - - 7,616,664 Total fund balances by year received $ 431,328 $ 1,473,786 $ 78,387 $ 71,467 $ 639,901 $ 1,245,548 $ 21,970,019 $ 5,876,514 $ 2,153,611 $ 1,526,126 $ 1,319,260 Cash and investments $ 156,591 $ 1,423,600 $ (34,294) $ - $ - $ 1,119,892 $ 36,702,635 $ 5,933,716 $ 1,996,672 $ 1,446,058 $ 1,311,449 MOE Base Year requirement $ 391,688 $ 92,205 $ 75,147 $ 963,640 $ 2,048,564 $ 937,007 $ 2,398,146 $ 1,498,732 $ 674,811 $ 170,000 5 - Amount of Excess MOE at end of year $ 4,523,041 $ 5,251,884 $ 1,269,788 $ 13,653,016 $ 12,018,618 $ 6,150,003 $ 9,479,114 $ 23,147,890 $ 4,062,134 $ 76,825 5 - MOE compliance status Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Met with use N/A of carryover Source: 2018 Agreed -Upon Procedures Measure A Local Streets Roads 5 of 5 5/30/2019 46 AGENDA ITEM 9C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: #Reboot My Commute Public Engagement Program Summary BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update about the Commission's #RebootMyCommute public engagement program in Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission launched its #RebootMyCommute public engagement program on March 6, 2019, to solicit feedback from residents about ways to improve mobility across Riverside County. The feedback will help inform long-term transportation priorities, including review of the Measure A expenditure plan, development of the 10-Year Western County Highway Delivery Plan, continued development of next generation toll projects, and completion of the Next Generation Rail Corridor Feasibility Study and Long Range Transportation Plan. Defining transportation priorities is critical for the Commission, which is facing a $12.6 billion shortage between its anticipated transportation funding and needs during the next 20 years. Compounding this funding gap are additional transportation challenges. Rapid population growth likely will continue in Riverside County, which has relatively lower housing costs and more open space than Orange, Los Angeles, and parts of San Diego Counties. Despite significant expected employment gains, Riverside County is forecast to retain a high jobs -to -housing imbalance, creating a large commuting population. Riverside County is also a growing hub for the logistics industry, which employs many residents yet also contributes to traffic congestion, air pollution, and other impacts. Residents and motorists in Riverside County are expressing frustration with traffic congestion, experiencing construction fatigue, and voicing concerns about the need for equitable shares of transportation funding. The public and elected officials are seeking solutions to these issues. The Commission created #RebootMyCommute to invite residents and commuters to provide feedback about how to create a better transportation system in Riverside County. The program offered opportunities for the public to tell their stories and to recommend how and where the Agenda Item 9C 47 Commission's limited transportation dollars should be spent. Using the theme, "We are Listening," #RebootMyCommute acknowledged the public's frustration with traffic, late trains, potholed streets, and how long it takes for improvements to happen. The Commission accepted comments from March 6 to June 3, a 90-day period. Multiple tools were available for residents and commuters to learn about #RebootMyCommute and share feedback: 1) RebootMyCommute.org website 2) Social media advertising with videos 3) Tele-townhall meetings 4) Community booths 5) News media 6) The Point subscriptions 7) Helpline 8) Presentations 9) Text messaging 10) Brochures and postcards Feedback received via these methods are qualitative and not intended to represent a statistically representative sample of Riverside County residents. The data described below should not be used to reach scientific conclusions. Comments, By The Numbers The following is a numerical summary of the metrics for #RebootMyCommute. Appendix A provides a graphic display of these metrics. 1) Tele-Townhall Meetings: The Commission hosted Tele-town Hall meetings on March 19 and 20. These attracted 7,539 participants, 52 phone discussions, and nine follow-up voice messages. 2) Community Booths: The Commission staffed booths at six community events throughout Riverside County and engaged with 559 residents at these events. 3) News Media: Ten news stories featured the "Reboot" program. Advertisements were placed in The Press -Enterprise and The Desert Sun, with a combined print ad circulation of 461,702 and digital ad circulation of 156,250. The video ad aired 16 times on television station KESQ. Commissioners and staff also took part in various video and podcast series. 4) Website: The RebootMyCommute.org website had 22,061 sessions with 19,556 unique visitors. The Commission received 473 comment forms via the site. 5) The Point Subscriptions: The Commission publishes a monthly newsletter, The Point, which the Commission emails to subscribers. As part of the #RebootMyCommute program, residents were encouraged to register to receive the newsletter; 1,315 new subscribers registered during the program. Agenda Item 9C 48 6) Text Messaging: A text -messaging feature was available for those who wished to provide input via text. The Commission received 81 text messages. However, the texts received were limited to those who registered to receive The Point. 7) Brochures and Postcards: The Commission produced and distributed more than 5,500 brochures — printed in English and Spanish — to city halls, community centers, libraries, senior centers, transportation groups, chambers of commerce, and elected officials' offices across Riverside County. The brochures also were available at community booths and presentations. 8) Social Media: The Commission placed a series of targeted social media ads with videos related to #RebootMyCommute. a. On Facebook, 596,316 people viewed the videos in their entirety and 31,736 clicked to learn more. There were 2,098 direct engagements with viewers, 3,927,342 impressions, and a reach of 630,409. b. On Twitter, there were 7,613 full video views, 1,989 click-throughs, 54 direct engagements, and 368,225 impressions. c. On Instagram, 30,820 people watched the full video, and 4,448 clicked to learn more. There were 1,830 direct engagements, 2,898,023 impressions, and a reach of 629,129. d. On YouTube, there were 803,978 full video views, 13,584 click-throughs, and 3,495,097 impressions. 9) Helpline: A toll -free helpline was available for those who preferred to express their views by telephone. The Commission received 56 calls through the helpline. 10) Presentations: The Commission made several presentations, including multiple chapters of Riverside Transit Agency's Transportation Now, the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Temescal Valley Municipal Advisory Council, the Riverside Bike Club, the Riverside City Council, and the Norco City Council. Comments, Executive Summary The Commission received 948 comments through the website, social media and other sources. Staff sorted the comments into seven topics and seven geographical areas; summaries by topic and geography follow. Topics: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Active Transportation Economy & Jobs Highways &Traffic Streets & Local Issues Public Transportation Safety Express Lanes Summary, Comments by Topic Geographical Area: 1) Coachella Valley 2) Hemet -San Jacinto 3) 1-215 Corridor 4) Northwestern Riverside County 5) Southwestern Riverside County 6) Riverside 7) San Gorgonio Pass Agenda Item 9C 49 The chart below reflects the number of comments received about each topic. Since some comments addressed more than one topic, the table shows 1,113 comments. Following the chart is a summary of comments received by topic. COMMENTS BY TOPIC m CO m 1 ACTIVE TRANS. ECONOMY -JOBS HIGHWAYS- LOCAL -STREETS PUBLIC TRANS. SAFETY EXPRESS LANES TRAFFIC 1. Active Transportation —53 Comments Received: Most of these comments focused on the need to complete the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside County and Orange County and the need to complete or make additional improvements to CV Link, the transportation route and recreational pathway in the Coachella Valley. The CV Link comments also suggested improving bike lanes and sidewalks approaching the trail or modifying the project to remove golf cart access. A number of comments noted the need for more bike lanes, walkable communities, sidewalk improvements, ADA signs for pedestrians, and motorized scooters. 2. Economy & Jobs — 81 Comments Received: Many comments noted the need to bring higher -paying jobs to Riverside County to reduce the need to commute to other counties, to offer incentives to businesses or employees who work from home, to provide more incentives for ridesharing, and to allow tax breaks for employers who hire local. A number of people were concerned about the high volume of residential and commercial development in Riverside County and the impact to traffic. Several voiced concerns about any possible new taxes and suggested that gas tax revenue should fund only freeway and roadway improvements. Agenda Item 9C 50 3. Highways & Traffic — 383 Comments Received: The Commission received wide-ranging comments about increasing traffic congestion on highways throughout Riverside County. Frequently mentioned were the need to improve the State Route 91 corridor, including the area between Green River Road and SR-241, the 71/91 interchange, 91 Express Lanes access, and the need for an alternate route between Riverside County and Orange County. A large number of residents voiced the need to widen and improve Interstate 15 between Riverside County and San Diego County, particularly near the 15/215 split. The number of comments increased greatly following an "1-15 Traffic Crisis" video posted on Facebook by the city of Temecula in mid -May. Other residents mentioned the need for traffic congestion relief along 1-10 through the San Gorgonio Pass and the need for improvements to Highway 111 in the Coachella Valley. Residents also expressed concerns about increasing congestion along 1-215 in Perris and Moreno Valley. Some motorists suggested removing express lanes, expanding carpool lanes, using reversible lanes, building double -decked highways, and limiting travel times for big -rig vehicles. 4. Streets & Local Issues — 207 Comments Received: Many comments in the category focused on the need to fix potholes, repave roads, improve timing and coordination of traffic signals, add left -turn phases to traffic signals, and add left -turn lanes. Other comments addressed the need for more sidewalks, the effectiveness of roundabouts, the need to install more stop signs, and the need for red-light cameras for traffic enforcement. A number of comments noted specific streets that require repair, widening, and extension. 5. Public Transportation & Specialized Services — 318 Comments Received: Comments centered on the need for more rail and bus options throughout Riverside County, although some comments noted that public transit is ineffective in southern California. Many comments supported establishing daily train service to and from the Coachella Valley, with requests for stations in various cities. A number of residents requested that the Commission provide Metrolink or a light rail service for southwestern Riverside County and into San Diego County, to the San Gorgonio Pass, and to the Hemet -San Jacinto area. Others noted the need for greater train frequency, free weekend rides for families, discounted train tickets, weekend service on the 91/Perris Valley Line (PVL), and extending the 91/PVL to San Bernardino. Residents asked for more bus options between the Coachella Valley and Riverside, greater bus frequency, 24-hour bus systems, more station amenities, improved bus stop safety, bus -only lanes, more compressed natural gas buses, and greater assistance for veterans, seniors, and riders with disabilities. Riders also voiced the need for better on -time performance for trains and buses and additional ridesharing/vanpooling incentives. 6. Safety —38 Comments Received: Comments noted the need for more police presence on roadways with larger fines for texting and driving, more stop signs, diagonal parking spaces, buses to enhance safety during the Coachella festivals, Park & Ride Lot security, and the removal of homeless people from bus shelters. Other comments noted the need Agenda Item 9C 51 for improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road/Diamond Drive interchange, Alessandro Boulevard and Columbia Avenue and the need to reopen Pigeon Pass Road, San Timoteo Canyon Road, and connector between Watkins Drive and Poarch Road. Residents also questioned the effectiveness of a planned raised median on Florida Avenue in Hemet. 7. Express Lanes — 70 Comments Received: A significant number of comments suggested removing the 91 Express Lanes or stopping construction of new express lanes. Some suggested replacing the express lanes with general-purpose lanes, carpool lanes, or light rail system. Others noted the high cost of using the express lanes, accused the Commission of profiteering, questioned various design features of the 91 Express Lanes, expressed concerns about using taxpayer funds to pay for express lanes, and advocated for an additional lane on westbound 91 between Green River Road and SR-241. Additional comments noted the need to extend the 15 Express Lanes past Lake Elsinore, the lack of access to the 91 Express Lanes from mid -city Corona, improving the 71/91 Interchange, and adding highways below ground. Summary, Comments by Geography The chart below includes the number of comments received from various geographical areas across Riverside County. Following the chart is a summary of comments received by area. Appendices B and C include maps of the comment origins by zip code for western and eastern Riverside County. COMMENTS BY GEOGRAPHY M tO N 00 N N 1 ,O 1 1 1 1 COACHELLA HEMET-SAN 1-215 NW SW RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE SAN VALLEY JACINTO CORRIDOR RIVERSIDE CO. GORGONIO CO. PASS Mi OTHER Agenda Item 9C 52 1. Coachella Valley —122 Comments Received: A significant number of comments focused on providing daily rail service to the Coachella Valley via Amtrak, Metrolink, or a light rail system. Others suggested bus service improvements, such as zero emission buses, seamless public transit options, smart phone applications, and more bus stop amenities. Residents generally voiced support for the CV Link project, but a few questioned the need for the project. Some comments noted increasing highway traffic congestion and the need to improve 1-10 and Highway 111. Residents also recommended widening or repaving specific roads, including Avenue 52, Dillon Road, Varner Road, Ramon Road, and others. In addition, residents suggested new sidewalks, bike lanes, lane restriping, more streetlights, and coordinated traffic signals. 2. Hemet -San Jacinto — 82 Comments Received: Residents provided comments about the need for increased public transit options, including expansion of Metrolink to Hemet -San Jacinto, more frequent trains, weekend service on the 91/PVL, train service to San Diego, a dedicated lane for buses, enhanced bus stop safety, and reinstating RTA's CommuterLink Bus 212. Other recommendations included coordinating traffic signals, repairing potholes, repainting lane markings, repaving SR-74, and not building a raised median on Florida Avenue in Hemet. Residents also suggested extending Ethanac Road, realigning SR-79, adding lanes to 1-215, removing express lanes and carpool lanes, double -decking highways, improving SR-60 and 1-215 near Moreno Valley, and building tunnels between Riverside County and Orange County and between Mt. San Jacinto and Palm Springs. 3. 1-215 Corridor —105 Comments Received: Comments from residents along this corridor focused on lengthy commutes and the need to improve highway traffic congestion on both 1-215 and 1-15. Residents suggested improving the 15/215 interchange, redesigning existing interchanges, expanding express lanes south to Temecula, installing reversible lanes, and adding carpool lanes. Residents also suggested building the I-215 North Project to add lanes between Nuevo Road and SR-60, improving SR-60 and 1-215 through Perris and Moreno Valley, limiting truck travel times on highways, and building more frontage roads or back roads to bypass highway traffic. Comments also included the need to expand Metrolink passenger rail or light rail south of Perris, providing weekend service on the 91/PVL, and establishing a dedicated set of tracks to avoid conflicts with freight service. Residents further noted the need for on -time buses, more accessible bus service for students, and more incentives to take public transportation. Further, residents recommended repairing potholes, coordinating traffic signals, installing traffic light cameras, completing the Santa Ana River Trail, extending Van Buren Boulevard to Harley Knox Road, reopening Pigeon Pass Road, adding traffic signals at San Timoteo Canyon Road, and reopening the connector at Watkins Drive and Poarch Road. 4. Northwestern Riverside County —121 Comments Received: Residents expressed a variety of concerns and suggestions, including halting construction of new homes, attracting Agenda Item 9C 53 more high -paying jobs to the area, and offering incentives for telecommuting, four -day work weeks, and flexible work schedules. Others cited the need to complete the Santa Ana River Trail, expand rail and bus options to Orange County, establish mandatory busing to schools to reduce parent drop-offs and pick-ups, create a light rail/street car/feeder bus system to enhance Metrolink ridership, and develop a Corona trolley. A number of residents suggested removing the 91 Express Lanes and voiced concerns about the lack of access from mid -city Corona, traffic delays at the 91 Express Lanes entrances, carpool lane policies, and various express lanes design features. Along the 1-15 corridor, commuters recommended additional widening within the median, extending express lanes past Lake Elsinore, improving the El Cerrito interchange, and widening Temescal Canyon Road. A number of comments noted the need to create an alternate route or frontage road along SR-91 to connect with Gypsum Canyon Road, limit truck travel times, and repair potholes. Others noted the need for improvements to the 71/91 interchange and 15/91 interchange, new lanes on westbound and eastbound SR-91, and better access to SR-241 from SR-91. 5. Southwestern Riverside County — 263 Comments Received: A significant number of residents voiced the need for improvements to 1-15 in the Temecula area, with most of the comments following the "1-15 Traffic Crisis" video produced by the city of Temecula. Motorists noted lengthy traffic delays to and from San Diego County and expressed quality of life concerns. Suggested solutions included rebuilding the 15/215 interchange, widening 1-15 (express lanes, carpool lanes, general-purpose lanes, bypass lanes, reversible lanes), making various design changes to interchanges, and building an interchange at French Valley Parkway. Others recommended expanding Metrolink or providing a light rail service in southwestern Riverside County and connecting with rail service in San Diego County. Some noted the need to bring more high -paying jobs to Riverside County, stop new home construction, limit travel times of trucks, expand bus service operations, create a transit hub in the "triangle area," and build better bike paths. 6. Riverside —198 Comments Received: A number of residents noted the need to improve traffic congestion on the SR-91 corridor by removing express lanes, changing express lanes to carpool lanes, removing carpool lanes, installing reversible lanes, rebuilding the 15/91 interchange, building bridges over the Santa Ana River, and creating another east - west route between Riverside County and Orange County. Some suggested double - decking freeways, improving the merge from SR-241 to eastbound SR-91, fixing the bottleneck and improving pavement at the 60/215 interchange, and limiting truck travel times. Others commented on rail and transit services, including suggestions to eliminate Metrolink altogether, expand train service hours, integrate transit systems, create a light rail or trolley system, offer more late -night service, make service adjustments to RTA's CommuterLink Route 200, reduce fares, add a Metrolink station at UC Riverside, improve on -time performance of public transit, and develop a high-speed rail system. Residents also asked for completion of the Santa Ana River Trail, more bike lanes, coordinated traffic Agenda Item 9C 54 signals, sidewalk repairs, removal of scooters left on sidewalks, and repaving of various roads. 7. San Gorgonio Pass —31 Comments Received: Multiple residents voiced the need for a rail system via Amtrak or Metrolink. Others requested bus service improvements, such as dedicated bus lanes, more transit options to and from Riverside, better on -time performance, more stops in residential, medical and commercial areas, and privatizing rail and buses to remove government influence. Residents further noted growing traffic congestion on 1-10 and the need for new lanes and improvements to multiple interchanges from Calimesa to Cabazon, including Pennsylvania Avenue, Potrero Road, Oak Valley Parkway, Highland Springs, Singleton Avenue, Calimesa Boulevard, and County Line Road. Several people suggested upgrades to SR-79 between Beaumont and the Hemet -San Jacinto area, placing traffic signals on San Timoteo Canyon Road, and coordinating traffic signals. The Commission received seven additional comments that staff could not identify by geography. Those comments covered a variety of topics, including creating efficient public transit, bringing more jobs to Riverside County to equal the volume of housing, completing the Santa Ana River Trail, and encouraging ridesharing. Conclusion Commission staff is pleased with the volume and variety of feedback received, as well as the overall constructive nature of the comments. The public understands where transportation investment is needed and is willing to recommend potential solutions. Staff considers the #RebootMyCommute program to be a success, due not only to this feedback, but also because the program demonstrated that the Commission is listening to residents, which in turn improves rapport with the public. The chart below shows the Commission's public sentiment profile via social media during the 90-day program; the program helped boost public perceptions of the Commission. Agenda Item 9C 55 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 3/1 -0.5 Social Media Public Sentiment March 1 -June 7, 2019 3/15 3/29 V 4/12 4/26 5/10 Reboot Engagement ❑ Other Engagement 5/24 6/7 The Commission will use this information to help guide the next steps for future funding initiatives. Commissioners are encouraged to share local issues with their staff and constituents. Commission staff also will provide feedback to Metrolink, bus transit operators, and local jurisdictions, based on the comments received from residents. Appendix D includes a listing all of the comments received, sorted by geographical area. Appendices Appendix A: Graphic Display, Program Metrics Appendix B: Comment Origins by Zip Code, Western Riverside County Appendix C: Comment Origins by Zip Code, Eastern Riverside County Appendix D: Listing of all comments received Agenda Item 9C 56 APPENDIX A ��THEF1rfUA E ILI #RebootMyCommute Metrics Community Outreach Tele rvn Halls 7,539 5 Participants I Comments Voice Messages Community Booths G Events 10 Media Star ies 3,529 Event Attendance Publications 461,702 Print Ad Circulation Television 1 Video Add Airs 559 Pile Engaged 156,250 Digital Ad Circulation ,061 119,55 473 Number of dumber of Form Sessions Unique Users Submissions Email 1,315 Subscrbers Text Subscribers Print Piece 5,5 Delivered Online Sentiment 4 3.5 a 2.5 z 1,5 1 0.5 0 -0.s March -June 2019 ROTC Overall Tr ndVal livbr€h 1 -June 7, 2019 - Organic d4C%gitalAdCantent ■ Organic Content 3/6 (+1 #Re boot MyCommute campaign launches. 3/301+) Round 2 ends. Ad data is weed to optimize targetirg and messaging. 5121;+) 11RebootMyCanmutedigital advertising ramps dawn. Social Media Ads Facebook Video Views noon] 596,316 licks 31,736 Direct Engagemrnte 2,098 Impressions 3,927,342 Reach 630,409 Twitter Video Views mg.TLi 7.613 Clicks 1,989 Direct Engagements. 54 Im pressi qns 3643,225 Instag ram Video Yiewr . rietr l 30,820 Clicks 4,44$ Direct Ergalemrnts 1,830 Imprasslons 2,898,023 Rah 629,129 YouTube Video View& limo%) 1303.974 Clicks 13,584 I mp resslont, 3.495,r.97 Hgerrua ILerrr 7l. APPENDIX B Eastvale -L Norco Eorona. Jurupa Riverside Moreno Valley Mead Valley Lake Elsinore Perris ,. Menifee Wildoma Temecula Calimesa San Jacinto Radec Aguanga Mountain Center Anza #RebootMyCommute Comment Engagement Western Riverside County Number of Comments 72+ 36 Q Agenda Item 9C APPENDIX C Desert Hot Springs Sky Valley Cathedral City Palm Desert Pinyon Pines La 4uinta 11. Indio Hills rl'ndio =i•I.1111 #RebootMyCommute Comment Engagement Eastern Riverside County Coachella Chiriaoo Summit Number of Comments 72+ 36 0 Agenda Item 9C Attachment: Appendix D — All Comments Sorted by Geographical Area (Posted on the Commission Website) Agenda Item 9C APPENDIX D ZIP City 92234 Cathedral City Comments - Coachella Valley Understand and work with you on neighborhood & public transit. I am a retired transit official from Portland, Oregon. I was the Director of Operations for bus and rail. Perhaps I can offer help and insight on any issues you may have from and ADA perspective. 92234 Cathedral City We still have no real public transit to get people to get people. Money goes to the South side --what about the north side? 92234 Cathedral City VA doesn't provide sufficient transportation to caller's doctor. What options does he have for transportation to doctor for veterans? 92234 Cathedral City Oh good! Another moneypit. 92236 Coachella Transit riders in Coachella need a bench, shade, and lighting. There are new routes but no shade and no seats. The City should have a main stop with misters. Transit connectivity has gotten better. 92240 Desert Hot Springs make palm springs repair conditions that aggravate flooding on gene autry east of the 10 fwy and indian cyn north and south into desert hot springs when there is disastrous flooding due to rain overrun onto passage ways. 92241 Desert Hot Springs Why don't we have commuter rail traffic to all points west --we have a rail line why don't we use it? 92241 Desert Hot Springs A portion of Thousand Palms Canyon Rd near the Coachella Valley Preserve has been widen that includes bike lanes and a new layer of asphalt. This should be the standard for this entire short but important North/South route. It's heavily traveled and fed on the north by Dillon Rd and on the south by Ramon/ Washington Street. I'm hoping that the Thousand Palm Canyon Road could be improved to the level that stretches a mile or so before and after the entrance to the Preserve. This would drastically improve safety for bikes traffic, pedestrians and cars. Any chance? 92241 Desert Hot Springs worst road is VARNER Road at the end of Mountain View and Date Palm in Coachella Valley - declined email address 92240 Desert Hot Springs CAN SHE CALL THIS # TO FIND OUT ROAD CLOSURES? 92203 Indio Find an easier way to get to Cal State San Bernardino and UCR. 92201 Indio How about having a beach train during the summer starting in Indio? Page 1 92203 Indio I am in support of rail/train transportation from Indio to Los Angeles, with a possible stop in the Long Beach area. I remember as a child riding the train from Indio to Yuma, AZ and when I moved to Indio two years ago, I was sadden to see there were no more passenger trains leaving from Indio going toward AZ or Los Angeles. I believe many residents of the Coachella Valley would use the train for areas outside of the valley. 92201 Indio I have been reading about a passenger train coming to our valley for many years now. Economically, environmentally, and personally this needs to happen. Please don't drop the ball on this, get it done. Thank You! 92201 I Indio r 92203 Indio Van Buren and 48th road is a mess. Divet in the road. Put a light at 49th and Van Buren but four-way stop at 48th. Indio or Coachella? Just before Dylan. wondering if there will be more bus transportation in Indio --no Sun Line transportation here but there should be. 1 92201 Indio Suggestion: Worked for Greyhound for a long time. Says many people were coming to Indio/Palm Springs via Greyhound bus. Suggests increased transit to this area. Says they would fill a bus every hour or t 92201 Indio Suggestion: Amtrak platform in Indio or Palm Desert. Concerned that a platform in Indio would be congested, in Palm Desert concerns about land use. 92203 Indio On highways there are not four-way stops. On state highways four-way stops should be allowed, especially in agricultural areas. Saw a fatal accident over the weekend in Blythe. 92201 Indio heavy traffic on Jackson and Avenue 50--will there be new signals? 92201 Indio Dillon Road between Landfill Rd and Berdoo Canyon Rd has numerous large potholes causing traffic issues. 92201 Indio Bicycle shops in Riverside are for middle class people because the prices are too high and poor people just don't bother going to a bicycle shop. If you provide a place where the poor can get their bicycles repaired and maintain then they would be more people riding their bicycles. Page 2 N/A Indio I am one of thousands of seniors that are retired and living in Indio and other areas of the Coachella Valley. Our children and grandchildren live in and around LA. We miss public transportation that we can rely upon to visit our families as well as attend the various cultural, theater and myriad of events in LA. Now, we have to drive 2-3 hours from the desert to LA. I live alone, and I do not feel comfortable driving all that way alone. I would love to participate in helping to get a train or reliable bus routes into LA. I want to be able to attend events and visit my children without the worry of having to stay overnight. My children do not have another bedroom for me and it is not comfortable for me on the couch. I would love to attend the theater and go back home. There are so many reasons to have public transportation into LA. Please let me know if you need me to help with this project. 92201 Indio the erection of a platform in Indio would be big boom to Train travel. A stop down ij Indio so much more accessible. Train travel outside commute in L.A., S.F. is near non existent out West. Do be able to go by Train further West that getting on freeway...YES!! 92203 Indio Improve public transportation for ALL citizens! 92201 Indio What's a good idea just do it 92203 Indio Let's build one like the train to nowhere! Spend billions and complete a tenth of it! 92201 Indio Spend the money on our roads not this crap 92203 Indio How about not letting drunk and crazy people on the sun bus. You have no idea how many times they had to stop the bus because someone peed or started a fight. 92253 I La Quinta L Commuter train from Coachella Valley to Riverside or San Bernardino N/A La Quinta Avenue 52 between Jefferson and Washington in La Quinta. Too many patches, pipe lays, etc. Do they have plans to repave the road completely? 92247 La Quinta I would like to see rail travel in and out of the Coachella. 92253 I La Quinta That would be Ubers, SunBus and Greyhound, or buy a scooter. 92253 La Quinta Oh no, Riverside County getting into this scam. No way, we will see perpetual property tax increases and assessments for another boondoggle. Build a CV link and don't let Indian Wells & Rancho Mirage skip out 192253 I La Quinta because their cities are dangerous for pedestrians. actual bike lanes Page 3 92211 Palm Desert 92260 I Palm Desert If you can waste millions of dollars on the "Benoit Booddoggle" you certainly do not need an additional tax. Just downgrade the CVLink by removing the street legal golf carts from the project, and let it be a simple bike path. Measure A funds were sold to the public as road building and repair funds, not a recreational project. A project that has consistently lied to the public. Palm Desert has said the CVLink will be on current city bike paths; none of these bike paths can/will support the width that would be required for for and aft lanes for bike, two directional lanes for pedestrians, and street legal golf cart lanes. Stop trying to scalp the voters so some unknown special interest can get rich We need more rail going to Riverside and Los Angeles. We already have the rail ROW. Let's put some passenger trains on those lines. 92260 Palm Desert Holiday traffic makes it impossible to get around. The I-10 gets backed up a lot during the holidays. We have a great public transit system, but it pollutes our air. We need 92260 Palm Desert more CNG buses. 92260 Palm Desert 1 1 Comuter Trains need dedicated rail. Trains need to stop at airports. 15s gong from 7 lanes at 91 to 3 lanes at el cerrito is to short of a distance for the lane reduction. Road Lanes and design under 15 at onterio and el cerrito not sufficient. 92260 Palm Desert It would be nice to have a light rail system to connect different parts of the region. A train to LA would also be great! 92260 Palm Desert My son needs a better option to get from the desert to LA. We need rail service here. 92260 Palm Desert Why does it take a long time for projects to move forward and be completed. We need to cut down the amount of time it takes for projects to be approved and completed! 92260 Palm Desert The region needs more public transportation that is seemless to use. One pass to access several modes would be great. 92260 Palm Desert 92260 Palm Desert The area needs more street lights for pedestrians. As i drive my car, it doesn't appear it's friendly to other modes of transportation. We need more trains to get around in the region. J 92260 Palm Desert We need light rail in the desert. Economically disadvantaged people have a hard time getting to medical appoints. It can take them up to 3 hours to travel on local buses. _92260 Palm Desert Traffic on the 10 is getting worse. 4 hours to LA from here is not good 92260 Palm Desert I am very resourceful and i use my smartphone to get around. Page 4 92260 Palm Desert Whatever you build must be able to support itself. We cannot have tax money go to waste. We need more HOV lanes for electric modes. More environmentally 92260 Palm Desert focused transportation options. 92260 Palm Desert 92260 I Palm Desert We need more ADA signs for pedestrians. Too many people drive fast and they don't look for people who are disabled. The Truck Lanes project appears to be interesting 92260 ' Palm Desert L— 1 You guys are doing a great job in California. The I-10 is getting more congested though 92211 Palm Desert STATE HAS DONE NOTHING TO WIDEN FWY, HWY 111 IS NICE BUT NARROW, 110 IS TOO NARROW, NEEDS MORE LANE, FROM MONTEREY TO INDO, MORE LANES. Frm Follow up --what is the environmental study looking for with regard to the Desert high speed rail project? 92211 Palm Desert Lives Sun City - Senior - Difficult to drive into the Valley to see families 92260 Palm Desert 92260 Palm Desert When do they paint the lines down the middle of the streets? The lines are hard to see right now would it be possible to get a platform in palm desert? Excited for the train. 92211 Palm Desert When is Palm Desert getting a train to LA? I like to be able to get to Los Angeles within less than 2 hours, by rail 92260 Palm Desert before I die. 1 A train, bus, ANYTHING from Coachella Valley to LA! Even LAX??? Every 92211 Palm Desert day???? PLEEAAASE!!!! After reading these comments, I still want a bus to LA or LAX!!! A bus to 92211 Palm Desert LAVIN So easy! Why not?!? Once again, a daily bus from Palm Springs (Desert?) to LA or LAX or both? 92211 Palm Desert What's so hard? A bus from Palm Spring to LA /LAX every day! What could be simpler? 92211 Palm Desert What could be easier? Comments, please? 92260 Palm Desert Use the Whitewater Channel as a bus route. 92260 Palm Desert A light rail system from Palm Springs to Coachella? Page 5 Please consider improving the bike lanes and sidewalks leading to the ONLY operational section of the CV link! It's unfortunate that there's a safe beautiful path for my children to ride their bikes and scooters, 92262 Palm Springs however, I don't have a safe method to ride there with them (EITHER END!!) nor a place to park my car if 1 somehow figure out how to shuttle all of our recreational vehicles over there! What a tease! Please consider allocating funds to get this costly project safely accessible for families!! 92264 Palm Springs Thanks to PS, CA city council member Lisa Middleton for the ad on YouTube. She got my attention and now I will get you newsletter :) F 92264 Palm Springs I would consider making serious changes to the 1-10 corridor at the Cabazon/Morongo casino corridor. The bottleneck that is created along this section during peak times has become worse and worse. 92262 Palm Springs Hello, I know about the commuter link between the Coachella Valley and Riverside. But there are many stops, and the drive time is a lot longer than by car. I am in favor tax dollars spent on expanded rail service to the Coachella Valley, like Metrolink or similar. I know that travel to LA via Amtrak is being explored, but think that commuter options to Riverside and San Bernardino would alleviate traffic on the 60 and I-10 as well. 92264 Palm Springs why is palm springs city council spending money on bike lanes that are not being used? even during the tour to palm springs the lanes were not used Why we cannot have more frequent local service through Amtrak? Needs 92264 Palm Springs to be some sort of commuter access to LA. 92262 Palm Springs We would find it very helpful to be able to take rail from Palm Springs to Los Angeles. 92262 Palm Springs Put a dedicated express bus lane just south of the 60 in Moreno Valley from the Badlands to UCR and businesses up Iowa in Riverside to Hunter Park metro station to lessen the crush through the 60/215 interchange. Provide parking at the east end. Alternatively, end the express bus at the Perris line stop in Moreno Valley. 1) An Amtrak Link to the city of Los Angeles from Palm Springs. This would alleviate some of the traffic in the area. 2) A reduction of the speed limit on Hwy. 111 as it winds through Palm Springs. We have had several 92262 Palm Springs accidents (people killed) due to the speed the vehicles are traveling. Perhaps monitoring speeds cars are traveling on the highway through the city and ask PS Police to ticket those using excessive speed through the city. Thank you Page 6 92264 Palm Springs I work for ENTRAVISION Corp. I would like to request a meeting with your team to help with your advertising campaign. Would you please forward this email to your marketing department? I greatly appreciate it. T 92262 Palm Springs L The Vista Chino portion of Hwy 111 is a HUGE problem during morning and evening commutes. At several intersections it is life -threatening to attempt to enter the roadway from the adjacent Neighborhoods. 92262 Palm Springs PALM SPRINGS 200 BLOCK OF ORCHID TREE LANE/ HAS A SPLIT FROM ONE END OF THE BLOCK TO THE OTHER, 1 INCH WIDE. AND COMING FROM HIS DRIVEWAY ALSO . 92262 Palm Springs The residents of the Baristo neighborhood and others desperately need at crosswalk at the intersection of E Arenas Rd and S Calle El Segundo in Palm Springs. Pedestrians traveling between two large residential developments and a church to the east of El Segundo and the downtown area must brave traffic speeding north and south on El Segundo, unimpeded by stop signs or traffic lights anywhere between E Taquitz Cyn Way and E Ramon Rd. There have been pedestrians hurt at this intersection before and it is simply a matter of time before someone is killed. Poor lighting at the intersection makes matters even worse at night, when many diners and bar patrons caravel from their parked cars on E Arenas across El Segundo toward downtown. Presently, the only alternative is to walk approximately 1/8th of a mile north to Taquitz in order to cross El Segundo. Please help before someone is hurt or killed. 92264 Palm Springs Have scheduled express bus service between Palm Springs and downtown Riverside seven days a week to connect to Metrolink trains to /from LA Union Station. Thank you for the update, however - this is nowhere near what we need! "...rail platform in Indio to serve special event trains to the Coachella Music and Arts Festival and Stagecoach Music Festival" -- is only a "drop in the N/A Palm Springs bucket". What we need is frequently, daily service to/from Palm Springs. Trains need to run between Los Angeles and Palm Springs daily, not just to Indio. Palm Springs is one of the top California destinations, and needs reliable passenger train service. Thank you. 92264 Palm Springs I would like to commute from Palm Springs to LA via bus or (preferably) train service. The Flixbus service is good - cheap and fast, but the scheduled PS -LA routes aren't frequent enough. Ideally there would be a commuter train from PS to Union Station, LA with several options for travel times. [N/A tPalm Springs Regular commuter trains from Palm Springs to LA Union Station. L9_2262 1Palm Springs Have the bus run all day and all night Page 7 92262 92262 N/A 92270 92270 92276 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Palm Springs Palm Springs Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Rancho Mirage Thousand Palms N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Have sunline operate 24 hours some residents of the Coachella valley work crazy hours Please consider improving the bike lanes and sidewalks leading to the ONLY operational section of the CV link! It's unfortunate that there's a safe beautiful path for my children to ride their bikes and scooters, however, I don't have a safe method to ride there with them (EITHER END!!) nor a place to park my car if I somehow figure out how to shuttle all of our recreational vehicles over there! What a tease! Please consider allocating funds to get this costly project safely accessible for families!! #rebootmycommute We need a monorail from the city of Palm Springs to the city of Coachella. That would take so many cars off the road. #RebootMyCommute I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOT MORE CHARGING STATIONS FOR ELECTRIC CARS, PLEASE, AND THANK YOU Are you thinking about getting a commuter train to Los Angeles? 1. Enforce truck lane on 60. Far too many trucks ignore the sign, pass a slower vehicle,and slowdown the left lane. 2.Do what the San Francisco Bay Area did - engage ALL transportation companies in solutions and make travel throughout absolutely seamless. No need for different passes - just one pass covers all. In regards to public transit to LA, what are other options do we have. Can we use buses like they do on the east coast? Or vans. This is conditioning and social engineering of the residents of Riverside County for Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a global plan to yield your life off of ownership of private vehicles and herd you onto their controlled public transit system. They want total control over your life. Agenda 21 calls for the end of meat eating, air conditioning, appliances, single family homes, and private cars. Agenda 21 is in every municipal building department and now they're coming for your freedom of movement. RCTC wants you confined to a small city sized zone reliant on public transportation that they track, monitor, and operate. Look up Agenda 21/agenda 2030, it's all in there. Daily train operation from Indio to LA!!! RCTC has been studying such a line for 26 years! Hurry up already! A train from Coachella valley to Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas Nothing from SunLine Transit Zero Emissions Buses77777 CV Link! Page 8 N/A N/A I love the CV Li nk! V J N/A N/A Last year I was wheel chair bound for 10 months. Could not walk or drive a car. A social worker from my insurance company was instrumental in getting me a Sun Bus pass. The bus comes to my driveway. But how am I going to get from my house to the end of the drive way. A round trip to the library 3 miles from my home involved 4 hours. The bus does not work for same day Dr. Appt s. The rules and regulations for safety are tightly regulated, the wheel chair has to be strapped down, blah, blah. Needs lots of improvements. N/A N/A Enclosed stations i waited 2 hours in freezing cold waiting at metrolink dtstion riverside N/A I N/A Look if they can do it for Palmdale and Lancaster why not Coachella Valley. I for one would enjoy having this ability. N/A N/A Theve been working on extending the metro link out here for more than a decade. I used to love taking the train all over the greater LA area and have wished I could hop on a train to LA with a movie on my phone over driving in traffic. If only there we N/A N/A I We need train service here in the Coachella Valley N/A N/A This valley can't even build a bike path N/A N/A Ma'am have you given any thought at all to who really commutes by train??? A BIKE path makes more sense N/A N/A Perhaps tax incentives for driving services to use wheelchair accessible vehicles, or even a deduction for purchasing one of the all access vans or otherwise incentives for using those type of vehicles? #rebootmycommute N/A N/A Get rid of the meth heads and homeless at the bus stops N/A N/A Create a slow lane for seasonal visitors and sightseers. N/A N/A FINISH THE CV LINK! N/A N/A Fix Ramon Road nothing has been done in years.More new business same old roads.When there is an accident between El Cielo and Gene Autry dr. Camino Parocela takes all that traffic till the mess is cleaned up.And people still drive like they are on Ramon rd. N/A N/A train to LA N/A N/A Have all the bus stops covered so to keep as cool as possible. Keep them clean and marked easily for routes. Page 9 N/A I N/A What about a more efficient commute of some kind whether bus or train added from Coachella Valley to certain Pockets throughout Riverside CN/A _ N/A Sync the traffic lights 0 , enough infighting among the city council. N/A N/A Better bus system how is it possible that from la quinta cove to ramona and gene autry a total of 16 miles takes 3 hours 3 bus transfers on the bus it's ridiculous the whole bus system out here sucks N/A N/A The bus system is not very progressive. I just moved here from Texas. DFW has a user friendly app that allows you to purchase tickets via your phone and have a credit system. The app also will give a bus route similar to using GPS for your car. Finally it not only tells you where your bus/train is in real time but also notifies you when busses are having issues or running behind. I know its alot for a smaller older community. But perhaps you could take note of some of those possibilities. I would likely commute this way if the bus systems were just slightly better. N/A N/A Please add more stage 2 chademo electric car charging stations! Specifically one in desert hot springs. Desert hot springs is one of the only city halls that doesn't have one and California is one of the leaders in electric car sales and renewable energy N/A N/A Get rid of pretty medians that force people to make U turns. Promote Lyft and Uber services. N/A N/A I saw this in Europe and I'm not sure if the valley has this but there are scooter racks around where people are walking except it's filled with scooters. The person just puts in maybe a few quarters or dollars (I don't know cause I didn't use them) then they can use that scooter and they can return it to another scooter rack (doesn't have to be the same scooter rack) maybe this is a good idea N/A N/A The 1-10 Monroe bridge and others need to be expanded adding more lanes to free up traffic. N/A N/A Please get MetroLink train extension from San Bernadino to Palm Springs. This is a no brainer. This should exist. N/A N/A 100% renewable energy by 2022. No exceptions. Set the example for the rest of transportation around California. More insensitive for taking the bus or moving as a community, and design the valley with either large shaded areas, or for the love of God trees. Page 10 ZIP City Comments - Hemet/San Jacinto 92536 Aguanga Building more lanes will work for maybe 5 years. Bring us train service to SanDiego! 92539 Anza I Offer bus service to the Anza area. 92539 Anza I AM CALLING TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE AT EXTENTION 55222 REGARDING HIGHWAY 371 TRAFFIC. THERE WAS A BIG MEETING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS UP HERE WHERE I LIVE. I WANT TO TALK TO YOU AND GIVE YOU MY INPUT, SINCE I CANT BE AT THE MEETING AT THE TOWN HALL. GIVE ME A CALL, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE TO YOU . 92583 Gilman Hot Springs PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANOTHER NEW TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION, THERE ARE ALREADY 2 IN PLACE, 1 TO EXPIRE 2039 AND THE OTHER NEW CAR TAX WHICH WAS JUST IMPLEMENTED DUE TO EXPIRE IN 2025...STATE TRANSPORTAION SHOULD BE USING THESE TAX FUNDS FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AS INTENDED Gilman Hot 92583 Springs We have plenty of dedicated road space IF we double -deck it! I can't believe that would be an insurmountable engineering problem. Obviously, would have to be de -facto express lanes; doubt could put on/off ramps except at certain spots, but we have restricted access now, express lanes, etc. We have big fly-overs in a number of places where freeways cross, and they could be adapted! 92583 Gilman Hot Springs I'd like for the Metrolink to expand into the Hemet/San Jacinto area or have the Perris line run on weekends too. Gilman Hot 92583 Springs I found out about this website from a YouTube ad and wanted to communicate my concerns. I live off of State St just outside the city of San Jacinto. The condition of the road has been deteriorating for some time now and all it just gets potholes patched which has left the road surface bumpy and uneven. Semi trucks travel on this section of road and everytime it rains, chunks of asphalt become dislodged from the road bed and vehicle damaging potholes appear. I feel like this section of road has been ignored by the county since the road is in beautiful shape further north where the road goes by the Scientology compound. I would appreciate it if will you please resurface this section of road. 92543 Hemet Metrolink connecting Hemet/San Jacinto area to Perris. Metrolink to/from Hemet San Jacinto to Palm Springs. Increase frequency of bus routes in Hemet/San Jacinto Moreno Valley areas. More NON STOP or minimal stop commuter buses to and from Hemet San Jacinto. Freeway expansions into Hemet. More lanes on Ramona Expressway and Gilman Springs.' 92543 Hemet How about some real freeway access to Hemet and San Jacinto ?? Page 11 92544 92544 92544 92544 Hemet Hemet Hemet Hemet 92544 Hemet 92544 92544 92544 92544 92544 Hemet Hemet Hemet Hemet Hemet Ride the train if their was a station within 5 minutes of Hemet. Please make the road from Temecula to Palm Springs 4 lanes!!! Save lives!!! At least put those concrete barriers in temporarily. Use eminent domain and environmental impact exclusions. This is a huge safety issue! Attached are some screenshots from recent Facebook posts. Please look at the comments on Face Book and Instagram and reply. Other wise this is just another waste of time and taxpayers money. You can't fix what you can't acknowledge. Is there a way to become a part of the RCTC? I would like to do this as a volunteer. WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT WHEN ROUNDABOUTS WILL BE DONE IN THE WINE COUNTRY - TEMECULA AREA. WE NEED TO STOP PUTTING IN STOP LIGHTS AND USE RAOUNDABOUTS INSTEAD. Chuck, Juan, I have 3 questions regarding traffic projects in Riverside County. Is there any updates and progress on these projects. Both Line 1&2 have financially impacted by livelihood immensely. So wondering what is happening. 1. Realignment of Hwy 79 2. Center City Parkway going from Sanderson Ave in San Jacinto to 15 freeway in Corona 3. I have heard rumors of the Metrolink system expanding to Beaumont and then continuing into the desert area. Is this accurate. Thank you. notices that street repaving has been done in affluent but not in non - affluent areas --some streets are better maintained than others? Comment on number of stop lights and protected left turns on surface streets. Why is the county putting in so many stop lights and protected left turn on surface roads? Will Metrolink be expanding to Beaumont, Palm Springs, and all the way to Arizona? Can you time traffic lights on major routes so that cars get a green wave if they're going the speed limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_wave)? I take Domenigoni Parkway to MSJC and normally I hit more than half of the lights when they're red. Once I decided to time how long I spend idling with a stopwatch and found out that I spent a quarter of my commute that day idling at red lights. It seems like the traffic lights are set to make everyone on major routes wait for a few cars to turn on the road from side streets. It would be a lot better for fuel consumption and vehicle emissions to make a few cars wait for a lot of cars to pass through the intersection before they're allowed to go. Page 12 92544 Hemet No Thanks to high Speed Trains or under ground tunnels... Enough!! Here's a idea.., Drive 92544 THemet Nope, no new taxes... why would anyone want to let then take more when they cant manage what they currently get... 92544 Hemet No thank you!!! Hemet has no jobs cause the city gets money to take on the homeless and X cons!! No thank you to that either. Our valley has gone to shit.. Our Major is obsolete!!!! Who is it?? Bonnie Wright?? I hear people take turns..!! What does that tell you?! Never have I seen a Major of Hemet involved with the people..!! Small town.. for a obsoleteMajor. Honestly recently I had enough of dumping of homeless and x cons.. Talked with City "they get paroled here!!! Ruining our Valley!!! City Council.. Ha 92544 Hemet Fix the local roads first. They're horrible 92544 Hemet Major throufares like Domenigoni, Hwy 74 and 79 need to have signals aligned for traffic flow, not just more signals. New housing developments need to exit on to existing roads with signals, not just more signals. 92544 Hemet Remove homeless from around bus stops areas, where they camp out, sleep on the benches, customer's walk a distance to get there only to have to stand because there is no place to sit, some ask for money or threaten you,and younger one's gang up on you for your belongings,the list is long,we need safety again... 92544 Hemet Maybe don't use the transit system to bring in homeless drug addicts? 92544 Shut down Gilman springs till freeway is built from that exit on the 60 all Hemet the way to Ramona Express way and Sanderson Ave. 92545 Hemet Rail system from Temecula, Escondido to San Diego. Complete the Ethanac Rd. extension which connects Highway 74 in 92545 Hemet Homeland to Highway 74 in Lake Elsinore. Then add at least one lane in each direction to the road that connects to the Ortega Highway! 92545 Hemet The I-215 from Perris thru Moreno Valley needs more lanes. The northbound and southbound lanes are almost always jammed. I don't see any future projects planned on this freeway, but the cities keep approving more development that will create more traffic. The freeway needs to be expanded or development needs to slow down Thank you Page 13 92545 Hemet 1. Fix the horrendous traffic on Hwy 60 and Hwy 215 between Mission Blvd. and Cactus Avenue. Afternoon commutes are stop and go along the whole route going west to east. Weekend backups occur at t he 60/215 interchange in both directions but particularly in the west to east direction. Morning commutes between Eastridge/Eucalyptus and Market Street are stop and go as well. Additional lanes should be added along the whole route. 2. The addition of millions of square feet of warehouse space all along the north/south Hwy 215 between Nuevo Road and Cactus Avenue are having a detrimental impact to traffic. Additional lanes in both directions should be added. 3. The Mid -County Expressway should be expedited. This will provide safer alternatives to traffic to and from the San Jacinto Valley in addition to alleviating traffic on Hwy 74 to and from Hwy 215. 4. The realignment of Hwy 79 from Gilman Springs to Domenigoni Pkwy should be expedited. The traffic in both directions with the existing paths of travel are horrendous. The addition of thousands of houses along Domenigoni and Winchester Road, going towards Menifee will create significant traffic. 5. Offer more alternatives to the hours for rail travel to and from the Perris rail station to and from the Downtown Riverside rail station. The current hours are too limiting. 6. I would support an increase to the transportation tax in the range of .5 cents to 1.0 cents in order to prioritize and expedite much needed traffic improvements to the inland region. 92545 Hemet 1-15 N and I-15 S Express Carpool lanes from French Valley to Escondido. Also 1-215 N and 1-215 S express carpool lanes at Newport Ave to Winchester. There are a lot of North Riverside projects but the south is being left out. We deserve equal attention. 92545 F Hemet T How about late night runs? 92545 Hemet Ask Code violations to read their emails or answer the messages left on there voice mail.... If my neighbors huge dead tree ( 3 years) catches on fire, MY house & the mobile homes in sierra Dawn are all going to go up !mil 730 Augusta street HEMET ca ! traffic signals on Ramona expressway as well as Gilman springs road ull1111111 NO PASSING mu 92545 NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT! Get Ca!trans to give up their ill- conceived, illogical and DANGEROUS plan for a raised median on Florida! Residents don't want it, businesses don't want it, city council doesn't want it and first responders hate the idea because it will cause huge delays in Hemet response times. If they really want to build a median, do it on Gilman Springs road where there are way too many head-on fatalities caused by illegal passing. If not a median, then either widen it or install some kind of barrier to prevent passing on hills and curves. Serious enforcement wouldn't hurt, either. Page 14 92545 Hemet Work in tadem with Caltrans and Orange County in establishing 74 East from Lake Elsinore to San Juan Capistrano as a toll road. !92549 Idyllwild Thank you for Commissioner for coming to Idyllwild. 92549 Idyllwild 92549 Idyllwild Caller has disabilities and was snowed in. Why did Caltrans not plow her road in Idyllwild? She was recently trapped in her home. What agency should she call to get relief? Put left turn arrows on all stop lights on Florida. J 92582 Hemet/San Jacinto L92582 92582 I would like to see Gilman Springs Road a safer road to travel by widening both sides with 4 lanes. It is a heavily used road and impacts many people's daily commute. Hemet/San Get rid of HOV lanes. Get rid toll lanes. Widen gilman springs road at least to 2 lanes each direction. Add lanes to every fwy. Build for the future Jacinto population not the past. Hemet/San Jacinto We need better inspectors for road repairs the work is horrible and they pass it who is getting paid beside the contractors. You know that answer Hemet & San Jacinto official are horrible I won't even say anything about the mayors 92583 Hemet/San It is about time that our City leaders drive around town like San Jacinto Jacinto and look the overgrown trees and junk on our streets. 92580 I N/A More stop more light N/A N/A Create a "busway" at least in high traffic areas. A road just for the buses to be on. N/A N/A Yes its about time N/A N/A Yes bring the Trains back to Hemet San Jacinto valley! N/A N/A Bring back the 212 Comuterlink bus N/A N/A How about fix the roads N/A N/A Drill a tunnel under Ortega highway N/A N/A Add commute vehicles to fire stations where people could call a special number for transport. N/A N/A So hard to say. People travel to OC, Palm Desert areas, Riverside, San Diego, yet getting to a hub locally no where to start. N/A N/A Put homeless to work in public utilities Page 15 N/A N/A Some of the roads have been fixed but the company's did a bad job so next time get a good company they will stand up for there work N/A Make people slow down and stop people from running the traffic signals at N/A high speed. Not safe out there as so many run the lights. Most homeless aren't going to work. N/A N/A First replace the public don't workers with real public workers. We all know that they spend more time and money taking about doing than doing. Clean up the streets. I have seen trees growing out of the gutters and drainage basins. They patch a hole and can't see or don't care about the one next to it. Why is it that the road in front of The Scientology compound is almost perfect, compared to the same road before and after it that looks like the craters on the moon. What is the point of landscaping the middle of the road if you can't drive on it safely. We pay for street sweepers that just move the debris around. Hard to sweep at the speed they drive. Citizens that use public transportation should not need to worry their safety at a bus stop as others use them as a bed,toilet and other things I will not mention. Maybe I just old school I grew up understanding that you only crossed the street at a crosswalk unlike those that cross on Florida in Hemet. Also what is the purpose of the installation of new and replacing ADA ramps that go to nothing just dirt? It's almost impossible for someone in a wheelchair to maneuver in dirt and rocks. If you need someone to implement any of the above I would be more than willing. Widen Warren Rd from Florida to Ramona Expressway to 2 lanes in each N/A N/A direction with turn lanes, left and right, at Esplanade and W. Devonshire. Repair or repave Florida from Winchester to Sanderson N/A N/A N/A Start by Fixing traffic signals so they don't stop 15-50 vehicles to let 1 or 2 go. N/A ... Widen the roads!! J N/A N/A Repaint the white lines from 215 fwy to San Jacinto. Last night could not tell which lane I was in. N/A T N/A Improve the roads and freeways just like roads and freeways going to Temecula. Also add traffic signal lights. N/A N/A Reinstate school buses! The traffic from parents taking and picking up their kids is insane and you could keep 30+ cars off the roads per bus load. Do the math for the two districts. By eliminating unnecessary vehicles you should eliminate A LOT of wear and tear on our already destroyed roads. Page 16 N/A N/A I would settle for repaving of 90% of the roads... they're like minefields N/A N/A N/A Fix and resurface all the streets in the city and county limits. They are very dangerous. Pick up the trash and debris. N/A More Police Presence 1 N/A N/A Fix are city streets. Rurals, and major. N/A N/A Don't put a median down the middle of Florida in Hemet! N/A N/A Need a freeway from Hemet to the 215, because it takes 25 minutes to get to the 215 from Hemet. Maybe another freeway on from State Street heading to San Diego and San Clemente or cutting over to San Juan Capistrano. N/A N/A Carpool lanes from San Diego County line through Riverside..15 and 215 N/A N/A Teach people how to drive and ticket ALL JAY walkers IN HEMET.. N/A N/A Remove all the illegals in the state of California. Get them and theirs cars out of here. Remove arbitrary speed limits on the interstates. Same speed for cars and trucks. Put an immediate halt to the UN AGENDA'S 21, 30 and 50. Eliminate all HOV lanes. There purpose is to reduce the number of cars by car pooling 2 or more drivers per car to use the lane, well a soccer mom her her 4 kids are using the lane. Stop trying to force people out of their cars. We don't accept unelected officials determining our driving fate and we hold elected officials accountable! Get your act together! N/A N/A Have the traffic engineer set the signal light controllers for the time of day when traffic direction is the heaviest. Beaumont ave north south takes too long to cycle plus many other intersections are the same way N/A N/A We seem to have all these train tracks that go nowhere. We have freeways that take 30 minutes to get there. N/A N/A I visited Netherlands last year. At all the neighborhoods they have buses passing by every 15 min. And the buses all went to one central hub & then you could take the train/bus to you next destination. Europe figured out public transportation. Everyone takes the buses. I loved it N/A N/A I would like a tunnel through Mt. San Jacinto into Palm Springs. N/A N/A Start with infrastructure fix what we have than expand and modernize the entrances/exits to the valley I'd say start in Beaumont the congestion in the am and pm commute is awful it's nice to see Dartmouth finally being repaved,also in valle vista passed Ramona expressway is so poorly lit I don't know how more people aren't hit jaywalking a d Page 17 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A First, improve the roads (repave). And secondly, have law enforcement that enforce traffic violations. The drivers in Hemet know they will not get a ticket and drive recklessly. We have an idiot who drives like he is doing movie stunts, all up and down Columbia Street leaving skid marks all over the pavement. Local law enforcement will NOT do anything about it. Does it take someone getting killed? Columbia St has an elementary school with bunches of children walking to school. Amtrak/metrolonk One thing I'd love to see is the hey 74 to Hemet repaved completely, makes the town look like hell Add a train station in hemet and a road way out of town that doesn't have a ton of traffic lights Maybe start by fixing the roads. Every major street in town has pot holes. Use the ridicules gas tax money the idiots voted in and fix the roads properly. Not just tossing cheap tar into pot holes to be be washed away in the next rain storm. Also widen Gilman Springs! There is way to much traffic on that road for 2 lanes. I know every time I get on that road, I'm stuck about 8 cars deep behind someone that is to stupid to get out of the way and let people pass. Thus the reason for so many accidents on Gilman Springs. Fix all the dips in hemet. Oil pans are expensive ZIP City Comments - 1-215 Corridor 92570 92584 Mead Valley Menifee I would open up back roads and build back roads between the various cities of our county. I used to live in New York (upstate), Indiana, Colorado, and more, and all these states have more ways to get between cities than the interstates. They have county roads, back roads, they even have county roads that run alongside the interstate to allow for people to go slower and people without vehicles to more easily traverse because you cannot bike or walk on the interstate. Personally I would build more county roads between cities to allow for people to use county roads instead of the interstates. I sit in traffic on the 15 daily during my commute home from San Diego. I leave the heart of San Diego at 3:30 and often times do not arrive home until after 5:30 if I leave after 4 I'm not home until well over 6 pm sometimes even 7 pm. With less traffic I would be able to get home sooner, prepare dinner for my family and spend more time with my kids. Page 18 92584 Menifee I commute from Menifee at Newport and Menifee Rd to my work in riverside at the intersection of van Buren and Arlington. It's about 43 minutes to and a little over an hour home. I worked 1st shift and was considering the train. Nope it doesn't run the hours I need it to run to be at work by 6:30am and I would have had to wait around until almost I believe 5PM to catch a train home. That is just the train, that doesn't even get me to the train station. That is a headache and a half. I could get on a bicycle and ride on unlighted two lane roads in Menifee to get to the train station in Perris, or try to navigate the multiple buses and I dont believe they were running that early. Now I work 3rd shift 11:30PM to 6:30AM and there is basically no public transportation available. So it seems to be the county has made public transportation available to people who don't need it for work, as my shift is pretty typical of a blue collar job. Which this unavailability has caused the people who do use the public buses to be quite frequently homeless perverts who sit at the back of the bus and play with their dick and jerk off. A friend of mine tried to use the bus to commute to Pechanga from the same neighborhood I live in and it took him 4 hours and multiple bus changes. The buses didn't run later at night so he got to work 2 hours early, He had to leave 6 hours early to get to work, and a dude was in the back of the bus playing with himself. Anyways this is my rant. It seems to me the public transportation system is a waste of money and taking valuable money from roadways. (continued) Today I was driving my new car and a chunk flipped up out of a pot hole and gouged the bumper on my $80,000 Lexus. So now I get to fork out probably $1500 to get it fixed. Again money out of my pocket, along with all the tax dollars for the useless public transport system, am I going to get anything for my damage? No. It just seems to me like it's totally mismanaged at a horrific cost to all of us. 92584 Menifee Winchester road at Temecula is garbage. Fix it now. 92584 Menifee I carpool from Menifee to Lakeside, 140 miles round-trip. What we would like to see is the carpool lanes continue all the way up, to at least the 15 / 215 Split. We can usually make the check point in an hour, on our way home. But from there to our exit (Scott) is another hour. Also on ramp metering lights on the Winchester on ramp, 215 North bound. This is another issue with coming home after work, during the weekdays. Without these lights it's just a free for all trying to merge on to the freeway. Page 19 92584 Menifee All the major interchanges are jammed all day now. I commute and drive a truck in the southern California and I see it all over. Why not really connect the development projects to get along with the road capacity? Like why is the 215 North at the 60 West interchange so busy? You have 3 lanes going North that jam in to 3 or 4 lanes going West. It takes me 1.5 hours to go 30 miles to work. Not to mention the roads are crumbling. With all the new taxes could we at least get the roads and traffic fixed? If not tell L me why!!! 92584 I Menifee 92584 92584 Build changeable direction Lanes in center median on the I-15 from Rainbow to the I-15/1-215 merge in Murrieta. HIGHWAY PATROL NEEDS TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE BIG Menifee RIGS CAUSING TRAFFIC DELAYS AND ACCIDENTS ON THE 60 FREEWAY Menifee There are few to non bike lines in menifee city and all the time there are reports of accidents involving bicyclists IF- 92584 Menifee Please don't turn Riverside into a socialist hell hole. Stop focusing on providing services. Allow people to work for what they need and have. If everything is always focused in the handout we will never change. 1 92584 Menifee Biuld the freeway and more roads idiota 92586 Menifee he lives in Menifee, Metrolink trains look empty off of the 215. Is public transit really feasible? Just a comment. 92586 Menifee Impose compulsory population reduction. All non -natives out. Prohibit real estate developers from making contributions of any kind to politicians, municipal and county. There is no other way. If these solutions are not carried out then no complaints are permitted as Menifee, Hemet, and San Jacinto murder the land and the population skyrockets. Page 20 92587 Menifee 115/1215 Mess in Temecula & Murrieta, CA. These are the issues as I see them, I commute through this often as do many others. The 15 northbound onramps to the freeway from Rancho California, and Winchester are WAY too short. Cars don't have enough time to build enough speed to merge with the freeway at speed limits. This causes everyone to slow down and it just escalates after that. Same with the southbound 15 exits. Once that slowdown starts, everyone starts slowing down to look and we're screwed. Combine that with immediate need for cars entering the freeway from Winchester to move over to go on the 15N and cars already on the 15 trying to get over for the 215, it's just a mess. The 15N Winchester on ramp, on westbound Winchester, specifically needs to be addressed most. I'm no engineer but here's what I would do to fix... 1. Make a separate 1-15 North on ramp in the middle of the freeway, similar to the express lane on ramps in Rancho Bernardo in SD County. Cone it or KRail it off so cars can't fly over to the 215 on ramp. 2. Leave the Northbound on -ramp on eastbound Winchester but lengthen the time cars have to merge. 3. Close the current 15N on -ramp on westbound Winchester 4. Create a new on ramp somewhere just north of Winchester off Ynez road that is ONLY For people taking the 215 north. (continued) 5. Lastly, use the middle space of the current freeway (or raised like the 5 in OC) to build REAL express lanes from the checkpoint to Murrieta Hot Springs on the 15. Make these for THROUGH TRAFFIC ONLY. No exits for Temecula & Murrieta. And make them free. This will DRASTICALLY help local commuters. Since most people are "passing through" as said in the video pitch to the federal government, give them a way to pass through and be separated from the local commuters. That's all, best of luck to everyone trying to plan this and get it pushed through government. 92587 Menifee potholes 92587 Menifee Add lanes to 15 in Temecula SD co line to 215 NOT toll! Monorail using the 15 and 215 caltrans right of ways already in use .. an elevated monorail train right down the center of the fwy. Build it in 92596 Menifee sections off site and assemble as you go , like a pipeline for knows you can build a freakin' pipeline that spans thousands of miles overhill and dale. WHY NOT A MOMORAIL? N/A Menifee Make the commute to San Diego better. Either by expanding the lanes or making the service that goes to Oceanside reach all the way to San Diego. Page 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 92551 92551 Menifee Menifee Menifee Menifee Menifee Menifee Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Please look into how we can combat traffic in the future in the Menifee area. More people are starting to move out to Menifee and surrounding areas and the traffic problem will become worse so look into how we can improve before it happens Please provide weekend service for the Perris Metrolink line. Metrolink should look into getting ride of way because it makes the train take much longer than it actually should because the freight trains take a really long time to pass. When a freight train breaks riders are forced to wait on the train until they are able to fix it making a 1 hour ride into 3 hour rides. On the Metrolink always have a back up. For example if a freight train breaks down we are stuck there for hours, instead make sure you can get the passengers to their destination in a reasonable amount of time. Make hours on Metrolink more convinent, most people that ride it commute to LA yet the earliest it starts running is 8AM in Perris stations and most people need to leave much earlier. Time the buses with the Metrolink , because as a bus is approaching the station the train is already leaving or vice versa. There is too much traffic between the 15 right where Hot Springs is all the way to Red Hawk. The speed limit is supposed to be 65 but we are all going 45. Create more lanes or do something to reduce traffic. If possible make construction go faster, by the time something gets done traffic has already increased from the time construction started. Also build a station a Menifee. Have more availability in terms of more hours and stops in Metrolink. Add a Metrolink station in Menifee and Lake Elsinore. What are you doing about dial a ride for senior citizens in the county? Or other transportation for people needing to go to grocery store weekend. MOST STUDENTS SENIORS AND STUDENTS HAVE PACKS OR CARTS TO GET THEIR STUFF AROUND,MANY HAVE DISABILITYS BUT HAVE BEEN GIVEN A HARD TIME TRYING TO GET A CART UNBOARD AND ITS HARD ON THOSE TO TAKE EVERYTHING OUTV AND FOLD THEM DOWN,PLEASE MAKE A RAMP FOR THOSE WITH CARTS AND EXCESS THEY CANT NORMALLY HOLD OR CARRY,TY. Page 22 92553 I THINK A DOUBLE DECKER HIGHWAY THROUGH MORENO VALLEY Moreno INTO ORANGE COUNTY WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE Valley TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION. KIND OF LIKE THE DOUBLE DECKER FREEWAYS THEY HAVE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. 92553 Moreno Valley 92553 Moreno Valley 92554 I Moreno Valley what can we do to increase pedestrian safety? People drive fast and unsafely. Buses need to run on time and more in between. I have seen many times one bus be right behind the other on the same route leaving many people to wait for later buses. The waits for buses makes it such an inconvenient form of transportation and do not always take one to centralized areas such as some government offices. Bike Lanes need to have physical barriers to ensure the safety and uninterrupted access to cycling. Many times I have seen police or trash bins blocking the path. There needs to be a bike highway that makes it easy to move through cities without the risk of running into cars. And that makes it convenient nto bike. Commuters from Moreno Valley and Riverside could be removed form the road with a reliable road interconnecting vital areas like Downtown, our multiple universities and shopping centers with groecry stores. Regarding the police officer question, why does it seem there are no officers on the freeway or streets II- 92555 L Tent -like structures should be placed over the freeway in heavily Moreno residential areas to minimize the negative effects of pollution caused by so Valley much traffic. The tents would serve as a sort of filter for the fumes released from car exhausts 92555 Moreno Valley Every day, I commute from eastern Moreno Valley to Corona. RCTC should get rid of the carpool lane on the 60 West in Moreno Valley, until at least one lane can be added that is dedicated for general, non -truck traffic. With just 3 lanes, the only non -carpool lanes are also truck lanes, because trucks legally can use the right 2 lanes. The 215 South from Moreno Valley to Murrieta, which also has just 3 lanes, has no carpool lane; why does the 60 in Moreno Valley need one? It leads to more movement back and forth from people avoiding trucks, which increases the likelihood of accidents. And there certainly are many accidents on that part of the freeway! That is why, during rush hour, I see many drivers cheating by using the carpool lane with no passengers in their vehicles. They'd rather take their chances getting a ticket than being trapped behind a slow - moving semi. Page 23 92555 92555 92555 92555 92555 92555 92555 Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Reopen The Pigeon Pass Rd backside dirt road that used to connect (and maybe still does) to the north-eastern newer section of Riverside where new houses and warehouses are. This road served residents reliabily as an alternate route when the 60 and it frontage roads were all shut down. Then a few years back ti was closed with a promise to reopen it after a year. Well over 10 years plus later it still is closed!!! what gives???? Pertaining to congestion on freeways, the 60 and 91 Interchange. Question is about this interchange. Ban trucks by weight or axle limit on Redlands Blvd. from Locust Ave. to San Timoteo Canyon Rd. in Moreno Valley. Ban trucks by weight or axle limit on San Timoteo Canyon Rd. in Riverside county. Trucks going to dump can use San Timoteo Canyon Rd. in San Bernardino county. This is a heavily used route during rush hours as a freeway alternative with much congestion. Trucks are also using this as an alternative to the freeway. 1. Put time on when trucks can travel on the roads, not during peek hours. 2. Let Disable Plates use the diamond lane and toll as Motor Cycles do. 3. Cities that have more companies with trucks should provide funds to lessen the traffic jams. 4. Trucks should only use the outside lane (4) when they pass they cause a back up to low profile cars. 5. Caltrans and emergency vehicles need be a lot time to get to accident, better planning on how they can get to the break down asap. Scene there delay cause they not scent to a road that been closed, yet had go with traffic, then stuck in traffic, they could gone reverse way as road was closed as lanes was closed. Light rail to Connect Moreno Valley warehouses to the heavy rail stations. Light rail to connect downtown riverside to Moreno Valley . Light rail that all the way up the 15. Essentially light rail I would like to see exclusive lanes for express commuter bus shuttles on the freeways with stops at major crossings with connection to other buses, parking lots, and/or electric bikes and electric scooters so users can get to their ultimate destination. Another idea would be some type of light rail or monorail along the freeway median similar to the BART in the Bay Area and instead of the dedicated lanes for express shuttle buses, but this could be a more expensive project. F Fix the dam roads. Page 24 92555 Moreno Valley Reset the traffic lights to allow traffic to move onto and off of the freeway and not bottle neck because the traffic lights are not in the same rythem as the surface streets. They are not set to allow traffic to flow efficiently. One only has to reset the traffic lights starting at one end of Moreno Valley and work all the way to the other end. North to South and East to West alternating every other street to allow traffic to flow smoothly and efficiently. In Menifee the traffic signs are so slow 30 miles on 4 lane streets to allow for golf carts. They should have golf cart lanes and up the speed limits to normal speeds. They also could reset their traffic lights coming off of the Freeway ie MaCall it is always congested there. In Perris the traffic lights need to be reset near the shopping centers to pace the vehicles to make the intersections safer for pedestrians and motorists. The traffic needs to move in shorter incriments people start texting at longer lights and get so involved that when the lights finally change they drive to fast to catch up to the car in front of them causing a dangerous situation. One can watch the traffic and see that the rythem of each of these citys can be changed for the better by changing the settings of the traffic lights. r � Please finish the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange 92557 Moreno County. The SART is a longawaited feature for commuters and Valley recreational riders all through the Inland Empire and Southern California. Thank you! I 92557 Moreno Valley This would be wonderful to have antelope and Coachella rail link pass . Please make it happen Page 25 92557 Moreno Valley I have three solutions to easing the commute into and out of Moreno Valley. First, I am begging the cities of Moreno Valley, Riverside (Highgrove) and Grand Terrace to re -open Pigeon Pass and connect the two counties as they once were. The commute through Reche Canyon is always backed up in the afternoon and evening hours with traffic coming southbound out of Colton, Loma Linda, and San Bernardino, and and is equally slow crawling out of Moreno Valley in the mornings. It is also quite dangerous to the life and property of drivers and passengers when large animals (burros and coyotes) are frequently struck, resulting in additional cost to the county agencies responsible for services such as police, fire, paramedics, animal control, etc. Re -opening Pigeon Pass would clear thousands, of cars from Reche Canyon. The second suggestion deals with those drivers traveling San Timeteo Canyon into and out of Redlands. The road is heavily congested and the flow managed by stop signs, when traffic lights would be more efficient and alleviate long delays. It seems simple enough to equip the intersections which are already posted with signage, with traffic lights instead. Finally, re -opening the connector road at Watkins Dr. and Poarch Rd./Gernert Rd./Morton Rd. would allow drivers to bypass waiting to enter the freeway at Box Springs Rd/Fair Isle Dr. and instead enter from Watkins Dr./Central Ave. or continue their commute behind UCR. The road was closed to through traffic out of concern for the railroad but access is granted to emergency service vehicles, so the road could be re -opened fairly easily. (continued) Any or all of these suggestions could be taken up by the city, county, and state agencies at the benefit of the environment, the economy, and the public. These are my three ideas for easing traffic and speeding commute times for drivers. 92557 Moreno are there any plans for improving the 60 and the 215? Building more Valley apartments which will make it worse. 92557 Moreno Valley Roads going to the 60 are not in good condition. Potholes are quite large. When will these be fixed? 92557 Moreno Valley What are the plans for new residential development? Is there a plan for the new construction? Is there a way to accommodate more traffic? 92557 Moreno Valley RTA drivers should be more nicer with disable people. Patients on dialysis sometimes they have troubles after treatment and if they are not out the door within 5 minutes when they arrive they will leave them and they're so rude with them. They have to call back and they won't get another bus until 1 or 2 hours if they are lucky 9 Page 26 92557 N/A N/A 92567 !92570 92570 �2570 92570 92570 192570 92570 92570 92570 92570 Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Moreno Valley Nuevo Perris Perris Perris Perris Perris Perris Perris Perris Perris Perris Demand the road funding that sacramento diverted. Bureaucrats want public transportation more than the public does. Finish the Santa Ana river trail that we the voters approved money for in 2005 We pay for fast track and it stops in riverside I live in mo valley where help for us, the 215 and 60, 60 and 91 where all being Robbed Finish the 215 project, in particular the last phase, which is "north". This adds a carpool lane between Nuevo road and the 60 interchange. Traffic and congestion both ways are very bad during peak commute times. Fix the roads so there can be less traffic. I think it would be awesome if metro link would provide free days for families on weekends for families who otherwise would find it a financial hardship to visit new places. Less potholes Please finish the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange County. It is a "long-awaited" feature for commuters and recreational riders all through the Inland Empire and Southern California for that matter. Thank you! Please finish the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange County. It is a "long-awaited" feature for commuters and recreational riders all through the Inland Empire and Southern California for that matter. Thank you! I would like the Santa Ana River Trail to be completed from Riverside to Orange County Why is it so difficult for RCTC to maintain buses in rural areas that don't have sidewalks? Why are there issues on Cajalco road? Why have four lanes been built? Please DO NOT remove call boxes in areas that do not have cell phone service like Highway 74 in the Ortega Mountains. As it is, there are not enough of them. It's dangerous to have to walk along that highway at night to get help. Try riding on the system for a week or two to figure out what you don't like about it. Then expensive consultants with surveys wont be necessary. Page 27 92570 I Perris Lets all vote to finish the SART, connecting Riverside to the OC. There is never going to be enough lanes on the freeway but a lot of safe commuting and recreational riding can be enjoyed if the SART gets finished in our lifetime. Please vote to finish the SART (: 92571 Perris Increase the speed limit so people won't be worried about getting pull over and there would be less accident because people made it to there destination faster on the freeway. 92571 Perris Reduction in gas, street improvement and more accessible public transportation especially for students who don't qualify for school bussing. 92571 Perris Extend Van Buren to Harley Knox. It might require moving the bases boundaries a bit but would help with the morning and evening congestion. 92571 With so many warehouses being built on the eastside of the 215 in Perris, the onramps to the 215 is a major mess in the mornings and afternoons. Currently, cars and trucks have to come up an incline, stop at the signal, Perris then enter onto the ramp, to merge onto the 215 northbound. I suggest that at both Ramona Expy and Harley Knox, there should be a sweeping curved on ramp, to allow cars and trucks to enter at speed, instead of a dead stop. 92571 Perris Open Evan's road up . Complete the street so the is less traffic passing right through the street that is by sky view elm, and football where the are lots of kids. In the morning going towards perris Blvd off Nuevo it is very congested , making it difficult for get kids to school safety and that way traffic can have a continuous street from Moreno Valley .besides Perris Blvd which is too much traffic all over the city . LASSELLE TURNS ONTO EVANS BUT EVANS JUST STOPS AT NUEVO ? ? ? THE STREET LIGHTS ARE ALL THE FOR A ROAD BUT IT'S JUST DIRT. THR NEW ST JAMES CHURCH WILL HAVE ALOT OF TRAFFIC TRYING TO GET FROM WAY ACROSS TOWN NOW AND PEOPLE COULD AVOID PERRIS BLVD AND CUT THRU MAKING IT SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN. Also People tend to cut thru Evan's to avoid perris Blvd. To get to the 215 entrance over the bridge. It's very difficult to enter and exit perris as we have only a very very margin roads. This should be big. Especially since commercial property has been avoided in the past of town due to accessibility from the fwy. Page 28 92571 Fix our roads, stop gas taxing us a dollar for every gallon, work on fixing homeless situation. Stop the water tax oppose new governor new projects Perris stop dumping fresh water into ocean. End sanctuary cities go after child predators end human trafficking lower our registration cost stop registering illegals to vote. Clean our forest before summer arrives J 92571 Perris Metrolink service on the Perris Valley Line which rivals taking the freeway can be easily ruined the moment you run into shared rail with the freight operators. They once sat there in confusion for half an hour while we stood at a halt. This needs to be fixed, or rail in SoCal will be a hindrance to one's commute more than a help. 92572 Perris What's the timetable for adding one additional lane in each direction on the I-215 from Nuevo Road to the 60-215 interchange? I am in the path of the Mid -County Parkway under alternative 9 and own imminent domain property. When can I expect to hear from the RCTC? N/A Perris We need more traffic lights with cameras. Everyone at the booth was very helpful and got a lot of info. N/A Perris Fix bus schedules to be more on time. N/A Perris More stop signs near schools and crosswalks for safety. N/A Perris bus only lanes. Add more busses and stops. N/A Perris Focus on carpooling. Patrol intersections with more cameras 92585 Romoland I think the video submitted my Temecula City sums up the problem. I find myself trying to avoid traveling South to shopping and errands and choosing to shop with online commerce instead. Im sure this creates a financial impact for us locally if others are doing the same. 92585 Romoland I would like to see Bus Routes 61,74, and 40 run later during the summer please I live on the outskirts of Menifee/Sun City the buses stop running early on the weekends and I have to take the 28 home sometimes and that's tiring so I was wondering what can you guys do to have these bus routes run later during the summer??? 92585 Romoland Hello! I just saw your YouTube advertisement and I just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly with this message. My idea is subsidizing metrolink and other metros in our area and making these services much more known in our community. Thank you! And good luck!! Page 29 92585 Romoland Please create another northbound lane at the I-215 N interchange with SR 60 W. Everyday there is heavy congestion on the approach just north of Eucalyptus Ave as the 215 reduces from three northbound lanes to two lanes at the tie-in with the flow from the westbound 60. There is plenty of room on the inside lane area to create another lane that would merge at the gore area transition. I do not have photos but a Google map search will show the area and impedance that I refer to. Thank you and I look forward to future adjustments to this problem area that has long been a commuter bottleneck. 92596 Winchester i Would like to see improvements on the I-15 through Temecula. Traffic at almost all times of the day and week has been progressively getting worse. 92596 Winchester We (the residents of sw riverside county) desperately need traffic relief on the freeways through our region. The 15/215 junction has become horrible over the past decade, and the projects are not keeping up with population and traffic growth. Not only do we immediately need projects such as the French Valley Parkway, but a longterm plan needs to be put into place to address the needs of the future. Expanded freeways are necessary and helpful but alternative routes or modes of transportation (e.g. a rail system) are also needed. 92596 Winchester Widen/add HOV lanes to the I-15 North and South from Escondido to the I- 215. I commute 70 miles one way south into San Diego and it's not unheard of to spend 6 hours a day in my car; most of that in the same 20- 25 mile stretch of road. Traffic has gotten so bad through Temecula that I leave for work 4 hours earlier than I have to be there just in case of 1 accident. 92596 Winchester 1-15 San Diego - Murrieta pleaseeee fix There should be a connection from the 215N to the 15N which would actually make it the 215w just like the 215s has a connector to the 15s There should also be a light rail connection in Temecula or Murrieta to 92596 Winchester Perris so that people could commute that way instead of having to drive to Perris where many don't want to leave their car Adding additional fast track lanes from Corona through Temecula 92596 Winchester Why don't we have bus that take people to airport from all mall areas. This will eliminate traffic on all freeway. Bus from Temecula mall only go to escondido, it should be all the way to down to San Diego. Page 30 92596 Currently, the 15 Fwy Southbound in the Mornings, and Northbound in the Evenings around Temecula are jammed packed. My commute everyday is reaching toward 6 hours (combined) in to and out of Downtown SD. I would love to see some form of Express Lanes (Toll/HOV) to help alleviate this traffic around Temecula. Additionally, the "Golden Triangle" around Winchester Murrieta Hot Springs (between the 15 and 215, near the split) would be a fantastic place for a Park and Ride. The vacant lot there has been untouched for decades while the owner keeps switching hands. Long term, I feel having a Iightrail train going from the aforementioned "Golden Triangle" to Downtown SD would eventually move hundreds more from the freeway to public transit. We need to create truck lanes on all major highways. With the amount of 92596 Winchester logistical companies growing, truck traffic will continue to grow. These trucks contribute to traffic slow downs and road wear. 92596 Winchester I commute to downtown San Diego. I tried the monthly bus pass to take the RTA 217 from Temecula to Escondido where I then take the San Diego MTS 280 to downtown San Diego. I was unable to endure the painful RTA experience and now drive 1 hr 10 min to Escondido instead of taking RTA 217. And it costs me nothing because my company reimburses me, but I still will avoid the RTA. Why? 1. Uncomfortable, rattle -trap buses that are loud, too hot or too cold, and overcrowded. 2. Schedule issues. Only make my connecting bus in Escondido 60% of the time. 3. Drivers are inconsistent, there's high turnover, and I got tired of training drivers about where stops are and route. Really? 4. Some buses are so hot inside I get a migraine before getting back to Temecula. One day, Commuter Link should have comfortable and reliable coaches like San Diego Commuter Express. Then maybe, I'd be willing to ride again, which revenues you should want to increase to support other transit projects. There were many of us in vanpools because Commuter Link took longer and was less comfortable. Now I just drive myself. It's such a shame I can't ride with RTA. Please fix! N/A N/A We dont need original ideas or some creative solutions call these guys https://trimet.org and do what ever their doing. Its nothing special. Its just oublic transportation. N/A N/A ? My wife would take the train to her 60k a year job of the train ran on her schedule is not a hand out it's helping improve mass transit like every other major city in the country has. The metro link needs earlier start times. N/A N/A Yes hire people that will their job the right way and not be asking so many questions just to get you qualified for what ever reason you are applying to get some help to survive Periodllifi m Page 31 N/A N/A How about a minibus that circles Nuevo( Lakeview and Nuevo Rd) , drops off/picks up at Stater Bros. Plaza ( or Walmart and Stater Bros. Plaza). We need a metrolink station where Nuevo Rd. meets the freeway with shuttle vans to UCR and RCC. Jeff Hewitt- will you advocate for us? Can you come out to underserved communities like Nuevo? N/A N/A I think the Metrolink should be utilized more! More routes and more times. It is such a shame that it is not made more user friendly. Also special routes for events in different areas! N/A N/A Bus drivers need to help the disabled. My son was in a special stroller as a baby and the driver gave me so much crap about taking him out of it and folding up the chair/stroller. I had to tell him multiple times I couldn't. He was so pissed to get up and use the lift. I couldn't believe the drivers behavior. It's hard being a new mom to a child with disabilities but to have someone treat you the way this driver did was very upsetting. I was young and Naive back then so I didn't say anything but I should have gotten his information and reported him. There is a disability act for a reason and the RTA was completely in the wrong. There should be more buses available and pot holes fixed in a timely manner. N/A N/A We need rail, but common sense rail. PERRIS line needs to connect with SB line, which runs every hour to LA. If you build, they will come!! More freeways/lanes? Has 91 problem been solved? N/A N/A An extra lane 215 n interchange at 91 would be nice. Maybe a carpool ramp 60e to 215s would help with the evening rush. A sign on 215 south near university ave that says slower traffic keep right and another one that says trucks right 2 lanes only. To many truck in the left lanes going up hill slowing traffic down. Don't make me do it. N/A N/A Need more fast track routes that are all day N/A N/A How about actually using our transportation tax dollars for our roads? We pay billions every year and dont see any results. Do something CHUCK! N/A N/A We've seen that building bigger freeways doesn't really solve the issue. We really could use more reliable mass transit though. Riverside County is a commuter hub. Folks travel to/from LA, San Diego, and who knows where else. There really is no infrastructure in place to support the growth in population. A train system that connects these two Riverside County, LA County, and San Diego County would do a lot to alleviate the congestion. A program could also be put in place to incentivize the use of mass transit, but currently those systems don't exist. Until they do we will continue to be miserable sitting in traffic. Page 32 N/A N/A Stop bringing in huge warehouses Ior logistics. Its about time to widen the 215fwy. N/A N/A Expand i15 in temecula there is enough room for an extra 2 lanes each way in the middle N/A N/A I don't understand you build a community build all these homes restaurant s grocery store etc. And 2 to 3 lane roads to the freeway wonder why . Build the streets bigger next time you would think we would figured this out by now N/A N/A Traffic. Gridlock. Lights that change quicker based on traffic (ironwood and day and pigeon pass) and the 60 frwy onamp at ironwood. Truck lanes enforced on 60 freeway. N/A N/A Fix the infrastructure before building houses and warehouses. Widen the freeways, especially at the 215/60 merge. N/A N/A What if there was some sort of incentive for commuters to take the train/bus to work? I feel like if we can get more people using those it would clear the freeways a bit. I know some people have to take multiple buses to get to their destination which deters them from chosing that option. Perhaps a service that takes people from train stops to their job and vise versa would make that option more attractive. I've never taken the train out here so I don't know where it stops, but we need to get people on it, and off the freeways. N/A N/A Put cameras in all lights on Nuevo Road, so many accidents ZIP City 92879 Corona Comments - Northwest I feel like the bus transportation is out of date, maybe you should open new bus center drop offs at popular areas like in the Tyler mall. That way more people use the bus and money from the bus goes towards the city's. It would also cause less traffic since less cars are being used. 92879 Corona I would like more regional rail, the Metrolink needs to be electrified and put on regular 30-minute intervals from 6 am to 8 pm throughout the week. There need to be additional interurban rails that connect city centers to each other. This system should be fed by an extensive bus and streetcar/light rail system with its time's coordinated, and it should have signal priority in intersections. Of course, what I say is expensive and unrealistic, but it is the direction you should go if you want to start cutting commutes, increasing Riverside County density, and give the country a vibrant commercial and residential districts. You cannot have a large destination city with horrible mass Page 33 92879 Corona Please finish the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange County. The SART is a long awaited feature for commuters and recreational riders all through the Inland Empire and Southern California. Thank you! 92879 Go to U-Tube and search PATSi Transportation, and PATSi 2010. It is a private transit system that will transport travelers and commuters to any other station in the system. It will always travel at freeway speeds and will stop only one time before the passenger reaches their destination and does this for 0.30 cents per mile. For the average commute in the IE of 20 miles that is a daily cost of $12 or monthly of $126 per month. It does this by load management. We need to stop building freeways and build a Corona usable public transit system. I have written a book on the system and I gave one to the Corona Mayor, and Mr. Bailey, the Riverside Mayor. In the book I suggested the trolley running down Magnolia. I am not sure where that stands but it was a to be a feeder system to feed passengers to the stations. I am in contact with the Trump administration currently to present the system to the federal transportation department. I hope you have some luck in your pursuit of traffic easing. Carpooling has never been above 14%. It is a hassle to carpool. Good Luck! 92879 Corona Can we encourage businesses to use slanted parking spots. The slanted parking slots are easier to get into and out of. With angled parking spots you don't have to swing into them. They are also less likely to have two cars back into each other. This probably won't improve traffic but it does make parking faster and safer. Angling the spots is just a matter of painting them that way so it's mostly just a cost of labor and paint. 92879 Corona I don't like the idea of toll lanes and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on any kind of toll lane construction sounds like a mistake to me. I'm strongly against the 15/91 Express lane connector. I think it should be cancelled. I 92879 Corona FIX the GREEN RIVER mess. It has been too long. RCTC created this & RCTC has to solve it. Corona - a vibrant community at Orange County's edge is has stopped, delayed, & harmed residents by not making this a #1 priority. 92879 Corona From Ontario Ave to Temescal Cyn on the I-15 is currently 3 lanes, from Temescal Cyn to Railroad Canyon there are 4 lanes of which we only use 3. It has been that way since the freeway was built, now we are adding express lanes. Why are we not adding the general lane first for the common folks instead of making people pay for express lanes on a daily basis? Page 34 92879 Corona Rumor has it that RCTC is going to try again for a sales tax increase and that the reason for this post is to gather data to help push for said sales tax increase. "Connect you to jobs here in the county" I dont know if RCTC has caught on yet. Most of the jobs are out of the county. At this point we need to figure out how to get people to the other counties. You broke the 91 freeway with your awful toll roads. You spend millions of dollars so 10 people can take the train. This organization is dysfunctional... 92879 Corona It would really help if we could eliminate RCTC. Think of all the tax money the citizens would get back.... 92879 Corona That one time when Anne Mayer the chick in this video lied to congress saying the 91 Toll Roads were a great success... 92879 Corona Ride a bike or metro link 92880 Corona The express lanes/toll lanes have made the commute no better on the 91 frwy. ly instead of improving the commute for all has made it better for some who can pay. In essence has take taken public money and improved conditiins for those who can afford to pay for better conditions. Dedicated truck and motorcycle lanes eould improve the commute for all more. Motor cycle accidents are nearly a daily occurance on the frwys. On bad traffic days as one is on the on ramp entering the frwy a kjne of big rigs signals that traffic will be slow the whole morning drive. Whoever designed the reccent 91/15/71 section simply moved traffic from the street onto the frwy to the on ramps and frwy. It is no better than before. 92880 Corona Fix potholes 92880 Corona I have been frustrated with driving down Hammer bec the lights are not timed as they used to be. Once you start from a red light and go a short distance, the next lift turns red quickly and so on all the way down. It's even worse along the side streets when residents want to turn left out of their developments. They turn left when the light allows them which is fine, but then the light stays green for them for a long time even though there's no one else that needs to turn left. The opposing traffic is just waiting and waiting to go straight but can't bec the lights are not timed to turn red if there's no other traffic that needs to turn left. Very frustating! Please correct this situation to allow the traffic to move more smoothly. Thanks for listening. Page 35 92880 92880 92880 92880 !92880 92880 Corona Corona Corona Corona Corona Corona Bring high end technical jobs like medical, biomedical, pharma, software, aerospace jobs to Riverside County. Attract Irvine and Los Angeles employers to Riverside. The most economic and sustainable way to solve the traffic and commute issue is to bring high end jobs to the Corona, Riverside and Temecula cities that are most populated areas of the county. It would also be nice to attract private educational institutions and expand UCR. The primary reasons people commute are better job and educational opporunities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Address the cause not he symptoms. Please no bandage and no increasing tax solutions. Invest in better shuttle system, and vanpool incentives which is more economic and more flexible than trains or building freeways. Add additional Eastbound lanes on the 91 from the 241 to the 71 (Green River Rd. at a minimum) Add additional Westbound lane(s) on the 91 from the 71 to the 241 (Green River Rd. at a minimum) (Traffic on the 91 will not improve dramatically until the carrying capacity through the Santa Ana Canyon is addressed.) - This is the #1 problem! (Additional lanes are needed! options: double -deck through the canyon, bridge over the river, tunnel into the side of the mountain.) Improve the transition from the Eastbound 91 to the Northbound 71. (The current design dramatically slows traffic due to the almost 360 degree loop and backs up traffic on the 91.) Additional transition lane(s) from the Eastbound 91 to both the North & Southbound 15. I AM TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET NORTH WARD BUS SERVICE FROM EASTVALE: FOR SON AUTISM I would love for the 241/91 interchange issues to be solved. Every single day, traffic comes to a screeching halt there as everyone from the right two lanes has to merge over. There is too much congestion to lose two lanes that quickly. Smart lights in Corona. He commute to LA Harbor. Are there plans for smart streets like there are in LA? Timing of lights near freeway seem poor. Is there a way to address traffic through s I am currently a college student at CBU. I commute from Eastvale to Riverside everyday and there has been many times where the Vanburen Clay Street intersection has been blocked off . It'd be great to be given a detour route to make the navigation faster . Thank you . Page 36 92880 Corona Invest in intercounty shuttles, provide strong incentives for vanpooling, increase parking areas for vanpool. Intercounty shuttles on freeways from Riverside county to Orange County/San Bernadino County with good frequency and multiple routes. Expand riverside county shuttle routes to newly developed areas within county. Bring high paying technical and healthcare jobs to the county. 92880 Corona In order of interest: 1) 71/91 Interchange 2) 71 Widening 3) State Route 91 Corridor 92880 I've been commuting on the 91 freeway out of Corona into Orange County for more than 10 years. I won't go into all of the challenges that exist in this region as you are obviously aware. How about implementing a property tax on new home builds to support the new infrastructure required (highways, water, power, etc.)? It seems that every piece of flat land in Riverside county is being developed without any thought to the Corona impact to our freeways and other infrastructure. I'll leave the freeway fixes up to the traffic experts but I think it really comes down to limiting the number of vehicles on the road. How about implementing incentives for Vanpools and travel by Metrolink? What is being done with the revenue generated from the Toll Lanes? If it's not already, shouldn't 100% of profits be spent back into further improving the freeway system? Thank you for your time. Page 37 92880 Corona I think it's great that there are efforts made to make our commute shorter or more efficient. However, the reality is there will be more people moving to riverside county as home builders have continued to build in this county. It's the only county left with affordable housing. So once these efforts are implemented, the traffic will likely have doubled and the impact will be small. Riverside county does have a lot of land. If used properly, we could develop more commercial property that would encourage businesses to come to this county for work. The residents of this county won't have to commute to other counties and will naturally reduce the commute time for all. I have lived in Orange County as well as Los Angeles county, and quite honestly, traffic in those county is never as bad because jobs and infrastructure are already established. The driving distances are shorter as well. Residents in riverside county are forced to drive to LA or Orange County to work because that's where most of the jobs are located. All the entertainment venues are also in those counties. Imagine if we allocate our resources to developing well planned commercial and residential spaces, not only will we stay in this county for work and pleasure, but others will visit to drive the economy of this county. While I understand this is about using the limited budget to overcome traffic issues, but sometimes we need to implement solutions that are more long term, than a short term fix, to resolve issues as complex as our traffic. Page 38 92880 When designing the 91/15 expansion and toll roads, I fail to understand why the eastbound 91 committed through lanes go from 5 to 3 between Main Street and McKinley. IF at least 4 committed lanes, i.e. lanes that remain whole without merging or exiting of additional traffic, had been allotted for, the bottleneck that daily beings at Main Street, and often at Lincoln Street, could have been lessened. This is similar to OC where eastbound lanes after Weir Canyon are reduced and traffic flow does not begin to pick up until the added lane from the merging of the 241. I hear many residents from the northern 15 area are very disappointed that a ramp into the toll road was not built. I hope one is being planned for in both directions. I heard that the state was surprised by the amount of revenue Corona that has already been made on this new expansion of the toll lanes. I hope this money is used to rectify lack of any fore site, for budget concerns, or for design flaws.The design at Surfas Club and 6th Street great in that 5 committed through traffic lanes remain intact and additional lanes for exiting and merging on to the freeway were provided. The design to keep access to Grand Blvd from the Lincoln exit was very well done. For future freeway projects, if traffic flow studies support this idea, consider putting in a ramp from the toll roads to the 71 (in both directions) --similar to what OC has at the 55 and 405. Last, the Green River/Foot Hill extension has been helping. If the congestion at the 71 and 91 can be cleared for the morning commute, then back up on Green River could be lessened or eliminated. (continued) Also, stop building new homes until the roads can handle the increased amount of commuters! Thank you.P.S. I hope the idea of adding a direct ramp from the 241 to the 91 Express Lanes was canned, as the 91 Express Lanes from the 55 to Green River Road are already congested and a frustrating commute. 92880 Corona Prioritize Green River!!!! 92880 Corona Ban all bigrigs from w/b 91 frwy during peak hours,they occupy 2 of the four regular lanes. Page 39 92881 I live in Corona and commute to Irvine via Metro link because of bad traffic. At this point what I miss is commute to Corona North Main Station. I see Route 215 and 216 which will pass my community but its doesn't have a stop. I request to have a stop at Foot Hill Pkwy and Villa Pampolana Ct (New Star Bucks is starting there and Terrassa Community is the land mark.) There is BUS stop available at this point and its a recent one. Here are the more ways. Corona 1. More High paying jobs need to be brought to Riverside Area. (It can be Corona, East Vale, etc..) 2. More frequency of Metro link trains and along with bus connectivity. So that we don't need to park the car in Metro station. I have seen the connectivity in Irvine. 3. Mid term solution, Encourage using Mass transportation like Metro link and Introduce Buses to Major work places. 4. I have seen many cities use METRO Trains Via the Road Connectivity. 92881 We need a corridor from the 15 fwy to the 241, widen Calajco also, Corona Another tax? Is like paying to drive on the fwy. Just to many people trying to get to the OC. I'd suggest that Everytime an Express lane is built, whoever is finding has to find for a regular commute lane for non toll payers. This will keep a 92881 Corona competitive edge for the investor without making easy toll money. Also you should give priority to clear bottle necks, not letting toll investors take advantage of them. I see it happen now. 92881 Corona I would like to see uninterrupted bike trails, without homeless people camping on them, from San Bernardino all the way to the beach. It would also be nice to have some bike trails going towards Temecula. Along the trails have some bathroom and areas to park your car to start your ride. I would also like to see better use of freeway space. Stop building toll lanes. Make extra lanes where everyone or even carpool can use them that dont cost money. Fix the 15/91 interchanges so they dont bottle neck. Put more signs up telling drivers the lanes is going to end atleast a mile back so they do not have to merge at the last minute like on the Ontario South exit. 92881 Corona Stop Toll Lanes. There. Page 40 92882 Corona I have been a corona resident for 26 years and have worked road construction for 5 years. The traffic around the inland empire is absolutely horrendous at all times and is a complicated multi issue problem with no one size fits all solution. If you guys are actually interested in fixing this issue and you aren't just all talk then you need to consider in my opinion these serious issues. 1. No real transportation planning for new housing developments. For too long riverside county has let housing developers do whatever they please and let them plop thousands of homes in any location without forcing the developers to pay for new infrastructure supporting such communities or helping the city come up with new transportation solutions. If big real estate companies want to build them make them pay for better transportation planning. A perfect example of this is the Eastvale community. Yes the roads in the community are pretty but the roads leading into this community are still two lane farm roads. 2. Toll roads are an absolute joke and scam. I know the powers at be will never feel this or hear this but the toll roads are a disgrace to everything California stands for. 3. I'm not anti tax if the money is being used properly but it is clear that California has every incentive to keep people driving cars and to avoid public transportation. With some of the highest registration taxes and gas taxes in the country is anyone surprised that California invests very little money into public transportation? (continued) Compare us to most modern countries or even other large city's our public transportation is a joke or in most areas non existent. The way I see California has no real incentive to get people out of cars and into public housing transportation because it generates too much revenue for the state. If I'm wrong Then please correct me Page 41 92882 92882 92882 Corona Corona Corona Hello: I live in Corona (Sierra Del Oro area) and commute to Anaheim and Monrovia for work. Also, I attend school in Costa Mesa. I try to ride my bike to work and school as often as possible OR take the Metrolink and cycle the remaining distance to my destination. I am an experienced cyclist and live two miles from the Santa Ana River Trail head. I pedal around 50- 70 miles a week, but those two miles to the trail head are ALWAYS treacherous for two reasons. The bike lanes are too skinny/not protected AND the bike lane ends where cyclist are MOST vulnerable, while crossing a VERY busy bridge on Green River Rd. and navigating around quick moving cars that are exiting the 91--not to mention the deep pot holes and water grate in the bike lane! Have you tried cycling in the area? I would be happy to guide anyone who wants a tour. I have taken bicycle safety classes through the League of American Bicyclists. NO bike lane should end in the middle of a road without a connection and they do all over this city! I would like to see more buffered and/or protected bike lanes in the area! It would help if Metrolink offered more trains too! I know that they have added a later train, but more options in the morning and in the evening would be helpful, and on the weekends too. I would love to see a trolly go through the city center. How amazing would it be, if you could travel from one end of Corona to the other and possibly connect to Metrolink on an open air type of electric trolley, with bike lanes at each stop! It would be helpful to educate people within the community about alternative methods of transportation. (continued) An event like CicLAvia might help get people out of their cars, but we need the infrastructure! I am passionate about this topic and have cycled in Paris, London, New York and Portland, so I have ideas about incorporating different types of bicycling infrastructure in our community. If anyone has questions about my comment, feel free to email or call my cell. Thanks for reading! One, no eighteen wheelers on the 91 during rush hours - 6:00 - 9:00 in the AM and 4:00 - 7:00 in the PM. Two, Only emergency road work on Fridays. I see no reason to tie up traffic on Friday, one of the busiest days of the week, to work on the shoulders or cut bush along the sides of the freeway. Create an exit for corona from the 241 and a side road from gypson canyon to green river or foothill. Will the alleviate the corona the commuters from the 91 and leave just the riverside / 15 commuters. Page 42 92882 Corona Signals controlled by Caltrans should be interconnected with those controlled by localities. Far too much congestion, often for blocks, is caused by a total lack of coordination between the two systems, even when traffic flows are relatively light on both freeway and local streets. Nowhere is this more apparent than at the Cajalco/15 interchange. Yes, I know this is a construction zone and the signals are temporary and probably on timers, but when there is no construction and very few cars, traffic is horrible. There is simply no excuse for this. 92882 I Corona Better train service in weekend and Securtiy at the train station at Rancho Cucamanga. 92882 Corona Have the Metrolink run times offered earlier on the Oceanside to San Bernardino line so that I may use it to commute that way. Maybe offer a discount to Regular metrolink users? 92882 Corona Need an option to go west on the 91 besides the the freeway between Green River and Gypsum Canyon! Everything funnels at Green River as it is the last chance to go west on the 91. 3000 cars an hour on the GR ramp! I catch a carpool in Yorba Linda and there is ZERO wait at the Gypsum on ramp, ZERO! I have filmed it many times. 3000 cars an hour and then next on ramp has NO WAIT?? Once an accident happens between GR and GC, all of the IE and Lake Elsinore, Temecula etc are affected badly. And housing is being build like there is no tomorrow. 92882 Corona Attached is waze telling me to backtrack from my home off Greenriver to Serfas Club...and it will take me 1 hour and 24 min to drive to Kaiser off Weir Canyon..6.2 miles from my home...where I have lived since 1995...not only did RCTC screw us by INTENTIONALLY NOT ADDING THE AUXILIARY LANE FROM GREENRIVER TO THE 241....but it is time to build a road and attach the counties....Move the bike path if you have to but DO IT!! 92882 Corona One idea is to give businesses an incentive to let employees work from home that can! Big one. I recently was aloud to work from home, it saved me 1.5 hours commute just 11 miles from Green River to Yorba Linda on the 91!! Also 4 day work weeks, flexible schedules... Page 43 92882 Corona I know how to fix all your traffic problems, and there are 5 of them. 1.) Separate the cars getting off and on the 91 freeway versus just passing through the 91 (between OC line and 15 freeway). Ideally, this would be done with a double-decker freeway with the top level not having any exits in this stretch. If that's too expensive, you can follow what Los Angeles does is have a separate 2-3 lanes parallel to the freeway solely for people getting on/off the 91 versus people passing through. This eliminates slowdown during this stretch and removes the need for meters. Everyone getting on/off the 91 between the OC line and the 15 freeway would be using these lanes only and not interfere with traffic on the main freeway. It would be designed in a way that people from the main freeway can't use it to bypass the main freeway. The 10-E freeway in Los Angeles near the Normandie and Vermont exits do this. 2.) Certain local streets in Corona (such as Foothill / Green River, Main St., Sixth St) need to Do Not Turn Left or Do Not Turn Right signs at certain times of the day to eliminate commuters cutting through and disrupting local traffic. 3.) A big source of traffic is parents picking up kids to/from school. This can be eliminated by a better school bus system or at least a shuttle system where parents can drop their kids off at designated sites, like empty shopping centers, in the morning, so kids can be shuttled to/from school. (continued) To encourage kids to walk more, the city also needs to clarify that the curfew law is a legal defense to allow children to walk alone before 10pm, and that is not child endangerment, so that B.S. police officers and crooked judges cannot twist the law to say that children walking alone is child endangerment. Search for article on Mike Tang in Corona CA to prove this is really what police are doing --arresting parents for letting their children walk outside. 4.) A better Metrolink schedule will get more people to try it. Right now, there are not enough trains at certain times of the day, and they are often late because they give priority to freight trains. Give priority to Metrolink in the daytime and let the freight trains run throughout the late evening. Or build more tracks to separate the two systems. 5.) The 91-15 interchange is poorly constructed. A disproportionate amount of people are heading west in the morning and east/south in the evening. 1-2 lanes for the interchange is not enough to handle the flow when more than half the people are taking these ramps. If half the people are merging from 15N to 91W for example, then half as many lanes need to be used for the interchange to eliminate the bottleneck. Page 44 92882 Corona Hello: I attended the Telephone Town Hall meeting tonight, but did not get a chance to ask my questions and give my input. Are there plans to increase the frequency of Metrolink trains during both weekends and weekdays? There are ONLY two morning options/times that leave the Corona -West station on Sat./Sun., which makes it impractical to use. ALSO, I bike commute from Corona to Anaheim a few times a month. What plans, if any, are being made to improve cycling infrastructure within the community. Thank you 92882 Corona I would like to see a dedicated track for passenger rail that connects Riverside County with all of its neighboring counties. The current system of using BNSF railroads with Metrolink just does not work. Trains are frequently late and train schedules are absolutely awful making. Having a dedicated track will solve both issues as the most frequent cause of delays is "train congestion" from freight trains and the ability to run more regular trains will make riding easier as missing one train won't mean being stranded for an hour. Please consider the future and consider building the appropriate infrastructure for it. Expanding roads is fine, however I think the RCTC's main objective should be to find a way to get people out of their cars by creating a reliable, frequent transit system for commuters and fun goers alike. 92882 Corona I would not be adding toll lanes! Many of the people using these lanes are being repaid by their employers. Not all of us have that benefit. Plus it is very upsetting to see that the carpool lanes we paid for with sales tax (yes I remember) are being taken away and used for these obnoxious toll lanes. If the money we spend on gas taxes actually went to road projects and repairs, there would be plenty of money to repair and/or widen the FR EEways! 92882 Corona I Move 92882 Corona We live in Corona and ever since the addition of the toll lanes on the 91 fwy through Corona, we can no longer access HOV lanes until we drive to either Riverside or Yorba Linda. If we take Green River Road through Corona, we can access the West bound Fastrack lanes on the 91; however if we are Eastbound on the 91, there is no access until we reach the western edge of Riverside. This situation has lengthened my average drive into Riverside to 45 min (used to be 25-35 min). What about putting all of the containers that leave Long beach harbor by road, heading E on the 10, and N on the 15 on trains as far as the state 92882 Corona border. And have distribution centers there. We'd eliminate all of the I trucks on the 10 and 15 for 200 miles. And we'd have safer travel with less congestion and less pollution. Page 45 92882 Corona When will you start construction on the 91 freeway Option 4 Green River Aux Lane? Thanks 92882 Corona I cannot believe Green River is not on the top of this list. We wait 45 minutes to go two miles. Such a failure. 92882 Corona r r 92882 Corona Green River is a mess! I live off Dominguez Ranch and can't even get to the signal! Cars are lined up through that shopping center. What should be a minute drive to get on the freeway, it is now 25 minutes or more. Taking the Metrolink is just as bad as I can't even go right on Green River because of the cars blocking! Please fix the mess. I really wish the Route 200 bus had a stop closer to Corona before the express lanes start. A lot of Disneyland employees live in Corona and being able to take the 200 bus from nearer Corona without having to drive backward to La Sierra would be so helpful!! 92882 Corona Resolve the Failure of the 91 Project in Western Corona. Complete failure! 92882 Corona Fire Anne Mayer. She lied to Congress. The toll roads are a success for MOST people. It's only a success for revenue for RCTC and they are not using the money for the citizens' benefit. The cuts she made including the aux lane from Green River and the 6th Street onramp would have relieved traffic on our roads in the city and access the toll road. Corona citizens can't even access the toll road. The cost is exorbitant so with cost and access being prohibitive, Green River And Serfas Club Drive have become horrific nightmares. 92882 Corona How can you be serious, by not including the "Option 4" Aux lane between Green River and SR 241 in your list of future projects? Make this a priority. RCTC is losing credibility by the day in Corona and we won't stand for it much longer. You need to continue partnering with Orange County... we need REAL solutions. An alternative corridor to Orange County, REAL light rail to Orange County, extending Green River road into Orange County, expanded Metrolink Service... STOP TOLLING us at every opportunity and get to work! the 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes are horrible projects. You need to think outside of the box and get to work. 92882 Another west bound lane on the 91 in to Orange County to correct the Corona mess you made. We also need another artery in to Orange County. Preferably from the 15 freeway in Lake Elsinore area Page 46 92882 Corona FIX GREEN RIVER! 92882 Corona Teach people how to take a turn on the highway without slamming on their brakes 92883 I Corona Add 2 more lanes on both sides between the border check on 15 to the 215. The median is wide enough already. 92883 Corona 1. First, stop building more houses. 2. An east - west freeway needs to be built somewhere between the 91 freeway and Ortega Highway. I believe there were plans to build one, then someone thought it would be a good idea to build more houses instead (near Eagle Glen, Stater Bros shopping center) 3. Stop building more houses. 4. Perhaps some light rail projects to relieve congestion on the 91 and 15 freeways. 5. Stop building more houses. 6. Widen Temescal Road from Campbell Ranch Road all the way to the already begun widening of Temescal near the 15 freeway. 7. Stop building more houses. 92883 Corona New day programs for special needs 21 years old and over . Make sure they are clean and have what our kids need .Specialy in Corona Ca. The one they have First Step are very discriminatory to some kids with special needs . Thank you . 92883 Corona r are there any plans to do anything about the el Cerrito exits on the 15? 92883 Corona Lives in South Corona and there is a lot of 15 freeway construction. How long will construction last? Will you extend diamond lanes. 92883 Corona Bacerra lied about Yes on 6 and now you have our money. When are lanes going to be added to the 15? I don't mean toll lanes that we have to pay for again. The 15 should be 4 lanes each direction from Ontario to Temecula that everyone can benefit from. Repaving on and off ramps and restriping the 15 is not good enough. That's not progress or traffic improvement. You have plenty of money now. You've always had the money. The public has been duped. Until you add lanes we will have to endure the crushing gridlock of the parking lot formerly known as the freeway. It's unhealthy for the air, not good for our vehicles and not good for us. ADD LANES. There is no other solution. Page 47 92883 Corona Traffic will never be reduced unless a substantial amount of vehicles are removed from our roads. The "Odd Even" plans during Summer 84 Olympics and Gas Crisis in the late 70's worked. Create a tax refund or, registration discount if drivers can prove they reduced their use of vehicles. Insurance companies use photos of vehicle speedometers to record yearly mileage driven . 92883 Corona The 91 fastrak entrances from both directions are terrible during rush hour. If we wait in line it's an extra 20-30 min and if you cut to the front it's dangerous and unfair to other drivers. I'm not a traffic engineer but this needs to be addressed. 92883 Corona I would mandate mandatory busing. My commute from HCR to Riverside is 22 miles and sometimes takes over an hour. The worst part is from Indian Truck Trail to Cajalco. Parents drive their kids to Corona -Norco schools. Many cars have one parent and one child. In the summertime when school is out, my commute decreases by 15-20 minutes. Someone has to have seen this trend besides me. 92883 Corona Oh how I coyld write an essay on this topic, but to keep it short: First and foremost - the grren river aux lane, needs to be given top priority. This is the bottleneck that is killing everyone's commute from the IE to OC. Second - rctc needs to be partnering with city of corona and commiting funds to the McKinley grade separation. Third - Metrolink IEOC line offers the fewest options for commuters, and improvements here need to be prioritized. I'm aware it has been stated studies show the demand and ridership is less but that is simply inaccurate. Regular counts are not taken, I know I ride daily. I do all I can to avoid driving and yet I'm often left with no other choice due to limited service. 92883 Corona 15fwy south improvements and Option 4. 92883 Corona Extend Toll Lanes past Lake Elsinore. 92883 Corona This is not New York. These trains can not deliver you to your job site. Taking additional buses and hoofing the remaining distance would take several hours. I'd rather sit on the 91 and have my car during my lunch break so I can take my nap or run errands. Either way, I need a place to recline during my breaks after the commute. 92883 Corona Understand that all of the effort put into "improving" the 91 through Corona actually broke the freeway and made traffic worse. Whatever engineer came up with the assinine idea of squeezing 5 lanes to 3 on the 15S just past the 91/15 interchange needs to be fired, then shamed, and then blacklisted in the community. Page 48 92951 92880 92880 92880 91752 92860 Corona Eastvale Eastvale Eastvale Jurupa Valley Norco it always more money to fix the problems you got money to fix last time. Don't build homes where the roads can't take the traffic. where is our gas tax money, gone. i guess to let in more homeless. Eastvale traffic is terrible! There's tons of new development and it's only going to get worse. There has been a plan in place to add an interchange at Interstate 15 and Schleisman for decades, but now the city is removing it from their general plan. This is a commuter based city. Our city is making it so difficult to live here!! Hi As a resident of Eastvale working in LA county, we need fast, easy and accessible transportation to keep up with our jobs. Let face it, increasing number of lanes on 91 is not a long term solution. Leaders thing ahead of times please. Faster better trains or metro is a great solution and investment with greater long term benefits. We have no commuter buses going straight to Fullerton or LA or LAX from Corona or riverside. We only have from riverside to orange direct commuter buses. We have only three trains in morning to LA and nothing during day. Please increase frequency of metrolink trains, talk with BSNL for that. Trains and commuter buses will be environment friendly as well. We need over the ground subway system connecting riverside to orange and LA counties. We call ourselves first world but with third world facilities of transportation. This should be unacceptable. Leaders don't think short only, they think ahead . Please leave some legacy that future generations may be thankful about. I sent request to Eastvale city regarding bus stop right in the backyard on Hamner Ave(58th st.&Hamner) causing us lots of disturbance. We will appreciate if you could kindly move that bus stop. Thanks. Finish the bike trail from San Bernardino to Anaheim. I LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FREEWAY IN NORCO BETWEEN 2ND AND 6TH. I WAS TOLD WHEN I MOVED HERE IN 95 THAT A SOUND WALL WOULD BE PUT UP. IT NEVER WAS, THEN IN 2005 WE WERE ADVISED THAT A SOUND WALL WOULD BE PUT UP WHEN A LANE WOULD BE ADDED ONTO THE FREEWAY. THEN DURING A TOWN MEETING WE WERE ADVISED THAT A SOUND WALL WOULD NOT BE PUT UP AFTER ALL SINCE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH HOMES AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE. THERE IS A LOT OF US HERE NOT JUST A SMALL HANDFUL. PLS CALL ME I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS GROWING CONCERN. Page 49 92860 Norco WOULD LIKE TO GET A SOUND WALL. WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE THAT IS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT CITY OF NORCO PROJECTS. 92860 Norco // FREEWAY 15 BETWEEN 91 AND 60 BETWEEN 2ND - 6TH STREET IN NORCO - WENT TO A MEETING AND CONCERNED WITH NOISE LEVELS DUE TO TRAFFIC WAS TOLD THAT SOUND WALL WAS NOT NEED AND THIS IS NOT TRUE WANTS TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE ABOUT THIS 92860 Norco 2nd call asked to speak with Nicole had requested plan for 15 fwy 1546 Elm drive Norco 92860. 92860 Norco Take a train to work and get off the highway, we need more passenger rail that focuses around the inland empire and not all going to LA or the OC 92860 Norco THERE IS A 6:30p TOWNHALL MEETING THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN, THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE NEWSPAPER ABOUT IT,WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE CAN REGISTER FOR THIS,PLS CALL. Add lanes and improve the transition from the 91 to the 71. Add on/off 92860 Norco lanes directly from Greenriver on to the toll lanes thus avoiding the need to cross lanes on the 91 in order to get to the toll lanes headed to the 55. 92860 Norco 15 Freeway and Hidden Valley off- and on -ramps: Why wasn't the interchange completed? Two type cloverleaf ramps should have been constructed there. We have so much traffic at that site, the simple ramps would move traffic more directly onto the freeway. With all the other improvements being made in that area, this should be done. Why hasn't anyone addressed this? 92860 Norco Double the non toll lanes 92860 Norco A new road from lake Elsinore over the hill to Irvine! Not many jobs in Corona or Riverside everything is elsewhere which is why we live here then travel to work N/A N/A You're too focused on maximizing your profits from toll roads that actually hinder the flow of traffic with dangerous poorly designed merging lanes... N/A N/A 1-7\lot everyone works 9-5 in Irvine. People work swing shift and graveyard and everything else. People also need to get to airports and other busy areas. It just seems that our entire transportation system in Southern California is ridiculous. Page 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ha, I got fired from my job because the bus was late it's not reliable The higher rate is ridiculous! N/A Applying this would help the riverside area freeways! J N/A N/A Make @bird & @limebike6 ®'s more accessible throughout the city. Create public charging stations / noticeable drop off / pick up stations. _ N/A N/A I Get rid of the toll roads, simple How about metrolink service outside of banker's hours. Even ONE run mid day and something accommodating for third shift people would help a lot of people who could/would take the train but can't because it doesn't run according to their schedules.. N/A N/A Get rid of the damned golf course and add enough lanes for the demand! N/A N/A Then serve all of us!! No more toll roads!! N/A N/A It would be great if the Metrolink would start earlier. Like 2am N/A N/A look into correcting/adjusting the overly quick traffic lights. many i have noticed turn very quickly for only 1 car coming onto or crossing a more major road, in which that 1 cat hasn't even reached a full stop at that signal light. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A How about a complete reorganization of strategy. The current one has reached an ever increasing rate of diminishing returns. Quit dedicating the vast majority of precious time and resources on mass transit, widening and toll lane gimmicks. It's time to go BIG and push to extend the 105 to the 60/91/215 interchange, or vice versa. These areas have been in a perpetual catch-up mode for at least a generation. It's getting worse by the day, because, as we all know, broadening the tax base to pay for public sector salaries, benefits and "Golden Prachutes" isn't going to end anytime soon..."Just Do It" Wipe out all islands , and change lights so you can turn on greens. Double deck the 91 fwy Stop building that will help with the traffic and open the toll roads so people's le can use them like a carpool like it use to be Page 51 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Stop dumping the Toll Rd onto the 91. That ties up the whole canyon and makes it the major bottle neck. Enforce the law that says big trucks can not use 4 lanes to run in. They are only supposed to run in the first two right hand lanes. But no one enforces that and they tie up and slow traffic into bottlenecks and unsafe conditions trying to get away from them. Design flaw with the toll road access should be allowed through that area with lane control in the troll road so cars can continue on the left side of the control lane. If you notice traffic eases up once cars are allowed to enter after green river road. Make this area completely unaffordable to live in, like Orange County. That should do the trick. Get some professional help for your tax revenue addiction that makes you allow land developers to build thousands and thousands of additional homes in the very areas with the worst traffic. Your unrestrained greed has blinded you. Put more buses that go orange county we need another lane going on country village road between 60fwy and philadelphia in the city of jurupa valley. It can take about 20-30 min just to pass it with traffic everyday, without traffic 5-7 min, and there is a lot of space to make another lane... Needs to widen 91 freeways from 115 to 60 Freeway. Have trucks off frwy until 9:30am on 91. Have buses, plural, to go from Eastvale to popular work sites in Orange County, courthouse, UCI, all colleges, post offices etc., and downtown areas. STOP building houses, until this problem is resolvedtititii RCTC and the Board of Supervisors do not actually want to find solutions. They are beholden to developers. The solution is to stop building houses and build INFRASTRUCTURE. Bring jobs to the area so people don't have to commute to OC everyday and clog the freeways. Also, fire Anne Meyer and her staff for the mess that is the 91. A bunch of overpaid shills who have no interest in serving the residents of the county. Because the toll roads were built with taxpayer money are currently being maintained by taxpayer dollars via caltrans wouldn't it make sense to make them public Access we could add an additional Lane and a carpool lane to the entire stretch of the freeway and all we have to do is take down the cones Page 52 N/A N/A Unconstitutional toll roads freeways were never meant to be tolled the toll roads create more traffic and even for subscribers only offer a quicker ten min or so for the commute its pure robbery &taking advantage of peoples work commutes roads were made to be free & when they made the lames everyome expected faster commutes for all not just the privileged that can pay some are forced to use toll roads now and thats just wrong #FREEways1950s #TOLLways2020sad & infuriating N/A N/A Transform the bike path along the river that begins in Corona at Green River near the golf course into a connecting road into Anaheim Hills. There is no direct side street route between the two cities and it is desperately needed. N/A N/A Stop building houses. If you are going to keep building houses then you have to widen the roads too. It's just common sense! Freeways are one thing but roads are another. In Corona, Norco, and Eastvale specifically there are too many one or two lane roads with too many cars and the traffic just keeps getting worse. Also, please build a road between Anaheim Hills and Corona. I'm sure it would be backed up just like the 91 freeway but you have to give people another alternative to sitting on that terrible freeway because it is the only way to get from Riverside to Orange County. N/A N/A I suggest we stop building homes and focus on building quality hospitals and healthcare systems that our region desperately needs. I would also like to see us generate more jobs and keep the pay competitive so that our residents don't commute to OC or LA counties. We should live, play and work in our County. N/A N/A Have buses, plural, to go from Eastvale to popular work sites in Orange County, courthouse, UCI, all colleges, post offices etc., and downtown areas. STOP building houses, until this problem is resolvedilm ZIP City Comments - Riverside CAN YOU MAKE A METRO LINK STOP IN HIGHGROVE? PLS CALL ME 92501 Riverside BACK. CALLER DECLINED EMAIL ADDY. IN ORDER TO SUBMIT REQ, I PUT PCN'S EMAIL. i 92501 Riverside Sidewalks on Columbia Ave. to Strong St. atrocious needs improvement. 92501 Riverside 6_ I take magnolia Ave in Riverside. It's congested on main intersection that have freeway onramps and around CBU 92501 Why not offer employers a tax break to hire people who live within a Riverside certain zip code? Hire local keep jobs local and commuter traffic down. Page 53 Boring Company by elon musk underground freeway system. Make an awesome video ad to support tax money allocated for this project and or 92501 Riverside also crowd fund GoFundMe campaign. Hyperloop partnerships with DTLA, i_ DT San Diego, and Anaheim. Also be considering Youtube this -> Starship -_ Earth to Earth being early adopter for it from Spacex 92501 Riverside I would take Metrolink if more trains or shuttles heading from Downtown Riverside to Irvine and back were offered. 92501 Riverside Hello, my name is Gregory Garcia I leaves in Riverside my whole life and love this city, but I would love to see stores(clothing and food), gym, restaurants... etc. where that old abandoned golf course is, in Riverside on the corner of Main st and Columbia ave. North Riverside has no real plaza or shopping center. We have factories. When we need to get something we have to drive to other parts of town and neighborhoods to get them. I've been eating Bakers, Del taco and recently Jack in the Box for years now because that's all we have in the area. I have to drive to Casa Blanca neighborhood (Madison st) just to go to a gym (24hour fitness). Just think about it. Thank you for your time. 92501 Riverside Sync the stoplights. Try not to close Market Street for weekend events. Also, during the weekend, especially during the special events, open up some restricted parking lots for businesses that are not open during the weekend. Stop road diets, carpool lanes and toll roads. You make traffic to make 92501 Riverside people think they must pay more to solve it. If trains and busses worked their would not be so many cars on the road. We will not give up our cars! 92502 Riverside I Railroad crossings on madison need lights to slow down fast drivers and increase safety of pedestrians. 92503 Riverside "Please finish the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange County. The SART is a long awaited feature for commuters and recreational riders all through the Inland Empire and Southern California. Thank you! 92503 Riverside Fixing potholes 92503 Riverside More Metrolink train times from La Sierra -Riverside station. I 92503 Riverside More metro routes. A route to long beach area 92503 Riverside Complete the Santa Ana River trail through to Orange county Page 54 92503 92503 Riverside Riverside 92503 92503 Riverside Riverside Riverside needs more cutting of red tape! Excessive regulations makes it too difficult for the improvements the city needs to be executed. Fixing our roads is the biggest tangible necessity we need! No more asphalt, we need concrete roads. Low maintenance and well -maintained street trees need to be made mandatory to help with pollution while also benefiting the community by reducing the heat island effect resulting in more comfortable temperatures and reducing the occurrence of heat -related complications. I would extend the Pierce Avenue on -ramp to the 91 west another 100 yards. The backup from those trying to merge onto the 91 westbound at the Pierce on -ramp is now extending almost back to Van Buren Boulevard at any given time during the day. Traffic just comes to a halt because that on -ramp is too short and cars just bunch together. And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop dead -ending lanes on the freeways. When people are traveling at high rates of speed and a lane just ends, there is ALWAYS a bottleneck traffic jam, no ifs, ands, or buts. STOP!!! 1. West 91 at La Sierra is frequently congested around the Magnolia curve. Is there a plan to replace the Buchanan bridge and widen the section from la Sierra to past the bridge. There is plenty of shoulder room and the issue is too much traffic joining the freeway in that zone. 2. Your new traffic signal programmer is incompetent over the last 2+years we have watched as junction after junction has been reprogrammed and made worse the worst by far is Tyler - not an easy junction I know but I avoid it now as traffic often James the exits. 3 an increasing number of people run red lights by significant amounts. Is it time to bring back county owned cameras - they work very well in the rest of the world - yes politicians and lawyers break the law that does not make it their right to be exempt! Is there a plan to widen Van Buren Boulevard --only a two lane Page 55 92503 Riverside None of the current projects will help resolving the commute problems the Inland Empire and Southern California in general are facing. The planning and construction phases take too long and by the time these projects have been completed, the number of housing projects and commuters have increased disproportionately. There is no way to build your way out of this mess with a 10+years timelines for these projects. Possible ways to help alleviate the problem is by enticing the industry to provide good paying jobs locally so that people don't want to commute to OC. Another possibility is to force BNSF to allow more commuter trains on their tracks so that Metrolink or another provider can provide fast, reliable and efficient public transportation to the OC, like other cities provide. In the morning, there should be train service every few minutes with a much faster speeds. Trains are driving at 45 -55 mph which takes too long to get to Irvine, Tustin or other destinations in OC and LA County. With more trains, there are more seats available and people should be enticed to use the train by subsidizing the tickets or passes, maybe by making the commute via public transportation tax deductible or the county can provide a refund from SB1 . We can't build our way out of this mess, no matter how many freeway lanes you build. Any project, current or planned is just a drop in the bucket and will not help at all. And certainly taxing people twice (gas tax and toll lanes) is not going to solve anything. It creates hate, discrimination and a two class commute, those who can afford to pay for the tolls and those who can't. Provide better public transportation and use the cias tax to five the local road issues (continued) I don't know if the decision makers of the RCTC live here, but I don't know why you can't work on projects that are quick to resolve, for example put the traffic lights in sequence so that the traffic flows. Magnolia, Van Buren, La Sierra are a nightmare for drivers. Look at the freeway exists off the 91, Adams Street. The lights are not synchronized between the freeway exit and Indiana, making it a nightmare to exit there. None of the lights are synchronized, making the drive there a stop -and -go. I have seen systems in Europe, called "green wave" where you start at the first light and if you drive the allowed speed, you would almost never have to stop. and in residential areas, build roundabouts instead of adding more lights that are also prohibiting free traffic flow. The system currently in place may have worked in the 60s, 70s or maybe 80s, but with today's traffic density, you need to change your thinking. Look at other areas in the world, Italy, Germany, Spain, France. Many traffic signals have been replaced by roundabouts. I could give you dozens more examples, if needed. Page 56 92503 Riverside I work in a hospital in Paramount and I have to be at work at 6 a.m.. Is there a metro link train that can take me there by that time? I also work 12 hour shifts and I get off work at 7 p.m.. I have lived here in Riverside since 2003. I live off of La Sierra where there is the metro link station down the street. I love this city and would love the different ways to make my commute safer, more affordable and faster to be able to spend more time with my family. Thank you for letting people like me voice our situation. 92503 I think any type of work on the 91 needs to be done, from potholes to fwy widening to some type of easy interchange, the reason why there is so Riverside much traffic on the 91 fwy is because no one wants to let anyone in when they merge on to the fwy, somehow we need to figure out what to do, it maybe impossible but it's worth a try. 92503 Riverside Fix east west travel between inland empire and orange county and between highway 74 and 60 freeway. Most good high pay jobs are points west, but many live in points east and 1000's of homes are being built eastward. Commute times of 1 1/2 hours each way are typical trying to go from downtown Riverside into Orange County. Highway 74 needs improvements to make Riverside county portion safer, Orange County has completed improvements to their side. 91 west needs the mess at Green River fixed. Scaling back the original 91 Corridor project to elimanate designated lanes from GR to 241 has created a bottleneck and made this billion dollar project a failure. Fix the mess Anne created by allowing this portion of project to be omitted. In fact, Anne needs to go, we need fresh blood at the helm that has a better vision and perspective of this counties needs to move residents on our roadways. Page 57 92503 Riverside Eliminate toll roads. Whoever designed the the entrance/exit at the OC/Riverside county line (both directions) should be fired and forced to give back all money they were paid. Plus, they should be forced to drive it every day to see how stupid their idea was, and how much it ruins the drives for everyone who can't afford $40 dollars a day in toll. $200/week. Or more than $10,000 a year! I can't pay that, but I am forced to pay extra in gas, sitting in an absolute mess while the lanes to my left are barely used. Traveling east on the 91, traffic eases up AFTER this disaster. Same with traveling west, traffic eases after. Two lanes of lightly used traffic while the "free" (tax payers paid for them) lanes are at a standstill. Getting into those lanes (westbound) at the 15 is a nightmare with two or more lanes of cars all trying to squeeze in at the last minute, blocking and holding up the "free" lanes. But, why should we have to pay to drive on lanes that we already paid to build. Cash grab? Westbound at the county line has cars trying to get out of the toll lanes to the right to make the 241 exit, and cars on the right coming from the 71 and Green River trying to get to the toll road entrance, creating an "x" pattern of cars criss crossing. Might explain why there are so many accidents right there. The toll road creates a sense of urgency that makes people disregard the safety of others making unsafe lane changes, to makes their own commute easier. (continued) Take down the barriers and booths and the need for cars to cross cross across five lanes, and make everyone's drive easier and safer. But in California, that will never happen as the only thing that matters is where to get more money from more people. Which is why they are building more toll lanes. 92503 Riverside To fix the road 92503 Riverside Love the 200 take it to Disneyland from Riverside all the time 92503 If you're going to raise prices for Commuter Link, then have more bus times Riverside available. 92503 Riverside How `bout just normal people, which would in turn supplement the commute of special needs individuals. It takes an hour to get from Central Ave. to Green River in the morning commute. This is embarrassing as a community. Subway, tunneling, bridges. Come on. 92503 Riverside Put a signal at El Sobrante and La Sierra. Make El Sobrante a 2-lane parkway each direction from Cajalco to La Sierra. 92503 Riverside A double layered freeway like in China, super expensive for sure Page 58 92504 Riverside A 24hr bus service throughout the city L J 92504 I Riverside Improvement can be made on the train coming so frequently in the morning on Madison, Jefferson and Washington. Its horrible not matter how early you keave to worlk or school. 92504 Riverside Need more stop signs on dewey ave. racing takes place weekly. 92504 Riverside `92504 Riverside Lower prices for bus. More trash cans, shelters, and signs for the bus stops. Mejores horarios mas transportation publica. 1 92504 Riverside Close or block freeways at appropriate times where there is minimal commuters 92504 Either keep traffic lights open to go for van Buren and Alessandro or make freeways out of them. Also Cajalco is beginning to get a lot of traffic so we need better road.91 freeway in itself is problem. 15@ Corona; 91 @60 Riverside interchange; 215@60 , 215@ 15 is a perpetual traffic jam. So many more people living here but not much change in ease of movement How can it take us 45 minutes to get around riverside. Example: just traveling Van Buren to Woodcrest slow commute. 92504 Riverside Inland Empire residents need commuter train service to and from Palm Springs. At present it can take over six hours to get from Riverside to Palm Springs by train or bus. There is no real train station in Palm Springs... not even a ticket booth/dispenser. I understand that part of the problem with increasing commuter train services is conflicts between Union Pacific & BNSF vs. passenger services involving track sharing, particularly during rush hour. This has been going on for a long time. Public transportation is the future and money needs to be allocated to improve and expand on these rail lines. Besides environmental concerns, commuter trains are easier on seniors and disabled people who cannot drive or might have trouble driving. Improved train service would also benefit Palm Springs' tourist industry, and would encourage people from nearby towns who just want to come in and shop or attend cultural events. 92504 Riverside Repaving on Dewey street in Riverside the street is very very rough and also 5700 block Walter st needs Repaving as well 92504 Riverside Restripe and put pylons on the eastbound expresslanes from Lincoln to the 91/15 split. This would improve travel times for both lanes. Page 59 92504 I would engage with the boring company. We need to be modern like the EU. Everything there is linked by the Eurorail and bus transport. All trains Riverside should be linked in the US. Amtrak, Metro, RTA.... We need underground rail. Boring company can deliver. Riverside is the HUB for all of IE. We need to set the infrastructure for the future of this location. 92504 Riverside I have a few ideas about providing a better need for the community of riverside. 92504 Riverside proposal for making the toll road all the way to Riverside --please clarify 92504 Riverside I drive from Riverside to Colton daily, why did you put a diamond lane in? Big waste of money the cars I see in this lane, at least half, only have 1 driver. This diamond lane on 91 all the way into San Berdo 215, we all use the freeways and I pay thousands in taxes and can't use this lane. Let's get real not everyone can commute with other people. Another big blunder was on the 91 e/b in Riverside approaching downtown, approaching Mission Inn exist, the giant bridge which connects 60 to 91 creates a very dangerous back up. Vehicle comes off the bridge (connector from 60) merge onto 91 e/b and during rush hour this becomes a big dangerous mess. I rarely see CHP! You see them when there has been a very bad accident (after the fact) or if Cal Trans is blocking's a lane. Where are they? 92504 L_ Riverside Create more engineering jobs in Riverside so we don't have to travel so far for a job. More projects and it it a rule that it has to local companies that can bid on the he projects. Don't sub things out to other LA base companies for the work. A dedicated mortorcycle lane will work. 92504 Riverside fix the 91 eastbound at the 15 frwy... since the fastrack project on the 91 east to the 15 frwy has been completed the traffic from all the lanes merging is horrible I know with all the studies done they know when you merge 3 or 4 different lanes at the same location it causes problems. so why would they do this and are there any plans to fix this situation. 92504 Riverside Repave Market St in Riverside as well as Van Buren Blvd between Limonite and the 60 Fwy. 92504 Riverside I'm nterested in finding out exactly what it is that this website is going to provide before I'm able to comment. Thank you in advance it's always great to have anything towards developing a better life in our community. Page 60 92504 Riverside I want to see regular dedicated light rail from Riverside into Orange County following the 55 and 91. The trains need to several times a day, both directions, and late. While this project is underway, the Metrolink could run several more trains a day and also bring back the 10-pass ticket. 92504 Riverside Metro link is too expensive and too crowded at peak times. Make it more user friendly! 92504 Riverside L Have to get Sacramento to give up some et e . 215 is a mess. Stop building warehouses. 92505 Riverside Control traffic signals so that the areas with more traffic go more often. For example if theres one car one side and the other has 10 cars time signals. Where theres heavy traffic repair roads more. 92505 Riverside Less traffic 92505 Riverside Please finish the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange County. The SART is a long awaited feature for commuters and recreational riders all through the Inland Empire and Southern California. Thank you. he freeway we should have a subway system stop the traffic 92505 Riverside we need more transit services 92505 • Riverside Study doing better traffic signal synchronization. Especially main artery streets to 91 Fwy like Madison, 91, Indiana Ave. It's horrible!!! Eastbound Arlington Ave. signal timing is non-existent. I'm stopped by every signal in the mornings from La Sierra to the 91/Arlington!! 92505 Riverside Stop road construction. Stupid workers caused a sinkhole near my house and the roads weren't paved well. It's bumpy and already cracking. We need to get rid of Sabrina Cervantes for pushing laws that tax the people to "improve roads" when reall it makes traffic worse. Homeless people are a huge issue as well. Also stop gun control. Let people have freedom ya damn dictators 92505 Riverside RCTC is responsible to build the SART connecting Riverside and Orange counties. Please take a moment to request they make this project a priority. ' 92505 Riverside Complete the Santa Ana River Trail linking Riverside and Orange County 92505 Riverside No more fast track, my tax dollars already paid to drive on the freeway. 1 Page 61 92506 Riverside The problem of improper city/county planning, regarding transportation has evidently worsened. Over the years, the growth of people vs infrastructure, vs the freeway system, has been a failure. We as homeowners, are paying the price dearly, for your lack of proper addressing of this threat and detriment to our lives. The problem commuters face, should be addressed, and not at the cost of our needs and homes. We too have to pick up our kiddos from school. We have to risk backing out from our driveways, and pull out onto traffic, with exasperated commuters, honking their horn, on the overly congested streets, that is turned into parking lots. We, as homeowners along the Arlington corridor, in Riverside, are jeopardizing ourselves daily. What happens is, the out of city/county residents/commuters, act as this is their street. There's road rage, that endanger our lives, and it shouldn't be happening. They contribute to a problem that should've been remedied and we pay the price at this expense. We have to plan accordingly to commuting hour. It's 4:18 pm, as I speak and carloads of frustrated drivers, bumper to bumper, who won't let me back out of my own driveway! I can't last minute go grab a pizza or order a pizza in time for 5 pm dinner, because of course, I must endanger ourselves with honking horns, or shouting through their rolled down window, or something hurled at us! (continued) Forget ordering pizza for delivery, because a block walk to Pizza hut, turns into 1 hour delivery of cold, hard pizza! Why should we be paying the price dearly for improper funding/freeway planning? I only recently became active with voicing my frustration and fear. Last month, I submitted my formal complaint to the city. If necessary, you all come and park in our driveways, at 4:00 pm-6:45 pm, and see how long you linger before you can be `allowed' to back out into menacing traffic! 92506 Riverside More bike lanes, protected bike lanes, and having lights at intersections be cyclist friendly will increase biking as a mode of transportation. To start, adding bike lanes to connect existing bike routes will enable safer cycling. The intersection at canyon crest and central has bike routes in 3 directions but a disconnect with the 4th direction. Several people have cited this lack of infrastructure and resulting safety concerns as their reason for using a single occupancy vehicle instead of biking. 92506 Riverside L Too many street improvements at one time. Seems like a project is started, not completed then another is started, etc. etc. etc. finish what u start before beginning another. 92506 I Riverside Fix pot holes and better freeway merger transitions Page 62 92506 92506 92506 92506 92506 92506 92506 Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside I work for RTA and theres so many potholes and its hard to drive around in Moreno Valley so improve the roads. We need more buses and times in the AM that run from the Pass area to Riverside. I live in Beaumont and work in Riverside off Magnolia and Arlington. Right now the bus commute would be almost two hours and I'd still get to work late every day. I would take the 200 bus yo my job at California adventure which I have done a few times. But as a new employee I get late shifts a d the last bus from Anaheim is too early. If there was an 11:30 pm bus I could commute by the 200. I know cast members who would the same. We need to remoce all obstacles that prevent free flow of traffic. Southern California is spread out over miles and not densely packed like New York City, so we cannot solve our traffic problems the same way New York City has. What we need to do is, build wider freeways, remove toll and carpool lanes because they cause more traffic than reduce it. Most people are single occupants in their vehicles and tool roads are a burden on people who pay high gas prices. Widen roads by increasing lanes, therefore people are spending less time idling in traffic. You can add to mass transit, however ridership is done as most people drive to places. So instead of penalizing people for driving and making the driving experience terrible, we need to increase our roads and freewsys. If you really care about the environment make it easier for citizens who work or have businesses are able move freely they in other states for less. We keep throwing money at the problem but keeps getting worse, so listen to the people we are the ones using the roads everday. I would take a job making a little less salary in order to free myself of the daily commute. I am away from my house 14 hours a day and I only work 9-10 hours. The rest of the time is commuting. HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT OFFERING A STIPEND TO COMMUTERS? I have a lot of friends that work in the arts, entertainment and restaurant industries. With the city growing and our entertainment section of Riverside expanding many people that use public transportation can get to work easily but then have to struggle for a ride home in the early hours. The city should provide late night public transportation specifically for late night workers. Page 63 92506 Riverside As someone who spent nearly 30 years in the planning field for Riverside County (urban planning, environmental planning, and park planning), I sincerely believe that it is our irrational desire to rubber stamp every housing project that comes in for processing that is fueling much of the commute issues. At the same time, we do nothing to encourage businesses to set up satellite offices to reduce the need for the commute. In this day of computers, e-mail, skype, video conferencing etc., there is absolutely no need for someone to drive from Riverside or Moreno Valley to Orange County or Los Angeles to sit in front of a computer. Yes, it will take a change in the thinking of managers also, but the county could be offering incentives for legal, engineering, and other firms to allow people to work out of a centralized satellite office closer to home and not have to make the commute. If we add more lanes to the freeway, the mentality that has existed for the last 50 years will continue, and we will continue to approve more and more housing developments with no consumate number of good, high -paying jobs nearby. I can point to many such developments - Oak Valley near Beaumont for example, that approved thousands of homes with only a single commercial center for "jobs." (continued) This kind of idiotic planning has to stop. Just as we now evaluate projects for their impacts to greenhouse gas emission, we should also be evaluating (objectively) how a project will impact the freeways and commute times for not only the proposed residents but the current ones also. If that project will negatively impact commute times etc., then we have to have the backbone to stand up to the development community and tell them we no longer want such projects in our county (the vast majority of developers are out of LA and Orange County and never witness the impacts of their projects). I hope I haven't rambled on for too long, but I fear that we are looking at the wrong end of the problem - namely how to effect the commute. We should be looking at how to avoid it in the first place. Page 64 92506 Riverside My issue is the 15 fwy. Both north and south of the 91 Fwy. I do not understand how we are taking Public byways, and creating TollRoads. We Californians already pay the highest Taxes of any state, including gas, and Vehicle registration taxes and Fees. Yet the lanes we are building on the 15 Fwy. are Toll Lanes. We should be adding regular travel lanes for cars, and the gas tax should go Exclusively for road improvements Only. The group that runs the Toll roads had a $2.4 million Deficit 20 years ago, and now its over $6.4 Million. None of this money was spent on road improvements. They are wasting money on Expensive Orange County "Consultants" most of whom have some type of "relationship" with the Board members. $175.00 an hour to read news stories?? A waste of Taxpayer money. Also why is 2 people a "Carpool" in Orange County, but when it comes to the 15 Fwy. corridor, suddenly it takes 3 people to form a"Carpool"?? People work hard everyday, they should not be Charged to drive the Freeway to get to their Jobs. All new Housing construction should be halted, until we have the Infrastructure to deal with the resulting traffic. 92506 Riverside Dial -A -Ride needs improvement. Health insurance helps but doesn't cover all costs. What are the caller's paratransit options? 92506 Riverside 5.5 mile commute--4 of those miles are all potholes --why can't we take care of our streets? 92506 I would like to see more bike trails within the city and county of Riverside. On streets like Victoria I would like to see Yield signs, rather than stop signs as the flow of traffic on Victoria (especially to bike traffic and bike Riverside groups) should be the priority. With regard to regular roads, I'd like to see larger bike lanes and perhaps even sectioned off areas of the road (with a curb) on major streets. 92506 Riverside I would like to have dedicated biking paths throughout the city. This will promote transportation diversity and healthy living. It is not necessary, efficient, or beneficial to drive in a vehicle when traveling within a city (within 6 miles). There are countless times that I would like to ride my bike to my destination, yet I choose not to because I am worried about my safety on the roads. Page 65 Clogged early morning traffic on westbound 91 which begins after Tyler makes for very slow going. Drivers constantly change lanes and this congestion makes it difficult to enter the toll road. Perhaps 2 lanes dedicated to entering the westbound 91 toll road would help some. 92506 Riverside Another aid might be to limit 18 wheelers to specific late evening hours. Require home builders to contribute to road building & maintenance. And make certain that all vehicle registration fees & gas taxes go exclusively to road building. Thank you. 92506 Riverside This insane feeling that houses, strip malls, fast food joints, etc. need to be built on every square foot of land in the Inland Empire needs to change. Stop building sprawl and maybe there won't be a need for more congested roads. I think Riverside should work to increase metrolink services, in both directions , on all lines. Right now the choices are very limited if you want to travel west from Riverside after 8:30 am or east to Riverside,before 3:OOpm. As the population grows, the demographics may well be changing, 92506 Riverside where there are more people wanting to travel in the opposite directions of the traditional commuters going to OC and LA counties. We have 5 college campuses where students might commute more on trains, if they were available and a growing retirement population that would benefit from more choices. 92506 Riverside I commute to downtown LA. The commercial truck traffic has taken ove our freeways leaving cars to drive in one lane as a solo driverl, that's it, all the other lanes are filled with tractor trailers. We need to have an express train to downtown. It takes over two hours to take the train at a cost of over $300 a month., that's too much to pay for slow train service. An express train and small subsidy from the County may entice drivers like me to leave their cars in Riverside County. Also, a campaign targeted at government agencies (like the State) to permit regular telework would be very helpful. One way or another we have to help our citizens work without the stress of driving over two hours to work or paying for slow train service that takes two hours. Page 66 Hello. This seems like a great initiative. I do believe that the projects for widening and unclogging freeways are necessary and important, but what we really need are alternatives to taking cars everywhere. We need much better train service to LA (with trains not only going out in the morning and coming back in the afternoon/early evening, but running throughout the 92506 Riverside day at predictable - possibly half-hour - intervals). If at all possible, a new train line to San Diego would also be able to take quite a few cars off the roads. In Riverside itself, we need good bike paths criss-crossing the city (not the ones shared with cars on multi -lane streets, but paths for bikes only). I would be happy to leave my car at home if I could bike -commute to work in relative safety. AL 92506 Riverside One thing I notice is people who work late can get a ride to work but then are stuck with no ride after! We need to consider most people working at restaurants and theaters probably aren't the wealthiest to even consider an Uber or Lift. 92506 Riverside They want to steal your money and pocket it. Give them nothing. 92507 Riverside I would like to meet with Ann Mayer to talk about the "Reboot My Commute" program. I agree with her statement that says "We will need to think outside the familiar white and yellow lines, all ideas are welcome" This program sounds like a good plan to help solve our transportation problems. Please schedule a meeting with her and I will come to her office. 92507 Riverside Please fix the potholes in the roads. I keep getting flat tires. Especially the ones on Canyon Crest, which is the road I take to school. Chicago is pretty bad too. I just want smooth roads please. I'm a college student that can't afford anymore flat tires. 92507 Riverside I would like to change the times for busses, have them arrive quicker so familes and independent workers and depend on them and create a dedicated lane on magnolia ave for RTA only and or emergency vehicles. F;2507FRiverside t Gas, traffic, potholes 92507 Riverside I think more busses more transpertation options. Would help everyone. Despite the massive reconstruction of the 91/60/215 interchange, this connector is perpetually clogged with traffic both during the rush hour 92507 Riverside periods and even on weekends/off-times. The worst is the bottleneck effect with the merging of traffic from eastbound 91, southbound 215, and the eastbound 60. Page 67 92507 Riverside Would like to see different agencies across the county finally come together and not only focus on tackling and solving commute problems,but also focus on homeless and urban blight solutions 92507 Riverside I am a commuter on the 91/15 fwy exchange on the weekends mostly and on several weeknights in the week. I go to my church and some other events for my networking with Military Veterans in Tustin, Irvine and also Teacher events at Cal State Fullerton. This past Thursday, March 21st was a nightmare, I left my house in ample time to go to Huntington Beach via 91 w and then 55 Newport beach to the 39 fwy to the 5 fwy, to 405 w. I am sorry but I didn't make it to my event, I was in crazy traffic for 1 and half hours and just got to Imperial Hwy and got off to do the streets, I was listening to the sigalert on the radio, there was a water leak on the 55 fwy so there was not a chance I would get to my distination, so I turned around to go back to Riverside, that was not too bad I make it home by 9:30 p.m.. Thanks 92507 Riverside Change the traffic flow sensors on major thoroughfares from pressure to timed regulators. And synchronize the traffic lights along the way to change at the posted speed limit, so there isn't a continuing stop and go pattern. Instead, a smooth flow of cars throughout the city. This would save gasoline, time, pollution, and long waits for signals to change. 92507 Riverside With the increase in housing, Van Buren needs more care and has many potholes. When will this be addressed? 2. Intersection at 215 and 60 is an issue. Traffic is horrible. 3. Flow of traffic is 92507 Riverside Take the train. 91/PVL line times aren't ideal Canyon Crest to downtown Riverside should not require paying bus fare twice. Lyft/Uber partnership to and from train stations needed. Better train station needed for UC Riverside. Hunter Park is too far away. Train should 92507 Riverside be faster than driving. Look to Ca!train and how they automate boarding announcements, etc to speed up process. Train partnership to Huntington Beach needed. Current train+bus ride takes too much time. Work with Lyft & Uber to get them to offer cheaper shared rides. Page 68 92507 Riverside Hello. I had an idea that would really help with my commute every morning. I live over by Quail Run Park off of Sycamore Canyon Blvd. Unfortunately, but understandably, a lot of commuters will use this road as an alternative to the freeway. My problem is that the road becomes so congested with speeding drivers that I can't turn out from my neighborhood street (Quail Run Road). I would suggest putting in a stop sign at the intersection of Sycamore Canyon Road and Quail Run Road. That way everyone who lives down my road can have a chance to get out onto Sycamore Canyon Road without having to wait in a long line of cars (which currently backs up every morning as cars wait for a safe opportunity to turn). Thank you for your consideration and everything you do for this community. 92507 Riverside A class 1 bike network linking UCR, downtown, the plaza, tyler mall, la sierra university. Specifically I would like class one paths on chicago, spruce, university, magnolia/market, Iowa, Victoria ave (expand and refine). If you create a system you would feel comfortable letting your children use, people would flock to it. Create light rail for the city. Metrolonk is pretty useless if I want to go from UCR to the plaza or downtown or tyler mall. Link class one bikeways with light rail stops and parks. Give incentives for biking and disincentives for driving. Maybe rebates or discounts on utility bills or maybe rent (yeah, rent increases are another can of worms) or gift cards for groceries. 92507 Riverside I would bring high paying career jobs to the inland empire. Alas this is not likely to happen any time soon. I commute to Irvine for work and driving would take me 1.5-2 hrs one way. I take the metrolink but it hasn't reduced my commuting time since i have to take the OCTA bus as well. What i would like to see is a wider range of train times and more public transport that's affordable. How is it even possible that im spending the same on a metrolink monthly pass compared to the amount of gas money per month when I was commuting to Irvine! 92507 Riverside Replace the pavement on SR 60/ 1-210 east of the Riverside Interchange. - between the interchange and the Central Ave UC. The concrete pavement, especially the #3, #4 & #5 lanes is badly broken up and is barely drivable. I have seen the prospective construction contracts by Dist 8 in the near term and do not see any remedial work programmed. This will be a very difficult area to fix! 92507 Riverside Go to Santa Barbara and see. Small electric buses, every few minutes, on short routes. 92507 Riverside Giant empty buses. Page 69 92507 Riverside Electric buses, running more frequently on shorter routes. 92507 Riverside RTA bus route are long loops running infrequently in one direction only. There is a bus stop by my house, it would take me 20 minutes to take it to work, but then it would take an hour and a half to get home. 92507 Riverside Keep the sidewalks clean. There is an area of sidewalk that is impossible to walk on because of a lot of mud. It is on Canyon Crest Drive near Central, on the east side of the street. 92507 Riverside Yes , build the wall. Fix the roads 92507 Riverside cry me a santa ana river about the gas tax, its not like the groups listed above can always depend on driving themselves. Don't worry Maurice! They will probably take the carpool away on the 92507 Riverside 215, 91, & 60 soon enough & add fast trak to them as well to rob us some more! 92507 Riverside Have the people in charge have to use only public transportation for 3 months. No Taxi or Uber 92507 Riverside Seriously encourage RideShare Thursday's again and on Mondays & Fridays reduce toll fees for 2 or more commuters , my state job allowed me to come in at 8:30 AM to allow stagnation driving, buses need to be cooler, bus transfer fees should be less - many jobs sites take more than one bus to commute. 92508 I Riverside Please widen the I-15 freeway in the Temecula & Murrieta city areas to improve the flow of traffic. Thank you! 92508 Riverside L Please improve dedicated bike lanes and trails in Riverside County!:) As a bike commuter, I risk my life every week to get to work. Commuting by bike is extremely dangerous. Anything you can do to help make bike commuters; in Riverside County, more safe, would be greatly appreciated. I would like to include this quote from a Washington Post article on cycling safety: "Nationwide, you're more than twice as likely to die while riding a bike than riding in a car, per trip, according to a 2007 study led by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Laurie Beck. Bike riding is also about 500 times more fatal than riding in a bus." Thank you for your help and have an amazing day. 92508 Riverside 60 freeway shouldn't be that congested.. 9, 2508 Riverside Complete the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside and Orange County as soon as possible. 92508 I Riverside Add more Bike Cars during large scale bike events. Page 70 92508 Riverside Build the CV Link as soon as possible! 92508 Riverside It is a shame that the public is so ill informed that they believe more lanes will solve our problems. In every major city across the Country, those corridors with the most traffic jams are slowly being changed to a timed stoplight system. Anyone who knows traffic knows that at our stage, "Timing" is everything. If the lights on Van Buren were timed, traffic backup would nearly be eliminated. Please do the proper studies that will actually provide for an improvement, not studies that are of a political liking. 92508 Riverside Fill the pot holes its putting out cars in danger of early deterioration 92508 Riverside After the 60 N merges with the 215 N it is RIDICULOUS traffic day or night. Weekday or weekend. I commute from Riverside Mission Grove to Loma Linda 5 days a week and spend 1.5+ hours every commute in traffic that is primarily located in this region. PLEASE help! 92508 Riverside 1. Since you have this in English/Spanish and I only speak English/Hindi, hopefully you still care about my opinion. 2. No new taxes. 3. Use the current taxes that are taken from us at the local & state level to take care of the streets instead of selling your soul to the union bosses and giving away the farm. 4. NO NEW TAXES. LET MEASURE 'A' EXPIRE. BETTER IDEA - CANCEL MEASURE 'A' 92508 Riverside Consider that if I drive into LA - choices are taking the 210, the 10 or the 60. Driving into orange county I have one choice: the 91. There isn't another freeway choice into South Orange county unless I want to take Ortega highway (which is not a freeway), The only way you will ever relieve pressure off the 91 is to build a freeway with access directly from the 15 into the 241. Adding more lanes to the 91 is only a band aid. In addition, adding additional time slots to the metrolink. The 20 to 25 minute gaps are too long - check out New York City - trains are running all the time, 92508 Riverside Bike or skateboard ! Page 71 92509 Riverside Better integration between counties would be good. Keeping bus stops well maintained and covered shelter from the elements such as sun and rain would be nice. Trash receptacles would be good. Lighting would be good. To be honest, there is a perception of unsanitary conditions, dealing with people who might be violent or unstable associated with riding the bus system. Take a look at our bus stops. Do they invite you or tell you otherwise. Review other cities or counties that have well traveled public transportation. 92509 Riverside I lived in the Bay Area for a spell, for work. It was amazing for a lot of reasons, one specifically was being able to move around the area without a car. This was especially important when I suffered an injury that affected my ability to drive. I still have difficulties driving. Here, in Jurupa Valley, I'm very isolated. The bus is.... Undesirable. Being a physically vulnerable, young-ish, attractive, female is already a dangerous situation, in public. Busses are just a cesspot of potential terrible, that take ages to get anywhere. When appointments, errands, a work shift, or social call would be exhausting on it's own- the idea of walking to, boarding a bus, taking hours to arrive - then do the item - and do that difficult journey all over again. Good god, no thank you. Many of us who have disability stay in isolation, instead. I don't feel safe, the people on busses aren't people I typically want to be around, it takes far too long to get anywhere, and it's humiliating act, in this area. A lower income postion to be in, not a great option to take. No reasonable person takes a bus around here, if they have other options. On the peninsula, in the Bay Area, I could get to many city centers quickly and safely. It was clean, you don't really risk assult, it was mostly on time and, most importantly it was normal to do. Rich folks, poor folks, students and the elderly rode with me - a disabled person- with zero incidents in the years I lived there. My car was never broken into, in a train parking lot, if I had driven, at all. I had a train stop about 1/3 of a mile from my home. Our public transportation is the bare minimum to service the minority that cannot drive. It's not a thing we all use, it's what disadvantaged people who could not scrounge a ride resorted to. Page 72 (continued) Rail expansion is a topic that California is always proding around. I would be extatic if we could expand passenger serivice around here. Our freeways are so, so congested. I live directly adjacent to the 60 so, I breathe the result of the congestion every day. My block has also had several hit -and -runs and DUI collisions with parked vehicles. Better rail serive would pull some of those DUI drivers off the road, as well. It would at least bring them closer to home - with a hired car for 'the last mile' of travel. This isn't a wealthy area - we can't afford a Lyft or Uber, all the way to a city center. It costs me about $40-45 to get a hired car from Jurupa Valley to downtown Riverside and back. We very well may be able to budget better public transportation and short hired car rides, though. Jurupa Valley has seen many casualty collisions, especially on Van Buren and Limonite. My city is expanding and have been trying to entice new residents. Our roadways are as full as they can be, now. How are we going to handle these other commuters? Clean, safe, not shameful, used by everyone, widely available light rail. Metrolink is great! I've used it for years, but it's very limited in scope of stop. It's a longer commute design, not local travel. Infrastructure should be publically owned and not privately profitable. Please expand on the IE's passenger rail system. Yes add more sidewalks in places that don't have them the disable are 92509 Riverside forced to operate their wheelchair in the street. More disable parking downtown. It is limited for the amount of disabled living in the county. 92509 I Riverside I wants more bus service/transportation access 92509 Riverside 92509 Riverside Jurupa Valley the 15 south to Irvine to Coronoa have to pass 91 3-4 miles and do a u-turn in order to get back on the Express lane why is it like this the 60 is backed up in the morning. We need relief on the 60. Too many trucks. I live on a fixed income. Transportation should be free for people who have 92509 Riverside disabilities and are on a fixed income. It shouldn't take 8 hours to Claremont from riverside. Buses should Tun more often. 92509 Riverside I we need more signage on transitions from one freeway to another. 92509 Riverside we need more public transit between Rialto and Riverside. 92509 Riverside we need to fix van Buren through jurupa valley. There is too much traffic during rush hour. 92509 Riverside I like the SR-60 truck lanes project. J 92509 Riverside it costs too much to build here. We need to get rid of some state and local regulations. Page 73 92509 Riverside we need more buses and trains. L J 92509 I Riverside on the weekends. I don't want to drive but the transit schedule (metro link) makes it difficult to get around. I don't like toll lanes. Too expensive and doesn't help with traffic. 1- 92509 Riverside CB freeway entrances need to be better because cars cause traffic congestion and jams (60 fwy on Valley way) 92509 Riverside the 215 needs more lanes near Moreno Valley. Washington has electric cars. I don't see where our transportation taxes are going. we need local transit from Moreno Valley to riverside that runs frequently 92509 Riverside like trolley. We need to educate kids on how to use transit early to foster new generation of transit riders. 92509 Riverside in New York I never had to drive. I had to buy a car when I moved here. We need better transit. IF- 92509 Riverside My daughter lives in riverside off magnolia and when she got in an accident she was left with no car and uses the electric rent scooter to get to work (Sear at Arlington) and it's really convenient I like that program 92509 Riverside add more freeway lanes. 92509 Riverside we need to add a third lane on Van Buren J 92509 Riverside make the freeways wider. the wb 60 lanes near the 15 are in bad shape. There are pot holes and it 92509 Riverside makes it difficult to drive regular pick trucks. The streets on near Van Buren always get flooded. 92509 Riverside I work in construction and I drive a lot. There are too many cars and accidents on the streets 92509 Riverside CB truck driver who thinks there's no remedy to traffic due to congestion and angry drivers only time there is no traffic is at night 92509 Riverside traffic is getting worse. 92509 P Riverside Providing ideas or my personal opinion about current projects or suggestions for new projects. Page 74 92509 Riverside Make public transportation more affordable. OCTA ROUTE 794 to Costa Mesa is convenient but expensive at 14 dollars per day. RTA ROUTE 200 only goes to Anahiem. I feel that cheap, practical and dependable public transportation is the solution. I have been commuting from Riverside for the last 10 years and public transportation just keeps getting more and more expensive to take the bus or metrolink. This will help take vehicles off the roads make the freeways safer and create long term jobs for all the conductors. 92509 Riverside It is clear that the county of Riverside does not think the metro -link service is necessary. it is a system that does not benifit the community due to its lack of speed, and freedom, unlike driving your own car to the orange county area, the worst amount of traffic in the morning and coming back at night. RCTC should be focusing on rewarding those who take the bus or carpool to and from riverside. more luxurious buses and ways to get people to carpool to and from work should be the focus. Construction projects also make the freeways or even major streets unbearable during peak hours. Construction times must drop drastically, whether if that is through working on massive road projects 24/7 (more hires) or working the project in small sections to allow traffic to only be affected in a small area rather than for a mile long stretch (La Sierra heading up to Lake Matthew is a perfect example, a long stretch that still is not complete.) 92509 Riverside Better integration between counties would be good. Keeping bus stops well maintained and covered shelter from the elements such as sun and rain would be nice. Trash receptacles would be good. Lighting would be good. To be honest, there is a perception of unsanitary conditions, dealing with people who might be violent or unstable associated with riding the bus system. Take a look at our bus stops. Do they invite you or tell you otherwise. Review other cities or counties that have well traveled public transportation. N/A Riverside Remove big rigs from the roads during morning and afternoon rush hour commutes N/A I no longer drive And my only hope was the bus. I love it. You have given Riverside my independence back. I dont have to depend on anybody for a ride. Thank you very much. Page 75 N/A more buses and trains. should be 1 bus every 10 minutes at each bus stop. if there was enough public transportation people wouldn't have to rely on Riverside driving cars, there would be less cars on the road which would mean: -less traffic -less accidents (less injuries/death) -less wear on the road/less need to repair wear -less polution need I go on? N/A Riverside More train service! If there was more reliable transportation to Orange and Los Angeles counties via rail, we could chip away at the horrible state of the freeways. I've recently been taking the train into downtown LA for meetings and have been grateful for the convenience but frustrated by how limited of an option it is. We could build rail lines to connect the county as well and get more people using public transit. Light rail through clogged corridors could also help significantly. N/A Riverside Stop Taxing the crap out of us! Actually do your jobs and fill potholes you can start there. N/A I Riverside N/A N/A Riverside Riverside Start investing in articulated busses for popular routes Yeah don't park the damn scooters in the sidewalk so you can get your wheelchair around them Many people have died in Alessandro blvd, one just last week, this has been due to the failure to fix the bottle neck at the 60 and 215 interchange. Want to fix something why don't you start there! F/A Riverside Turn the toll roads into light rail lanes. J N/A I Riverside There comes a point when there are so many people in an area there is nothing you can do . Think about that before you burn tons of money. BE WISE N/A Riverside Go Fix pot holes properly, Or you can give are money back that your wasting. N/A Riverside Get rid of so many bike lanes. I see cars going bumper to bumper in one lane while I almost never see any bicycles in the bicycle lanes. On another subject, I wonder if these electric scooter companies are paying anything to use the public sidewalks to store their scooters. They are a business and store their wares on city property. They need to pay a fee to do so. I have been talking the bus when I can but sometimes my hours are later N/A Riverside than the last 1015 stop at Disneyland and I get off at 1115 would be nice l if the time got changed and I would be taking the bus every day N/A Riverside How about stopping the train at UCR. That's a start! Page 76 N/A We should buy cars at dealerships that arent selling and make them Riverside riverside taxis, you can pay a standard fee to go a certain distance like the rta' only it's not on a fixed route' N/A Riverside Need more access for metrolink tell us where we stop not use microphone announcement bec I can't hear and need more for deaf service like trip or on bus too 1st' You have a homeless boom here, and some of these people are pushy, violent and their pissing everywhere, on top of utilizing our ambulance N/ Riverside system daily. I own a business here and it's getting worse every year, we can't handle anymore and they keep coming here. Maybe I'll just move, that would be easier I guess. N/A Riverside I Build a city trolly that rides on tracks or cables N/A Riverside Fix pot holes N/A I Riverside N/A Riverside N/A Riverside T I didn't know we had a problem. I second that fix potholes and re -pave van buren As someone who rides public transit in CA, before you ask this, try getting the pub trans to simply run on time @therctc how about explaining why public funds for the 91 freeway expansion were used only to have said expansion be the addition of new toll lanes which charge the tax payer to use new lanes that they already paid taxes to build in the first place? Abolishing toll lanes on roads that already used public funding for construction seems like the fair thing to do and would certainly improve traffic flow & transportation for those with disabilities #rebootmycommute N/A Riverside No it is not. N/A Riverside Well definetly senior communities should have a stop for disability right in front or even offered to get them from their apartment or house. N/A Riverside Re pave all the crap roads N/A Riverside Earlier and later departure times. Like 5AM and midnight N/A Riverside Make the merge lane East bound on the 91 from Pierce/Riverwalk longer. And fix the whole 91 /15 mess ! N/A Riverside It's easy quit building,. It's starting to look just like los Angeles,. It sucks Page 77 N/A More frequent buses, more bus stops, and a light rail system connecting all Riverside of the inland empire with Riverside as its HUB. Look at the Portland, Or MAX system if you need inspiration. N/A Riverside I Rail system Improve the 241 merge onto the 91E - it's the worst clog along that part N/A Riverside of the route for too many hours! L N/A Riverside Take out the stupid car pool lanes so all of the country can use the freeways our tax dollars paid for. Engineer smarter interchange system for freeways. N/A ik They should've built all those lanes to be flow lanes where the flow d' f h I h based flow f h ff Riverside erection o the lane changes ase on ow o heavy traffic. N/A Riverside I hope Sacramento keeps ignoring us. They pay for parking everywhere. N/A Don't dead-end a lane on a freeway that's traveling 70 miles per hour!!! Riverside EVER!!! You want a bottleneck, there you go! N/A Riverside Open the fast track lanes to be carpool as well like San Diego does N/A Riverside i Widen the freeways cause we are NOT taking public transportation Get rid of toll lanes N/A Riverside I Put the bus station back Get rid of the toll lanes. We pay enough in gas gas and registration fees. N/A Riverside Also start writing tickets to people blocking traffic just to cut in line for the toll roads. N/A Riverside N/A Riverside There's 5 miles of Santa Ana River between the 15 and Van Buren. Another 5 miles to Mission Inn Ave. When there's an accident and Van Buren gets closed, Pedley and Arlanza might as well be separate countries. We need more bridges across the river. A high speed rail, connecting from San Francisco to San Diego, of course it should also pass through Riverside and Inland Empire N/A Riverside I Fix the potholes they tend to mess with the cars and cost people money. N/A High speed rail connecting Riverside, LA, OC, San Diego. It's proven that Riverside adding lanes to expressway doesn't fix gridlock; need alternative means of commuting Page 78 N/A N/A N/A Riverside Riverside Riverside Fast track is for those who can afford that expense. It is better to widen the freeways and encourage the double up of commuters, and main drags such as allesando add a carpool there so people can lighten the load of frwy traffic during high volume hours. Major change would be to find a path between the 91 and 215 that goes to 60 fwy with minimum stop lights Open the fast track lanes to be carpool as well like San Diego does This looks like it's all about road and highway improvements/additions. It literally refers to the participants as "motorists!" So we're just gonna act like the profile of #InducedDemand doesn't exist? Let's get some regional railway and last mile improve! #rebootmycommute ZIP City Comments - San Gorgonio Pass 92220 92220 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 92223 92223 Banning Banning Banning Banning Banning Banning Banning Banning Beaumont Beaumont Well, for now the new connections can grow our communities longer and wider. From there we will see its pros and cons, as well of thinking if we make longer so we connect the whole United States. How about we start a go fund me page to get some of these projects kick started. Just a thought. Make more road improvements. There is a misappropriation of funds that should be going into road improvement. No texting while driving, make the fines bigger for violators. I like the buses, one suggestion is to place times on the bus signs at the stops. Make it easy to find out what time the next bus is coming. For example put "this bus comes at the 15 mark" People should walk more or bike more Provide buses for Coachella music festivals. We are concerned for safety during these festivals. We need more buses, and try to keep people off the road. We need bus Lanes and a real train system. I would use the bus all the time if we had decent public transportation. It would take me over an hour to get to my college by bus, but only 15 minutes by car. That has ridiculous. For one of the most wealthy economies on the planet, how can we be so far behind. I feel that carpooling and/or public transportation options from Beaumont to downtown Riverside would be beneficial. Page 79 92223 Beaumont This is more of please asking you to expand the San Bernardino Metrolink line to either Beaumont or Calimesa. Not sure if you guys oversee Redlands or Yucaipa but if the San Bernardino line could be extended to much closer to Beaumont it would be super awesome. Also of there's a better channel for this type of request please let me know Thank you! 92223 Beaumont In addition to the Intercity connection from LA to Indio with maybe a stop in Cabazon, we also need a commuter train that connects Beaumont & Yucaipa with Redlands and the larger LA metro Area, OC and SD. 92223 Beaumont 1. Widened Interchange bridge, on ramps with signals at Cherry Valley/1- 10 serving Calimesa and Beaumont is needed now with the amount of housing already built and being built with the commercial on the southeast corner coming soon. 2. Widen 1-10 from Calimesa to Banning. It's a traffic jam going west every morning and night, and getting worse every year. 3. Full widening of Oak Valley/1-10 Interchange in Beaumont is needed —not just the signals that are being installed now. I-10 needs widening through Yucaipa so RCTC needs to coordinate with SBCTA 4. Improve Singleton, Calimesa Blvd and County Line Road 1-10 interchanges in Calimesa. 5. Full improvements at Protero/SR60 rather than just bridge and interim ramps 6. San Timoteo Canyon Road needs improvements such as a signal at San Timoteo and Redlands Blvd because the peak traffic is backed up at the stop signs. The road should be widened. It's no longer a `country road' with all the use it has now from development. 7. Improve and widen Beaumont Avenue and Hwy 79 1-10 Interchange 8. Extend Metrolink or light rail to Beaumont/Banning/Cabazon/Palm Springs 9. More Safety improvements are needed on Hwy 79 from Beaumont to Hemet/San Jacinto. 10. Create new 1-10 interchange at Pennsylvania Ave in Beaumont. 92223 Beaumont The growth in Beaumont continues and with all of the residential and commercial construction it will clearly continue. The new Potrero interchange will certainly will help the traffic congestion, a complete interchange at Pennsylvania / 1-10 is long overdue. Even those two projects are not enough to solve the continued congestion at Highland Springs / 1-10 which is already critical with more homes being built. My concern is these projects should already be beyond the talking stage. Thank you. Page 80 92220 N/A There are only 3 types of vehicle traffic -Commercial, Emergency Service and Private. Each has a wide variety of users. The San Gorgonio Pass is a funnel for all of them and the majority are exceeding the speed limits even on the main city/county streets. Access to a commuter rail service would be helpful to the growing economy. Expanded bus service with more stops in residential, medical and commercial neighborhoods would be helpful. Particularly if the buses were handicapped accessible and with extended service hours. The basics to be helpful to local citizens are already in place but, in my opinion need to be expanded. 92320 N/A Monorail 92320 N/A Add a normal 4th lane between yucaipa and beaumont N/A N/A You have to be kidding me. Back in the day they tried to buy up all the homes including my parents' and then had meetings on traffic. No one listened to the neighbors including my mom and her best friend. My dad said enough of this bs and sold my childhood home and moved out of the area. Those traffic engineers had their own ideas and could of cared less what the "community" had to say. N/A N/A Have uber donated free rides to handicapped. N/A N/A How about we privatize the trains and busses (governments are notoriously bad business owners), open the carpool lanes to ALL traffic (every time it's been tried it's been successful), use the money that we vote to set aside to ONLY to fix the roads EVERY election cycle to actually fix and expand the roads (instead of that cash going to politicians' pet projects), and let people freely CHOOSE how they get to work without government influence/insistence/social engineering. Government control of transportation is a key factor in forcing a state to accept the socialist economic system, an economic system that has failed EVERY TIME it has been used. Can we PLEASE learn from the mistakes of the past WITHOUT reapeating them? N/A N/A Nah, we dont ned another failed rail system N/A N/A Metrolink. We need more Metrolink N/A N/A Get the Metro extended.... N/A N/A Be on time.. not too early or too late. Add more bus stops. Dont change routs all the time. N/A N/A Metrolink Page 81 N/A N/A You gotta be kidding Don,t build a swarehouse truck farm at CV Blvd & 1-10 !!!!! N/A N/A Quit building more mundane, expensive housing... there's plenty of housing and waaaay too many people living here. The 10 underpass in Banning has become completely choked due to traffic overload. Get the homeless people out, and what is this survey for? The city fathers haven't ever looked around Banning? It's a dirty, poorly run mess. N/A N/A Look at how the signal lights are timed. You have a green light and can't go because the next light is red and theres to much traffic. Get out from behind your desk and go look at the city Maybe we should encourage people to pull off the freeway if they're being pulled over by CHP. People can't help but stareeee at the flashing police lights... it backs up traffic for miiiiles. Also, there are so many traffic lights N/A N/A that take forever to change. For example, turning left onto the 10E on Yucaipa Blvd takes way too long. The left turn arrow will be red even though there are no cars coming. I have to wait until the next cycle to go! There's lots of lights like that, that just are not timed correctly. N/A N/A Stop stage coach, Coachella, building more homes and voting Democrat. Solved. N/A N/A metrolink Indio, palm springs banning, Beaumont to Riverside ZIP City Comments - Southwest 92530 Lake Elsinore I wish there was a train that went from Nichols exit or lake st exit to south Corona. My family and I make that commute together and it takes almost an hour to go those 13 miles. Stop the building of new homes, let's work on & maintain the roads to handle the traffic we already have & build more highways, before building more homes. Let's not promote events that we know will cause serious 92530 Lake Elsinore traffic problems, such as the beautiful flowering poppies. Let the people find out on their own. Stop electing ignorant persons into office, find out the truth about them first. Stop the corruption, lies & pay offs in our own state government. Page 82 92530 Lake Elsinore Hello, I'm a resident of Lake Elsinore. I live in a track that is very popular, multi -cultural and safe, but I feel like I live in the "boonies" as I don't have a car and feel stuck in a box. And there is absolutely NO Public Trans in the vicinity. I have to walk 35 to 45min (keep in mind, in shoes for "work") to get to a bus stop, to limited areas and connections (downhill, then uphill back home, which add's 10 more minutes). If I want to go to any other county I have to connect from the "Outlets" in Lake Elsinore off the 15. And even then, if I need to take a train to LA County (where my vocation is), they have limited runs ONLY in the morning and limited runs back in the early evenings. And to get to the Inland Empire (lets say, to Fontana), its going backwards (Riverside), then forwards - the way the buses/trains are set up and their availability. Meanwhile everyday on the road to jobs with my supervisor on my 9 to 5 regular job, we are stuck in traffic on various Fwy. routes. It is obvious that IF there were sufficient ways to get to our destinations, there would be less traffic if there were more routes for buses (modern LARGER buses than these "vans" locally) and longer schedules, as well for Trains that also have longer hours so that we don't stress to catch the connections on time. (continued) This is the very reason I want to go back to LA County, I can hop on buses I know that run till 12am+ and hop the Goldline and go from Montclair to "Santa Monica" if I wanted (If I could afford it, I'd move to San Diego county). I have taken public trans in SoCal for 25 years, I am used to long commutes, but to have "nothing" here in Lake Elsinore is a crime. I'll not be here forever, but its those that make this their permanent home that will suffer, and not want to venture out of their comfort zone. I for one am sick and tired of living in this box. I hope that this helps, but WHERE is this money coming from? As said, the politicians can talk but we've seen and heard the same b.s. since 1988 in California. - Thank you for your time. 92530 Lake Elsinore We need more freeway lanes not till roads, Californians already pay enough in taxes why tax more ? I believe if you removed the toll roads to make for regular roads then it would ease congestion . I live off the 15 freeway in lake Elsinore and why would the state add a toll road ? We need more standard roads . Maybe dig tunnels and go underground where the existing freeways are . Just my opinion but I hope our elected officials figure it out as we are considering moving out of state . California has billions come into the states via tourism as well as via our local residents . You need to watch closer where the state spends money at . r r 92530 Lake Elsinore We need a ring road Page 83 92532 Lake Elsinore I think for to long California has wasted money on building roads (specifically widening roads) that are already obsolete by the time the project is completed. More focus needs to be concentrated on commuter/light rail in the county. I was probably one of the first commuters to start using the Perris Valley Metrolink line when it opened. For months the trains were empty with maybe 10 to 15 people per trip. I commute from the South Perris Metrolink Station to Riverside UCR and occasionally the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink stations to get to Santa Ana/Los Angeles and the amount of people now talking the train HUGE compared to what it was three years ago . The Perris Valley Line is a modern freight - free (for the most part) commuter line that has very limited service. This morning (04/11/2019), I missed my Metrolink train in South Perris and decided to drive into work. What takes 27 minutes on the train took 1.5 hours along the I-215 and side streets this morning! I love the train!... but Metrolink's service in Riverside County has always catered to 9-5 commuters. I would ask the RCTC to look into how many people actually work typical 9-5 jobs anymore, its much less than in previous years. Metrolink is a fast option to bypass traffic and get to your destination, but if your work day starts in the late morning/afternoon and ends in the late evening, you're screwed for Metrolink in Riverside County. Additionally, the I-215 northbound into San Bernardino is heavily congested in the morning as well. (continued) A right-of-way with track exists that could allow Perris Valley trains to transport riders to San Bernardino which has multiple trains per hour that connect to Los Angeles until 8pm in the evening and 930pm on Friday's and weekends. Metrolink's San Bernardino Line is the only line Metrolink operates that offers multiple trains per hour during peak times and at least one train per hour during off peak times. This model should be used in Riverside County with the IEOC line, 91/Perris Valley Line and the Riverside Line (I understand the Riverside Line difficulties due to SCRRA not owning the right-of-way and being at the mercy of the Union Pacific). Point being is I believe commuter rail to be the answer. More fre quent Metrolink service to more destinationsis the key in my opinion. Riverside County is growing rapidly due to affordable housing and the roads will never be able to keep up. Now to quote a line from Field of Dreams but geared towards rail commuters, "IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL RIDE." Page 84 92532 Lake Elsinore Please provide public transit commuter services through Temecula. The I- 15 is such an untapped resource for public transit. There are outlets in Temecula and Lake Elsinore and Corona. Temecula could be a location where a number of lines meet up connecting workers, families, businesses, and communities. In addition, public transit infastructures that would support mass evacuation in the case of flooding or fires- making roads wider does not help this issue when the roads are unsafe and flooded. 92532 Lake Elsinore I feel the 15 freeway from Temecula to Corona desperately needs to be widened. With the countinued growth of the Southwest area of Riverside County, the freeway continues to get worse. As commute times get longer people looking to move to the area will start looking else where due to the poor commute times. Thanks for listening. Stop with the Express Lanes!!! Quit banking off of the tax payers! Add 92532 Lake Elsinore extra lanes to the freeway to unlock congestion withOUT charging. This is just an observation, with the death of that individual on the 15/91 bridge that makes it 3 suicides in these overpasses could you add signs along that stretch of the bridges maybe a hotline number, maybe some sayings to help the individuals contemplating suicide. The other thing 92532 Lake Elsinore might be installing cameras in those areas where this is occurring if a car " breaks down " in these areas emergency personnel can be notified. This also affects the fastrak so maybe they can help with the costs. I don't know but something needs to be done because unfortunately it will happen again. 92532 Lake Elsinore Start building train tracks now before we become LA 92562 Murrieta More frequent rta busese between Murrieta and university of California riverside. 92562 Murrieta Easing the congestion on the 15 fwy in the Temecula area should be the top priority. The 15 fwy in the Temecula Valley is a major artery for anyone traveling from the Inland Empire to/ from San Diego. It is beyond frustrating to travel on the 15N in afternoon traffic and see my car navigation indicate that it will take me 90 minutes+ to travel 13 miles from the Fallbrook area to Murrieta. It's inconvenient and disruptive to my business to have to plan my business meetings San Deigo around the traffic so that I can avoid 3 hours of traffic for what should be an hour drive. 92562 Murrieta PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!! We need at LEAST one additional lane, each direction, on I-15 though Temecula! Page 85 92562 Murrieta Continue Fast Track fr San Diego thru to the 91 something needs to be done Especially thru the Temecula to Murrieta area It's so bad & adds so much extra time to our commute!!!! 92562 Murrieta lEm It has taken me an hour and a half to drive from murrieta to Camp Pendleton in the morning. 92562 I Murrieta When will an appropriate commuter HIGHWAY go in between southwest Riveriside County and South Orange County? The Ortega highway is no longer feasible for commuting. 92562 ***NEW HIGHWAY TO SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY*** Murrieta The Ortega is no longer enough, it's no longer safe, and it was never meant to be for commuters... 92562 Murrieta Improve public transportation and create more options 192562 Murrieta Reduce traffic through Temecula to the 115/1215 interchange. 92562 Murrieta The 15 North and South between Temecula and Rainbow Valley needs major help. The onramps at SR 79 and Winchester need meters so cars are staggered coming on to the freeway. This traffic is abhorrent and will ruin the quality of life in SWRC, destroy real estate values, and hurt the tourism economy! Reboot my commute! 92562 Murrieta Widen the 15 freeway through Temecula and Murrieta 92562 Murrieta I would take trucks off the road during commute times. Don't need a tax for that. And take money from the train to nowhere. 92562 Murrieta I 2 additional lanes 15 N/S bound from Indian Truck Trail to 91 1 92562 Murrieta Please spend some time driving northbound on Interstate 15. It takes an hour to drive from the Riverside County line, just 7 miles on Interstate 15, to get to 215. Horrible. Please consider Southwest Riverside County I-15 improvements. 92562 Murrieta How about not charging an arm and a leg for ridiculous toll fees and let the tax payers have the lanes that are desperately needed, Anne Myer?!? V 92562 Murrieta How about fix the pot holes on California Oaks Road and paint the white strips. You can hardly see the white lines at night. I 92562 Murrieta Seeing that you guys bring in so much revenue from the toll roads, fix the freeways!! A billion dollar disaster that you guys wasted in Corona and no one lives have improved. You guys, especially Anne Myer should be fired. Page 86 92562 Murrieta Idea: A multiple lane highway that will allow automobiles to travel with I ease as there will be no intersections, stop signs, stop lights and pedestrian crossing until they reach an off ramp. But yet we can still find a reason to touch the brakes and come to a complete stop. 92562 Murrieta 3 highways come together in Temecula (79, 215, 15) and only 3 1/2 ramps to service the city. Need a Temecula bypass for SD commuters, or a cross town freeway similar to SR30 in San Bernardino before it became the 210. A direct connection from Temecula to camp Pendleton would make a huge difference since we have such a large military presence living in the area and commuting to SD. Even a rail line from Temecula that connects to the rail line on 5, for Navy commuters. Build it along the creek that dumps into the Pacific in Oceanside and put a stop at Basilone st. 92562 Murrieta RTA commuter buses do help, but cannot be effective when the freeway gets congested. If we can get the Metrolink to propose a plan to connect a service line from Corona to Escondido Transit center via parallel the 15. Imagine no longer having to sit in traffic because of poppies flowers or commuters from SD county going home. Traveling northbound on I-15 through Temecula is always a mess. We 92563 Murrieta need more exits off and on the freeway in this area. We also need some kind of mass transit to San Diego and Orange County and Los Angeles. 92563 Murrieta Fix the horrible traffic on the 15 in Temecula. Looks like there is plenty of room for another lane or carpool lane. Need additional off ramps too. 92563 Murrieta Anything really! The 15 coming through Temecula is crazy. We need to widen the 15 and make yield lanes for on ramps 92563 I Murrieta Expand the freeways or add a passenger lane. The commute is not only awful during the week but it can be very congested on the weekends passing through Temecula. 92563 Murrieta Please help with that 15 fwy Temecula corridor. It is becoming a nightmare! 92563 Murrieta As much as I dislike, we need metered on ramps. So many people trying to get on at one time. Carpool lanes would great. I travel 35 miles to work and it takes a minimum or 1 HR 15 mins. Page 87 92563 The I-15 needs some serious help! Communities surrounding the 15, Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore, have been and continue to explode with new home construction but no thought has been Murrieta put into the impact of all these new homes (aka commuters). Travel throughout the region has become increasingly difficult and is only expected to get worse. We need improvements: carpool lanes, more lanes for commuter, or even dedicated semi -truck lanes. i 92563 Murrieta The I-15 corridor through Temecula, CA is in dire need of upgrades. That freeway is congested at all times of the day. It is unacceptable. 92563 Murrieta The I-15 through Temecula / Murrieta to and from San Diego county must be adressed. There is no single answer to fix this. Rail is an excellent idea and should be seriously considered. The 15 should be widened at every place possible. There should be dedicated non-stop HOV lanes through the whole valley for those just driving through. The surface street traffic must also be addressed. Every home builder should be forced to build the supporting infrastructure for the new homes they are adding such as roads, fire stations, etc. Stop allowing special interests to push all traffic away from their neighborhoods onto the already gridlocked major thoroughfares such as Winchester and Temecula Parkway. Sync the traffic lights on major roadways to keep a more consistent flow of traffic. Give tax incentives to businesses who allow alternative work schedules that take their employees off the roadways at peek times. Stagger school hours so parents won't all be dropping off or picking up their children at the same time. Vehicular traffic is like water. The more you put in front of it the more it backs up. The more it backs up the more stagnant it becomes. Any plan must allow traffic to flow as much as possible. 92563 Murrieta The i15 commute to and from san diego needs to be fixed. The commuting congestion is awful and would really help people working in san diego 92563 Murrieta Fix the 15 freeway > Temecula -San Diego PLEASE. 92563 Murrieta I love the idea of express lanes from LE to Corona. 1 guess like most people, I don't understand why it's a 5 year plan, gas taxes increased so these urgent projects could happen ASAP. The other urgent need is Riverside County to the 15/215 through Temecula and Murrieta. 1 literally spend hours of my life in these two areas each week. 92563 Murrieta Please help with traffic congestion. Large trucks bringing in goods can travel on non peek hours only not between the hours of 10 to 3 pm 92563 Murrieta Please shorten my commute! Currently it takes 1.5 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the evening. Crazy! Always stops in Temecula. Page 88 92563 I moved to Temecula area 5 years ago. It was an hour to San Diego then. It's an hour and half now. On a good day. If you leave early enough. Traffic is now 5-6 hours in the evening. It starts at 1 and often doesn't let up until 7. Temecula needs a two lane carpool bypass in the worst way. As well as a trucks only lane. A longer acceleration lane at Winchester that goes all Murrieta the way to the 215 split would help too as that is where the bottleneck begins. I don't know what "genius" thought dumping 4 lanes of 45 mph traffic onto a 70 mph freeway was a good idea but it was not. The only other option would be a loop. A bypass of some kind. More lanes will just be more non moving traffic. 92563 T Murrieta 92563 Murrieta Please expand the 15 highway. It has gotten so bad since I have moved to murrieta I work in Poway and three hours of my day is taken away just for the drive The 15 freeway corridor through Temecula is parking lot. Every morning, every afternoon starting at 2, every weekend. It's a maddening experience. There just isn't enough lanes to handle the volume of traffic coming through that corridor. 92563 Murrieta I think RCTC needs to rethink and replan the CIP because those projects and studies are obsolete when it comes to fruition. There needs to be a revised comprehensive transportation plan. The plan should expanding Metrolink beyond Perris and extend it south like Murrieta and Temecula where majority of the residents commute north and southbound to their work. 92563 Murrieta I definite wouldn't recommend toll lanes. We need a great railway system that would connect the Inland Empire to San Diego, Orange County, and LOS ANGELES. Metro link train is a start, but we need a railway system similar to the Bart system in the Bay Area. Page 89 92563 Murrieta I commute from North San Diego County to Murrieta. The Temecula/Murrieta area is well on it's way to a million people and these roads and streets cannot handle the current traffic. Here are some urgent suggestions. 1. Work with San Diego County to extend car pool lanes north from Escondido and either extend MTS north to Temecula or expand RTA service south to include weekends and day hours. 2. Rebuild 115 through Temecula with diamond interchanges 14-16 lanes to handle both 15 and 215 traffic and continuous exit lanes between interchanges. 3. Extend Metrolink from Perris to San Jacinto on abandoned track, extend hours and add weekends, and make good connections on RTA to the rail line from Temecula. 4. Add commuter rail line from Corona down I-15 median to L.A. and Orange County to Temecula and extend Perris line along 215 to Temecula. 5. Build 74 and 79 corridors to either freeway or toll road from Temecula to South Orange County and from Temecula to the 60 or 10 to relieve the 215. 92563 Murrieta What would I do? The question should be what is the county &/or state doing to improve the ridiculous congestion & dangerous driving conditions us taxpayer's endure. I moved to Temecula in 04 when traffic in the Temecula - Murrieta area wasn't that bad & as the 15 from Escondido & south was adding Fastrak lanes, the population growth in my area Tem/Mur was completely ignored. The roadwork to the Temecula pkwy on/off ramps have done absolutely nothing to improve traffic flow on the 15 in our area. Surely you don't need me to suggest the simple math that more commuters require more lanes. 92563 Murrieta The 115 from North San Diego border through Murrieta has become a seriously congested corridor that has paralyzed traffic coming and going even on weekends. We see nothing in the works to correct this and there will be lawsuits and a public uproar if something is not done fast. It never used to be this way and our tax dollars are being spent elsewhere while this problem is hemorrhaging. Please advise what options we have and what our long term traffic and urban planning is. 92563 Murrieta I live Murrieta and it takes too long to travel 92563 Murrieta VERY EASY QUESTION. I SCREAM IT every day NB on 115 heading into Temecula. Create 2 lanes in the median with a movable barrier. 2 heading N in the afternoon and 2 going S in the morning. ALSO, CRITICAL NEED for a truck only lane on SB 15 heading out of Temecula and one NB from 76 all the way to the border checkpoint. Traffic problem SOLVED. Quit WASTING our money on bullshit Agenda 21 traffic control schemes. TRAC should be free. We already paid for it!!!! Page 90 92563 92563 Murrieta Murrieta 92563 iiii Murrieta 92563 92563 Murrieta Murrieta 92563 Murrieta 92563 92563 92563 92563 Murrieta Murrieta Murrieta Murrieta 1. Convert all freeways to toll roads with a toll booth at every entrance. 2. Remove all HOV lanes, and replace them with rail, with stations on top of roadway and stairs/escalators/elevators down to tracks. 3. Provide trains from Temecula to Corona, Riverside, and San Diego. 4. Increase frequency of trains to L.A. and Orange County. That will fix everything! It takes me about 1.25 hours during rush hours to travel about 35 miles from Murrieta to our main office in Downtown Riverside. That's 2.5 hrs round trip for 70 miles. In comparison, it takes me about 1.75 hours during rush hours to travel 80 miles from Murrieta to our construction project in Downtown Indio. That's 3.5 hrs round trip for 160 miles. I would not oppose a 1% tax hike to substantially improve traffic going from Murrieta- Temecula area to Downtown Riverside. The I-15 and 1-215 are LONG overdue for carpool lanes. Both north-and- southbound on the 1-15 and 1-215 should have 3 commuter lanes and 1-to- 2 carpool lanes. This alone would alleviate a ton of rush hour traffic in mornings and late afternoon/early evenings. It shouldn't take me 1 hour to drive from Murrieta to Perris (15 miles) in the mornings at 6:OOam. Anything but trains. Bus drivers making over 100 a year and literally only seeing 1 or 2 people on the bus Need more widening especially the ranch's CA. And Winchester exit too much traffic there Why not widen the 91 from Escondido to corona? Also you need more veins of hi way going to the Menifee Winchester area. Tell Gavin Newsome to come up for air, and use the bullitt train money to fix this issue. Newsome needs a glass stomach to see what's going on these days... The left hand turn lanes on Winchester from MHS to Dominegoni are to short. They force people to cross the double lines, potential traffic ticket, to get out of the way of cars going straight Public transportation Besides a bus would be nice. We need rail services to Perris station. Page 91 Prioritize the main streets you idiots. Enough of this BS when someone hits the sensor on Dum Bass Ct the light on Main St immediately turns yellow. Then Dumbass has a 2-3 sec delay where as Main St has none. S000 ass 92563 Murrieta backwards. The daytime red light rate is a consistent 75% in Tem/Murr. hit 10 red lights in a row on a regular basis (that should happen once every 1024 times) and scream hallelujah if I get 3 greens in a row. And we're paying $4/ga1 to accelerate/brake/idle all day... 92563 Murrieta We need a light rail straight down I-15 from San Diego County to Corona. Also on Winchester, from 115 to to Dominegoni Parkway / Hemet. A train from I-15 alongside the 215 to Riverside. WE NEED MASS TRANSIT, PERIOD!!! So many new homes being built from Temecula/Murrieta to Winchester with no way out of this valley 1 92563 Here's a novel idea 1. Stop fixing handicap side walks that already work and have worked for 40 years. It so nice to see that the new handicap sidewalks actually limit mobility more than improve it. Would love to find out who the politicians in our local community that voted to take care of .001% of the population over the rest of us. This is the reason no roads get fixed and we have terrible infrastructure problems. 2. Mass transit is a failure and doesn't work. However our politicians once again sink millions of our tax payer dollars into it supporting the .001% of the population. Please feel free to show me or educate me on any mass transit system that Murrieta actually profits and give back to the community it supports. 3. With the current political environment and the continued high taxing of the rich/middle/low income classes in California and our city won't have to wait long before the population starts leaving. On average there's about a million California's leaving because they can no longer afford to live here. 4. Independent audits of our city government across the board needs to happen to curb the needless and wasteful spending that continues to happen do to incompetents. That can be fixed by only voting for representatives that actually have merit and experience doing the jobs they are running for. Have a wonderful day 92563 r Murrieta 92589 Temecula Finish Butterfield Stage to Pourroy. Finish Clinton Keith to Winchester. Finish French Valley Parkway to Murrieta Hot Springs. More bus stops along Winchester from French Valley to Temecula. And, if I can dream big...a direct route to the 5 freeway. The beach is so close yet so far away. Traffic to work from MURRIETA to. Carlsbad is very very congested. Wish we had a bullet train. Too many. Lone drivers on road Connecting us to the already existing train lines could help. Maybe adding 192590 I Temecula some HOV roads to the 15 both directions. Page 92 92590 92590 92590 92590 92590 92591 92591 92591 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula WE NEED TRAFFIC CONTROL IN TEMECULA!!! We have thousands of cars coming through our city that are just passing through daily and it is CLOGGING OUR ACCESSIIIII PLEASE FIX THIS PROBLEM ON THE 15 FWY in TEMECULA VALLEY!!! How about a more improved public transportation system. The current public transportation system is a joke compared to other countries. 15 southbound from Temecula to SD county is a total disaster every morning and the same thing for 15 northbound coming from SD county to Temecula. So much road rage and people doing illegal lane driving on freeways just so they can skip or avoid traffic. A vanpool is too expensive for most and is not the solution for all. I would love for their to be train access up the 15 fwy with access to san bernardino and rancho cucamonga. right now there is no way to get there. i go to csusb and there is no way aside from car. the county should provide monetary incentive to carpool to work. My company gives me $20 a week per person when I take them to work. I'd like traveling to be made easier and more simple and pleasant for everyone - more travel options for all, not just people who drive cars - more walkable communities and neighborhoods such that folks aren't so reliant on cars or public or paratransit to get their basic daily needs met and live a good quality lives - better quality RTA buses in Temecula and the surrounding ares (busses that area truly accessible and safe for people in wheelchairs to travel on - extended bus service - shorter wait times - stronger public transit links from county to county - more reliable, efficient and less tedious paratransit service - shorter wait times for people who use paratransit - more transportation options (like Uber and Lyft) for people who use power wheelchairs and other mobility devices. Build a bike lane in the middle separation of the freeway. Bicycles and motorcycle thru-ways. This is not a safe place to bike. The bike lane on the 76 should have been separated from the cars, much like the one off the 56. Winchester should be much safer, you take your life in your hands. If we could commute safely by bicycles, we could be much healthier and reduce pollution, and avoid traffic. Quit trying to force people to change. Not been successful. Open up toll roads and car pool lanes until the proper number of highways have been built based on gas tax revenue! Oh which means stop wasting gas tax $ on alternative ideas or programs. We need more lanes now not anything else! La Serena is a disaster! Page 93 92591 Give light priority to main roads. Lights turn red on main roads instantly Temecula when a car approaches a light on a crossroad or residential road. This causes traffic congestion. 92591 1 Temecula Give us a MONORAIL system low cost maximum usage...a monorail has worked for millions since it's inception and you could set your clock by it.. 92591 Temecula Put commuter trains all along the 15 and the 91 which connects with the Metro. If your build it, we will ride! 1 925911 Temecula F Better and safer bike paths You start by raising the speed limit on semi trucks to 70 mph and get them out of the right to lanes . With the right two lanes open to exiting and 92591 Temecula merging traffic will have a better flow . And for God's sakes make all vehicles with blue tooth standard equipment and educate people on how to use it. 92591 Temecula Widen the 115 and install metered northbound on ramps for Temecula/Murrieta. 92591 Temecula I'd like to see improved and or increased off ramps through Temecula. 92591 Temecula I would like funds allocated for the stretch of the 15 freeway and 215 freeway in Temecula, CA. The traffic is beyond ridiculous and we can use the help in making our commutes manageable. Traffic on the I-15 Freeway through Temecula and Murrieta is horrible. Northbound, it starts backing up before Fallbrook. I used to go to the Doctor at Scripps in Rancho Bernardo, but if I started home after 1:30 pm, it took me 2+ hours to get to Temecula. I decided not to go to that doctor any more because it ended up being a whole day's trip. Yesterday (Sunday) at 4:00 pm the traffic was backed up on the I-15 northbound through Temecula. People were exiting onto surface streets in Temecula just to get around the log jam that had no cause. No matter what day or 92591 Temecula time, the traffic on the I-15 is impossible. 75 cars are trying to get on the freeway at the same time and there are no on ramp signals. People are trying to get on the Freeway at Winchester, but cars on the freeway are trying to move to the right to enter the I-215 freeway. Because the freeway runs cuts between 2 mountains in Temecula, there aren't many ways to get around the traffic. Cars try to go through Rainbow or on Old 395, but that is jammed too. If there is a fire or major accident, people are stuck on the freeway or end up on City streets, making them over crowded. I imagine the logjam also affects the Border Patrol Station. Page 94 92591 92591 92591 92591 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula 92591 I Temecula 92591 92591 92591 92591 92591 I 92591 I 92591 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Fast track the Interstate 15 / French Valley Parkway interchange ... this would greatly improve the traffic flow through several on/off ramps in the area. Add lanes, widening and interchange improvements along entire length of the interstate15 corridor between Escondido and Corona. Please support infrastructure improvements for I-15. The commute has gotten absolutely terrible. In fact my husband had been rear ended 2x in the last year due to increased congestion and my sister in law has been out on disability for 9 months due to being rear ended on the 1-15 just trying to get to her job to provide for her family. It's a huge problem! Why doesn't California also have any mass transit like trains? https://apple.news/AAF-1w43QSegzPLu281eyyg Massive investment in rail not roads! Accidents in this highway segment are often times deadly and occur daily. The congestion is dangerous and causes aggression for drivers. I've seen so many people enraged trying to take it out on other drivers too. Freeway 15 passing through Temecula is a disaster. Because of the horrendous commute, my husband and I retired sooner than we had planned. Temecula needs at least one or two more offramps because the three existing ones are severely impacted. More freeway lanes I strongly endorse the City of Temecula's effort to improve traffic flow on Interstate 15 through the city. Population growth in this region has led to a chronic and severe problem and there already exists very promising construction solutions. Commute home between San Diego county line to Winchester road exit (just south of 215) takes so long and misses baby's bedtime! The NB 115 is a parking lot through Temecula starting in the early afternoon, not just rush hour. Add another lane or a left lane that goes directly to the 215. I have been commuting on the 15 freeway from Temecula to San Diego for 9 years. I have seen the drive get significantly worse over the years. I spend on average over 3 hours in the car. Please work to get this section of freeway improved. The corridor of the I-15 through from south of Temecula to the 215 is a nightmare and needs to be prioritized. Page 95 92591 Temecula Fix the 15 fwy through Temecula Ca. 92591 Temecula The commute home to Temecula from San Diego is miserable. The freeway moves along nicely until you get close to the boarder crossing then It takes over one hour to go from Fallbrook to Winchester. The 215 merge is causing the back up. Something has to be done !! 92591 Temecula I live in Temecula, CA and commute to Escondido, CA. This should be a 35 minute commute but is not! I carpool with 2 others and our average time in the car is 2 1/2 hours a day (good day). On a bad day we have spent over 3 hours trying to get home. We are in desperate need of a carpool lane from the 215 fwy to the 78 fwy, where a carpool lane starts. 92591 Temecula L Please make this project a priority. 92591 r Please remedy the horrendous traffic on the I-15 in Temcula. Traffic is a Temecula huge problem for our area and prohibits getting anywhere in a timely fashion, especially during the weekday commute and also on weekends. 92591 Temecula Build an additional offramp between Rancho Cal and Rainbow for Pechanga and Wine Country traffic. And more importantly build toll lanes from Escondido to Cajalco along the 15 and have the lanes moveable so you can have "rush hour" lanes like they do down in San Diego. 92591 Temecula We don't need to focus on road widening projects or road upgrades. Instead, all our focus and resources should be dedicated to fast tracking the train and rail plans all over Southern California. That a region this densely populated doesn't have a rail system on a par with those in Europe (like in the U.K. as a really good example) is just a disgrace. Our priorities should be on moving large numbers of people efficiently and quickly instead of trying to keep 1 or 2 individuals in their cars clogging up the roads and slowing everything down. Infrastructure like this is what is going to drive jobs and growth, health and prosperity. Not the tired, old and greedy policies that only benefit big oil. Page 96 92591 Temecula Traffic on the 15N from the San Diego county line into Temecula is becoming unbearable. As a result, people are leaving and will not return to this area, causing long term devastating economic impacts. Aside from widening the freeway, my recommendation is to adopt a truck ban during periods of high congestion. This is done already in the I-5 corridor near Sacramento, so there is already precedent in California. For example, from 5am-9am and 3pm-.7pm, trucks over a certain length would not be allowed in the I-15 corridor from Temecula to Hwy 76. This could be instituted within a year or less with the proper representation from our city. Thanks for your strong consideration of my approach. 92591 r 92591 Temecula Purpose that a 2 lane city bypass , not a carpool, be placed between the 115 Border check station and the 115/1215 split. There is enough space between the NB and SB 115 Lanes to place these Bypass lanes. This would allow the many vehicles that are just passing through to use those lanes and make the flow a bit smoother Temecula 7 you already got money, it was called SB1. is this SB2 or 3 or 4. 92591 Temecula lam a daily commuter to San Diego from Temecula. I don't see a good bus connectivity to San Diego region. There are thousands go to work from Temecula/Murrieta everyday. If there are frequent bus services at least up to Escondido Transit center, it would help lots of commuters and reduce congestion on I-15 between CA-76 and Temecula. FillielaKFemecula Continue the carpool lane for 15N past the 78 towards Temecula 92591 Temecula Round-abouts are very efficient in the Temecula Wine Country. On weekends there are HUGE lines of cars on Rancho California Road and this REALLY HELPS to keep the traffic moving! There is no electricity needed other than streetlights, and no maintenance. When done correctly, these should become mandatory instead of stoplights. 92591 Temecula 15/215 split --when will this be addressed? Page 97 92591 Temecula I am a Riverside County employee (DPSS) and we recently received an email promoting Telecommuting opportunities. I believe that Telecommuting is a great resource & beneficial to everyone all the way around. Unfortunately, I've noticed that management isn't always open to this idea and I don't think that it's because they believe it will negatively impact business, but they are not well informed as to the great benefits of offering telecommuting to staff (I believe this is the case with the department/unit that I currently work in.) I would suggest that RCTC look into doing research on teleworking, partner up with other Riverside County Departments to explore the great benefits of Teleworking and present the material to the various Riverside County Depts. to promote teleworking. Not all departments will be able to do teleworking, as business needs always come first, but I believe there are many departments/units that would be great for teleworking. 92591 Northbound I-15 beginning at Rancho California Road interchange and points north, which is 4 lane at present: Signage installed to show the left lane "1-15 North", Lane 2 "1-15 & I- 215" and right lanes "Winchester Road". Beyond Winchester Road interchange, signage to indicate the left lane is "1-15", next lane "1-15 & 215", next two lanes "1-215". Add one additional lane from the 1-15/215 split past Murrieta Hot Springs Road,Upgrade the speed limit on the I-215 to 65+. At present, people get in the right lane at Rancho California Road and slow to 55-60 to "not miss" the 215, at least three miles ahead, Temecula restricting access to the northbound freeway from both Rancho California and Winchester. I believe more improvement can be done with signage than additional lane construction, since those funds seem to be split more towards Sacramento and the Bay Area than SoCal. At present, people get in the right lane at Rancho California Road and slow to 55-60 to "not miss" the 215, at least three miles ahead, restricting access to the northbound freeway from both Rancho California and Winchester. I believe more improvement can be done with signage than additional lane construction, since those funds seem to be split more towards Sacramento and the Bay Area than SoCal. 92591 Temecula Have all trucks only on freeways from 12 midnight to 6 a.m.. The last L.A. Olympics had certain hours for trucks around the Coliseum and other locations and were very successful in reducing the crowded streets for autos. During the hours with less autos on the freeways, allow all autos to use the HOV lanes. Page 98 92591 Temecula Have later times in the morning and in the night to 217 bus which will allow more students to commute back and forth from San Diego State San Marcos and even Palomar College. Making the route more effective and more successful. 92592 Temecula Transportation is a great idea, but I think we all know it wastes money. If it even broke even, it would be great. I get real tired of seeing so many buses empty, knowing it is costing the real taxpayers money. Show us your budget. Then let us decide if the system is worth it and put it to a vote. Stating this for a friend. Attract businesses to this valley that offer professional level jobs so we're not all commuting. Add on on/off ramps at Overland and Santiago and 92592 Temecula finish Diamond Valley interchange. Synchronize the traffic signals on Rancho Cal so I don't have to stop at every single stop light between the 15 and my house. 92592 Temecula Begin to see the problem from the ground up. First, pedestrians. Second, benches and shelters for public transportation. Third, buses that go to more places. It has to be safe, convenient, and practical. or nobody will use it. Better suggestion: get rid of ALL school buses. Divert that money and resources to public transportation. Let all students begin to use public transportation in kindergarten. Raise up a generation that uses public transportation naturally. 92592 Temecula Sacramento has little to do with our transportation issues. Start by redirecting time and money back to middle and working class people so they don't have to leave the county for a livable income. Cancel all new non -emergency road work. Force cities to redesign their city plans for walkability and alternative transportation. Work to bring regional transit (that people will actually want to use) to the county. Use roundabouts and yield signs more often. Advertise tax incentives for taking alternative transportation to work. 92592 Temecula Put in a carpool lane or create more lanes where the dirt is in the center of the freeway between rancho can and the 215 split. That section is ridiculous with the oncoming cars coming on from multiple points so close to the split Page 99 92592 Our freeways can't keep up with the amount of traffic we are getting daily. The City keeps allowing more building with out the thought of the infrastructure in our area. We have come home from Los Angeles at Temecula 11:OOpm and the freeway is still packed going north, south isn't too bad. We need more lanes. I feel bad for the commuters going to Riverside that knuckle is horrible with only a couple of lanes. Our roads and streets need repair in the city too. 92592 Temecula I would like the 15 freeway that goes through Temecula to be upgraded to ease the tremendous load of traffic, especially during the times when people are going to and from work, as well as on weekends. This would add to safety also. I understand that there's a federal grant and that the city of Temecula is requesting a portion of it. This would benefit not only Temecula, but surrounding areas as well. Thank you for your consideration. Put in additional lanes -not that hard to figure out -come out and see for 92592 Temecula yourself. 92592 Temecula Add more capacity on the 15 in Temecula. 92592 92592 Temecula Temecula Please direct design and funding resources to relieve the daily I-15 gridlock. It currently takes 1-hour to drive the same 15-miles on approach and through Temecula, CA. I'm very thankful that I personally do not have to commute to work since I retired. However, the #15 jam up does affect me when I need to get to/from the airport or any other business in San Diego. God forbid that I might want to go to the beach sometime! I would have to leave by 1:OOpm, or wait until after 6 or 6:30 to be able to get home in less than three hours! It also impacts me in that the surface streets are also jammed with people trying to get off the freeway. Whatever impact this log jam has on ME, however, is minor. I feel for the folks who have no choice but to travel that corridor for work and other necessities. I hope that a solution can be found and implemented in the near future!! 92592 I would like to see from the Rainbow Canyon exit to the 215 interchange past temecula have auxillary lanes added or additional lanes. I also think Temecula that there needs to be more ways to and from Fallbrook which is where the traffic starts almost every day in the evening. Rainbow Canyon Road becomes overly congested once you are past the Rainbow Canyon exit. ' 92592 Temecula Add I-15 lanes through Temecula to and from the I-215 & I-15 intersection. 92592 Temecula i Temecula fwy 15 Page 100 92592 Temecula I have many, MANY suggestions, which I hope will become useful. Here they are: 1. BRING MORE RAIL. I am an avid Metrolink user, and since I go to UCLA I use the system to go from Union Station/Downtown LA to Perris, Corona or Oceanside, since they are closer to Temecula. We need to find a way to extend Metrolink south from Perris or Corona or northeast from Oceanside and build new stations in cities such as Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, and/or Temecula. If this doesn't work, then we need to build auxiliary rail lines in the region, such as Sprinter or Coaster in North San Diego County, that will connect to those larger rail systems and transit centers in order to keep more cars off the road. 2. WIDEN I-15 and 1-215. In addition to the toll lanes that are currently being planned/constructed between SR 74 and SR 60, Interstate 15 needs to have at least four general-purpose lanes in each direction from Murrieta to Corona (or at least from 1-215 to Clinton Keith Road and Temescal Canyon Road to Ontario Avenue), rather than the existing three, and 1-215 should have four in each direction between Van Buren Boulevard and SR 60 near Moreno Valley. Carpool lanes should be added to both I-15 and 1-215, but there need to be direct -access ramps (DARs) at intermediate places like Bedford Court, Santiago Road, Overland Drive and Nutmeg Street where interchanges for general-purpose lanes may not be feasible. There should also be a direct connector between the 1-15 carpool lanes and the 1-215 carpool lanes. The 91 Toll Lanes extension project, which was completed in March 2017, has seen higher -than -projected ridership and has overall been very well -received, and I am confident that such a system on 1-15 Page 101 (continued) 3. ADD AND FIX INTERCHANGES. We need to cooperate with Pechanga and find a new way to connect South Temecula/Redhawk with Interstate 15 instead of backing up traffic on Rainbow Valley Boulevard, Rainbow Canyon Road, Pechanga Parkway, and Temecula Parkway. This could be through a western extension/alignment of Via Eduardo or Deer Hollow Way and/or a tunnel through the hills. We should complete French Valley Parkway but call it something more logical like "Twin Cities Parkway" since a) it isn't projected to go to French Valley, and b) it mostly runs along the Temecula-Murrieta boundaries. We should also add and lengthen turn lanes from the 1-15 off -ramps at major roads such as Rancho California Road and Winchester Road, which would help improve traffic flow during rush hour. Further north, add interchanges at Franklin Street in Lake Elsinore and at Horsethief Canyon Road in Temescal Valley. On I- 215, we need to add more turn lanes at the off -ramps at Los Alamos Road and Clinton Keith Road (especially in the northbound direction) and build an interchange at Keller Road. The City of Menifee also needs to preserve room for another interchange at Garbani Road (between Scott and Newport), since it is unknown just how much traffic will increase with continued home development and proposals for the new Walmart and a large lifestyle center called The Junction at Menifee, both located on Scott Road. Page 102 (continued) 4. WIDEN AND IMPROVE HIGHWAYS 79 AND 74. The erroneous "Speed Limit 55" sign heading southeast, between I-15 and Bedford Court, needs to be removed or replaced with a "Speed Limit 50" sign, since it doesn't make any sense at all for people to go 55 for such a short stretch, only for the speed limit to drop. Add turn lanes at major cross -streets such as Avenida de Missiones, Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway, Meadows Parkway, and Butterfield Stage Road. Widen Highway 79 to six lanes (three in each direction) from the end of the city limits to Anza Road, relieving traffic bound for the Temecula Valley Wine Country, and widen it to four lanes (two in each direction) from Anza Road to the entrance to the Vail Lake Resort. Add traffic signals at Los Caballos Road, Pauba Road, Vail Lake, Sage Road, and Highway 371. Further north, widen Highway 79 (this time as Winchester Road) to eight lanes (four in each direction) from I-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and thereafter make it a six -lane facility (three lanes in each direction) to I-10, or at least Hemet. Improve the intersections at Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Hunter Road, Benton Road/future Clinton Keith Road, Thompson/Leon Road, and Washington/Scott, and fully fund the upgrade to expressway standards between East Newport Road and Gilman Springs Road. For Highway 74, add passing lanes between the Santa Ana Mountains and Lake Elsinore, and widen Grand Avenue, Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue for a guaranteed minimum of two lanes in each direction between here and I-15. Page 103 (continued) Realign Highway 74 so that it follows Ethanac Road and sign it as a state route, rather than directing traffic along the Highway 74 alignment through downtown Perris and keeping the overlap with 1-215. Improve Ethanac Road (prospective Highway 74) so that it continues directly east over the railroad tracks and Antelope Road in Romoland, and widen Highway 74 (as Florida Avenue) between the western Hemet city limits and Lyon Avenue (or at least Sanderson Avenue) to three lanes in each direction. 5. IMPROVE BUS TRAVEL/AVAILABILITY. The City of Temecula lacks a true, central transit hub, which I believe is harmful to the City's outlook. Build the Old Town South Parking Garage on Front and First Streets but add a large bus/shuttle/trolley depot (and possibly a rail station?) to help better manage local traffic. Add similar bus/transit hubs in the other surrounding cities, and improve bus frequencies throughout the region. Also, offer more routes that serve South Temecula, and offer more routes that go to the Promenade Mall rather than County Center. Add bus cutouts where they are not present but badly needed, such as Pechanga Parkway (southbound) past Rainbow Canyon Road. Coordinate Riverside County bus services with those in North San Diego County. 6. FIX LOCAL/ARTERIAL ROADS. There are many inconsistencies with the roads in Temecula, the most infamous example being where Butterfield Stage Road (northbound) narrows to one lane passing Temecula Parkway and Big Horse, only to open back up to two at De Portola Road, which creates a severe bottleneck for afternoon traffic bound for the Temecula Valley Wine Country. Page 104 (continued) We need to make sure that our major roads are wide enough and have adequate turn lanes and lane widths, bike lanes, and medians not only for increased safety, but better traffic mobility. 7. REGULATE SPEEDS AND SAFETY. There is no reason that cars should be able to travel at 55 mph (the posted speed limit) on Temecula Parkway between the Temecula Valley Hospital and the Walmart/Petsmart/Sprouts area. This segment should be lowered to 50 mph to match the existing speed limit west of this point. There are too many areas in the area where the speed limits are too high, and others where the speed limit is too low. I have created (and attached) my own list of what I believe should be the speed limits in Temecula and vicinity. While this is not a full list or formal traffic study, this is how I believe people should be following speed laws in my area. For freeway traffic, reducing the speed limit on 1-215 from 70 to 65 mph is a start, but do this for I-15 from the San Diego County Line to the Wildomar city limits. The area has gotten so built-up that the freeways are less fit for rural traffic, and doing this would also improve public safety. Also, due to the characteristics of the roadway in Temescal Valley/Corona, the speed limit on I-15 should be lowered to 65 mph from the Temescal Canyon Road exit to Ontario Avenue. While this is not an exhaustive list of the ways I would like to Reboot my Commute, I hope that some of these concepts will come to fruition in the very near future. Thank you and I look forward to receiving more information! 92592 15 Freeway passing Temecula. It's always traffic during pick hours. Temecula Intersection on 15/215 freeway is always traffic. Please do an improvement to lessen the traffic that's passing Temecula. Thank you. 92592 Temecula The I-15 from SD County line to Murrieta, past 1-215 Interchange is in desperate need of funding to alleviate rush hour traffic that keeps our freeway backed up for hours! No toll lanes! Give us regular carpool or more general lanes. 92592 Temecula I would love a train from Temecula to downtown SD (with a few stops in between — Escondido, RB, Mira Mesa, downtown). With the commuters who travel into SD and then trolley stops within metro SD we could ease a ton of congestion and prevent accidents. 92592 Temecula Please help us MOVE 1 15 from Winchester to TEMECULA parkway. This is such a dangerous area and the traffic is unmeasurable. Page 105 North 15 back up going through Temecula every single day from border patrol to 215. On Friday afternoon the backup is to San Diego. Temecula 92592 Temecula area worse due to 215 backup. Let's face it when people leave town 15 is the freeway they take to go to Vegas and river. Please allocate funding for carpool lanes through Temecula. 92592 Temecula The I-15 problem starts well before Temecula and has continued to get worse. The band aid approach to fix the exits was of little help and only addressed people finally getting home from there long commute. It did not speed there long hours of commuting. Our federal representatives have ignored the problem and have used the lack of funding as an old excuse. Nonsense. Look around Riverside and see the prior projects. The 15 freeway needs help. I drive 15 south in the AM and both in the PM 92592 Temecula between Rancho Bernardo and temecula. Over the past 14 years traffic is 3x's as bad as it was in the bringing. Thank for your help!! 92592 Temecula Seeking your support to upgrade the 15 freeway in Temecula. The city of Temecula is requesting 50 million dollars from that grant to support Hwy 15 improvements to mitigate traffic congestion. 70% of the traffic during peak drive times is just passing through Temecula. They do not live here, they live in our surrounding communities. As such, fixing the 15 freeway will be a benefit not only to our residents, but the entire region. 92592 Temecula If better transit options were available, I would take them to get to my job at San Diego State University. As things exist now, it would take too many hours for me to take transit from Temecula to SDSU. Additional runs of existing bus routes would make an enormous difference to me. 92592 Temecula Please fix traffic , congestion on 15 freeway in Temecula.. I drive all over SoCal and it HAS to be one the worst spots around. 92592 Temecula L Express lanes on the I-15 in the Temecula area. It's Incredibly congested between The Temecula Parkway exit all the way to the 215 a great deal of the time esp during commute hours and sometimes even on the weekends. 92592 Temecula The 15 throughout all 4 exits in Temecula. Just a parking lot 3-6. 92592 Temecula The daily gridlock on I-15 Temecula really could use a reboot. It's a problem everyday for Temecula residents. Even more frustrating is that the majority of drivers in the gridlock arejust passing through. It makes using the 15 a complete headache. Thank you for listening. Page 106 92592 Temecula funds to mitigate traffic congestion on the 15 freeway through Temecula. The commute has become intolerable, not only during peak commute hours, but all the time now. I have been involved in accidents due to the heavy traffic, delays, missed flights and it's becoming increasingly worse with time. This ridiculous traffic impacts the quality of our lives, safety issues, etc. 92592 Please provide at least $50 million dollars to mitigate traffic congestion on Interstate 15 going through Temecula to the 15/215 split. Most of the Temecula people going through there, causing some of the worst traffic in the Nation, doesn't live in Temecula but DO live in Riverside County. This will help out EVERYONE in Riverside County. Thank you! 92592 Temecula The worst congestion in the state is the K-15 through Temecula. It is gridlock most of the day because of the number of cars heading north or south of Temecula. Most are NOT residents of Temecula. Best bet would be to add additional lanes; I do think there is enough land to do this. 92592 Temecula We have lived in South Temecula since the early 90s. What use to be a 30 minute commute to San Marcos for my husband in the afternoon has now became a 1 to 1.5 hour commute (sometimes longer) just in the last few years. So many people complain the traffic is because of Temecula's growth but I beg to differ. Although the traffic has increased in Temecula because of the growth over the years, I truly believe it is from the huge growth of the surrounding communities of the unincorporated French Valley, Winchester, the cities of Murrietta, Wildomar, and especially Menifee. With so many cars and especially transport trucks on a highway that has only 4 lanes it becomes a bottleneck into the valley. One accident, either morning or afternoon, and the commuters are screwed as well as the city of Temecula's infrastructure. I work near GOHS and when I leave to go home, I have seen the impact of a major accident on the 15 affect Pechanga Parkway. Traffic backs -up in front of the casino and what would be normally a 3 minute drive becomes a 20 drive just to drive less than one mile. Ridiculous! I hope the county of Riverside sees what is going on down here. So much money has been put into the areas north of us but I have not seen any improvements to our area (other than the new Temecula Parkway off/on ramps) since I moved up here. Something needs to be done TODAY!! Page 107 92592 92592 92592 Temecula Temecula Temecula 92592 92592 92592 Temecula Temecula Temecula 92592 92592 92592 Temecula Temecula Temecula I would like to see some work on relieving the large amount of daily traffic along the 15 fwy in the City of Temecula. The traffic has been getting worse by the year and most of the commuters are passing through the city but causing so much congestion. We do not have enough exits to accommodate the amount of residents in the city and the traffic flow is always The majority of commute problems in Riverside are caused by the backups on the I-15 in Temecula. If that problem is solved it will ease traffic all along. We need to ease congestion on 15 in the Temecula area by adding lanes and HOV. 1-15 upgrade specifically in the Temecula region. As far south as the 76 Freeway, traffic begins (northbound), and specifically backs up during the ascent up the hill towards Mission. Traffic becomes dreadful from Rainbow Valley all the way through the 1-15/1-215 split. Adding additional lanes, fixing exit ramps, etc. would help benefit the health and safety of all commuters' lives, whether Temecula residents, or residents of surrounding communities. lam contacting you concerning the rush hour traffic on I-15 NB in Temecula. On most days traffic is backed up almost 10 miles, from the Winchester exit to the 76. Would be interested in creating a zipper lane allowing communities north of Temecula to by-pass the Temecula exits. Given that Murrietta and her surrounding communities are still primed for large growth it would make sense to get ahead of the problem now. Thank you for taking our feedback. The 15 fwy in Temecula needs help. 1 live off of a Pechanga Pkwy in S Temecula. I need to take my children to activities in North Temecula. This can take me 30 minutes ( during times you'd expect should be fair empty. But starting at like 3pm already it's packed) to get on Freeway on Temecula pkwy and exit on Winchester. ( heading back it's a 10 min drive). We must expand the I-15 and 1215. Most traffics is not coming to Temecula they are driving though. Please help our area. Thank you Help ease the traffic congestion on I-15 thru Temecula California. I would figure out how to alleviate some traffic on the I-15 corridor going north from the San Diego county border through Temecula to the 215. The back up, even midday and on the weekends is ridiculous! Page 108 92592 Temecula In the twenty years we have lived in Temecula the freeway traffic has increased exponentially, what used to take 20 minutes ( from Rancho California Rd to Murietta Hot Springs road) now can take up to an hour on freeway. The problem has become so bad that they( commuters) are taking the back roads through neighborhoods where kids are playing on their street. Please help solve this problem. Thanks 92592 Temecula Please help ease congestion through Temecula Valley. It takes valuable time from families in the evenings that used to be spent together. I have lived in Temecula since 1992. At this time we moved from San Diego in order to afford our first home. We decided at this time that my husband, a police officer, would make the one hour commute. That 92592 Temecula commute can now take 2 hours! The car pool lanes in San Diego are great, but one he hits the 76 in Fallbrook it is horrible. I think the first step would be to put carpool lanes in starting at the 76 heading north. This problem just keeps getting worse. 92592 Temecula Add more lanes and carpool lanes,express lanes on the 15 South from Temecula to Escondido We need more lanes of traffic on the 15/215 corridor and we need a 92592 Temecula carpool lane from Menifee to Escondido! More mass transit from Riverside to San Diego would help alleviate the car congestion. 92592 Temecula Pleasehelp ease the pain temecula residents suffer with a widening of the 15 through Temecula @ 92592 Temecula I_ Expand the I-15 between San Diego and 215. Add another exit between Temecula Pkwy and Rancho California. 92592 Temecula I will help in anyway I can to get relief from the commute through the I-15 corridor through Temecula Valley. I travel everyday and it's terrible. There is room to add an additional lane or even better, a fast track carpool lane. How can I help? ru- 92592 1-15 north is in real need. I live in a city that if we have an emergency, our Temecula freeways won't support the traffic. Freeway looks like a parking lot. Is time to work in the freeway and stop building homes. 92592 Temecula The commute on the 15 north into Temecula, Ca is horrible. 1 live in Temecula but work in Escondido and have to commute back and forth this way every day and it just seems to be getting worse. There are so many trucks on the road too, and motorcycles. I see accidents all the time. Something needs to be done to alleviate the congestion. 92592 Temecula Widen the 15 freeway from 76 to the 215! Page 109 92592 Temecula The 15 freeway south to San Diego and north back into Temecula has grown so much worse in the last 10 years. It's unbearable to commute. It makes my family consider leaving California altogether. We need expanded lanes 115 near Temecula needs more lanes to keep up with increased population. 92592 Temecula There is plenty of land and this is achievable. People moved away from the coast because of lack of affordable reasonable middle class housing. L 92592 Temecula As a military member, I commute between 79S in Temecula down to the San Diego area. I moved to Temecula in July of 2015 when a non -rush- hour drive home was about 45-1hr, and a rush-hour drive was 1:15 to 1:30 if there was an accident. Today, my typical commute starts at about 1hr30m if traffic flow is good. Sometimes, this is with the HOV. Due to the horrible drive, I no longer just have to plan for my work hours, I also have to plan for my daughter to be picked up before the childcare center closes, school events, emergency calls at work, etc. I have considered taking the dangerous risk of a motorcycle, but will only help so much due to having to make it home, change vehicles, and then pick my daughter up from work. The hassle is becoming not worth the commute, and my family and I have considered just moving on to base, causing us to miss out on the benefits of such a beautiful city, but service to country is a requirement that I cannot put as a second priority. Stretching the HOV lane, or adding a tram system, or adding a bypass to take drivers from Rainbow Valley, around Temecula, and up to the northern side of the 215 may help ease the commute. Thank you for looking into possibilities. 92592 Temecula Please do something about interstate 15 from San Diego border to the 215. It takes so long just to go a few miles. It makes it so hard to even have dinner as a family since I am in the Navy and work in San Diego. I miss out on family time and the kids sporting events because of traffic. Page 110 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula have lived in the Temecula Valley for over 29 years. I remember when the 15 freeway going through town was nearly empty. Not to mention a few hundred thousand less people livening in this valley. Now I see the pinch point of traffic on the 15 freeway going through our once little town and traffic stopped or nearly stopped several times throughout the day regardless of what day of the week it is! The way I see it there are just too many homes built north of the 15 / 215 split and there is no other route to get from north county San Diego to the England Empire. I believe the 15 freeway must be expanded by at least two lanes each way to accommodate the amount of traffic traveling from all areas of the Inland Empire to Any where in the San Diego or North County area. The amount of homes being built in Menifee is unreal. Many of those people must travel South of Temecula for work and the only route available is the 15 freeway going right through town. The problem is only going to get worse. Please expand the 15 freeway going through Temecula by at least 2 lanes going both North and South. Thank you, Tracy Avina Help us relieve congestion on I-15 in Temecula it's only getting worse. RAILWAY Please! San Diego's aggressive new plan brings their rail north of Escondido. PLEASE work to connect the Perris line down to Escondido, with a station in Murrieta or Temecula. An extra lane or even 2 on 115 in 10 years isn't going to solve anything, but taking thousands off the road every weekday will. The daily traffic between the City of Temecula and San Diego is overly conjested on a daily basis. Since we moved here in 2012, traffic has exponentially increased and there are 20 mile backups during both the morning and late afternoon commutes. We will not even venture out to the 15 freeway to go to lunch in San Diego anymore. The 15 desperately needs additional lanes north and southbound , preferably HOV lanes and improvements to the entry to get onto the 215 north. Quit approving high density housing in Menifee, Murrieta and the French Valley area. Or, if funding can be found, build a train with stops in Corona, Riverside and, connect with the San Diego transit. And, don't take 20 years to do it.] Widen 115/1215. Put in more on and off ramps, especially one to the Pechanga casino. Page 111 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 92592 7 92592 92592 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula I have lived in Temecula for over 10 years and have commuted to San Diego the entire time. When there is a major accident or fire in the area, it has taken me 3-4 hours to get home. This is unacceptable! Without traffic I can make it home in 45 minutes. A normal day is 1 hour and 15 minutes. The average time it takes as of the last year is 1 hour 30 minutes. And there are zero alternatives to taking the 15 freeway to my exit Temecula Pkwy. Please please please help improve this! fix the congestion on I-15 between SR76 / and the 1-215 junction I commuted from Temecula to Rancho Bernardo area in San Diego for many years. I finally had to retire a year ago because I could no longer tolerate the traffic jams on the 15. It was effecting my health, both physically and mentally. This is a serious problem that needs immediate resolution. Thank you. Expand 15N to the 91 always a mess! As we know, the 15 through Temecula is one of the worst congestion areas in Riverside County if not Southern Cal. I am submitting an idea that I have for review by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. My idea has a new 15N ramp from Winchester that is between the North and South bound lanes. 15N bound traffic would merge to the right. The current Northbound ramp would be for the 215N traffic use only. This would stop vehicles having to cross lanes to enter or exit the 15 or 215. Why is the carpool lane taken away and made a part of the toll road? Why is the carpool lane taken? are there any plans to put in east -west between the 15 and the 5 On the 15 freeway to Corona, why are there no diamond lanes, HOV lanes? 15 freeway in Temecula connecting Riverside County to San Diego County. I would love to be able to take transit from Temecula to Lemon Grove (San Diego County) It is time for RCTC and WRCOG to merge so that one organization, with one vision, and shared resources can move the area forward. Mass transit also needs to consider critical mass projects where enough frequency makes it an option. Light rail to Temecula and or San Diego is a must from Perris! Page 112 92791 92952 N/A N/A 92595 92595 92595 92595 i 92595 Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Wildomar Wildomar Wildomar Wildomar Wildomar I live in Temecula and commute to Fallbrook each day for work. I am stuck in over an hour of traffic each day, on a good day. The distance I travel each day is less than 15 miles, but the traffic on the 15 creates such a slowed pace that it is usually bumper to bumper the whole way. Something has got to change. This should not be the case. There have been many efforts to ease traffic congestion on the 15 closer to SanDiego, we need that same consideration in this section. Please make this improvement plan a priority! The traffic just in Temecula off the 15 freeway is ridiculous and something should be done. A normal 10 minute drive takes over 30 minutes during peak hours and there seems to be room to expand lanes, nothing has happened and traffic is just getting worse. 115- THROUGH TEMECULA NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. BACKS UP FOR 20 MILES. ITS TERRIBLE. ONLY WANTING TO LEAVE COMMENT. The light timing at the Winchester exit on Northbound I-15 and follow on light at Ynez & Winchester are out of sync causing back up traffic. Please #rebootmycommute Find New Leadership, Lower Taxes and bring real jobs, stop building multifamily apartments get away from Welfare State Policies Schedule some buses up to The Farm in Wildomar. We Seniors need affordable transportation. Thank you very much! Need an on and offramp between railroad canyon and bundy canyon. Continue the fast track lane on the 15 coming from the 91 that ends around Ontario Ave. Let it continue to at least toms farms. I would fix the congestion on the 15 freeway in Temecula. It is so painful driving to work each day, Please send help! Thank you There is plenty of room to add lanes. If you don't want to do that. Cone off the fast lane starting at the San Diego/riverside border all the way past 215 So those who are going straight through Temecula can flow through. The people wait until the last minute to get over to get to the lanes for 215 and that is a big part of the back up Page 113 92595 92573 Wildomar N/A To whom it may concern, Diamond Drive exit #73 on Interstate 15 southbound highway definetely needs an additional freeway exit lane constructed to reduce the dangers of driving past the current exit as many drivers risk the lives of many by blocking the safety lane and sometimes even stopping or slowing down drastically on the slow lane in an effort to try and get in front of all the traffic patiently waiting to exit while bieng stuck in the safety lane ; Furthermore, cars are constantly using the safety lane as an exit due to the actual exit bieng extremely packed with traffic waiting at the street light to officially exit the #73 southbound highway exit. Clearly, exit #73 on interstate 15 southbound is unfit for driving conditions and presents a huge risk especially when drivers slow down or even stop on the slow lane because they might miss the freeway exit. In conclusion, Diamond Drive exit #73 on interstate 15 Southbound should be reconstructed or modified in a way to properly flow traffic through and out the exit. As a result, everybody using exit #73 on interstate 15 southbound can have a much better driving experience and not have to worry or feel guilty about blocking the safe lane, and people who drive past the exit won't have to worry about drivers slowing down or stopping in front of them in the slow lane so they don't miss the exit. Finally, the safe lane that is normally traffic packed for more than a mile long sometimes, would be kept clear and open for people who urgently need to pull over as well as emergency vehicles who depend on the saftey lane during heavy traffic to rush where they need to go when duty calls. (continued) This is important to ensure that firefighters, ambulance, and police are able to use the safe lane as needed during an emergency. Although it may not seem like such a big deal, this problem should be looked into and fixed as soon as possible. That is all for now. I appreciate all the hard work and effort bieng put into improving driving conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would like to hear back any thoughts, opinions, or questions about my idea as i know i am not the only one who thinks the Diamond Drive exit #73 on interstate 15 Southbound is all messed up. Good day. build up Ortega highway so for people working in Murrieta to Orange County. Page 114 N/A N/A I think you put real people to report back to you in all current bus routes for a week. They talk to everyone on the bus about what they want and need. Do those things first. They are the best people to please because the currently use the service. Once improvements are made, advertise the heck out of how you listened and improved. I will volunteer my time to be a "bus reporter" for you everyday after I get off work for a week. I truly believe we need reform to make people want to ride the bus and change our need a car culture. Hit me up to help. N/A N/A 206. Tom's farm / dos Lagos needs to go. It is not an Express anymore with a stop so close. Use local routes as suggested before. When those were added is when you lost your rider ship. You have the data to show this. And car break in at the stops is a huge issue. N/A N/A Biggest issue right now is the 15 to the 91. Ever since the fast track expanded to the 15 fwy, the traffic now backs up to temescal Canyon Rd. Exit no matter what. Fast track is ridiculously expensive, costs up to, $30 ONE way and only saves 20 minutes, if that. Who can afford an extra $300/week in just fast track tolls? The more houses they build out here, the worse this will all get. Do better! N/A N/A Loved the bus! Route 206/205. Problem is the park & ride lot My friends and I have experienced some loss due to vehicle break-ins and vehicle theft. In my immediate friends circle I can count five -six people that have been affected by this. If parking for our personal vehicle is more secure, more people will ride. Am I correct Aram Kazarian & Fred Haag Jr.? N/A N/A Its not a traffic problem, its jobs problem when folks have to drive to LA, OC or SD to get a decent wage. Stop building homes unless there are jobs offered locally to support workers to keep them off the road. Buses, trains and rapid transit are putting a band -aid on a hemorrhage. Local county politicians are allowing overbuilding in unincorporated areas so that the taxes do not have to be shared with cities. They have failed their constituents because every new house built, requires three jobs and house are being built and jobs are not. Put a moratorium on building, attract high paying employers and stop creating bedroom communities that serve and exploit workers that have to spend hours a day on the road working in areas that they cannot afford to live in. Itys not a roads issue, its a jobs issue. Wake UP! Page 115 N/A N/A Start making those commuter -useful 1-lane roads into 2-lane roads so as to be able to pass some of the IE's slow -rolling numbnuts legally. Then add more lanes to the freeways. Get rid of the toll roads and let us benefit from them without raping commuters' pocketbooks both at the lane and tax time. N/A N/A Perris, Already has a train, start talking about a train from Temecula to Corona, soon, do not forget south Riverside county.. N/A N/A Bring more businesses to the IE so people won't have to commute. N/A N/A I say begin at the last mile. Planning should incorporate sidewalks, bike lanes/paths and walk/bike friendly access to routes. The county and cities should invest in the last mile first. Then find better ways to get there. N/A N/A N/A To make bus time more efficient, consider redesigning the ADA ramp to slide out. The current discharge of "catapulting" out seems to take a long time . N/A No 18 wheelers allowed on fwy from 0500-0800 and 3 PM- 7pm J N/A N/A Easy, Uber drivers are subsidized by the state of California for Riverside for 62 and over. For all grocery stores and hospital visits. Riverside would be way out in front of every other City/ county Give all Uber drivers a tax break for helping the elderly. N/A N/A No one rides the buses shut it down N/A N/A N/A N/A Create 2 lanes in the 115 median. Using a movable barrier, you could create an additional 2 lanes heading South in the AM and 2 heading North in the afternoon. WHY CAN'T ANYONE OF AUTHORITY FIGURE THIS OUT? Also a truck ONLY lane is DESPERATELY needed on 15S heading out of Temecula and one Northbound from 76 to the border scales. This is a NO BRAINER SOLUTION. Makes me feel as if none really wants to solve the freeway traffic issues. Too much construction has taken place with too small of an effect. Agenda 21/30 have anything to do with it? No busses. Stay out J N/A N/A A fix for the northbound 15 traffic. Put the northbound Winchester onramp lane all the way through to the 215. Make the northbound 215 3 lanes from the 15. There is plenty of room for both. This is where the traffic backup starts. #rebootmycommute N/A N/A Again stop building so many apartments and houses. I remember just stop signs.on cap orks. Fix the pot holes .ca of us road! Stop building!!! Page 116 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A We need two more lanes and a carpool lane on each side of the freeway. Also, the lights need to be synchronized. I worry if we had a natural disaster there is no way out! We would be sitting in absolute gridlock ! Road widening More frequent buses and more bus routes around temecula. Two bus routes and A bus every hour is not mass transit Better Rail! I tried to get to Monrovia from Temecula, and it was impossible. The connecting train I would have had to take in riverside left the station 5-10 minutes before my train arrived. And not because it was late, but because the schedule is designed this way! After the morning rush, there are zero train options available without waiting hours for connecting trains. I would have had to find an uber/lyft at 4 AM to take me to Perris, so I could connect in Riverside without waiting for hours. But then I would have had to wait hours for the dealership to open. Rail from Riverside County to San Diego is CRUCIAL. With one highway in or out of San Diego, adding 1 or 2 lanes isn't going to fix anything. We need Railways and we need them NOW! Quit building more homes without increasing the size snd number of roads necessary to seevice them. Double deck the 1-15 Simple solution to the HORRENDOUS North bound 15 traffic. A truck only lane is needed from 76 to the Border Patrol scales. An additional 2 lanes needs to be made down the center divide well past the 215 split. 2 lanes Sout in the AM and 2 for.North bound in the PM. No BRAINER SOLUTION!! NO MORE car pool lanes EVER!!! I am sure all of you COG Agenda 30 Globalists would like to have electric driverless vehicles where you could simply make our vehicles inoperable during certain times forcing people to use mass transit or car pooling. A tunnel linking the 15 and 5 would be nice. Shouldn't have to wait 2 minutes for the light to turn green at 3am when there are no cars around. I've seen towns that from 12am to 4am make their traffic lights flash red one direction as a stop sign and yellow on the other for proceed with caution. Also, it's annoying when you come to an intersection and all directions are red until you stop and then it turns green. Temecula does this a lot. Why are the sensors right on the line. Move the sensors back 100 feet so we don't have to stop before the light turns green. Page 117 N/A N/A This is the worst place for traffic I have ever seen. Have lived here 4 yrs from San Diego, which has tons of traffic, but it's to be expected because the size of the city! This city and the traffic is heinous! People drive like maniacs, run red lights all the time, never see cops anywhere! They have to do something with this heinous traffic!!! N/A N/A Uh. Quit building more apartments and houses. Fix the 15 215 split. Quit wasting money and get the damn on and off ramps fixed. Temecula city council must be full of idiots. Temecula should be ashamed. Wildomar even got there on off ramps fixed!! All the while Temecula council is running around with their heads in their asses saying dur dur who wants another water meter screw the town infrastructure. Aren't yall the dip shits who steal our tax dollars to figure this out? up yours idiot city council members. Every town surrounding Temecula has fixed their on and off ramps but Trmrcula and idiot Naggar has nothing but lame excuses for why we cant. up yours Naggar and crew! N/A N/A Fix my road, not your friends roads first. Then, we'll talk. N/A N/A Stop Building. Stop building houses until road capacity is adequate. Expand the 15 first. Temecula is full and you keep approving developments around it on county land that choke the roads more . Stop bus service. No one uses it. Bike lanes also prevent obesity N/A N/A Stop building usless buildings?? I didn't want the condos --or apartments near my house then or now lol, it just bogs us up because there's no jobs here for locals to get! N/A N/A gas stations on one street....think about that for a minute N/A N/A Better stop light timing I swear I hit every single light in Temecula„ N/A N/A Add rail along 215 and 15. We need more north/south rail. We don't all work in la N/A N/A Time all the lights down Winchester, murrieta hot springs and Rancho California rd. It is absolutely ridiculous that it takes almost 20 mins to get down Winchester from murrieta hot springs rd to the freeway. There are too many people who live here to not have a timed light schedule N/A Create 2 lanes on 15 median with a movable barrier. Create a truck only N/A lane on Nb 15 from the 76 to the Border Patrol scales AND Sb 15 from 79S to the Scales. Page 118 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A There has to be another Option to drive to Orange County aside from the 15 FWY to the 91 FWY and the Ortega HWY , the 15 is always congested and the Ortega can get back up by one Car Accident Need a highway that goes from Lake Skinner to the 15 near Rainbow with many exits. For one how about improving the size of the Maine roads two pedestrian over pass at cross walks so cars don't have to weight for pedestrians to cross the roads or underpass which ever works best it is all so safer. Improving road maintac better publick transportation like electric monorails that are suspended above ground level so not to slow down ground trific with train crossing and is more economical and better for the inviorment and quite over bus's and not as noisy as diesel train's and can run them to the other citys to save presser on the ever growing freeway problum. Build save bike paths that run thew out the city that dont interfere with cars so it is safer for bikes riders to commute this would all so help permot more ppl to bike ride and also help with the traffic . I can go on but you would run out of money for all of my ideas. .how to help pay for it thair are. Over four citys all next to ech other the fund's could be combined to. Produce a transportation net work to all of them..also most of this can be payed for buy haveing comuters pay a bit exstra on tickets for the first 2 year's then drop the price down to normal fees once the two uears is up. Add more roads to meet the massive increase in population. Stop building apartments Add another road for those coming from Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula, etc... Going up toward the 91fwy. Our only way is by taking either the 15fwy North or Temescal Canyon Rd (another road would help a lot). Also focus on Creating jobs down here so people living here can get jobs out here and not have to travel to OC or LA for work. If there was more jobs out here less people would travel OC and LA which will decrease fwy congestion. Another thing is widen the 15fwy, (from 91 fwy connection in Corona all the way to Temecula City) you have the space to widen the fwy but you don't Um...how about add 2 or 3 more lanes to the 15 fwy? I dont mean the stupid fastrak lanes either Make the triangle a transit hub!!! Page 119 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Get rid of the artificial bottlenecks that keep the 91 congested from the 15 to the 71 in the morning that keep people paying $20. Or would that affect your bottom line too much? Example being the lane ending at Lincoln and the Serfas club on ramp. I'm sure there are others, people pay big toll money to travel that six mile stretch. Open 22 fwy to connect to 215 fwy Get jobs down there so people don't have to sit in cars for hours a day. Train service would be nice...clear down to San Diego. Widening of the 15 FWY aside from toll lanes which do not replace the need for growth expansion to support the tons of housing tracts going in...maybe a metro like they have down the 105? More available stops for local shuttle buses and employees for Transit who can provide answers...I could never ride because I couldn't get an answer as to when the bus stopped by the post near my house as it wasn't on the schedule printout and come to find out sometime later they bagged the sign and eliminated the stop from the route for non-use. Of course no one used it if you have no idea what time to be there. Better park and rides with security, gated entry and lighting. We can't even park our timeshare vehicle at the Elsinore locations because we had tags stolen, license plate stolen, gas tank drilled, window busted for attempted stereo robbery...enterprise said park there again and you're responsible for the damage. Expand public transportation in the Temecula Valley. Create public transportation routes that connect the Temecula Valley with major cities in the North and South, particularly to Escondido. I commuted to Escondido for 5 years and the the last 3 years I had to take alternate routes due to major traffic issues. Stop opening up fast track and open up a lane for traffic instead of profit a lot of us can't afford the fast track. Fast track is to expensive WIDEN THE 15! Start by bringing back mandatory busses to school and back! Bypass lanes northbound to 15 freeway with no exit to Temecula Unless there is a politician that sits in the crap traffic everyday it wont change. And there isnt one. If there was the freeways would be widened and transportation fixed. Out of sight out of mind in the temecula valley Page 120 N/A N/A An 1-15 shuttle connected to Park & Rides. A functional bus service would be better than Temecula's "charming" trolley buses. But seriously, we'll get toll lanes because RCTC now has a cash cow*. Nice to ask the question -- it almost seemed sincere. *FYI the County regularly borrows against future revenue. N/A Re route the 215 N/A N/A Stop building homes and widen the roads including the 115 and 215 N/A Quit building or approving houses and developments u til you have fixed N/A the freeway even when you get campaign donations for the developer. Quit wasting our funds on busses no one rides N/A N/A Add lanes regular lanes from Cajalco to Lake Elsinore. Not toll road lanes. Fee less lanes. N/A N/A Get rid of the TOLL lanes that do nothing but mess traffic up! Its ridiculous! N/A N/A Two more lanes in each direction on 1 15 plus HOV/Fastrack N/A N/A How about doing something for French valley. Produce plenty of taxes. But seems to g to other projects. N/A N/A STOP BUILDING TOLL LANES! N/A NA Please add 3 extra lanes on the 15 N going from Riverside County/San Diego border to the 215/15 interchange. Also please make a freeway with 65 mph speed limit going from Temecula to San Juan Capistrano with 2 lanes in each direction. ZIP City Comments - Other N/A N/A We need more efficient public transportation options for example Mexico City has developed one bus lane only for buses and comes every few minuetes. We need more public transportation within the city and it would be more eco friendly to go from one point to the other. We rely too much on our vehicles. More efficient public transportation options. Other places are far ahead of us in these areas. N/A N/A More jobs, less houses. We need a factory again. J N/A N/A Jobs should equal the amount of housing. Please, no more housing. Good tax money for the city presently. But the future needs local jobs. LOS Angeles has the 5, 405, 105, 60 ... we have the 91 keyhole Page 121 N/A N/A Southern California's transportation system is BROKEN. Stay tuned for why...So, this morning I would have had to leave my house by 7:30AM for a 1PM meeting in LA. The LAST morning Metrolink train leaving my city to LA is 8:10AM. I was willing to do so because I've been putting a lot of miles on my car, and well, I just don't feel like driving today... I could do work on the MetroLink, read my new book by @brunanessif, hell, SLEEP because I had to wake up so damn early. There's outlets on the trains g , no WiFi d , but your standard mobile has an option to have HotSpot internet. It's 2019! Well between trash day, my espresso machine acting up, feeding my dog, and then to find her take a giant piss on my floor... I missing that 8:10am MetroLink train for mttg that is 5 HOURS away. You'd figure I'd just catch the next train but, nope. They don't exist. N/A N/A How would you plan to address transportation through a potential sales tax? Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 AGENDA ITEM 9D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jillian Guizado, Legislative Affairs Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the following bill position: a) HR. 2939 (Napolitano) — Support; 2) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update State Budget Governor Newsom and the State Legislature announced on June 9 a state budget deal for Fiscal Year 2019/20 had been reached. There is little to note about transportation funding in the new budget. Transportation policy changes are often contained in budget trailer bills, which staff is monitoring as closely as possible and is poised to act quickly following the Commission's adopted 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform should an important matter be proposed. The Legislature voted to approve the state budget on June 13 and sent it to Governor Newsom's desk for signature (or veto). The Governor has until June 25 to take action on the budget. In the meantime, the Legislature is working on more than a dozen budget trailer bills to accompany the state budget. Federal Update HR. 2939 (Napolitano) — Staff Recommended Position: Support The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finalized a rule on December 8, 2014, that the self- help counties in California (and other states) believe misinterprets a statute related to taxes on aviation fuel. In 1987, Congress passed the FAA authorization amendments that required airports to spend aviation fuel excise tax revenue on airport uses. The conference report for the 1987 Agenda Item 9D 60 amendments to the FAA statute clearly stated that the requirement that local taxes on aviation fuel must be spent on airports "is intended to apply to local fuel taxes only, and not to other taxes imposed by local governments, or to state taxes." The FAA rulemaking in 2014 contradicts the Congressional intent and 27 years of practice by stating that the provisions of the 1987 statute "apply to any state or local tax on aviation fuel, whether the tax was specifically targeted at aviation fuel or was a general sales tax on products that included aviation fuel without exemption." The FAA's 2014 rulemaking overturns the decision of Riverside County voters to tax themselves for a specific purpose by dictating district and local taxes paid on aviation fuel must be spent on airport uses. Due to the controversy caused by the FAA rulemaking five years ago, the FAA had not been enforcing the policy until the state received a letter on May 17, 2019, threatening to withhold $250 million annually in FAA grants received by airports throughout the state. HR. 2939 would protect Riverside County from the FAA's recent threat by statutorily voiding the FAA's rulemaking. Staff is recommending a support position on HR. 2939, consistent with the Commission's 2019 State and Federal Legislative Platform, which includes a principle to protect our authority and revenue by opposing efforts to infringe on the Commission's discretion in collecting and administering its revenue sources including, but not limited to: Measure A, tolls, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees. Federal Budget On June 4, the House Committee on Appropriations approved the FY 2020 spending bill for Transportation. This version of the spending bill is very favorable to transportation in that it would authorize $1.1 billion more than what is designated in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act transportation funding program for 2020. This Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Related Agencies bill has since been combined with four other spending bills to become a mini -bus. As of the writing of this agenda item, the full House of Representatives was expected to hear the package of spending bills on the floor before July 4. It is important to note the Senate still needs to move a bill of its own before a transportation spending bill can be adopted for Federal FY 2020, which begins October 1, 2019. Staff will continue to report on Congress' progress in the coming months. Attachments: Legislative Matrix - July 2019 Agenda Item 9D 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION — JULY 2019 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 252 (Daly, Frazier) Removes the sunset date from the NEPA Reciprocity program. Passed Senate Transportation Committee; referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. (June 11, 2019) SUPPORT 3/13/19 AB 1402 (Petrie -Norris) Makes substantive changes to the Active Transportation Program administered by the State, allocating 75% of funds to be distributed by large MPOs. Referred to Committee on Transportation. (March 27, 2019) SUPPORT 4/1/19 SB 152 (Beall) Makes substantive changes to the Active Transportation Program administered by the State, allocating 75% of funds to be distributed by large MPOs. Held in Senate Appropriations Committee under submission. (May 16, 2019) SUPPORT 4/1/19 AB 626 (Quirk -Silva) Seeks to dictate that professionals who provide professional services on one phase of a project be deemed not to have a conflict of interest in subsequent project phases, disregarding the Commission's adopted Procurement Policy. Ordered to inactive file at request of member. (May 30, 2019) OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED 4/10/19 AB 456 (Chiu, Bonta, Low) Removes the January 1, 2020 sunset provision on claims resolution processes. Passed Senate Judiciary; referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. (June 11, 2019) OPPOSE 5/8/19 SB 498 (Hurtado) Takes funds dedicated in the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund and repurposes them for a new short -line railroad project grant program. Passed Senate floor. (May 28, 2019) OPPOSE Staff action based on platform 5/30/19 SR 742 (Allen) Authorizes existing state funds for Amtrak to be used on intercity passenger bus transportation, regardless of whether the passenger is connecting to or from intercity rail service. Passed Senate floor; referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. (May 30, 2019) SUPPORT 6/12/19 AB 1149 (Fong) Eliminates the ability of petitioners to opt to prepare the record of proceedings and would place that responsibility solely on the lead agency. Re -referred to Assembly Natural Resources. (April 24, 2019) SUPPORT 6/12/19 AGENDA ITEM 9E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Martha Masters, Senior Management Analyst Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Committee SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans for the Local Streets and Roads Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Fiscal Years 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Local Streets and Roads (LSR) as submitted by the participating agencies. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2009 Measure A provides member agencies with local funding for street maintenance and operations, street repairs, street improvements, and new infrastructure of their local streets and roads systems. As outlined in the Ordinance No. 02-001, Measure A funds are allocated within the three geographic areas: Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. LSR receives 29 percent of the Measure A distribution in Western County, 35 percent in Coachella Valley, and 100 percent in Palo Verde Valley. In the Western County and Palo Verde Valley, funds are distributed by a formula based on 75 percent of proportionate population from the State Department of Finance and 25 percent of Measure A sales tax revenues generated within each jurisdiction. In Coachella Valley, funds are distributed based on 50 percent of proportionate dwelling units and 50 percent of Measure A revenues within each jurisdiction. Since the commencement of the 2009 Measure A in July 2009 through March 31, 2019, the cities and the county of Riverside have received over $442 million. Measure A imposes the following requirements on local agencies in order to receive LSR funds: • Participation in the Western County or Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, as applicable; • Participation in the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority's Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as applicable; • Annual submittal of a 5-Year CIP list of projects; Agenda Item 9E 63 • Annual Maintenance of Effort certification; and • Annual Project Status Report for the prior fiscal year CIP. DISCUSSION: On February 19, 2019, staff provided the local agencies with a Five -Year Measure A LSR revenue projection, which is attached, to assist in preparation of the required CIP. The required plans and supporting documentation have been received from all participating Measure A agencies and have been reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with Measure A requirements and confirm CIP Measure A LSR expenditures are consistent with the State's guidelines for gas tax expenditures. Staff recommends approval of the local agency FYs 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Five -Year CIPs. The FY 2019/20 Measure A LSR disbursements to eligible local agencies with a Commission - approved CIP are expected to begin in September 2019. Eligibility determinations related to participation in the TUMF and MSHCP programs, as applicable, are complete for Coachella Valley agencies and Western County agencies. Attachments: 1) Five -Year Measure A Revenue Projections for Local Streets and Roads 2) Cities and County FYs 2019/20 — 2023/24 CIPs (Posted on the Commission Website) Agenda Item 9E 64 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION) LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 Western County BANNING $ 618,000 $ 627,000 $ 643,000 $ 659,000 $ 675,000 $ 692,000 BEAU MO NT 970,000 1,000,000 1,025,000 1,051,000 1,077,000 1,104,000 CALIMESA 176,000 182,000 187,000 192,000 197,000 202,000 CANYON LAKE 195,000 197,000 202,000 207,000 212,000 217,000 CORONA 4,364,000 4,486,000 4,598,000 4,713,000 4,831,000 4,952,000 EASTVALE 1,387,000 1,436,000 1,472,000 1,509,000 1,547,000 1,586,000 HEMET 1,862,000 1,856,000 1,902,000 1,950,000 1,999,000 2,049,000 JURUPA VALLEY 2,123,000 2,221,000 2,277,000 2,334,000 2,392,000 2,452,000 LAKE ELSINORE 1,426,000 1,441,000 1,477,000 1,514,000 1,552,000 1,591,000 MENIFEE 1,823,000 1,847,000 1,893,000 1,940,000 1,989,000 2,039,000 MORENO VALLEY 4,240,000 4,248,000 4,354,000 4,463,000 4,575,000 4,689,000 MURRIETA 2,561,000 2,577,000 2,641,000 2,707,000 2,775,000 2,844,000 NORCO 715,000 713,000 731,000 749,000 768,000 787,000 PERRIS 1,718,000 2,003,000 2,053,000 2,104,000 2,157,000 2,211,000 RIVERSIDE 8,073,000 7,886,000 8,083,000 8,285,000 8,492,000 8,704,000 SAN JACINTO 926,000 927,000 950,000 974,000 998,000 1,023,000 TEMECULA 3,354,000 3,211,000 3,291,000 3,373,000 3,457,000 3,543,000 WILDOMAR 675,000 680,000 697,000 714,000 732,000 750,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5,819,000 5,920,000 6,068,000 6,220,000 6,376,000 6,535,000 SUBTOTAL -Western County 43,025,000 43,458,000 44,544,000 45,658,000 46,801,000 47,970,000 Coachella Valley CATHEDRAL CITY 1,569,000 1,537,000 1,575,000 1,614,000 1,654,000 1,695,000 COACHELLA 640,000 628,000 644,000 660,000 677,000 694,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 503,000 507,000 520,000 533,000 546,000 560,000 INDIAN WELLS 280,000 267,000 274,000 281,000 288,000 295,000 INDIO 2,062,000 2,054,000 2,105,000 2,158,000 2,212,000 2,267,000 LA QUINTA' 1,606,000 1,590,000 1,630,000 1,671,000 1,713,000 1,756,000 PALM DESERT 2,948,000 2,842,000 2,913,000 2,986,000 3,061,000 3,138,000 PALM SPRINGS 2,232,000 2,240,000 2,296,000 2,353,000 2,412,000 2,472,000 RANCHO MIRAGE 973,000 965,000 989,000 1,014,000 1,039,000 1,065,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1,866,000 1,886,000 1,933,000 1,981,000 2,031,000 2,082,000 SUBTOTAL -Coachella Valley 14,679,000 14,516,000 14,879,000 15,251,000 15,633,000 16,024,000 Palo Verde Valley BLYTHE 821,000 782,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 199,000 208,000 SUBTOTAL -Palo Verde Valley TOTAL 802,000 822,000 843,000 864,000 213,000 218,000 223,000 229,000 1,020,000 990,000 1,015,000 1,040,000 1,066,000 1,093,000 5 58,724,000 $ 58,964,000 $ 60,438,000 $ 61,949,000 $ 63,500,000 $ 65,087,000 1 Under an agreement between CVAG and La Quinta, CVAG receives 50% of La Quinta's allocation and La Quinta the remaining 50% until such time La Quinta has reimbursed CVAG for TUMF fees CVAG would have received from La Quinta if La Quinta had joined the TUMF program when the TUMF was established. Note: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change and rounding differences 65 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF BANNING 1 This page left intentionally blank. City of Banning Public Works Department STAGECOACH TOWN USA Proud History.Progwous Tnmurrrrw April 16, 2019 Jenny Chan, Management Analyst Planning and Programming Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Five -Year (FY 2019/2020 — 2023/2024) Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan Dear Ms. Chan: The City of Banning respectfully submits its Five -Year Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2019/2020 — 2023/2024 as approved by the City Council during its regular meeting on April 9, 2019. Also enclosed with this letter you will find the City's MOE Certification Statement, Project Status Report for FY 2018/2019 along with a copy of the adopted Resolution approving the Five -Year Measure "A" CIP Plan. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at avela@banningca.gov or (951) 922-3130. Sincerely, Art Vela, P.E. Director of Public Works Copy: File Enc. Adopted Resolution Five -Year Measure "A" Plan Project Status Report MOE Certification Statement 99 E. Ramsey St. P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3130 • Fax (951) 922-3141 3 FY 2019/2020 MEASURE A PROGRAM MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the CITY OF BANNING (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Measure "A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $164,325.00, approved by the Commission at its July 11, 2012 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary Local Funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure "A" funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: _41/71,,ei1- , 2019 Doug hulze, Cit anager Attest: Daryl Betancur, Deputy City Clerk 1 4 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittl5 AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: BANNING Prepared by: Kevin Sn Phone #: (951) 922-3140 Date: 3/ 19/ 2019 FY2017/18Audited Measure A Balance: $ 2,201,513 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 618,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (708,968) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 2,110,545 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 627,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,737,545 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Indian School Lane: 8th St to San Gorgonio Ave AC Overlay $ 200,000 $ 200,000 2020-02 Lincoln Street: San Gorgonio Ave to Hararave St AC Overlay 300,000 300,000 2020-03 City-wide Slurry Seal Slurry Seal 91,000 91,000 2020-04 Ramsey & Sunset Imp. (Constr.) Rehabilitation 100,000 100,000 2020-05 Ramsey St: 4th St to 12th St AC Overlay/Rehab 300,000 300,000 2020-06 Cottonwood Rd: 8th St to 12th St AC Overlay 100,000 100,000 2020-07 George St: 8th St to 12th St AC Overlay 100,000 100,000 2020-08 10th St: WilliamsSt to George St AC Overlay 115,000 115,000 TOTAL $ 1,306,000 $ 1,306,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 5 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: BANNING Prepared by: Kevin Gn Phone #: (951) 922-3140 Date: 3/ 19/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 1,431,545 643,000 2,074,545 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Monroe St: 22nd St to Jefferson St AC Overlay/Rehab $ 100,000 $ 100,000 2021-02 Jefferson St: Monroe St to 22nd St AC Overlay/Rehab 90,000 90,000 2021-03 Lincoln St: Sunset Ave to 22nd St AC Overlay 180,000 180,000 2021-04 George St: Hargrave to Hathaway AC Overlay 140,000 140,000 2021-05 Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension: Highland Home Road to Sunset Document and PS&E only 1,200,000 1,200,000 2021-06 Ramsey Street: 12th St to 16th St AC Overlay/Rehab 200,000 200,000 TOTAL $ 1,910,000 $ 1,910,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 6 M EASURE A LDCALSIFihhIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: BANNING Prepared by: Kevin 9n Phone # : (951) 922-3140 Date: 3/ 19/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 164,545 659,000 823,545 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021 / 22 2022-01 City-wide Slurry Se a I Slurry Se a I $ 120,000 $ 120,000 2022-02 First St: Livington St to Williams AC Overlay 85,000 85,000 2022-03 Second St: Hays St to WilliamsSt AC Overlay 13,000 13,000 2022-04 Third St: Hays St to Williams AC Overlay 30,000 30,000 2022-05 Fourth St: Livington St to George AC Overlay 85,000 85,000 2022-06 Second St: Nicolet St to George AC Overlay 35,000 35,000 2022-07 Omar Street &Ramsey St Int Improvement AC Overlay/Rehab 50,000 50,000 TOTAL $ 418,000 $ 418,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 7 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: BANNING Prepared by: Kevin Gn Phone #: (951) 922-3140 Date: 3/ 19/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 405,545 675,000 1,080,545 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/ 23 2023-01 Ramsey Street: 16th St to 22nd St AC Overlay/Rehab $ 225,000 $ 225,000 2023-02 City-wide Slurry Se a I 9u rry Se al 440,000 440,000 TOTAL $ 665,000 $ 665,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4 of 6 8 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: BANNING Prepared by: Kevin an Phone # : (951) 922-3140 Date: 3/ 19/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 415,545 692,000 1,107,545 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 Ramsey Street: 22nd St to Sunset Avenue AC Overlay/Rehab $ 800,000 $ 800,000 2024-01 TOTAL $ 800,000 $ 800,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 9 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: BANNING Prepared by: Kevin an Phone # : (951) 922-3140 Date: 3/ 19/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 Cottonwood Rd: 8th St to 12th St AC Overlay $ - 5/1/2020 moved to FY 19/20 2 George St: 8th St to 12th St AC Overlay 5/1/2020 moved to FY 19/20 3 10th St: WilliamsS to George St AC Overlay 5/1/2020 moved to FY19/20 4 12th St: Williamsto George St AC Overlay 122,000 12/1/2019 Preparing PS&E 5 14th St: Williamsto George St AC Overlay 120,000 12/1/2019 Preparing PS&E 6 Sun L.akesBoulevard Extension: Highland Home Road to Sunset Document and PS&E 12/1/2021 moved to FY20/21 Avenue only 7 Su Ramsey & nset Imp. (Design) PS&E 40,000 40,000 6/1/2019 Advertising RFP/Awarding 8 City -Wide Various Streets Improvements AC Overlay 668,968 668,968 4/18/2019 Completed TOTAL $ 950,968 $ 708,968 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF BEAUMONT 11 This page left intentionally blank. BEFIMONT CaP,i,�dirua May 1, 2019 Attn: Lorelle Moe -Luna, Senior Management Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 CITY OF BEAUMONT 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA 92223 Phone (951) 769-8520 Fax (951) 769-8526 www.Beaumont-Ca.gov Subject: City of Beaumont Measure "A" Capital Improvement Plan Dear Ms. Moe -Luna, The City, hereby, submits the below listed documents for your consideration and respectfully request that the Riverside County Transportation Commission accept and approve the City's Measure "A" Five -Year CIP and find the City eligible to continue to receive its fair share of Measure "A" revenues. • Submittal Letter on Agency Letterhead • Five -Year CIP for FYs 2020-2024 and Project Status Report for FY 2019 • MOE Certification Statement Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (951)769- 8520. Thank you, City of Beaumont Jeff Hart City of Beaumont Public Works Director CC: Todd Parton, City Manager Kristine Day, Assistant City Manager Melana Taylor, Finance Director Incorporated November 18, 1912 13 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Beaumont (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $515,908 approved by the Commission at its November 8, 2017 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 1 %/p _2019 ATTEST: CITY MANAGER 14 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: BEAUMONT Prepared by: Laurie Miller Phone # : 951-769-8520 Date: 4/ 26/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 541,889 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 970,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (80,820) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,431,069 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 1,000,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,431,069 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY19- 20 (No. 2019-001) Citywide Surry Seal $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 2020-02 Annual Citywide Street Rehab FY19-20 (No. 2019-002) Street Rehab 800,000 500,000 2020-03 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY18- 19 (2018-001) Citywide slurry seal 600,000 300,000 2020-04 Beaumont Ave Reconstruction (2018-004) Street Rehab 1,953,000 734,000 TOTAL $ 4,353,000 $ 1,934,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 15 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: BEAUMONT Prepared by: Laurie Miller Phone # : 951-769-8520 Date: 4/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 497,069 1,025,000 1,522,069 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY20- 21 (2020-001) Cit idS we ur Seal y ry $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 2021-02 Annual Citywide Street Rehab FY20-21 (2020-002) greet Rehab 800,000 500,000 TOTAL $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 16 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: BEAUMONT Prepared by: Laurie Miller Phone # : 951-769-8520 Date: 4/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 622,069 1,051,000 1,673,069 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY21- 22 (2021-001) CitywideS ur Seal ry $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 2022-02 Annual Citywide Street Rehab FY21-22(2021-002) greet Rehab 800,000 400,000 TOTAL $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 17 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: BEAUMONT Prepared by: Laurie Miller Phone # : 951-769-8520 Date: 4/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 773,069 1,077,000 1,850,069 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY22- 23 (2022-001) CitywideS ur Seal ry $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 2023-02 Annual Citywide Street Rehab FY22-23(2022-002) greet Rehab 800,000 400,000 TOTAL $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 18 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: BEAUMONT Prepared by: Laurie Miller Phone # : 951-769-8520 Date: 4/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 950,069 1,104,000 2,054,069 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY23- 24 (2023-001) Citywide y slurry seal $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 2024-02 Annual Citywide Street Rehab FY23-24 (2023-002) greet Rehab 800,000 400,000 TOTAL $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 19 M EASURE A LOCALS1REEfS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PRO JEC T STA 71JS REPORTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: BEAUMONT Prepared by: Laurie Miller Phone # : 951-769-8520 Date: 4/ 26/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal FY18- 19 (2018-001) Citywide 9urry Seal $ 600,000 $ 80,820 12/31/2019 In processof design 2019-02 Beaumont Ave Reconstruction (2018-004) Street Rehab $ 1,953,000 - 7/1/2020 In processof design TOTAL $ 2,553,000 $ 80,820 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 20 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF BLYTHE 21 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF BLYTHE DEPARIIVENT OF PUBUC WORKS /M O SOUTH MAIN STREET BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA 92225-2717 PHONE (760) 922-6611 FAX (760) 922-0278 May 2, 2019 Jenny Chan Management Analyst, Planning and Programming Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92505-2208 Subject: City of Blythe Measure A Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2019/20 — 2023/24. Dear Ms. Chan, Enclosed please find the City of Blythe Measure A Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY 2019/20 — 2023/24, Maintenance of Efforts Certification FY 2019/2020, and Project Status Report for CIP FY 2018/2019. Ane, P Director o Public Wor s, City of Blythe Enclosures 23 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Blythe (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $170,000, approved by the Commission at its April 2016 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: YYtc�,� Z , 2019 ATTEST: at.4.2 (ham, CITY MANAGER Litt,,,,It SECRETARY 24 M EASURE A LOCALSIN EIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: City of Blythe Prepared by: Armando Baldiaone Phone #: (760) 922-6611 Date: 5/2/2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,526,126 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 821,000 FY2018/19 Project Status Report expenses: (799,875) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,547,251 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 782,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,329,251 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Wheelchair Ra mps (ADA) Construction -Annual Improvements $ 20,000 $ 10,000 2020-02 Asphalt Emulsion Oil/Base Material (Annual Stock) Pot hole repairs/street maintenance 125,000 100,000 2020-03 Fog, Chip & 9urry Seal Preventive maintenance 150,000 100,000 2020-04 Lovekin/Chanslorway Loan Advance Payment Debt Service (2009/2019) 39,370 39,370 2020-05 Main Street from 14th Ave to Chandorway AC Pavement Thick Overlay 1,310,000 660,000 Construction FY18/ 19 and FY19/ 20 2020-06 WellsStreet/Willow Street Improvement: Construction 165,000 54,000 2020-07 Storm Drain Pumps Pump Repalcement 56,000 56,000 2020-08 Outside Equipment Rental (Crack Sealer) Preventive maintenance 15,000 15,000 2020-09 PW Streets& Road Maintenance Costs Preventive maintenance 205,000 205,000 2020-10 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 62,560 62,560 TOTAL $ 2,147,930 $ 1,301,930 Estimated FY2018/19 STIP Trade Balance: $ 608,024 FY2018/19 Project Status Report expenses: $ 497,024 Estimated Prior Year STlPTrade Funds Balance: $ 111,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost SIIPTrade Funds 2019/20 Wells Street/Willow Street Improvement: AC Thick Layer Overlay -Construction $ 165,000 $ 111,000 2020-11 TOTAL $ 165,000 $ 111,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 25 M EASURE A LOCALSib:LEIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: City of Blythe Prepared by: Armando Baldiaone Phone #: (760)922-6611 Date: 5/2/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2020/21 Measure AAllocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 589,391 802,000 1,391,391 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Wheelchair Ram ps(ADA) Construction -Annual Improvements $ 30,000 $ 10,000 2021-02 Asphalt Emulsion Oil/Base Material (Annual Stock) Pot hole repairs/street maintenance 150,000 100,000 2021-03 Fog, Chip & Surry Seal Preventive maintenance 150,000 100,000 2021-04 San Luis Way from Bamard St. to Wisconsin St. AC pavement, thick overlay 296,000 296,000 2021-05 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 64,160 64,160 TOTAL $ 690,160 $ 570,160 FY 2020-21 Page 2of6 26 M EASURE A LOCAL SIKLE AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: City of Blythe Prepared by: Armando Baldiaone Phone #: (760)922-6611 Date: 5/2/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 821,231 822,000 1,643,231 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Wheelchair Ram ps(ADA) Construction -Annual Improvements $ 30,000 $ 10,000 2022-02 Asphalt Emulsion Oil/Base Material (Annual Stock) Pot hole repairs/street maintenance 150,000 100,000 2022-03 Alleyway Improvements/Annual Improvements Grind and overlay on alleys 100,000 50,000 2022-04 Fog, Chip & Suny Seal Preventive maintenance 150,000 100,000 2022-05 Acacia Street from Hobsonwayto Bamard St Majorreconruction,AC pavement, base and drainage 479,000 479,000 2022-06 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 65,760 65,760 'MAL $ 974,760 $ 804,760 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 27 M EASURE A LOCAL SIKLE AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: City of Blythe Prepared by: Armando Baldiaone Phone #: (760)922-6611 Date: 5/2/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 821,231 843,000 1,664,231 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Wheelchair Ram ps(ADA) Construction -Annual Improvements $ 30,000 $ 10,000 2023-02 Asphalt Emulsion Oil/Base Material (Annual dock) Pot hole repairs/street maintenance 150,000 100,000 2023-03 Fog, Chip & Burry Seal Preventive maintenance 150,000 75,000 2023-04 Traffic Bgnal Rehabilitation (va rious locations) Camera traffic detection system 50,000 25,000 2023-05 Defrain Blvd from 4th Ave to 10th Ave AC pavement thick overlay 1,768,000 884,000 Construction FY22/23and FY23/24 2023-06 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 67,440 67,440 Tt)TAL $ 2,215,440 $ 1,161,440 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 28 M EASURE A LOCAL SIKLE AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: City of Blythe Prepared by: Armando Baldiaone Phone #: (760)922-6611 Date: 5/2/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ 1,027,321 Estimated FY2023/24 Measure A Allocation: $ 864,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24Projects: $ 1,891,321 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Wheelchair Ram ps(ADA) Construction -Annual Improvements $ 30,000 $ 10,000 2024-02 Asphalt Emulsion Oil/Base Material (Annual dock) Pot hole repairs/street maintenance 150,000 100,000 2024-03 Fog, Chip & Burry Seal Preventive maintenance 150,000 75,000 2024-04 Traffic Bgnal Rehabilitation (va rious locations) Camera traffic detection system 50,000 25,000 2024-05 Defrain Blvd from 4th Ave to 10th Ave AC pavement thick overlay 1,768,000 884,000 Construction FY22/23and FY23/24 2024-06 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 69,120 69,120 Tt)TAL $ 2,217,120 $ 1,163,120 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 29 M EASURE A LOCAL SIIEtIS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PROJECT STA R'S REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: City of Blythe Prepared by: Armando Baldiaone Phone #: (760)922-6611 Date: 5/2/2019 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Estthru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 WheelchairRamps(ADA) Construction $ 20,000 $ 5,000 Jun-19 50%completed 2 Asphalt Emulsion Oil/Base Material (Annual Stock) Construction 120,000 50,000 Jun-19 Annual Improvements 3 Fog, Chip & Slurry Seal Construction 150,000 100,000 Jun-19 Annual Improvements 3 Traffic Sgnal Rehabilitation (various locations) Rehabilitation 161,862 89,367 Dec-18 Completed 4 Main Street from 14th Ave to Chanslorway Construction 1,310,000 256,976 Aug-19 To be completed Aug, 2019 5 Lovekin/Chanslorway Loan Advance Payment Debt Payment 236,212 236,212 Sep-19 Last Payment due Sept. 2019 6 Administrative Overhead Admin. Overhead 62,320 62,320 Jun-19 Annual Admin charges TOTAL $ 2,060,394 $ 799,875 Item No. Project Name/ Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated S11P Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 7 Main Street from 14th Ave to Chanslorway Construction $ 1,310,000 $ 393,024 Aug-19 Annual project 8 Wells Street/Willow Street Improvements Construction 150,000 - Dec-19 Const. moved FY2019-2020 9 3rd Street from 14th Avenue to City Limits Construction 104,000 104,000 Aug-19 In Progresswith Riv. Co. Transp. TOTAL $ 1,564,000 $ 497,024 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF CALIMESA 31 This page left intentionally blank. City of Calimesa May 6, 2019 Jenny Chan Management Analyst Planning and Programming 4080 Lemon St., 3rd Floor Riverside, Ca 92502 Re: City of Calimesa Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2019/20- 2023/24 Dear Ms. Chan: Enclosed please find the City of Calimesa Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2019/20-2023/24, Maintenance of Effort Certification for Fiscal Year 2019- 20 and the Project Status Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19. Please let me know if you should have any questions. Sincerely, Bonnie Johnson City Manager 908 Park Avenue • Calimesa, California 92320 • (909) 795-9801 33 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Calimesa (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $2,401, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 2019 ATTESTP L) i A /I _ J SECRETARY 34 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: CALIMESq Prepared by: Lori J. Askew Phone # : 909-795-9801 Date: 6-May-19 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 549,601 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 176,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (67,585) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 658,016 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 182,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 840,016 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Indirect Costs- Administration Indirect Costs $ 14,560 $ 14,560 2020-02 Brady Lane Pavement Rehab R& RPavement 145,923 145,923 County Line Rd - 3rd St to 135,000 135,000 2020-03 California St Pavement Rehab County Line Rd - California St to 70,000 70,000 2020-04 Bryant St Pavement Rehab 2020-05 Cherry Ln, Holly Ln, Mulberry Ln Pavement Rehab 405,000 405,000 TOTAL $ 770,483 $ 770,483 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 35 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: CALIMESq Prepared by: Lori J. Askew Phone #: Date: 909-795-9801 6-May-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 69,533 187,000 256,533 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Indirect Costs- Overhead Indirect Costs $ 14,960 $ 14,960 California St - County Line Rd to 120,000 120,000 2021-02 Myrtlewood Pavement Rehab TOTAL $ 134,960 $ 134,960 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 36 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: CALIMESq Prepared by: Lori J. Askew Phone #: Date: 909-795-9801 6-May-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 121,573 192,000 313,573 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Indirect Costs- Overhead Indirect Costs $ 15,360 $ 15,360 2022-02 Citywide Pavement Rehab Pavement Rehab. 150,000 150,000 TOTAL $ 165,360 $ 165,360 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 37 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: CALIMESq Prepared by: Lori J. Askew Phone #: Date: 909-795-9801 6-May-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 148,213 197,000 345,213 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Indirect Costs- Overhead Indirect Costs $ 15,760 $ 15,760 2023-02 Citywde Pavement Rehab. Pavement Rehab. 150,000 150,000 TOTAL $ 165,760 $ 165,760 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 38 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: CALIMESq Prepared by: Lori J. Askew Phone #: Date: 909-795-9801 6-May-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 179,453 202,000 381,453 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Indirect Costs- Overhead Indirect Costs $ 16,160 $ 16,160 2024-02 Citywide Pavement Rehab. Pavement Rehab. 150,000 150,000 TOTAL $ 166,160 $ 166,160 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 39 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPORTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: CALIM ESA Lori J. Askew 909-795-9801 5/ 2/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Bcpended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 19-01 Citywide Pavement Mgmt Plan Planning $ 15,000 $ 6,875 3/25/2019 Completed 19-02 Avenue LSlurry Seal Pavement Rehabilitation 108,855 35,350 NOC-5/20/2019 Const. Completed 19-03 Brady Lane Pavement Rehab R& RPavement 157,923 12,000 9/1/2019 Final Design 19-04 County Line Rd -3rd to California Pavement Rehabilitation 135,000 - 5/1/2020 Rolled over to FY19/20 19-05 Indirect Costs Admin Costs 13,360 13,360 6/30/2019 TOTAL $ 430,138 $ 67,585 2064 Construction wascompleted in April. Final billingsare being processed. NOC anticipated on 5/20/19. 2066 Pavement recommendation changed to remove and replace existing pavement Amendment #1 Joint Project with City of Yucaipa. Rolled overto FY2019/2020. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 40 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF CANYON LAKE 41 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF CANYON LAKE May 6, 2019 Riverside County Transportation Commission Attention: Jenny Chan, Management Analyst PO Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Dear Jenny: Please find the attached Five -Year CIP for FY 2019/20 — 2023/24, Project Status Report for FY 2018/19 (Excels file) and the signed City of Canyon Lake MOE Certification Statement. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to give me a call (909) 889-0871. Yours truly, City of Canyon Lake Terry S, Finance Director 31516 Railroad Canyon Road, Canyon Lake, CA 92587 • 951/244-2955 • FAX 951/246-2022 admin@cityofcanyonlake.com • www.cityofcanyonlake.com 43 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Canyon Lake (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $28,873, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: `2019 .. 22e-7 CITY MANAGER SECRETARY 44 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: CANYON LAKE Prepared by: Terry Shea Phone # : 951-244-2955 Date: 4/ 30/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 361,858 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 195,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (147,000) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 409,858 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 197,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 606,858 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Debt Service Measure A Loan $ 19,290 $ 19,290 2020-02 Debt Service County 27,184 27,184 2020-03 Railroad Canyon Road Pavement Rehab, Signal Maintenance, Landscaping, Lighting 120,000 40,000 & Other Maintenance TOTAL $ 166,474 $ 86,474 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 45 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: CANYON LAKE Prepared by: Terry Shea Phone # : 951-244-2955 Date: 4/ 30/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 520,384 202,000 722,384 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Railroad Canyon Road Pavement Rehab, Signal Maintenance, Landscaping, Lighting & Other Maintenance $ 120,000 $ 40,000 2021-01 TOTAL $ 120,000 $ 40,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 46 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: CANYON LAKE Prepared by: Terry Shea Phone # : 951-244-2955 Date: 4/ 30/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 682,384 207,000 889,384 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Railroad Canyon Road Pavement Rehab, Signal Maintenance, Landscaping, Lighting & Other Maintenance $ 120,000 $ 40,000 2022-01 TOTAL $ 120,000 $ 40,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 47 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: CANYON LAKE Prepared by: Terry Shea Phone # : 951-244-2955 Date: 4/ 30/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 849,384 212,000 1,061,384 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Railroad Canyon Road Pavement Rehab, Signal Maintenance, Landscaping, Lighting & Other Maintenance $ 120,000 $ 40,000 2023-01 TOTAL $ 120,000 $ 40,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 48 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: CANYON LAKE Prepared by: Terry Shea Phone # : 951-244-2955 Date: 4/ 30/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 1,021,384 217,000 1,238,384 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Railroad Canyon Road Slurry Seal $ 400,000 $ 400,000 2024-02 Railroad Canyon Road Pavement Rehab, Signal Maintenance, Landscaping, Lighting 100,000 40,000 & Other Maintenance TOTAL $ 500,000 $ 440,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 49 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: CANYON LAKE Prepared by: Terry Shea Phone # : 951-244-2955 Date: 4/ 30/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Debt Service for Measure A loan $ 84,000 $ 84,000 $ 84,000 Completed 2019-02 Debt Service County Loan 63,000 63,000 63,000 Completed 2019-03 Railroad Canyon Road 120,000 - - Ongoing TOTAL $ 267,000 $ 147,000 $ 147,000 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 50 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY 51 This page left intentionally blank. III �� v` c3 c • May 2, 2019 Riverside County Transportation Commission Attention: Jenny Chan, Management Analyst, Planning and Programming P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REVENUE PROJECTIONS, MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT (MOE) CERTIFICATION, and FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (FY 2019/20 — 2023/24) Dear Ms. Jenny Chan: The City of Cathedral City is pleased to submit documentation in support of the above referenced request. Please let me know if you need additional information. Sincerely, Senior Administrative Analyst Engineering Division 68-700 AVENIDA LALO GUERRERO • CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 • 760/770-0360 • FAX: 760/202-1460 53 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Cathedral City (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $391,688, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 2019 CITY MANAGER 54 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: Cathedral City Prepared by: Vincent Lopez Phone # : (760) 770-0349 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 431,328 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,569,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,000,328) Estimated Prior Yea rMeasure A Balance: Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 1,537,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 1,537,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds City -Wide Maintenance and City wide 2020-01 Operations p maintenance operations includ ing pavement, medians, street light energy, traffic signals; transportation and traffic planning activities; pavement management planning; street design and engineering activities. $1,628,520 1,414,040 2020-02 Measure A Administrative Costs Administration 122,960 122,960 TOTAL $1,751,480 1,537,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 55 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: Cathedral City Prepared by: Vincent Lopez Phone #: (760) 770-0349 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 1,575,000 1,575,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds City -Wide Maintenance and Citywide 2021-01 Operations maintenance operationsincluding pavement, medians, street light energy, traffic signals; transportation and traffic planning activities; pavement management planning; street design and engineering activities. $ 1,669,923 $ 1,449,000 126,000 126,000 2021-02 Measure A Administrative Costs Administration TOTAL $ 1,795,923 $ 1,575,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 56 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: Cathedral City Prepared by: Vincent Lopez Phone #: (760) 770-0349 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 1,614,000 1,614,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022-01 City -Wide Maintenance and Operations Citywide maintenance operationsincluding pavement, medians, street light energy, traffic signals; transportation and traffic planning activities; pavement management planning; street design and engineering activities. $ 1,710,964 $ 1,484,880 2022-02 Measure A Administrative Costs Administration 129,120 129,120 TOTAL $ 1,840,084 $ 1,614,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 6 57 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: Cathedral City Prepared by: Vincent Lopez Phone #: (760) 770-0349 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 1,654,000 1,654,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023-01 City -Wide Maintenance and Operations Citywide maintenance operations including pavement, medians, street light energy, traffic signals; transportation and traffic planning activities; pavement management planning; street design and engineering activities. $ 1,753,738 $ 1,521,680 2023-02 Measure A Administrative Costs Administration 132,320 132,320 TOTAL $ 1,886,058 $ 1,654,0091 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 58 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: Cathedral City Prepared by: Vincent Lopez Phone #: (760) 770-0349 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 1,695,000 1,695,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2024-01 City -Wide Maintenance and Operations Citywide maintenance operations including pavement, medians, street light energy, traffic signals; transportation and traffic planning activities; pavement management planning; street design and engineering activities. $ 1,841,425 $ 1,559,400 2024-02 Measure A Administrative Costs Administration 135,600 135,600 TOTAL $ 1,977,025 $ 1,695,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5 of 6 59 M EASURE A LOCAL S1REEfS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PRIOJEC T STA 11JS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: Cathedral City Prepared by: Vincent Lopez Phone # : (760) 770-0349 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 19-01 City-wide Maintenance and Operations City-wide street maintenance $ 1,588,800 $ 1,339,223 6/30/2019 Ongoing 19-02 Measure AAdministrative Costs Administration 125,520 125,520 6/30/2019 Ongoing 19-03 Dinah Shore Street Improvements Pavement rehabilitation 1,200,000 470,079 12/12/2018 Complete 19-04 EPC Median Hardscape Street Improvements 115,000 53,406 9/26/2018 Complete 19-05 EPC REASSIuny Seal Street improvements 24,200 12,100 5/8/2019 Scheduled TOTAL $3,053,520 $2,000,328 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 60 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF COACHELLA 61 This page left intentionally blank. April 11, 2019 Lorene Moe -Luna Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street 3rd Floor PO Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: City of Coachella's Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2019/20 — FY 2023/24 Dear Ms. Moe -Luna: Please find enclosed the Fiscal Year 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Expenditure Plan for the City of Coachella. Also enclosed are the FY 18/19 Project Status Report and the City's MOE Certification Statement for FY 19/20. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself Jonathan Hoy, P.E., City Engineer at jhoy(a,coachella.org or Lynn Germain lgermain@coachella.org (760) 398-5744. Thank �w an Hoy, P.E., Engineer ity of Coachella 760-398-5744 63 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Coachella (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $92,205, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated:L 2019 ATTEST: 04VARy . b,�,� ECRETARY 64 MEASURE A LOCALbIF1F_EIS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: City of Coachella Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy P.E, City Assistant Manager/ City Engineer Phone # : 760-398-5744 Date: 3-26-19 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,473,786 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 640,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (1,300,498) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 813,288 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 628,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 1,441,288 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/20 2020-01 ST-100 CaltransAlP2 14 Locations, Bike Lanes, Crosswalks, Pathwaysfor $ 2,731,000 $ 531,000 Pedestrians, Sidewalks, and Asphalt Work. the project will improve street surface, full width of the roadway and the installation of handicap 2020-02 ST-88 Street Resurfacing, Phase 15 rampsasrequired.lhe street pavementsare identified from the 102,000 102,000 Pavement Management Update. Avenue 52 and Avenue 2020-03 ST-116 Ave 52 & Ave 54 Road Reconstruction 54 Street Reconstruction. the existing pavement requiresreconstruction from Harrison Street to 1,300,000 526,000 Grapefruit Blvd. 2020-04 ST-119 La Ponderosa The project will improve street surface 600,000 200,000 TOTAL $ 4,733,000 $ 1,359,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 65 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: City of Coachella Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy P.E., City Assistant Manager/ City Engineer Phone #: 760-398-5744 Date: 3-26-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 82,288 644,000 726,288 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 The project will improve street surface, full width of the roadway and the installation of 2021-01 ST-104 Street Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 16 handicap rampsas required. The street pavementsare identified from the $ 118,000 $ 118,000 Pavement Management Update. Avenue 52 and Avenue 54 Street Reconstruction. The 2021-02 ST-116 Ave 52 & Ave 54 Road Reconstruction existing pavement requires reconstruction from 1,300,000 526,000 Harrison Street to Grapefruit Blvd. TOTAL $ 1,418,000 $ 644,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 66 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/ 22 Agency: City of Coachella Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy P.E., City Assistant Manager/ City Engineer Phone #: 760-398-5744 Date: 3-26-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 82,288 660,000 742,288 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 ST-105 Street Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 17 The project will improve street surface, full width of the roadway and the installation of handicap rampsas required. The street pavementsare identified from the Pavement Management Update. $ 660,000 $ 660,000 2022-01 TOTAL $ 660,000 $ 660,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 6 67 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: City of Coachella Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy P.E., City Assistant Manager/ City Engineer Phone #: 760-398-5744 Date: 3-26-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 82,288 677,000 759,288 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 ST-113 Street Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 18 The project will improve street surface, full width of the roadway and the installation of handicap rampsas required. The street pavementsare identified from the Pavement Management Update. $ 677,000 $ 677,000 2023-01 TOTAL $ 677,000 $ 677,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 68 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: City of Coachella Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy P.E., City Assistant Manager/ City Engineer Phone #: 760-398-5744 Date: 3-26-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 82,288 694,000 776,288 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/24 The project will improve street surface, full width of the roadway and the installation of 2024-01 ST-118 Street Pavement Rehabilitation Phase 19 handicap rampsas required. The street pavementsare identified from the $ 694,000 $ 694,000 Pavement Management Update. TOTAL $ 694,000 $ 694,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5 of 6 69 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: City of Coachella Prepared by: Jonathan Hoy P.E., City Assistant Manager/ City Engineer Phone # : 760-398-5744 Date: 3-26-19 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 2019-02 ST-100 CaltransAlP2 ST-77 Street Resurfacing, Phase 14 14 Locations, Bike Lanes, Crosswalks, Pathwaysfor Pedestrians, Sdewalks, and Asphalt Work. The project will improve street surface, full width of the roadway and the installation of handicap rampsas required. The street pavementsare identified from the Pavement Management Update. TOTAL $ 2,731,000 2,000,498 $ 4,731,498 $ - 1,300,498 $ 1,300,498 FY 19/20 FY 18/19 Project wasmoved to FY 19/20 for completion Project is Complete Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 70 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF CORONA 71 This page left intentionally blank. (951) 736-2266 (951) 279-3627 (FAX) Nelson.Nelson@ci.corona.ca.us May 2, 2019 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 400 SOUTH VICENTIA AVENUE, P.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92879-0940 CITY HALL - ON LINE ALL THE TIME (http:/lwww.cliscovercorona.com) Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 SUBJECT: MEASURE A FIVE-YEAR PLAN, MOE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT, AND PROJECT STATUS REPORT Ms. Medina: The following documents are enclosed for your review: . Measure A proposed Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan • Project Status Report for current Fiscal Year 2018/19 • Maintenance of Effort (MOE) signed certification statement • Measure A Annual Disbursement Projects received at the City The City's minimum MOE is set at $2,208,200; however, as of June 30, 2019, the City will have spent $3,462,496 from Measure A and $37,284,150 from other funds to support Measure A project expenditures. The document supporting the MOE calculations can be found attached, entitled "FY 2018/19 Construction and Maintenance Expenditures." The Measure A proposed FY 2019/20 through 2023/24 Capital Improvement Plan will be presented to our City Council for review at the Budget Workshop on May 23, 2019 and for adoption at the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019. if you have any questions please contact Kim Sitton, Finance Manager at (951) 279-3532. Sincerely, ,1_,,, V.,,___ �Jelson D. Nelson, P.E. Public Works Director Attachments c: Kim Sitton, Finance Manager Theresa Daily, Financial Analyst 73 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION S TA TEMEN T The undersigned agrees and certifies for the City of Corona (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $2,208,200 approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 41 7, 2019 C�ldi Mitch-Lansdell, Acting City Manager ATTEST: NA a Ufa 17/t6 City( lerk, City of Corona 74 M EASURE A LOCALSIKLEIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: CORONA Prepared by: Luis Navarro Phone #: (951) 817-5742 Date: 4/17/2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: 12,784,764 4,364,000 (1,722,928) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 15,425,836 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 4,486,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 19,911,836 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Bridge Evaluation Streets& Storm Drains 500,000 500,000 2020-02 Changeable Traffic Message Sgn Replacement Streets& Storm Drain: 14,000 14,000 2020-03 Citywide Benchmark Update Streets& Storm Drains 50,000 - 2020-04 East Grand Boulevard Storm Drain Streets& Storm Drain: 300,000 300,000 2020-05 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains 3,790,175 1,000,000 2020-06 Magnolia Avenue Widening Streets& Storm Drain: 750,000 - 2020-07 MclGnley Grade Separation Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 1,000,000 2020-08 Miscellaneous Repair and Replacement of Traffic Sgnals Streets& Storm Drain: 180,000 - 2020-09 Ontario Avenue Widening Streets& Storm Drains 500,000 500,000 2020-10 Pavement Maintenance and Resurfacing Streets& Storm Drain: 225,000 225,000 2020-11 Pavement Management Study Streets& Storm Drains 10,000 10,000 2020-12 RverRoad Median Landscape Improvements Streets& Storm Drains 450,000 450,000 2020-13 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Project Streets& Storm Drains - - 2020-14 Sdewalk/Curb/GUtterInstall Streets& Storm Drains 700,000 325,000 2020-15 Sxth Street Revitalization Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 1,000,000 2020-16 Striping Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains 100,000 50,000 2020-17 Traffic Sgnals Lighting Upgrade Streets& Storm Drains 150,000 75,000 2020-18 Citywide Traffic Sgns Streets& Storm Drains 15,000 15,000 2020-19 Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA)-SR91 Corridor Project: Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 500,000 2020-20 West Rncon Street Improvement: Streets& Storm Drains 500,000 250,000 Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational 179,475 179,475 IDTAL $ 11,413,650 $ 6,393,475 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 10 75 M EASURE A LOCALSItittis AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: CORONA Prepared by: Luis Navarro Phone #: (951) 817-5742 Date: 4/ 17/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ 13,518,361 Estimated FY2020/21 Measure A Allocation: 4,598,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 18,116,361 Item No. Project Name / limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Butterfield Drive Road Relocation Streets& Storm Drains $ 1,150,000 $ 1,150,000 2021-02 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 1,000,000 2021-03 McKinley Grade Separation Streets& Storm Drains 20,000,000 - 2021-04 Miscellaneous Repair and Replacement of Traffic Sgnals Streets& Storm Drains 190,000 - 2021-05 Ontario Avenue Widening Streets& Storm Drains 500,000 500,000 2021-06 Pavement Maintenance and Resurfacing Streets& Storm Drains 300,000 150,000 2021-07 Pavement Management Study Streets& Storm Drains 10,000 10,000 2021-08 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Project Streets& Storm Drains 2,700,000 - 2021-09 Sdewalk/Curb/Gutter Install Streets& Storm Drains 600,000 300,000 2021-10 Striping Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains 325,000 175,000 2021-11 Traffic Sgna Is Lig hting Upgrade Streets& Storm Drains 150,000 75,000 2021-12 Citywide Traffic Signs Streets& Storm Drains 15,000 - Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) - SR-91 Corridor 2021-13 Projects Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 500,000 Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational 184,859 184,859 TOTAL $ 28,124,859 $ 4,044,859 FY 2020-21 Page2of10 76 M EASURE A LOCALSIKteIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: CORONA Prepared by: Luis Navarro Phone #: (951) 817-5742 Date: 4/ 17/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ 14,071,502 Estimated FY2021/22 Measure A Allocation: 4,713,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 18,784,502 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021 / 22 2022-01 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation 3reets& Storm Drains $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 2022-02 Magnolia Avenue Widening Streets& Storm Drains 700,000 600,000 2022-03 Miscellaneous Repair and Replacement of Traffic Signals 3reets& Storm Drains 200,000 - 2022-04 Pavement Maintenance and Resurfacing 3reets& Storm Drains 150,000 150,000 2022-05 Pavement Management Study 3reets& Storm Drains 50,000 50,000 2022-06 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Project Streets& Storm Drains 2,700,000 - 2022-07 Sdewalk/Curb/Gutter Install 3reets& Storm Drains 600,000 300,000 2022-08 Striping Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains 325,000 175,000 2022-09 Citywide Traffic SgnE 3reets& Storm Drains 15,000 - Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA)-SR91 Corridor 2022-10 Projects Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 500,000 2022-11 West Rincon Street Improvements Streets& Storm Drains 1,500,000 750,000 Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational 190,405 190,405 TOTAL $ 8,430,405 $ 3,715,405 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 10 77 M EASURE A LOCALSIFittIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: CORONA Prepared by: Luis Navarro Phone #: (951) 817-5742 Date: 4/17/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 15,069,097 4,831,000 19,900,097 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measun A Funds 2022/ 23 2023-01 Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains $ 1,000,00C $ 1,000,00C 2023-02 Magnolia Avenue Widening Streets& Storm Drains 3,000,00C 1,000,00C MiscellaneousRepairand Replacement of Traffic 2023-03 Signals Streets& Storm Drains 200,000 - 2023-04 Pavement Maintenance and Resurfacing Streets& Storm Drains 150,000 150,000 2023-05 Pavement Management Study Streets& Storm Drains 10,000 10,000 2023-06 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Project Streets& Storm Drains 2,700,000 - 2023-07 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter Install Streets& Storm Drains - - 2023-08 Striping Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains 325,000 175,000 2023-09 Citywide Traffic Signs Streets& Storm Drains 15,000 - Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) -SR91 2023-10 Corridor Projects Streets& Storm Drains 1,000,000 500,000 Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational 196,117 196,117 TOTAL $ 8,596,117 $ 3,031,117 FY 2022-23 Page 4of10 78 M EASURE A LOCALSIFtheIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: CORONA Prepared by: Luis Navarro Phone #: (951) 817-5742 Date: 4/ 17/ 2019 Estimated Prior Yea rMeasure A Balance: $ 16,868,980 Estimated FY2023/24 Measure A Allocation: 4,952,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY 2023/24 Projects: $ 21,820,980 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Magnolia Avenue Widening 3reets& Storm Drains $ 700,000 $ 600,000 2024-02 Miscellaneous Repair and Replacement of Traffic Sgnals Streets& Storm Drains 200,000 - 2024-03 Pavement Management Study 3reets& Storm Drains 10,000 10,000 2024-04 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Project 3reets& Storm Drains 2,700,000 - 2024-05 Sdewalk/Curb/Gutter Install 3reets& Storm Drains - - 2024-06 Citywide Traffic Sgn: Streets& Storm Drains 15,000 - Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) Operational 202,001 202,001 TOTAL $ 3,827,001 $ 812,001 FY 2023-24 Page 5 of 10 79 RIF M EASURE A LOCALSIta tlS AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC T STA TUS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: CORONA Prepared by: Luis Navarro Phone #: (951)817-5742 Date: 4/17/2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds 6cpended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 2017 Street Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Streets& Storm Drains $ 4,176,917 $ - December2018 Complete The 2017 Street Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Project includes rehabilitation of approximately 18lane-milesof major streets in the following areas Lincoln Avenue between Rincon Street and Parkridge Avenue; Main Street and HamnerAvenue between Grand Boulevard and Hidden Valley Parkway; and River Road between Corydon Street and Main Street. Completion of this project will preserve the existing pavement, extend the useful life of the asphalt, and provide a smoother travel surface for motoristsand pedestrians. 2 Auto Center Drive/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Grade Separation Streets& Storm Drains 4,904,172 - - Close out process Construction of grade separation (bridge)over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracksat Auto Center Drive to eliminate the current at -grade crossing. 3 Bridge Evaluation Streets& Storm Drains 300,000 - On -going On -going Maintenance on bridgesthroughout the City asrecommended by the State of Califomia Department of Transportation. 4 Butterfield Drive Road Relocation Streets& Storm Drains 850,000 - January 2021 Design Relocate Butterfield Drive to provide access over proposed Army Corps of EngineersAlcoa Dike at Butterfield Park with transition to 3nith Avenue on the east side of the Alcoa Dike and transition to the existing roadway alignment on the west side of the Alcoa Dike. Roadway relocation will be designed by Orange County Public Worksdesign consultant and constructed as part of the Corpsof Eng ineersd ike construction project. The extent of pavement rehabilitation/repair will include approximately 33,500 square feet of existing pavement. The scope of work to be determined by the consulting engineering firm contracted to prepare the design. Project aatus Report FY18-19 Page 6of10 80 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 M EASURE A LOCALSitatlS AND ROADS PROGRAM Chase Drive Improvements- Phase III Installation of a storm drain swale system and construction of sidewalk and bike path improvements on Chase Drive from Sonrisa Drive to Garretson Avenue. Changeable Traffic Message Sign Replacement Replacement of four(4) obsolete traffic message sign trailers. Citywide Benchmark Update Update of Citywide benchmarksand adjustmentsto NAD 83. Citywide Sidewalk and ADA Improvements- Phase I Replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches; installation of missing sidewalk, curb, gutter, accessramps, bike paths, root pruning, engineering, and incidental work; and construction, replacement, or installation of ADA-compliant facilitieswithin the public right-of-way. Citywide Traffic Model Update General Plan Circulation Element update. Corona Storm Drain Line 52 Construction of a 72-inch storm drain line in Joy Street from the Temescal Channel to East Grand Blvd. to East Third Street. RCFCWCD Project Number2-8-00350. Citywide Sidewalk and ADA Improvements- Phase II Replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches; Installation of missing sidewalk, curb, gutter, access ramps, bike paths, root pruning, engineering, and incidental work; and construction, replacement, or installation of ADA-compliant facilitieswithin the public right-of-way. East Grand Boulevard Storm Drain Construction of a 36-inch storm drain line in East Grand Boulevard from Third Street to Seventh Street. Household Waste Collection Facility Street Improvements Street Improvementsto Quarry Street and Rimpau Avenue in support of the Maintenance %rvicesDepartment. Magnolia Avenue Widening Widening of Magnolia Avenue between 0 Camino Avenue and All American Way which includeswidening of the bridge that crossesthe Temescal Wash. 3reets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains 3reets& Roam Drains 3reets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains 868,599 50,000 180,000 362,590 225,000 3,438,173 2,560,820 339,941 45,500 1,944,709 100,000 132,944 5,000 Close Will not construct June 2020 On -going On -going On -going July 2018 Complete On -going June 2019 March 2020 On -going Under Construction Design October2021 Design On -going On -going On -going On -going Project aatus Report FY18-19 Page 7of10 81 RIF 15 16 17 18 19 20 Magnolia Median Rehabilitation M EASURE A LOCALIS AND ROADS PROGRAM This project will provide forthe redesign and rehabilitation of the existing Magnolia Avenue medians The project consistsof approximately 97,000square feet of landscaping from Ontario to Rimpau Avenue. The medianson Magnolia Avenue have experienced die -off overthe past several years asthe plant material reachesthe end of its life. Additionally, the irrigation is old and inefficient, causing runoff that damagesthe roadways The project will provide for several design conceptsthat will include high efficiency irrigation, use of hardscape orDG, and low water use plants Major Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement rehabilitation for majorthoroughfaresin accordance with the Pavement Management Program. Rehabilitation may include reconstruction paving, crack sealing, slurry, etc. McFGnley Grade Separation Construction of new bridge over the BNSFRailroad tracksat McKinley to eliminate the current at -grade crossing. Miscellaneous Repair and Replacement of Traffic Signals Unscheduled repair/replacement of traffic signalsand related facilitiesatvariouslocations Citywide. Includesthe repairorreplacement of traffic signals, safety lights, street name signs, traffic control signs, signal poles, heads, etc.; rewiring old signalsand damaged loops; and maintenance of the advance traffic management system. Ontario Avenue Street Improvements Cold in -place recycling (CIR) of existing pavement along Ontario Avenue between Califomia Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. Ontario Avenue Widening Widening of Ontario Avenue between Compton Avenue and State Street. Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains 500,000 184,209 88,965,252 286,882 2,091,698 3,184,861 9,871 10,988 999,650 17,000 8,000 October2019 October2019 On -going On -going December2018 November2021 Design Design Design On -going Complete Design Project aatus Report FY18-19 Page 8of10 82 RIF 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Overlook Street Improvements Pavement rehabilitation forva rious road s in the Overlook area over several years M EASURE A LOCALSIFzttIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Overlook Road Maintenance Maintenance and grading of existing roads in the Overlook area to ensure accessibility for emergency Police and Fire vehicles Pavement Management Study Ongoing field survey of local streetsto be included in the Street Saver Program for the purpose of completing the City'sstreet inventory, and maintaining current information for rehabilitation project planning. Annual Street Saver license and maintenance. Local Street Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement rehabilitation for local streetsin accordance with the current Pavement Management Study. Rehabilitation may include reconstruction paving, crack sealing, slurry, etc. Pavement Maintenance and Resurfacing Resurface and repair potholesand miscellaneouspavement failureswith City staff and/or contracted services River Road Median Landscape Improvements Landscape and irrigation improvementson River Road Center median from Corydon to Lincoln. The project will remove approximately 80,690 sq. ft. of turf and old plant material and replacing it with a drought tolerant landscape. It will also add ress inigation runoff that isdamaging the road. Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) Project Street and pavement rehabilitation using rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC). Sidewalk/Curb/ Gutter I nsta II Street maintenance program for as -needed repairsorreplacement ofcurb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches 3reets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains 3reets& Storm Drains 721,665 48,957 89,573 4,116,495 219,781 50,000 835,814 566,046 2,000 58,000 10,000 30,000 7,000 5,000 40,000 October2019 On -going April 2019 October2019 On -going October2019 October2019 On -going Design complete On -going Complete Design On -going Design Design On -going Project aatus Report FY18-19 Page 9of10 83 29 30 31 32 33 MEASURE A LOCAL SIFzttIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Sxth Street and Yorba Street Waterline Replacement and Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement rehabilitation following waterline construction in Yorba Street between Pleasant View Avenue and West Sixth Street. The extent of pavement rehabilitation/repair will include approximately 35,000 square feet of existing pavement. The scope of work to be determined by the consulting engineering firm contracted to prepare the design. Striping Rehabilitation Upgrade and maintenance of Citywide striping using City staff and/or contract services; and rehabilitation and maintenance of the City'straffic system and transportation infrastructure. Traffic Signal at Green Riyer Road / Montana Ranch Road Installation of new traffic signal on Green River Road at Montana Ranch Road. Traffic Signal Maintenance Facility Construction of a traffic signal maintenance facility on the southwest comer of W. Grand and Bollero Road forthe storage of traffic signal poles, arms, heads, cabinets, and other traffic related partsand equipment. Traffic Sgna Is Lighting Upgrade Upgrade traffic signal safety lighting and Internally Illuminated Street Name Sgns(IISNS) to energy efficient, long-lasting, lighting fixturesto reduce energy usage and maintain costs. Upgradeswill be phased overa 3-year period. Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains Streets& Storm Drains 500,000 531,570 459,324 260,000 175,000 - November2019 Design 40,000 On -going 10,000 March 2019 On -going Construction Complete - October2020 Design 58,,000 On -going On -going Cost Allocation Plan (Overhead) 179,475 179,475 On -going On -going TOTAL $ 124,213,023 $ 1,722,928 Project aatus Report FY18-19 Page 10 of 10 84 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS 85 This page left intentionally blank. City of Desert Hot Springs 65-950 Pierson Blvd. • Desert Hot Springs • CA • 92240 (760) 329-6411 www.cityofdhs.org May 6, 2019 Jenny Chan Management Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: City of Desert Hot Spring Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2019/20-2023/24 and Maintenance of Effort Dear Ms Chan, Attached is the City of Desert Hot Springs' Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2020-2024, a Project Status Report for our FY 2018/19 and the City's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 329-6411 Ext. 216. Sincerely, Daniel Porras Public Works Director Attachrnents: Measure "A" Five Year (CIP) FY 2018-2023 Project Status Report FY 2017/18 CIP Maintenance of Effort Certification Cc: Finance Department Engineering 87 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Desert Flot Springs (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $75,147, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: WO , 2019 CITY MANAGER 88 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: DESERTHOTSPRINGS Prepared by: Daniel Porras Phone # : 760-329-6411 Ext 216 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 78,387 FY 2018/ 19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 503,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (503,011) Estimated Prior Yea rMeasure A Balance: 78,376 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 507,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 585,376 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Citywide resurfacing, curb, gutter& sidewalk repairsand Improvementsand signage and striping Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 175,000 2020-02 Debt Service forTRI.P. (Total Road Improvement Program Services2012A COP'x (Certificate of Participation) Debt Service 401,000 200,000 2020-03 9dewalk Palm Drive - Between 8th St and 12 th St Construction 100,000 85,000 2020-04 Jefferson/I-10 and Date Palm/1- 10Interchange Construction 5,000 5,000 2020-05 Indirect Costs Overhead 38,000 38,000 TOTAL $ 744,000 $ 503,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 89 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: DESERTHOTSPRINGS Prepared by: Daniel Porras Phone # : 760-329-6411 Ext 216 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 82,376 520,000 602,376 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Citywide resurfacing, curb, gutter& sidewalk repairsand Improvementsand signage and striping Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance $ 800,000 $ 250,000 2021-02 Debt Service forTRI.P. (Total Road Improvement Program Services2012A COP'x (Certificate of Participation) Debt Service 403,000 200,000 2021-03 Indirect Costs Overhead 39,000 39,000 TOTAL $ 1,242,000 $ 489,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 90 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: DESERTHOTSPRINGS Prepared by: Daniel Porras Phone # : 760-329-6411 Ext 216 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 113,376 533,000 646,376 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021 / 22 2022-01 Citywide resurfacing, curb, gutter& sidewalk repairsand Improvementsand signage and striping Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance $ 700,000 $ 260,000 2022-02 Debt Service forTRI.P. (Total Road Improvement Program Services2012A COP'x (Certificate of Participation) Debt Service 403,000 200,000 2022-03 Indirect Costs Overhead 40,000 40,000 TOTAL $ 1,143,000 $ 500,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 91 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: DESERTHOTSPRINGS Prepared by: Daniel Porras Phone # : 760-329-6411 Ext 216 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 146,376 546,000 692,376 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/ 23 2023-01 Citywide resurfacing, curb, gutter& sidewalk repairsand Improvementsand signage and striping Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance $ 700,000 $ 260,000 2023-02 Debt Service forTRI.P. (Total Road Improvement Program Services2012A COP'x (Certificate of Participation) Debt Service 403,000 200,000 2023-03 Indirect Costs Overhead 40,000 40,000 TOTAL $ 1,143,000 $ 500,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 92 M EASURE A LOCALS1REEfS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: DESERTHOTSPRINGS Prepared by: Daniel Porras Phone # : 760-329-6411 Ext 216 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 192,376 560,000 752,376 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/24 2024-01 Citywide resurfacing, curb, gutter& sidewalk repairsand Improvementsand signage and striping Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance $ 700,000 $ 260,000 2024-02 Debt Service forTRI.P. (Total Road Improvement Program Services2012A COP'x (Certificate of Participation) Debt Service 403,000 200,000 2024-03 Indirect Costs Overhead 40,000 40,000 TOTAL $ 1,143,000 $ 500,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 93 M EASURE A LOCALSIFittib AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA MIS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: D I HOTSPRINGS Prepared by: Daniel Porras Phone # : 760-329-6411 Ext 216 Date: 5/6/2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Estthru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Citywide resurfacing, curb, gutter& sidewalk repairsand Improvementsand signage and striping Road Rehabilitation and Maintenance $ 87,384 $ 87,384 2/14/2019 Completed 2019-02 Debt Service forT.RI.P. (Total Road Improvement Program Services2012A COP'x (Certificate of Participation) Debt Service 401,000 200,000 on -going On -going 2019-03 Palm Drive Entry Way Median Upgrades- Palm Dr north of Interstate 10 Construction - Road Rehabilitation 108,000 100,000 6/30/2019 On -going 2019-04 Replacement of Traffic Signal Street Name Sgnsand Traffic Sgnal Casings Traffic Signal Maintenance 75,000 75,000 6/30/2019 On -going 2019-05 Jefferson/I-10 and Date Palm/I-10 Interchange Construction 2,627 2,627 7/9/2018 Completed 2019-06 Indirect Costs Overhead 38,000 38,000 6/30/2019 On -going TOTAL $ 712,011 $ 503,011 Project Status Report FY18 Page 6 of 6 94 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF EASTVALE 95 This page left intentionally blank. City of Eastvale 12363 Limonite Avenue, Suite #910 • Eastvale, CA 91752 (951) 361-0900 • Fax: (951) 361-0888 • www.EastvaleCA.gov May 23, 2019 Mrs. Shirley Medina Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: City of Eastvale's Measure A Expenditure Plan FY 2019/20 — FY 2023/24 Dear Mrs. Medina: Please find enclosed the Fiscal Year 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Expenditure Plan for the City of Eastvale. Also enclosed is the FY18/19 Project Status Report and the City's MOE Certification Statement for FY19/20 for your review. Should you have any questions, or need further information on the above, please feel free to contact Ann Herner at aherner(a�interwestgrp.com or myself at whemsley.eastvale(a�interwestgrp.com at (951) 703-4473. Sincerely, Bill emsley Bill Hemsley City Engineer Enclosures ,,..4r---17 97 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Eastvale (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $38,949, approved by the Commission at its July 8, 2015 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 5/23 , 2019 ATTEST: CITY MANAGER SECRETARY 98 MEASURE A LOCAL StRetib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: EASIVALE Prepared by: Bill Hemsley, City Engineer Phone # : (951) 703-4473 Date: May 23, 2019 FY 2017/ 18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 4,405,953 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,387,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,711,264) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 4,517,689 3,081,689 1,436,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/20 2020-01 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Roadway safety and traffic improvementsto include traffic signs, pavement markings, signal synchronization, and pedestrians accessibility $ 748,100 $ 153,910 2020-02 Street Improvement Program Improvement of roadway and associated trasportation systemsto include widening, repair, and reconstruction. 2,015,000 757,500 2020-03 Citywide Maintenance and repair within the 788,000 700,500 Maintenance Program City'sright of way to include crack sealing, slurry seals, drainage facilitiesand flood control improvements. 2020-04 Administrative Costs Administrative costsfor operating capital projects 542,907 96,715 TOTAL $ 4,094,007 $ 1,708,625 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 99 M EASURE A LOCALSIh�tlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: EASIVALE Prepared by: Bill Hemsley, City Engineer Phone #: (951) 703-4473 Date: May 23, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 2,809,064 1,472,000 4,281,064 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Roadway safety and traffic improvementsto include traffic signs, pavement markings, signal synchronization, and pedestrians accessibility $ 557,000 $ 100,000 2021-02 Street Improvement Program Improvement of roadway and associated trasportation systemsto include widening, repair, and reconstruction. 2,015,000 1,133,800 2021-03 Citywide Maintenance Maintenance and repair within the 550,000 550,000 Program City'sright of way to include crack sealing, slurry seals, drainage facilitiesand flood control improvements. 2021-04 Administrative Costs Administrative costsfor operating capital projects 542,907 107,028 TOTAL $ 3,664,907 $ 1,890,828 FY 2020-21 Page 2of6 100 M EASURE A LOCALSIh�tlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: EASIVALE Prepared by: Bill Hemsley, City Engineer Phone #: (951) 703-4473 Date: May 23, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 2,390,236 1,509,000 3,899,236 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Roadway safety and traffic improvementsto include traffic signs, pavement markings, signal synchronization, and pedestrians accessibility $ 7,245,000 $ 1,645,000 2022-02 Street Improvement Program Improvement of roadway and associated trasportation systemsto include widening, repair, and reconstruction. - - 2022-03 Citywide Maintenance Maintenance and repair within the 550,000 550,000 Program City's right of way to include crack sealing, slurry seals, drainage facilitiesand flood control improvements. 2022-04 Administrative Costs Administrative costsfor operating capital projects 542,907 120,720 10TAL $ 8,337,907 $ 2,315,720 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 101 M EASURE A LOCALSIh�tlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: EASIVALE Bill Hemsley, City Engineer (951) 703-4473 May 23, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2022/23 Measure AAllocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 1,583,516 1,547,000 3,130,516 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/ 23 2023-01 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Roadway safety and traffic improvementsto include traffic signs, pavement markings, signal synchronization, and pedestrians accessibility $ 25,000 $ 25,000 2023-02 Street Improvement Program Improvement of roadway and associated trasportation systemsto include widening, repair, and reconstruction. - - 2023-03 Citywide Maintenance Maintenance and repair within the 550,000 550,000 Program City's right of way to include crack sealing, slurry seals, drainage facilitiesand flood control improvements. 2023-04 Administrative Costs Administrative costsfor operating capital projects 542,907 34,500 10TAL $ 1,117,907 $ 609,500 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 102 M EASURE A LOCALSIh�tlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: EASIVALE Prepared by: Bill Hemsley, City Engineer Phone #: (951) 703-4473 Date: May 23, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 2,521,016 1,586,000 4,107,016 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Roadway safety and traffic improvementsto include traffic signs, pavement markings, signal synchronization, and pedestrians accessibility $ 25,000 $ 25,000 2024-02 Street Improvement Program Improvement of roadway and associated trasportation systemsto include widening, repair, and reconstruction. - - 2024-03 Citywide Maintenance Maintenance and repair within the 550,000 550,000 Program City's right of way to include crack sealing, slurry seals, drainage facilitiesand flood control improvements. 2024-04 Administrative Costs Administrative costsfor operating capital projects 542,907 34,500 10TAL $ 1,117,907 $ 609,500 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 103 M EASURE A LOCALSIhttlb AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2018/ 19 Agency: EASIVALE Prepared by: Bill Hemsley, City Engineer Phone #: (951) 703-4473 Date: May 23, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Road Safety/Traffic Improvements Roadway safety and traffic improvementsto include traffic signs, pavement markings, signal synchronization, and pedestrians accessibility $ 109,100 $ - $ - Thisincludesan annual program and specific projects. Unexpended costs are carried overto next FY. 2019-02 Street Improvement Program Improvement of roadway and associated trasportation systemsto include widening, repair, and reconstruction. 4,184,250 2,651,792 2,651,792 lhisincludesan annual program and specific projects. Unexpended costsare carried overto next FY. 2019-03 Citywide Maintenance Program Maintenance and repairwithin the City'sright of way to include crack sealing, slurry seals, drainage facilitiesand flood control improvements. 710,000 59,472 59,472 Thisincludesan annual program. Unexpended costs are carried overto next FY. TOTAL $ 5,003,350 $ 2,711,264 $ 2,711,264 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF HEMET 105 This page left intentionally blank. FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Hemet (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $18,924, approved by the Commission at its October 12, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: V 1N-1 1 , 2019 "^" CITY MANAGER ATTEST: SECRETARY (' 107 This page left intentionally blank. M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: HEMET Prepared by: Chase Keys Phone # : 951-765-2360 Date: 3/ 26/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 5,816,526 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,862,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,600,000) Estimated Prior Yea rMeasure A Balance: 5,078,526 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 1,856,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 6,934,526 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 2019/20 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. $ 3,500,000 $ 3,000,000 2020-02 2019/20 Citywide Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. 1,200,000 1,200,000 2020-03 2017/18 Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. 1,000,000 1,000,000 2020-04 Kirby Street Improvements Pavement Rehab. 250,000 250,000 2020-05 2018/19 Surry Seal Pavement Maint. 700,000 700,000 TOTAL $ 6,650,000 $ 6,150,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 109 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: HEMET Prepared by: Chase Keys Phone # : 951-765-2360 Date: 3/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 784,526 1,902,000 2,686,526 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 2021-01 2020/21 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. $ 2,100,000 $ 1,100,000 2021-02 2020/21 Citywide Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL $ 3,100,000 $ 2,100,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 110 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: HEMET Prepared by: Chase Keys Phone # : 951-765-2360 Date: 3/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 586,526 1,950,000 2,536,526 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 2021/22 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. $ 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 2022-02 2021/22 Citywide Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 6 111 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: HEMET Prepared by: Chase Keys Phone # : 951-765-2360 Date: 3/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 536,526 1,999,000 2,535,526 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 2022/23 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. $ 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 2023-02 2022/23 Citywide Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 112 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: HEMET Prepared by: Chase Keys Phone # : 951-765-2360 Date: 3/ 26/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 535,526 2,049,000 2,584,526 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/24 2024-01 2023-24 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. $ 2,000,000 $ 1,000,000 2024-02 2023/24 Citywide Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5 of 6 113 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: HEMET Prepared by: Chase Keys Phone # : 951-765-2360 Date: 3/ 26/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 2017/18 Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 Jun-19 Added Project Construction 2 2017/18 Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement Rehab. 1,500,000 500,000 Sep-19 Design/Construction 3 Krby Street Improvements Pavement Rehab. 750,000 500,000 Sep-19 Design/Construction 4 2018/19 Slurry Seal Pavement Maint. 1,200,000 500,000 Sep-19 Added Project Design/Construction TOTAL $ 4,550,000 $ 2,600,000 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 114 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF INDIAN WELLS 115 This page left intentionally blank. May 2, 2019 Riverside County Transportation Commission Attn: Jenny Chan 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: Measure "A": Local Streets and Roads Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and Status Update Dear Ms. Chan, Attached is the City of Indian Wells' Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Five- Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2019/20-2023/24. Sincerely, )CG.,(L.L Ken A. Seumalo, P.E. Public Works Director cc: Finance Director 44-950 Eldorado Drive • Indian Wells • California 92210-7497 • V (760) 346-2489 • F (760) 346-0407 • www.cityofindianwells.org 117 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Indian Wells (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $963,640, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: Atf,,y , 2019 ATTEST: CITY MANAGER 118 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: INDIAN WELLS Prepared by: Ken A. Seumalo, P.E., Public Works Director Phone # : (760) 776-0237 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 71,467 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 280,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (263,000) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 88,467 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 267,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 355,467 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 Citywide Parkways Street Improvement $ 585,000 $ 355,467 2020-01 TOTAL $ 585,000 $ 355,467 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 119 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: INDIAN WELLS Prepared by: Ken A. Seumalo, P.E., Public Works Director Phone # : (760) 776-0237 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 274,000 274,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Citywide Parkways Street Improvement $ 585,000 $ 274,000 2021-01 TOTAL $ 585,000 $ 274,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 120 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: INDIAN WELLS Prepared by: Ken A. Seumalo, P.E., Public Works Director Phone # : (760) 776-0237 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 281,000 281,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Citywide Parkways Street Improvement $ 585,000 $ 281,000 2022-01 TOTAL $ 585,000 $ 281,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 121 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: INDIAN WELLS Prepared by: Ken A. Seumalo, P.E., Public Works Director Phone # : (760) 776-0237 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 288,000 288,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Citywide Parkways Street Improvement $ 585,000 $ 288,000 2023-01 TOTAL $ 585,000 $ 288,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 122 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: INDIAN WELLS Prepared by: Ken A. Seumalo, P.E., Public Works Director Phone # : (760) 776-0237 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 295,000 295,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 Citywide Parkways Street Improvement $ 585,000 $ 295,000 2024-01 TOTAL $ 585,000 $ 295,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 123 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PRO JEC T STA 71JS REPORTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: INDIAN WELLS Prepared by: Ken A. Seumalo, P.E., Public Works Director Phone # : (760) 776-0237 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 Citywide Parkways Street Improvement $ 585,000 $ 263,000 6/30/2019 Ongoing TOTAL $ 585,000 $ 263,000 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 124 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF INDIO 125 This page left intentionally blank. May 7, 2019 Ms. Jenny Chan Management Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Subject: Five Year Measure A Capital Improvement Plan (FY19/20 — FY23/24) Dear Ms. Chan: Enclosed is the City of Indio's submittal of the Five Year Measure A Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 19/20 to 23/24 to the Riverside County Transportation Commission for review and approval. The City's Maintenance of Effort certification is also enclosed, as well as a status report for projects utilizing Measure A funds in Fiscal Year 2019-2020. If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 391-4017. Sincerely, (.cam Timothy T. Wassil, PE, PMP, CCM Public Works Director cc: Juan Raya, PE City Engineer Hector Orozco, Accountant 127 p: 760.391.4000 • f: 760.391.4008 • 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 • www.INDIO.org FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Indio (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $2,048,564, approved by the Commission at its July 11, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: May 6, 2019 MARK SCOTT, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: Y - 4- MARIA SIAN CRETARY 128 M EASURE A LOCALSII1±IS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: INDIO Prepared by: Gloria Hernandez Phone #: 760-391-4013 Date: 4/24/2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 639,901 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 2,062,000 FY 2018/19 Project Status Re port expenses: (2,105,500) Estimated Prior Yea rMeasure A Balance: 596,401 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 2,054,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,650,401 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-1 Dr. Carreon and Oasis Traffic Sgnal Modification/Monroe Street Traffic Sgnal Interconnect (TS1701) Traffic Sgnal Modification $ 983,200 $ 332,849 2020-2 Annual Street Maintenance Contract /Supplies(ListA) Roadway Improvement 985,000 475,000 2020-3 I-10 @Jefferson Street Interchange Project (ST0110) Freeway Interchange Improvement 86,300,000 200,000 2020-4 Misc. Traffic Safety Improvements Sgnal/Sgnage 50,000 50,000 2020-5 Avenue 48 Bike La nes (ST1805) Sgnal/Sgnage 1,414,780 480,427 2020-6 Grant Applicationsfor Transportation Projects(612002) Various 50,000 50,000 2020-7 Pedestrian Countdown Timers (TS1703) Traffic Sgnal 337,500 62,500 2020-8 Complete Streets Plan (ST1705) Master Plan 400,000 17,218 2020-9 Avenue 44 Road Diet (ST1708) Road Diet 534,002 153,882 2020-10 Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements(SW1801) Transportation/ADA Improvement 3,042,950 37,290 2020-11 Multi -Modal Feasibility Study (PL1801) Master Plan 462,500 64,933 2020-12 Indio Bike Siare (PL1901) Master Plan 35,000 10,000 2020-13 Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Traffic Sgnal & Street Improvements (TS1901) New Traffic Sgnal/Roadway Improvement 8,500,000 62,500 2020-14 HSP9Traffic Sgnal Improvements Traffic Sgnal Modification 1,502,200 40,000 2020-15 Measure "A" Advance Debt Repayment Roadway Improvement 168,345 168,345 2020-16 Salaries& BenefitsforPW Employees Project Mngmt & Mntnce 425,700 212,000 2020-17 Indio Internal Services Percentage of Salaries & Benefits 76,104 76,104 TOTAL $ 105,267,281 $ 2,493,048 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 9 129 M EASURE A LOCALSIFat1S AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: INDIO Prepared by: Gloria Hernandez Phone # : 760-391-4013 Date: 4/ 24/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 157,353 2,105,000 2,262,353 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 2021-01 Annual Street Maintenance Contracts/aipplies(List A) Roadway Improvement $ 985,000 $ 475,000 2021-02 Misc. Traffic Safety Improvements Sgnal/Sgnage 50,000 50,000 2021-03 Grant Applicationsfor Transportation Projects(ST2002) Various 50,000 50,000 2021-04 Pavement Management System (SI2101) Roadway Improvement 5,400,000 200,000 2021-05 Herbert Hoover Elem. School Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements(SW1801) Active Transportation/ADA Improvement 3,042,950 400,000 2021-06 Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Traffic Sgnal & Street Improvements(TS1901) New Traffic Sgnal/Roadway Improvement 8,500,000 800,000 2021-07 HSIP9Traffic Sgnal Improvements Traffic Sgnal Modification 1,502,200 50,000 2021-08 Salaries& BenefitsforPW Employees Project Mngmt & Mntnce 509,930 162,000 2021-09 Indio Internal Services Percentage of Salaries& Benefits 84,784 46,000 TOTAL $ 20,124,864 $ 2,233,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 9 130 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: INDIO Prepared by: Gloria Hernandez Phone # : 760-391-4013 Date: 4/ 24/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 29,353 2,158,000 2,187,353 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Brige Preventative Maintenance Program (BR1701) Roadway Improvement $ 7,763,835 $ 45,880 2022-02 Annual Street Maintenance Contracts/SLpplies(List A) Roadway Improvement 985,000 475,000 2022-03 Jackson St./Monroe St. @I-10 Fwy Interchanges(SI0801 & ST0701) Freeway Interchange Improvement 211,000,000 200,000 2022-04 Misc. Traffic Safety Imps Signal/Sgnage 50,000 50,000 2022-05 Grant Applicationsfor Transportation Proje c ts (ST2002) Various 50,000 50,000 2022-06 Madison Street Improvements (Ave 48- Hwy 111) (ST503C) Roadway Improvement 3,500,000 100,000 2022-07 Pavement Management System (ST2101) Roadway Improvement 5,400,000 600,000 2022-08 Herbert HooverEem. School Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements(SW1801) Active Transportation/ADA Improvement 3,042,950 10,000 2022-09 Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Traffic Sgnal & Street Improvements(7S1901) New Traffic Signal/Roadway Improvement 8,500,000 300,000 2022-10 HSIP9Traffic Sgnal Improvements Traffic Sgnal Modification 1,502,200 50,000 2022-11 Salaries& BenefitsforPW Employees Project Mngmt & Mntnce 509,930 174,000 2022-12 Indio Internal Services Percentage of Salaries& Benefits 84,784 49,000 TOTAL $ 242,388,699 $ 2,103,880 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 9 131 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: INDIO Prepared by: Gloria Hernandez Phone # : 760-391-4013 Date: 4/ 24/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 83,473 2,212,000 2,295,473 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Brige Preventative Maintenance Program (BR1701) Roadway Improvement $ 7,763,835 $ 45,880 2023-02 Annual Street Maintenance Contracts/Slapplies(List A) Roadway Improvement 985,000 475,000 2023-03 Jackson St./Monroe St. @I-10 Fwy Interchanges(ST0801 & ST0701) Freeway Interchange Improvement 211,000,000 500,000 2023-04 Misc. Traffic Safety Improvements Sgnal/Sgnage 50,000 50,000 2023-05 Grant Applicationsfor Transportation Projects(812002) Various 50,000 50,000 2023-06 Pavement Management System (ST2101) Roadway Improvement 5,400,000 600,000 2023-07 Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Traffic Sgnal & Street Im p rove m e nts (- 51901) New Traffic Sgnal/Roadway Improvement 8,500,000 100,000 2023-08 HSIP9Traffic Sgnal Improvements Traffic Sgnal Modification 1,502,200 50,000 2023-09 Salaries& Benefitsfor PW Employees Project Mngmt & Mntnce 509,930 228,025 2023-10 Indio Internal Services Percentage of Salaries& Benefits 84,784 65,000 TOTAL $ 235,845,749 $ 2,163,905 FY 2022-23 Page 4of9 132 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: INDIO Prepared by: Gloria Hernandez Phone # : 760-391-4013 Date: 4/ 24/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 131,568 2,267,000 2,398,568 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/24 2024-01 Brige Preventative Maintenance Program (BR1701) Roadway Improvement $ 7,763,835 $ 400,000 2024-02 Annual Street Maintenance Contractsi&pplies (List A) Roadway Improvement 985,000 475,000 2024-03 Jackson St./Monroe St. @I-10 Fwy Interchanges(ST0801 & Si0701) Freeway Interchange Improvement 211,000,000 300,000 2024-04 Misc. Traffic Safety Improvements Sgnal/Sgnage 50,000 50,000 2024-05 Grant Applicationsfor Transportation Projects(812002) Various 50,000 50,000 2024-06 Pavement Management System (ST2101) Roadway Improvement 5,400,000 700,000 2024-07 Salaries& Benefitsfor PW Employees Project Mngmt & Mntnce 509,930 265,000 2024-08 Indio Internal Services Percentage of Salaries& Benefits 84,784 75,000 TOTAL $ 225,843,549 $ 2,315,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5 of 9 133 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA MS REPORTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: INDIO Prepared by: Gloria Hernandez Phone # : 760-391-4013 Date: 4/ 24/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Indio Blvd. Bridge NB@Storm Channel- Seismic Retrofit (BR0801) Seismic Retrofit $ 3,423,000 $ 4,519 20/21FY Under design; construction to start Spring 2020 2019-02 Indio Blvd. Bridge SB@Storm Channel- Scour Protection (BR0802) Scour Protection $ 549,902 $ 1,275 20/21FY Underdesign; construction to start Spring 2020 2019-03 Jackson St. Bridge @Storm Channel- Seismic Retrofit (BR0109) Seismic Retrofit $ 4,305,417 $ 31,192 20/21FY Design complete; construction fall of 2019 2019-04 Indio Blvd. Bridge over UPRR (ra ilroa d ) (BR0302) Seismic Retrofit $ 4,731,316 $ 19,312 19/20FY Construction complete; pending litigation/bond claim 2019-05 Avenue 44 Bridge at the Wash (BR1101) New Bridge Construction $ 19,230,000 $ 158,429 21/22FY Rig ht-of-Wa y Acquisition; Design complete 2019-06 Bridge Preventative Maintenance Program (BR1701) Bridge Mntnce $ 7,763,835 $ 40 24/25FY Design 2019-07 Shields Road Connection (south of Hwy 111) (ST1202) Roadway Connection $ 659,000 $ - Complete Complete. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of9 134 M EASURE A LOCALSIFat13 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-08 Hwy 111 Improvements(Madison St. - Rubidoux St.) (ST1305) Roadway Improvement $ 14,345,000 $ 27,244 Complete Construction complete; project close out phase 2019-09 Hwy 111 Median and Landscaping (ST1709) Roadway Improvement $ 950,000 $ - Complete Construction complete 2019-10 North Indio Pavement Improvements (ST1503) Roadway Improvement $ 2,443,581 $ 54 20/21FY Under Construction 2019-11 Grant Applicationsfor Transportation Projects Various $ 50,000 $ 50,000 on -going On -going 2019-12 Jackson St./Monroe St. @I-10 Fwy Interchanges(ST0801 & ST0701) Freeway Interchange Improvement $ 211,000,000 $ 2,481 24/25FY Design Complete; in Env. Phase PA/ED 2019-13 Madison Street Improvements (Ave 50- Ave 52), Ph. 2 (ST503H) Design & ROW $ 14,000,000 $ 7,766 Complete Under Construction 2019-14 Madison Street Improvements(Ave 50- Ave 52), Ph. 3 (ST503K) Construction $ 10,765,689 $ 81,964 20/21FY Starting Construction 2019-15 Annual Street Maintenance Contracts/Supplies(List A) Roadway Improvement $ 985,000 $ 28,920 on -going On -going 2019-16 City Wide Pavement Rehabilitation Program (ST1802) Roadway Improvement $ 4,750,000 $ 400,000 on -going On -going 2019-17 1-10 @Jefferson Street Interchange Project (ST0110) Freeway Interchange Improvement $ 86,300,000 $ - Complete Construction complete; pending final invoice from county. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 7of9 135 M EASURE A LOCALSIFat13 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-18 Andrew Jackson Elementary Pedestrian Improvements(SW1504) Active Transportation/ADA Improvement $ 2,620,000 $ 412,099 Complete Construction Complete. Project closeout 2019-19 Jackson Street Signal Upgrades& Synchronization (TS1301) Traffic Signal $ 3,482,100 $ 606 20/21FY Under Construction 2019-20 Misc. Traffic Safety Improvements Sgnal/Sgnage $ 50,000 $ 50,000 on -going On -going 2019-21 Dr. Carreon Blvd. and Oasis Street Traffic Sgnal Modification (TS1701) Traffic Sgnal Modification $ 983,200 $ - 21/22FY Ready to construct 2019-22 Monroe Street Sgnal Modification and Interconnect from Oleander Avenue to Comet Lane (TS1702) Traffic Signal $ 461,000 $ - Combined with TS1701 Ready to construction 2019-23 Avenue 44 Road Diet (ST1708) Road Diet $ 534,002 $ 2,387 20/21FY Design complete. To be constructed. 2019-24 Safe Routesto School Master Plan (PL1701) Master Plan $ 240,000 $ 37,043 Complete Complete. 2019-25 Indio Blvd. Bridge over UPRR Replacement PSR Bridge Replacement $ 395,000 $ - 21/22FY Design 2019-26 Jackson Street Bridge Over UPRRand Indio Blvd. PSR Bridge Replacement $ 590,000 $ - 21/22FY Design 2019-27 Calhoun Street Improvements(ST1804) Roadway Improvement $ 1,048,270 $ - Complete Under construction 2019-28 Herbert Hoover Dementary School Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvements(SW1801) Active Transportation/ADA Improvement $ 3,042,950 $ - 21/22FY Under design 2019-29 Multi -Modal Feasibility Study (PL1801) Master Plan $ 462,500 $ - 20/21FY Under design Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 8of9 136 M EASURE A LOCALSIFat15 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-30 Avenue 50 and Jackson Street Traffic Signal and Street Improvements CES1901) New Traffic Sgnal/Roadway Improvement $ 8,500,000 $ - 22/23FY To be designed 2019-31 Measure "A"Advance Debt Repayment Roadway Improvement $ 673,000 $ 673,000 on -going Payment 2019-32 Salaries& BenefitsforPW Employees Project Mngmt & Mntnce $ 510,000 $ 51,000 on -going Project Management & Maintenance 2019-33 Indio Internal Services Percentage of Salaries& Benefits $ 77,100 $ 66,169 on -going Percentage of Salaries& Benefits TOTAL $ 409,920,862 $ 2,105,500 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 9of9 137 This page left intentionally blank. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY 139 This page left intentionally blank. pity of jurupa Valley Brian Berkson, Mayor . Anthony Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem . Micheal Goodland, Council Member . Lorena Barajas, Council Member . Chris Barajas, Council Member April 25, 2019 Jenny Chan Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon St, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 Subject: Jurupa Valley Five -Year Measure "A" CIP (2019/20 — 2023/24) Dear Ms. Chan, The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley, at its regular meeting on April 18, 2019, adopted the City's Five Year Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2019/20 - 2023/24. Included with this letter are the following documents: • Five-year Jurupa Valley CIP for Fiscal Years 2019/20-2023/24 • Measure "A" Local Funds Program Project Status Report for Fiscal Year 2018/19 The City requests that the Riverside County Transportation Commission accept and approve the City's Measure "A" Five -Year CIP and find the City eligible to continue receiving its fair share of Measure "A" revenues. If you should have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at sloriso@jurupavalley.org or via telephone at (951) 332-6464 x233. Sincerely, Steve R. Loriso, P.E. City Engineer /Director of Public Works Cc: Gary S. Thompson, City Manager George Wentz, Assistant City Manager Carolina Fernandez, Assistant Engineer 8930 Limonite Ave., Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org 141 This page left intentionally blank. M EASURE A LOCALSItILLIb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: JURUPA VALLEY Prepared by: CHASE KEYS Phone #: 951-332-6464 Date: 4/1/2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 120,195 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 2,123,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,017,975) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 225,220 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 2,221,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,446,220 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Limonite Ave Widening, Etiwanda to Bain - Debt Service Roadway Widening $ 183,500 $ 183,500 2020-02 Mission Blvd Bridge, Crossing Santa Ana River Bridge Reconstruction 265,000 265,000 2020-03 Bain St Pavement Rehabilitation, Jurupa to Belleg rave Pavement Rehab. 40,000 40,000 2020-04 Ped ley Rd Improvement Project, Limonite to Jurupa Intersection Improvements 1,136,500 75,000 2020-05 Certificates of Participation (COP) Pavement Rehab. 1,057,350 1,057,350 Series2016A - Debt Service 2019-2020 Pavement 2020-06 Maintenance (Slurry/Crack Seal), LocationslBD Pavement Maint. 600,000 300,000 2020-07 Sannyslope Area SR2SSdewalk Gap Closure Sdewalks 2,000 1,000 2020-08 Citywide Guardrail Replacement Guardrail 50,000 50,000 2020-09 Citywide Retroreflectivity Testing Study 30,000 30,000 2020-10 5%Overhead/Administration Inter -fund Transfer 111,050 111,050 TOTAL $ 3,475,400 $ 2,112,900 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 143 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: JURUPA VALLEY Prepared by: CHASE KEYS Phone # : 951-332-6464 Date: 4/1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 333,320 2,277,000 2,610,320 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 2021-01 Mission Blvd Bridge, Crossing Santa Ana River Bridge Reconstruction $ 265,000 $ 265,000 Certificatesof Participation 2021-02 (COP) Series2016A - Debt Pavement Rehab. 1,059,400 1,059,400 Service 2021-03 Sunnyslope Area SR2SSdewalk Sdewalks 431,000 43,000 Gap Closure 2021-05 Mission Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation - Ph. 1, Limits TBD Pavement Rehab. 1,600,000 300,000 Van Buren Blvd Pavement 2021-06 Rehabilitation - Ph. 3, Bellegrave to Etiwanda Pavement Rehab. 100,000 100,000 2020-2021 Pavement 2021-07 Maintenance (Surry/Crack Seal), LocationsTBD Pavement Maint. 400,000 400,000 2021-08 Citywide Guardrail Replacement Guardrail 30,000 30,000 2021-09 5%0verhead/Administration Inter -fund Transfer 113,850 113,850 TOTAL $ 3,999,250 $ 2,311,250 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 144 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: JURUPA VALLEY Prepared by: CHASE KEYS Phone # : 951-332-6464 Date: 4/1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 299,070 2,334,000 2,633,070 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Mission Blvd Bridge, Crossing Santa Ana River Bridge Reconstruction $ 265,000 $ 265,000 Certificatesof Participation 2022-02 (COP) Series2016A - Debt Pavement Rehab. 1,057,800 1,057,800 Service 2022-03 Sunnyslope Area SR2SSdewalk Sdewalks 2,740,000 274,000 Gap Closure 2022-05 Mission Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation - Ph. 2, Lim its TBD Pavement Rehab. 1,750,000 350,000 2021-2022 Pavement 2022-06 Maintenance (Surry/Crack Seal), LocationsTBD Pavement Maint. 400,000 400,000 2022-07 5%Overhea d/Administration Inter -fund Transfer 116,700 116,700 TOTAL $ 6,329,500 $ 2,463,500 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 6 145 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: JURUPA VALLEY Prepared by: CHASE KEYS Phone # : 951-332-6464 Date: 4/1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 169,570 2,392,000 2,561,570 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Certificatesof Participation 2023-01 (COP) Series2016A - Debt Pavement Rehab. $ 1,060,000 $ 1,060,000 Service 2023-02 Mission Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation - Ph. 3, Lim its TBD Pavement Rehab. 1,900,000 500,000 2021-2022 Pavement 2023-03 Maintenance (Surry/Crack Seal), LocationsTBD Pavement Maint. 400,000 400,000 2023-04 5%0verhead/Administration Inter -fund Transfer 119,600 119,600 TOTAL $ 3,479,600 $ 2,079,600 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 146 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: JURUPA VALLEY Prepared by: CHASE KEYS Phone # : 951-332-6464 Date: 4/ 1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 481,970 2,452,000 2,933,970 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 Certificatesof Participation 2024-01 (COP) Series2016A - Debt Pavement Rehab. $ 1,055,800 $ 1,055,800 Service 2021-2022 Pavement 2024-02 Maintenance (Slurry/Crack Seal), LocationsTBD Pavement Maint. 400,000.00 400,000.00 Van Buren Blvd Pavement 2024-03 Rehabilitation - Ph. 3, Belleg rave to Etiwanda Pavement Rehab. 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2024-04 5%0verhead/Administration Inter -fund Transfer 122,600.00 122,600.00 TOTAL $ 2,578,400 $ 2,578,400 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 147 MEASURE A LOCAL51t�tIS AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC T STA MS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: JURUPA VALLEY Prepared by: CHASE KEYS Phone #: 951-332-6464 Date: 4/1/2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Estthru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019.1 Limonite Ave Widening, Etiwanda to Bain - Debt Service Roadway Widening $ 183,500 $ 183,500 NA Complete Mission Blvd Bridge, Crossing over Bridge Reconstruction 54,000 54,000 6/30/2023 PA/ED Santa nta Ana River 2019.3 Jurupa Valley High Scool 9R2S SR2S 1,007,000 280,039 4/30/2019 Complete Martin, 48th and Troth Certificatesof Participation (COP) Series2016A -Debt Service Pavement Rehab. 1,059,700 1,059,700 NA Complete 2019.4 2019.5 2018 2019 Pavement Pavement Maint. 414,000 300,000 11/31/18 Complete Maintenance (Sung/Crack Seal) 2019.6 Ped ley Rd Improvement Project Intersection Widening 201,321 73,940 6/30/2019 PS8 E Added Project 2019.7 Market St Bridge Analysis Bridge Safety Analysis 62,700 62,700 NA Underway Added Project Inter -fund Transfer Per Overhead/Administration 4,096 4,096 NA NA 2019.8 Measure A TOTAL $ 2,986,317 $ 2,017,975 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 148 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF LA QUINTA 149 This page left intentionally blank. - CAI fl'ORNI,A - May 3, 2019 Jenny Chan Management Analyst Programming and Planning Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: City of La Quinta Fiscal Year 2019/2020 - 2023/2024 Measure A Five - Year Capital Improvement Plan and Maintenance of Effort Certification Dear Ms. Chan, The City of La Quinta respectfully submits its Measure A Capital Improvement Plan, Project Status Report and Maintenance of Effort Certification for the Commission's review and approval. The City of La Quinta is a full participant in the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Programs. Please do not hesitate to contact Bryan McKinney, P.E., City Engineer, at (760) 777-7045 or Nick Nickerson, Project Manager, at (760) 323-5344 if you have questions or require additional information. Enclosures: 1. Five -Year CIP for FY 2019/20 - 2023/24 and Project Status Report for FY 2018/19 2. FY 2019/20 Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement 70495 Calle lampico I to amnia, California 92253 I /69.171.1000 I www.laquintaca.guv FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of La Quinta (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02- 001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $937,007, approved by the Commission at its June 12, 2013 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 2019 rank ATTEST: cek, City Manager Monika Radewa, CiClerk 152 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: LA QUINTA Prepared by: Bryan McFGnney, City Engineer Phone #: (760) 777-7045 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,245,548 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 803,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (620,219) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,428,329 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 1,590,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 3,018,329 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 19/ 20 2020-01 Citywide Traffic Sgnal Maintenance Program Annual Recurring Program $ 368,158 $ 368,158 Dune Palms Road Improvements 2020-02 (Black Hawk Way to Approx. 330 Street Widening 2,650,000 105,778 LFN. of the CVSWC) Carryover 2020-03 La Quinta Village Complete ATPCarryover 13,587,986 1,341,890 Streets -A Road Diet Project 2020-04 HSIPIntersection Improvements HSIPTraffic Safety 1,260,400 104,003 Carryover Washington Street at Fred Congestion Relief 2020-05 Waring Drive Triple Left Turn 2,180,134 232,595 Lanes Carryover 2020-06 Jefferson St. at Ave. 53 Complete Streets 2,101,617 499,074 Roundabout Carryover TOTAL $ 22,148,295 $ 2,651,498 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 153 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM • FY 2020/21 Agency: LA QUINTA Prepared by: Bryan McFGnney, City Engineer Phone #: (760) 777-7045 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 366,831 1,630,000 1,996,831 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Citywide Traffic Signal Maintenance Program La Quinta Village Complete Streets -A Road Diet Project Monroe Street Pavement Rehabilitation (Ave 52 to Ave 53, and near Ave 61) Annual Recurring Program ATPCarryover Pavement Rehabilitation $ 235,000 13,587,986 941,000 $ 235,000 440,560 941,000 2021-01 2021-02 2021-03 TOTAL $ 14,763,986 $ 1,616,560 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 154 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM • FY 2021/22 Agency: LA QUINTA Prepared by: Bryan McFGnney, City Engineer Phone #: (760) 777-7045 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 380,271 1,671,000 2,051,271 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Citywide Traffic Signal Annual Recurring $ 235,000 $ 235,000 Maintenance Program Program Fred Waring Dr. Pavement Pavement 2022-02 Rehabilitation (Washington St. to 681,940 681,940 Palm Royale Dr.) Rehabilitation 2022-03 Washington St. at MilesAve Dual Congestion Relief 765,000 382,500 Left Turn Lanes 2022-04 Ave 47 Pavement Rehabilitation Pavement 385,000 385,000 (Washington St. to AdamsSt.) Rehabilitation TOTAL $ 2,066,940 $ 1,684,440 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 155 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM • FY 2022/23 Agency: LA QUINTA Prepared by: Bryan McFGnney, City Engineer Phone #: (760) 777-7045 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 366,831 1,713,000 2,079,831 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Citywide Traffic Sgnal Maintenance Program Ave 50 Pavement Rehabilitation (Washington to Eisenhower) Dune Palms Road at Corporate Center Drive (New Traffic Sgnal) Annual Recurring Program Pavement Rehabilitation Traffic Sgnal Improvement $ 235,000 1,000,000 430,000 $ 235,000 1,000,000 430,000 2023-01 2023-02 2023-03 TOTAL $ 1,665,000 $ 1,665,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 156 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM • FY 2023/24 Agency: LA QUINTA Prepared by: Bryan McFGnney, City Engineer Phone #: (760) 777-7045 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 414,831 1,756,000 2,170,831 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 Citywide Traffic Signal Annual Recurring 2024-01 $ 235,000 $ 235,000 Maintenance Program Program Avenue 58 Pavement Pavement 2024-02 Rehabilitation (Jefferson to 1,400,000 1,400,000 Madison) Rehabilitation Seasons Way Pavement Pavement 2024-03 Rehabilitation (Calle Tampico to qpringtime Way) Rehabilitation 85,940 85,940 TOTAL $ 1,720,940 $ 1,720,940 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 157 M EASURE A LOCALSIIttib AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECT STA1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: LA QUINTA Prepared by: Bryan McFGnney, City Engineer Phone #: (760) 777-7045 Date: 5/ 2/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Estthru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Citywide Street and Traffic 9 nal Y 9 Annual Recurring $ 281,282.60 $ 81,162.02 6/30/2019 On -Going Annual Maintenance Program Dune PalmsRoad Street Improvements Program greet Widening - Recurring Program Construction Phase 2019-02 (Black Hawk Way to Approx. 330 LFN. of the CVSWC) Carryover 595,750.00 489,971.92 12/30/2019 Underway Project advertised 2019-03 La Quinta Village Complete Streets -A ATPProject Carryover 289,900.00 - 10/30/2020 for Construction. Road Diet Project Award anticipated June 2019. 2019-04 HSIP Intersection Improvements HSIP Traffic Safety- 126,100.00 22,097.23 8/31/2019 Construction Phase Carryover Underway Multi -Agency 2019-05 Washington St. at Fred Waring Dr. Triple Congestion Relief - 551,985.00 11,487.50 11/30/2020 Agreements Left Turn Lanes Carryover Approved. PS&E Underway 2019-06 Systemic Safety Analysis Report Traffic Safety Analysis 15,500.00 15,500.00 6/30/2019 Ana lysis95% Complete 2019-07 Jefferson St. at Ave. 53 Roundabout and Road Diet Complete Streets Carryover 726,708.00 - 6/30/2020 PS&E 85% Complete TOTAL $ 2,587,225.60 $ 620,218.67 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 158 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 159 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF i/N LADE 0,)LSINOU DREAM EXTREME May 1, 2019 Ms. Lorelle Moe -Luna Programming & Planning Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: City of Lake Elsinore Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (FYs2019/2020-2023/2024) Dear M s. Moe -Luna: The City of Lake Elsinore has updated the Five Year Plan and the following documents are enclosed for your review: • City of Lake Elsinore Maintenance of Effort (M OE) signed Certification Statement for FY 2019-2020 • Measure A Five -Year CIP plans for FYs 2019/2020-2023/2024 • Project Status Report for FY 2018-2019 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 674-3124 Ext. 362. Sincerely, son Simpson Assistant City Manager 951.674.3124 130 S. MAIN STREET LAKE: ELSINORE. CA 92530 W W W. LAKE- E LS I NORE.ORG 161 FV 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Lake Elsinore (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $960,771, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: (I/2 fin , 2019 ATTEST: 162 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: LAKE ELSINORE Pre p a red b y: BREN D A N RA FFERIY Phone # : (951) 674-3124 x298 Date: 3/ 29/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,746,002 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,426,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (1,609,674) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,562,328 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 1,441,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 3,003,328 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 Annual Citywide Sdewalk 2020-01 Improvement Program INSTALLATION $ 435,696 $ 217,848 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal 2020-02 Program MAINTENANCE 464,878 464,878 Annual Curb, Gutter& 2020-03 Sdewalk Repair MAINTENANCE 300,000 300,000 Annual Roadway Drainage 2020-04 Repair& Maintenance MAINTENANCE 420,000 170,000 Annual Traffic Striping 2020-05 Maintenance MAINTENANCE 275,000 275,000 2020-06 I-15/SR 74 Interchange CONSTRUCTION 2,451,327 251,567 2020-07 Main Street Interchange CONSTRUCTION 150,000 150,000 2020-08 Missing Link Bike Lane Striping CONSTRUCTION 253,518 126,759 Downtown Active 2020-09 Transportation CONSTRUCTION 1,893,866 168,276 DEBT SERVICE- LOCAL MEASUREA S4LESTAX REVENUE C ERTI FIC A TES O F PAR -RC IPA110 N, SERIES2014A DEBT SERVICE 495,538 495,538 (T.R.I.P. - TOTAL ROAD 2020-10 IM PRO V EM ENT PRO G RA M TOTAL $ 7,139,823 $ 2,619,866 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 7 163 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: LAKE ELSINORE Pre p a red b y: BREN D A N RA FFERIY Phone # : (951) 674-3124 x298 Date: 3/ 29/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 383,462 1,477,000 1,860,462 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Annual Curb, Gutter& 2021-01 9dewalk Repair MAINTENANCE $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Annual Roadway Drainage 2021-02 Repair& Maintenance MAINTENANCE 190,000 190,000 Annual Citywide Sdewalk 2021-03 Improvement Program INSTALLATION 200,000 200,000 Annual Citywide Surry Seal 2021-04 Program MAINTENANCE 390,000 390,000 Annual Traffic Striping 2021-05 Maintenance MAINTENANCE 275,000 275,000 D EBT SERV IC E - LOCAL M EA SURE A SALES TAX REVENUE CERTIFICATESOFPARTICIPATION, SERIES2014A (T.R.I.P. - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 495,938 495,938 2021-06 ROAD IMPROVEMENTPROGRAM TOTAL $ 1,850,938 $ 1,850,938 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 7 164 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: LAKE ELSINORE Pre p a red b y: BREN D A N RA FFERIY Phone # : (951) 674-3124 x298 Date: 3/ 29/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 9,524 1,514,000 1,523,524 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Annual Curb, Gutter& 2022-01 9dewalk Repair MAINTENANCE $ 300,000 $ 200,000 Annual Roadway Drainage 2022-02 Repair& Maintenance MAINTENANCE 200,000 125,000 Annual Citywide Sdewalk 2022-03 Improvement Program INSTALLATION 200,000 125,000 Annual Citywide Surry Seal 2022-04 Program MAINTENANCE 485,000 375,000 Annual Traffic Striping 2022-05 Maintenance MAINTENANCE 275,000 200,000 D EBT SERV IC E - LOCAL M EA SURE A SALES TAX REVENUE CERTIFICATESOFPARTICIPATION, SERIES2014A (T.R.I.P. - TOTAL DEBTSERVICE 495,938 495,938 2022-06 ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM TOTAL $ 1,955,938 $ 1,520,938 FY 2021-22 Page 3of7 165 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: LAKE ELSINORE Pre p a red b y: BREN D A N RA FFERIY Phone # : (951) 674-3124 x298 Date: 3/ 29/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 2,586 1,552,000 1,554,586 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Annual Curb, Gutter& 2023-01 9dewalk Repair MAINTENANCE $ 250,000 $ 175,000 Annual Roadway Drainage 2023-02 Repair& Maintenance MAINTENANCE 215,000 175,000 Annual Citywide Sdewalk 2023-03 Improvement Program INSTALLATION 200,000 150,000 Annual Citywide Surry Seal 2023-04 Program MAINTENANCE 490,000 405,000 Annual Traffic Striping 2023-05 Maintenance MAINTENANCE 275,000 150,000 D EBT SERV IC E - LOCAL M EA SURE A SALES TAX REVENUE CERTIFICATESOFPARTICIPATION, SERIES2014A (T.R.I.P. - TOTAL DEBTSERVICE 495,838 495,838 2023-06 ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM TOTAL $ 1,925,838 $ 1,550,838 FY 2022-23 Page 4of7 166 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: LAKE ELSINORE Pre p a red b y: BREN D A N RA FFERIY Phone # : (951) 674-3124 x298 Date: 3/ 29/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 3,748 1,591,000 1,594,748 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 Annual Curb, Gutter& 2024-01 9dewalk Repair MAINTENANCE $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Annual Roadway Drainage 2024-02 Repair& Maintenance MAINTENANCE 230,000 200,000 Annual Citywide Sdewalk 2024-03 Improvement Program INSTALLATION 200,000 180,000 Annual Citywide Surry Seal 2024-04 Program MAINTENANCE 500,000 350,000 Annual Traffic Striping 2024-05 Maintenance MAINTENANCE 275,000 169,760 D EBT SERV IC E - LOCAL M EA SURE A SALES TAX REVENUE CERTIFICATESOFPARTICIPATION, SERIES2014A (T.R.I.P. - TOTAL DEBTSERVICE 494,988 494,988 2024-06 ROAD IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM TOTAL $ 1,899,988 $ 1,594,748 FY 2023-24 Page 5of7 167 M EASURE A LOCALS1REEfS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PRO JEC T STA 71JS REPORTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: LAKEELSINORE Pre p a red b y: BREN D A N RA FFERIY Phone # : (951) 674-3124 x298 Date: 3/ 29/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status ANNUAL CITYWIDECURB, GUTTER 2019-01 & SIDEWALKMAINTENANCE PROGRAM MAINTENANCE $ 155,000.00 $ 145,000.00 6/30/2019 Project isannual and ongoing. ANNUAL CITYWIDE ROADWAY 2019-02 DRAINAG E REPAIR & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MAINTENANCE 150,000 - 6/30/2019 Project isannual and ongoing. ANNUAL CITYWIDE SIDEWALK Project isannual 2019-03 IMPROVEM ENTS PROGRAM INSTALLATION 989,471 494,736 6/30/2019 and ongoing. 2019-04 ANNUAL CITYWIDESLURRYSEAL PROGRAM MAINTENANCE 464,878 - 6/30/2019 Project isannual and ongoing. ANNUAL C ITYW I D E TRAFFIC 2019-05 STRIPING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MAINTENANCE 275,000 150,000 6/30/2019 Project isannual and ongoing. DEBT SERV IC E - LOCAL M EA SURE A SALESTAX REVENUE 2019-06 CERTIFICATESOFPARTICIPATION, SERIES2014A (TRI.P. - TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 499,938 499,938 Ongoing. ROAD IMPROVEMENTPROGRAM Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 7 168 2019-07 2019-08 2019-09 I-15/ SR 74 INTERC HANG E MAIN STREEfINTERCHANG E MISSING LINK BIKE LANE STRIPING (Machado St b/w Grand to Lakeshore; Mission Trail b/w Diamond to Campbell; Downtown segmentsof Lakeshore Dr, Graham Ave, and Main St) M EASURE A LOCALSIFat15 AND ROADS PROGRAM CONSIKUCTION CONSIKUCTION CONSIKUCTION 2,934,251 275,410 268,600 60,000 160,000 100,000 6/30/2020 On Schedule. 6/30/2020 On Schedule. 8/31/2019 On schedule. TOTAL $ 6,012,548 $ 1,609,674 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 7of7 169 This page left intentionally blank. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF MENIFEE 171 This page left intentionally blank. Ar/ MENIFEE AIF 7 New. Better. Best. May 6, 2019 Jenny Chan Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Dear Ms. Chan: 29844 Haun Road I Menifee, CA 92586 951-672-6777 I Fax 951-679-3843 cityofinenifee.us Enclosed is the City of Menifee's 5-year CIP for Measure "A" funds and MOE Certification form for FY2019/20 signed by our City Manager, Armando Villa. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed information, feel free to contact Bob Morin of CivilPros who assisted the City with completion of this document. Bob can be reached at Bob.morinacivilpros.com or 951-538-2267. Sincerely, Jonathan Smith PE Director of Public Works City Engineer C: Carlos Geronimo, PE Senior Engineer Yolanda Macalalad, PE, Assistant City Engineer Wendy Preece, Deputy Finance Director 173 hr.MENIFEE , New. Better. Best. May 6, 2019 Jenny Chan Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd floor Riverside, CA 92502-2208 29844 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 951-672-6777 Fax 951-679-3843 cityofinenifee.us FY2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Menifee (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $214,225, approved by the Commission at its September 11, 2013 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 75/ ` , 2019 .� Armando G. Villa, City Manage erk, City of Menifee 174 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: MENIFEE Prepared by: Wendy Preece Phone # : 951-672-6777 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,009,454 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,823,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,510,285) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 322,169 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 1,847,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,169,169 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Bond Payment for TRIP Financing Debt Service $ 20,000,000 $ 1,304,088 2020-02 Local Roads Maintenance 1,198,000 860,000 TOTAL $ 21,198,000 $ 2,164,088 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 175 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: MENIFEE Prepared by: Wendy Preece Phone # : 951-672-6777 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 5,081 1,893,000 1,898,081 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Bond Payment forTRlPFinancing Debt Service $ 20,000,000 $ 1,302,838 2021-02 Holland Road Overpass Construction 28,066,000 497,000 TOTAL $ 48,066,000 $ 1,799,838 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 176 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/ 22 Agency: MENIFEE Prepared by: Wendy Preece Phone # : 951-672-6777 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 98,243 1,940,000 2,038,243 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021 / 22 2022-01 Bond Payment for TRIP Financing Debt Service $ 20,000,000 $ 1,305,588 2022-02 Scott Road Widening Construction 8,300,000 594,000 TOTAL $ 28,300,000 $ 1,899,588 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 177 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: MENIFEE Prepared by: Wendy Preece Phone # : 951-672-6777 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 138,655 1,989,000 2,127,655 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/ 23 2023-01 Bond Payment forTRlPFinancing Debt Service $ 20,000,000 $ 1,305,588 2023-02 McCal1/1-215Interchange Design & ROW 10,353,000 697,912 TOTAL $ 30,353,000 $ 2,003,500 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 178 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: MENIFEE Prepared by: Wendy Preece Phone # : 951-672-6777 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 124,155 2,039,000 2,163,155 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Bond Payment forTRlPFinancing Debt Service $ 20,000,000 $ 1,305,588 2024-02 Valley Boulevard Missing Link Design 6,000,000 798,637 TOTAL $ 26,000,000 $ 2,104,225 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 179 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: MENIFEE Prepared by: Wendy Preese Phone # : 951-672-6777 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 Bond Payment TRIP Financing Debt Service $ 20,000,000 $ 1,301,088 30 years Active 2 Pavement Management Program Maintenance 475,000 82,197 Yearly Active 3 Bradley Bridge Design 730,000 - 2018 Completed 4 Rustlers Ranch Phase 1 Resurfacing 965,000 85,000 2018 Completed 5 Murrieta Road Resurfacing Resurfacing 1,615,000 265,000 2020 Active 6 Murrieta & Scott Intersection Improvement 581,000 122,000 2020 Active 7 Slurry Seal Maintenance 635,000 290,000 2018 Completed 8 Mira Lago & Lakepointe Slurry seal Maintenance 565,000 365,000 2019 Completed TOTAL $ 25,566,000 $ 2,510,285 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 180 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 181 This page left intentionally blank. TEL: 951.413.3100 WWW.MOVAL.ORG April 11, 2019 MORENO VALLEY WHERE DREAMS SOAR Ms. Jenny Chan Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502 14177 FREDERICK STREET P.O. BOX 88005 MORENO VALLEY, CA 92552-0805 Subject: City of Moreno Valley's Five -Year Measure A Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2019/20 — 2023/24, Project Status Report for FY 2018/19 and Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement for FY 2019/20 Dear Ms. Chan: The City of Moreno Valley is pleased to submit its Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/20 — 2023/24 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Project Status Report for FY 2018/19 and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification Statement for FY 2019/20, approved by the City Council on April 2, 2019. An amended five-year Measure A CIP will be submitted to RCTC if changes are made to the listed Measure A projects. Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns. Sincerely, gew(A4A- Launa Jimenez Senior Management Analyst (951) 413-3128 launaj@moval.org Enclosures: Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2019/20 - 2023/24 Measure A Local Funds Program FY 2018/19 Project Status Report MOE Certification Statement FY 19/20 c: File Michael L. Wolfe, Public Works Director/City Engineer Marshall Eyerman, Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 183 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the City of Moreno Valley (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $1,459,153, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: f, c‘ 2019 ATTES SANTIS, CITY MANAGER ITY CLERK 184 mr M EASURE A LOCALSIII=EIS AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: MORENO VALLEY Prepared by: Launa Jimenez Phone #: (951)413-3128 Date: 3/ 13/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ FY 2018/ 19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 3,974,362 4,240,000 5,332,233 2,882,129 4,248,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 7,130,129 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 Public Works -Capital Projects Prog ra m Budget (Provide cost effective administrative functionsfor essential transportation projects and services: annual update of the Rve-YearCIP, revisionsto Standard Plans Disadvantaged BusinessEnterpri% (DBE) Program Management, Pavement Management Program, preparation of grant applications, quarterly utility coordination, and project engineering and right of way servicesfor unfunded new projects. Project Administration $ 207,487 $ 207,487 2020-01 2020-02 Public Works -Citywide Slgn/Striping Maintenance 1,067,155 1,067,155 2020-03 Public Works- Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance 568,827 568,827 2020-04 Axed Charges/ Indirect Cost Overhead Cost 243,399 243,399 2020-05 Transtersto 2013-2014 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds Debt Service 1,055,000 1,055,000 2020-06 Transfersto 1RIP Debt Service Debt Service 1,490,000 1,490,000 2020-07 Annual ADA Compliant Curb Ramp Upgrades -Citywide Street Improvements 789,878 189,878 2020-08 Annual Pavement Maintenance -Crack Seal Street Improvements 60,000 60,000 2020-09 Citywide Pavement Management Program Street Improvements 133,681 133,681 2020-10 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY18/19 Street Improvements 3,483,810 201,074 2020-11 Cycle 1 A1PCitywide SR1SPedestrian Facility Improvements Street Improvements 119,729 6,152 2020-12 Heacock St South Extension -Widen Heacock St from 2 lanesto 6lanesfrom San Michelle to Harley Knox Blvd, including the bridge Street Improvements 925,364 24,953 2020-13 Property Acquisition for Street Purposes Street Improvements 10,553 10,553 2020-14 Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Humps) Street Improvements 161,090 11,090 2020-15 SR60/ World Log istics Center Parkway Interchange Street Improvements 1,360,773 5,114 2020-16 Heacock St Channel Improvements Drainage 288,755 1,661 2020-17 Moreno MDPUne F18and F19 Drainage 168,806 168,806 2020-18 Moreno MDPUne K 1 Stage 3 K-4 Drainage 124,406 124,406 2020-19 amnymead - Raming Arrow Drive Storm Drain Drainage 621,646 374,490 2020-20 amnymead MDPUne B-16A Drainage 9,000 9,000 2020-21 Dynamic Traveler Alert Message Boa rd s (Perris Blvd south of CactusAve, Alessandro Blvd east of Fredrick St, Cactus Ave east of Frederick St) - Deploy 3 dynamic message signs/ changeable message signson new sign structures, including new electrical service connections Traffic Enhancements 393,138 11,938 2020-22 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon on CactusAve at Woodland Park Traffic Sgnals 203,993 203,993 2020-23 Systemic Safety Ana lysis Report Program Traffic Sgnals 10,000 1,000 2020-24 Traffic Sgnal Equipment/ Upgrades Traffic Sgnals 19,517 19,517 TOTAL $ 13,516,007 $ 6,189,174 FY2019-20 Page 1 of 185 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: MORENO VALLEY Prepared by: Launa Jimenez Phone #: (951) 413-3128 Date: 3/ 13/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 940,955 4,354,000 5,294,955 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Public Works -Capital Projects Prog ra m Budget $ 214,545 $ 214,545 (Provide cost effective administrative functions for essential transportation projectsand services: annual update of the Five-YearCIP, revisionsto Standard Plans, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Management, Pavement Management Program, preparation of grant applications, quarterly utility coordination, and project engineering and right of way servicesfor 2021-01 unfunded new projects. Project Administration 2021-02 Public Works -Citywide Sgn/Striping Maintenance 1,116,050 1,116,050 2021-03 Public Works -Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance 593,784 593,784 2021-04 Fixed Charges/ Indirect Cost Overhead Cost 243,399 243,399 Transfersto 2013-2014 Refunding Lease 1,055,000 1,055,000 2021-05 Revenue Bonds Debt Service 2021-06 Transfersto TRIP Debt Service Debt Service 1,492,000 1,492,000 TOTAL $ 4,714,778 $ 4,714,778 FY 2020-21 Page 2of7 186 M EASURE A LOCALSIhttlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: MORENO VALLEY Prepared by: Launa Jimenez Phone #: (951) 413-3128 Date: 3/ 13/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 580,177 4,463,000 5,043,177 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Public Works -Capital Projects Prog ra m Budget $ 214,545 $ 214,545 (Provide cost effective administrative functions for essential transportation projectsand services: annual update of the Five-YearCIP, revisionsto Standard Plans, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Management, Pavement Management Program, preparation of grant applications, quarterly utility coordination, and project engineering and right of way servicesfor 2022-01 unfunded new projects. Project Administration 2022-02 Public Works -Citywide Sgn/Striping Maintenance 1,116,050 1,116,050 2022-03 Public Works -Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance 593,784 593,784 2022-04 Fixed Charges/ Indirect Cost Overhead Cost 243,399 243,399 Transfersto 2013-2014 Refunding Lease 1,055,000 1,055,000 2022-05 Revenue Bonds Debt Service 2022-06 Transfersto TRIP Debt Service Debt Service 1,492,000 1,492,000 TOTAL $ 4,714,778 $ 4,714,778 FY 2021-22 Page 3of7 187 M EASURE A LOCALSIhttlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: MORENO VALLEY Prepared by: Launa Jimenez Phone #: (951) 413-3128 Date: 3/ 13/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 328,399 4,575,000 4,903,399 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/ 23 Public Works -Capital Projects Prog ra m Budget $ 214,545 $ 214,545 (Provide cost effective administrative functions for essential transportation projectsand services: annual update of the Five-YearCIP, revisionsto Standard Plans, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Management, Pavement Management Program, preparation of grant applications, quarterly utility coordination, and project engineering and right of way servicesfor 2023-01 unfunded new projects. Project Administration 2023-02 Public Works -Citywide Sgn/Striping Maintenance 1,116,050 1,116,050 2023-03 Public Works -Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance 593,784 593,784 2023-04 Fixed Charges/ Indirect Cost Overhead Cost 243,399 243,399 Transfersto 2013-2014 Refunding Lease 1,055,000 1,055,000 2023-05 Revenue Bonds Debt Service 2023-06 Transfersto TRIP Debt Service Debt Service 1,492,000 1,492,000 TOTAL $ 4,714,778 $ 4,714,778 FY 2022-23 Page 4of7 188 M EASURE A LOCALSIhttlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: MORENO VALLEY Prepared by: Launa Jimenez Phone #: (951) 413-3128 Date: 3/ 13/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 188,621 4,689,000 4,877,621 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 Public Works -Capital Projects Prog ra m Budget $ 214,545 $ 214,545 (Provide cost effective administrative functions for essential transportation projectsand services: annual update of the Five-YearCIP, revisionsto Standard Plans, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Management, Pavement Management Program, preparation of grant applications, quarterly utility coordination, and project engineering and right of way servicesfor 2024-01 unfunded new projects. Project Administration 2024-02 Public Works -Citywide Sgn/Striping Maintenance 1,116,050 1,116,050 2024-03 Public Works -Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance 593,784 593,784 2024-04 Fixed Charges/ Indirect Cost Overhead Cost 243,399 243,399 Transfersto 2013-2014 Refunding Lease 1,055,000 1,055,000 2024-05 Revenue Bonds Debt Service 2024-06 Transfersto TRIP Debt Service Debt Service 1,492,000 1,492,000 TOTAL $ 4,714,778 $ 4,714,778 FY 2023-24 Page 5of7 189 M EASURE A LOCALSIFe.tio AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 7USREPORTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: MORENO VALLEY Prepared by: Launa Jimenez Phone #: (951)413-3128 Date: 3/13/2019 Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 Public works -capital Projects Prog ram Budget (Provide cost effective administrative functionsfor essential transportation projects and services annual update of the Five-YearCIP, revisionsto Standard Flans, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Management, Pavement Management Program, preparation of grant applications, quarterly utility coordination, and project engineering and right of way wrvicesfor unfunded new projects Project Administration $ 216,742 $ 216,742 N/A Annual Budget 2 Public Works- Citywideagn/Striping Maintenance 1,092,889 1,092,889 N/A Annual Budget 3 Public Works -Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance 450,218 450,218 N/A Annual Budget 4 Fixed Charges) Indirect Cost Overhead Cost 243,399 243,399 N/A Annual Budget 5 Transfersto 2013-2014 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds Debt Service 1,055,000 1,055,000 N/A Annual Budget 6 Transfers to TRIP Debt Service Debt Service 1,491,000 1,491,000 N/A Annual Budget 7 Alessandro Blvd/ Esvorth a Intersection Imply - new traffic signal and signal technology, new drainage system, elimination of cross gutters, upgraded ADA ramps Street Improvements 2,444 2,444 Mar-18 Project Completed 8 Annual ADA Compliant Curb Ramp Upgrades -Citywide Street Improvements 40,000 40,000 N/A On -going Annual Project; future funding will come from GasTax 9 Annual Pavement Maintenance -Crack Seal Street Improvements - - N/A On -going Annual Project 10 InstaI110 bicycle rackson Sunnymead Blvd between Frederick 3 and Penis Blvd Construction of bicycle Ianesat 9locations -Alessandro Blvd (westem city limit to Indian 3) -CactusAve (Heacock 3 to Lasselle 3) -Heacock 3 (Alessandro Blvd to JFK Dr, and Ironwood Ave to 3unnymead Ranch Pkwy) -Ironwood Ave (Barclay Drto Pigeon Pass Blvd) -SLnnymead Blvd (Frederick St to Penis Blvd) -IGtching 3 (Iris Ave to Krameria Ave) -Krameria Ave (Kitching 3 to MV Community College) -Towngate Blvd (Frederick a to Memorial Way) -Eucalyptus Ave (Memorial Way to Day 3) Installation of bicycle shared lane markings at 2locations: -Bay Ave (Frederick St to Graham 3) -Indian 3 (Cottonwood Ave to Sinnymead Blvd) Street Improvements (Bike Lanes) 28,789 28,789 Jan-19 Project Completed 11 Citywide Annual Pavement Resurfacing Street Improvements 3,025 3,025 Feb-19 Discontinued; Measure A budget tranferred to Citywide Pavement Mgmt Program 12 Citywide Pavement Management Program Street Improvements 10,000 10,000 N/A On -going Annual Project 13 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program FY18/19 Street Improvements 10,000 _ p-19 Working on Construction Bid Documents 14 Cycle 1 AIPCitywide 3RTSPedestrian Facility Improvements Street Improvements 1,170,288 50 Dec-19 Construction 15 Gentian Ave and Eucalyptus Ave Classll Bike Lanes -Construction of bicycle lanesat 2 locations Street Improvements 43,690 18,000 Apr-19 Construction 16 Heacock a/ PenisVallyStonnDrain LateraIAtoCactusAve Street Improvements 6,370 6,370 Jan-18 Warranty walk 17 Heacock a South Extension -Widen Heacock St from 2 lanesto 6 lanesfrom 3en Michelle to Harley Knox Blvd, including the bridge Street Improvements 11,000 5,000 Dec-20 Preliminary Engineering 18 Moreno Townsite Area Storm Drain & Street Improvements/ Alessandro Blvd to Drainage Facility Street Improvements 788 788 Feb-19 Discontinued; Measure A budget transferred to Moreno MDP Line F-18 and F-19 19 Property Acquisition for Street Purpose: Street Improvements 915 915 N/A On -going Annual Project 20 Reche Vista Dr Realignment/ Penis Blvd/ Heacock Stto NCL Street Improvements 872 872 Mar-18 Completed 21 Residential Traffic Management Program (Speed Humps) Street Improvements - - N/A On -going Annual Project 22 SR-60/ World Log istics Center Parkway Interchange Street Improvements 983,668 460,218 Mar-20 PA/ED 23 Heacock St Channel Improvements Drainage 15,871 11,000 May-19 Construction Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of7 190 M EASURE A LOCALSim=tis AND ROADS PROGRAM 24 Hubbard S Sorm Drain Line H-1A Sage 3 Drainage - - Jun-18 Warranty walk 25 Moreno MDP Line R18 and F-19 Drainage 10,000 10,000 Dec-21 Preliminary Engineering 26 Moreno MDP Line K-1 Sage 3 K-4 Drainage 142,514 142,514 Dec-21 Design 27 Sinnymead - Flaming Arrow Drive Sorm Drain Drainage 75,000 - Jun-20 Design 28 SLnnymeadMDP Line B-16A Drainage 3,000 3,000 Unknown Preliminary Dedgn and Environmental Clearance 29 Dynamic Traveler Alert Message Boards (Pems Blvd south of Cactus Ave, Alessandro Blvd east of Fredrick a, CactusAve east of Frederick a)- Deploy 3 dynamic message signs/ changeable message dgnson new sign structures, including new electrical service connections Traffic Enhancements 15,000 1,000 Dec-19 Bidding for Construction 30 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon on CactusAve at Woodland Park Traffic Sgnals Apr-20 Awaiting full funding; On Hold 31 Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program Traffic Sg na Is 140,000 14,000 Aug-19 Work underway (study) 32 Traffic Sgnal Equipment/ Upgrades Traffic Sg na Is 25,000 25,000 N/A On -going Annual Project TOTAL $ 7,287,482 $ 5,332,233 Project 3atus Report FY18-19 Page 7of7 191 This page left intentionally blank. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF MURRIETA 193 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF MURRIETA !� EC!_EuV f .1\. MAY t 31019 RIVERSIDE COUNTY May 6, 2019 TRANsPORTATI€ N COMMISSION Lorelle Moe -Luna, Planning and Programming Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Subject: Measure A Local Streets and Road Revenue Projections, Maintenance of Effort Certification, and Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (FY 2019/20-2023/24) Lorelle: Enclosed are the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification Statement, proposed Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and Project Status Report for the City of Murrieta for your consideration and approval. Since the City Council has not adopted a formal Capital Improvement Plan budget for FY 2019-23, the enclosed Five - Year CIP is based on staff recommendation and may be subject to change upon further consideration by the City Council. We will contact you if there are any changes requested by the City Council. The Measure A balance carried over to FY 2018/19 is largely due to several large projects that are expected to start construction later this year and into 2020. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (951) 461-6036 or bmoehlincamurrietacalov at your convenience. Sincerely, Bob Moehling, P.E. Director of Public Works / City Engineer Attachments cc: Kim Summers, City Manager Ivan Holler, Assistant City Manager Jeff Murphy, Director of Development Services Stacey Stevenson, Director of Administrative Services Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer a 1 Town Square • Murrieta, California 92562 phone: 951.304.CITY (2489) • web: www.MurrietaCA.gov 195 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Murrieta (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $595,702, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: At)4° 2019 ATTEST: SECRETARY 196 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2019 - 2020 Agency: Murrieta Page: 1 of 5 Prepared by: Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer Phone #: 951-461-6076 Date: 5/6/2019 FY 2017-18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ FY 2018-19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: FY 2018-19 Project Status report expenses: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY 2019-2020 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2019-2020 Projects $ 8,515,899 2,561,000 (1,095,083) 9,981,816 2,577,000 12,558,816 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2019-2020 2020-1 8043 Pavement Resurfacing Maintenance $ 2,000,000 $ - 2020-2 8079 Murrieta Hot Springs Widening- Margarita to Winchester Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 3,000,000 1,500,000 2020-3 8137 Resurfacing - Slurry Seal Maintenance 3,700,000 3,700,000 2020-4 8257 Citywide Signal Mods Signal Modifications 150,000 75,000 2020-5 8283 Traffic Striping Modifications Traffic Striping 30,000 30,000 2020-6 8293 Sidewalk Replacement- Citywide based on inspection Sidewalk Improvements 300,000 300,000 2020-7 8330 Traffic Signal Optimization Traffic Signal 140,000 70,000 2020-8 8335 Jackson Ave Bridge (at Warm Springs Creek) Bridge Installation 30,000 30,000 2020-9 8389 Whitewood: Hunter to Clinton Keith Pavement widening - - 2020-10 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Management Pro Traffic Management 85,000 15,000 2020-11 8448 Meadowlark Lane Improvement- Baxter to Keller Roads Pavement Extension 10,000 2020-12 8456 Whitewood Extension- MHS Road to Jackson Ave Pavement Extension 100,000 - 2020-13 10012 Jackson Ave Median Construction 68,000 68,000 2020-14 13031 Warm Springs Parkway Construction 1,150,000 450,000 2020-15 COP 2007 for 15/215 MHS Interchange Debt Service 723,639 723,639 TOTALS $ 11,486,639 $ 6,961,639 197 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2020 - 2021 Agency: Murrieta Page: 2 of 5 Prepared by: Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer Phone #: 951-461-6076 Date: 5/6/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020-2021 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2020-2021 Projects: $ 5,597,177 2,641,000 8,238,177 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2020-2021 2021-1 8043 Pavement Resurfacing - Asphalt Maintenance $ 2,000,000 $ - 2021-2 8079 Murrieta Hot Springs Widening Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 4,000,000 2,700,000 2021-3 8137 Pavement Resurfacing - Slurry Maintenance 1,150,000 1,150,000 2021-4 8257 Signal Mods- Citywide Signal Modifications 150,000 75,000 2021-5 8293 Sidewalk Replacement - Citywide Sidewalk Improvements 100,000 100,000 2021-6 8330 Traffic Signal Optimizations Traffic Signal 140,000 70,000 2021-7 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Manage Traffic Management 85,000 15,000 2021-8 COP 2007 for 15/215 at MHS Int. Debt Service 728,239 728,239 TOTALS $ 8,353,239 $ 4,838,239 198 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2021 - 2022 Agency: Murrieta Page: 3 of 5 Prepared by: Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer Phone #: 951-461-6076 Date: 5/6/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021-2022 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2021-2022 Projects: $ 3,399,938 2,707,000 6,106,938 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2021-22 2022-1 8043 Pavement Resurfacing - Asphalt Maintenance $ 2,000,000 $ - 2022-2 8137 Pavement Resurfacing - Slurry Maintenance 1,150,000 1,150,000 2022-3 8257 Signal Mods- Citywide Signal Modifications 150,000 75,000 2022-4 8293 Sidewalk Replacement - Citywide Sidewalk Improvements 50,000 50,000 2022-5 8330 Traffic Signal Optimizations Traffic Signal 140,000 70,000 2022-6 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Manage Traffic Management 85,000 15,000 2022-7 COP 2007 for 15/215 at MHS Int. Debt Service 726,489 726,489 TOTALS $ 4,301,489 $ 2,086,489 199 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2022 - 2023 Agency: Murrieta Page: 4 of 5 Prepared by: Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer Phone #: 951-461-6076 Date: 5/6/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022-2023 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2022-2023 Projects: $ 4,020,449 2,775,000 6,795,449 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2022-2023 2023-1 8043 Pavement Resurfacing - Asphalt Maintenance $ 2,000,000 $ - 2023-2 8137 Pavement Resurfacing - Slurry Maintenance 1,150,000 1,150,000 2023-3 8257 Signal Mods- Citywide Signal Modifications 150,000 75,000 2023-4 8293 Sidewalk Replacement - Citywide Sidewalk Improvements 50,000 50,000 2023-5 8330 Traffic Signal Optimizations Traffic Signal 140,000 70,000 2023-6 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Manage Traffic Management 85,000 15,000 2023-7 COP 2007 for 15/215 at MHS Int. Debt Service 722,969 722,969 TOTALS $ 4,297,969 $ 2,082,969 200 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM FY 2023 - 2024 Agency: Murrieta Page: 5 of 5 Prepared by: Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer Phone #: 951-461-6076 Date: 5/6/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023-2024 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure A Available for FY 2023-2024 Projects: $ 4,712,480 2,844,000 7,556,480 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Measure A Funds 2023-24 2024-1 8043 Pavement Resurfacing - Asphalt Maintenance $ 2,000,000 $ - 2024-2 8137 Pavement Resurfacing - Slurry Maintenance 1,150,000 1,150,000 2024-3 8257 Signal Mods- Citywide Signal Modifications 150,000 75,000 2024-4 8293 Sidewalk Replacement - Citywide Sidewalk Improvements 50,000 50,000 2024-5 8330 Traffic Signal Optimizations Traffic Signal 140,000 70,000 2024-6 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Manage Traffic Management 85,000 15,000 2024-7 COP 2007 for 15/215 at MHS Int. Debt Service 722,969 722,969 TOTALS $ 4,297,969 $ 2,082,969 201 Agency: Murrieta Page: 1 of 1 Prepared by: Jeff Hitch, Principal Civil Engineer Phone #: 951-461-6076 Date: 5/6/2019 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL FUNDS PROGRAM PROJECT STATUS REPORT FY 2018-2019 "Completed Projects have been removed from the list Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 1 8043 Pavement Resurfacing Maintenance $ 509,718 $ 43,556 Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 2 8079 Murrieta Hot Springs Widening- Margarita to Winchester Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 230,000 220,000 Dec-20 Design, Acquire ROW, start Con 2020 3 8137 Resurfacing - Slurry Seal Maintenance - - Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 4 8257 Citywide Signal Mods Signal Modifications 102,283 420 Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 5 8283 Traffic Striping Modifications Traffic Striping 16 16 Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 6 8293 Sidewalk Replacement- Citywide based on inspection Sidewalk Improvements 15,000 15,000 Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 8 8330 Traffic Signal Optimization Traffic Signal 52,750 137 Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 9 8335 Jackson Ave Bridge (at Warm Springs Creek) Bridge Installation 25,000 10,000 Jul-14 Construction complete/ongoing mitigation 10 8389 Whitewood: Hunter to Clinton Keith Pavement widening - - Jun-19 Design, ROW Acq 11 8430 Neighborhood Traffic Management Pro Traffic Management 100,000 20,000 Jun-19 Ongoing annual project 12 8448 Meadowlark Lane Improvement- Baxter to Keller Roads Pavement Extension 13,330 3,654 Sep-17 Construction Completed 13 8456 Whitewood Extension- MHS Road to Jackson Ave Pavement Extension 4,000 4,000 Dec-19 TUMF Network Addition request, Design 14 10012 Jackson Ave Median Construction - - May-19 Start const. in Mar 2020 15 13031 Warm Springs Parkway Construction 50,000 50,000 Jun-20 Design, start Con 2020 16 COP 2007 for 15/215 MHS Interchange Debt Service 728,300 728,300 Jun-27 Construction complete / Annual Debt Service TOTALS $ 1,830,397 $ 1,095,083 202 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF NORCO 203 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF NORCO CITY HALL • 2870 CLARK AVENUE • NORCO CA 92860 • (951) 735-3900 • www.norco.ca.us • II III a May 6, 2019 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 RE: 2019 — 2024 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Five -Year Capital Improvement Program Plan Dear Ms. Trevino: The City of Norco is pleased to submit for your consideration and approval our Five - Year Measure "A" Capital Improvement Program Plan projections, commencing with Fiscal Year 2019-20. We have included for your records a copy of the City of Norco approved Five -Year Measure A Capital Improvement Program Fund, and the Annual Certification of the City's "Maintenance of Effort" document signed by City Manager, Andy Okoro. If you have any additional questions, regarding the City of Norco 2019 submittal, please contact me at 951-270-5678. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance with the City of Norco's planned expenditures for maintenance and capital improvements to our local streets and roads. Respectfully, ad Blais Director of Public Works City of Norco Attachments: City of Norco Five -Year CIP Measure "A" 5-Year CIP Maintenance of Effort Letter CITY COUNCIL ROBIN GRUNDMEYER Mayor BERWIN HANNA Mayor Pro Tem KEVIN BASH Council Member TEO HOFFMAN Council Member GREG NEWTON Council Member 205 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Norco (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $22,536, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 1" LetAA -� , 2019 fr"0477 ATTEST: ITY MANAGER r SECRETARY 206 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: NORCO Prepared by: CHAD BLAIS Phone # : 951-270-5678 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,686,195 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 715,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (1,866,902) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 534,293 Estimated FY 2019/ 20 Measure A Allocation: 713,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 1,247,293 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Crestview Ave - Sxth St to North Complete $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Dr Reconstruct Serra Ave -Sixth St to end of cul- Complete 2020-02 de -sac Reconstruct $ 450,000 $ 450,000 TOTAL $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 207 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: NORCO Prepared by: CHAD BLAIS Phone # : 951-270-5678 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 47,293 731,000 778,293 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Norconian Dr- Fifth St to Norco Dr Reconstruction $ 775,000 $ 775,000 2021-01 TOTAL $ 775,000 $ 775,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 208 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: NORCO Prepared by: CHAD BLAIS Phone # : 951-270-5678 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 3,293 749,000 752,293 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Trotter Trail -Second St to Cul-de- sac Belmont Cr-Kips Corner Rd west to cul-de-sac Ranset Ct -Shadow Canyon Cir to Cul-de-sac Quiet Hill Ct -Alhambra St to End Fortuna Rd -Serra Ave to End Reconstruct Grind and Overlay Grind and Overlay Reconstruct Grind and Overlay $ 285,000 75,000 130,000 160,000 85,000 $ 285,000 75,000 130,000 160,000 85,000 2022-01 2022-02 2022-03 2022-04 2022-05 TOTAL $ 735,000 $ 735,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 209 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: NORCO Prepared by: CHAD BLAIS Phone # : 951-270-5678 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 17,293 768,000 785,293 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Slyer Cloud Cir- Norco Drto Cul- Grind and Overlay $ 125,000 $ 125,000 2023-01 d e -sa c Slyer Cloud Cir- Broken Lance Dr 160,000 160,000 2023-02 to Norco Dr Grind and Overlay Broken Twig Dr- Broken Lance Dr 240,000 240,000 2023-03 to Norco Dr Grind and Overlay Vine St -Corydon to East Cul-de- 200,000 200,000 2023-04 sac Grind and Overlay TOTAL $ 725,000 $ 725,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 210 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: NORCO Prepared by: CHAD BLAIS Phone # : 951-270-5678 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 60,293 787,000 847,293 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 River Ridge Cir-Alhambra St to Rim Crest Dr Reconstruct $ 600,000 $ 600,000 2024-01 TOTAL $ 600,000 $ 600,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 211 M EASURE A LDCALSIFihhIS AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC TSTA RIS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: NORCO Prepared by: CHAD BLAIS Phone # : 951-270-5678 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Bluff St - River Rd to Vine St Rehab and Overlay $ 250,000 $ 234,496 Dec-18 Completed 2019-02 Hamner - Third St to Fourth St Rehab and Overlay 750,000 650,000 Feb-19 Completed 2019-03 Ped ley -Seventh to Sxth Rehab and Overlay 210,000 210,000 Jun-19 In Construction Project moved to 2019-04 Pedley- Seventh to 6gth Rehab and Overlay 250,000 - Sep-19 alternate funding source 2019-05 Corona Ave - First St to Second St Rehab and Overlay 300,000 292,906 Completed 2019-13 Crestview Ave - Sxth to North Complete Reconstruct 600,000 20,000 Nov-19 In Construction 2019-14 Hamner -Hidden Valley to City Boundary Rehab and Overlay 159,500 159,500 Nov-18 Completed 2019-15 Citywide Slurry Seal Locations Slurry Seal 300,000 300,000 Apr-19 Completed TOTAL $ 2,819,500 $ 1,866,902 Note: Projects2019-06 thru 2019-012 were completed, billed and audited in FY2017-18. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 212 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF PALM DESERT 213 This page left intentionally blank. CITY Of PIIIM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061I info@cityofpal ndesert.org May 3, 2019 Jenny Chan Management Analyst, Planning and Programming Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92502-2208 Subject: Measure A Capital Improvement Program Dear Jenny, p IV E \II 1a. MAN 131019 R1V€RSIDE COUNTY rRANSPORTATK)N COMMISSM. Enclosed for Commission consideration is the City of Palm Desert's proposed 2019/2020 — 2023/2024 Five -Year Measure A Capital Improvement Program, as well as Project Status Report for Fiscal Year 2018/19, and the signed Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement. Please note that the Portola 1-10 Interchange Project has a carryover of $15,110,660 in Fiscal Year 19/20; however, the project is currently in the design phase. The City expects the construction phase to begin before the end of 2020. This will significantly reduce the City's high carryover amount. The Five -Year Program will be reviewed in the near future by our City Council. If the City Council makes any changes to the program, a revised version will be submitted to you for approval. If no changes are made, please treat this as the official submittal. If you have any questions, please contact me or Bertha A. Gonzalez, Accounting Specialist, at (760) 346-0611, extension 473, or at bgonzalez@cityofpalmdesert.orq. Sincerely, a t Tom Garcia, P.E. Director of Public Works Enclosure cc: Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Janet M. Moore, Director of Finance J. Luis Espinoza, Assistant Director of Finance i� PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Palm Desert (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $2,398,146, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: 2019 ATTEST: CITY MANAGER 216 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: PALM DESERT Prepared by: Tom Garcia, P.E., Director of Public Works Phone # : 760-346-0611 Date: May 3, 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 21,970,019 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 2,948,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (672,658) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 24,245,361 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 2,842,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 27,087,361 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 Portola Interchange at I-10 2020-01 Estimated carryoverFY18/19 Interchange Project $ 79,800,000 $ 5,000,000 $15,110,660 Cook Street Widening - Phase II, Fred 2020-02 Waring to Frank Snatra Street Widening 9,665,500 3,655,500 Estimated carryover FY 18/19 Project $3,655,500 Citywide Pavement Management Pro g ra m 2020-03 Estimated carryoverFY18/19 Maintenance Project 7,478,855 5,500,000 $3,000,000 FY 19/20 request $2,500,000 Citywide Traffic Sgnal Hardware Upgrades Street Improvement 2020-04 Estimated carryoverFY18/19 1,087,064 1,012,064 $612,064 Project FY 19/ 20 request $400, 000 Citywide Street Striping and Lane Improvements 2020-05 Estimated carryoverFY18/19 Maintenance Project 757,293 757,293 $432,293 FY 19/20 request $325,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 8 217 2020-06 2020-07 2020-08 2020-09 2020-10 2020-11 2020-12 2020-13 2020-14 2020-15 M EASURE A LOCALSIFatIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Jefferson Street Interchange Project @ 1-10 Estimated carryover FY 18/19 $117,795 Triple Left Tumsat Washington and Fred Waring Estimated carryover FY18/19 $500,00 Citywide ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Estimated carryoverFY18/19 $100,043 FY 19/20 request $50,000 Citywide Bridge Inspection & Repair Pro g ra m Estimated carryoverFY18/19 $200,000 FY 19/20 request $100,000 Gerald Ford East of Cook Improvements Estimated carryoverFY18/19 $265,000 Washington Street Traffic Upgrade Project, Palm Royale to 42nd Estimated carryover FY 18/19 $150,000 Traffic Sgnal Modification - Hwy 111 at Parkview / Pa inters Path Estimated carryover FY18/19 $45,384 San Pablo Improvements, Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Estimated carryover FY 18/19 $2,655,967 Traffic Management Center FY 19/20 request $210,000 Paseo Master Plan Roadway Improvements FY 19/20 request $1,200,000 Interchange Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project TOTAL 312,500 500,000 235,043 300,000 265,000 150,000 50,000 15,000,000 960,000 1,450,000 $ 118,011,255 117,795 500,000 150,043 300,000 265,000 150,000 45,384 2,655,967 210,000 1,200,000 $ 21,519,046 FY 2019-20 Page 2 of 8 218 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: PALM DESERT Prepared by: Tom Garcia, P.E., Director of Public Works Phone # : 760-346-0611 Date: May 3, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 5,568,315 2,913,000 8,481,315 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 Citywide Pavement Management Program Citywide Street Striping and Lane Improvements Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades Citywide ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Citywide Bridge Inspection & Repair Program Cook Street Widening - Phase II Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project Widening Project $ 3,500,000 325,000 400,000 75,000 100,000 9,665,500 $ 2,500,000 325,000 400,000 50,000 100,000 2,400,000 2021-01 2021-02 2021-03 2021-04 2021-05 2021-06 TOTAL $ 14,065,500 $ 5,775,000 FY 2020-21 Page 3 of 8 219 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/ 22 Agency: PALM DESERT Prepared by: Tom Garcia, P.E., Director of Public Works Phone # : 760-346-0611 Date: May 3, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 2,706,315 2,986,000 5,692,315 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Citywide Pavement Management Program Citywide Street Striping and Lane Improvements Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades Citywide ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Citywide Bridge Inspection & Repair Program Cook Street Widening - Phase II Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project Widening Project $ 3,500,000 325,000 300,000 75,000 100,000 9,665,500 $ 2,500,000 325,000 300,000 50,000 100,000 2,000,000 2022-01 2022-02 2022-03 2022-04 2022-05 2022-06 TOTAL $ 13,965,500 $ 5,275,000 FY 2021-22 Page 4of8 220 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: PALM DESERT Prepared by: Tom Garcia, P.E., Director of Public Works Phone # : 760-346-0611 Date: May 3, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 417,315 3,061,000 3,478,315 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Citywide Pavement Management Program Citywide Street Striping and Lane Improvements Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades Citywide ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Citywide Bridge Inspection & Repair Program Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project $ 3,500,000 325,000 300,000 75,000 100,000 $ 2,500,000 325,000 300,000 50,000 100,000 2023-01 2023-02 2023-03 2023-04 2023-05 TOTAL $ 4,300,000 $ 3,275,000 FY 2022-23 Page 5 of 8 221 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: PALM DESERT Prepared by: Tom Garcia, P.E., Director of Public Works Phone # : 760-346-0611 Date: May 3, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 203,315 3,138,000 3,341,315 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/24 Citywide Pavement Management Program Citywide Street Striping and Lane Improvements Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades Citywide ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Citywide Bridge Inspection & Repair Program Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project $ 3,500,000 325,000 300,000 75,000 100,000 $ 2,500,000 325,000 300,000 50,000 100,000 2024-01 2024-02 2024-03 2024-04 2024-05 TOTAL $ 4,300,000 $ 3,275,000 FY 2023-24 Page 6 of 8 222 M EASURE A LOCALSIFatIS AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: PALM DESERT Prepared by: Tom Garcia, P.E., Director of Public Works Phone # : 760-346-0611 Date: May 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds 6cpended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 2019-02 2019-03 2019-04 2019-05 2019-06 2019-07 Portola Interchange at Interstate 10 Cook Street Widening -Phase II, Fred Waring to Frank Snatra Citywide Pavement Management Pro g ra m Citywide Traffic Sgnal Hardware Upgrades Citywide Street Striping and Lane Improvements @if10rson Street Interchange Project Triple Left Tumsat Washington and Fred Waring Interchange Project Street Widening Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project Interchange Project Street Improvement Project $ 71,993,000 9,665,500 4,000,000 695,170 432,293 312,500 500,000 $ 333,712 320,737 8,209 Sept 2022 2022 2019 2019 Oct 2019 TBD Indio 2021 design phase scoping phase II working on specs scoping out to bid Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 7of8 223 2019-08 2019-09 2019-10 2019-11 2019-12 2019-13 2019-14 2019-15 Citywide ADA Curb Ramp Modifications Citywide Bridge Inspection Program Gerald Ford East of Cook Improvements Washington Street Traffic Upgrade Project, Palm Royale to 42nd Citywide Interconnect System Improvement Project Citywide Controller Cabinet Assembly Upgrades Program Traffic Sgnal Modification - Hwy 111 at Parkview / Pa inters Path San Pablo Improvements, Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls M EASURE A LOCALSIFatIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project Street Improvement Project Maintenance Project Maintenance Project Street Improvement Project 160,043 200,000 265,000 150,000 293,000 336,000 50,000 15,000,000 10,000 TBD TBD Dec 2019 2020 Jan 2020 Dec 2019 Jan 2020 May 2020 scoping reviewing Caltrans Report finalizing agreement finalizing agreement included with traffic signal hardware included with traffic signal hardware To bid in May construction awarded TOTAL $ 104,052,506 $ 672,658 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 8of8 224 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 225 This page left intentionally blank. City of Palm Springs Engineering Services Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 322-8380 • Fax: (760) 323 8207 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov April 30, 2019 Ms. Jenny Chan Management Analyst, Planning and Programming Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92502-22083 RE: Measure "A" Local Street & Road Program City of Palm Springs Annual Five -Year Measure "A" CIP (Fiscal Year 2019/20 - 2023/24) Dear Ms. Chan: Enclosed, at RCTC's request, is the City of Palm Springs' Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Certification Statement, Project Status Report for CIP Projects in FY 2018/19, and proposed Local Measure "A" Five -Year CIP Plan for fiscal year 2019/2020 through 2023/2024. The City participates in the MSHCP and TUMF programs as required to participate in the Measure "A" Program. The following projects were completed or did not use Measure A funds and have been removed from the 5-year CIP. 1) 50333 San Rafael Widening Virginia to Indian Canyon Dr 2) 50348 -- Palm Canyon Pedestrian Enhancements 3) 50349 — Indian Canyon Pedestrian Enhancements 4) 50312 Pavement Condition Survey 5) 50402 — Vista Chino at Miraleste Traffic Signal 6) 50347 -- N. Palm Canyon Dr. at Via Escuela Traffic Signal If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 322-8380 or Joel Montalvo at (760) 323-8253 ext. 8339. Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, PE, PLS Assistant City Manager/City Engineer cc: ale 227 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Palm Springs (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $1,498,732, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: lirrtil 2-c .2019 avi H. ' ea • y City Manager ATTEST: iterAnthony Mejia, MMC City Clerk 228 M EASURE A LOCALbimttlb AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: PALM SPRINGS Prepared by JoelMontalvo Phone #: 760-322-8339 Date: 2/27/2019 FY2017/18Audited Measure A Balance: $ FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 5,876,514 2,232,000 (2,928,900) 5,179,614 2,240,000 Estimated Measure A Available forFY2019/20 Projects:$ 7,419,614 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Annual Surry Seal - City Wide Road Maintenance $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 2020-02 Bridge Repairs -City Wide Bridge Maintenance 100,000 50,000 Road Widening & Bridge 2020-03 Indian Canyon Dr. UPRR Bridge 23,806,000 200,000 Replacement S Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge - Palm 2020-04 New Bridge 4,875,000 10,000 Canyon Wash 2020-05 Traffic Safety Projects- City Wide Traffic Improvements 250,000 250,000 2020-06 Annual Asphalt Overlay Road Maintenance 4,000,000 500,000 Mid -Valley Parkway Reimbursement- 2020-07 Street Improvements 10,000 10,000 CVAG 2020-08 Curb & Gutter Repair Road Maintenance 50,000 50,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 8 229 2020-09 2020-10 M EASURE A LOCALSimttlb AND ROADS PROGRAM Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation (Year 4/5 of Monitoring) Ramon Road Widening 2020-11 Vista Chino Bridge @WhitewaterRiver 2020-12 2020-13 2020-14 2020-15 2020-16 2020-17 E Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge @Palm Canyon Wash S Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge @Tahquitz Creek Tahquitz Creek Levee Certification Local Measure A Bond Payment (Year4 of 7) Gene Autry Trail Second Left Turn Lane Vista Chino Jefferson Street / 1-10Interchange Brid g e Widening/Rehabilitation Bridge/Roadway Widening New Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Replacement Road Maintenance Road Maintenance Traffic Improvements Expanded Freeway Interchange 5,000,000 32,500,000 95,000,000 9,100,000 9,170,000 2,000,000 6,800,000 500,000 50,000,000 15,000 100,000 50,000 10,000 150,000 10,000 1,102,000 100,000 50,000 TOTAL $ 244,161,000 $ 3,157,000 FY 2019-20 Page 2of8 230 M EASURE A LOCALSiNttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: PALM SPRINGS Prepared by: Joel Montalvo Phone # : 760-322-8339 Date: 2/ 27/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 4,262,614 2,296,000 6,558,614 Item No. Project Name / limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 Annual Sum,/ Seal Indian Canyon Dr. UPRR Bridge Widening S Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge Palm Canyon Wash Annual Asphalt Overlay Mid Valley Parkway Reimbursement-CVAG Curb & Gutter Repair Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation (Year 4/5 of Monitoring) Ramon Road Widening Vista Chino Bridge @Whitewater River E Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge @ Palm Canyon Wash S Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge @ TahquitzCreek Local Measure A Bond Payment (Year 5 of 7) Road Maintenance Road Widening & Bridge Replacement New Bridge Road Maintenance Street Improvements Road Maintenance Bridge Widening/Rehabilitation Bridge/Roadway Widening New Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Replacement Road Maintenance $ 1,000,000 23,806,000 4,875,000 4,000,000 10,000 50,000 5,000,000 32,000,000 95,000,000 9,503,000 9,170,000 6,800,000 $ 500,000 490,000 100,000 500,000 10,000 50,000 15,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 1,102,000 2021-01 2021-02 2021-03 2021-04 2021-05 2021-06 2021-07 2021-08 2021-09 2021-10 2021-11 2021-12 TOTAL $ 191,214,000 $ 3,067,000 FY 2020-21 Page 3of8 231 M EASURE A LOCALbIIlLtib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: PALM SPRINGS Prepared by: Joel Montalvo Phone # : 760-322-8339 Date: 2/ 27/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2021/22 Measure AAllocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 3,491,614 2,353,000 5,844,614 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021 / 22 Mid -Valley Parkway Reimbursement-CVAG Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation (Year5/5 of Monitoring) Annual Asphalt Overlay Vista Chino Bridge @Whitewater River Local Measure A Bond Payment (Year 6 of 7) Street Improvements Bridge Widening/Rehabilitation Road Maintenance New Bridge Road Maintenance $ 1,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 95,000,000 6,800,000 $ 10,000 15,000 500,000 100,000 1,102,000 2022-01 2022-02 2022-03 2022-04 2022-05 TOTAL $ 111,800,000 $ 1,727,000 FY 2021-22 Page 4 of 8 232 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: PALM SPRINGS Prepared by: Joel Montalvo Phone # : 760-322-8339 Date: 2/ 27/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 4,117,614 2,412,000 6,529,614 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Annual 9urry Seal Road Maintenance $ 800,000 $ 50,000 2023-02 Annual Asphalt Overlay Road Maintenance 4,000,000 50,000 2023-03 Mid -Valley Parkway Reimbursement-CVAG Street Improvements 10,000 10,000 2023-04 Curb & Gutter Repair Road Maintenance 50,000 50,000 2023-05 Local Measure A Bond Payment Road Maintenance 6,800,000 1,102,000 (Year 7 of 7) TOTAL $ 11,660,000 $ 1,262,000 FY 2022-23 Page 5of8 233 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: PALM SPRINGS Prepared by: Joel Montalvo Phone # : 760-322-8339 Date: 2/ 27/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 5,267,614 2,472,000 7,739,614 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Annual 9urry Seal Road Maintenance $ 800,000 $ 50,000 2024-02 Annual Asphalt Overlay Road Maintenance 4,000,000 50,000 2024-03 Mid -Valley Parkway Reimbursement-CVAG Street Improvements 10,000 10,000 2024-04 Curb & Gutter Repair Road Maintenance 50,000 50,000 TOTAL $ 4,860,000 $ 160,000 FY 2023-24 Page 6of8 234 M EASURE A LOCAL SIKLLIS AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC TSTATUS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: PALM 9:RINGS Prepared by: Joel Montalvo 760-322-8339 2/ 27/ 2019 Phone #: Date: Item No. Project Name/Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Estthru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Annual Burry Seal -City Wide Road Maintenance $ 1,600,000 $ 700,000 Sept. 2018 Annual Project 2019-02 Bridge Repairs -City Wide Bridge Maintenance 100,000 1,000 On -Going On -Going Indian Canyon Dr. UPRR Bridge Road Widening & December Design, R/W & Util 2019-03 23,806,000 20,000 Widening Bridge Replacement 2023 Phase 2019-04 S Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge -Palm New Bridge 4,875,000 1,000 December Design, R/W Phase Canyon Wash 2022 2019-05 Traffic Safety Projects -City Wide Traffic Improvements 325,000 15,000 On -Going On -Going 2019-06 Annual Asphalt Overlay -City Wide Road Maintenance 4,000,000 853,000 Sept.2018 On -Going 2019-07 Mid -Valley Parkway Street Improvements 10,500 10,500 On -Going On -Going Reimbursement-CVAG 2019-08 Curb & Gutter Repair -City Wide Road Maintenance 57,000 50,000 On -Going On -Going 2019-09 Ramon Road Widening Bridge/Roadway 32,500,000 10,000 December Design, R/W Phase Widening 2022 Brid g e 2019-10 Bogert Trail Bridge Rehabilitation Widening/Rehabilitatio 5,000,000 7,000 3/1/2016 Year4 of 5 (Year4/5 of Monitoring) n 2019-11 Traffic MgmtCenter- Citywide Traffic Sgnal 2,100,000 17,500 April 2018 Completed Interconnect Improvements Project Rates Report FY18-19 Page 7of8 235 2019-12 2019-13 2019-14 2019-15 2019-16 2019-17 2019-18 2019-19 2019-20 2019-21 2019-22 Agua Caliente Museum Roadway/Hermosa Dr. Vista Chino Bridge @Whitewater River Pavement Condition arrvey E Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge @Palm Canyon Wash S Palm Canyon Dr. Bridge @ TahquitzCreek Jefferson Street / 1-10Interchange (Palm Springspayment) Local Measure A Bond Payment Gene Autry Trail Second Left Tum Lane @Vista Chino Vista Chino at Via Miraleste Traffic Sgnal N. Palm Canyon Dr. at Via Esc uela Traffic Sgnal N. Palm Canyon Dr. Pedestrian Crosswalks M EA SURE A LOCAL SIKLLIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Roadway Improvements New Bridge Road Maintenance Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Replacement Expanded Freeway Interchange Road Maintenance Traffic Improvements New Traffic Signal New Traffic Sgnal Pedestrian Improvements 1,300,000 95, 000, 000 100,000 9,100,000 9,170,000 50,000,000 6,800,000 450,000 550,000 630,000 400,000 3,200 20,000 77,500 2,000 3,100 16,100 1,102, 000 15,000 5,000 December 2017 December 2022 Jan-19 Dec-21 Dec-21 December 2018 Year4 of 7 Oct-19 Post Construction Design, R/W Phase Completed Environmental Phase Environmental Phase Construction Year4of7 Construction December Design/ 2019 Construction December Design/ 2019 Construction Dec-19 Construction TOTAL $ 247,873,500 $ 2,928,900 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 8of8 236 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF PERRIS 237 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF PERRIS HABIB MOTLAGH, CITY ENGINEER April 18, 2019 Jenny Chan Management Analyst, Planning and Programming Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 Re: Measure "A" Local Streets and Roads CIP FY 2019/20 — 2023/24 Annual Reports The City of Perris is providing the following documentation per your request of February 12, 2018: 1. City of Perris Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) FY 2019/20 — 2023/24; 2. Project Status Report for FY 2018/19 CIP Projects; and 3. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Signed Certification. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, abib Motlagh City Engineer CC: Richard Belmudez, City Manager Ron Carr, Interim Finance Director DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING 24 SOUTH D STREET, SUITE 100, PERRIS, GA 92570 TEL.: (951) 943 6504 FAX: (951) 943 8416 239 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Perris (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $1,218,470, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: q /619 , 2019 ichard delmudez, CI MA AGER ATTEST: SECRETARY 240 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: PERRIS Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 4,365,851 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,718,000 FY2018/19 Project Status Report expenses: (1,740,000) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 4,343,851 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 2,003,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 6,346,851 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Maint Program $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 2020-02 Annual Citywide Pothole Repairs Pavement Maint Pro g ra m 250,000 5,000 2020-03 Goetz Rd Intersections(ElIisAve to Perris Valley Channel) Widening & Pavement Rehab 8392,131 500,000 2020-04 Nuevo Bridge Widening and Road Improvements(Murrieta Rd to Dunlap Ave) Widening & Pavement Rehab 10,535,993 239,809 2020-05 Unpaved Streets& Alleys New Pavement 200,000 125,000 2020-06 Ramona Exwy Pavement Rehab (Webster Ave to Rider St) Widening & Pavement Rehab 2,000,000 1,000,000 2020-07 Citywide Pedestrian Improvements Pedestrian Improvements 600,000 300,000 TOTAL $ 23,478,124 $ 3,169,809 **Fund Balance ishigherthan normal due to delays in FY18/19with the Goetz Rd Improvements, Nuevo Rd Bridge, and Ramona Exwy Pavement Rehab projects. Construction for these projectsare planned to move forward in FY19/20 and the Measure A fund balance will be reduced to normal levels. FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 241 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: PERRIS Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 3,177,042 2,053,000 5,230,042 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Maint Pro g ra m $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 2021-02 Annual Citywide Pothole Repairs Pavement Maint Pro g ra m 100,000 100,000 2021-03 Downtown Pavement Rehab Pavement Maint Pro g ra m 1,500,000 500,000 2021-04 Ramona Exwy Pavement Rehab (Webster Ave to Rider St) Widening & Pavement Rehab 2,000,000 1,000,000 2021-05 Citywide Sdewalk Improvements Pedestrian Improvements 400,000 150,000 TOTAL $ 5,500,000 $ 3,250,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 242 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: PERRIS Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 1,980,042 2,104,000 4,084,042 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Maint Pro g ra m $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 2022-02 Annual Citywide Pothole Repairs Pavement Maint Pro g ra m 100,000 100,000 2022-03 A Street Widening (4th Street to Nuevo Rd) Widening & Pavement Rehab 2,000,000 1,000,000 2022-04 RedlandsAvenue Widening (Placentia Ave to Rider St) Widening & Pavement Rehab 2,500,000 500,000 TOTAL $ 6,100,000 $ 3,100,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 243 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: PERRIS Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 984,042 2,157,000 3,141,042 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Maint Pro g ram $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 2023-02 Annual Citywide Pothole Repairs Pavement Maint Pro g ra m 100,000 100,000 2023-03 Perris Blvd Widening & Rehab (4th a to 11th Si) Widening & Pavement Rehab 1,500,000 500,000 TOTAL $ 3,600,000 $ 2,600,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 244 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: PERRIS Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 541,042 2,211,000 2,752,042 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Maint Pro g ram $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 2024-02 Annual Citywide Pothole Repairs Pavement Maint Pro g ra m 100,000 100,000 TOTAL $ 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 245 M EASURE A LOCAL S1REEfS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PRO JEC T STA 11JS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: PERRIS Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Annual Citywide Slurry Seal & Overlay Pavement Maint Program $ 1,375,000 $ 1,375,000 On -Going On -Going Program 2019-02 Goetz Rd Intersections(DlisAve to Perris Valley Channel) Widening & Pavement Rehab g392,131 - 2020 Design & R/W Underway *2019-03 Rider Street & Storm Drain Crossing Storm Drain &Pedestrian Improvements 726,000 - 2020 Pending SCEPoIe Relocation 2019-04 Annual Citywide Pothole Repairs Pavement Maint Program 225,000 225,000 On -Going On -Going Program 2019-05 Unpaved Street & Alleys New Pavement 200,000 65,000 On -Going On -Going Program 2019-06 Ramona Exwy Pavement Rehab (Webster Ave to Rider St) Pavement Maint Program 2,000,000 - 2020 Preliminary Engineering 2019-07 Annual I-215 Maintenance (Landscape) Landscape Maint 50,000 - 2018 Complete 2019-08 Nuevo Bridge Widening and Road Improvements(Murrieta Rd to Dunlap Ave) Widening & Pavement Rehab 10,535,993 - 2020 Design & R/W Underway *2019-09 Sidewalk/Bike Path Install Pedestrian Improvements 35,000 35,000 2019 Complete *2019-10 Sidewalk & Pedestrian Ramps Pedestrian Improvements 263,713 40,000 2019 Complete *2019-11 Citywide Pedestrian Improvements Pedestrian Improvements 691,126 - 2019 Plans Underway TOTAL $ 24,493,963 $ 1,740,000 *Per FY2018/19Amendment No.1 request (Dated 4/18/2019),the City's FY 18/19 CIP includes Measure Afunding forthe projectsindicated above. These projectswere not on last year's5-year plan review. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 246 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE 247 This page left intentionally blank. CITY OF R NC MIRAGE Cf. May 6, 2019 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Re: FY 2020-2024 Measure "A" Local Street and Roads Capital Improvement Plan Dear Ms. Trevino: Attached are the Local Streets and Roads Program for Measure "A" Funds for FY 2020- 2024, project status report for prior year Plan (FY 2018/2019) and the FY 2019/2020 Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement. The City's maintenance of effort for FY 2019/2020 is $1,395,378, which exceeds our established maintenance of effort requirement of $674,811. The City's five-year Capital Improvement Program totals $60,885,000 and identifies Measure "A" local funds for the five-year plan totaling $7,072,000. The Measure A Fund Balance is projected to be $617,429 as a result of the 5-year Program. The City currently carries a balance of approximately $2,617,000 in the Measure "A" Local Fund account. Therefore, with current and projected future allocations, adequate funds appear to be available for the plan. Attached is the City's status report for our prior year Plan FYE June 30, 2019. Please feel free to call me at (760) 770-3224 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Jesse' Eckenroth Director of Public Works Enclosures: Measure "A" FY 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan Project Status Report FY 2018/2019 FY 2019/2020 MOE Certification Statement ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMCNT SERVICES FINANCE HOUSING' PUBLIC LIBRARY PUBLIC WORKS Tel. 1.760.324.4511 Tel. 1.760.328.2266 Tel. 1.760.770.3207 Tel. 1,760,770.3210 Tel. 1.760.341.7323 Tel, 1.760.770.3224 Fax.1.760.324.8830 Fax.1.760.324.9851 Fax.1.760.324.0528 Fax.1.760.324.1617 Fax.1.760.341.5213 Fax.1.760.770.3261 69-825 I-FIGI4WAY 111 / RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 www.RanchoMirageCA.gov www.RelaxRanchoMirage.corn r7< FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Rancho Mirage (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No, 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $674,811, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: ivvui to , 2019 CITY MANAGER ATTEST: SECRETARY 250 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: RANCHO MIRAGE Prepared by: William Enos Phone # : 760-770-3224 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 2,153,611 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 973,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (509,182) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 2,617,429 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 965,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 3,582,429 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays, Pavement Rehab. and striping on variouspublic streets identified by Micro Paver Preventive Maintenance $ 1,561,000 $ 1,561,000 2020-02 Frank Snatra Bridge at Whitewater Channel (PS&E) Replace Low Water Crossing 52,800,000 408,000 2020-03 Traffic Signal Coordination Grant Design and Construction Traffic Signal Coordination 2,696,000 660,000 TOTAL $ 57,057,000 $ 2,629,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 251 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: RANCHO MIRAGE Prepared by: William Enos Phone # : 760-770-3224 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 953,429 989,000 1,942,429 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 2021-01 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays, Pavement Rehab. and striping on variouspublic streetsidentified by Micro Paver Preventive Maintenance $ 828,000 $ 828,000 2021-02 Frank Snatra Bridge at WhitewaterChannel (PS&E) Replace Low Water Crossing 52,800,000 115,000 TOTAL $ 53,628,000 $ 943,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 252 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: RANCHO MIRAGE Prepared by: William Enos Phone # : 760-770-3224 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 999,429 1,014,000 2,013,429 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays, Pavement Rehab. and striping on variouspublic streetsidentified by Micro Paver Preventive Maintenance $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 2022-02 Frank Snatra Bridge at WhitewaterChannel (PS&E) Replace Low Water Crossing 52,800,000 750,000 TOTAL $ 53,800,000 $ 1,500,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 6 253 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: RANCHO MIRAGE Prepared by: William Enos Phone # : 760-770-3224 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 513,429 1,039,000 1,552,429 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays, Pavement Rehab. and striping on various public streets identified by Micro Paver Preventive Maintenance $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 2023-02 Frank Sinatra Bridge at Whitewater Channel (PS&E) Replace Low Water Crossing 52,800,000 500,000 TOTAL $ 53,800,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 254 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: RANCHO MIRAGE Prepared by: William Enos Phone # : 760-770-3224 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 552,429 1,065,000 1,617,429 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays, Pavement Rehab. and striping on various public streets identified by Micro Paver Preventive Maintenance $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 TOTAL $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 255 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RANCHO MIRAGE Prepared by: William Enos Phone # : 760-770-3224 Date: 5/6/2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Citywide slurry seal, crack seal, AC overlays, Pavement Rehab. and striping on variouspublic streets identified by Micro Paver Preventive Maintenance $ 1,400,000 $ 147,699 Sep. 2019 Ongoing -Crack Seal complete, Surry to follow. 2019-02 Frank Snatra Bridge at Whitewater Channel (PS&E) Replace Low Water Crossing 3,097,000 125,792 June 2021 Ongoing- PS&Ein final design. 2019-03 Traffic Sgnal Coordination Grant Design and Construction Traffic Sgnal Coordination 2,696,000 235,691 Dec 2019 Ongoing- PS&E complete, waiting for Caltrans review. TOTAL $ 7,193,000 $ 509,182 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 256 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF RIVERSIDE 257 This page left intentionally blank. C ri t r!Arts &Z Innovation April 18, 2019 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn.: Ms. Jenny Chan, Management Analyst, Planning and Programming Subject: Measure A Maintenance of Effort, CIP and Project Status Report Enclosed are the City of Riverside's FY 2019/20 Maintenance of Effort Certification Statement, Measure A Local Funds Capital Improvement Program for FY 2019/20 through FY 2023/24 and a status report for FY 2018/19. If you have any questions, please contact Patrick Keeney at (951) 826-2406 or pkeeney@riversideca.gov. Sincerely, Gilbert Hernandez Deputy Public Works Director/City '1' eer Attachments 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 I Phone: (951) 826-531 1 I RiversideCA.gov 259 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Riverside (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $12,449,203, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: March 19 2019 c Approved as to Form: Ruthann M. Salem Deputy City Attorney Rafael Guzman Assistant City rnager 4.sslslA4T CITY MANAGER ATTEST: Cogeen) J . Nicol City -Clerk SECRETARY 260 MEASURE A LOCALSIIlLt15 AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/20 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 18,318,771 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 8,073,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (4,718,000) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 21,673,771 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 7,886,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 29,559,771 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2019/20 Arlington Ave - Fairhaven to West City Limit Canyon Crest Widening -Via Vista/Country Club Central/Canyon Crest/Watkins Bike Lanes High Friction Surface & HAWK Sgnals Indiana Widening @Pierce Jurupa Extension - Rutland to Crest Jurupa Extension -Van Buren to Rutland Magnolia Ave - Buchanan St to Banbury Dr Major Street Rehabilitation Traffic Safety Improvements Street Widening Bike Lanes/Pedestrian Crossing Street & Pedestrian Sgnal Improvements Street Widening and Improvements New Street Construction New Street Construction Street Widening and Improvements Street Resurfacing $ 897 6,105 1,257 1,293 1,115 300 6,174 6,331 5,489 $ 378 1,650 215 195 420 300 1 2,665 3,089 2,400 * * * * * * * * * 2020-01 2020-02 2020-03 2020-04 2020-05 2020-06 2020-07 2020-08 2020-09 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 20 261 M EASURE A LOCALbIIlLt15 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2019/20 2020-10 Market Street Bridge Bridge Replacement 2,482 38 * Replacement 2020-11 MiscelllaneousRailroad Project Grade 1,375 247 * Management Se parations/Quiet Zones 2020-12 Mission Blvd Bridge Replacement Bridge Replacement 1,233 319 * 500 2020-13 Monroe Rehab - Lincoln to Street Rehabilitation 2,457 1,577 * Arlington & Resurfacing 2020-14 Paving ProjectsCOP- Debt Street Paving 3,000 3,000 Serivice** **Fora complete list of street projectsfinanced from the City of Riverside apportionment of Local Measure A funds(Certificatesof Participation), please see the attached Exhibit A. 2020-15 Quiet Zone/BNSF- Mission Quiet Zone for BNSF 4,020 37 * Inn/3rd/Spruce Railroad 757 2020-16 Quiet Zone/BNSF/UPRR- Cridge & Quiet Zone for BNSF& 6,937 2,064 * Panorama UP Railroads 2020-17 Quiet Zone/UPRR- Brockton & Quiet Zone for UP 2,288 1,536 * Palm Railroad 2020-18 RRGrade Separation - Iowa Grade Separation - 32,227 1,403 * Avenue Iowa @BNSF 2020-19 RRGrade Separation - Riverside Grade Separation - 31,184 347 * Avenue Riverside @UPRR 2020-20 RRGrade Separation -Streeter Grade Separation - 33,971 378 * Avenue Streeter @ UPRR 2020-21 Tyler Widening -Wellsto Hole Street Widening and 11,633 35 * Improvements FY 2019-20 Page 2of20 262 MEASURE A LOCALSIIlLt15 AND ROADS PRO GRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2019/20 2020-22 Van Buren Widening - Washington to Wood 2020-23 Arterial Interconnections 2020-24 Magnolia - Buchanan to First 2020-25 Traffic Sgnal Revisions 2020-26 2020-27 New Traffic Sgnals University -Chicago to Campus 2020-28 Transportation Planning 2020-29 2020-30 2020-31 Pavement Management Pro g ra m ControllerAxcmbly Replacement LED Sgnal Lenses Replacement 2020-32 Spread Spectrum Radio Replacement 2020-33 Traffic Management Center Street Widening Sgnal Coordinations Sgnal Coordination Sgnal Modifications New Traffic Sgnals Sgnal Coordination Engineering Planning Ongoing Annual Expenditure Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance Sgnal Coordination 453 41 2,804 164 455 50 99 250 83 31 23 80 47 * 1 * 40 289 * 64 * 100 205 * 250 50 * 49 * 50 125 * 125 13 * 70 11 * 20 13 * 10 30 * 50 FY 2019-20 Page 3of20 263 M EASURE A LOCALbIIlLt15 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2019/20 2020-34 Traffic Sgnal Loop Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal 30 5 Maintenance 25 2020-35 Traffic Planning/Investigations Traffic Engineering 444 144 300 2020-36 San Andreas/Glenwood Drainage Improvemer 675 98 Improvements 2020-37 Active Transportation Master Plan Traffic Engineering 200 200 2020-38 Interconnected Traffic Sgnal Sgnal Modifications 1,120 560 Controller Replacement 2020-39 Railroad Grade Separation - Grade Separation - 50,917 1,136 Magnolia Magnolia @UPRR TOTAL $ 219,687 $ 27,631 "*"Denotesestimated fundscarried overfrom FY2018/19. FY 2019-20 Page 4of20 264 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: 1,928,771 8,083,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 10,011,771 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2020/21 Quiet Zone/BNSF- Mission Quiet Zone for BNSF $ 4,020 $ 773 2021-01 Inn/3rd/Spruce Railroad 2021-02 Transportation Planning Engineering Planning 50 50 Pavement Management Ongoing Annual 125 125 2021-03 Program Expenditure 2021-04 Traffic Planning/Investigations Traffic Engineering 300 300 Paving ProjectsCOP- Debt 3,000 3,000 2021-05 Service Street Paving 2021-06 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,400 2,400 1,233 250 Mission Blvd Bridge Replacement Bridge Replacement 2021-07 2021-08 MarKet Street bridge Ronlnnomonr Bridge Replacement 2,482 250 2021-09 Traffic Signal Revisions Signal Modifications 100 100 2021-10 Arterial Interconnections Signal Coordinations 40 40 FY 2020-21 Page 5 of 20 265 M EASURE A LOCALSIFatIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2021-11 Traffic Management Center Sgnal Coordination 50 50 2021-12 New Traffic Sgnals New Traffic Signals 250 250 ControllerAxcmbly Ongoing Traffic 70 70 2021-13 Replacement Sgnal Maintenance Dread oectrum Radio Ongoing Traffic 10 10 2021-14 Replacement Sgnal Maintenance 2021-15 LED Sgnal Lenses Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 20 20 2021-16 Traffic Sgnal Loop Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 25 25 TOTAL $ 14,175 $ 7,713 FY 2020-21 Page 6 of 20 266 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: 2,298,771 8,285,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 10,583,771 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2021/22 Quiet Zone/BNSF- Mission Quiet Zone for BNSF $ 4,020 $ 788 2022-01 Inn / 3 rd /Spruce Railroad 2022-02 Transportation Planning Engineering Planning 50 50 Pavement Management Ongoing Annual 125 125 2022-03 Program Expenditure 2022-04 Traffic Planning/Investigations Traffic Engineering 300 300 2022-05 raving rrojectsuur- uebt �n ;, o Street Paving 3,000 3,000 2022-06 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,400 2,400 2022-07 marKet Street triage Ronlnromon# Bridge Replacement 2,482 150 2022-08 Traffic Sgnal Revisions Sgnal Modifications 100 100 2022-09 Arterial Interconnections Sgnal Coordinations 40 40 2022-10 Traffic Management Center Sgnal Coordination 50 50 2022-11 New Traffic Sgnals New Traffic Sgnals 250 250 FY 2021-22 Page 7 of 20 267 M EASURE A LOCALSIFatIS AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) ControllerAncombly Ongoing Traffic 70 70 2022-12 Replacement Signal Maintenance Spread Spectrum Radio Ongoing Traffic 10 10 2022-13 Replacement Signal Maintenance 2022-14 LED Signal Lenses Replacement Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance 20 20 2022-15 Traffic Signal Loop Replacement Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance 25 25 TOTAL $ 12,942 $ 7,378 FY 2021-22 Page 8 of 20 268 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: 3,205,771 8,492,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 11,697,771 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2022/23 Quiet Zone/BNSF- Mission Quiet Zone for BNSF $ 4,020 $ 804 2023-01 Inn/3rd/Spruce Railroad 2023-02 Transportation Planning Engineering Planning 50 50 Pavement Management Ongoing Annual 125 125 2023-03 Program Expenditure 2023-04 Traffic Planning/Investigations Traffic Engineering 300 300 Paving Projects COP- Debt 3,000 3,000 2023-05 Se rvic e Street Paving 2023-06 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,400 2,400 2023-07 Traffic Sgnal Revisions Sgnal Modifications 100 100 2023-08 Arterial Interconnections Sgnal Coordinations 40 40 2023-09 Traffic Management Center Sgnal Coordination 50 50 2023-10 New Traffic Sgnals New Traffic Sgnals 250 250 FY 2022-23 Page 9 of 20 269 M EASURE A LOCALSIFat15 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) Controller Assembly Ongoing Traffic 70 70 2023-11 Replacement Sgnal Maintenance Spread Spectrum Radio Ongoing Traffic 10 10 2023-12 Replacement Sgnal Maintenance 2023-13 LED Signal Lenses Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 20 20 2023-14 Traffic Sgnal Loop Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 25 25 TOTAL $ 10,460 $ 7,244 FY 2022-23 Page 10 of 20 270 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick M. Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: 4/ 18/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ 4,453,771 Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: 8,704,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 13,157,771 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) 2023/24 Quiet Zone/BNSF- Mission Quiet Zone for BNSF $ 4,020 $ 870 2024-01 Inn/3rd/Spruce Railroad 2024-02 Transportation Planning Engineering Planning 50 50 Pavement Management Ongoing Annual 125 125 2024-03 Program Expenditure 2024-04 Traffic Planning/Investigations Traffic Engineering 300 300 Paving Projects COP- Debt 3,000 3,000 2024-05 Service Street Paving 2024-06 Major Street Rehabilitation Street Resurfacing 2,400 2,400 2024-07 Traffic Signal Revisions Signal Modifications 100 100 2024-08 Arterial Interconnections Signal Coordinations 40 40 2024-09 Traffic Management Center Signal Coordination 50 50 2024-10 New Traffic Signals New Traffic Sgnals 250 250 FY 2023-24 Page 11 of 20 271 M EASURE A LOCALSIFat15 AND ROADS PROGRAM Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost ($000's) Measure A Funds ($000's) Controller Assembly Ongoing Traffic 70 70 2024-11 Replacement Sgnal Maintenance Spread Spectrum Radio Ongoing Traffic 10 10 2024-12 Replacement Sgnal Maintenance 2024-13 LED Signal Lenses Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 20 20 2024-14 Traffic Sgnal Loop Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 25 25 TOTAL $ 10,460 $ 7,310 FY 2023-24 Page 12 of 20 272 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-01 Arlington Ave - Fairhaven to West City Limit Traffic Safety Improvements $ 897 $ 18 Oct-18 Construction complete. Project close out in process. 2019-02 Bike Conflict Zone Improvements Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing 95 21 3/24/2017 Project complete. 2019-03 Campbell & Babb Ave Sidewalks Sdewalk Construction 499 - 6/13/2017 Project complete. 2019-04 Canyon Crest Widening -Via Vista/Country Club Street Widening 6,105 - Unknown Project on hold. 2019-05 Central Ave at UPRR Crossing Railroad Crossing Improvements 227 - 8/4/2017 Project complete. 2019-06 Central/Canyon Crest/Watkins Bike Lanes Bike Lanes/Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 1,257 - 6/30/2020 Design in progress. 2019-07 High Friction Surface & HAWK Sgnals Street & Pedestrian Sgnal Improvements 1,293 - 6/30/2020 Design in progress. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 13 of 20 273 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-08 Indiana Widening @Pierce Street Widening and Improvements 1,115 - Aug-12 Pending billing from school district. 2019-09 Iowa Ave Railroad Crossing Railroad Crossing 339 - 8/4/2017 Project complete. Improvements Improvements 2019-10 Jurupa Extension - Rutland to Crest New Street Construction 300 - Unknown Pending environmental clearance and developer construction schedule. 2019-11 Jurupa Extension -Van Buren to New Street 6,174 - 2/28/2021 Construction complete. Rutland Construction Required environmental mitigation still underway. 2019-12 Magnolia Ave - Buchanan St to Street Widening and 6,331 195 Summer2020 Design in progress. Banbury Dr Improvements Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 14 of 20 274 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: RIV ERSI D E Patrick Keeney (951) 826-2406 April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-13 2019-14 2019-15 2019-16 2019-17 2019-18 2019-19 Major Street Rehabilitation Market Street Bridge Replacement Miscelllaneous Railroad Project Management Mission Blvd Bridge Replacement Monroe Rehab - Lincoln to Arlington Paving Projects COP- Debt Serivice** Street Resurfacing Bridge Replacement Grade Separations/Quiet Bridge Replacement Street Rehabilitation & Resurfacing Street Paving 4,480 2,482 1,375 1,233 2,457 2,999 1,391 71 681 2,999 6/ 30/ 2039 6/ 30/ 2024 6/ 30/ 2039 6/ 30/ 2022 Spring 2021 6/ 30/ 2034 Ongoing annual expenditure. City share for County administered project. Ongoing project management. City share for County administered project. Project being constructed in phases. Annual debt service. **Fora complete list of street projectsfinanced from the City of Riverside apportionment of Local Measure A funds(Certificatesof Participation), please see the attached Exhibit A. Quiet Zone/BNSF- Buchanan to Jane Quiet Zone for BNSF Railroad 12,749 11/17/2016 Project complete. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 15 of 20 275 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: RIV ERSI D E Patrick Keeney (951) 826-2406 April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-20 Quiet Zone/BNSF- Mission Inn/3rd/Spruce Quiet Zone for BNSF Railroad 4,020 3 6/30/2022 Design in progress. 2019-21 Quiet Zone/BNSF/UPRR-Cridge & Panorama Quiet Zone forBNSF& UP Railroads 6,937 2 12/31/2020 Design in progress. 2019-22 Quiet Zone - Perris Valley Line Quiet Zone for Perris Valley Line 5 - 3/2/2017 Project complete. 2019-23 Quiet Zone/UPRR- Brockton & Palm Quiet Zone for UP Railroad 2,288 15 6/30/2020 Design in progress. 2019-24 RRGrade Separation - Iowa Avenue Grade Separation - Iowa @BNSF 32,227 (958) 11/9/2015 Construction complete. Project close out in process. 2019-25 RRGrade Separation -Riverside Avenue Grade Separation - Riverside @UPRR 31,184 28 3/2/2017 Construction complete. Project close out in process. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 16 of 20 276 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: RIV ERS D E Patrick Keeney (951) 826-2406 April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-26 RRGrade Separation -Streeter Avenue Grade Separation - Streeter@UPRR 33,971 1 1/25/2017 Construction complete. Project close out in process. 2019-27 Tyler Widening -Wellsto Hole Street Widening and Improvements 11,633 2 6/9/2017 Construction complete. Project close out in process. 2019-28 Van Buren Widening - Washington to Wood Street Widening 453 283 Unknown City share for County administered project. On hold pending County identifying additional funding for right-of-way. 2019-29 Arterial Interconnections Sgnal Coordinations 40 39 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-30 Magnolia - Buchanan to First Sgnal Coordination 2,804 28 Summer2019 Construction in p ro g re ss. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 17 of 20 277 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-31 Traffic Sgnal Revisions Signal Modifications 114 50 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-32 New Traffic Sgnals New Traffic Sgnals 460 255 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-33 University -Chicago to Campus Sgnal Coordination 50 - Unknown On hold pending additional funding. 2019-34 Protect/Permit Left Tums Sgnal Modifications 140 - 6/30/2018 Project complete. 2019-35 Transportation Planning Engineering Planning 50 1 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-36 Pavement Management Program Ongoing Annual Expenditure 125 - 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-37 ControllerAmbly Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 85 72 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 18 of 20 278 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: Prepared by: Phone #: Date: RIV ERS D E Patrick Keeney (951) 826-2406 April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-38 LED Signal Lenses Replacement Ongoing Traffic Signal Maintenance 20 9 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-39 Spread Spectrum Radio Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 21 8 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-40 Traffic Management Center Sgnal Coordination 76 47 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-41 Traffic Sgnal Loop Replacement Ongoing Traffic Sgnal Maintenance 40 35 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-42 Traffic Planning/Investigations Traffic Engineering 300 156 6/30/2039 Ongoing annual expenditure. 2019-43 Minor areets Rehab Street Resurfacing 1,881 - 4/14/2017 Project complete. 2019-44 San Andreas/Glenwood Improvements Drainage Improvement 675 27 Summer 2019 Construction in progress. 2019-45 Active Transportation Master Traffic Engineering 200 - Dec-19 Design in progress. Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 19 of 20 279 M EASURE A LOCALS1REEfS AND ROADS PRO GRAM PROJECT STATUS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDE Prepared by: Patrick Keeney Phone # : (951) 826-2406 Date: April 6, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost ($000's) Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/ 30/ 2019) ($000's) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2019-46 Interconnected Traffic Sgnal Signal Modifications 1,120 - Dec-19 Design in progress. Controller Replacement 2019-47 Railroad Grade Separation - Grade Separation - 50,917 (783) 11/27/2013 Construction complete. Magnolia Magnolia @UPRR Project close out in process. TOTAL $ 234,243 $ 4,718 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 20 of 20 280 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF SAN JACINTO 281 This page left intentionally blank. 1141 ir SAN JACINTO May 6, 2019 Theresia Trevino Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Attn: Jenny Chan, Management Analyst, Planning and Programming RE: 2020-24 Measure "A" Improvement Plan and 2018-19 Status Report Enclosed please find the City of San Jacinto's proposed 5-year capital improvement plan. Also enclosed is a status report of the currently adopted 5-year plan and the MOE certification. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please call me at 951-487-7330 (ext 389) or Habib Motlagh at 951-654-3592 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, it)i,eittaeOefkib' Michelle Holmes Finance Director 595 S. San Jacinto Ave. San Jacinto, CA 92583 Ph (951) 654-7337 Fax (951) 654-3728 www.sanjacintoca.gov 283 FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the City of San Jacinto (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $156,391, approved by the Commission at its September 14, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. Dated: April 29, 2019 CITY A ATTEST: 284 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: SAN JACINTO Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: 5/ 1/2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 3,907,573 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 926,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (1,740,618) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 3,092,955 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 927,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 4,019,955 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Sanderson Ave. Safety Imp (HSIP- 8). C ity's C IP 17-004. Safety Imp. & Slurry Seal $ 1,265,000 $ 365,000 2020-02 Slurry Seal (citywide) - City'sCIP 18-002 Road Rehab -Slurry Se a I Pro g ra m 500,000 250,000 2020-03 ATP II - Bike Lanes (Inc. pavement widening). City'sCIP 18-005 Bicycle facilities- infrastructure project 1,170,000 624,250 2020-04 Mountain Ave. Rehab -7th to Esplanade. City's CIP 12-008 Pavement Rehab 660,000 305,000 2020-05 Cottonwood Ave. Sdewalks& minor widening. City'sCIP17-002 Road Widening & SW 720,000 320,000 2020-06 Traffic Control Devices/Studies. City's CIP 02-019 Traffic Safety 64,000 35,000 2020-07 Esplanade Ave. Widening - Sanderson to Warren, Traffic SgnaIs& SW Install Road Widening per General Plan & TUMF Network 5,405,000 705,000 2020-08 Hewitt St. Pavement Rehab, Minor Widening & SD. City'sCIP 07-011 Road Widening and Re h a b 1,040,000 490,000 2020-09 Citywide traffic signal upgrades- Ph 1 Traffic Safety/Traffic Row Improvements 260,000 70,808 2020-10 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 74,160 74,160 TOTAL $ 11,158,160 $ 3,239,218 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 285 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: SAN JACINTO Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: May 1, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 780,737 950,000 1,730,737 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 2021-01 Ramona Exp Rehab -Sanderson to West City Limits. City'sCIP 18- 003 Pavement Rehab $ 2,400,000 $ 1,000,000 2020-02 Esplanade Ave. Widening - Sanderson to Warren, Traffic Signals& SW Install. City'sCIP 06- 145 Road Widening per General Plan & TUMF Network 5,164,000 75,000 2021-03 Esplanade Ave. Rehab -State to San Jacinto. City'sCIP 14-004 Pavement Rehab 569,400 269,400 2021-04 Traffic Sgnal Upgrades Ph 2. CIP 10-001B. Traffic Row/Safety 150,000 75,000 2021-05 Palm Ave at Cottonwood Ave. - Traffic Sgnal Install. CIP 10-002 Traffic Row/Safety 430,284 25,000 2021-06 State St. Rehab - Ramona Exp to So. City limits. CIP20-002 Pavement Rehab 1,300,000 65,000 2021-07 Traffic Control Devices/Studies. C ity's C IP 02-019 Traffic Safety 65,000 35,000 2021-08 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 76,000 76,000 TOTAL $ 10,154,684 $ 1,620,400 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 286 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: SAN JACINTO Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: May 1, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 110,337 974,000 1,084,337 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Citywide Pavement Rehab/Slurry Seal Program Pavement Management Prog $ 500,000 $ 250,000 2022-02 Traffic Stud ies�Surveys/Improv. Traffic Safety Imp. 35,000 20,000 2022-03 Administrative Overhead Adm. Overhead 77,920 77,920 TOTAL $ 612,920 $ 347,920 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 287 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: SAN JACINTO Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: May 1, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 736,417 998,000 1,734,417 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Warren Road Pavement Rehab & Minor Drainage Imp.- Ramona Exp. To Esplanade. CIP20-004 Pavement Rehab $ 3,250,000 $ 1,500,000 2023-02 Esplanade Ave. Wid. - Sanderson to Palm Ave. CIP21-003 Road Widening per Gen. Plan and IUMF Network 3,750,000 75,000 2023-03 Traffic Stud ies/Surveys/Improv. Traffic Safety Imp. 75,000 45,000 2023-04 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 79,840 79,840 TOTAL $ 7,154,840 $ 1,699,840 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 288 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: SAN JACINTO Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone # : 951-943-6504 Date: May 1, 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 34,577 1,023,000 1,057,577 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Citywide Pavement Rehab & Slurry Seal Program Pavement Management $ 1,000,000 $ 750,000 2024-02 Esplanade Ave. Wid. -Sanderson to Palm Ave. CIP21-003 Road Widening per Gen. Plan and IUMF Network 3,750,000 140,000 2024-03 Warren Road Pavement Rehab & Minor Drainage Imp.- Ramona Exp. To Esplanade. CIP20-004 Pavement Rehab 2,500,000 75,000 2024-04 Administrative Overhead Administrative Overhead 81,840 81,840 TOTAL $ 7,331,840 $ 1,046,840 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 289 M EASURE A LOCALSIid:LIS AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJECT STATUS FORT FY 2018/ 19 Agency: SAN JACINTO Prepared by: Habib Motlagh Phone #: 951-943-6504 Date: May 1, 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Estthru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status Citywide Pavement Rehab AKA 2019-01 Downtown Imp Pavement Rehab 2,000,000 $ 1,332,028 Fall2018 Complete Sanderson Ave. Safety Imp (HSIP- Env., Design & RW complete. Consin 2019-02 8) Safety Improvements 1,200,000 67,944 Jan.2020 FY19/20 Road Rehab - Surry Scope of Work 2019-03 Surry Seal (citywide) Seal Program 1,000,000 10,000 30-Jun-20 defined. ATPII- BikeLanes(Inc.pavement widening) Bicycle facilities - infrastructure project Bid advertisement 2019-04 685,000 30-Jun-20 underway Mountain Ave. Rehab - 7th to Reprogrammed to 2019-05 Esplanade Pavement Rehab 305,000 - 30-Jun-20 FY2019/20 RequiresCoord. Ramona Exp Rehab -Sanderson W/Co of Riverside. 2019-06 to West City Limits Pavement Rehab 448,000 - FY2020/21 Moved to FY20-21 2019-07 Traffic Control Devices/Studies Traffic Safety 46,202 15,536 On -going On -going Program Esplanade Ave. Rehab -State to 2019-08 Palm Pavement Rehab 245,000 244,790 Simmer2018 Complete Reprogrammed to 2019-09 Cottonwood Ave. Sdewalks Road widening & SW 520,000 Sept. 2020 FY2019/20 2019-10 De Anza Dr. St. ImprovementE Sidewalk & Minor Wid. 52,319 - Sept. 2018 Completed Administrative 2019-11 Administrative Overhead Overhead 70,320 70,320 on -going On -going cost TOTAL $ 6,571,841 $ 1,740,618 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6of6 290 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF TEMECULA 291 This page left intentionally blank. FY 2019/20 MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The undersigned agrees and certifies for the city of Temecula (the "Agency") that sales tax transportation funds received pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-001 of the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Measure A") shall be used in compliance with the Commission's Maintenance of Effort Guidelines and a base year amount of $1,431,799, approved by the Commission at its July 13, 2011 meeting, and that the Agency shall not use such funds to replace discretionary local funds previously expended by the Agency for local transportation purposes. The Agency hereby acknowledges that the failure of the Agency to continue such local expenditure shall result in a reduction or loss of Measure A funds. Additionally, the Agency commits to expending Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds for projects listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan as approved by Riverside County Transportation Commission. V i he i CITY MA G R — Aaron d s ATTE SECRETARY — Randi Johl 293 This page left intentionally blank. M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: TEMECULA Prepared by: Julie Tarrant Phone # : (951) 694-6463 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 4,243,589 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 3,354,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,588,710) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 5,008,879 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 3,211,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 8,219,879 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 Pavement Rehab Program - Street Reconstruction 2020-01 Citywide & Rehabilitation $ 11,987,445 $ 5,701,509 Right of way maintenance and repairsto include: Citywide Street Maintenance striping/stenciling , PC C & AC repairs, Street & ROW maintenance of 2020-02 Program drainage facilities 2,008,540 2,008,540 TOTAL $ 13,995,985 $ 7,710,049 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 295 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/ 21 Agency: TEMECULA Prepared by: Julie Tarrant Phone #: (951) 694-6463 Date: 6-May-19 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 631,461 3,291,000 3,922,461 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/21 Pavement Rehab Program - Street Reconstruction 2021-01 Citywide & Rehabilitation $ 3,201,243 $ 1,283,089 Right of way maintenance and repairsto include: Citywide Street Maintenance striping/stenciling, PC C & AC repairs, Street & ROW maintenance of 2021-02 Program drainage facilities 2,008,540 2,008,540 TOTAL $ 5,209,783 $ 3,291,629 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 296 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: TEMECULA Prepared by: Julie Tarrant Phone #: (951) 694-6463 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 630,832 3,373,000 4,003,832 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 Pavement Rehab Program - Street Reconstruction 2022-01 Citywide & Rehabilitation $ 3,281,652 $ 1,325,135 Right of way maintenance and repairsto include: Citywide Street Maintenance striping/stenciling, PC C & AC repairs, Street & ROW maintenance of 2022-02 Program drainage facilities 2,008,540 2,008,540 TOTAL $ 5,290,192 $ 3,333,675 FY 2021-22 Page 3 of 6 297 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/ 23 Agency: TEMECULA Prepared by: Julie Tarrant Phone #: (951) 694-6463 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 630,832 3,457,000 4,087,832 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 Pavement Rehab Program - Street Reconstruction 2023-01 Citywide & Rehabilitation $ 3,364,034 $ 1,368,387 Right of way maintenance and repairsto include: Citywide Street Maintenance striping/stenciling, PC C & AC repairs, Street & ROW maintenance of 2023-02 Program drainage facilities 2,008,540 2,008,540 TOTAL $ 5,372,574 $ 3,376,927 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 298 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/ 24 Agency: TEMECULA Prepared by: Julie Tarrant Phone #: (951) 694-6463 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 509,830 3,543,000 4,052,830 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/24 Pavement Rehab Program - Street Reconstruction 2024-01 Citywide & Rehabilitation $ 3,447,606 $ 1,412,829 Right of way maintenance and repairsto include: Citywide Street Maintenance striping/stenciling, PC C & AC repairs, Street & ROW maintenance of 2024-02 Program drainage facilities 2,008,540 2,008,540 TOTAL $ 5,456,146 $ 3,421,369 FY 2023-24 Page 5 of 6 299 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: TEMECULA Prepared by: Julie Tarrant Phone # : 951-694-6463 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status Pavement Rehab Program - Annual pavement On -going annual 2019-01 Citywide Street Reconstruction & Rehabilitation $ 1,363,544 $ 1,000,000 rehabilitation program projects Right of way maintenance and repairston include: 2019-02 Citywide Street Maintenance Program striping/stenciling, PCC & AC Repairs, Street & ROW maintenance drainage facilities 1,940,894 1,588,710 Annual right of way maintenance On -going right of way maintenance TOTAL $ 3,304,438 $ 2,588,710 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 300 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS CITY OF WILDOMAR 301 This page left intentionally blank. Marsha Swanson, Mayor, Dist. 5 Dustin Nigg, Mayor Pro Tem, Dist. 2 Ben J. Benoit, Council Member, Dist. 1 Bridgette Moore, Council Member, Dist. 4 Joseph Morabito, Council Member, Dist. 3 May 2, 2019 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Jenny Chan Subject: Measure A 5-Year CIP for FY 2019/20 — 2023/24 Dear Ms. Chan 23873 Clinton Keith Rd, Ste 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 951/677-7751 Phone 951/698-1463 Fax www.CitpfWildomar.org Enclosed is the following: 1. Five Year CIP for FY 2019/20 — 2023/24 2. Project Status Report for FY 2018/19 3. The City is not submitting a MOE Certificate because our base is zero dollars The City of Wildomar proposes an amendment to the FY 2018/19 Measure A CIP to better reflect the construction and project design activities required for this fiscal year. Please see the FY 2018/19 Project Status Report for details. The added projects as shown with an (1. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely; City Dan York, , PLS Assistant Ci Manager Director of Public Works/City Engineer 303 This page left intentionally blank. M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: WILDOMAR Prepared by: Dan York Phone # : 951-677-7751 X216 Date: 5/ 1/2019 FY 2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ (15,086) FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 675,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (544,576) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 115,338 Estimated FY 2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 680,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 795,338 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2019/ 20 2020-01 Public Works Cost Allocation Interfund Transfer $ 54,400 $ 54,400 2020-02 CIPProj. Admin. & Engineering Admin./Engineering 2,323,285 573,900 2020-03 CIPPavement Program Construction 700,000 100,000 TOTAL $ 3,077,685 $ 728,300 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 305 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM I FY 2020/21 Agency: WILDOMAR Prepared by: Dan York Phone # : 951-677-7751 X216 Date: 5/ 1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2020/21 Projects: $ 67,038 697,000 764,038 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2020/ 21 2021-01 Public Works Cost Allocation Interfund Transfer $ 55,760 $ 55,760 2021-02 CIPProj. Admin & Engineering Admin/Engineering 1,957,080 573,900 2021-03 CIP Pavement Program Construction 700,000 100,000 TOTAL $ 2,712,840 $ 729,660 FY 2020-21 Page 2 of 6 306 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM I FY 2021/22 Agency: WILDOMAR Prepared by: Dan York Phone # : 951-677-7751 X216 Date: 5/ 1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2021/22 Projects: $ 34,378 714,000 748,378 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2021/22 2022-01 Public Works Cost Allocation Interfund Transfer $ 57,120 $ 57,120 2022-02 CIPAdmin. & Engineering Admin. / Engineering 1,723,500 573,900 2022-03 CIP Pavement Program Construction 700,000 100,000 TOTAL $ 2,480,620 $ 731,020 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 307 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM I FY 2022/23 Agency: WILDOMAR Prepared by: Dan York Phone # : 951-677-7751 X216 Date: 5/ 1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 17,358 732,000 749,358 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2022/23 2023-01 Public Works Cost Allocation Interfund Transfer $ 58,560 $ 58,560 2023-02 CIPAdmin. & Engineering Admin. / Engineering 763,000 573,900 2023-03 CIP Pavement Program Construction 700,000 100,000 TOTAL $ 1,521,560 $ 732,460 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 308 M EASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS PRO GRAM I FY 2023/24 Agency: WILDOMAR Prepared by: Dan York Phone # : 951-677-7751 X216 Date: 5/ 1/2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2023/24 Projects: $ 16,898 750,000 766,898 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 2023/ 24 2024-01 Public Works Cost Allocation Interfund Transfer $ 60,000 $ 60,000 2024-02 CIPAdmin. & Engineering Admin. / Engineering 762,000 573,900 2024-03 CIP Pavement Program Construction 700,000 100,000 TOTAL $ 1,522,000 $ 733,900 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 309 M EASURE A LOCALSlia±is AND ROADS PROGRAM PRO JECTSTA 1US REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: WILDOMAR Prepared by: Dan York Phone # : 951-677-7751 X216 Date: 5/1/2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status 2018/19 2019-01 Public Works Cost Allocation InterFund Transfer $ 54,000 $ 54,000 ongoing annual program 2019-02 Accessibility Imp. Maintenance 19,231 19,231 ongoing annual program 2019-03 Road Safety Imp. Maintenance 32,990 32,990 ongoing annual program 2019-04 Pavement Program Maintenance 68,593 68,593 ongoing annual program 2019-05 Citywide Gen. Maint. Maintenance 186,651 186,651 ongoing annual program 2019-06* Grand Ave & CKBike Path 1 Construction 312,003 18,579 complete 2019-07* Grand Ave & CKBike Path 2 Construction 259,762 12,821 complete 2019-08* Pedestrian Countdown Heads Design 545,000 29,665 10/1/2019 In Design 2019-09* Guardrail Improvements Design 435,000 47,918 8/1/2019 In Design 2019-10* Sedco Sdewalk Imp. Construction 412,243 74,128 5/30/2019 In Construction TOTAL $ 2,325,473 $ 544,576 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page6of6 310 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEASURE A LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 311 This page left intentionally blank. rCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE MoahedSalama, P.E. TRANSPORTATION AND Deputy for Transportation/Capital Projects %9TlON� C��,, Richard Lantis, P.L.S. LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Deputy for Transportation/Planning and Patricia Romo, P.E. Development Director of Transportation Transportation Department Ms. Jenny Chan Management Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 S. Lemon St., Third floor Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Measure A Local Streets and Roads Program Dear Ms. Chan: May 2, 2019 Attached is the County's five-year program of projects for the County's portion of Measure A funds for Fiscal Year 2020/2024. The County's Transportation Department receives no general funds and no certification of MOE is included. Also attached is a copy of our Fiscal Year 2018/2019 plan with comments addressing project status. We have scheduled expenditures based on revenue projections. Three reports are attached representing the Western, Coachella Valley and the Palo Verde Valley unincorporated regions of the county. These projects are incorporated in the County's proposed Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) which is planned for Board approval. We will inform your agency of any changes that occur to the Measure A program due to future revisions of the County's TIP. If you have any questions concerning this program, please feel free to contact me at (951) 955-6740. Sincerely, Patricia Romo Director of Transportation RKN: attachments cc: Robert Brooks Yolanda Gordon Roy Null (transmittal only) 4080 Lemon Street, 8« Floor • Riverside, CA 92501 • (951) 955-6740 P.O. Box 1090 • Riverside, CA 92502-1090 • FAX (951) 955-3198 313 This page left intentionally blank. M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY -CV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 1,194,076 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 1,866,000 FY2018/19 Project Status Report expenses: (2,020,044) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,040,032 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure A Allocation: 1,886,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 2,926,032 Item No. Project Name / limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2019/ 20 2020-01 SLURRY SEALOF4TH DISTRICT Slurry seal $ 2,274,000 $ 380,000 4 ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) 2020-02 661H AVE Grant St -- Ha yes St Reconstruct RMS paved road 473,000 330,000 4 2020-03 CALHOUN ST: 54th Ave to 52nd Ave Reconstruct AC paved road 544,000 399,000 4 2020-04 SLURRY SEALOF4TH DISTRICT Slurry seal 2,745,000 1,106,000 4 ROADSFY19/20 (Districtwide) 2020-05 AURORA RD: Lang loisRd to WIy LangloisRd .62mi Resurface AC paved road 612,000 440,000 4 2020-06 BUBBLING WELLSRD: Dillon Rd to Camino Campanero Resurface AC paved road 1,545,000 271,032 4 TOTAL $ 8,193,000 $ 2,926,032 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 315 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-CV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 1,933,000 1,933,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Siapv. Dist. 2020/ 21 2021-01 SLURRY SEAL OF4THDISTRICT Slurry seal $ 3,199,000 $ 1,125,000 4 ROADSFY20/21 (Districtwide) 2021-02 COACHELLA VALLEY AREA: Resurfacing program in Coachella Valley 808,000 808,000 4 variousroads-- TOTAL $ 4,007,000 $ 1,933,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2of6 316 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-CV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 1,981,000 1,981,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 9apv. Dist. 2021/22 2022-01 SLURRY SEAL OF4THDISTRICT Slurry seal $ 1,650,000 $ 1,162,000 4 ROADSFY21/22 (Districtwide) 2022-02 COACHELLA VALLEY AREA: Resurfacing program in Coachella Valley 819,000 819,000 4 variousroads-- TOTAL $ 2,469,000 $ 1,981,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 317 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-CV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure A Available forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 2,031,000 2,031,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Siapv. Dist. 2022/ 23 2023-01 SLURRY SEAL OF4INDISTRICT Slurry seal $ 1,675,000 $ 1,200,000 4 ROADSFY22/23 (Districtwide) 2023-02 COACHELLA VALLEY AREA: Resurfacing program in Coachella Valley 831,000 831,000 4 variousroads-- TOTAL $ 2,506,000 $ 2,031,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 318 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-CV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure A Available forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 2,082,000 2,082,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Siapv. Dist. 2023/ 24 2024-01 SLURRY SEAL OF4INDISTRICT Slurry seal $ 1,700,000 $ 1,225,000 4 ROADSFY23/24 (Districtwide) 2024-02 COACHELIA VALLEYAREA: Resurfacing program in Coachella Valley 857,000 857,000 4 variousroads-- TOTAL $ 2,557,000 $ 2,082,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 319 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC T STA TUS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-CV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone # : 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status Supv. Dist. 2018/ 19 2019-01 SLURRY SEAL OF41H DISTRICT Surry seal 2,274,000 1,520,000 10/31/2019 Under construction 4 ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) 2019-02 661H AVE Grant St -- Hayes St Reconstruct RMS paved road 473,000 19,000 9/30/2019 Under construction 4 2019-03 CALHOUN ST: 54th Ave to 52nd Ave Reconstruct AC paved road 544,000 1,000 9/30/2019 Under construction 4 2019-04 POLKST: 76th Ave to 70th Ave Resurface RMS paved road 650,000 480,044 2/28/2019 Complete 4 TOTAL $ 3,941,000 $ 2,020,044 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 320 M EASURE A LOCAL S!Fitt IS AND ROADS PRO GRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY-PVV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 328 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A Revenue: 199,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (199,328) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 208,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2019/20 Projects: $ 208,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2019/ 20 CHIP SEAL OF41H DISTRICT ROADS FY19/20 (Districtwide) Chip seal $ 2,235,000 $ 208,000 4 2020-01 TOTAL $ 2,235,000 $ 208,000 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 321 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNTY-PVV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2020/21 Measure AAllocation: $ Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 213,000 213,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2020/ 21 CHIP S_AL OF4IH DISIIACT ROADSFY20/21 (Districtwide) Chip seal $ 3,199,000 $ 213,000 4 2021-01 TOTAL $ 3,199,000 $ 213,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2of6 322 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNTY-PVV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2021/22 Measure AAllocation: $ Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 218,000 218,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2021/22 CHIP S_AL OF4IH DISIIACT ROADSFY21/22 (Districtwide) Chip seal $ 2,000,000 $ 218,000 4 2022-01 TOTAL $ 2,000,000 $ 218,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 323 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNTY-PVV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2022/23 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure A Available forFY2022/23 Projects: $ 223,000 223,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2022/ 23 CHIP SEAL OF4TH DISIRICT ROADSFY22/23 (Districtwide) Chip seal $ 2,000,000 $ 223,000 4 2023-01 TOTAL $ 2,000,000 $ 223,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 324 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNTY-PVV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY2023/24 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure A Available forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 229,000 229,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2023/24 CHIP SEALOF4TH DISIRICT ROADSFY23/24 (Districtwide) Chip seal $ 2,000,000 $ 229,000 4 2024-01 TOTAL $ 2,000,000 $ 229,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 325 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC T STA TUS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-PVV Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone # : 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status Supv. Dist. 2018/ 19 CHIPSEALOF4TH DISTRICT ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) Chip seal $ 1,794,000 $ 199,328 6/15/2019 Under construction 4 2019-01 TOTAL $ 1,794,000 $ 199,328 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 326 M EASURE A LOCAL SiRetib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2019/ 20 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-WESTERN Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 FY2017/18 Audited Measure A Balance: $ 124,856 FY2018/19 (Revised) Measure A (Revenue: 5,819,000 FY 2018/ 19 Project Status Report expenses: (4,753,000) Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: 1,190,856 Estimated FY2019/20 Measure AAllocation: 5,920,000 Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2019/20 Projects: $ 7,110,856 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Supv. Dist. 2019/20 2020-01 SLURRY SEAL OF1ST DISTRICT Surryseal $ 3,048,000 $ 374,000 1 ROADS FY18/19 (Districtwide) 2020-02 SLURRY SEAL OF 1ST DISTRICT Surryseal 869,000 869,000 1 ROADSFY19/20 (Districtwide) 2020-03 SLURRY SEAL OF2NDDISTRICT Surryseal 1,352,000 164,000 2 ROADS FY18/19 (Districtwide) 2020-04 SLURRY SEAL OF2NDDISTRICT Surryseal 815,000 815,000 2 ROADSFY19/20 (Districtwide) 2020-05 SLURRY SEAL OF3RDDISTRICT Surryseal 1,872,000 230,000 3 ROADS FY18/19 (Districtwide) 2020-06 SLURRY SEAL OF3RDDISTRICT Surryseal 2,158,000 2,158,000 3 ROADSFY19/20 (Districtwide) 2020-07 SLURRY SEAL OF51HDISTRICT Surryseal 429,000 74,000 5 ROADS FY18/19 (Districtwide) 2020-08 SLURRY SEAL OF51HDISTRICT Surryseal 913,000 913,000 5 ROADSFY19/20 (Districtwide) 2020-09 I-10 BYPASS Hargrave St -- Construct road 107,044,000 100,000 5 Apache Trl 2020-10 Cajalco Rd: Brown St to Day St Construct turning lanes and shoulderwidening 6,298,000 50,000 1 2020-11 SerfasClub Dr: Sly Pine Crest Construct sidewalk 703,000 67,000 2 .07mi to Monterey Peninsula Dr 2020-12 Mitchell Rd: Bautista Rd to Kirby Rd Resurface AC paved road 2,264,000 100,000 3 2020-13 Integrated Mitigation Project: W9y of Briggs Rd to Sly Camino De Los Cab Const channel improvementsasenv mitigation for projects 2,379,000 800,000 3 2020-14 Gilman Springs Rd, Phase 4A: SEIyAlessandro 1.7mito SEly Widen should ersand add painted median 16,484,000 396,856 5 Bridge St 1mi TOTAL $ 146,628,000 $ 7,110,856 FY 2019-20 Page 1 of 6 327 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2020/21 Agency: RIVERSDECOUNIY-WESTERN Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2020/21 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure AAvailable for FY2020/21 Projects: $ 6,068,000 6,068,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Siapv. Dist. 2020/ 21 2021-01 SLURRY SEAL OF1STDISIRICT Slurry seal $ 2,081,000 $ 2,081,000 1 ROADSFY20/21 (Districtwide) 2021-02 SLURRY SEAL OF2ND DISTRICT Slurry seal 352,000 352,000 2 ROADS FY20/21 (Districtwide) 2021-03 SLURRY SEAL OF3RDDISTRICT Slurry seal 2,603,000 2,603,000 3 ROADSFY20/21 (Districtwide) 2021-04 SLURRY SEAL OF5IHDISTRICT Surryseal 1,032,000 1,032,000 5 ROADSFY20/21 (Districtwide) TOTAL $ 6,068,000 $ 6,068,000 FY 2020-21 Page 2of6 328 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2021/22 Agency: RIVERSDECOUNIY-WESTERN Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2021/22 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure AAvailable forFY2021/22 Projects: $ 6,220,000 6,220,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Siapv. Dist. 2021/22 2022-01 SLURRY SEAL OF 1 ST D ISTRICT Slurry seal $ 2,133,000 $ 2,133,000 1 ROADSFY21/22 (Districtwide) 2022-02 SLURRY SEAL OF2ND DISTRICT Slurry seal 361,000 361,000 2 ROADS FY21/22 (Districtwide) 2022-03 SLURRY SEAL OF3RD DISTRICT Slurry seal 2,668,000 2,668,000 3 ROADSFY21/22 (Districtwide) 2022-04 SLURRY SEAL OF 51H DISTRICT Surryseal 1,058,000 1,058,000 5 ROADSFY21/22 (Districtwide) TOTAL $ 6,220,000 $ 6,220,000 FY 2021-22 Page 3of6 329 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2022/23 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-WESTERN Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2022/23 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure A Available for FY2022/23 Projects: $ 6,376,000 6,376,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds Siapv. Dist. 2022/ 23 2023-01 SLURRY SEAL OF 1 ST D ISTRICT Slurry seal $ 2,187,000 $ 2,187,000 1 ROADSFY22/23 (Districtwide) 2023-02 SLURRY SEAL OF2ND DISTRICT Slurry seal 370,000 370,000 2 ROADS FY22/23 (Districtwide) 2023-03 SLURRY SEAL OF3RD DISTRICT Slurry seal 2,735,000 2,735,000 3 ROADSFY22/23 (Districtwide) 2023-04 SLURRY SEAL OF51H DISTRICT Slurry seal 1,084,000 1,084,000 5 ROADS FY22/23 (Districtwide) TOTAL $ 6,376,000 $ 6,376,000 FY 2022-23 Page 4of6 330 M EASURE A LOCALSttttib AND ROADS PROGRAM FY 2023/24 Agency: RIVERSIDECOUNIY-WESTERN Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone #: 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Estimated Prior Year Measure A Balance: $ Estimated FY 2023/24 Measure A Allocation: $ Estimated Measure A Available forFY2023/24 Projects: $ 6,535,000 6,535,000 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Project Cost Measure A Funds 9apv. Dist. 2023/ 24 2024-01 SLURRY SEAL OF1STDISTRICT Slurry seal $ 2,242,000 $ 2,242,000 1 ROADSFY23/24 (Districtwide) 2024-02 SLURRY SEAL OF2ND DISTRICT Slurry seal 379,000 379,000 2 ROADS FY23/24 (Districtwide) 2024-03 SLURRY SEAL OF3RD DISTRICT Slurry seal 2,803,000 2,803,000 3 ROADSFY23/24 (Districtwide) 2024-04 SLURRY SEAL OF51H DISTRICT Slurry seal 1,111,000 1,111,000 5 ROADS FY23/24 (Districtwide) TOTAL $ 6,535,000 $ 6,535,000 FY 2023-24 Page 5of6 331 M EASURE A LOCALSIhittlb AND ROADS PROGRAM PROJEC T STA TUS REPO RTFY 2018/ 19 Agency: RIVERSIDE COUN-Y-WESTERN Prepared by: Andrew Martin Phone # : 951-955-6841 Date: 5/ 6/ 2019 Item No. Project Name / Limits Project Type Total Cost Anticipated Measure A Funds Expended (Est thru 6/30/2019) Estimated/ Actual Completion Status Supv. Dist. 2018/ 19 2019-01 SLURRY SEAL OF1STDISTRICT Surryseal $ 3,048,000 $ 2,121,000 9/30/2019 Under construction 1 ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) 2019-02 SLURRY SEALOF2ND DISTRICT Surry seal 1,352,000 929,000 9/30/2019 Under construction 2 ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) 2019-03 SLURRYS_AL OF3RD DISTRICT Surry seal 1,872,000 1,306,000 9/30/2019 Under construction 3 ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) 2019-04 SLURRYS_AL OF51H DISTRICT Surry seal 429,000 297,000 10/31/2019 Underconstruction 5 ROADSFY18/19 (Districtwide) 2019-05 1-10 BYPASS Hargrave St -- Construct road 107,044,000 100,000 10/31/2024 Ongoing 5 Apache Trl TOTAL $ 113,745,000 $ 4,753,000 Project Status Report FY18-19 Page 6 of 6 332 AGENDA ITEM 9F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program Funding Distribution and Draft Fund Estimate BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding distribution among the three geographic areas in Riverside County per the adopted STIP Intracounty Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The STIP is a five-year program of projects administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). It is updated every two years outlining the commitment and programming of transportation funds for the State's multimodal transportation system including highways, rail, transit, local roads, and bike and pedestrian facilities. In June of every odd year, Caltrans is required to prepare a draft STIP Fund Estimate (FE) that estimates how much funding will be available for programming for the next five-year period. The CTC will release the 2020 STIP FE at its June 26, 2019 meeting. The 2020 STIP will cover fiscal years (FY's) 2020/21 through 2024/25. Each STIP cycle adds on two years with most of the programming capacity available in the last two years. STIP funds are allocated into two broad programs — the Regional Improvement Program (RIP) receives 75 percent of the total STIP funds, and the remaining 25 percent is directed to Caltrans for its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program. The 75 percent RIP funding is further subdivided by formula into county shares. County shares are available solely for projects nominated by regional agencies. The 2020 STIP FE also establishes funding levels for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, which Caltrans prepares in consultation with the regions. STIP Intracounty Formula Distribution Per the Commission's STIP intracounty formula distribution, STIP funds are allocated to Western County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley based on the most recent fiscal year taxable sales by geographic area used for Measure A allocations. The geographic area percentages of taxable Agenda Item 9F 66 sales applied to the 2014 through 2020 STIPs demonstrates a growing trend in Western County compared to Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys: Geographic Area 2014 STIP 2016 STIP 2018 STIP 2020 STIP Western County 75.17% 75.76% 77.30% 78.12% Coachella Valley 24.12% 23.54% 22.11% 21.45% Palo Verde Valley 0.71% 0.70% 00.59% 00.43% Per the STIP Intracounty distribution formula, each geographic area will receive funding based on the above percentages. In addition, STIP guidelines allow up to 5 percent of RIP funding for planning, programming, and monitoring (PPM) activities. However, the Commission's policy is to set aside 2 percent for PPM activities to fund Project Study Reports, planning, and staff costs associated with STIP funding and programming. PPM funding is available for CVAG and Commission activities. Draft 2020 STIP Fund Estimate On June 25, 2019, CTC staff released the Draft 2020 STIP Fund Estimate (FE), which identified county share targets for each region in the state. Unfortunately, the FE is lower than anticipated. New programming capacity statewide is $490,426,000, and the county share target for Riverside County is approximately $10,220,000. CTC staff indicated that the programming capacity is only available in the last two years of the 2020 STIP cycle, FYs 2023/24 and 2024/25. The table below reflects the 2 percent off the top for PPM activities, and the amounts for each geographic area, per the Commission's STIP MOU Intracounty formula distribution. Draft 2020 STIP FE — Riverside County Share Target Total Riverside County Share $ 10,220,000 Less: 2 percent PPM 204,400 Total New Project Programming $ 10,015,600 Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley 2020 STIP Project Selection Process Western Riverside County 78.12 percent 21.45 percent 00.43 percent $ 7,824,187 $ 2,148,346 $ 43,067 Western Riverside County projects are nominated by staff. Recommendations for current and new projects for STIP funds will be considered and based on the 2019-29 Delivery Plan, consistency with Measure A, and other high priority projects approved by the Commission. Per the funding distribution for Western County, $7,824,187 is available. An additional $50 million is also available for programming resulting from the Commission's action to advance the 1-15 Agenda Item 9F 67 Express Lanes Southern Extension project. The CTC approved the Commission's AB 3090 Replacement request, which allowed the $50 million of STIP originally programmed through the 2018 STIP cycle to be reprogrammed to another project. Staff will be recommending the reprogramming of the $50 million in STIP funds either through a STIP amendment or as part of the 2020 STIP cycle. Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) nominates its projects and notifies Commission staff for final concurrence and submittal to the CTC. Per the funding distribution for Coachella Valley, $2,148,346 is available for programming. Staff will review the programming process and timeline with CVAG staff and present CVAG's recommended projects to the Commission for inclusion in the 2020 STIP submittal. The funding available for Palo Verde Valley is $43,067. Palo Verde Valley projects are nominated by the city of Blythe (Blythe); however, given the minor amount of funding and complexity in processing these funds, the Commission and Blythe have executed MOUs in past STIP cycles trading Palo Verde Valley STIP funds with Measure A Western Riverside County Highway funds. The city of Blythe is required to include the STIP traded funds in its Measure A Local Street and Roads Capital Improvement Plan. Upon CTC's adoption of the 2020 STIP in March 2020, staff will move forward with preparing the 2020 STIP MOU with Blythe. Status of Current 2018 STIP Programming The current 2018 STIP projects for Riverside County include the following environmental, right of way, and construction phases as follows: 2018 STIP — Riverside County (Approved by CTC in March 2018) Agency Project Phase FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Total STIP Temecula I-15/French Valley IC C $47,600,000 $47,600,000 Caltrans/ RCTC SR-60 Truck Climbing/ Descending Lanes C $31,555,000 31,555,000 RCTC/ CVAG PPM C $668,000 $1,800,000 $971,000 3,439,000 Riverside County Avenue 66 Grade Separation C $6,130,000 6,130,000 CVAG CV Link, Phase 1 C 18,655,000 18,655,000 RCTC/ Lake Elsinore I-15/Railroad Canyon IC C 2,920,000 2,920,000 *RCTC 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension E 50,000,000 50,000,000 Totals $38,353,000 $21,575,000 $49,400,000 $971,000 $50,000,000 $160,299,000 *AB 3090 Replacement project TBD C=Construction E=Environmental IC=Interchange PPM=Planning, Programming, and Monitoring Agenda Item 9F 68 Projects in FY 2018/19 from the above table have been allocated with the exception of the Avenue 66 Grade Separation, which will be allocated in August 2019. Projects programmed in FY 2019/20 are expected to be allocated as scheduled. Projects programmed in FY's 2020/21 and 2021/22 will be reviewed for carryover into the 2020 STIP. The CTC approved an AB 3090 replacement project for the 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension, as the Commission approved moving forward with the environmental document phase using federal funds. The replacement project will be selected as part of the 2020 STIP development. The CTC will adopt the Final STIP FE at its August 14-15, 2019 meeting. There is a possibility that the Final FE will differ from the Draft FE; therefore, staff will report any changes at the September Commission meeting. The 2020 STIP submittal is due to the CTC by December 15, 2019. CTC adoption of the 2020 STIP is scheduled for March 2020. There is no fiscal impact to the Commission related to the adoption of the 2020 STIP funding distribution. Agenda Item 9F 69 AGENDA ITEM 9G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ariel Tapia Alcon, Management Analyst Alfredo Machuca, Management Analyst Intern LoreIle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: 2019 Title VI Program Report Update, including Public Participation Plan and Language Assistance Plan BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the 2019 Title VI Program Report, including the Public Participation Plan and Language Assistance Plan in compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and amendments protects persons in the United States from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Commission's commitment to ensuring that its services are delivered and implemented in accordance with Title VI is described in the Non -Discrimination notice and procedures that were adopted by the Commission on October 10, 2012. The existing practices conform to Caltrans' requirements for implementing Title VI and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. However, as a recipient of FTA funds, requirements for implementing Title VI are more extensive and include the adoption of a Title VI Program under the guidelines set forth in FTA Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. The Commission is unique in that it is a recipient of FTA funds (through the Rail Program); however, it is not a transit operator or a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Nevertheless, since FTA funds were utilized for the development of various RCTC-owned Metrolink stations, the FTA Title VI requirements and guidelines apply. The institution -wide application of Title VI has been emphasized at recent FTA workshops since the Circular was revised in 2016 with the assertion that, "Title VI covers all of the operations of covered entities without regard to whether specific portions of the covered program or activity are federally Agenda Item 9G 70 funded...Recipients are responsible for ensuring that all of their activities are in compliance with Title VI. In other words, a recipient may engage in activities not described in the Circular, such as ridesharing program, roadway incident response program, or other programs not funded by FTA, and those programs must also be administered in a nondiscriminatory manner." (p. II-1) The Circular has general requirements and guidelines for all recipients and additional requirements for fixed route transit providers, states, and MPOs. As the regional transportation planning agency and county transportation commission, only the general requirements and guidelines, as listed below, are applicable to the Commission. 1) Title VI Notice to the Public — A notice shall be posted in public locations and website, including language that the recipient complies with Title VI and instructions on how to file a Title VI complaint to the Commission and directly to the FTA. 2) Title VI Complaint Procedures and Complaint Form — Procedures on filing a complaint shall be developed for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints. A complaint form must also include the necessary information and questions to conduct an investigation. 3) List of transit -related Title VI investigations, complaints, or lawsuits — FTA requires that files of investigations, complaints, or lawsuits that pertain to allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in transit -related activities and programs be maintained for three years and a list of cases be held for five years. 4) Public Participation Plan — An established process or plan shall promote inclusive public participation and describe the proactive strategies, procedures, and desired outcomes of a recipient's public participation activities. 5) Language Assistance Plan — Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, information, and other important portions of its programs or activities for persons who are limited -English proficient. 6) A table depicting the membership on non -elected committees and councils, broken down by race — This pertains to transit -related, non -elected planning boards, advisory councils or committees. 7) Monitoring procedures for subrecipients — The Commission had two subrecipients during this reporting period, Metrolink and Riverside Transit Agency. Since both subrecipients are also direct recipients of FTA funds and submit a Title VI report directly, the Commission is not required to monitor their Title VI procedures. 8) Title VI equity analysis for the site and location of facilities — "Facilities" included in this provision include, but are not limited to, storage facilities, maintenance facilities, operations centers, etc. Recipients are required to complete an equity analysis, including the impacts of various siting alternatives, during the planning stage with regard to where a project is located or sited to ensure that the location is selected without regard to race, color, or national origin. 9) Documentation that the governing board has reviewed and approved the Title VI Program — A copy of meeting minutes or a resolution must be submitted with the Title VI Program Report. Agenda Item 9G 71 The Title VI Program was last updated in 2016 and is required to be updated every three years, or as necessary, when guidelines are revised or as compliance reviews require. FTA requires a review and update of the Title VI Program Report at least triennially. Upon approval of the Title VI Program, staff will submit the report to FTA via the Transit Award Management System. Concurrence and approval of the report by the FTA Regional Civil Rights Office is anticipated within 30 days. There is no financial impact to the Commission budget with the adoption of this program. Attachment: Title VI Program Report Agenda Item 9G 72 TITLE VI � PROGRAV REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Riverside, CA 92501 COMMISSION ION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Hoer If information is needed in another language, please contact (951 ) 787-7141 for free translation services. Si se necesita este documents en Espanol, Ilame al 95�3787-7141 para servicios de traduccian gratuitss, Table of Contents Introduction and Purpose 1 Background of RCTC 2 Title VI Notice to the Public 3 Title VI Complaint Procedures and Complaint Form 4 List of Transit -Related Title VI Investigations, Complaints, or Lawsuits 5 Public Participation Plan 5 Language Assistance Plan 5 Membership of Non -Elected Committees and Councils 6 Subrecipient Compliance 7 Title VI Equity Analysis for Determining the Site or Location of Facilities 7 Approval of the Title VI Program 8 Appendices Appendix A: Title VI Policy, Procedures, and Complaint Form (English and Spanish) Appendix B: Public Participation Plan Appendix C: Language Assistance Plan Appendix D: Documentation of Governing Body Approval 74 Introduction and Purpose Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects persons in the United States from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC or Commission) is committed to ensuring that its services are delivered and implemented in accordance with Title VI and other non-discriminatory regulations from the state and federal levels. As a state recipient, RCTC complies with the guidelines set forth by the State of California's (State) Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans requires local agencies to adopt a non-discriminatory notice, grievance procedures, complaint form, and a Coordinator of the program. These were approved by the Commission on October 10, 2012 for implementing Title VI and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). RCTC is also a recipient under the federal Department of Transportation (DOT). Under the DOT, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for implementing Title VI include the adoption of a Title VI Program report pursuant to FTA Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. The purpose of this report is to certify RCTC's compliance with FTA Circular 4702.1B every three years. As stated in Chapter II, page 1 of the Circular, RCTC will ensure that Title VI compliance is carried out in all of its programs and services, whether federally -funded or not, "Title VI covers all of the operations of covered entities without regard to whether specific portions of the covered program or activity are federally funded... In other words, a recipient may engage in activities not described in the Circular, such as ridesharing program, roadway incident response program, or other programs not funded by FTA, and those programs must also be administered in a nondiscriminatory manner." The Circular has general requirements for all recipients and additional guidelines for Fixed Route Transit Providers, States, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and County Transportation Commission (CTC), the following general requirements and guidelines apply: 1) Title VI Notice to the Public 2) Title VI Complaint Procedures 3) Title VI Complaint Form 4) List of transit -related Title VI investigations, complaints, or lawsuits 5) Public Participation Plan 6) Language Assistance Plan 1 75 7) A table depicting the membership on non -elected committees broken down by race 8) Monitoring procedures for Subrecipients 9) Title VI equity analysis for the site and location of facilities 10) Documentation that the governing board has reviewed and approved the Title VI Program The following sections of this report document how the Commission is in compliance with each requirement. Background of RCTC The Commission was established in 1976 by the State to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County. The governing body consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected official from each of the County's 28 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor of California. As the designated RTPA and CTC, its responsibilities include setting policies, establishing priorities, coordinating activities among the County's various transit operators and local jurisdictions. The public is most familiar with RCTC for its capital projects and motorist aid services. The various regional capital projects that RCTC is involved in throughout the County include the following: ✓ State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project ✓ State Route 91 High Occupancy Vehicle Project ✓ Mid -County Parkway ✓ Realignment of State Route 79 ✓ Expansion of Metrolink from Riverside to Perris ✓ State Route 60 Truck Climbing Lanes ✓ Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project ✓ State Route 91/71 Interchange Project ✓ Interstate 10/ State Route 60 Interchange The Commission also provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists; the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service that assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods; and Rideshare programs such as Inland Empire 511 (IE511), a traveler information system. 2 76 These programs and projects are funded with various local, state, and federal sources. Local funding sources consist of Measure A, the countywide sales tax; Debt proceeds, derived from issuing bonds; and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), derived from developer impact fees. State funding sources for projects are derived from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). RCTC also receives apportionments of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and FTA Sections 5307, 5309, 5337 formula funds. Additionally, the Commission was also awarded an FTA Small Starts grant for the Perris Valley Line. The Commission is unique in that it is not a transit provider like many other CTCs, however, does receive FTA formula funds (under the Rail Program) for transfer and expenditure for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink). Regardless of funding source, RCTC is committed to ensuring that its projects and services are delivered and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Title VI Notice to the Public Recipients must notify beneficiaries of protections under Title VI by posting a notice in public locations that confirms that the recipient complies with Title VI and provides instructions on how to file a Title VI complaint to RCTC and directly to the FTA. The following notice is available on RCTC's website, RCTC owned Metrolink stations, and at the front desk of RCTC's offices at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. RCTC operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, and national origin in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes she or he has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI may file a complaint with RCTC. For more information on RCTC's Title VI program, and the procedures to file a complaint, contact (951) 787-7141; email 1standiford@rctc.org; or visit our administrative office at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. For more information, you may also visit our website at www.rctc.ora for additional information and to download a complaint form under "About Us". 3 77 A complainant may file a complaint directly with the Federal Transit Administration by filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, Attention: Title VI Program Coordinator, East Building, 5t" Floor — TCR, 1200 New Jersey Avenue., SE, Washington, DC 20590. If information is needed in another language, contact (951) 787-7141. The notice is considered a vital document and is available in Spanish, consistent with DOT limited - English proficient (LEP) guidance and RCTC's Language Assistance Plan (LAP). The Spanish translation is also posted where English versions are located. See Appendix A for a complete English and Spanish version the Commission's Title VI Policy, Procedures, and Complaint form. Title VI Complaint Procedures and Complaint Form Requirements stipulate that recipients develop procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints filed against them and make their procedures for filing a complaint available to members of the public. Recipients must also develop a Title VI complaint form and make this form available. RCTC's Complaint Procedures and Complaint Form are provided in Appendix A. Similar to the Non -Discrimination policy requirements of Caltrans, the Deputy Executive Director, John Standiford, has been identified as the Civil Rights Liaison and will be the primary contact for addressing Title VI complaints. The procedures explain that any person, or group of persons, who believes that they have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin may file a complaint to RCTC, or directly to FTA. RCTC will render a decision within 15 days upon follow-up with the complainant. The Circular also requires that the recipient explicitly state that a complainant has the opportunity to submit a complaint directly to FTA and must provide the contact information for submitting a complaint. These documents are available on RCTC's website and at the front desk of RCTC's offices at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. In addition to the public notice, the complaint procedures and form are considered vital documents and as such are available in Spanish, consistent with the DOT LEP Guidance and RCTC's LAP. 4 78 List of Transit -Related Title VI Investigations, Complaints, or Lawsuits FTA requires that files of investigations, complaints, or lawsuits that pertain to allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in transit -related activities and programs be maintained for three years and a list of cases be held for five years. RCTC has not received any transit -related Title VI complaints, nor has it been involved in any transit -related Title VI investigations or lawsuits. Public Participation Plan Recipients are required to promote inclusive public participation and seek out and consider the needs and input of the general public, including interested parties and those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as minority and LEP persons. The Public Participation Plan is the established process or plan that describes the proactive strategies, procedures, and desired outcomes of a recipient's public participation activities. RCTC developed its Public Participation Plan by considering the demographic analysis of the population(s) affected, the type of plan, program, and/or service under consideration, and the resources available to the Commission. The Public Participation Plan is provided as Appendix B. Language Assistance Plan Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, information, and other important portions of its programs or activities for LEP populations. FTA Circular 4702.1B details the components of the Language Assistance Plan, including the Four Factor Analysis, which provides a careful analysis of LEP persons that the recipient may encounter to determine the specific language services that are appropriate to provide. 5 79 RCTC undertook the Four Factor Analysis and developed appropriate language assistance planning based on the results. The Commission then developed a Language Assistance Plan to assist it in effectively implementing the requirements and communicating with LEP individuals. The Language Assistance Plan is provided as Appendix C. Membership of Non -Elected Committees and Councils Recipients that have transit -related, non -elected planning boards, advisory councils or committees, or similar bodies, in which the membership is selected by the recipient, must provide a table depicting the racial breakdown of the membership of those committees, and a description of efforts made to encourage the participation of minorities on such committees or councils. RCTC has one transit -related committee that is applicable to this requirement, the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC). Section 99238 of the State Transportation Development Act (TDA) regulations requires the Commission to have a CAC/SSTAC as part of the oversight process in administering the TDA funds. The TDA allows stipulates the membership of this body: 1) One representative of a potential transit user 60 years of age and older; 2) One representative of a potential transit user who is disabled; 3) Two representatives of the social service providers for seniors; 4) Two representatives of the social service providers for the disabled, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists; 5) One representative of a social service provider for persons of limited means; and 6) Two representatives of a Consolidated Transportation Service Agency(s) designated as such pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, including one representative from an operator, if one exists. The CAC/SSTAC serves the Commission by participating in the transit needs hearing and reviewing the Short Range Transit Plans developed by public transit operators as part of the Commission's annual budget development process. Most importantly, the CAC/SSTAC provides a dialogue between citizen appointee representatives and the public transit and specialized transit programs of Riverside County around matters of mutual concern and provides the Commission with invaluable community feedback. 6 80 Appointments are for an initial three-year term and some are extended to ensure continuity of service for the CAC. The selection process of CAC members was broadly noticed in media, on the RCTC website, and in various outreach settings, including asking Commissioners for input and conducting individualized outreach to social service providers. In 2019, Commission staff anticipates that the existing CAC/SSTAC bylaws will be revised to expand the committee membership to include more social service agencies and transit providers to develop a more robust network that is more representative of the various populations in the county. Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Race Caucasian Latino African American Asian American Native American CAC/SSTAC 66.5% 33.5% 0% 0% 0% Subrecipient Compliance If a recipient is a primary recipient, which means any FTA recipient that extends federal financial assistance to a subrecipient, then it is required to ensure that subrecipients are complying with Title VI, including the submittal of a subrecipient's Title VI documents. In the last three years, RCTC had two subrecipients: the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), better known as Metrolink, and the Riverside Transit Agency. Both agencies are also direct recipients of FTA funds and submit a Title VI report directly. Per FTA Circular 4702.1B, Chapter III, page 11: "When a subrecipient is also a direct recipient of FTA funds, that is, applies for funds directly from FTA in addition to receiving funds from a primary recipient, the subrecipient/direct recipient reports directly to FTA and the primary recipient/designated recipient is not responsible for monitoring compliance of that subrecipient." Title VI Equity Analysis for Determining the Site or Location of Facilities This requirement stipulates that recipients should complete a Title VI equity analysis during the planning stage with regard to where a project is located or sited to ensure the location is selected without regard to race, color, or national origin. The equity analysis must include: 7 81 • Outreach to persons potentially impacted by the siting of facilities. • Comparison of the equity impacts of various siting alternatives, and the analysis must occur before the selection of the preferred site. The purpose of completing a Title VI analysis during the project development stage is to determine if a project will have disparate impacts on the basis of race, color, or national origin. If such impacts exist then the project may move forward with the proposed location if there is substantial legitimate justification for locating the project there, and there are no alternative locations that would have a less adverse impact on members of a group protected under Title VI. For purposes of this requirement, the Circular states that "facilities" does not include bus shelters, as they are transit amenities and are covered under the additional requirements for fixed route transit operators, nor does it include transit stations, power substations, etc., as those are evaluated during project development and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Facilities included in this provision include, but are not limited to, storage facilities, maintenance facilities, operations centers, etc. There have not been any projects in the last three years requiring an equity analysis. Approval of the Title VI Program All recipients are required to provide documentation such as meeting minutes, resolution, or other appropriate documentation showing that the governing body reviewed and approved the Title VI Program prior to submission to FTA. RCTC's Title VI Program was reviewed and approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on June 24, 2019 and forwarded to the full Commission for approval on July 10, 2019. Appendix D includes a copy of the meeting agenda and staff report. 8 82 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - English TITLE VI NOTICE, COMPLAINT PROCEDURES, AND COMPLAINT FORM REVISED JUNE 2019 In accordance with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 4702.1 B, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission or RCTC) is required to notify beneficiaries of protection under Title VI, develop complaint procedures, and develop a complaint form. These documents are considered vital and are translated into languages other than English, as needed and consistent with the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Guidance and the Commission's Language Assistance Plan (LAP). I. POLICY AND NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The Commission does not discriminate or exclude individuals from its programs, services, or activities on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The following notice shall be posted on the Commission's website, main reception area, and relevant publication materials: RCTC operates its programs and services without regard to race, color, and national origin in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Any person who believes she or he has been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI may file a complaint with RCTC. For more information on RCTC's Title VI program, and the procedures to file a complaint, contact (951) 787-7141; email jstandiford@rctc.org; or visit our administrative office at 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. For more information, you may also visit our website at www.rctc.org for additional information and to download a complaint form under "About Us". A complainant may file a complaint directly with the Federal Transit Administration by filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, Attention: Title VI Program Coordinator, East Building, 5th Floor - TCR, 1200 New Jersey Avenue., SE, Washington, DC 20590. If information is needed in another language, contact (951) 787- 7141. Si se necesita la informacion en otro idioma, flame al (951 ) 787- 7141. 83 Rev. 06/2019 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - English II. PROCEDURES FOR FILING, INVESTIGATING, AND TRACKING COMPLAINTS Any person, group of individuals, or entity that believes it has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by the Commission may file a complaint directly or through a representative with the Commission or the DOT FTA. Submission of Complaint to RCTC To file a complaint with RCTC, the complainant may contact the main reception at (951) 787-7141 to request a copy of the complaint form and procedures, or visit the website at www.rctc.org to download the complaint form and procedures. When possible, the complainant should complete the complaint form, or in writing provide information about the alleged discrimination containing the following: • Name of Complainant; • Address of Complainant; • Phone number of Complainant; • Date of incident; • Location of incident; and • Description of incident In cases where the complainant is unable or incapable of providing a written statement, the complainant may be interviewed or the complaint form may also be provided in alternative means such as audio or Braille. The complaint should be submitted as soon as possible but no later than 180 calendar days after the alleged violation to the Deputy Executive Director by email at jstandiford@rctc.org, postal mail, or in person at the following: Riverside County Transportation Commission John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P. O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 If the information provided is insufficient to conduct an investigation or render a decision, RCTC may request additional information from the complainant. Failure of the complainant to submit additional information within the designated time frame may be considered good cause to administratively close the case on the basis of lack of investigative merit. 84 Rev. 06/2019 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - English Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the complaint, RCTC's Deputy Executive Director, or designee, will request a meeting to discuss the alleged incident with the complainant. Within 15 calendar days of the discussion, RCTC will respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the complainant. The response will explain the position of RCTC and offer options for resolution of the complaint. If the complainant is n o t sa tisfie d with th e d e cision of the Deputy Executive Director, or designee, an appeal may be filed within 15 calendar days after receipt of the response, to RCTC's Executive Director. Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the appeal, the Executive Director, or designee, will request a meeting to discuss the alleged incident with the complainant. Within 15 calendar days after the meeting, the Executive Director or designee will respond in writing, and, where appropriate, in a format accessible to the complainant, with a final decision of the complaint. Submission of Complaint to FTA The complainant has the right to submit a complaint directly to the FTA, however, is encouraged to initially file with RCTC. As described in FTA Circular 4702.1 B, Chapter IX, to file with the FTA, the complaint must submitted no later than 180 days after the date of alleged discrimination at the address below, unless the time for filing is extended by FTA. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Civil Rights Title VI Program Coordinator East Building, 5th Floor - TCR 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Once a complaint has been accepted by FTA for investigation, FTA will notify RCTC that it is the subject of a Title VI complaint and ask RCTC to respond in writing to the complainant's allegations. If the complainant agrees to release the complaint to RCTC, FTA will provide RCTC with the complaint, which may have personal information redacted at the request of the complainant. If the complainant does not agree to release the complaint to RCTC, FTA may choose to close the complaint. FTA will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with DOT's Title VI regulations. The investigation will include, where 85 Rev.06/2019 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - English appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of RCTC, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with DOT's Title VI regulations occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with DOT's Title VI regulations. After FTA has concluded the investigation, FTA's Office of Civil Rights will transmit to the complainant and RCTC one of the following letters based on its findings: a. A letter of finding indicating FTA did not find a violation of DOT's Title VI regulations. This letter will include an explanation of why FTA did not find a violation. If applicable, the letter may include a list of procedural violations or concerns, which will put RCTC on notice that certain practices are questionable and that without corrective steps, a future violation finding is possible. b. A letter of finding indicating RCTC is in violation of DOT's Title VI regulations. The letter will include each violation referenced to the applicable regulation, a brief description of proposed remedies, notice of the time limit on coming into compliance, the consequences of failure to achieve voluntary compliance, and an offer of assistance to RCTC in devising a remedial plan for compliance, if appropriate. FTA will administratively close Title VI complaints before a resolution is reached where (1) the complainant decides to withdraw the case; (2) the complainant is not responsive to FTA's requests for information or to sign a consent release form; (3) FTA has conducted or plans to conduct a related compliance review of the agency against which the complaint is lodged; (4) litigation has been filed raising similar allegations involved in the complaint; (5) the complaint was not filed within 180 days of the alleged discrimination; (6) the complaint does not indicate a possible violation of 49 CFR part 21; (7) the complaint is so weak, insubstantial, or lacking in detail that FTA determines it is without merit, or so replete with incoherent or unreadable statements that it, as a whole, cannot be considered to be grounded in fact; (8) the complaint has been investigated by another agency and the resolution of the complaint meets DOT regulatory standards; (9) the complaint allegations are foreclosed by previous decisions of the Federal courts, the Secretary, DOT policy determinations, or the U.S. DOT's Office of Civil Rights; (10) FTA obtains credible information that the allegations raised by the complaint have been resolved; (1 1) the complaint is a continuation of a pattern of previously filed complaints involving the same or similar allegations against the same recipient or other recipients that have been found factually or legally insubstantial by FTA; (12) the same complaint allegations have been filed with another Federal, state, or local agency, and FTA anticipates that the recipient will provide the complainant with a comparable resolution process under comparable legal standards; or 86 Rev. 06/2019 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - English (13) the death of the complainant or injured party makes it impossible to investigate the allegations fully. Tracking of Complaints As required by FTA, all written complaints received by RCTC's Deputy Executive Director, or designee, appeals to the Executive Director, or designee, and responses from these two offices will be retained by RCTC for three years. In addition, a summary list of complaints will be tracked for five years as required. III. COMPLAINT FORM See Attachment A. If information is needed in another language, contact (951) 787- 7141. Si se necesita la informacion en otro idioma, Ilame al (951) 787-7141. 87 Rev. 06/2019 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTACHMENT A: TITLE VI DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT FORM Title VI Program - Appendix A The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participating in or denied the benefits of its services on the basis of race, color, or national origin as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Complaints must be filed within 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. The following information is necessary to assist RCTC in processing your complaint. If you require any assistance in completing this form, please contact the Civil Rights Officer, John Standiford, by calling (951) 787-7141. When completed, submit the original signed form or letter in person or by mail to: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P. O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 1. Contact Information: Complainant's Name: Address: City, State and Zip Code: Telephone: FOR QUESTIONS OR ASSISTANCE IN OTHER ACCESSIBLE FORMATS SUCH AS LARGE PRINT, TDD, AUDIO, OR OTHER PLEASE CALL: (951) 787-7141. USERS WITH HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRMENTS, USE THE CALIFORNIA RELAY SERVICE, 711, AND THEN THE NUMBER YOU NEED (home/work) (cell) What are the most convenient days and times for RCTC to contact you about this complaint? 2. Are you filing this complaint on your own behalf? Yes: ❑ No: ❑ If you answered yes, please go to question #3. If you answered no, please explain why you have filed for a third party: If you answered no, please confirm that you have obtained the permission of the aggrieved party if you are filing on behalf of a third party. Yes: ❑ No: ❑ Complaint Fign Page 1 of 3 3. Basis of discriminatory action(s): Check (❑ ) all categories below that apply to the act(s) of discrimination. a. Race b. Color c. National Origin 4. Date and place of alleged discriminatory action(s): Include the earliest date of discrimination and the most recent date of discrimination: Date: Location: Date: Location: 5. How were you discriminated against? Describe the nature of the action, decision, or conditions of the alleged discrimination. Explain as clearly as possible what happened and why you believe your protected status was a factor in the discrimination. Include how other persons were treated differently from you. (Attach additional page(s) if necessary). 6. Names of individuals responsible for the discriminatory action(s): Complaint Form Page 2 of 3 89 7. Names of individuals (witnesses, fellow employees, supervisors, or others) whom we may contact for additional information to support or clarify your complains: Name Address Telephone No. 8. Has this complaint been filed with any other Federal, State, or local investigative agency? No ❑ Yes ❑ If "yes," please provide the following information: Agency: Contact Person: Address: Telephone No.: Date Filed: 9. Please provide any additional information that you believe would assist in the investigation: You may attach any written materials or other information that you think is relevant to your complaint. Please sign and date this form: Signature of Complainant Date Si se necesita la informacion en otro idioma, !lame al (951) 787- 7141. Complaint Form Page 3 of 3 90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish AVISO, PROCEDIMIENTO DE QUEJAS Y FORMATO DE QUEJA DE TITULO VI ACTUALIZADO JUNIO 2019 De conformidad con los requisitos del Titulo VI del Decreto de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y la Circular 4702.1 B de la Administraci6n Federal de Transito (FTA, en ingl6s), la Comisi6n de Transporte del Condado de Riverside (Comisi6n o RCTC, por sus siglas en ingl6s) esta obligada a notificar a los beneficiarios de las protecciones bajo el Titulo VI, desarrollar procedimientos de queja y desarrollar un formato de queja. Estos documentos se consideran vitales y se traducen a otros idiomas diferentes al ingles, segun se considere necesario y de forma consistence con la Orientaci6n para el Dominio Limitado del Ingl6s (LEP, en ingl6s) del Departamento de Transporte (DOT, en ingl6s) y el Plan de Asistencia de Lenguaje de la Comisi6n (LAP, en ingl6s). I. POLITICAS Y AVISO AL PUBLICO Es politica de la Comisi6n de no discrimina o excluye a personas sobre la base de raza, color, u origen nacional en la admisi6n a sus programas, servicios o actividades, en el acceso a ellas, en el tratamiento o en cualquier aspecto de las operaciones. El siguiente aviso debe colocarse en el sitio web de la Comisi6n, en la zona de recepci6n principal y en los materiales impresos relevances: La RCTC opera sus programas y servicios sin tomar en cuenta el grupo etnico ni el origen nacional de conformidad con el Titulo VI del Decreto de Derechos Civiles. Cualquier persona que considere que ha sido objeto de cualquier practica discriminatoria ilegal bajo el Titulo VI puede presentar una queja contra la RCTC. Para mayor informaci6n sobre el programa de Titulo VI de la RCTC y los procedimientos para presentar una queja, comuniquese al (951)787-7141; envie un correo electr6nico a jstandiford@rctc.ora; o visite nuestras oficinas administrativas ubicadas en 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. Tambien puede visitarnuestra pagina web en www.rctc.org para informaci6n adicional y para descargar el formulario de queja bajo el apartado "Acerca de nosotros"(About Us, en ingl6s). Tambien puede presentar una queja directamente con la Administraci6n Federal de Transporte, por medio de la Oficina de Derechos Civiles, a la atenci6n del Coordinador del Programa de Titulo VI, East Building, 5th Floor TCR, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, 91 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish Washington, DC 20590. Si requiere informacion en otro idioma, favor de comunicarse al (951)787- 7141. II. PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA PRESENTAR, INVESTIGAR Y HACER SEGUIMIENTO DE LAS QUEJAS Cualquier persona, grupo de personas o entidad que considere haber sido sometido a discriminacion por motivos de grupo etnico u origen nacional por parte de la Comision, puede presentar una queja directamente o por medio de un representante ante la comision o la FTA del DOT. Presentacion de una queja contra la RCTC Para presentar una queja contra la RCTC, el reclamante puede ponerse en contacto con la recepcion principal al (951)787-7141 para solicitar una copia del formulario de queja y sus procedimientos, o puede visitar la pagina web www.rctc.org para descargar el formulario de queja y sus procedimientos. Siempre que sea posible, el reclamante debe completar el formulario, o proporcionar por escrito la informacion sobre la presunta discriminacion, la cual debe incluir to siguiente: • Nombre del reclamante; • Domicilio del reclamante; • Numero telefonico del reclamante; • Fecha del incidence; • Ubicacion del incidence; y • Descripcion del incidence En casos en los que el reclamante no pueda o sea incapaz de proporcionar una declaracion por escrito, se puede entrevistar al reclamante o este puede presentar su declaracion por un medio alternativo como audio o Braille. La queja debe presentarse ante el Subdirector Ejecutivo to antes posible, pero no mas de 180 dias naturales despues de la presunta infraccion, por correo electronico a jstandiford@rctc.org, por correo postal o en persona en el siguiente domicilio: Riverside County Transportation Commission John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P. O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA92502-2208 92 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish Si la informacion proporcionada es insuficiente para realizar una investigacion o generar una decision, la RCTC puede solicitar al reclamante informacion adicional. De no presentar el reclamante la informacion adicional dentro del plazo designado, se puede considerar que hay suficiente causa administrativa para cerrar el caso debido a la falta de merito investigativo. Dentro 15 dias calendario despues de haber recibido la queja, el Director Ejecutivo de la RCTC, o su representante, solicitaran una reunion para abordar el presunto incidence con el reclamante. Dentro 15 dias calendario despues de la reunion, la RCTC responders por escrito, y en los casos en que sea apropiado, en un formato accesible al reclamante. La respuesta explicara la postura de la RCTC y ofrecera opciones para la resolucion de la queja. Si el reclamante no esta satisfecho con la decision del Subdirector Ejecutivo, o su representante, se puede presentar una apelacion ante el Director Ejecutivo de la RCTC dentro de los 15 dias calendario despues de haber recibido la respuesta. Dentro 15 dias calendario siguientes despues de haber recibido la apelacion, el Director Ejecutivo, o su representante, solicitaran una reunion para abordar el presunto incidence con el reclamante. Dentro 15 dias calendario despues de la reunion, el Director Ejecutivo responders por escrito, y en los casos en que sea apropiado, en un formato accesible al reclamante, con la decision final respecto a la queja. Presentacion de queja ante la FTA El reclamante tiene el derecho de presentar una queja directamente ante la FTA, sin embargo, se le exhorta a que la presence inicialmente ante la RCTC. Tal como se describe en la circular 4702.1 B, capitulo IX de la FTA, para presentar una queja el reclamante debe hacerlo no mas de 180 dias despues de la presunta discriminacion, en el domicilio a continuacion, a menos que la FTA amplie el plazo para presentarla. Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil Rights Title VI Program Coordinator East Building, 5th Floor - TCR 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Una vez que la FTA acepte la queja para realizar una investigacion, la FTA notificara a la RCTC que es sujeto de una queja de Titulo VI y le solicitara una respuesta por escrito respecto a la acusacion del reclamante. Si el reclamante accede a que se divulgue su queja a la RCTC, la FTA se la proporcionara a la 93 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish RCTC, y dicha queja podria contener informaci6n personal oculta a petici6n del reclamante. Si el reclamante no esta de acuerdo en divulgar la queja a la RCTC, la FTA puede elegir cerrar dicha queja. La FTA realizara una investigaci6n expedita siempre que un analisis del cumplimiento de las reglas, un informe, queja o cualquier otra informaci6n indiquen una posible falla en el cumplimiento de los reglamentos de Titulo VI del DOT. La investigaci6n incluira, en los casos apropiados, un analisis de las practicas y politicas pertinentes de la RCTC; las circunstancias bajo las cuales ocurri6 el posible incumplimiento con los reglamentos del Titulo VI del DOT y otros factores relevances a la determinaci6n de si el destinatario no cumpli6 con los reglamentos de Titulo VI del DOT. Despu6s de que la FTA concluya la investigaci6n, la Oficina de Derechos Civiles de la FTA transmitira al reclamante y a la RCTC una de las siguientes cartas de acuerdo con sus hallazgos: a. Una Carta que indique que la FTA no encontr6 una violaci6n de los reglamentos de Titulo VI del DOT. Esta carta incluira una explicaci6n de porqu6 la FTA no encontr6 una violaci6n. En caso necesario, la carta podria incluir una lista de las violaciones a procedimientos o inquietudes, misma que pondra a la RCTC sobre aviso de que ciertas practicas son cuestionables y que de no haber pasos correctivos, es posible que en el futuro si se detecte una violaci6n. b. Una carta que indique que la RCTC ha violado los reglamentos del Titulo VI del DOT. La carta incluira cada violaci6n en referencia con los reglamentos aplicables, una breve descripci6n de remedios propuestos, un aviso sobre el plazo limite para darle cumplimiento, las consecuencias que tendria la falta de cumplimiento voluntario y una oferta de ayuda a la RCTC para la creaci6n de un plan de soluci6n para lograr el cumplimiento, en los casos apropiados. La FTA cerrara administrativamente las quejas de Titulo VI antes de que se Ilegue a una resoluci6n si (1) el reclamante decide retractar el caso; (2) el reclamante no responde cuando la FTA le solicite proporcionar informaci6n o firmar un formulario de consentimiento de divulgaci6n de informaci6n; (3) la FTA ha realizado o planea realizar un analisis de cumplimiento de la agencia contra la cual se ha presentado una queja; (4) se ha iniciado un litigio con acusaciones similares a las que incluye la queja; (5) la queja no se present6 en un lapso de 180 dias despu6s de la presunta discriminaci6n; (6) la queja no indica una posible violaci6n del articulo 49 CFR parte 21; (7) la queja es deficiente, insustancial o carece de detalle a tal grado que la FTA determina que no tiene m6rito o tiene enunciados tan incoherentes o ilegibles que no se puede considerar que esta basada en hechos; (8) la queja ha sido investigada por otra agencia y la resoluci6n de esta reune los estandares regulatorios del DOT; (9) las acusaciones de la queja han sido adjudicadas por decisiones 94 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish previas de los tribunales federales, el Secretario, las determinaciones de las politicas del DOT o la Oficina de Derechos Civiles del DOT; (10) la FTA obtiene informacion creible de que las acusaciones en la queja han sido resueltas; (1 1) la queja es la continuacion de un patron de quejas previamente presentadas, las cuales involucran acusaciones iguales o parecidas en contra del mismo reclamante u otros reclamantes y que la FTA ha considerado factual o legalmente insustanciales; (12) se han presentado las mismas acusaciones en la queja ante otra agencia federal, estatal o local y la FTA anticipa que el destinatario proporcionara al reclamante un proceso de resolucion comparable bajo estandares legales comparables; o (13) el fallecimiento del reclamante o de la parte afectada hace que sea imposible investigar por completo las acusaciones. Seguimiento de las quejas Tal como to requiere la FTA; Codas las quejas por escrito que recibe el Subdirector Ejecutivo de la RCTC, o su representante, las apelaciones ante el Director Ejecutivo, o su representante, y las respuestas de estas dos oficinas se conservar6n en la RCTC durance tres anos. Ademas, se Ilevar6 una lista resumida de las quejas durance cinco anos, como es requerido. III. FORMULARIO DE QUEJA Ver adjunto A. Si requiere informacion en otro idioma, favor de comunicarse al (951)787- 7141. 95 Title VI Program — Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADJUNTO A: FORMULARIO DE QUEJA DE DISCRIMINACION DE TITULO VI La Comisi6n de Transporte del condado de Riverside (RCTC) se compromete a asegurar que no se excluya a ninguna persona de participar o que se le nieguen los beneficios de sus servicios debido al grupo etnico u origen nacional tan como to dicta el Decreto de Derechos Civiles de Titulo VI de 1964, en su versi6n modificada. Las quejas deben presentarse en un lapso de 180 dias despu6s de la fecha de la presunta discriminaci6n. Es necesaria la siguiente informaci6n para ayudar a la RCTC a procesar su queja. Si requiere ayuda para Ilenar este formulario, por favor comuniquese con el responsable de la Oficina de Derechos Civiles, John Standiford, Ilamando al (951) 787- 7141. Una vez que Ilene este formulario, presentelo con la firma original, o una Carta firmada, en persona o por correo a: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P.O. Box12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 SI TIENE PREGUNTAS O REQUIERE AYUDA PARA OBTENER OTROS FORMATOS ACCESIBLES TALES COMO TIPOGRAFIA GRANDE, TDD, AUDIO U OTRO, FAVOR DE LLAMAR AL: (951)787-7141. LOS USUARIOS CON IMPEDIMENTO DEL HABLA O DE AUDICION, PUEDEN USAR EL SERVICIO DE TRANSMISION DE CALIFORNIA, 711, Y DESPUES EL NUMERO QUE NECESITA. 1. Informaci6n de contacto: Nombre del reclamante: Domicilio: Ciudad, estado y c6digo postal: Tel6fono: (hogar/trabajo) (celular LCuales son los dias y el horario mas convenience para que la RCTC se comunique con usted respecto a esta queja? 2. eresenta usted esta queja por su propia cuenta? Si:❑ No: ❑ Si respondi6 que si, por favor vaya a la pregunta #3. Si respondio que no, por favor explique porqu6 presenta esta queja a nombre de un tercero: Si respondio que no, por favor confirme que cuenta con el permiso de la parte afectada, Formulario gtqueja Pagina 1 de 3 Title VI Program —Appendix A Complaint Procedures and Forms - Spanish si es que presenta usted esta queja a nombre de un tercero. Si: ❑ No: ❑ 97 3. Fundamento de la(s) accion(es) discriminatoria(s): Indique a continuacion (❑) Codas las categorfas que apliquen al acto (actos)de discriminacion. a. Raza b. Grupo etnico c. Origen nacional 4. Fecha y lugar de la(s) presunta(s) accion(es) discriminatoria(s): Incluya la primera fecha de la discriminacion y la Fecha mas reciente de la discriminacion: Fecha: Ubicacion: Fecha: Ubicacion: 5. LC6mo se discrimino en su contra? Describa el tipo de accion, decision o condiciones de la presunta discriminacion. Explique to mas claro posible que ocurrio y porque cree usted que su condicion protegida fue un factor en la discriminacion. Incluya como otras personas fueron tratadas de forma diferente a usted. (Adjunte paginas adicionales de ser necesario). 6. Nombre de las personas responsables por la(s) accion(es) discriminatoria(s): Formulario de queja Pagina 2 de 3 98 7. Nombre de las personas (testigos, empleados, supervisores u otros) a quienes podriamos contactar para obtener informacion adicional en apoyo o aclaracion de su queja: Nombre Domicilio Numero telefonico 8. i,Se ha presentado esta queja ante otra agencia investigadora federal, estatal o local? No❑ Si ❑ Si respondio que "sr, indique la siguiente informacion: Agencia: Persona de contacto: Domicilio: Num. telefonico: Fecha en que se presento: 9. Favor de proporcionar cualquier informacion adicional que considere de ayuda en la investigacion: Puede adjuntar cualquier material por escrito u otra informacion que considere relevance para su queja. Favor de firmar y anotar la fecha: Firma del reclamante Fecha Si necesita informacion en otro idioma, !lame al (951) 787- 7141. Formulario de queja Pagina 3 de 3 99 APPENDIX B TITLE VI PUBLIC PARTICI PATIO\ PLAN. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Riverside, CA 92501 COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor If information is needed in another language, please Contact (951) 787-7141 for free translation services_ Si se necesita este document° err Espanol, (lame al 910687-7141 para servicias de traduccion gratuit°s, Title VI Program — Appendix B Table of Contents I. Introduction 2 Background of RCTC 2 Purpose of this Plan 2 Desired Outcomes 3 Federal and State Requirements 3 Public Participation Background 4 Riverside County Demographics 3 Minority Individuals 3 LEP Individuals 4 RCTC's Stakeholders 6 III. Public Participation Strategies and Tools 7 Public Participation Goals and Strategies 7 Project Specific Public Participation 9 Updating the Public Participation Plan 9 IV. Summary of Public Participation Activities 10 Transit -Related Public Participation 10 Capital -Related Public Participation 12 RCTC's Website 12 V. Contact information 13 VI. Attachments 14 Demographic Maps of Minority Populations in Riverside County 14 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 101 Title VI Program — Appendix B I. Introduction Background of RCTC The Commission was established in 1976 by the State of California (State) to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County. The governing body consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected official from each of the County's 28 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor of California. It is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and County Transportation Commission (CTC). Its responsibilities include setting policies, establishing priorities, coordinating activities among the County's various transit operators and local jurisdictions. RCTC's capital projects, motorist aid services and transit -related programs and projects are funded with various local, state, and federal sources. Local funding sources consist of the Measure A, the countywide sales tax; debt proceeds derived from issuing bonds; and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) derived from developer impact fees. State funding sources for projects are derived from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). RCTC also receives apportionments of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and FTA Small Starts and Sections 5307, 5309, 5337 formula funds. The Commission is unique in that it is not a transit provider like many other CTCs; however, it receives FTA formula funds (under the Rail Program) for transfer and expenditure for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink). Regardless of funding source, RCTC is committed to ensuring that its projects and services are delivered and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Purpose of this Plan This Public Participation Plan (Plan) is intended to satisfy Title VI requirements as expressed in FTA Circular 4702.1B. Recipients are required to promote inclusive public participation and seek out and consider the needs and input of the general public, including interested parties and those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as minority and Limited -English Proficient (LEP) persons. The Public Participation Plan is the established process or plan that describes the proactive strategies, procedures, and desired outcomes of a recipient's public participation activities. This Plan will provide direction for the Commission's public processes by allowing public input for the planning process and for RCTC's programs, projects, and activities to all members of Riverside County, including citizens, organizations, and public agencies. Finally, it will develop specific strategies inclusive of low-income, minority, LEP populations, and underrepresented individuals. 2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 102 Title VI Program — Appendix B RCTC developed this Plan by considering the demographic analysis of the population(s) affected, the type of plan, program, and/or service under consideration, and the resources available to the Commission. Desired Outcomes This Plan details RCTC's public participation goals, as well as strategies that will be implemented to assist meeting these goals. From these efforts, the Commission anticipates the following outcomes: • Increased access to early, meaningful, and continual engagement in the transportation planning process for all individuals in Riverside County. • Implementation of proactive strategies to bring enhanced awareness and increased access for minority individuals, LEP individuals, low-income individuals and additional underrepresented and underserved individuals. • Participation and representation from a diverse range or perspectives. Federal and State Requirements Title VI and Federal Authority Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects persons in the United States from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Under the DOT, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for implementing Title VI include the adoption of a Title VI Program report, including a Public Participation Plan, pursuant to FTA Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. Public Hearing Requirements Public hearing requirements may vary by project or program. The Commission may conduct a public hearing for a variety of reasons, such as approval of the Program of Projects under the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP); to discuss and present the proposed location; or significant changes to right of way and major design features, social and environmental effects of a proposed project that is funded with state and federal funds. Capital projects, for instance, will comply with Caltrans' Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 11 Public Hearing requirements; whereas, FTIP projects would follow the public participation requirements stipulated under the existing transportation legislation, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. 3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 103 Title VI Program — Appendix B Public Participation Background RCTC's traditionally seeks public involvement for both capital projects and transit -related projects. The public is most familiar with RCTC for its capital projects. The various regional capital projects that RCTC is involved in throughout the County include the following: ✓ 91 Express Lanes ✓ Interstate 15 Express Lanes ✓ 15/91 Express Lanes Connector ✓ Interstate 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension ✓ 15/91 Express Lanes Connector ✓ State Route 91 Corridor Operations Project ✓ State Route 71/91 Interchange Project ✓ State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project ✓ Mid -County Parkway/Interstate 215 Placentia Avenue Interchange ✓ Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Interchange Project ✓ Interstate 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension ✓ State Route 79 Realignment ✓ Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project ✓ Santa Ana River Trail Extension Projects A specialized outreach plan is designed for each project and may include community meetings, open houses, and formal public hearings. Transit -related projects that involve public participation may include: • The Coordinated Plan Process • The Citizen Advisory Committee, RCTC Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee • The Annual Transit Needs Hearing • The FTIP Program of Projects • 211 • Park and Ride Lots • Rideshare 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 104 Title VI Program — Appendix B Riverside County Demographics Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California by area and population and is diverse in geography and demographics. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2017 American Community Survey, Riverside County covers 7,208 square miles and has a population of 2,355,002. Many of the populations important to this Plan — minority, underrepresented, and low-income individuals — are described in the American Community Survey's estimates. The U.S. Census allows ACS Dataset Tables to be compared with the Decennial Census information regarding sex, age race, Hispanic origin, and homeowner status. By referring to the 2010 Decennial Census and 2017 American Community Survey Estimates, the Commission has generated the following information to showcase county growth. • Riverside County's population experienced a 7 percent increase between 2010 and 2017. • The adult population ages 18-64 increased by more than 5 percent, adding 113,355 individuals. Adults in these age groups represent 60 percent of the county's total population, numbering nearly 1.42 million people. • The low-income adult population increased by 18.8 percent since the 2010 ACS Estimates, adding almost 44,200 individuals and representing 9.9 percent of the current entire population. • Adults with disabilities total 130,300, which represents 9 percent of the adult population and six percent of the County's total population. • The adult population age 65 or older has increased by nearly 25 percent, adding 82,000 people. This group amounts to a total of almost 340,500 persons, representing 14.1 percent of the total county population. • Younger seniors, ages 65 to 74, is the largest senior group, representing 48 percent of all seniors. • Older seniors, ages 85 and older, is the fastest growing group, having increased 76.8 percent from 2010 to 2017. • The 2017 ACS estimates indicate that three-quarters of all seniors report some form of disability; as a group, the entire senior population age 65 years and older represent almost 11 percent of Riverside County's total population. Most frequently, this group's reported disabilities include difficulties with walking and living independently. Minority Individuals RCTC conducted demographic analysis of minority populations in the aggregate to understand where these communities are located throughout the County. FTA Title VI guidance defines a minority person as an individual of any of the following groups: American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. 3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 105 Title VI Program — Appendix B Demographic maps are provided in Attachment A, based upon minority population count tabulations developed for each Riverside County census tract. These were derived by subtracting the Caucasian population from each tract to arrive at the non -white, minority population counts. A summary of findings is provided below. This analysis was done at the Census Tract and Block Group levels using 2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, which is still relevant and reflects the current demographics. • Figure 1: In Western Riverside County, there are pockets of minority populations throughout the region. The largest concentrations of minority populations, between 59.2 to 84.3% of the population at the Census block group level, are found along the western border of the County near Norco and Rubidoux; near Moreno Valley; east of Banning; and in the south portion of the region, near Murrieta. • Figure 2: In East Riverside County, most of the region has a minority population of 34.3% to 45.6% of the total population at the block group level. A more concentrated minority population is located on the North Shore of the Salton Sea. • Figure 3: Coachella Valley is also home to many minority persons, with the largest concentrations of minority persons located north of Cabazon, north of Cathedral City and Thousand Palms and south of Thermal. In these pockets, minority persons make up 59.2 to 84.3% of the block group population of these areas. LEP Individuals As documented in RCTC's Language Assistance Plan (LAP), Riverside County is home to many LEP populations, several of which meet the Department of Justice's Safe Harbor provision. The Safe Harbor provision stipulates that written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language is to be provided if the group constitute 5% or 1,000 people, whichever is less, of the total population eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered. Such action will be considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written translation obligation. RCTC's LAP details how RCTC will provide language assistance to these populations. This information is included here to detail the diverse populations that comprise Riverside County. Table 1 below provides information from the 2017 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, the most reliable and current Census source for accessing LEP information. There is a total of 38 LEP groups in Riverside County, numbering 324,336 individuals who speak English less than "very well" or 15.7 percent of Riverside County's total population. The largest LEP group is Spanish speakers, who number 291,220 and comprise 12.86 percent of the County's total population. LEP groups of more than 1,000 are highlighted in blue in Table 1 and include individuals who speak Arabic, Chinese, Guajarati, Korean, Khmer, other Indo-European, Ilocano-Samoan-Hawaiian or other Austronesian, Persian, Punjabi, Spanish, 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 106 Title VI Program — Appendix B Tagalog, Thai -Lao or other Tai Kalai, and Vietnamese. Besides Spanish, none of these LEP populations comprise 5% of the County's total population. A thorough analysis of LEP populations in the County was conducted to develop RCTC's Language Assistance Plan, consistent with FTA guidance. This analysis found that Spanish-speaking LEPs are the LEP population most frequently contacting RCTC and accessing RCTC's programs and services. Table 1, Riverside County LEP Populations Table B16001: LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Estimate % to Total # of Population Margin of Error Total Population (ACS 2017 1 Year Estimates): 2,264,417 100.00% +/-394 Speak only English 1,343,253 59.32% +/-18,260 Spanish: Speak English less than "very well" 291,220 12.86% +/-7,431 French (incl. Cajun): Speak English less than "very well" 459 0.02% +/ 292 Haitian: Speak English less than "very well" 79 0.00% +/-132 Italian: Speak English less than "very well" 275 0.01 % +/-236 Portuguese: Speak English less than "very well" 617 0.03% +/-432 German: Speak English less than "very well" 750 0.03% +/-333 Yiddish, Pennsylvania Dutch or other West Germanic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 37 0.00% +/-46 Greek: Speak English less than "very well" 80 0.00% +/-132 Russian: Speak English less than "very well" 178 0.01% +/-204 Polish: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Serbo-Croatian: Speak English less than "very well" 123 0.01% +/ 145 Ukrainian or other Slavic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 131 0.01 % +/-170 Armenian: Speak English less than "very well" 421 0.02% +/-357 Persian (incl. Farsi, Dari): Speak English less than "very well" 1,394 0.06% +/-1,156 Gujarati: Speak English less than "very well" 404 0.02% +/-415 Hindi: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Urdu: Speak English less than "very well" 621 0.03% +/-583 Punjabi: Speak English less than "very well" 1,413 0.06% +/-1,132 Bengali: Speak English less than "very well" 146 0.01 % +/-231 Nepali, Marathi, or other Indic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 314 0.01% +/-251 Other Indo-European languages: Speak English less than "very well" 1,371 0.06% +/ 896 Telugu: Speak English less than "very well" 130 0.01 % +/-214 Tamil: Speak English less than "very well" 257 0.01 % +/-279 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 107 Title VI Program — Appendix B Table B16001: LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Estimate % to Total # of Population Margin of Error Malayalam, Kannada, or other Dravidian languages: Speak English less than "very well" 281 0.01 % +/-276 Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): Speak English less than "very well" 11,602 0.51% +/ 2,726 Japanese: Speak English less than "very well" 568 0.03% +/-283 Korean: Speak English less than "very well" 4,037 0.18% +/-1,594 Hmong: Speak English less than "very well" 981 0.04% +/-821 Vietnamese: Speak English less than "very well" 8,263 0.36% +/-1,854 Khmer: Speak English less than "very well" 1,623 0.07% +/-1,190 Thai, Lao, or other Tai-Kadai languages: Speak English less than "very well" 1,883 0.08% +/ 932 Other languages of Asia: Speak English less than "very well" 50 ° 0.00 /° +/-81 Tagalog (incl. Filipino): Speak English less than "very well" 12,873 0.57% +/-2,381 Ilocano, Samoan, Hawaiian, or other Austronesian languages: Speak English less than "very well" 1,348 0.06% +/-854 Arabic: Speak English less than "very well" 4,076 0.18% +/-1,753 Hebrew: Speak English less than "very well" 553 0.02% +/-893 Amharic, Somali, or other Afro-Asiatic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 181 0.01 % +/-223 Yoruba, Twi, Igbo, or other languages of Western Africa: Speak English less than "very well" 65 0.00% +/-80 Swahili or other languages of Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Navajo: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Other Native languages of North America: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Other and unspecified languages: Speak English less than "very well" 373 0.02% +/-417 RCTC's Stakeholders Stakeholders are individuals, groups, organizations or agencies that may be directly or indirectly affected by a plan, recommendations of that plan, or a project. RCTC seeks to engage all stakeholders through its public participation efforts, particularly those who may be adversely affected or who may be denied benefit of a plan's recommendation(s). Stakeholders include: 6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 108 Title VI Program — Appendix B • General public, minority individuals, low-income individuals, LEP persons, persons with disabilities, and older adults; • University and college students, including those from: California Baptist University, College of the Desert, La Sierra University, Moreno Valley College, Mt. San Jacinto College, Norco College, Palo Verde College, Riverside Community College, and University of California -Riverside; • High school students throughout Riverside County; • Non-profit organizations including Blindness Support Services, Care Connexus, Care -a -Van, CASA, Friends of Moreno Valley, Inland AIDS Project, Operation SafeHouse, among others; • Public agencies including city governments and health and human services throughout Riverside Co u nty; • Public transit operators: Corona Cruiser, City of Riverside Special Services, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, Banning Pass Transit, Beaumont Pass Transit; and • Private organizations and businesses. III. Public Participation Strategies and Tools Public Participation Goals and Strategies This section details RCTC public participation goals and strategies for achieving each goal. Goal 1: Provide all interested parties and agencies reasonable opportunities for involvement in the transportation planning process. Strategies • Provide adequate public notice of public participation opportunities and activities and time for public review of regionally significant plans and documents. • Use all channels of outreach for promoting public participation opportunities including RCTC's website and blog, the Citizen Advisory Council/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC), Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG), transit providers, news media, and social media. • Evaluate plans, programs, and projects to determine the most appropriate and effective tools and strategies for public and agency involvement and outreach. • Provide opportunities to comment on draft planning documents to affected agencies and parties. • Make transportation planning documents available for viewing on the RCTC website and at key locations throughout the county, as appropriate. • During the transportation planning process, conduct public meetings, open houses, and public hearings, as appropriate. • Provide language interpreters (Spanish language; other languages upon request) at public meetings, open houses and public hearings. 7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 109 Title VI Program — Appendix B Goal 2: Ensure accessibility to the transportation planning process and information for all members of the community; ensure that a wide range of perspectives will be heard so that planning outcomes reflect the needs of the region's diverse communities. Strategies • Develop information materials that are easily understood and translated for appropriate audiences and make them accessible at meetings and on RCTC's website. • Make notices and announcements attractive and eye-catching. • Plan workshops and/or public hearings at convenient venues and times across the region; ensure venues are accessible to the public. • When appropriate, provide information about regionally significant plans and projects to the local media for distribution and promotion. • Maintain the RCTC website with current transportation planning activities, including reports, plans, agendas and minutes for RCTC Commission meetings. • When appropriate, present information about specific plans and projects at public forums, such as City Council and Board of Supervisors meetings for increased public and governmental awareness. • When identifying locations for community outreach activities, prioritize locations that are accessible by public transit. • Make every effort to accommodate requests for accessibility opportunities, including physical accessibility to public meetings as well as accessibility to information in LEP languages and alternative formats. • Encourage early involvement in the transportation planning process by providing timely notification and access to information. • Use citizen and/or agency advisory groups as a means of providing input to the transportation planning process. • Identify key individuals, organizations, and community organizations that may be interested in or affected by a plan or program; include this list in any mail or email distribution. • Collaborate with Riverside County transit providers to facilitate and promote public participation opportunities. • Maintain the Riverside County Transportation Network, a list of key stakeholders updated on an annual basis. The 184 agencies and organizations on the Network include non -profits, human and social services, private transportation companies, public agencies, specialized transit providers. Goal 3: Engage and increase opportunities for participation for those traditionally underrepresented and or underserved, including low-income, minority, persons with disabilities, and Limited English Proficiency populations. Strategies 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 110 Title VI Program — Appendix B • Make commenting on plans convenient and accessible to the public and stakeholders; enable comments to be made at public meetings and workshops, via email or online commenting forms or by telephone. • Offer vital information, such as notices and announcements, in alternative languages as appropriate and feasible. When considering translation and interpretation needs, the RCTC Language Assistance Plan will be consulted for strategies and procedures. Translated information shall be made available on the RCTC or project -specific website, at public meetings and workshops and at key locations across the county as appropriate and feasible. • Translated notices, announcements, and other vital information should be posted on Riverside County transit operators' buses and at transfer centers, as is possible. • When appropriate, use alternative media outlets that may target minority, LEP, or underserved segments of the community. • Continue expanding the contact list with agencies, organizations and stakeholders that work with LEP communities. Project Specific Public Participation The project team, including Project Manager and public relations staff, is responsible for developing an appropriate public participation plan or public outreach plan that describes the strategies that will be used to communicate key information to agencies, organizations, elected officials, residents, business operators, commuters, emergency responders and other project stakeholders. Outreach activities will be integrated with the technical work program to provide information and incorporate ideas and feedback. The input that is received will facilitate fully informed decisions by RCTC Commissioners at key decision points. These plans will be specifically tailored to individual projects to reflect project area demographics, populations and need. Plans will be developed to comply with Title VI requirements. Title VI requirements, including strategies for engaging LEP individuals, will be documented in all bid - related materials. Updating the Public Participation Plan RCTC's public participation goals and strategies will be reviewed as necessary and results will be considered in preparation of the three-year Title VI Program adoption. Based on the effectiveness of strategies and the potential changes to Riverside County's demographics and outreach resources, strategies may be modified and new strategies may be added to enhance the public participation process. The following indicators may be used in reviewing and determining the effectiveness of these goals and strategies. • Number of newspaper ads, public notices • Number of press releases, public service announcements, and news articles 9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 111 Title VI Program — Appendix B • Number of public meetings and workshops • Number and demographics of participants at public meetings, open houses, and public hearings • Number of visits to the RCTC website and project -specific websites • Number of followers of social media pages, and volume of reach and impressions • Number of comments received during the public comment period for projects and programs • Number of requests for translated materials • Number and content of materials translation • Revisions to plans or projects based on public and agency input; analysis of how comments influenced the planning process IV. Summary of Public Participation Activities FTA Title VI guidance requires a summary of outreach efforts made since the last Title VI Program submission. The following is a summary of transit -related and capital project -related public outreach during this submittal period. Transit -Related Public Participation Annual Public Hearing on Transit Needs is Riverside County As required by Section 99238.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, RCTC holds at least one annual public hearing to solicit input from transit dependent and transit disadvantaged persons. The public hearing is promoted through newspaper notices throughout Riverside County and placed flyers and half -page seat drop flyers on buses, printed in both English and Spanish. Written and oral comments provided at the hearing were used by RCTC and the County's transit operators in identifying transit needs in preparation of transportation plans and programs, including the Regional Transportation Plan and Short -Range Transit Plans. Comments are shared with transit and paratransit operators as they relate to operating issues and needs. Additionally, comments are also shared with other agencies that provide transportation services to transit -dependent populations, including the Coordinated Transportation Services Agencies and the County Office on Aging, and specialized transit providers such as Care -A -Van, Forest Folk, and Operation SafeHouse. Coordinated Plan 2016 Outreach During the Coordinated Plan outreach process, five workshops were held in February 2016 in the various areas of Riverside County: • Blythe for the Palo Verde Valley • Palm Desert for the Coachella Valley • Hemet for Western Riverside • Lake Elsinore for southwestern Riverside County • Beaumont for the Pass Area The workshops invited comments regarding transportation needs from transit users and potential transit users, agency staff working with the target populations, and the public. RCTC promoted the workshops 10 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 112 Title VI Program — Appendix B through flyers printed in English and Spanish. Flyers were posted in buses across many of the County's transit routes. RCTC posted the workshop flyers on the RCTC home webpage and Citizens Advisory Committee members distributed the flyers throughout the County. They were also distributed through an email notice to the Riverside County Transportation Network which includes non -profits, human and social services, private transportation companies, public agencies, and specialized transit providers. The next Coordinated Plan will be completed by the end of 2020. North Shore/Mecca Salton Sea Project Development Workshops As part of the 2016 Coordinated Plan Process, RCTC held a workshop for the residents of the North Shore/Mecca community of the Salton Sea to discuss unmet transit needs and develop responsive solutions. The North Shore/Mecca area is an isolated, rural, and agricultural region in Riverside County. Many residents are agricultural workers and need to travel long distances to work in the fields throughout the area. Other families depend on jobs in the hospitality sector on the west side of the Coachella Valley and many of their children attend the College of the Desert Campus located in Palm Desert. For some, the daily commute can be 36 miles each way. Simultaneous translation was provided at the meeting to allow RCTC staff and the predominately Spanish- speaking community members to interact. Past meetings have resulted in the implementation of a volunteer driver reimbursement program and weekday and weekend connecting service to the area. Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) / Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) RCTC revamped the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) by appointing 10 members in September 2014. The CAC serves as RCTC's Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) to assist the Commission in complying with Transportation Development Act (TDA) Section 99238. The TDA provides direction for administering both Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance funds for bus and commuter rail services. This funding promotes transportation service improvements and enhancements that support the mobility of older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means. Additionally, the role of CAC/SSTAC members is to establish an effective communication exchange among Riverside County's public transit operators, its specialized transportation providers, and representatives of its transit dependent population regarding matters of mutual concern. This group meets biannually, or, as necessary. Riverside County Transportation Network The Riverside County Transportation Network is a list of key stakeholders and includes 184 agencies and organizations. These entities are non -profits, human and social services, private transportation companies, public agencies, specialized transit providers that work with a diverse range of clients throughout Riverside County. The Network is updated on an annual basis, through a mail survey and online e-survey. Transit -Related information, notices, announcements —particularly public participation opportunities —are sent to this Network via emails and physical mail, when those addresses exist. 11 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 113 Title VI Program — Appendix B Capital -Related Public Participation RCTC has a robust public participation and outreach component for its major highway and rail capital projects. Many of these efforts focus on transparency to allow the public to engage in projects via meetings, helpline, project webpages, and various social media platforms. Although non-FTA funded, examples of project -specific public outreach plans that either were developed or are currently in use are: • 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Construction of Tolled Express Lanes • Route 60 Truck Lanes Project — Construction of Dedicated Truck Lanes • Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service — Tier 1 Engineering and Environmental Studies RCTC maintains webpages for all its capital projects. These webpages are available in the "Projects" section of the RCTC website, rctc.org. Active capital projects also produce collateral material in English and Spanish and hold community meetings with bilingual staff in attendance. To date, staff has not received requests for or encountered people who require translation or interpretation to languages other than Spanish. RCTC's Website RCTC's website is includes current information and notices for all projects and activities. Website addresses are provided on all printed materials. The Commission also maintains active Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram pages to enhance its public outreach. These social media pages provide information about public meetings, transit options, capital project updates, and other items of interest to Riverside County residents and the transportation industry. 12 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 114 Title VI Program — Appendix B V. Contact information RCTC posts Title VI general notices and complaint forms on its website at www.rctc.oreabout. The Plan may be translated in any language for free upon request. Any questions or comments regarding this Plan should be directed to: Riverside County Transportation Commission John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P. O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Phone: (951) 787-7141 Email: jstandiford@rctc.org 13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 115 Title VI Program — Appendix B VI. Attachments Demographic Maps of Minority Populations in Riverside County Figure 1: Western Riverside County Minority Population Ontario Silveradc Modjeska Western Riverside County: Minority Population 1. Mira �� na • �` `�oryR ■ Loma Pedley F d Corona Cerrito NI :ill JJ Riverside Arranxa _ Pachappa 10. y La Sierra 44 . Pren � r r � ---}�Edrernon May 4 W oodcr � a Sc...-,,, c ? 3 y _8; 1,., P.,�� M Minority Population d.D°o - 12.0% 12.1% -23.4% 23.5% - 34. 2% 34.3°. - 45.8% 45.7% - 59. 1 °5 - 59.2% - 54. 3% San Clemente/ �* 1 San.Jua _ Hot Springs: F•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•_. Lake illa it go Wildomar Ce Luz Sun City urrieta El Casco Lakeview Nuevo Juniper Springs Homeland Winnhester Murry �. of pr TEfrecu la Yucaipa Cherry Valley Highland Springs Banning Beaumont Gilman Ho Springs Hemel 1 East Hemet Radec Valle Visa 14 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 116 Dea COMM ur.Nv Sur., er.3L3f 802001 Title VI Program — Appendix B Figure 2: East Riverside County Minority Population East Riverside County: Minority Population " Minority Population o.o % - 12_0 % - 34.3°% - 45.6 % 12.1 % - 23.4% - 45.7% - 59.1 % 23.5°% - 3 _2°% - 592°% - 84.3°% 15 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN 117 Title VI Program — Appendix B Figure 3: Coachella Valley Minority Population Coachella Valley, Riverside County: Minority Population --------------------------------------------------V----------------_.-•------.- White Water Pine Wood Fern Valley Idyllwild-Pine Cove Mountain Center Aomas Mountain CahuillaAnxa 1� Data Source: 20 } 3 Aar erican Community Survey, Census Mocks, 5 year estirr aces, 802001 01SWS, 01-2015 North Pa 111.1111611111 -- Desert Hot Springs Springs Palm Springs ■ Rancho Nii�age Pinyon Pines Palm Desert Indian Wells 6ermud`a'-,_ ■ La Quints Valerie fl-O-r m--- Mi nority Population 6.a% -12.0% 12.1 % - 23.4% 23-5% - 34.2% 34-3% - 45.6% - 45-7% - 59.1% - 592% - 84.3% Salton Sea 16 118 APPENDIX TITLE VI LANGUAGE ASSISTA\CE PLAN c•q4-.A-ox" gaEa WOCOA.. oextibfre.c SVC) A dalt(N- CWK\ % *9 0 t RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Riverside, CA 92501 COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor If information is needed in another language, please contact (951 ) 787-7141 for free translation services. Si se necesita este dacumento err Espanol, liarne al 9519 87-7141 para servicios de traduccibn gratuitos, Title VI Program — Appendix C Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 Background of RCTC 1 Purposes of this Plan 2 Title VI and Federal Authority 2 Language Assistance Goals 2 II. Four Factor Analysis 3 Factor One: The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered 3 Factor Two: The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program 6 Factor Three: The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service to people's lives 6 Factor Four: The resources available to the recipient for LEP outreach 7 Discussion of Results 7 III. Implementation Plan 8 Language Service Provision 8 Staff Training 9 IV. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the LAP 9 V. Contact information 10 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 120 Title VI Program — Appendix C I. Introduction Background of RCTC (Commission) The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC or "Commission") was established in 1976 by the State of California (State) to oversee the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County. The governing body consists of all five members of the County Board of Supervisors, one elected official from each of the County's 28 cities, and one non -voting member appointed by the Governor of California. It is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and County Transportation Commission (CTC). Its responsibilities include setting policies, establishing priorities, coordinating activities among the County's various transit operators and local jurisdictions. The public is most familiar with RCTC for its involvement in delivering capital projects and motorist aid services including the following: ✓ 91 Express Lanes ✓ Interstate 15 Express Lanes ✓ 15/91 Express Lanes Connector ✓ Interstate 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension ✓ 15/91 Express Lanes Connector ✓ State Route 91 Corridor Operations Project ✓ State Route 71/91 Interchange Project ✓ State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project ✓ Mid -County Parkway/Interstate 215 Placentia Avenue Interchange ✓ Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Interchange Project ✓ Interstate 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension ✓ State Route 79 Realignment ✓ Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project ✓ Santa Ana River Trail Extension Projects RCTC also provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service that assists motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County during peak rush hour traffic periods; the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists; and Rideshare Programs such as Inland Empire 511 (IE511), a traveler information system, and VanClub, a program to promote vanpooling. RCTC's capital projects, motorist aid services and transit -related programs and projects are funded with various local, state, and federal sources. Local funding sources consist of Measure A, the countywide sales tax; debt proceeds, derived from issuing bonds; and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), 1 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 121 Title VI Program — Appendix C derived from developer impact fees. State funding sources for projects are derived from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). RCTC also receives apportionments of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and FTA Small Starts and Sections 5307, 5309, 5337 formula funds. The Commission is unique in that it is not a transit provider like many other CTCs, however, does receive FTA formula funds (under the Rail Program) for transfer and expenditure for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink). Regardless of funding source, RCTC is committed to ensuring that its projects and services are delivered and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Purpose of this Plan The Language Assistance Plan (LAP) is intended to satisfy FTA Title VI requirements related to limited - English Proficient (LEP) individuals. FTA Circular 4702.1E states that "recipients shall take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are limited -English proficient (LEP)."LEP persons refer to those for whom English is not their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English. It includes people who reported to the U.S. Census that they speak English less than very well, not well, or not at all. The LAP details the process by which RCTC will provide access to LEP individuals and the larger community. RCTC utilized the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) LEP Guidance Handbook and performed a Four Factor Analysis to develop this LAP. Title VI and Federal Authority Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects persons in the United States from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Under the DOT, FTA's requirements for implementing Title VI include the adoption of a Title VI Program report pursuant to FTA Circular 4702.1B, Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. As a recipient of FTA Funds, RCTC has developed its own Language Assistance Plan in compliance with FTA Circular 4702.1B and through consultation with the FTA's Office of Civil Rights' LEP Guidance Handbook: The FTA's Office of Civil Rights' Implementing the Department of Transportation's Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients' Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons: A Handbook for Public Transportation Providers (April 13, 2007). Language Assistance Goals 2 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 122 Title VI Program — Appendix C The following goals will guide RCTC in ensuring that projects and services are delivered and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner: 1. Ensure meaningful access to all individuals regardless of race, color, national origin, and language of origin through outreach to LEP populations, translation of vital documents into LEP languages, and provision of additional language assistance services, as required; 2. Monitor changing LEP population demographics as necessary to ensure RCTC provides appropriate language assistance services; 3. Update this Language Assistance Plan as necessary to ensure the effectiveness of strategies for providing language assistance. II. Four Factor Analysis Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, information, and other important portions of its programs or activities for persons who are limited -English proficient (LEP). FTA Circular 4702.1E details the components of the LAP, including the Four Factor Analysis, which provides a careful analysis of LEP individuals the recipient may encounter to determine the specific language services that are appropriate to provide. The Four Factor Analysis balances the following factors: • Factor One: The number and proportion of LEP persons in the jurisdiction; • Factor Two: How often LEP persons come into contact with RCTC services; • Factor Three: How important RCTC's services are to the lives of LEP persons; • Factor Four: The resources available to RCTC for LEP outreach that reasonably can be provided. The results of the four -factor analysis are used to determine the target LEP populations and the best methods of engaging with the public. RCTC undertook the Four Factor Analysis in order to develop an appropriate and effective Language Assistance Plan Factor One: The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered RCTC's service area incorporates all Riverside County, which has a total population of 2,423,266 individuals according to American Community Survey (ACS) 2017 1-year estimates. ACS Census data was used for this analysis as it provides the most current and reliable information about LEP individuals. The Department of Justice's Safe Harbor provision, which was accepted by the FTA, stipulates that written translation of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes 5% or 1,000 persons, whichever is less, of the total population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered, shall be considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written translation obligation. 3 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 123 Title VI Program - Appendix C Table 1 below provides information from the 2016 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates demonstrating the 38 LEP populations in Riverside County, using 5-year estimates as they provide the most reliable data in terms of LEP populations. The largest group of LEP individuals is Spanish speakers, who comprise 13 percent of the County's population and number 268,982 individuals. Although no other LEP group reaches 5 percent of the population, 14 additional LEP groups have over 1,000 persons, which include: Arabic, Chinese, Guajarati, Korean, Khmer, other Indo-European, Ilocano-Samoan-Hawaiian or other Austronesian, Persian, Punjabi, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai -Lao or other Tai Kalai, and Vietnamese. Table 1, Riverside County LEP Population Table B16001: LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Estimate % to Total # of Population Margin of Error Total Population (ACS 2017 1 Year Estimates): 2,264,417 100.00% +/-394 Speak only English 1,343,253 59.32% +/-18,260 Spanish: Speak English less than "very well' 291,220 12.86% +/-7,431 French (incl. Cajun): Speak English less than "very well" 459 0.02% +/ 292 Haitian: Speak English less than "very well' 79 0.00% +/-132 Italian: Speak English less than "very well' 275 0.01% +/-236 Portuguese: Speak English less than "very well' 617 0.03% +/-432 German: Speak English less than "very well' 750 0.03% +/-333 Yiddish, Pennsylvania Dutch or other West Germanic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 37 0.00% +/-46 Greek: Speak English less than "very well' 80 0.00% +/-132 Russian: Speak English less than "very well' 178 0.01% +/-204 Polish: Speak English less than "very well' 0 0.00% +/-210 Serbo-Croatian: Speak English less than "very well" 123 0.01% +/-145 Ukrainian or other Slavic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 131 0.01% +/-170 Armenian: Speak English less than "very well' 421 0.02% +/-357 Persian (incl. Farsi, Dari): Speak English less than "very well' 1,394 0.06% +/ 1,156 Gujarati: Speak English less than "very well' 404 0.02% +/-415 Hindi: Speak English less than "very well' 0 0.00% +/-210 Urdu: Speak English less than 'very well' 621 0.03% +/-583 Punjabi: Speak English less than 'very well' 1,413 0.06% +/-1,132 Bengali: Speak English less than 'very well' 146 0.01% +/-231 Nepali, Marathi, or other Indic languages: Speak English less than 'very well' 314 0.01% +/-251 Other Indo-European languages: Speak English less than 'very well' 1,371 0.06% +/ 896 Telugu: Speak English less than 'very well' 130 0.01% +/-214 Tamil: Speak English less than 'very well" 257 0.01% +/-279 4 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 124 Title VI Program - Appendix C Table B16001: LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH FOR THE POPULATION 5 YEARS AND OVER 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates Estimate % to Total # of Population Margin of Error Malayalam, Kannada, or other Dravidian languages: Speak English less than "very well" 281 0.01 % +/-276 Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): Speak English less than "very well" 11,602 0.51% +/ 2,726 Japanese: Speak English less than "very well" 568 0.03% +/-283 Korean: Speak English less than "very well" 4,037 0.18% +/-1,594 Hmong: Speak English less than "very well" 981 0.04% +/-821 Vietnamese: Speak English less than "very well" 8,263 0.36% +/-1,854 Khmer: Speak English less than "very well" 1,623 0.07% +/-1,190 Thai, Lao, or other Tai-Kadai languages: Speak English less than "very well" 1,883 0.08% +/ 932 Other languages of Asia: Speak English less than "very well" 50 ° 0.00 /° +/-81 Tagalog (incl. Filipino): Speak English less than "very well" 12,873 0.57% +/-2,381 Ilocano, Samoan, Hawaiian, or other Austronesian languages: Speak English less than "very well" 1,348 0.06% +/-854 Arabic: Speak English less than "very well" 4,076 0.18% +/-1,753 Hebrew: Speak English less than "very well" 553 0.02% +/-893 Amharic, Somali, or other Afro-Asiatic languages: Speak English less than "very well" 181 0.01 % +/-223 Yoruba, Twi, Igbo, or other languages of Western Africa: Speak English less than "very well" 65 0.00% +/-80 Swahili or other languages of Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Navajo: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Other Native languages of North America: Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.00% +/-210 Other and unspecified languages: Speak English less than "very well" 373 0.02% +/-417 As all individuals residing in the county may be commuters, transit riders, and pedestrians, the total population is eligible to be served by the Commission's services. The following section addresses which LEP persons the Commission is likely to encounter based on the past frequency of contact. 5 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 125 Title VI Program — Appendix C Factor Two: The frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with the program To identify and analyze the frequency with which LEP persons come into contact with these programs, a survey was distributed to staff who regularly and is more likely to interact with members of the public. The units that were surveyed include the Clerk of the Board, Public Affairs, Front Reception, Capital Projects, and Commuter Assistance. The survey asked staff members about their experiences with LEP individuals, including how frequently they interacted with LEP persons, what languages the LEP individuals spoke, how successfully they communicated, and what information LEP persons were seeking. Most respondents noted very rare to no interaction with LEP individuals in the last year, with the exception of the Front Receptionist, who encounters Spanish inquiries on a daily basis. The most common requests are for information about other County services in the building, RCTC project -specific construction information, and information about Metrolink services (not under the purview of the Commission). Staff members have been able to communicate with LEP individuals through assistance from bilingual staff members, translators, and through hand gestures and drawings. RCTC also has an on - call contract with PALS for Health, a translation/interpretation service based in southern California. In conclusion, Factor Two identified that RCTC does not frequently come into contact with LEP individuals regarding its services and programs, but of those that are received, most are likely to speak Spanish. Factor Three: The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service to people's lives RCTC is a state -mandated countywide agency tasked with the funding and coordination of all public transportation services within Riverside County, which includes 28 cities, 7,208 square miles, and 2,423,266 individuals, according to the 2017 American Community Survey. The Commission's mission is to assume a leadership role in improving mobility in the County and is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County's various transit operators and other agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state, and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non -motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian), and other transportation activities. The Commission serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for Measure A, the voter -approved half -cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Riverside County. The Commission also provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. The Commission is also legally responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source of funds for transit in the County. Finally, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for the County's roadway system. 6 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 126 Title VI Program — Appendix C RCTC works to ensure and improve the quality of life of Riverside County's residents. Transportation interacts with a variety of human needs including a safe environment with better air quality, a reduction in water runoff, reducing the levels of greenhouse gases, and supporting transportation alternatives that promote better health through walking or bicycling. By taking a more holistic approach, the importance of transportation grows larger and is valued as a vital necessity. Factor Four: The resources available to the recipient for LEP outreach RCTC has numerous resources available to ensure it provides meaningful access to LEP individuals. These include existing community partners, using its own resources, and using contracted services. These resources are detailed below: • RCTC contracts with PALS for Health to provide written translation and oral interpretation for LEP individuals. • Bilingual employees provide written translation and oral interpretation. • "I Speak" language identification cards are used at the front desk and at public meetings. • Language assistance information is provided on agendas and meeting notices. • Public notices are translated into Spanish. • RCTC may contract with public outreach firms that can provide language assistance as needed. • Riverside Transportation Network: This database ensures agencies and organizations that work with LEP individuals are provided the Commission's information and notices to distribute to their clients. • CAC/SSTAC- Many members of the CAC/SSTAC represent underrepresented minority groups and are a useful resource for outreach to LEP individuals. • Riverside County Transit Operators: RCTC may partner with transit operators to post vital information in English and Spanish on buses and at transfer locations. • The Southern California Association of Government's LEP Plan, Public Participation Plan, and existing translated resources can provide materials for LEP outreach and communication. • RCTC translates Title VI vital documents and project -specific vital information into Spanish. • RCTC's website provides outreach and is equipped with a Google translator. Discussion of Results Census data analyzed in Factor One was consistent with the experience of RCTC staff members analyzed in Factor Two to determine that Spanish-speaking LEP individuals are the largest and most frequent LEP group that accesses RCTC's services and programs. As these individuals comprise 13 percent of Riverside County's population, it will be important for the Commission to continue providing vital documents in Spanish. Additional LEP groups are very small populations (less than 1 percent of the population), not yet identified (Other Indic Languages, for example), and do not frequently access the Commission's services or programs, documents will be translated as requested or as is appropriate for a specific project. Details of language assistance services are provided in the following Implementation Plan. 7 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 127 Title VI Program — Appendix C III. Implementation Plan Language Service Provision RCTC will provide the following language assistance measures to ensure LEP individuals have full access to the Commissions services, programs, and activities: Callers and Visitors • Front desk staff have "I Speak" language identification cards available to assist LEP individuals. • Several employees are bilingual and can help callers or visitors that speak Spanish. • RCTC contracts with Language Line Solutions, a language service provider, to provide simultaneous translation as needed. Language Line can be accessed by any staff member for translation services by calling 888-808-9008. The staff member can then put an LEP individual in touch with a translator for correspondence. • RCTC contracts with PALS for Health to provide written translation and oral interpretation for LEP individuals. RCTC requests in writing the material to be translated to Spanish, requests staffing for public meetings, or arranges for telephone translation services, upon request. Translation of Vital Documents FTA Circular 4702.1B defines vital documents as, "documents that provide access to essential services." The Commission will use this definition when assessing what documents should be translated. Title VI Documents are vital documents. The Title VI notice to the public, complaint form, and procedures are available in English and Spanish, the LEP language that RCTC is most likely to encounter. Vital documents are available on RCTC's website and at the front desk. Information about the availability of free language assistance is available on posted notices and agendas in Spanish. Spanish -Language Translation: RCTC provides project notices and announcements and vital documents in Spanish and will continue to do so, as the Spanish-speaking LEP population represents a significant portion of Riverside County's population. Documents that are translated include: notices and announcements about public meetings and forums and public participation opportunities, key information distributed at project meetings, and any vital project -specific meetings. Other LEP Language Translations: The additional LEP languages represent very small communities and vital information will be translated as requested and as appropriate, with decisions made on a project -by -project basis. For example, if a project takes place in a community with a large LEP population, key information for that project will be translated into that LEP language. 8 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 128 Title VI Program — Appendix C Oral Interpretation: Oral interpretation will be provided at public meetings as requested and appropriate. Decisions will be made on a project -by -project basis. Notices of public meetings and forums include information about how to request oral interpretation. Outreach/Notice of Availability of Language Assistance RCTC's Title VI Notice to the Public publicizes its language assistance services. Additionally, other notices may include the statement, "If information is needed in another language, please contact (951) 787-7141 for free translation services." Staff Training Outreach and front desk staff are trained in assisting LEP individuals, including identifying language and using the language service provider interpretation system. Training is provided for new employees and reoccurs as necessary. LEP training includes: • A summary of RCTC's language assistance requirements DOT LEP Guidance; • A summary of the Commission's language assistance plan; including responding to LEP persons • Results of RCTC's Four Factor Analysis, including a summary of the LEP individuals in Riverside County and the frequency of contact between the LEP population and the Commission • A description of the Commission's non-discrimination policies and practices. IV. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the LAP A thorough review of the LAP will be undertaken every three years, or as necessary as guidelines are revised or as compliance reviews warrant. At that time, the LEP population will be reassessed to ensure all significant LEP languages are included in RCTC's language assistance efforts. The following reoccurring reporting and evaluation measures will be used to update the Language Assistance Plan: 1. RCTC will regularly assess the effectiveness of how the Commission communicates with LEP individuals by working with community stakeholders, such as the CAC/SSTAC, the Riverside Transit Network, County transit operators, non-profit agencies, among others. 2. Commission staff will track its language assistance efforts, including: • Tracking front desk staff interaction with LEP persons • Internal surveys of staff who are likely to engage with the public • Number of downloaded documents in other languages • Reports and updates from the language service provider • Requests for translation and interpretation 9 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 129 Title VI Program — Appendix C V. Contact information RCTC will post the approved LAP on its website at www.rctc.org. The LAP may be translated in any language for free upon request. Any questions or comments regarding the LAP should be directed to: Riverside County Transportation Commission John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor P. O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Phone: (951) 787-7141 Email: jstandiford@rctc.org 10 LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN 130 AGENDA ITEM 9H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Change Order to Amend the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Toll Services Agreement with Kapsch TrafficCom USA for the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 6 to Agreement No. 16-31-043-00 for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (15 Express Lanes) with Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc. (Kapsch) in the amount of $2,809,286, plus a contingency amount of $290,000, for a total amount not to exceed $3,099,286; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to negotiate and execute the change order on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2017 Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 132 (SB 132) which appropriated $427 million to the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor (RCTEC) for five projects. SB 132 allocated $180 million to the Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector (15/91 ELC) Project. The 15/91 ELC Project will provide a tolled express lanes connector between the existing 91 Express Lanes and the future 15 Express Lanes to the north of SR-91 (Figure 1: 15/91 ELC Project Vicinity Map, Figure 2: Work Vicinity Map). Agenda Item 9H 131 -15/SR-91 Express Lanes Connector OIL Lake Matthews Project Limits Figure 1: 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Project Vicinity Map AAAAA CORONA LEGEND WORK LIMITS -- COUNTY LINE VICINITY MAP EL CERRITO Figure 2: Work Vicinity Map Agenda Item 9H 132 SB 132 also statutorily created a task force to develop recommendations to accelerate project delivery of the RCTEC projects. On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed budget trailer bill Assembly Bill 115 (AB 115) through which the Commission received additional project delivery authority to ensure cost-effective and timely delivery of the 15/91 ELC Project. At its October 2017 meeting, the Commission approved an overall procurement strategy for the 15/91 ELC Project to secure all the services and construction needed to deliver the project. The approved strategy consists of a series of contract amendments, as permitted by AB 115, to existing 91 Project and 15 Express Lanes contracts with engineering companies, contractors, toll vendors, legal, and financial advisors. DISCUSSION: The construction of the 15/91 ELC will provide for a seamless trip between the 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes. A customer driving eastbound in the RCTC 91 Express Lanes will have the option of travelling north to the 15 Express Lanes via the 15/91 ELC. A customer driving southbound on the 15 Express Lanes will have the option of travelling west on the 91 Express Lanes via the 15/91 ELC. These movements will require the toll system to identify when and where the vehicle entered the system and share that information between the 91 Express Lanes toll system and the 15 Express Lanes toll system in order to determine the toll for the interfacility trip. Today, the 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system is operated and maintained by Cofiroute, USA (Cofiroute). The 15 Express Lanes roadside toll system will be designed, installed, operated, and maintained by Kapsch. While developing the tolling Concept of Operations for the 15/91 ELC, it became apparent that the interfacility trip pricing was going to be challenging with two different toll systems and operators. Staff and the 15 Express Lanes Project team evaluated several options for resolving these challenges and determined that the most efficient and effective short and long-term solution is to transition the 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system from Cofiroute (the current system) to Kapsch (the new system compatible with the 15 Express Lanes). In addition, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) selected Kapsch to replace the OCTA 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system that results in both agencies upgrading to the same roadside toll system. By transitioning the RCTC 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system to Kapsch, transaction processing and revenue collection for the 91 Express Lanes, 15/91 ELC and 15 Express Lanes will be more effective and efficient. As the change to the RCTC 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system is required to integrate the 15/91 ELC into the interfacility processing, the RCTC 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system transition will be funded by the 15/91 ELC project. Based on the overall procurement strategy approved for the 15/91 ELC, staff recommends a change order to the 15 Express Lanes Toll Services agreement to design and install the replacement of the existing RCTC 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system to provide compatibility across the entire RCTC tolling environment. The scope of this change order includes the following components: Agenda Item 9H 133 a) Design and install a replacement tolling gantry for the existing south connector from the RCTC 91 Express Lanes to the south 1-15; b) Design and install a new Variable Toll Message Sign (VTMS) at the Orange County/Riverside County Line for the eastbound RCTC 91 Express Lanes; and c) Add network modifications to connect the RCTC 91 Express Lanes tolling equipment to the 15 Express Lanes tolling network. The Kapsch contract provided pre -negotiated costs for roadside toll system equipment allowing for a straightforward mechanism for determining the costs of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes roadside toll system equipment. Staff worked with Kapsch to negotiate the costs associated with non - equipment installation costs and the costs related to the operations and maintenance of the roadside toll system. The total negotiated cost for CCO No. 6 is $2,809,286, plus a contingency of $290,000, for a total amount not to exceed $3,099,286. The table below summarizes the status of 15/91 ELC related change orders and amendments to Kapsch's contract. Kapsch 15/91 ELC Related Amendments/Change Orders Status Amount Contingency Total CCO No. 3 — Deputy PM and Tolling Back Office Software Development Commission approved on March 14, 2018 $ 314,721 $ 31,500 $ 346,221 CCO No. 5 — Replace 91 Express Lanes Roadside Toll System Commission approved on July 11, 2018 4,478,461 500,000 4,978,461 CCO No. 6—Add South Gantry, County -Line VTMS, and network modifications to support the Express Lanes Roadside Toll System (subject of this report) For Commission approval on July 10, 2019 2,809,286 290,000 3,099,286 Totals $7,602,468 $ 821,500 $8,423,968 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CCO No. 6 to amend the Toll Services agreement between the Commission and Kapsch in the amount of $2,809,286, plus a contingency amount of $290,000, for a total amount not to exceed $3,099,286. Further, authorization is requested for the Chair or Executive Director to negotiate and execute the amendment on behalf of the Commission and for the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for the project. Agenda Item 9H 134 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 Amount: $1,053,000 $2,046,286 Source of Funds: SB 132 State Funds Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003039 8130100000 0000 605 31 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lie/��� Date: 06/13/2019 Attachment: Draft Change Order No. 6 Agenda Item 9H 135 Sensitive / Proprietary Change Response / TSP Change Request RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1-15 Toll Services Provider Contract Change Order No. 6 Pursuant to: (check appropriate box) EXPRESS LANES ® Written Change Notice No. 6, dated 03 Dec 2018, submitted by RCTC to TSP pursuant to Section 20.4.1 of the Contract TSP Change Request No. , dated , submitted by TSP to RCTC pursuant to Section 20.6 of the Contract n Directive Letter No. , dated , submitted by RCTC to TSP pursuant to Section 20.3 of the Contract Reference is made to that certain Toll Services Contract (Contract No. 16-31-043-00) dated 26 January 2016, as amended, by and between Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"), a public entity of the State of California ("ROTC'), and Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware ("TSP"), as amended, together with all Exhibits and prior amendments (the "Contract"). This Change Order amends the Contract. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Change Order have the meanings given in, and all Section and Exhibit references shall be to the Contract. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 1 136 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION I — Narrative, Discussion of Additions, Deletions, Modifications to tF epQESS LIMES Requirements of the Toll Services Contract A. Evaluation of Change including whether TSP considers any RCTC-Initiated Change to constitute a Change and the specific provision(s) of this Contract which permit a Change Order (Section 20.4.3(a)(i)): N/A — RCTC Initiated Change Order Overview of scope of Change (Section 20.4.3(a)(iii)). For detailed scope of Change, please complete the Change Response Price Form: All capitalized terms used in this Change Order #6 and not defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in the Toll Services Contract dated January 26, 2017 (as amended by this Change Order and the previous Change Orders), between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. (TSP) (together the Contract). RCTC plans to develop a new Express Lanes connector (ELC or ELC Project) between the SR-91 Express Lanes (SR-91 EL) and the future I-15 Express Lanes being developed under the I-15 Express Lanes Project (ELP Project). The ELC will consist of one Express Lane in each direction facilitating a direct east -to -north and south -to -west connection between the recently opened SR-91 Express Lanes extension and the future Express Lanes on 1-15. The ELC will allow SR-91 EL customers and 1-15 Express Lanes customers to make a continuous trip between the two Express Lane facilities. Part 1: SR-91 Retrofit to support upgraded roadside electronic tolling system Background The construction of the ELC will create new destinations accessible from the SR-91 Express Lanes and I- 15 Express Lanes. The I-15 Express Lanes system shall be modified to allow for a new inter -facility pricing strategy. Given the access configuration and location of toll points on the SR-91 Express Lanes and the I-15 Express Lanes, customers using the ELC will be required to use the RCTC segment of the SR- 91 Express Lanes (RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment) and one segment of the I-15 Express Lanes (1-15 Express Lanes Segment). Prices for ELC transactions shall be combined with the RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment and the I-15 Express Lanes Segment, creating an inter -facility pricing zone. Additionally, tolls for trips beginning with segment one northbound on the I-15 Express Lanes to the SR-91 Express Lanes westbound or SR-91 Express Lanes eastbound through segment four of the I-15 Express Lanes southbound shall be combined. Pricing between the SR-91 Express Lanes and the I-15 Express Lanes will require an interface between the SR-91 Express Lanes and I-15 Express Lanes toll systems to collect and exchange entry time data. For Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services z 137 Sensitive / Proprietary EXDAES�S LAHES example, the SR-91 Express Lanes toll system would need to know the time that ELC users saw the S -91 Express Lanes price so that the appropriate toll could be charged. The ELC pricing strategy is illustrated in Figure 1. This strategy introduces a new pricing zone that encompasses the RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment and the entirety of the 1-15 Express Lanes so that the price to travel to the ends of the 1-15 Express Lanes would be displayed at the SR-91 County Line and the price to travel to the SR-91 County Line would be displayed on 1-15 Express Lanes signs. The Parties intend that the scope of the Project under the Contract shall be made up of 3 Sub projects: 1) The toll services work for the SR-91 Express Lanes described in previous Change Order #5 and this Change Order #6 (SR-91 Subproject); 2) The toll services work for the 1-15 Express Lanes Project (ELP Subproject) — described in the Contract as of the Effective Date; and 3) The toll services work for the ELC Subproject to be described in a future Change Order. The subprojects shall include the following phases of D&D Work described (Phases): 1) SR-91 Subproject a. SR-91 Phase 1—Tolling System Retrofit (described in Change Order #5): Retrofit the existing RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment roadside electronic tolling system (currently Neology) with TSP's roadside electronic tolling system of the same design as the roadside electronic tolling system being installed on the 1-15 for the ELP Project to provide compatibility across the entire RCTC tolling environment and add additional capabilities to the RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment (i.e., 6C compatibility) that are being introduced in the ELP Project. The ETC Host will provide "core" services only by creating vehicle transactions and transmitting them to the SR-91 Operator for trip -building. b. SR-91 Phase 2 — New Tolling Infrastructure — this Change Order (Change Order #6) i. South Gantry (including SR-91 (Gantry) Turnover Package 5) 1) Install new tolling equipment on the South Gantry to be included in Turnover Package 5. This tolling point will have 1 toll lane in each direction. The tolling point will be tied into the existing SR-91 fiber communications system, and shall, upon completion communicate with the new ETC Host which will be located at the RCTC Operations Center ROC). 2) After the new tolling point is put into Revenue Service, the TSP will decommission the existing toll point at the I-15/SR-91 interchange by removing the toll equipment from the site, before the gantries are removed due to ELC Project construction. The equipment will be returned to RCTC inventory. ii. County Line VTMS (including SR-91 (VTMS) Turnover Package 6) 1) Install new VTMS price sign equipment consisting of LED displays for pricing for 3 destinations. This VTMS price sign will be tied into the Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 3 138 Sensitive / Proprietary existing SR-91 fiber communications network, and shall, uponEXDAESS LAHES completion, communicate to the ELP Project ROC. 2) A Yagi antenna will be mounted to the new VTMS sign to support determination of delay for assignment of toll pricing in the Eastbound direction on the SR-91 Express Lanes. iii. Network Revisions - Connect SR-91 Tolling Infrastructure to the 1-15 ROC 1) Including the SR-91 Tolling Points as part of the overall Trip Building/Trip Pricing process for the 1-15 and RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment — this work is included in previous Change Order #3 2) After ELP Subproject has reached Revenue Service, the tolling locations on the RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment will be disconnected from communicating with the SR-91 Operator, and will be reconnected with the new ETC Host located at the new ELP Project ROC as described in this Change Order (Change Order #6) 3) Includes changes to the Back Office System software to support multi - facility trip tolling. 2) ELP Subproject — including Turnover Packages 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be performed as described in the Contract as of the Effective Date. 3) ELC Subproject — including Turnover Package 7 — to be more fully described in a future Change Order. Install new tolling equipment on 3 future gantries — North Gantry, West McKinley Gantry, and East McKinley Gantry. Install additional CCTV and TTMS equipment to support the monitoring of the new tolling points. These new tolling points will be tied into the new 1-15 fiber communications system or SR-91 fiber communications system (as determined during design, and communication with the new 1-15 ROC facility. SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Work Milestones: The key milestone dates for SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Work under this Change Order #6 are: 1) Target to issue Notice to Proceed — SR-91 (Phase 2) (NTP-SR91(Phase 2))— August 1, 2019 (subject to meeting the conditions in this Change Order) 2) County -Line VTMS a. SR-91 (VTMS) Turnover Package 6 (County Line VTMS) — Simultaneous with ELP Package 4 Turnover. b. Installation Work —Simultaneous with ELP Package 4 installation work. c. Site Acceptance Testing — Simultaneous with ELP Package 4 Site Acceptance Testing 3) Network Revisions — Connect SR-91 Tolling Infrastructure to the 1-15 ROC a. Installation Work —Simultaneous with ELP Package 3 and ELP Package 4 installation work. b. Operations Testing (County -Line VTMS and Network Revisions) — Simultaneous with ELP Operations Testing (July 2020) c. County -Line VTMS/Network Revisions Revenue Service Commencement Deadline —July 23, 2020 (Simultaneous with ELP Revenue Service Commencement Deadline) Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 4 139 Sensitive / Proprietary 4) South Gantry a. SR-91 (Gantry) Turnover Package 5 (South Gantry) — September 1, 2019 — For acceptance of site from DB. b. Installation Work —January 2020 c. Site Acceptance Testing —January 2020 d. Operations Testing — February 2020 e. South Gantry Revenue Service Commencement Deadline — March 1, 2020 f. I-15/SR-91 Existing Site Decommissioning — NLT March 31, 2020 Conditions to NTP-SR91 (Phase 2): RCTC will not issue NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) until satisfaction of the following requirements: EXPRESS'AMES 1) TSP has delivered to RCTC the NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) Performance Bond Rider and the NTP- SR91 (Phase 2) Payment Bond Rider, as specified in Part 3, section 6 below; 2) TSP has submitted to RCTC the certificates of insurance and endorsements as required by Section 17.3.2 of the Contract to confirm the insurance coverages required, as specified in Part 3, section 5 below; 3) TSP has delivered to RCTC an executed consent of the Guarantor to the addition of SR-91 (Phase 2) to the Project in the form provided in this Change Order; and 4) TSP has provided to RCTC any other documents, things or assurances required by this Change Order as a condition of NTP-SR91 (Phase 2). RCTC has no obligation to issue NTP-SR91 (Phase 2), and unless and until NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) is issued, RCTC has no liability to TSP under the Contract or this Change Order #6 with respect to SR-91 (Phase 2). SR-91 (Phase 2) Deliverables: TSP shall deliver the following SR-91(Phase 2) Deliverables by the applicable Delivery Date: Deliverable Format for Update Delivery Baseline Schedule Update to existing Standalone SR-91 Schedules SR-91 Phase 2 NTP + 30 days Four -Week Look Ahead Schedule Standalone SR-91 Schedules Weekly Civil Site Acceptance Checklist Submit with Installation Plan update See Installation Plan Communications Network Acceptance Checklist Submit with Installation Plan update See Installation Plan Installation Plan for South Gantry update the existing Installation Plan, by addendum, with any specific requirements for South Gantry NLT 60 days prior to South Gantry Installation Installation Drawings for South Gantry Standalone Installation Drawings for the South Gantry NLT 60 days prior to South Gantry Installation (NOTE 1) Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services s 140 Sensitive / Proprietary Transportation Management Plan update the existing Transportation Management Plan, by addendum, with any specific requirements for SR-91 (Phase 2) NLT 30 days prior to SouttinV`an`try" 1. Installation Individual Test Plans for South Gantry Standalone Individual Test Plans for the South Gantry NLT 60 days prior to South Gantry Installation Individual Test Reports (including Site Commissioning, Operations Testing) for South Gantry Standalone Individual Test Reports for the South Gantry Completion of testing plus 5 Days As -Built Technical Drawings for South Gantry Updates to SR-91 Standalone Package SR-91 (Phase 2) South Gantry Revenue Service Commencement Date plus 30 Days (NOTE 2) List of Materials for South Gantry All materials required for South Gantry Installation plus spares NLT 60 days prior to South Gantry Installation Maintenance Plan Updates for South Gantry Updates to SR-91 Interim Plan NLT 30 days prior to South Gantry Installation SR-91 Transition Plan for South Gantry Updates to existing SR-91 Transition Plan NLT 60 days prior to South Gantry Installation Installation Drawings for County -Line VTMS Standalone Installation Drawings for County -Line VTMS NLT 60 days prior to County -Line VTMS Installation (NOTE 1) Individual Test Plans for County -Line VTMS Standalone Individual Test Plans for County -Line VTMS NLT 60 days prior to County -Line VTMS Installation Individual Test Reports (including Site Commissioning) for County -Line VTMS Standalone Individual Test Reports for County -Line VTMS Completion of testing plus 5 Days As -Built Technical Drawings for County -Line VTMS Updates to SR-91 As -Built Package ELP As -Built Package Delivery (NOTE 2) List of Materials for County- Line VTMS All materials required for County Line VTMS Installation plus spares NLT 60 days prior to County -Line VTMS Installation Maintenance Plan for County- Line VTMS Include in ELP Maintenance Plan ELP Maintenance Plan Delivery Installation Plan for Network Revisions Update existing Installation Plan, by addendum, with any specific requirements for SR-91 Network Revisions NLT 60 days prior to Network Revisions Installation Installation Drawings for Network Revisions Standalone Installation Drawings for SR-91 Network Revisions NLT 60 days prior to Network Revisions Installation (NOTE 1) Individual Test Plans for Network Revisions Include with Individual Test Plans for ELP Package 4 testing ELP Package 4 testing Individual Test Reports Include with Individual Test Reports for ELP Package 4 testing ELP Package 4 testing As -Built Technical Drawings Updates to SR-91 As -Built Package ELP As -Built Package Delivery List of Materials for Network Revisions Update existing List of Materials (if necessary) NLT 60 days prior to Network Revisions Installation SR-91 to ROC Transition Plan Updates to existing SR-91 Transition Plan NLT 30 days prior to Network Revisions Installation NOTE 1: PDF and AutoCAD acceptable for this milestone. NOTE 2: Final As -built drawings must be delivered in PDF and Microstation formats. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services ES 6 141 Sensitive / Proprietary EXDAESS LAHES Part 2: O&M Work A. SR-91 Pre-ELP O&M Work TSP acknowledges that: 1) This Change Order#6 extends the SR-91 Pre-ELP O&M Work period, identified in Change Order #5 to run through December 31, 2019, to now run through July 31, 2020. 2) The previous Change Order #5, and this Change Order #6 do not address all potential additional O&M scope arising from the incorporation of the RCTC SR-91 Express Lanes Segment and that RCTC may, in its discretion, elect to add such additional O&M scope pursuant to a further Change Order or amendment to the Contract at a future date. 3) The Revenue Service Commencement Date and all Milestones under the Contract remain in full force and effect and are capable of being achieved notwithstanding the changes in D&D Work as a result of Change Orders #1-6. 4) SR-91 Phase 2 will incur no additional 0&M Work costs because the new tolling location at the South Gantry is replacing an existing tolling location (1-15/91 gantry), the County -Line VTMS is not operational until ELP Revenue Service Commencement, and the Network Revisions are simply a redirection of the communications infrastructure from the ETC Host at the Anaheim Data Center (SR-91 Operator) to the ETC Host at the ROC (ELP). 5) O&M Work under the Contract (including for items subject to this Change Order) will commence at the ELP Revenue Service Commencement Deadline (per current contract). Part 3: Other Material Terms 1) MOT a. Coordination of MOT is the responsibility of TSP and shall be handled in accordance with the Technical Provisions, Sections 4.7.1— 4.7.7. 2) Spare Parts a. A list of recommended Spare Parts for the SR-91 (Phase 2) work will be provided for review and approval by RCTC per TP Section 16.5, as a condition of executing this Change Order. b. The purchase and pricing of the spares for SR-91 Phases 1 and 2 WILL be part of this Change Order #6. 3) KPIs The KPIs listed in TP 19.4 —Table 19-2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and all provisions of the Contract applicable to the O&M Work shall apply to the County -Line VTMS and the Network Revisions from Revenue Service Commencement Date. The KPIs listed in TP 19.4 Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 142 Sensitive / Proprietary EXDAESS LIIHES — Table 19-2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and all provisions of the Contract applicable to the O&M Work shall apply to the South Gantry when the South Gantry enters Revenue Service (see milestone schedule for planned dates). 4) Liquidated Damages The liquidated damages set forth in Section 11 and Exhibit 22 of the Contract will apply to the SR-91 (Phase 2) work following SR-91 (Phase 2) South Gantry Revenue Service Commencement (for which the KPIs identified in 3 above shall apply). 5) Insurance Requirements As a condition precedent to NTP-SR91 (Phase 2), TSP shall modify their insurance policies and certificates as follows: i. Additional Insured: Orange County Transportation Authority ii. Ensure all insurance coverage include the SR-91 (Phase 1 and 2) Work 6) Bonding Requirements a. As a condition precedent to NTP-SR91 (Phase 2), TSP shall deliver to RCTC the updated NTP-SR91 Performance Bond Rider and the NTP-SR91 Payment Bond Rider. 7) Limitation of TSP's Liability For the avoidance of doubt, the Total Capital Cost, as referenced in Section 25.1.1(a) of the Contract, shall reflect the addition of the SR-91 (Phase 2) Total Capital Cost. 8) Source Code Escrow As a condition to payment of invoices for SR-91 (Phase 2) Payment Milestones and monthly installments of the SR-91 Pre-ELP O&M Cost and SR-91 (Phase 2) TCS Acceptance, TSP shall place all the Software Source Code for Pre -Existing Software owned by TSP, licensed to or by TSP or with respect to which TSP has a right to use in connection with the SR-91 D&D Work or the SR-91 Pre-ELP O&M Work into escrow in a jointly keyed and locked fireproof cabinet supplied by TSP and located in the Co -Located Office or another location acceptable to both Parties. Access to and release of Software Source Code will be in accordance with the terms of Exhibit 6 of the Contract, notwithstanding that this has not been fully executed by all required parties. All such escrowed Software Source Code shall be promptly transferred to the Source Code Escrow upon establishment of the same in accordance with the Contract. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services s 143 Sensitive / Proprietary Part 4: SR-91 Phase 2: A. Payments based on labor, overhead, margin, ODC, and subcontract costs (Percentages indicated below are percentages of the SR-91 (Phase 2) Total System Cost) 1) Notice to Proceed — SR-91 (Phase 2) (NTP-SR91 (Phase 2)) — 10% 2) Site Acceptance Testing (County Line VTMS) Complete — 10% 3) County -Line VTMS As -Built Technical Drawings — 10% 4) Installation Drawings (Network Revisions) Approved — 10% 5) Acceptance of completion of Network Testing as part of ELP Package 4 Testing — 10% 6) Site Acceptance Testing (South Gantry) Complete — 10% 7) Operations Testing (South Gantry) Complete — 10% 8) South Gantry Revenue Service Commencement — 10% 9) South Gantry As -Built Technical Drawings — 10% 10) I-15/SR-91 Existing Toll Gantry Decommissioned —10% EXDAESS LIIHES B. Payments based on Equipment costs: TSP shall deliver Lane Equipment per List of Materials — Amount set forth in the "Materials" section in the SR-91 (Phase 2) Price Sheet. Payment will be made for delivery of equipment related to items 4a, 4b, and 4c on the Price List. Part 5: SR-91 ROW Access RCTC will provide TSP with access to the SR-91 ROW: (a) From NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) until SR-91 (Phase 2) TCS Acceptance for the purposes of performing the SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Work; and (b) For the purposes of performing the SR-91 Pre-ELP O&M Work and SR-91 O&M Work, provided that (i) TSP shall obtain an encroachment permit providing TSP with access to the SR-91 Site prior to commencing work on the site and shall comply with the requirements of such permit, and (ii) TSP shall comply at all times with TSP's safety and security procedures and all applicable requirements of this Contract and Technical Provisions. Part 6: Additional Definitions (Exhibit 1 to the Contract), not already included in Change Order #5 Notice to Proceed-SR91(Phase 2) or NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) means the Notice issued by RCTC to TSP authorizing TSP to proceed with the SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Work. NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) Payment Bond Rider means a bond rider in the form attached to this Change Order #6 as Attachment 3-B (with such modifications as RCTC approves by Notice, in its sole discretion). NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) Performance Bond Rider means a bond rider in the form attached to this Change Order #6 as Attachment 3-A (with such modifications as RCTC approves by Notice, in its sole discretion). Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 9 144 Sensitive / Proprietary EXDAESS LIIHES SR-91(Gantry) Package 5 means the SR-91 Tolling Zone for the South Flyover Connector. SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 Ready for Construction Plans means the last set of DB Contractor's 100% final design documents to be submitted to RCTC and Department for approval prior to commencing construction of the SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 elements shown in such plans. SR-91(Gantry) Package 5 Turnover means, for SR-91(Gantry) Package 5, the stage in the DB Work where DB Contractor has completed design, construction and inspection of the following elements: (a) infrastructure for the Read Point, including gantry, pads, conduit, power and communication to support AVI, LPR, beacons, and all ETC components; (b) a 3,000 foot -long paved and striped EL section that includes two ELs, shoulders, and two - feet wide buffer to perform drive tests for the applicable Turnover Area, with the toll gantry constructed approximately within the center of the 3,000-foot long section; (c) communications (temporary or otherwise) from the relevant SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 Turnover Area to the ROC; (d) commercial power to all of the infrastructure within the relevant SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 Turnover Area and other TCS equipment locations applicable to the Turnover Area; (e) Successful completion of a load verification and automatic transfer switch test for each emergency generator meeting the requirements as set forth by the manufacturer and in the DB Contract; and (f) Successful completion of testing of the lightning protection and grounding systems to certify compliance with requirements in the NFPA-70, National Electric Code: NFPA-780, Lightening Protection Code, and UL-96A, Installation Requirements for Master Labeled Lightning Protection Systems. SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 Turnover Date means the date on which SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 Turnover is achieved. SR-91 (Gantry) Package 5 Turnover Deadline means the date on or prior to September 1, 2019 and confirmed by Notice from the DB Contractor under Section 8.11. SR-91 (Phase 2) As -Built Technical Drawings means documents required to be prepared by TSP and delivered to RCTC in accordance with TP Section 15.4 with respect to the SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Work that constitute a complete and accurate record of the applicable portion of the TCS as designed, installed, integrated, deployed and tested in accordance with this Contract. SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Monthly Progress Report means a single monthly submission and compilation of all monthly reports required by this Contract during the SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Phase for review at monthly progress meetings. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 10 145 Sensitive / Proprietary EXPDESS'AMES SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Phase means the time period commencing upon NTP-SR91 (Phase 2) and ending upon SR-91 (Phase 2) TCS Acceptance. SR-91 (Phase 2) D&D Work means the D&D Work with respect to SR-91 (Phase 2). SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 means the VTMS west of the Orange/Riverside County line. SR-91(VTMS) Package 6 Ready for Construction Plans means the last set of DB Contractor's 100% final design documents to be submitted to RCTC and Department for approval prior to commencing construction of the SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 elements shown in such plans. SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 Turnover means, with respect to SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6, the stage in the DB Work where DB Contractor has completed design, construction, and inspection of the following elements: (a) infrastructure for VTMS, including poles, pads, conduit, power and communication from the main fiber to the fiber patch panel in the VTMS tolling cabinet; (b) communications (temporary or otherwise) from the SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 Turnover Area to the ROC; (c) commercial power to all of the infrastructure within the SR-91(VTMS) Package 6 Turnover Area and other TCS equipment locations applicable to the SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 Turnover Area; (d) successful completion of a load verification and automatic transfer switch test for each emergency generator meeting the requirements as set forth by the manufacturer and in the DB Contract; (e) successful completion of testing of the lightning protection and grounding systems to certify compliance with requirements in the NFPA-70, National Electric Code: NFPA-780, Lightening Protection Code, and UL-96A, Installation Requirements for Master Labeled Lightning Protection Systems; and SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 Turnover Date means the date on which SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 Turnover is achieved. SR-91 (VTMS) Package 6 Turnover Deadline means the anticipated date 90 days prior to the ELP Substantial Completion Deadline and confirmed by Notice from the DB Contractor under Section 8.11.3. Part 7: Impacts on Existing Definitions and Contract Provisions The definition of "Indemnified Parties" is revised to add Orange County Transportation Authority and its officers, directors, board members, employees, consultants, representatives and agents. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 11 146 Sensitive / Proprietary EXADESS LAHES For purposes of the SR-91 (Phase 1), the Setting Date, the Effective Date and similar reference dates under the Contract will be the date of issuance of this Change Order. Reference Documents include the documents and information provided with respect to SR-91 (Phase 2), as listed on Change Order #6 — Attachment 5. Except as specifically provided otherwise in this Change Order: 1) Defined terms previously applying generally to the ELP Project (such as "Project," "D&D Work," "Toll Services," "Work," "Completion Deadlines," "Total Capital Cost," etc.): (a) will retain the same names and the definitions will be revised to include SR-91 (Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4) and ELC; but (b) corresponding ELP Project -specific defined terms will also be created so as to distinguish from SR-91 and ELC as needed. 2) Provisions in the Contract of general application to the ELP Project (such as TSP's indemnities, events of default) will also apply to SR-91 and ELC. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 12 147 Sensitive / Proprietary L 1-15 Trip Pricing Zane SR-91 Trip Pricing Zones New 91/15 Trip Pricing Zone Existing SR-91 Sign Proposed 1-15 Sign Red text indicates impacts to existing/planned signs n E S, fD m ■ atm Rwnop 1671 pu oalefe0 I 1 and aa!uouo 1 L--- �y� - r l aun lyunoJ 16 l pa oalefej I 1S 4]x!S I L Limonite Ave 1 au11 Alunop 16 1 phi 031efep I I and opm° 1 i _ SR-60 Limonite Ave I L SR-60 • New sign required upstream of CL egress pa oalefe) Magnolia Ave — — OntariDAve — Caialco Rd — SR 55 ` -Sixth St SR-60 91 County Line MagnoiiaAve 1 1 SR-60 I , 91 County Line 1 Figure 1 Pricing Strategy HES B. Analysis of (impact of the Change on the performance of other aspects of the D&D Work, O&M Work, RCTC or RCTC's toll operations (as applicable); (Section 20.4.3(a)(v)): All impacts of the Change are reflected in this Change Order #6, and there are no other impacts of the Change on the performance of other aspects of the D&D Work, O&M Work, RCTC or RCTC's toll operations. C. Proposed plan for mitigating impacts of the Change (Section 20.4.2(a)(x)): Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 13 148 Sensitive / Proprietary N/A EXPRESS LANES D. Additions / deletions / modifications to the requirements of the Contract including KPIs if an (Section 20.4.3(al(viii See Redlined Technical Provisions Attachment 2. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 14 149 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION II — Cost Impact(s) A. Summary Compensation under this Change Order is to be paid (check the applicable boxes below): EXPRESS LANES ❑ n/a' $0.00 ("no cost") Change Order. ❑ as a lump sum adjustment to the Contract Price in the amount of dollars ($ )• ❑ as a series of milestone payments in the following amounts: 1) See Section I, Subsection B (Overview of Scope), Part 4, Item A for the D&D Milestone Payment Schedule. 2) See Section I, Subsection B (Overview of Scope), Part 4, Item B for the Equipment Payment Schedule ❑ as an adjustment to Total O&M Years 1 and 2 Cost or Total O&M Years 3, 4 and 5 Cost See Section I, Subsection B (Overview of Scope), Part 4, Item C for the Monthly Payment Schedule for O&M for the SR-91 (Phase 1) Pre-ELP O&M Work. as a Unit Price Change Order for increases or decreases in the Contract Price [not to exceed] / [in the amount of] dollars ($ )) ❑ as a Time and Materials Change Order, [not to exceed dollars ($ n as is set forth below, under Section II(B)([2] / [31)./select the proper reference] ❑ If more than one box has been checked, also check this box and summarize terms here: Documentation supporting the Change Order is attached as Annex[esl [through ]. B. Special Considerations 1. Delay and disruption damages for Excusable Delay (Section 20.10). ® n/a Compensation available for Change Orders are (only) extra Work Costs and delay Costs directly attributable to the proposed Change and exclude certain costs and expenses. 1 If $0 (i.e., a "no cost" Change Order), leave remainder of Section II blank. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 15 150 Sensitive / Proprietary • Total extra Work Costs: $ • Total delay and disruption damages: $ Discussion (if any): EXPRESS LANES 2. Deductive RCTC Changes. ® n/a If this Change Order is a deductive change Net Costz Savings attributable to the deductive change $ Amount due to RCTC attributable to the deductive Change (or which can be used by RCTC, in its sole discretion, to offset payment to TSP) $ Discussion (if any): 2 When both additions and reductions are involved in any one Change Order, the adjustment shall be determined on the basis of net increase or decrease. TSP Margin will be allowed only for the net increase in labor Cost in order to establish the amount to be added to the Contract Price. In determining a deductive change order, any deduction will include the amount of TSP Margin and Audited Overhead which would have been payable on such amounts by RCTC in accordance with Section 20. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 16 151 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION III — Completion Deadline Impacts (Applicable to All Change Orders) The status of the CSC Commencement Deadline is as follows: EXPRESS LANES ® Unaffected by this Change Order ❑ Affected by [extending] / [accelerating] the date of the CSC Commencement Deadline by calendar days to calendar days prior to Revenue Service Commencement. The status of the Revenue Service Commencement Deadline is as follows: ® Unaffected by this Change Order ❑ Affected by [extending] / [accelerating] the date of the Revenue Service Deadline by calendar days to Days after the Package 4 Turnover Date. The status of the total Float is as follows: ® Unaffected by this Change Order ❑ Affected by this Change Order as follows: If this Change Order is issued as a result of, or relating to, an Excusable Delay or a shortening time, TSP's Critical Path time impact delay analysis is attached as Annex (Section 20.4.3(a)(vi)). ® n/a Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 17 152 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION IV - (Reviewed and recommended agreed by TSP's [Project Manager-D&Dra rict"" or [Project Manager -O&M Workj) By: Name: Jason Stewart Title: Project Manager Date: Comments: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 18 153 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION V - (Reviewed and agreed by TSP) EXPRESS LANES The undersigned Authorized Representative of TSP hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury, as follows: 1. Sections I, II and III of this Change Order, including all Worksheets and Annexes, collectively represent a true, accurate and complete summary of all aspects of this Change Order. 2. The amounts of time and/or compensation set forth in this Change Order (a) are, in each case, justified as to entitlement and amount, (b) reflect all changes to compensation for and scheduling of the Project (inclusive of all Subcontractor and Supplier amounts, impacts), (c) is complete, accurate and current and (d), in each case, the amounts of time, if any, and/or compensation, if any, agreeable to, and is hereby agreed by, TSP. 3. This Change Order includes all known and anticipated impacts or amounts, direct, indirect and consequential, which have been and may be incurred, as a result of the event, occurrence or matter giving rise to this Change Order. This Change Order constitutes a full and complete settlement of all Losses, Claims, matters, issues and disputes existing as of the effective date of this Change Order, of whatever nature, kind or character relating to the event, occurrence or matter giving rise to this Change Order and the performance of any extra Work that this Change Order documents or relates, including all direct and indirect costs for services, equipment, manpower, materials, overhead, profit, financing, delay and disruption arising out of, or relating to, the issues set forth herein. TSP acknowledges that it shall not be entitled to assert any Claim for relief under the Contract for delay, disruption costs or any other adverse financial or Project Schedule impacts existing as of the effective date of this Change Order and arising out of, or relating to, the event, occurrence or matter giving rise to this Change Order or such extra Work. 4. If the foregoing Change Order includes claims of Subcontractors or Suppliers, TSP represents that authorized representatives of each Subcontractor and Supplier, if any, reviewed such claims, this Change Order and accept this Change Order as dispositive on the same, subject to separate Contract between TSP and each such Subcontractor and Supplier, as applicable. Furthermore, TSP has determined in good faith that such claims are justified as to both entitlement and amount. 5. The cost and pricing data forming the basis for the Change Order is complete, accurate and current, with specific reference to the California False Claims Act (Government Code section 12650 et. seq.) and the U.S. False Claims Act (31 USC § 3729 et seq.) 6. It is understood and agreed that this Change Order shall not alter or change, in any way, the force and effect of the Contract, including any previous amendment(s) thereto, except insofar as the same is expressly altered and amended by this Change Order. 7. This Change Order supersedes all prior commitments, negotiations, correspondence, conversations, Contracts or understanding applicable to the issues addressed herein. No deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or Contracts, whether oral or written, other than the Contract, as amended in accordance with its terms. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 19 154 Sensitive / Proprietary 1;Z E�fRRESSMRNES 8. This Change Order is binding upon, and shall insure to the benefit of, each of the pa ies an their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, TSP, intending to be legally bound, has executed this Change Order as of the date below. Date: TSP: Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. By: Name: Robert Corion Title: Senior Vice President, Delivery and Operations The undersigned Guarantor hereby (i) acknowledges and consents to this CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 5; (ii) reaffirms that certain Guaranty dated as of , 201_ (the "Guaranty"), executed by the undersigned; and (iii) agrees that the Guaranty remains in full force and effect and binding upon the undersigned as of the date hereof. Date: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services TSP: Kapsch TrafficCom AG By: Name: Title: 20 155 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION VI - (Reviewed and recommended by RCTC) By: Name: David Thomas Title: Toll Project Manager Date: EXPRESS LANES By: Name: Michael Blomquist Title: Toll Project Director Date: Comments: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 21 156 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION VII - (Agreed by RCTC's Authorized Representative) EXPRESS LANES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RCTC, intending to be legally bound, has executed this Change Order as of the date first written above. Date: RCTC (the effective date of this Change Order) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services By: Name: Anne Mayer Title: Executive Director zz 157 Sensitive / Proprietary SECTION VIII - (Reviewed by FHWA Project Representative) Comments: EXPRESS LANES By: FHWA Project Representative Date: Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 23 158 Sensitive / Proprietary ATTACHMENT SR-91 (PHASE 2) PRICE SHEET EXPRESS LANES # Item Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total 1 Labor— Kapsch Development of System Design, Documentation, Installation, and Testing for components of the SR-91 Subproject under this Change Order #6 Lot 1 $948,619.00 $948,619.00 2 Subcontracts Support of Installation, Gantry Analysis and Modification Design, Maintenance of Traffic for components of the SR-91 Subproject under this Change Order #6 Lot 1 $1,141,806.00 $1,141,806.00 3 ODCs Supporting Costs — Vehicles, Bonding, Lane Closure Fees for components of the SR-91 Subproject under this Change Order #6 Lot 1 $71679.00 $71679.00 Total System Cost $2,162,104.00 4a Materials and Equipment — South Gantry Materials and System Equipment for Installation of TCS Lot 1 $439,764.00 $439,764.00 4b Materials and Equipment — County -Line VTMS Materials and System Equipment for Installation of TCS Lot 1 $124,181.00 $124,181.00 Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 24 159 Sensitive / Proprietary 4c Materials and Equipment — Network Equipment Materials and System Equipment for Installation of TCS Lot 1 $83,237.00 �nr� $83,23x7. Total Materials Cost 647,182.00 Total D&D Costs $2,809,286.00 Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services AHES 25 160 Sensitive / Proprietary ATTACHMENT 2 ADDITIONAL AND REVISED TECHNICAL PROVISIONS EXDAESS LAHES CHANGE #2 — The following provision is added as new Subsection 2.6.2 (and the subsections that follow are renumbered accordingly): "2.6.2 Project Schedule Requirements The TSP shall maintain a separate Project Schedule for each of SR-91 (Phase 2) and the ELP Project. The Project Schedules shall include key milestones and interdependencies for the ELP Project and SR-91 (Phase 2)." CHANGE #9 — The following provision is added as a new second paragraph to Section 4.6.2 (Installation Drawings): "The TSP shall prepare installation drawings for the SR-91 (Phase 2) for review and approval prior to any installation work being performed for SR-91 (Phase 2)." CHANGE #10 — The following provision is added as a new paragraph at the end of Subsection 5.1 (General): "The TSP shall test SR-91 (Phase 2) per Table 3. SR 91 (Phase 1) ETC FAT N/A ETC OFIT N/A ETC Site Commission x CSC FAT N/A CSC Installation N/A CSC System Commissioning Test N/A TCS Disaster Recovery and Back -Up Test N/A TCS Operations Test x TCS Acceptance Test As part of ELP Annual Renewal As part of ELP Table 1 SR-91 (Phase 2) Testing Overview" Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 26 161 Sensitive / Proprietary ATTACHMENT 3-A FORM OF NTP-SR91 (PHASE 1) PERFORMANCE BOND RIDER To be attached to and form a part of Bond No.: EXPRESS LANES Type of Bond: Performance Bond dated effective (Month — Day — Year) [Principal] and by , as Surety, in favor of Riverside County Transportation Commission In consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained Principal and the Surety hereby consent to the following: The amount of the Payment Bond is hereby increased by the amount of $2,809,286. Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of this bond except as herein expressly stated. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 27 162 Sensitive / Proprietary This rider is effective (Month — Day — Year) Signed and Sealed (Month — Day — Year) EXPRESS LANES By: (Principal) (Surety) By: Attorney -in- Fact Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 2s 163 Sensitive / Proprietary ATTACHMENT 3-B FORM OF NTP-SR91 (PHASE 1) PAYMENT BOND RIDER To be attached to and form a part of Bond No.: EXPRESS LANES Type of Bond: Payment Bond dated effective (Month — Day — Year) [Principal] and by , as Surety, in favor of Riverside County Transportation Commission In consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained Principal and the Surety hereby consent to the following: The amount of the Payment Bond is hereby increased by the amount of $2,809,286. Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of this bond except as herein expressly stated. Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 29 164 Sensitive / Proprietary This rider is effective (Month — Day — Year) Signed and Sealed (Month — Day — Year) EXPRESS LANES By: (Principal) (Surety) By: Attorney -in- Fact Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services 30 165 Sensitive / Proprietary AAAAA k LEGEND PROJECT LIMITS ---- COUNTY LINE VICINITY MAP Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services ATTACHMENT 4 SR-91 AND ELC ROW CORONA EL CERRITO EXDAESS LAHES 31 166 Sensitive / Proprietary ATTACHMENT 5 SR-91 (PHASE 2) REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1) SR-91 Express Lanes As -Built Drawings 2) TSP Change Order #5 Riverside County Transportation Commission 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Toll Services EXPRESS LANES 32 167 AGENDA ITEM 91 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: CEQA Revalidation and Addendum for the Modified State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project's Express Lane Connector Improvements WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 19-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting an Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071075) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project and Approving the Proposed Changes to the Project". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November 2012, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 12-028 related to the State Route 91 (SR-91) Corridor Improvement Project (Project) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and approved the Project. The Project was proposed to be implemented in phases to maximize the use of available funds: (1) the Initial Phase, and (2) the Ultimate Project. Construction of the Initial Phase was substantially completed in March 2017. The Interstate 15/State Route 91 Express Lanes Connector improvement (15/91 ELC) is a component of the Ultimate Project as identified in the EIR/EIS. The 15/91 ELC will provide a tolled express lanes connector between the existing RCTC 91 Express Lanes and the future 15 Express Lanes to the north of SR-91. A detailed vicinity map of the 15/91 ELC is provided as Attachment 1. The 15/91 ELC involves adding: 1) A single -lane tolled express lane connector from the eastbound RCTC 91 Express Lanes to the future northbound 15 Express Lanes that would extend in the median of 1-15 to the Hidden Valley Road interchange; and 2) A single -lane tolled express lane connector from the future southbound 15 Express Lanes that would extend from the median of 1-15 at the Hidden Valley Road interchange and would connect to the westbound RCTC 91 Express Lanes. In addition, operational improvements are proposed along eastbound SR-91 by extending the eastbound 91 Express Lane to approximately 0.5 mile east of the 1-15/SR-91 interchange and Agenda Item 91 168 widening SR-91 to accommodate extending the outside eastbound general purpose lane from the SR-91 bridge over Arlington Channel to east of Promenade Avenue. A variable toll messaging sign would also be installed on eastbound SR-91 near the Orange/Riverside county line. At its October 2017 meeting, the Commission approved an overall procurement strategy for all the services and construction needed for the 15/91 ELC. At the same meeting, the Commission also approved Agreement No. 15-31-001-02 with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. to complete preliminary engineering and environmental documentation for the 15/91 ELC improvement. The current estimated capital cost of the 15/91 ELC is $220 million. In 2017, the Commission received $180 million in funding from Senate Bill 132 to construct the 15/91 ELC. At its January 2019 workshop, the Commission committed to fund the remaining balance with surplus toll revenue from the RCTC 91 Express Lanes. The Commission is also seeking federal funds to build the 15/91 ELC. DISCUSSION: Environmental Process Since the approval of the EIR/EIS, the preliminary engineering and environmental documentation efforts for the 15/91 ELC have identified minor technical changes or additions to the Project. The findings have been documented in an environmental re -validation form for the Project that was completed in June 2019. The environmental re -validation has identified that there are no new or substantive changes to any of the resources, as identified in the EIR/EIS. Hence, no additional avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures have been identified or are warranted, except for one noise barrier to be constructed. Public circulation of the re -validation document is not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, a Record of Decision will be filed with the Federal Register to notify the public of the findings of the environmental re -validation documentation. The NEPA/CEQA re -validation form is described as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 19-011 (Attachment 2) and provided as Attachment 3 to this staff report. The Commission's Role as a Responsible Agency In the environmental process, the Project, and consequently the 15/91 ELC component of the Project, is considered a joint undertaking by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration and is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation has been prepared in compliance with both CEQA and NEPA. Caltrans is the lead agency under NEPA and CEQA for the Project. The Commission is considered a responsible agency under CEQA. As a responsible agency, the Commission must comply with CEQA by considering the final environmental re -validation documentation adopted by Caltrans. In reviewing the final environmental re -validation documentation, the Commission must independently reach its conclusion on whether and how Agenda Item 91 169 to approve the Project modifications. The Commission should approve the Project in its role as a responsible agency. Staff and the Commission's consultant team led the preparation of the environmental re- validation document in close coordination with Caltrans. Although no additional measures to minimize harm to the resources within the Project area were identified or warranted for the Project modifications, future avoidance, mitigation and/or minimization measures may be imposed as part of permit requirements to further reduce environmental effects. An updated Environmental Commitment Record for the Project is attached to the resolution as part of Exhibit A under the re -validation form (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 19-011, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting an Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008071075) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project and Approving the Proposed Changes to the Project." Attachments: 1) 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Vicinity Map 2) Resolution No. 19-011— SR-91 CIP CEQA Addendum and Approval of Project Changes 3) Exhibit A to Resolution No. 19-011 SR-91 — NEPA/CEQA Re -Validation Form (Posted on the Commission Website) Agenda Item 91 170 -15 R -91 EXPRESS. BEGIN CONSTRUCTION SR-91 PM 6.6 + :;r rA., END CONSTRUCTION 1-15 PM 43.4 EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT QUARRY Sf' STH St 171 ATTACHMENT 1 S CONNECTOR INSTALL NEW VTMS SR-91 PM R17.3 NORTH APPROXIMATELY 9 MILES WEST OF THE 15/91 JUNCTION END CONSTRUCTION SR-91 PM 8.1 LEGEND EXPRESS LANES CONNECTOR PROJECT CCO 6 / CCO 10 PROPOSED RE -STRIPING COUNTY LINE SR-91 CIP APE VTMS VARIABLE TOLL MESSAGE SIGN ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 19-011 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2008071075) PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (Project) is a project to improve mobility in the State Route 91 corridor via capacity, operational, and safety improvements; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was the lead agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and WHEREAS, in coordination with Caltrans, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) prepared an environmental impact statement and environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) to analyze the Project's impacts on the environment; and WHEREAS, in August 2012, Caltrans, as lead agency, certified the EIS/EIR, adopted CEQA finding, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), adopted a statement of overriding considerations, and approved the Project; and WHEREAS, in November 2012, the Commission, as a responsible agency under CEQA, considered the EIS/EIR and made similar findings and approvals; and WHEREAS, minor design refinements to the Project have been proposed, namely: the south -to -west connector would connect approximately 45 feet higher to the existing Interstate-15 (I-15)/State Route-91 (SR-91) Bridge No. 56-0817F; the connector bridge has been shortened from one large bridge to three shorter bridge segments; the Main Street East Bound on -ramp is proposed to be realigned approximately 8 feet farther south; the buffer width between East Bound and West Bound SR-91 would be reduced by approximately 7 feet; an additional toll lane would be added on I-15 that extends north of the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange; the existing North Bound off -ramp and existing North Bound on -ramp of the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange would be realigned to the east; and up to 60,000 cubic yards of excavated material removed as part of the Project would be placed in the southeast quadrant of the I-15/SR- 91 interchange between SR-91 and the North Bound I-15 to East Bound SR-91 connector ramp (collectively, the Revised Project); and WHEREAS, under CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an EIR has been certified, the lead agency is required to review any 172 changed circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, Caltrans analyzed all potential environmental effects associated with the Revised Project and determined that none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or Public Resources Code section 21166 have occurred; rather, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the Commission determined that an addendum to the EIR should be prepared; and WHEREAS, in collaboration with Caltrans, the Commission prepared an addendum to the EIS/EIR (Addendum); and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2019, Caltrans, as the lead agency, approved and adopted the Addendum to the EIS/EIR and approved the Revised Project; and WHEREAS, in its limited role as responsible agency, this matter came before the Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting, at which the Commission carefully considered all information pertaining to the Revised Project, including the staff report, the Addendum together with the EIS/EIR, and all of the information, evidence, and testimony presented at its public meeting; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact. Section 2. Compliance with the Environmental Quality Act. In considering the Revised Project, the Commission has considered the EIS/EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2008071075), which was certified by the Commission on November 14, 2012, and the addenda thereto, along with all oral and written comments received and the administrative record (the Record). The Commission hereby finds and determines that the Record contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts of the Revised Project and the Project as a whole, the impacts of which were fully addressed and mitigated (to the extent feasible) in the EIS/EIR. The Commission hereby further finds and determines that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Commission further finds and determines that the Addendum reflects the Commission's independent judgment. Section 3. Findings on Environmental Impacts. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the Record, including but not limited to the Addendum, the Commission finds that an addendum to the EIS/EIR is the appropriate document for disclosing the minor changes and additions that are necessary to the EIS/EIR to account for the Revised Project. The Commission 173 finds that none of the conditions under State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring the need for further subsequent environmental review have occurred because: a) No substantial changes are proposed that would require major revisions of the EIS/E1R due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that would require major revisions of the EIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and c) No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIS/EIR was certified shows any of the following: (i) the modifications would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIS/EIR; (ii) significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the EIS/EIR; (iii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the Commission declined to adopt such measures; or (iv) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the EIS/EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the Commission declined to adopt. Section 4. Approval of Addendum. The Commission hereby approves and adopts the Addendum to the EIS/EIR prepared for the Revised Project (attached as Exhibit A). Section 5. Approval of the Revised Project. The Commission hereby approves the Revised Project, subject to any and all applicable mitigation measures that were previously imposed by the Commission as part of the Project. Section 6. Notice of Determination. The Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk's Office within five (5) working days of adoption of this Resolution. Section 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution and the above findings have been based are located at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, California 92502. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission this day of July, 2019. Chuck Washington, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission 174 ATTEST: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 175 Exhibit A (Addendum to EIR) 176 ATTACHMENT 3 NEPA/CEOA RE -VALIDATION FQRM IlST.:00,fRTE. PROM 0$-RRi•91; 413-RIV-15 ORA-J7-R1 #.43,1R18.91; RIV-g1 • RC.00JR73.0.e; RIV.15.35.6I11a5.121 E.A. ar Fad-Ald Protect N . Other ProJwel NU- 4apecilryl P JECT TITLE ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL TYPE Rre•iio14 EA F-540 PhJ 131XiDZOD3239. New EA OB•OF543 RN OB003 000138 Not Applit;oble Pievidusly &oriel Routs 5!1 Corrxior improvement Prolem t514.-61 Clpl. Now InleroLat,e 15; State Rpulc 91 Eilaress Lame Connector (145eSF141 ELG) Prceset Enuircnmerrlal knpw! Report (El FIVEnvirarlmental i'mp si. Slatament (EFSM DATE APPROVED REASON FOR Or?N SILTATION (23 CFR 771.125� DESCRIPTION OF C H AN clED CON DITIONS August 2012 Creak IenNon fgr carisuflutiew; IDFNLeet moceeeling ro deo imAiov fieerar approveJ [RCM -awe ln some, eartay. eeeC•!S, AtiLIgariorisasauvrcs recpArcrnunrs 53'.yezre JirriOnv (OS of4r) WA {fhe Vard arao 1r}r CECIA. 4.-) SWF rhQ A'aler daslr-mr so!rre prao- sa. sod &sages in Ore p.rcijea desk a ass rOfibm beicw. NEPA CONCLUSION — VALIDITY Based an ea examinat-an or 11ke Chenyed ronrlitrom Rind suppmrt+lg !Om —malice!: IIYhar-i' ONE or.rbe levee srsrermerlrs bthle1 7, regar ,i g hha velem/ d nhe Wpm!' ooetrrrrarirrderemAario i 123 CFR ry r. 729j. IF dog lffra9W is no farrger Len OncYagre wleerher �hp'rfiriOThar fithh7 rOleltr r L5 Iva rrelnled avic wrlahtier lr78 4939 errrif reanerrl.el docurrrera r+niOEJ70 or....0W) • Thq Original enWrorlrnental document or CE rernaini vetlid_ No furMer clocumentallon will be prepared. ® The original swim:mm{1 B! document or GE is In need ar updating; luriher dacumantatIon has peen prepared and E is iritiuded ism tee coniinuatian shea10.] .or ❑ is at1acried. With 1hla additional dOeuraeniakion. kho original E0 or CE remains Y131Id. Additional public caview la warranted (23 CFA nil 1yelp ❑ No L7 The original clacum*rrt i~E n4 longer walld. Addi litinal public review is warra ntad [13 CFA FT1.111(11E 1j Yet ❑ No ❑ 5lrpplerrnerltel eradraementel docurnenl ie needed, Yee Q No ❑ New enulran mental document is needed. Yee n No ❑ (ar -Yes,- specify type; _,— CONCLIRFIENCE NERA gi)LLISiOH I copivikvithi1he NEPA .. nalusion I , 1‘414.4i mature: Pr -coast ManagerrULAE Dale M ❑ EQA CONCLUSION.; (Only mandated for arcleeere Pre Stare Higfavoy Si/slam) eaSKI on an examination of 1hs nargeri carldiri ins and supPcrtilg inturrnalion-the fallowing amrlcJueHsn Imo teen reached n-garding arprapnore CEEDA uocumentatirmn: ,rCtie ,14 ONE # Me Me& saelerrr$rr$ 1)-orcnv, ind0.71401g wherhau env eptkoimar Odeoulerrtahon HZ be "oared. errcl'.ds0. 'POW kind. ffnddLOrornar OcipurnenraMan re areparea art sa r s copy car rsigned farm find $►lY Cord:r1.LEMSn Sfi8.911b,.) ❑ Original document remains valyd. No further documentation 0 egcesseryr. • Only minor rotheicol c hanggS Of addlilane to the previous document are neeeaVarY. A,a egdondum here bull or will be ® prepared and is ®included r}n the continuation 9lleeta ow ❑ will be attached. lk need nol be circuisied for public review. .rCElit Girkfeli'rtear § Offreav ❑ Changes am a u b�i�ntial, bul only minor addrtione or thanges are noeseary to mph, lha prawlous document adequeie. A Supplemental environmental dccurnen1 will be prepared, arid It will he circul Med for public re ripw. (MA A Gliurxerrrres, g15163) ❑ Changes are 8ubetsnitial, and melon revision@ lei The dui -refit dbcumcnt are necessary. A Sulnequent ernironrl eetal document will be prepared, grid Jl wilt be circulated for public re -view. (CEQA Gurdebnes, §?±1 1 faFJ ISpeoity rype of subsequenr docvmenr, e.p . Suas igw nr Fink EAR) ❑ The GE It MO. danger valid. Now CE ngedyci, Yea ❑ Hp ❑ CONCURRENCE wrTH Ce_EQA C ONCLU SI ON r cn� ry aa0ve.Ctile�i3-s, 1"- i1 siai ETvImnrnenlel Br�a h -Other rsdura: Ppeilset PAanagerlaLAE Oats Psgc ] of la Devised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM CONTINUATION SHEET(S) Address only changes or new information since approval of the original document and only those areas that are applicable. Use the list below as section headings as they apply to the project change(s). Use as much or as little space as needed to adequately address the project change(s) and the associated impacts, minimization, avoidance and/or mitigation measures, if any. Changes in project design (e.g., scope change, a new alternative, change in project alignment). An Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) was adopted in 2012 for the State Route (SR) 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). The SR-91 CIP Alternative 2f was proposed in several phases to maximize use of available funds and consisted of an Initial Phase and an Ultimate Project. The SR-91 CIP 2012 EIR/EIS analyzed both the Initial Phase and the Ultimate Project phases. The Record of Decision (ROD) was prepared for the Initial Phase. A new ROD will be needed for this project and for future phases. Construction of the SR-91 CIP Initial Phase was completed under Expenditure Authorization (EA) 08-0F540. The Initial Phase included improvements on SR-91 from approximately the Orange/Riverside county line to the Interstate 15 (1-15) interchange and a single -lane direct connector to and from 1-15 south, extending from SR-91 to the Ontario Avenue interchange. Construction of the Initial Phase began in June 2014 and was opened to traffic in March 2017. Separate projects have been identified below and programmed to incorporate the following remaining improvements of the Ultimate Project by 2035. See Attachment 1 for the Ultimate Project Study Area. The Ultimate Project would provide the following improvements: Eastbound SR-91 • A sixth general purpose (GP) lane would be provided between SR-241 and SR-71. Between SR-241 and Coal Canyon, widening on eastbound (EB) SR-91 is proposed to accommodate the additional lane. Between Coal Canyon and Green River Road, the centerline of SR-91 is proposed to be shifted northward and widening of westbound (WB) SR-91 is proposed to accommodate the additional EB lane. • The Green River Road EB off- and on -ramps would be widened and realigned to accommodate the Ultimate Project. • Between Green River Road and SR-71, restriping EB SR-91 is proposed to accommodate the additional GP lane. • From 1-15 to Pierce Street, a fourth GP lane would be added by widening EB SR-91 between 1-15 and the Pierce Street off -ramp. The EB tolled Express Lane would be extended from I-15 to the McKinley Street interchange by restriping the inside GP lane. • The McKinley Street EB ramps would be modified to accommodate the widening of SR-91, and additional lanes would be added to the ramps. • A new collector -distributor road would be constructed, combining the Pierce Street and Magnolia Avenue EB off -ramps into one exit point from SR-91, which is also the termination point of the fourth GP lane addition. Westbound SR-91 • A sixth GP lane would be provided between SR-71 and SR-241. Between Coal Canyon and SR-241, widening on WB SR-91 is proposed to accommodate the additional lane. • Between Green River Road and Coal Canyon, widening of WB SR-91 is proposed to accommodate the additional lane. • The Green River Road WB on -ramp would be widened and realigned to accommodate the Ultimate Project. • Between the SR-71 south—west connector to Green River Road, the additional GP lane would be added by restriping. An auxiliary lane would also be added in advance of the Green River Road off - ramp by restriping. • From Pierce Street to I-15, a fourth GP lane would be added by widening WB SR-91 between the Pierce Street WB on -ramp and 1-15. The WB high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane would be converted to a tolled Express Lane within these limits. Page 2 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM • The McKinley Street WB ramps would be modified to accommodate the widening of SR-91, and an additional lane would be added to the ramps. 1-15 • A single -lane tolled Express Lane would be constructed in the median in the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) directions extending from the Ontario Avenue interchange to the Cajalco Road interchange. • A single -lane tolled Express Lane connector would be provided from EB SR-91 to NB 1-15 that would extend in the median of 1-15 to the Hidden Valley Road interchange. • A single -lane tolled Express Lane would be constructed in the median of 1-15 that would begin at the Hidden Valley Road interchange and would continue SB as a single -lane Express Lane connector to WB SR-91. I-15/SR-91 ELC Project Status The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project is a component of the Ultimate Project that is to be examined in this re- validation under EA 08-0F543. See Attachment 2 for the ELC Project Study Area. As previously analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS, this component involves adding: (1) a single -lane tolled Express Lane connector from the EB SR-91 Express Lanes to the NB 1-15 Express Lanes that would extend in the median of 1-15 to the Hidden Valley Road interchange; and (2) a single -lane tolled Express Lane in the median of 1-15 that would begin at the Hidden Valley Road interchange and would continue SB as a single Express Lane connector to the WB SR-91 Express Lanes. In addition, operational improvements are proposed along EB SR-91 by extending the EB Express Lane to approximately 0.5 mile east of the I-15/SR-91 interchange and widening EB SR-91 to accommodate extending the #4 GP lane from the SR-91 bridge over Arlington Channel to east of Promenade Avenue. A variable toll messaging sign (VTMS) would be installed on EB SR-91 near the Orange/Riverside county line. I-15/SR-91 ELC Project Design Changes The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project is consistent with the project features identified in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS, except for the following design changes: Separated Connectors The design of the 1-15 south-to-SR-91 west and the SR-91 east-to-1-15 north connectors was changed so each of the connectors would have an independent alignment. The design changes include the following changes: • The south -to -west connector would connect approximately 45 feet higher to the existing (constructed as part of the Initial Phase) I-15/SR-91 ELC (Bridge No. 56-0817F). The previous design was approximately 45 feet lower and connected to the existing Temescal Wash bridge. The profile of this connector is now approximately 30 feet over the existing north -to -west connector bridge. The previous design was approximately 15 feet below the existing north -to -west connector bridge. • The east -to -north connector profile generally follows the profile analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS; however, the connector bridge has been shortened from one large bridge to three shorter bridge segments by implementing 30-foot-high retaining wall structures with fill material below the roadway instead of the roadway being placed on more costly bridge structures. Barrier Separation To make room for the additional buffer required for the toll facility and to provide standard shoulder widths along EB SR-91, the Main Street EB on -ramp is proposed to be realigned approximately 8 feet farther south. Also, as a result, the buffer width between EB and WB SR-91 would be reduced by approximately 7 feet. Toll Lane Improvements An additional toll lane would be added on 1-15 that extends north of the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange. To accommodate this additional toll lane, the existing NB off -ramp and existing NB on -ramp of the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange would be realigned to the east. Page 3 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM Soundwall As part of design development, one soundwall (SW2192) required minor changes from what was presented in the Final EIR/EIS. This soundwall, described below, would not affect the outcome decisions made in the Final EIR/EIS and would still be considered reasonable and feasible. Soundwall SW2192 would be approximately 90 feet long and located within private property in the northeast quadrant of the I-15/SR-91 interchange. See Attachment 3 for the location of the soundwall. Two easements would be required: a temporary construction easement (TCE) that would be 161 feet long and roughly 15 feet wide, and a footing easement that would be 110 feet long and 5 feet wide to protect the footing in perpetuity to ensure no one structurally damages the wall. Soundwall SW2192 would be a combination transparent/masonry-block wall. Changes in environmental setting (e.g., new development affecting traffic or air quality). To the extent the environmental setting has changed, it is the result of design changes that occurred during the Initial Phase that were addressed in previous re -validations of the EIR/EIS. The changes did not result in any substantial impacts to the environment. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the previous re -validations for the Initial Phase. Changes in environmental circumstances (e.g., a new law or regulation, change in the status of a listed species). The following are changes in environmental circumstances from what was previously analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS: Hazardous Materials/Waste The governing regulatory guidance for conducting initial site assessments (ISA)/hazardous materials/ hazardous waste assessments at the time the Phase I ISA was conducted for the Final EIR/EIS was the American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process. The regulatory guidance has since been updated to the current ASTM E 1527-13. The major changes in the current version are discussed below: Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) — The revised Standard simplifies the definition of an REC to be "a release, a likely release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances to the environment and property." A Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) now refers only to "historic releases which have been remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities for unrestricted use," therefore limiting an HREC to past releases that do not subject the property to any use restrictions, activity and use limitations (AULs), or other engineering or institutional controls. An HREC is no longer considered an REC. Finally, a new term was introduced: Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs). This term describes "releases that have been addressed to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, but from which residual contamination has been permitted to remain in place subject to the implementation of use restrictions, AULs, or other institutional or engineering controls on the subject property." A CREC is an REC and must be identified as such in the conclusions section of the Phase I report. Vapor Migration — The potential for vapor migration, including vapor that migrates in the subsurface, must be considered in the Phase I report. Agency File Reviews — If a relevant property appears on a federal, state, or tribal record, the new Standard requires a review of "pertinent regulatory files and/or records associated with the listing." The environmental professional can exercise discretion when mandating a review but must document the reasons why a review was not conducted if a document review is deemed unnecessary. An ISA Addendum was prepared and approved in October 2018 to update the information related to the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project site and accommodate changes with the toll lane improvements. Air Quality The governing regulatory guidance for conducting project air quality analysis in 2010 was the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews the most up-to-date scientific information and the existing ambient standards for each pollutant every Page 4 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM 5 years and obtains advice from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) on each review. Based on these, EPA applies consideration to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) accordingly. The changes and adjustments to the NAAQS, especially those that occurred since approval of the project's 2012 Final EIR/EIS, include the following: 1. The 8-hour ozone (03) standard of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) was established in 2008. On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated attainment designations based on the 8-hour Os standard. On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8-hour Os NAAQS based on new scientific evidence regarding the effects of ground -level Os on public health and the environment. The new 8-hour Os NAAQS standard (primary and secondary) is 0.070 ppm. The area designation/classification based on the new standard passed Final rule on March 1, 2018, and attainment demonstration plans in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) will be due by late 2019. EPA revised the air quality standards for particle pollution in 2012. The new revisions became effective on January 15, 2015, and include the following: 1. The annual particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) standard, for primary and secondary, was strengthened from the 2006 level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) to 12.0 pg/m3 (primary) and 15.0 pg/m3 (secondary); the 24-hour standard of 35 pg/m3was retained. 2. The 24-hour particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o) standard of 150 pg/m3 was retained. Since approval of the Final EIR/EIS, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) have been updated (2016-2040 RTP/SCS and 2017 FTIP). In June 2018, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) confirmed that the previously issued Project - Level Conformity Determination for the SR-91 CIP remains valid for obtaining the ROD for the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project. Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93.104d, the I-15/SR-91 revised ELC Project does not prompt any of the three triggers that would require a redetermination of conformity: 1. The project design concept and scope have not changed: In February 2018, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 Traffic Planning determined that the I-15/SR-91 ELC improvements were consistent with the SR-91 CIP and that no revisions to the Traffic Operational Analysis Report are required. 2. No 3-year lapse in major steps to advance the project: The SR-91 CIP Initial Phase was opened to traffic in March 2017. The environmental permits are still open, and plant establishment and warranty repair work is ongoing. The project is active. 3. The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project does not necessitate performing a supplemental environmental document for air quality purposes. The description of the project in the 2012 RTP is as follows: Project ID No. RIV071250; Description: Phase 1: On SR-91/I-15: SR91 — Construct 1 mixed flow lane (SR-71 through 1-15)/1 aux lane at various locations (SR-241 through Pierce) (OC PM 14.43-18.91), CD system (2/3/4 lanes from Main Street to 1-15), 1 toll express lane (TEL) and convert HOV to TEL in each direction (OC to 1-15); 1-15 — construct TEL median direct connector NB 1-15 to WB SR-91 and EB SR-91 to SB 1-15, 1 TEL in each direction (SR-91 direct connector— Ontario Interchange) (1-15 PM 37.56-42.94). Phase 2: on SR-91/I- 15: SR91 — Add 1 mixed flow lane in each direction (SR241 — SR71)(115 — Pierce); 115 — add toll express lane (TEL) median direct connector (SB15 to WB91 & EB91 to NB15), 1 TEL each direction from Hidden Valley —SR-91 direct connector and from Ontario Interchange to Cajalco Interchange. Therefore, since the approved RTP description matches the proposed work, no further air quality analysis was required for the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project. Noise The base cost allowance for noise abatement reasonableness and feasibility was $55,000 at the time of the Final EIR/EIS. The 2019 base cost analysis is now $107,000 per benefited receptor. A Supplemental Noise Study Report (NSR) and Supplemental Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) were completed for the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project and approved in June 2019. These analyses used $107,000 per benefited receptor. Page 5 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM Biology The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB); Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC); and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) databases were accessed to obtain updated species lists to determine whether there were changes to the species listed in the Final EIR/EIS. The updated IPaC and NMFS database searches are included in Attachments 5 and 6. Since approval (May 2010) of the Natural Environment Study (NES), three additional special -status species were identified as having potential to occur within the Biological Study Area (BSA): Santa Monica dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia), arroyo chub (Gila orcuttiO, and yellow rail (Cotumicops noveboracensis). A Supplemental NES was approved in May 2019. Changes to environmental impacts of the project (e.g., a new type of impact, or a change in the magnitude of an existing impact). There are no new or substantive changes for the following resource areas, as identified in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. 3.1 — Land Use Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed or substantial impacts to land use. These design changes do not result in changes to zoning, and land use remains consistent with the Riverside County General Plan. A temporary construction easement for parcel 115-353-015 will be required during construction of Soundwall SW2192; however, no additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures (AMMs) would be required. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures (AMMs) are required. 3.2 — Growth Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed or substantial impacts to growth. The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would not foster economic or population growth. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.3 — Farmlands/Timberlands Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in substantial impacts to Farmlands of Local Importance and Timberlands. While there is an area of Farmland of Local Importance located within the project study area in the southeast quadrant of the I-15/SR-91 interchange, the identified farmland is located outside the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project footprint. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.4 — Community Impacts Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed or substantial impacts to the community. No minority or low-income populations that would be adversely affected by the proposed project have been identified. Therefore, this project is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12898. Additionally, the current use of the project location is an interchange. The proposed improvements do not change the existing use; therefore, the project would not affect community character and cohesion. No acquisitions are required for the project; therefore, no relocations would occur. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.5 — Utilities/Emergency Services Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to utilities/emergency services. Any additional utilities relocations resulting from separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, or improvements to the toll lanes would be coordinated with the utility companies and emergency service providers to reduce disruptions to service. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. Page 6 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM 3.6 — Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities A memorandum was prepared and approved in May 2018, confirming the analysis in the SR-91 CIP Traffic Operations Analysis Report is still valid. Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to traffic and transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These changes in design are anticipated to improve traffic and transportation within the project area. The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with the traffic and transportation analysis in the Final EIR/EIS. Therefore, no new AMMs would be required. 3.8 — Cultural Resources No cultural resources were identified in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) within the revised I- 15/SR-91 ELC Project area. Therefore, the design changes for the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project, separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to cultural resources and would not result in any historic properties being affected. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.9 — Hydrology and Floodplains Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to hydrology. The project is located within a 100-year base floodplain but would not result in a significant encroachment in the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.10 — Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to water quality and stormwater runoff analysis. These improvements are in compliance with all federal, state, and local water quality policies. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.11 — Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography Project design would follow all required building codes. Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to geology, soils, seismic, and topography. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final-EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.12 — Paleontology The project is located in a mix of high and low paleontological sensitivity areas, and AMMs to reduce impacts to paleontological resources were already identified in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to paleontological resources from those previously analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.14 — Air Quality Confirmation from FHWA was received in June 2018 that the previously issued Project -Level Conformity Determination for the SR-91 CIP remains valid for obtaining the ROD for the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project because the project conforms with 40 CFR 93.04d: the project design concept and scope have not changed, there has not been a 3-year lapse in major steps to advance the project, and the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project is not performing a supplemental environmental document for air quality purposes. The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with the air quality analysis in the Final EIR/EIS. Therefore, no new AMMs are required. Page 7 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM 3.16 — Energy Separation of the connectors, changes to the barrier separation, and improvements to the toll lanes would not result in any new/changed substantial impacts to energy resources. The project changes would use energy -efficient lighting; therefore, the project would not produce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption. Therefore, the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would be consistent with what was analyzed in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. No new AMMs are required. 3.23 — Relationship between Local Short -Term Uses of the Human Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would not change the outcome of what was determined and addressed in Section 3.23 of the Final EIR/EIS. 3.24 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources that would be Involved in the Proposed Proiect The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would not change the outcome of what was determined and addressed in Section 3.24 of the Final EIR/EIS. 3.25 — Cumulative Impacts The I-15/SR-91 ELC Project would not change the cumulative impacts as identified in the Final EIR/EIS. While the following resources did require additional technical studies, there are no substantive changes for these resources, as identified in the SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS. 3.7 — Visual/Aesthetics Since approval of the Final EIR/EIS, design changes, consisting of the addition of two direct connectors and the lower profile of the EB to NB connector, have been incorporated into the I-15/SR-91 ELC that have resulted in visual changes. These changes were analyzed in a Scenic Resource Evaluation and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum of State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project. The addendum was approved in December 2018. New visual simulations were prepared to display the potential changes associated with the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project and can be found in Attachment 7. The addendum also analyzed the proposed mitigation associated with the changes to the visual environment of the study area. The analysis confirmed that the new changes associated with the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project are not anticipated to result in changes to visual resources beyond what was identified in the 2010 Visual Impact Assessment and analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS. No additional impacts were identified, and no new AMMs are recommended. 3.13 — Hazardous Waste/Materials Since approval of the Final EIR/EIS, project limits expanded by adding a toll lane on 1-15 that extends north of the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange, which required updated information about potential hazardous material/waste sites that could affect the project site. Impacts from these changes were analyzed in the ISA Addendum approved in October 2018. Addendum activities conducted include identification of contaminated properties on or adjacent to the project site, review of historical records of releases adjacent to or on the project site, identification of other environmental issues that may exist on or near the project site, and other potential environmental issues that may affect Caltrans and/or other project proponent's ability to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project. The ISA Addendum did not reveal any additional RECs in connection with the project beyond those identified and analyzed in the Final EIR/EIS for hazardous materials/waste. No additional AMMs beyond those identified in the Final EIR/EIS were recommended. 3.15 — Noise As of May 2019, RCTC has constructed all of the soundwalls committed in the Final EIR/EIS for the SR- 91 CIP. A Supplemental NSR (SNSR) and Supplemental NADR (SNADR) were prepared to account for geometric changes to the express lanes connectors since approval of the 2012 Final EIR/EIS. The connectors have different horizontal and vertical alignments than originally proposed in the 2012. As mentioned in the "Changes in Environmental Circumstances" section of this re -validation, the base cost Page 8 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM allowance for noise abatement reasonableness and feasibility increased from $55,000 in 2012 to $107,000 per benefited receptor. Traffic noise impacts associate with the geometric changes to the express lane connector would occur at two single-family residences located along Cresta Road, north of SR-91 and east of 1-15. The SNSR concluded that a soundwall with heights ranging from 8 to 10 feet would be needed to provide feasible abatement of traffic noise of reducing existing noise levels to 5 decibels (dB) for the two impacted receptors. The SNADR determined that Soundwall SW2192 is reasonable from a basis of cost, and the property owner is in favor of the soundwall; therefore, a soundwall is recommended to be constructed. Biological Resources (3.17 — Natural Communities, 3.22 — Invasive Species) Since approval of the Final EIR/EIS, design changes have been incorporated into the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project's final design. The potential impacts of these changes, as well as the potential project impacts due to changes in the affected biological environment, were analyzed in a Supplemental NES that was approved in May 2019. To complete the analysis of the biological environment for the Supplemental NES, habitat assessment site visits were conducted; new species lists from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were obtained; and a review was conducted of the Final Jurisdictional Delineation Report approved in November 2009. New species lists (see Attachments 5 and 6) were obtained to update the occurrence of flora and fauna in the project area. The IPaC planning tool was used to obtain a species list from USFWS. One species, Santa Monica Mountains dudleya (Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia), was not previously identified in the approved May 2010 NES. The CNDDB was used to obtain a CDFW species list. Two species, arroyo chub (Gila orcuttiO and yellow rail (Cotumicops noveboracensis), were not previously identified in the approved May 2010 NES. The NMFS was used to obtain NOAA species lists of endangered or threatened species and critical habitat in California. No new species were identified from this database search. No suitable habitat for the Santa Monica Mountains dudleya was observed during focused surveys conducted in 2008 or 2014 nor during the 2018 site visits. Additionally, no species were observed during the March 9, 19, or April 11, 2018, site visits. The lack of suitable habitat and absence of the Santa Monica Mountains dudleya during the site visits results in a no effect finding for the species. According to the database search results, no suitable habitat occurs within the project study area for the arroyo chub or the yellow rail, which results in a no effect finding for both species. The I-15/SR-91 ELC would result in temporary impacts to 1.56 acres of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) non -wetland jurisdictional features and 0.01 acre of permanent impacts to USACE non -wetland jurisdictional features. No USACE wetlands would be impacted for project development. The I-15/SR-15 ELC would result in temporary impacts to 1.69 acres of CDFW and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional features and 0.02 acre of permanent impacts to CDFW and RWQCB jurisdictional features. See Attachment 8 for figures of impacts to CDFW/RWQCB waters. Project development would not impact CDFW riparian habitat. Authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Nationwide Permit and Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the CWA (and a Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act permit for impacts on state waters only), and a CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required. According to the analysis in the Supplemental NES, the project would implement the AMMs as included in the previously approved NES and the Final EIR/EIS. The analysis shows that the project, including the design changes, would result in minimal changes to the biological environment, and the AMMs included in the previously approved NES and Final EIR/EIS would suffice to mitigate these minimal changes without the need for new mitigation measures; therefore, no new mitigation measures have been recommended. Changes to avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures since the environmental document was approved. Since approval of the Final EIR/EIS, the Initial Phase of the SR-91 CIP has been constructed. Attachment 9 contains the Environmental Commitments Record (ECR) for the Initial Phase, which includes all measures committed to in the Final EIR/EIS. This ECR also includes the additional AMMs Page 9 of 10 Revised September 2016 NEPA/CEQA RE -VALIDATION FORM required as a result of the design changes analyzed in the various re -validations completed during design and construction of the Initial Phase of the SR-91 CIP. Changes to environmental commitments since the environmental document was approved (e.g., the addition of new conditions in permits or approvals). When this applies, append a revised Environmental Commitments Record (ECR) as one of the Continuation Sheets. While there are no new visual impacts resulting from the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project related to project changes, in order for the SR-91 CIP to satisfy the ECR requirements for tree replacement, the SR-91 CIP needed to either: • Plant 1,877 trees with 1,500 shrubs for the 150 trees with no plantable areas adjacent, or • Plant 1,228 trees with 7,990 shrubs utilizing the 10:1 tree equivalent ratio for the community adjacent trees, or • A combination of trees and shrubs between the limits of the two options. The most recent count of tree replacements for SR-91 CIP is 1,169 and 4,977 (5-gallon shrubs). The planting of 87 trees within the I-15/SR-91 interchange was deferred due to conflict with the future 1-15 Express Lanes Project (ELP). These trees were transferred from the SR-91 CIP via Revalidation 30 and will be planted by the 1-15 ELP through the ELP's Revalidation 11. Assuming all community adjacent trees are replaced at a 1:1 tree ratio, the SR-91 CIP required an additional 360 trees to fulfill ECR Measure V-2. Through the SR-91 CIP, 324 trees were donated to the City of Corona to plant within their community. Additionally, 236 trees were donated to Riverside County Parks and Recreation to plant within their jurisdiction. Final count for the SR-91 CIP, including landscape plan quantities and community donations, totaled 2,227 tree equivalents, which exceed the requirements of the ECR. There remains a commitment to place 87 trees from the SR-91 CIP. These remaining tree replacements from the SR-91 CIP have been deferred via a re -validation of the SR-91 CIP to the 1-15 ELP (EA 0J0800) through a re -validation of the ELP. The 87 trees transferred from the SR-91 CIP would be in addition to any tree replacement commitments already determined for EA 0J0800. Commitment V-2 has been satisfied and has been removed from the Ultimate Project ECR. Table 1 lists the trees to be planted. Table 1. Trees to be Planted by EA 0J0800 Botanical Name Common Name Size Quantity Chilopsis Linearis Desert Willow 24" Box 15 Pinus Canariensis Canary Island Pine No. 15 3 Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore 24" Box 2 Platanus Racemosa California Sycamore No. 15 18 Quercus Wislizenii Interior Live Oak 24" Box 3 Quercus Wislizenii Interior Live Oak No. 15 2 Quercus Agrifolia Coast Live Oak No. 15 12 Parkinsonia Florida Blue Palo Verde 24" Box 19 Parkinsonia Florida Blue Palo Verde No. 15 13 Total 87 Attachment 10 contains the ECR, which will be applicable to all projects constituting the Ultimate Project, including the I-15/SR-91 ELC Project. Page 10 of 10 Revised September 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 Ultimate Project Study Area Page 1-1 SR g I CT Ubmra ,irc nst Six* lvaa — F{Airjr 3Y0441y — Highway COY er7A-g . Gau TeEl o me a rp Page 1-2 E•p1514:1rrerrCan1W:4f ATTACHMENT 2 ELC Project Study Area Page 2-1 o rxs • YL 2 sac D E LC Project SLIM .area Channel I flash Railroads i. _. City Boundary RARSO NS ESP]. rii.a s. ail 2.2a,R P&p y pima 1 yG5V70 Y 1-15 SR 51 FxpnEms. 1 nnrs C_a n nrrtnr 3RCAW-91= P.M CAW IEA: 08-tiF54+3 ELC Projent Study Area Page 2-2 ATTACHMENT 3 Soundwall Location Page 3-1 • MI* • •15.1*4 r_ • ..... 1 1. CIWI 1. WM= mr! ma - - irr 1 . ..•....r, IPTIP . ;:.' . : • . ; 1, - .7:,•=1— ,_•_. ... ,‘ ... __ _ .--- • - —. _=4.,_•1=---_,I = = -... • .. .-• .. • - , • :-='-:----=;_. _ . . '-..- ' • — __ - ----.---:.— , '---- - . -zr:-.-_-___ .--=.:;-_-_: - "'41 0:11M Detail A \•0 tur swziw AMR *E. Ek;FNFE En. *IT- slam rem mt+a_+ooeH- ililram - -1:10.T171N 41E,411.1E1,1114T O 11911 • titela-1•4141." 11.31;11M. ▪ - 4,1.1471-1r.WLY1131:CAZ maw - aw1m1.3,41. b - .1011b1L7K1 1R•49.74'1 L7RT114:1 31:0E414L- -c-3- -•—•-- - iNiLY2LD 304.1Em11L - PRIMA ITCPERP 1:6 Lin }FIT mar PARSONS. INS MST 151/4040 ST. PAtodArt14C..E.9112.1 1.1170j 14 04;100 1-151'Sn-91 OcPRESS• LANES CONNECTak HOME RECEIVER S. ELARFIIER LIMallGri•S Page 3-2 ATTACHMENT 4 SR-91 CIP Final EIR/EIS Initial Phase Re -validations Page 4-1 Reval # Reason for Revalidation Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Added, Deleted, or Revised 1. Design Change #1 N/A Horizontal Alignment • Shift the Serfas Club Drive alignment approximately 6 degrees to accommodate a right -turn pocket from northbound (NB) Serfas Club Drive to eastbound (EB) Pine Crest Drive, avoid right- of-way (ROW) impacts to Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) #102-113-001, and accommodate a driveway from APN #102-050-002 (Arco/McDonald's) to Serfas Club Drive. The change addresses City of Corona and County of Riverside concerns of proposed intersections leading to traffic circulation issues. ROW • Chevron Station at APN #102-091-020 to be protected in place instead of acquired (as originally reported in the Final Environmental Impact Report [EIR]/Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]). • Arco/McDonalds at APN #102-050-002 to be reconfigured to provide a driveway. Acquisition of this property not required. • Acquisition of a currently vacant parcel (site of a former golf course) at Serfas Club Drive/Pine Crest Drive (APN #102-050-012). • The change would address City of Corona concerns regarding the tax revenue loss from acquisition of the Chevron Station. Slope -Fill Work • Implement slope -fill work to correct differences in elevation between the roadway improvements at Serfas Club Drive and adjacent parcel APN #102-050-003.The change is required as a result of the change in horizontal alignment of Serfas Club Drive. Traffic Signal Synchronization • Frontage Road/Serfas Club Drive traffic signal synchronized with Pine Crest Drive/Serfas Club Drive signal to accommodate right -turn pocket from NB Serfas Club Drive to EB Pine Crest Drive. The change is required to address City of Corona and County of Riverside concerns of proposed intersections leading to traffic circulation issues. Design Change #2 Traffic Signal Installation • Install new traffic signal at Corona Town Center and Lincoln Avenue to facilitate right -turn movements onto NB Lincoln Avenue from Corona Town Center and for left -turn movements from southbound (SB) Lincoln Avenue onto Corona Town Center. • The change is required as ROW mitigation for impacts to parking lot access at Corona Town Center. Design Changes #3—#6 Page 4-2 Reval # Reason for Revalidation Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Added, Deleted, or Revised California Highway Patrol (CHP) Turn -Around Facilities within the Existing Median • Redesign of CHP turn -around based on revised State Route (SR) 91 median geometry, at SR-91 near western limits of project. • Minor realignment of EB SR-91 near the proposed SR-91/SR-71 toll facilities to allow sufficient horizontal clearances for a CHP turn -around area. • Modification of median barriers under the SR-91 to Interstate 15 (1-15) flyover structure to allow room for a CHP turn -around. • Modification of median barriers along 1-15 between the Magnolia Boulevard and Ontario Avenue interchanges to allow room for a CHP turn -around. • CHP turn -around areas are a requirement for the enforcement component of Express Toll Lanes. Design Change #7 Horizontal Alignment • Realign Green River Road to accommodate Initial Phase instead of the Ultimate Project. • Shift Green River Road alignment south, closer to SR-91, to accommodate a retaining wall for the Initial Phase of the project. • Minimize impacts to entrance driveway of Green River Golf Course by pulling cul-de-sac south, closer to SR-91. • Eliminate separate bicycle parking lot directly adjacent to the Reach 9 Phase 11 B Project and place parking lot west of cul-de-sac bulb. • The purpose of this change is to minimize impacts to facilities related to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Orange County Public Works, and City of Corona. Design Change #8 Rail Relocation • Relocate rail switches at Porphyry Yard within Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad ROW (APN #115-050-019), beneath the SR-91/1-15 interchange, to accommodate interchange improvements. • Install fifth storage track (1,561 feet of track) due to loss of existing storage track resulting from rail switch relocation. • Relocate a small segment of BNSF maintenance access road to allow enough vehicle spacing between a proposed bridge column for the SR-91/1-15 interchange and the railroad. 2. Design Change #1: SCE Utility Relocation at Lincoln Avenue and D Street Two additional measures were added to the project, included in the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Addendum: Hazardous Waste and Materials Utility Relocation • Relocate overhead Southern California Edison (SCE) electrical utility facilities from the north side of the property (apart