Loading...
01 January 30-31, 2020 Commission, Workshop, and Key Messaging TrainingRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org MEETING AGENDA KEY MESSAGING TRAINING 9:00 a.m. Thursday, January 30, 2020 Hilton Palm Springs, Whitewater Room 400 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. KEY MESSAGING TRAINING 4. ADJOURNMENT 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 and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 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 www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda January 30 – 31, 2020 Hilton Palm Springs 440 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 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 and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. The start times listed on the agenda are approximate and are included for guidance only. Agenda items may be taken out of the order listed on the agenda. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2020 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. 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE – 2020 WHAT NEEDS OUR ATTENTION? Ben J. Benoit, Chair All Commissioners 2:00 p.m. – 2:40 p.m. PREVIEW OF DEBT REFINANCING OPPORTUNITIES Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 2:40 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. BREAK Commission Workshop Agenda January 30-31, 2020 Page 2 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. RCTC AT WORK: PANEL DISCUSSION Moderated by Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager Stephanie Blanco, Capital Projects Manager Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager Mark Lancaster, Capital Projects Manager David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager David Thomas, Toll Project Manager 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. LEGISLATIVE PANEL – WHAT’S HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND SACRAMENTO? Panel Moderated by David Knudsen, Legislative Affairs Manager Mark Watts Kathy Ruffalo Cliff Madison 5:00 p.m. – 5:15 p.m. WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS Anne Mayer, Executive Director 5:15 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. BREAK 6:00 p.m. DINNER 6:30 p.m. PRESENTATIONS ON SUNLINE AND NEW TECHNOLOGY Lauren Skiver, CEO/General Manager SunLine Transit Agency 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The workshop will continue at 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 31, 440 E Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2020 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. BREAKFAST 8:30 a.m. –9:00 a.m. COMMISSION MEETING (SEE SEPARATE AGENDA) 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. SB 743 – VMT – THE FUTURE IN CALIFORNIA IS CHANGING Charity Schiller, Best Best & Krieger, LLP 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. ZERO FATALITIES TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Lisa Middleton 10:45 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGY UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM ATTACHED) Darren Henderson, WSP This item is for the Commission to receive and discuss information on the use of technology for traffic relief strategies. 11:15 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. UPDATE ON PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN (AGENDA ITEM ATTACHED) Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director This item is for the Commission to receive information regarding recent and upcoming public engagement for the Draft Traffic Relief Plan. 11:30 a.m. – 11:45 a.m. RECAP AND FINAL THOUGHTS Chair Ben J. Benoit Anne Mayer, Executive Director Commission Workshop Agenda January 30-31, 2020 Page 2 11:45 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT RULES FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA AND NON AGENDA ITEMS. 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. RCTC AT WORK: PANEL Capital Projects Manager • 15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension Capital Projects Manager • Route 60 Truck Lanes • 1-15 Railroad Canyon Interchange • Route 91 Pachappa Undercrossing Capital Projects Manager • Riverside Downtown Station • Santa Ana River Trail (SART) Toll Operations Manager • Toll Operations 91 Express Lanes 15 Express Lanes Capital Projects Manager • 1-215 Placentia Avenue (Mid County Parkway) • 71/91 Interchange Toll Project Manager • 1-15 Express Lanes • 15/91 Express Lanes Connector • 91 Corridor Operations Project PREVIEW OF 91 EXPRESS LANES DEBT REFINANCING OPPORTUNITIES Workshop January 30, 2020 Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer 1 No Leveraging of Surplus Toll Revenues JANUARY 30, 2020 2 Desire to preserve future financings involving surplus toll revenues from RCTC toll facilities May return in future with innovative financing ideas Existing surplus toll revenues still available to fund 91 corridor projects Current 91 Express Lanes Toll Debt JANUARY 30, 2020 3 Toll Revenue Bonds Original Amount Outstanding at January 31, 2020 Senior Lien Bonds: 2013 Series A (Current Interest Bonds) $ 123,825,000 $ 123,825,000 2013 Series B (Capital Appreciation Bonds) 52,829,602 80,604,924 Subordinate Lien Bonds: 2013 TIFIA Loan 421,054,409 482,169,632 Total $ 597,709,011 $ 686,599,556 Why Consider a Refinancing? JANUARY 30, 2020 4 Debt Management Tool •Reduce interest costs •Capture additional near-term surplus toll revenues •Remove or change burdensome bond covenants •Enhance future debt management flexibility Criteria •Net present value savings of at least 3% of par value of refunded bonds •May be below 3% in certain circumstances with justification and Board approval Proposed Plan of Refinance JANUARY 30, 2020 5 Debt Today •Senior Lien (tax-exempt) •2013 A Bonds •2013 B Bonds •Subordinate Lien (taxable) •2013 TIFIA Loan Debt after Refinancing •Senior Lien •2020 A Refunding Bonds (taxable) •2013 B Bonds (tax-exempt) •2020 B1 Refunding Bonds (tax-exempt) •Subordinate Lien •2020 B2 Refunding Bonds (tax-exempt) •Advance refund 2013 A Bonds (tax-exempt) with 2020 A Refunding Bonds (taxable) due to tax reform •No change in 2013 B Bonds as refunding not economically feasible •Refinance 2013 TIFIA Loan with tax-exempt senior lien 2020 B1 and subordinate lien 2020 B2 Refunding Bonds 2020 Refinancing Objectives JANUARY 30, 2020 6 Burdensome Covenants •TIFIA Loan prepayments •TIFIA approvals •Reporting and administration Future Debt Service •Ensure funds available for 91 corridor projects •Lower debt service payments •Earlier final debt maturity Historical Basis for Tax-Exempt Rates JANUARY 30, 2020 7 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Historical Municipal Market Data (MMD) Rates 1-Year Historical MMD Range ____________________ Source: Thomson Reuters as of 1/21/2020. 1/21/2020 MMD Summary: Option 1 JANUARY 30, 2020 8 Maintain Existing Debt Structure •Final maturity: •Toll bonds in 2048 •TIFIA Loan: •Scheduled in 2051 •With prepayments ~2039 •Begin revenue sharing of surplus toll revenues with TIFIA in December 2021 until maturity •Surplus revenues available only after revenue sharing with TIFIA Summary: Option 2 JANUARY 30, 2020 9 Refinance Debt •Net present value savings •Final debt maturity may be earlier than 2051 •Toll authority through 2067 •Level of gross debt service savings, if any •Surplus toll revenues available sooner for 91 corridor projects in 2019-2029 Delivery Plan DISCUSSION 10 Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World Lauren Skiver CEO/General Manager SunLine Transit Agency How SunLine Transit Agency is Revolutionizing Transit Routes •14 fixed routes •1 express route •1 Riverside Commuter Link •ADA Paratransit Fleet •61 CNG •16 Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell (2 in production) •4 Electric Battery BYD •39 CNG Paratransit Vehicles Revenue Miles vs. Passenger Trips •4.3 million revenue miles •4.5 million passenger trips SunLine Operations –350 Employees SunLine’s Vision Improve service quality and on-time performance Progress on pioneering zero emission technology Attracting talented and passionate team members Investing in our team by expanding training and experience opportunities Continued progress on Performance Management and Culture of Excellence projects Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World Creating a Transit System Transformation Ridership Snapshot Route 111 Palm Springs/Coachella Highest ridership route Over 4,000 boardings per weekday FY 18 3,947,023 FY 19 4,039,450 2.28% = 35% of the entire system average daily ridership Transit Improvements MicrotransitPilot •Program launched January 2020 at College of the Desert •On-demand service provided by local taxis Commuter Link 10 •Starting May 2020 •Connect to more frequent MetroLinkservices at the San Bernardino Transit Center/Metrolink Station 111X •Planned for September 2020 •Weekday express service with key transfer locations System Improvements Reduce Transfers/Speed Up System/Reduce Overlap Eliminate and Reallocate Under Performing Routes Launch Rideshare and Explore Flexible Services Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World What Do You Know About Power/Energy? Dead plant/animal life, heat,pressure (>100s of millions of years) –Fossil Fuels Solar (instant)SunEnergyevaporation, clouds, rain, lakes Wind (days –weeks) wind turbine “Energy sustainability requires conversion of resources at the same rate at which they are naturally replenished on earth without externalities” Primary Energy Sources All Energy on Earth is from the Sun! coal, oil, natural gas ethanol,biogas, biomass Corn/Trees/Grass (months –years) Hydro (weeks –months) Electricity Puzzle Time of Use When you use it Demand Charges The largest use in a period in a billing cycle Cost Per Kilowatt Hour How much is power in your area and how much does it cost? Energy Options for the Coachella Valley Hydrogen Basics Most abundant element on earth Hydrogen makes up over 90% of all atoms in the universe Smallest atom and lightest of all chemical elements Hydrogen comes from water (H2O) and makes up 10% of the mass of the human body Odorless/tasteless/colorlessH Hydrogen Benefits Used as rocket fuel/vehicle fuel Can be stored as liquid or gas Can be converted from liquid to gas and back again It can be converted into electricity Does not produce harmful emissions Renewable Fuel Efficient Hydrogen Safety How many Hydrogen vehicle fires are there? ANSWER Hydrogen vehicle fires in the past 25 years -ZERO How many gasoline vehicle fires in 2019?151,246 13,000 + deaths Flammability Gasoline @14.7-1 air fuel ratio 4.0% CNG@18.1-1 air fuel ratio .55% Hydrogen@24.0 -1 air fuel ratio 0.07% Hydrogen Cost/Benefit PROCURE You can procure under long term, set priced contracts 1 FOR 1 Bus operations are 1 for 1 versus all-battery electric which require both capital, operational and labor cost increase LONGER RANGES Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses offer longer ranges (up to 350) miles per fill versus battery electrics that range 120 to 160 per full charge FILL TIMES Range 15 to 20 minute fills versus in-route charging costs or long deport charge times Normal fueling, cleaning, procedures through standard fuel lanes Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World The Motivation SunLine Board Policy Purpose: •“To establish policy advocating the purchase and use of only vehicles fueled by alternative fuels with the lowest possible emissions.” Policy: •“It shall be the policy of SunLine Transit Agency that the replacement and/or addition of all vehicles, revenue or non revenue, be made with vehicles fueled with alternative fuel that provides the lowest emissions.” Actions to be Followed: •“The State of California has established four categories of alternate fuel vehicles: 1) Zero Emission Vehicles; 2) Ultra Low Emission Vehicles; 3) Low Emission Vehicles; 4) Transitional Low Emission Vehicles. SunLine will, whenever possible, purchase vehicles in the same order as listed above. We do recognize that it may not always be possible to buy a vehicle from these categories as alternate fueled vehicles are still relatively new and are not always available. We also have to be practical and take into consideration the cost of the vehicle, and the cost of the continued use and maintenance.” Approved March 24, 1993 SunLine’s Technology Contribution Operating H2for more than 20 years Pioneered the electric drive Expanded the commercialization of H2 technology SunLine’s Long History in Hydrogen Leaders in Hydrogen Electric Fuel Cell Bus Technology for over two decades SunLine will have 19 Electric Fuel Cell Buses in 2020 (Grant Submissions for up to 12 Additional Buses) CARB Innovative Clean Transportation (ICT) Regulation Regulations Regulates the heavy duty sector to zero emission (ZE) vehicles in California All heavy duty trucking (including transit buses) transition to ZE vehicles by 2040 Transit Requirements January 2023 –25% of fleet purchases must be ZEB January 2026 –50% of fleet purchases must be ZEB January 2029 –All fleet purchases must be ZEB Requires the development of an agency deployment plan Only 1 year extension will be authorized CARB Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Regulation Regulations The proposed Advanced Clean Truck Regulation is part of a holistic approach to accelerate a large-scale transition of zero emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles Medium & Heavy Duty Requirements TRUCK SALES By 2030, zero emission truck/chassis sales need to be 50% of Class 4–8 straight trucks sales and 15% of all other truck sales COMPANY & FLEET REPORTING Fleet owners, with 100 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World How Does It Work? A Fuel Cell Bus is an Electric Bus •Hydrogen powered buses are hybrid fuel cell battery electric buses •Fuel cell modules generate power from hydrogen to recharge onboard batteries and power the electric drive •Same maintenance and parts as a battery electric bus, apart from the fuel cell power module and gas tanks SunLine’s Hydrogen Program Fueling Experience•Hyradix SMR •220 Kg per day capacity •Natural Gas / Bio Gas (landfill) source fuel •Past its capacity for rolling stock •Public fueling station –350 Bar In Commissioning •Proton/Nel PEM Electrolyzer •900 Kg per day production •60% renewable solar electricity •380 Kg use per day •2 dispenser fast fill rate •$8.7 Million CARB Grant •Public Fueling –700 Bar expansion for future Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World The Future Energy Vision for SunLine and the Coachella Valley Powering a Clean Tomorrow -Today Future Fueling Exploration •SunLine is looking to expand its fueling systems •The creation of a micro-grid •Phase 1 –Solar Farm •Phase 2 –Solar to Hydrogen for Electricity Storage •Phase 3 –Hydrogen/Electricity Truck Stop •Looking to fund an upgrade at our second station in Indio for Hydrogen production and outside sales Potential Funding Sources $ Potential Funding Opportunities How can we prioritize these types of economic development activities? SunLine’s proud of continued grant awards and compliance of state and local funding management State Resources Air Quality Management District California Air Resources Board California Energy Commission Federal Assistance Federal Transit Administration Department of Energy Create Local Energy Commission $$$ $ SunLine has achieved $25 million over 3 years in competitive funding. Local Apportionments Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funding Measure A State Transit Assistance How Can We Do It? Funded •Hydrogen Electrolyzer ($8.7 million) o Grant funding received by California Air Resources Board Seeking Funding •Solar Microgrid for Hydrogen Production ($4.7 million) o Submitted Grant for Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program •Hydrogen Electric Truck Stop •Hydrogen Public Fueling Station •Indio Hydrogen Station Today’s Transit for Tomorrow’s World Building The Future Workforce West Coast Center of Excellence Advanced Technology Technician Training Procurement Insights for ZEB purchases Planning and executing ZEB’s in service Leadership, mission, value creation for a successful ZEB Program Completed Training Modules Local Academic Institutions Manufacturers Private Business Coachella Valley Leaders Looking for Partners SunLine has made a deep commitment to reducing environmental impacts while delivering world-class transit services Hydrogen will play a significant role in transportation and energy generation SunLine Transit Agency is deeply involved in the transition to clean fuels and energy Zero emission technology works The ICT and ACT will change the way municipalities, private industry and transportation operate in the future Key Takeaways Thank You lskiver@sunline.org Riverside County Transportation Commission January 31, 2020 Background •CEQA requires agencies to consider transportation and traffic impacts prior to approving projects. •Historically, a delay-based metric has been used. •Level of Service (LOS) measures how efficiently traffic flows through roadways and intersections on an A through F scale. •LOS impacts are often mitigated through roadway efficiency improvements (widening, restriping, signalization, interchange improvements, connectivity between communities, and fair-share fees). •Separate from CEQA, LOS standards are also reflected in most city/county general plans. The State Steps In •By the early 2000s, there were growing concerns re greenhouse gases (GHG) and global warming. •AB 32 (2006): Legislature recognizes global warming and establishes state-wide GHG reduction targets. •State focused on the transportation-sector, sought to encourage infill, and tried to limit “sprawl.” •SB 375 (2008) –Each Metropolitan Planning Organization must develop a Regional Transportation Plan that “caps” transportation-sector GHGs through a “Sustainable Communities Strategy.” The State’s Next Step: Senate Bill 743 •SB 743 (2013) amended CEQA (Pub. Resources Code 21099) to require that transportation impacts in certain areas be analyzed using something other than LOS. •Legislature focused on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the new metric. •CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 confirmed that VMT is generally the most appropriate metric going forward. Is SB 743 a Step Forward or Step Back? •Extensive debate on whether VMT is “better” than LOS. (If your trip is only ten miles, but it takes you two hours to make that trip because of congestion, are you really reducing GHGs?) •Although intended to facilitate residential infill, does SB 743 unintentionally worsen the housing crisis by making it harder/more expensive for less urbanized areas to build affordable housing? •Doesn’t the switch to VMT disproportionately affect development in areas that are not yet fully developed (like much of the Inland Empire)? The Bottom Line Requirement •Regardless of the uncertainty and arguments, agencies must change their method of analyzing traffic impacts in CEQA documents no later than July 1st. •LOS/delay will no longer be considered a “impact”. •VMT analysis is “generally” required. •Caveat per Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation v. City of Sacramento (cert. 12/2019). Argument that LOS is no longer a CEQA impact now. Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •It flips traditional traffic impact analysis and mitigation on its head. •Things that we once viewed as traffic mitigation because they reduced vehicle delay (i.e., new, wider, better roads), might now be viewed as causing a traffic impact because they arguably facilitate VMT in some circumstances. Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •Issues re Cost/Timing: •“If the [CEQA] document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review,” it need not be updated. (CEQA Guideline 15007.) •But some real uncertainties with regard to documents that are in mid-preparation. Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •Issues re how much VMT is “significant”? •Do agencies want a jurisdiction-wide threshold; a regional threshold; or attempt to address on a project-by-project basis. •If VMT threshold is too low, an EIR will be required for virtually every project. (Discourages development?) •If VMT threshold is too high, an EIR may never be required. (Illusory?) •OPR recommends a threshold of reducing VMT to a level of “15% below that of existing development.” •What happens when thresholds conflict? •Any threshold must be supported by substantial evidence and be adopted through a public process. Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •Issues re Caltrans and RTPs : •Caltrans working on a proposed VMT threshold. •How will it apply when local sponsor (RCTC or others) are CEQA lead agency, but Caltrans review is required? •Will RTPs re-focus on reducing VMTs , rather than facilitating vehicular circulation? Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •Issues re technical analysis: •CEQA process still fundamentally the same: describe project; calculate VMT impact; compare to threshold; mitigate if significant. •However, technically complex: •How “far out” from Project site must VMT be calculated? When does it become speculative? •Particularly for transportation projects, how do we calculate the existing “baseline” VMT for purposes of evaluating the impact. Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •Issues re mitigation: •CEQA requires all “feasible” mitigation for significant impacts. •Greater emphasis on measures that reduce VMT (bicycles, pedestrian, train, busing, carpool). •But can we “feasibly” mitigate to a level of less-than-significant for large projects? •Large-scale mitigation comes with large-scale price tags. A regional mitigation approach may be an option. Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •More issues re mitigation: •How to show that “mitigation” is additive (over and above what would normally happen)? •More pressure to “bundle” projects that reduce VMT with projects that increase VMT? A new way of looking at project planning? •If LOS is no longer an “impact,” what does this mean for current “mitigation” schemes? Why Is The July 1st Deadline Important? (cont.) •Litigation issues: •CEQA continues to be a cudgel for many groups. •Every uncertainty is an opportunity for legal challenge. •Litigation costs are especially tough on public projects without private sponsors –including nearly all transportation projects. With all the uncertainties around VMT, can agencies at least scratch LOS off their list? •Probably not. •LOS still used in many planning documents (e.g., general plans). •Land use consistency, land use adjacency, public health, and quality of life issues are tied to LOS in some jurisdictions. •LOS goals might still be an important factor for decision-makers to weigh before acting on a proposed project. Where do we go from here? •Up to RCTC. Potential for active engagement at local, regional, and state levels to help: •Maintain project delivery schedules. •Control costs. •Reflect stakeholder/partner interests. •Develop a record to reduce risk and uncertainty. What can RCTC do? •Proactive Caltrans, CTC, CalSTA , legislative engagement to ensure project impacts considered in rulemaking and guideline implementation •Collaboration with partners to build consensus and best practices: •WRCOG and CVAG •Self Help Counties Coalition •Mobility 21 •Regional Transportation Planning Agencies •SCAG •Create solutions; don’t wait to be told what to do: •Coordinated VMT mitigation program like TUMF? •Mitigation Bank? •Self-mitigate per Traffic Relief Plan •Pursue Legislative Clarifications QUESTIONS?? RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 31, 2020 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Highway Technology Update This item is for the Commission to receive and discuss information on the use of technology for traffic relief strategies. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In November of 2019 staff presented to the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee information about technology-based strategies used by various agencies around the world to manage traffic (as seen in the photographic examples below), in order to reduce congestion, reduce pollution, increase safety, and improve the quality of commutes. This presentation by Darren Henderson of WSP will build on that introduction. Example of lane control sign from the U.K. Example of lane control sign from Contra Costa County, CA Riverside County Transportation Commission WorkshopJanuary 31, 2020 Darren Henderson, WSPDaniel Suter, TransmaxAdam Myers, Transmax Highway Technology Update: SMART FREEWAYS The most important transportation strategy you’ve probably never heard of! —Refines the way we use familiar highway traffic management technologies —Provides a comprehensive package of strategies to better manage freeway operations and optimize traffic flows Smart Freeways provides a new approach to fully control freeway operations Source: VicRoads M80, Melbourne, VIC —Works by synchronizing the flow of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway to those already on the freeway. —Provides real time demand management to control traffic and optimize overall freeway efficiency Smart Freeways uses technology to optimize freeway operations in real time Source: Transmax STREAMS® Schematic Interface Can include: Frequent highly precise vehicle detection Coordinated dynamic ramp metering Lane-use management systems: Variable speed limits Variable lane control Shoulder running Incident detection and CCTV surveillance Traveler information Comprehensive and coordinated ITS control system running advanced traffic algorithms Precise data and advanced system management technology are key to Smart Freeways Source: VicRoads M80, Melbourne, VIC Can include: —Addressing mainline bottlenecks —On ramp queue storage and discharge —Merge lanes and weave areas —Off ramp discharge —Priority vehicle lanes and ramp queue bypass. Strategic design considerations are integral to Smart Freeways effectiveness Source: VicRoads M80, Melbourne, VIC Requires embracing a new holistic approach to freeway traffic operations ―Systems approach to freeway planning, design and operations ―Necessitates appropriate organizational and managerial support ―Must be implemented with a robust partnership with Caltrans “Managed [Freeways] is not a trivial matter” Markos Papageorgiou 2007 Source: VicRoads M80, Melbourne, VIC Initially developed by VicRoads Melbourne’s Managed Motorway system now extends over more than 100 miles of freeways Also in operation in Brisbane Smart Freeways are operating on multiple freeway corridors in Australia Source: VicRoads (https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/vicroads/managed-motorways/map) Melbourne’s throughput on Smart Freeways increased by up to 25% during the peak periods ―That’s the equivalent of adding a fifth lane on a four lane freeway The economic benefits of the initial Smart Freeway made the business case for completing the entire network Smart Freeways is the only proven strategy to reliably control freeway operations Sources: VicRoads and Transmax The challenge… Smart Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia Bruce Highway (2014), Brisbane, QLD Source: RACQ Before Managed Freeways… Smart Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia Direction of flow (11 miles)AM peak period (5:00 AM to 9:00 AM) After Managed Freeways… Smart Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia Direction of flow (11 miles)AM peak period (5:00 AM to 9:00 AM) Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Utah and Ontario are doing (or have done) initial feasibility assessments ―Smart freeways have been identified as a viable strategy for various freeway corridors Smart Freeways is seeing increasing interest across North America Source: VicRoads (https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/vicroads/managed-motorways/map) I-25, Denver, CO I-40, Raleigh, NC CDOT is proceeding with a demonstration of Smart Freeways on NB I-25 in Denver SMART 25 includes: ―Strategic ramp modifications including freeway to freeway connectors ―Upgraded vehicle detection capabilities Smart Freeways is seeing increasing interest across North America Source: VicRoads (https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/vicroads/managed-motorways/map) SMART 25 elements include: —Enhanced ITS control system using Transmax STREAMS® —Cloud based operations using VicRoads existing control algorithms Construction is ongoing with operations scheduled to commence by fall 2020 Smart Freeways is seeing increasing interest across North America High level screening of freeways across the county to identify candidate locations Evaluate existing traffic to develop conceptual design and cost for a potential pilot project Smart Freeways in Riverside County I-15, Temecula, CA Photo credit: Shane Gibson, Village News After Before Speed Volume Occupancy Site Measures Speed Volume Occupancy Site Measures Thank you! Questions Riverside County Transportation Commission WorkshopJanuary 31, 2020 Darren Henderson, WSPDaniel Suter, TransmaxAdam Myers, Transmax Highway Technology Update: SMART FREEWAYS The most important transportation strategy you’ve probably never heard of! Managed Freeways requires a new approach following a holistic policy framework 1.New Understanding Contemporary traffic theory Data requirements and analytic tools Nature of traffic flow and problems 2. Design and Planning (System Approach) Infrastructure Capacity -Flexibility for operations -Mainline, entry,exits, interchanges, intersections -Reducing mainline turbulence Systems Design and Architecture -Control systems -Devices -Communications New Design Standards and Technical Specifications -Supporting additional requirements 3. Operations Technically Effective Algorithms -Development -Deployment Technical Expertise of Personnel -Different disciplines -Ongoing learning -New staff training Maintenance Regime -Support network operational performance -Achieve high level reliability 4. Organizational and Managerial Support Network Operational Philosophy and Strategies Appropriate Operational Resources Appropriate ITS Maintenance Budgets The solution… Managed Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia ―Implement a Smart Freeways pilot project encompassing five arterial interchanges along southbound Bruce Highway Traffic bottleneck Before Managed Freeways Managed Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia After Managed Freeways Managed Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia The new normal Smart Freeways case study:Bruce Highway, Brisbane, Australia 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 4:304:364:424:484:545:005:065:125:185:245:305:365:425:485:546:006:066:126:186:246:306:366:426:486:547:007:067:127:187:247:307:367:427:487:548:008:068:128:188:248:308:368:428:488:549:009:069:129:189:249:309:369:429:489:5410:00Traffic flow departing Bruce Highway Before After RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 31, 2020 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Public Engagement Update for Draft Traffic Relief Plan This item is for the Commission to receive information regarding recent and upcoming public engagement for the Draft Traffic Relief Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Following the Commission’s approval of the Draft Traffic Relief Plan (draft Plan) for public review and comment on January 8, 2020, Commission staff initiated public engagement activities as authorized by the Commission. Initial results from these engagement activities are arriving. RCTC will present interim metrics to the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee from February through May 2020 and a final public engagement report to the Commission by June 2020. This item is a brief status report on general engagement trends. At the time of agenda publication, the following has occurred: •Members of the public submitted more than 1,900 surveys through trafficreliefplan.org. •There have been more than 12,500 visits to trafficreliefplan.org. •RCTC social media accounts have served ads to over 260,000 county residents encouraging them to learn more about the draft Plan, read the draft Plan itself, and provide feedback. •Riverside County residents began to hear ads requesting public input on the draft Plan via streaming radio services. •The Press-Enterprise, Desert Sun, and several local versions of the Patch news website have published articles about the draft Plan. •The draft Plan is available in Spanish at trafficreliefplan.org. •RCTC staff has received requests for presentations from the cities of La Quinta and Norco, the California Desert Association of Realtors, and several transportation industry organizations. •RCTC staff presented the draft Plan and other transportation updates to the Riverside City Council and staff of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians at their request. Through June 10, 2020, public engagement efforts will continue and increase in reach pursuant to the enhanced public engagement program authorized by the Commission in 2019. As stated by Commissioners in prior meetings, engagement efforts are intended to educate and engage residents of Riverside County regarding their transportation needs and soliciting their input on the draft Plan that the Commission has developed and will consider adopting in mid-2020. Commissioners are invited to refer staff to organizations and individuals within their communities who would benefit from a presentation of the draft Plan. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somwhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Early Qualitative Results: Jan. 9-23 1 Our Communication Tools 2 •Social media •Email notices •Digital radio •Earned media •Member agencies •Billboards •Mail (English/Spanish) •Tele -town hall meetings •Community events •Presentations to city councils, service clubs, industry groups News Coverage 3 Committee/Commission Updates 4 Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Commission February 24, 2020 April 8, 2020 March 23, 2020 June 10, 2020 April 27, 2020 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. MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 8:30 a.m. / Friday, January 31, 2020 LOCATION: HILTON PALM SPRINGS 440 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 COMMISSIONERS Chair – Ben J. Benoit Vice Chair – Jan Harnik Second Vice Chair – V. Manuel Perez 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 / Kimberly Muzik, 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 Yxstain Gutierrez / Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley Scott Vinton / To Be Appointed, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, 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 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org MEETING AGENDA *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 8:30 a.m. Friday, January 31, 2020 Hilton Palm Springs 440 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The 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 Agenda January 31, 2020 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. ADDITIONAL AWARDS FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 1 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve additional project awards for the Fiscal Year 2019/20 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (SB 821) program for an additional amount of $1,611,395 and a total amount of $5,513,310; 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. 7. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST FOR A LOAN ON HAMNER BRIDGE PROJECT Page 4 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a loan to the County of Riverside (County) of 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) and/or Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program funds in the amount of $33,463,000 for construction of the Hamner Bridge Replacement and Widening Project (Hamner Bridge Project) with the County’s repayment of the loan anticipated from federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to develop, finalize and execute Agreement No. 18-31-074-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-31-074-00, with the County and cities of Eastvale and Norco for the construction of the Hamner Bridge Project to include terms of a loan agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to develop, finalize, and execute a new or amend an existing agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) related to the Commission’s loan on the Hamner Bridge Project; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to develop, finalize, and execute agreements with the County, city of Eastvale, city of Norco, and/or Caltrans related to the loan for the Hamner Bridge Project. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda January 31, 2020 Page 3 8. REMEDIAL WORK CONTRACT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 9 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 20-31-043-00 with Atkinson/Walsh a Joint Venture (AWJV) to perform remedial work for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in an amount not to exceed $500,000; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement. 9. 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. 10. CLOSED SESSION 10A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION POSSIBLE INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (D)(4) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 Potential Number of Case(s): 1 11. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA ITEM 6 Agenda Item 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 31, 2020 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Management Analyst THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Additional Awards Fiscal Year 2019/20 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Funding Recommendations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve additional project awards for the Fiscal Year 2019/20 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (SB 821) program for an additional amount of $1,611,395 and a total amount of $5,513,310; 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 12, 2019, the Commission awarded SB 821 funding for 12 bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects with scores of 39 and above, totaling $3,901,915 for the FY 2019/20 SB 821 Call for Projects. On January 8, 2020, the Commission approved the FY 2019/20 Mid-Year Revenue Projections for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, resulting in increased LTF revenues for the SB 821 program of $462,000. Additionally, staff identified $1,793,433 in SB 821 unallocated reserves and project savings. As such, there is capacity to award additional funding of up to approximately $2.26 million for projects from the FY 2019/20 SB 821 program. Staff reached out to agencies with scores of 36, 37, and 38 to inquire about project status and construction readiness. It was determined that all projects with scores of 38 and 37, and two projects with scores of 36 are construction-ready within the next nine months. Staff recommends awarding SB 821 funding to seven unfunded projects from the original FY 2019/20 program. In order to maintain a healthy SB 821 reserve amount, $644,038 is reserved for future opportunities to supplement bicycle and pedestrian related calls for projects. The seven projects recommended for award can be viewed in Attachment 1 under “Additional Allocation.” In summary, staff recommends allocating SB 821 funding for an additional seven projects in the amount of $1,611,395. 1 Agenda Item 6 A summary of the total allocations and geographic distribution of SB 821 funding is provided in the table below, and a full list of the projects is provided in Attachment 1. Summary of Recommended Allocations Coachella Valley Western Riverside Total # of Recommended Projects 7 12 19 Total SB 821 Recommended Allocations $1,760,426 $3,752,884 $5,513,310 Recommended Allocations as a % of Total Allocations 32% 68% 100% Per the Commission’s SB 821 adopted policies, jurisdictions receiving an allocation have 24 months to complete approved projects and submit claim forms for reimbursement upon project completion. Staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to prepare MOUs with the sponsor for each project to outline the project schedule, funding plan, and local agency match commitment. Further, staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Chair or Executive Director to execute the MOUs, pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff will monitor the progress of the projects to ensure timely implementation and delivery and expenditure reimbursements, as the intent of the SB 821 program is to deliver and expend SB 821 funds within the timeframe of the cycle. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21+ Amount: $0 $1,611,395 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds-SB 821 Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/16/2020 Attachment: SB 821 FY 2019 Call for Projects Funding Recommendation 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM FY 2019 CALL FOR PROJECTS FUNDING RECOMMENDATION Agency Project Name Total Project Cost SB 821 Funds Requested Recommended Allocation Score Menifee Paloma Wash Trail 999,530$ 499,765$ 499,765$ 45 Riverside County Mecca Curb Ramp Accessibility Project (District 4)500,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 42 Desert Hot Springs DHS Bike Lanes and ADA Improvements 630,906$ 330,906$ 330,906$ 42 Moreno Valley Cactus Avenue/Redwing Drive Ped Hybrid Beacon 400,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 42 Wildomar Palomar Street/Clinton Keith Road 781,540$ 275,000$ 275,000$ 42 Menifee Scott Road/Menifee Road Sidewalk 366,526$ 183,263$ 183,263$ 42 Eastvale 65th Street Bicycle and Pedestrain Safety Enhancement 700,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 42 Riverside County Carver Tract Sidewalk Safety Improvement - Leyte Avenue, Corregidor Avenue, Lingayen Avenue, and Luzon Street (District 4)1,150,000$ 575,000$ 575,000$ 41 Palm Springs Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements - Sunny Dunes Road 293,000$ 146,500$ 146,500$ 41 Riverside Adair Avenue Sidewalk 300,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ 39 Riverside Bonita Avenue Sidewalk 420,000$ 210,000$ 210,000$ 39 Riverside County El Nido Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvement Project - Orange Avenue to Placentia Avenue (District 5)1,282,481$ 731,481$ 731,481$ 39 Cathedral City Cathedral Canyon Drive Sidewalk Gap Closure 451,000$ 338,400$ 338,400$ 38 Cathedral City Gerald Ford Drive Bike Lanes Project - Date Palm Drive and Da Vall Drive 27,400$ 21,920$ 21,920$ 38 Moreno Valley Heacock Street south of Gregory Lane Sidewalk Improvements 650,000$ 520,000$ 520,000$ 38 Perris Ruby Drive & Redlands Ave Ped Improvements 320,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 38 La Quinta Washington Street at Ave 50 and Calle Tampico Sidewalk and ADA Improvements 195,400$ 97,700$ 97,700$ 37 Perris North A Street Sidewalk Improvement 250,000$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 36 Riverside County Mayberry Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvement - Peartree Lane to Casino Road (District 3)544,500$ 408,375$ 408,375$ 36 Riverside Cleta Drive & Thrush Drive Improvements 340,000$ 170,000$ 36 Lake Elsinore Joy Street Sidewalk Project 121,777$ 60,889$ 36 Lake Elsinore Colier Avenue Bike Lane 52,000$ 26,000$ 36 Lake Elsinore Machado Street Sidewalk Project 213,318$ 106,659$ 35 Rancho Mirage Missing link Sidewalk 639,964$ 319,982$ 35 San Jacinto Lyon Avenue Sidewalk Installation 120,000$ 60,000$ 35 Lake Elsinore Lincoln Street Bike Lanes 25,000$ 12,500$ 35 Riverside County Tolton Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvement Project - Grant Street to Truman Street (District 2)390,000$ 310,000$ 35 Temecula Ynez Road Sidewalk Improvement 125,000$ 91,000$ 34 Hemet Kirby Street Improvements 149,775$ 124,775$ 34 Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Avenue & Wineville Bike Lane Striping Project 100,000$ 100,000$ 34 Cathedral City Perez Road Sidewalk Gap Closure 508,000$ 508,000$ 33 Lake Elsinore Avenue East Sidewalk Project 234,139$ 117,070$ 31 Lake Elsinore Avenues West Sidewalk Project 224,129$ 112,065$ 31 San Jacinto Cottonwood Avenue Ped Improvement Project 600,000$ 90,000$ 30 Riverside County La Sierra Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvement Project - Orchard View Lane to Carrara Court (District 1)230,000$ 115,000$ 22 TOTAL 14,335,385$ 7,837,250$ 5,513,310$ Coachella Valley Number of Applications 9 Total Funding Request 2,588,408$ Number of Funded Applications 7$ Funding Received 1,760,426$ 32% Western Riverside Number of Applications 26 Total Funding Request 5,248,842$ Number of Funded Applications 12$ Funding Received 3,752,884$ 68% Riverside Region Total Number of Applications 35 Total Funding Request 7,837,250$ Number of Funded Applications 19 Funding Available 5,513,310$ UNFUNDED ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION 3 ATTACHMENT 1 ADDITIONAL AWARDS FOR FY 2019/20 SB821 PROGRAM Additional Funding Recommendations Jenny Chan, Management Analyst, Planning & Programming 1 FY19/20 SB 821 Additional Awards SB 821 2 •2% of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue •Bicycle and Pedestrian projects •Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans FY19/20 SB 821 Additional Awards Past Commission Actions 3 •June 2019 Commission Meeting Coachella Valley Western Riverside Total # of Awarded Projects 4 8 12 June 2019 SB 821 Allocations $1,302,406 $2,599,509 $3,901,915 Awarded Allocations as a % of Total Allocations 33%67%100% FY19/20 SB 821 Additional Awards Awarded 4 Agency Project Name Total Project Cost SB 821 Funds Requested Recommended Allocation Score Menifee Paloma Wash Trail $999,530 $499,765 $499,765 45 Riverside County Mecca Curb Ramp Accessibility Project (District 4)$500,000 $250,000 $250,000 42 Desert Hot Springs DHS Bike Lanes and ADA Improvements $630,906 $330,906 $ 330,906 42 Moreno Valley Cactus Avenue/Redwing Drive Ped Hybrid Beacon $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 42 Wildomar Palomar Street/Clinton Keith Road $781,540 $275,000 $275,000 42 Menifee Scott Road/Menifee Road Sidewalk $366,526 $183,263 $183,263 42 Eastvale 65th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Enhancement $700,000 $350,000 $350,000 42 Riverside County Carver Tract Sidewalk Safety Improvement - Leyte Avenue, Corregidor Avenue, Lingayen Avenue, and Luzon Street (District 4) $1,150,000 $575,000 $ 575,000 41 Palm Springs Sidewalk Gap Closure Improvements -Sunny Dunes Road $293,000 $146,500 $146,500 41 Riverside Adair Avenue Sidewalk $300,000 $ 150,000 $150,000 39 Riverside Bonita Avenue Sidewalk $420,000 $210,000 $210,000 39 Riverside County El Nido Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvement Project -Orange Avenue to Placentia Avenue (District 5) $1,282,481 $731,481 $731,481 39 Total Awarded $3,901,915 FY19/20 SB 821 Additional Awards Staff Recommendation: Additional Awards 5 Agency Project Name Total Project Cost SB 821 Funds Requested Recommended Allocation Score Cathedral City Cathedral Canyon Drive Sidewalk Gap Closure $451,000 $338,400 $338,400 38 Cathedral City Gerald Ford Drive Bike Lanes Project -Date Palm Drive and Da Vall Drive $27,400 $21,920 $21,920 38 Moreno Valley Heacock Street south of Gregory Lane Sidewalk Improvements $650,000 $520,000 $520,000 38 Perris Ruby Drive & Redlands Ave Ped Improvements $320,000 $100,000 $100,000 38 La Quinta Washington Street at Ave 50 and Calle Tampico Sidewalk and ADA Improvements $195,400 $97,700 $97,700 37 Perris North A Street Sidewalk Improvement $250,000 $125,000 $125,000 36 Riverside County Mayberry Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvement -Peartree Lane to Casino Road (District 3)$544,500 $408,375 $408,375 36 Total Additional Award $1,611,395 6 Project locations are approximate FY19/20 SB 821 Additional Awards Coachella Valley Western Riverside Total # of Total Awards 7 12 19 Total SB 821 Allocations $1,760,426 $3,752,884 $5,513,310 Allocations as a % of Total Allocations 32%68%100% AGENDA ITEM 7 Agenda Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 31, 2020 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: County of Riverside Request for a Loan on Hamner Bridge Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve a loan to the County of Riverside (County) of 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) and/or Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program funds in the amount of $33,463,000 for construction of the Hamner Bridge Replacement and Widening Project (Hamner Bridge Project) with the County’s repayment of the loan anticipated from federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to develop, finalize and execute Agreement No. 18-31-074-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-31-074-00, with the County and cities of Eastvale and Norco for the construction of the Hamner Bridge Project to include terms of a loan agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to develop, finalize, and execute a new or amend an existing agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) related to the Commission’s loan on the Hamner Bridge Project; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to develop, finalize, and execute agreements with the County, city of Eastvale, city of Norco, and/or Caltrans related to the loan for the Hamner Bridge Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 132, creating and funding the Riverside County Transportation Efficiency Corridor consisting of five projects in Western Riverside County, including the Hamner Bridge Project funded for $6.3 million. The Hamner Bridge Project is located on Hamner Avenue between Sixth Street in the city of Norco to the south and Citrus Street in the city of Eastvale to the north, as shown in the vicinity map in Attachment 1. The project replaces the existing structurally deficient and functionally obsolete 2-lane bridge (originally built in 1939) over the Santa Ana River with a longer, wider, multi-purpose bridge that will enhance public safety and traffic circulation. The County serves as the implementing agency for the project. Following the Commission’s approval in December 2017, the Commission, 4 Agenda Item 7 County, and the cities of Eastvale and Norco executed Agreement No. 18-31-074-00 to formalize the process for invoicing of costs incurred for the project and reimbursement from SB 132 funds passed-through the Commission. The agreement provides for the County to invoice the Commission for reimbursement, and the Commission is then reimbursed SB 132 funds by Caltrans. SB 132 funds are programmed for the environmental, design, right of way, and construction phases. The Hamner Bridge Project qualifies for federal HBP funds through Caltrans, and the County has submitted the requisite documentation for programming these funds. The estimated cost for construction is approximately $61.6 million and is funded by the following revenues: Hamner Bridge Project – Total Construction Cost Funding Source Amount (in millions) HBP $ 54.5 SB 132 5.6 TUMF 1.5 Total $ 61.6 The Highway Bridge Program is extremely limited in funding (approximately $300 million per year statewide) and oversubscribed. Caltrans has developed a separate obligation process for high cost bridge projects, which are defined as a bridge project with federal funds for a right of way or construction phase in excess of $20 million. Since the HBP is fiscally constrained, an annual schedule for disbursement of funds is established in accordance with available programming capacity. Caltrans has scheduled the obligation of HBP construction funds to the Hamner Bridge Project over a five-year period as follows: Caltrans’ Projected Obligation of HBP Funds FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 Total $10,000,000 $5,300,000 $0 $19,603,961 $19,603,960 $54,507,921 The County anticipates awarding a construction contract in July 2020, and construction is projected to occur over a 20-month period. Caltrans indicated that the County can request an advance of Fiscal Years 2022/23 and 2023/24 funds; however, there is no guarantee that funding will be available to advance at that time. Based on the obligation/reimbursement schedule, the County prepared a cash flow plan (Attachment 2) that indicates a funding shortfall of $26.2 million in FY 2021/22 and $7.3 million in FY 2022/23, for a total of approximately $33.5 million. Federal HBP reimbursements are expected in FYs 2022/23 and 2023/24 at $19.6 million per fiscal year, completing the reimbursement of federal bridge funding. The cities of Eastvale and Norco asked the County to serve as the implementing agency given its project delivery expertise; however, the project is not within the County’s jurisdiction. Therefore, 5 Agenda Item 7 the County does not have the ability or resources to commit local funds, and the cities also are not in a position to commit local funds to address the cash flow needs for the project. Commission staff recommends loaning the County $33,463,000 in MARA and/or TUMF Regional Arterial funds to ensure this critical regional bridge project is delivered on schedule and meets the requirements set forth by Caltrans for HBP funds and the SB 132 legislative requirement to fully expend funds by June 30, 2023. If approved, staff will work with Caltrans, the County, and the cities of Eastvale and Norco to enter into or amend existing agreements to reflect the terms of the loan. Due to this rapidly evolving situation regarding the HBP program and in an effort to keep the project on schedule, a draft amendment to Agreement No. 18-31-074-00 and an agreement with Caltrans was unavailable for inclusion in this staff report. The Commission may also be required to enter into an agreement(s) to initiate the loan or loan repayment. Staff recommends authorization for the Executive Director to develop, finalize and execute all necessary agreements, including amendments, pursuant to legal counsel review prior to execution. Staff will also continue to work with Caltrans and the County to minimize the use of local funds, including facilitating advancement of HBP funds, and will further evaluate the impact the HBP program may have on other bridge projects in the region. A budget adjustment is not required as this is a loan rather than an expenditure of funds and repayment of the loan is expected upon receipt of the federal funds in FYs 2022/23 and 2023/24. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Amount: $26,189,000 $ 7,274,000 Source of Funds: MARA and/or TUMF Regional Arterial Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 266 12301 (MARA loan receivable) 210 12301 (TUMF loan receivable) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/21/2020 Attachments: 1) Project Vicinity Map 2) Hamner Ave Bridge Replacement Project Cash Flow Plan 6 Hamner Avenue Bridge Replacement Over Santa Ana River VICINITY MAP Hamner Avenue Bridge Project Location City of Eastvale City of Norco ATTACHMENT 1 7 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 Total Federal Funds (HBP)$8,853 $15,291,147 $5,242,000 $20,542,000 SB 132 $1,147 $5,427,853 $136,000 $5,565,000 WRCOG (TUMF)$2,000,000 $2,000,000 RCTC (Advanced Funds)$26,189,000 $7,274,000 $33,463,000 Total $10,000 $22,719,000 $26,325,000 $12,516,000 $0 $61,570,000 19/20 (June 2020) 20/21 (Mar 2021)21/22 22/23 (Dec 2022) 23/24 (Dec 2023)Total Federal Funds (HBP)$10,000,000 $5,300,000 $19,603,961 $19,603,960 $54,507,921 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 (Dec 2022) 23/24 (Dec 2023)Total RCTC $14,361,961 $19,101,039 $33,463,000 WRCOG $502,921 $502,921 Total $14,361,961 $19,603,960 $33,965,921 County of Riverside Hamner Ave Bridge Replacement Project Cash Flow Plan Cash Flow from FHWA Reimbursement to RCTC & WRCOG Notes: 1. The total construction cost including construction management and engineering is $61,570,000. 2. The total estimated funds that RCTC needs to advance is $33,463,000. 3. The total local match needed from WRCOG (TUMF) is $1,497,079. WRCOG will advance $2,000,000 and will be credited $502,291 on Fiscal Year 23/24. 4. This cash flow plan includes the local match funds of $7,062,078 needed to match the federal funds. 5. The estimated construction cash flow plan provided in the above table is based on 90% design plans. Additional advanced funds may be needed if the estimated cost of construction is higher once the plans are finalized, the project is advertised, and the County opens bids. Cash Flow to Contractor ATTACHMENT 2 8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE LOAN REQUEST FOR THE HAMNER AVE BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director 1 2 Project Location 3 Cash Flow to Contractor FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 Total Federal Funds (HBP) $ 8,853 $ 15,291,147 $ 26,189,000 $ 12,516,000 $ -$ 54,005,000 SB 132 $ 1,147 $ 5,427,853 $ 136,000 $ -$ -$ 5,565,000 WRCOG (TUMF) $ -$ 2,000,000 $ -$ -$ -$ 2,000,000 Total $ 10,000 $ 22,719,000 $ 26,325,000 $ 12,516,000 $ -$ 61,570,000 Cash Flow from FHWA FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 Total Federal Funds (HBP) $ 10,000,000 $ 5,300,000 $ 19,603,961 $ 19,603,960 $ 54,507,921 Loan Request FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 Total Federal Funds (HBP) $ 8,853 $ 15,291,147 $ 5,242,000 $ 20,542,000 SB 132 $ 1,147 $ 5,427,853 $ 136,000 $ 5,565,000 WRCOG (TUMF) $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 RCTC (MARA/TUMF Loan) $ 26,189,000 $ 7,274,000 $ 33,463,000 Total $ 10,000 $ 22,719,000 $ 26,325,000 $ 12,516,000 $ -$ 61,570,000 Funding shortfall beginning FY22 due to federal obligations available in FY23 and FY24 Staff Recommendations: 4 1.Approve a loan to the County of Riverside of 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial (MARA) and/or Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program funds in the amount of $33,463,000 for construction of the Hamner Bridge Replacement and Widening Project with the County’s repayment of the loan anticipated from federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds; 2.Authorize the Executive Director to develop, finalize and execute Agreement No. 18-31-074-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 18-31-074-00, with the County and cities of Eastvale and Norco for the construction of the Hamner Bridge Project to include terms of a loan agreement, pursuant to legal counsel review; 3.Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to develop, finalize, and execute a new or amend an existing agreement with Caltrans related to the Commission’s loan on the Hamner Bridge Project; and 4.Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to develop, finalize, and execute agreements with the County, city of Eastvale, city of Norco, and/or Caltrans related to the loan for the Hamner Bridge Project. rctc.org 951.787.7141 info@rctc.org @theRCTC Questions? 5 AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 31, 2020 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Remedial Work Contract for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 20-31-043-00 with Atkinson/Walsh a Joint Venture (AWJV) to perform remedial work for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in an amount not to exceed $500,000; and 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The SR-91 CIP (see Figure 1 Vicinity Map) was completed in 2017. The design-build contract included a two-year warranty period and three years of plant establishment for landscaping and habitat restoration. Inclusion of warranty requirements as part of a design-build contract is beneficial as the warranty requirements serve as an incentive for both design and construction quality. AWJV continues under contract with the Commission to perform this work. Figure 1: SR-91 CIP Vicinity Map 9 Agenda Item 8 Since the opening of the facility. AWJV has performed requested warranty work without dispute. However, additional remedial work, such as sealing of pavement joints, remains which is the subject of a dispute as to responsibility. This is not uncommon on major projects and represents a minor part of the overall project. Specifically, it must be determined if the remedial work is necessary as a result of the contractor’s work on the project or if it is required due to a condition that existed prior to the project. Staff continues to coordinate with Caltrans and to work through this dispute with AWJV; however, staff considers it prudent to perform the disputed remedial work now to minimize future corrective work that could be impacted by winter weather. This proactive approach will ensure that the needed work is addressed in a timely and cost-effective manner and the final resolution of warranty issues and reconciliation of responsibility is ongoing and will be completed as a part of project close out. AWJV has agreed at this time to perform the remedial work at cost. Once the parties determine who should be responsible for funding the work, the final allocation of the cost will be agreed upon. Funding for this remedial work is included in the current budget for the SR-91 CIP; therefore, no budget adjustment is needed. Staff recommends approval of a remedial work contract with AWJV for the SR-91 CIP for a total amount not to exceed $500,000 and authorization for the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreement. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2019/20 Amount: $500,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Western County Highway Funds Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81603 00000 0000 262 31 81603 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 01/16/2020 Attachment: Draft Remedial Work Contract 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 EXHIBIT .,A' SCOPE OF REMEDIAL WORK To be Determined by Project Staff r 7336.02100\32458061.2 -22- 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION KEY MESSAGING TRAINING ROLL CALL JANUARY 30, 2020 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I 0 O County of Riverside, District II tiV gu67/1.i O O County of Riverside, District III 0 Qr County of Riverside, District IV O d County of Riverside, District V O City of Banning 0 O City of Beaumont 0 O City of Blythe O 0 City of Calimesa 0 0 City of Canyon Lake 0 O City of Cathedral City 0 0 City of Coachella O O City of Corona 0 0 City of Desert Hot Springs O O City of Eastvale 0 0 City of Hemet O O City of Indian Wells 0 O City of Indio O City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta O O City of Lake Elsinore O 0 City of Menifee O O City of Moreno Valley O O City of Murrieta O 0 City of Norco O 0 City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs O City of Perris O O City of Rancho Mirage O O City of Riverside O 0 City of San Jacinto O 0 City of Temecula O O City of Wildomar 0 Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 O O RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET KEY MESSAGING TRAINING JANUARY 30, 2020 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS '- VANLt„ lk Walz D &41.ee/ 131 /-4/ crekadig 3-,00‘ /4,ili/1 0(4 m c/o r3 /1or - 9-s1 h 5�ecZay�, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 30, 2020 NAME AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESS 'o-r Vt, -roI1 M 8P L A 6V1AYric> QM /L 7 z GCJ/f/ Z2/4Uma fr %4 4#m<6-0 449-4 �� Mcfh CAL <MeSr /"8-/-6(ki flEpltneAa4_ &el 62)./".1 pi ,------- vt wN Al &X I)o R w X/-4; <04 �)) � C. . _ dsnUakinral � tArynd v ti� C►at-c2 -LA- i.. _� e /2u-e-vi c - ,) - S fi ___ J /V/ 7vC7 �j e_ Qe e iw� rl /1& / cT ' / c= DS T-. ._ ai !/ Z/ 4ir? & t.4-4/ /t' &W(GE� uoc).Q.. h Oizco,t);&c.f\ /r Lj4 , -e e /l.<_ C c'/ cr1' n /Ls21Ge) Je".41. _...,--1.4,,...e.er ,'fr%3-, w,00��,7: f/ 4,-HGI , �& D;xT4 y , v cb " 7 Z •,-ir..at. .tJ G?� Gv rnelJA Cl iiMva RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JANUARY 31, 2020 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I 17 O County of Riverside, District II 0 County of Riverside, District III 0,.., 0 County of Riverside, District IV Ef O County of Riverside, District V el O City of Banning (a 0 City of Beaumont $ 0 City of Blythe Er O City of Calimesa 13 0 City of Canyon Lake 0 0 City of Cathedral City la 0 City of Coachella P 0 City of Corona 0 City of Desert Hot Springs 0 0 City of Eastvale A 0 City of Hemet ,1 O City of Indian Wells Zi 0 City of Indio 0 M City of Jurupa Valley Er 0 City of La Quinta 41 0 City of Lake Elsinore 0 ,E1 City of Menifee 21 0 City of Moreno Valley 0 0 City of Murrieta )71" 0 City of Norco 0 0 City of Palm Desert 21 0 City of Palm Springs g 0 City of Perris ZI. 0 City of Rancho Mirage 0 A. City of Riverside 0 0 City of San Jacinto 0 71 City of Temecula 0 2 City of Wildomar 0 0 Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8Pr0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 31, 2020 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS /f L i' T L, s ri.K ewe/-57 V' cv-n V l I.27C:> N( AA URLA Cart / . ( v7 <a LAJtA + i,to,a4.4.1otit --, t y s 144,44, CO- 4-(Ness -A77-/tiri ppfrDet, ,i-e._ />i4- cpi / hu771-- a �+ 8 to/m-) - . Jt, LJ/04r v� /ipy J�‘ e_itv.r1J g- iVA- ,v4 w/2 X,?J// /i-I�da i %/1(4-5 Pc? 5 C; °4 Cg IYalS ke.J..).e_'-lant_e,r.,,,, „.6.,.._to.., Ck.k_L( q / er /, Jq)L &/-' xv/o�c— ?"e(r //de,u% ft 00.5 f.)-441-0s_.4A---- fir- 52. c 4 m.1/ -5Pitic/�/ :21 1 v . ,► 12_ Pe(k. " 1.;14\) L l is eI1I Z/M-E/t ..� _n vsi n�Aiaitl� 1 vv8 , VeJ.12.te l-Ibtpt) ..k._ 4.4-vt , 0 1 13_ Old vS t.s, - C _ r% t'v A. M, G ,+�OEE L-MA.c.�J GR� 14y o5 C wvi tC VAL. 1 DPT Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:46 PM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Lisa Mobley Subject: RCTC: January Workshop and Commission Agendas - January 30-31, 2020 Good afternoon Commission Alternates, The Agendas for the January Workshop and Commission Meetings scheduled for Thursday and Friday, January 30-31, 2020 at the Hilton in Palm Springs, CA is now available. https://www.rctc.ore/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Januarv-Commission-Workshop-agenda-1.30-31.pdf Respectfully, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 W 1951.787.7906 F 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI.1 P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.orq_ f 11' in 0 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:45 PM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Anne Mayer; JOHN STANDIFORD; Lisa Mobley Subject: RCTC: January Workshop and Commission Agendas - January 30-31, 2020 Good afternoon Commissioners, The Agendas for the January Workshop and Commission Meetings scheduled for Thursday and Friday, January 30-31, 2020 at the Hilton in Palm Springs, CA is now available. https://www.rctc.ore/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Januarv-Commission-Workshop-agenda-1.30-31.pdf Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Respectfully, Tara Byerly Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 951.787.7141 W 1 951.787.7906 F 4080 Lemon St. 3rd FI.1 P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502 rctc.orq_ f If in O 1