Loading...
09 September 21, 2020 Technical AdvisoryTime: Date: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Technical Advisory Committee 10:00 a.m. September 21, 2020 Pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the Governing Board meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Farshid Mohammadi, Chair / Gilbert Hernandez, City of Riverside Martin Magana, Vice Chair / Eric Cowie, CVAG Art Vela / Holly Stuart, City of Banning Jeff Hart / Robert Vestal, City of Beaumont Dan Ojeda / VACANT, City of Blythe Michael Thornton / VACANT, City of Calimesa Albert Vergel De Dios / Sean Young, Caltrans District 8 Brad Brophy / Mike Borja, City of Canyon Lake John A. Corella / Crystal Sandoval, Cathedral City Gabor Pakozdi / Maritza Martinez, City of Coachella Tom Koper / Rosalva Ureno, City of Corona Daniel Porras / Nick Haecher, City of Desert Hot Springs William Hemsley / Craig Bradshaw, City of Eastvale VACANT / Nancy Beltran, City of Hemet Ken Seumalo /Tanya Williams, City of Indian Wells Timothy T. Wassil / Eric Weck, City of Indio Steve Loriso / Rod Butler, City ofJurupa Valley STAFF Bryan McKinney / Julie Mignogna, City of La Quinta Remon Habib / Yu Tagai, City of Lake Elsinore VACANT / Carlos Geronimo, City of Menifee Michael Wolfe / Michael Lloyd, City of Moreno Valley Bob Moehling /Jeff Hitch, City of Murrieta Chad Blais / Sam Nelson, City of Norco Tom Garcia / Randy Bowman, City of Palm Desert Joel Montalvo / Marcus Fuller, City of Palm Springs K. George Colangeli / Dale Reynolds, PVVTA VACANT / Brad Brophy, City of Perris Jesse Eckenroth / VACANT, City of Rancho Mirage Patty Romo / Mojahed Salama, County of Riverside Kristin Warsinski /Jennifer Nguyen, RTA VACANT / Brad Brophy, City of San Jacinto Brittney B. Sowell / Rohan Kuruppu, SunLine Patrick Thomas / Amer Attar, City of Temecula Christopher Grey / Chris Tzeng, WRCOG Dan York / Craig Bradshaw, City of Wildomar Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager Jenny Chan, Planning and Programming Senior Management Analyst Martha Masters, Planning and Programming Senior Management Analyst AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Subject to the supervision of the Commission, the Committee shall provide technical assistance to the Commission by reviewing and evaluating the various transportation proposals and alternatives within Riverside County. The Committee shall review, comment upon, and make recommendations on such matters as are referred to it by the Commission, including all matters relating to the programming of federal funds apportioned to the Riverside County and allocated by the Commission. 1 TIME: DATE: LOCATION: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. 10:00 A.M. September 21, 2020 Pursuant to Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the Technical Advisory Committee meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone. Please follow the instructions below to join the meeting remotely. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION Join Zoom Meeting - from PC, Laptop or Phone https://rctc.zoom.us/j/81725052305 Meeting ID: 817 2505 2305 One tap mobile +16699006833„81725052305# US (San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 817 2505 2305 The following commands can be used on your phone's dial pad while in Zoom meeting: • *6 - Toggle mute/unmute • *9 - Raise hand 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 public 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. 2 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda September 21, 2020 Page 2 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. HOUSEKEEPING REMARKS 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF JULY 20, 2020 MINUTES 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS — This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee. 6. HIGH SPEED RAIL UPDATE Overview This item is to receive and file a report on the California High -Speed Rail Authority's Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section progress and potential impacts to the Commission. 7. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. 8. ATP CYCLE 5-20 POINTS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1. Approve the 20-points distribution methodology for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5; and 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. SB 821 PROGRAM REFRESH Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the updated Transportation Development Act Article 3, or Senate Bill 821 Policy, Guidelines, and Evaluation Criteria; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 3 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda September 21 Page 3 10. INLAND EMPIRE COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN ADOPTION Overview This item is for the TAC to approve in concept the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP) as consistent with California Transportation Commission guidelines for CMCPs and recommend adoption by the Commission. 11. AT RISK PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING UPDATE Overview This item is to receive and file an update on At -Risk Preliminary Engineering from Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance. 12. CALTRANS UPDATE Overview This item is to receive and file an update from Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance. 13. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECAP Overview This item is to receive and file August 2020 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting highlights. 14. RCTC COMMISSION RECAP Overview This item is to receive and file August and September 2020 Commission meeting highlights. 15. COMMITTEE MEMBER / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the committee members and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to committee activities. 4 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda September 21 Page 4 16. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the TAC is scheduled to be held November 16, 2020, 10:30 a.m., at the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Board Room, 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. 5 MINUTES AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager SUBJECT: California High -Speed Rail Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file a report on the California High -Speed Rail Authority's Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section progress and potential impacts to the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California High -Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is currently planning, designing, and building Phase 1 of the High -Speed Rail System, which will connect San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours with trains traveling more than 200 miles per hour in certain areas. Phase 1 of the project is broken down into project sections. In Southern California, the project sections include Bakersfield to Palmdale, Palmdale to Burbank, Burbank to Los Angeles, and Los Angeles to Anaheim. Phase 2 would extend the system to Sacramento in the north and to San Diego in the south with potential stops in the Inland Empire. A system wide map is included with this report as Attachment 1. The Phase 2 sections included the route to San Diego have been pushed further out and a proposed implementation date is no longer mentioned in recent Business Plans. There are currently no active discussions on the Phase 2 corridor. Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section The Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section (LA -A) will traverse approximately 30 miles between Los Angeles Union Station and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) on shared tracks that Metrolink, freight, and Los Angeles — San Diego — San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) trains currently utilize (Attachment 2). In addition, the LA -A Project Section is located along heavily populated and industrialized areas of Southern California. The Authority is proposing to have four stations at LAUS, Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs, Fullerton, and ARTIC within this Project Section. There is a long history of project development on this section that includes the first Notice of Intent for the project that was released in March of 2007. Through the years, there have been significant local concerns such as property issues, noise, and safety along the corridor that have modified the project to minimize impact and adjust design elements. The original plan included two new dedicated high-speed rail tracks adjacent to the existing BNSF Railway (BNSF) right of way. This resulted in large property takes along the way and was met with stiff residential, 18 business, and local agency resistance. The new approach takes the current three track alignment, adds an additional track within the ROW, and splits the priority to have two passenger tracks shared with HSR, Metrolink and LOSSAN and two dedicated freight tracks. This new approach resulted in the need to make major adjustments to the freight infrastructure impacting the entire region. The Authority selected this Preferred Alternative in 2018 and has been working towards developing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) to environmentally clear the project section. The release of the Draft EIR/EIS is anticipated in January 2021. On August 25, 2020, the Authority released a revised Notice of Preparation/Notice of Intent (NOP/NOI) and opened a public scoping period for the LA -A Project Section, which will conclude on September 24, 2020. The Authority initiated this new scoping period because two new freight project components were added to the environmental analysis that will be required to allow projected passenger and freight rail volumes to run. The Authority cites that construction of a new intermodal facility further east in Colton (Attachment 3) and staging tracks in Lenwood, near Barstow (Attachment 4) are needed to address potential freight and passenger congestion in the LOSSAN corridor between LAUS and Fullerton. Discussion The Commission has been an active participant of the development of the High -Speed Rail program in California as part of Phase 2 planning and continues to be engaged with Authority staff as they continue to develop the LA -A Project Section environmental document. The Commission is particularly interested in the LA -A Project Section due to the Commission purchased track rights as part of the BNSF Shared Used Agreement. This not only allows for commuter train access, but also provides the Commission with "exclusive passenger rail rights excluding Amtrak" between Riverside- Fullerton -Los Angeles. These rights are at risk with the current proposed High -Speed Rail approach. Over the years, the Commission has been increasingly involved with the operations and planning of future service along the corridor that services Metrolink's 91/Perris Valley and Inland Empire/Orange County lines. Since the Authority began with the planning and designing of the LA -A Project Section, the Commission has become a full voting member of the LOSSAN Board, of which the LA -A Project Section is planned for operation. Furthermore, the Commission is actively engaged with Metrolink on current and future rail commuter service that serves Riverside County residents. The Authority's planned activities in Colton and Barstow have the potential of having impacts on the Commission's rail commuter planning and operations, as well as community concerns for Riverside County residents including traffic congestion, noise and air quality. First off, the new proposed Colton facility is anticipated to accommodate a daily average of 10 additional freight trains from the ports, which will likely increase over time. These will add to the BNSF freight traffic that already travels through the communities of Corona, Riverside and Highgrove. Estimates indicated that these trains could transport between 250-300 containers each, which 19 would lead to potentially 3,000 additional daily truck trips to distribute the goods across the region. The arterial access points to this new facility include a potential route along Agua Mansa that leads to Rubidoux Boulevard and the State Route 60 near communities in the city of Jurupa Valley. Other routes will increase traffic on Interstates 10 and 215. These additional trucks will impact traffic safety, congestion, noise and air quality in the area. The additional freight trains could impact the reliability and future capacity to expand Metrolink service. Per the existing shared used agreements, freight train counts from Fullerton to Riverside were projected to be maximized at 44 daily trains, however current daily counts are already more than 80 trains. With the new Colton yard this would increase dramatically and challenge the constrained shared passenger and freight corridor. Commission staff also has more global concerns regarding relocating freight facilities from more coastal regions to the Inland Empire in order to provide a high-speed rail service that will not benefit this region. After COVID-19 service reductions are reinstated, between Metrolink and LOSSAN service there will be approximately 68 daily passenger trains available from Fullerton to Los Angeles and 55 trains from Anaheim. The recently added, publicly funded, triple track infrastructure on this route enables expansion up to 84 daily passenger trains per the existing shared use agreements. This is a significant amount of service prior to the multi -billion dollar commitment for HSR rail for the 30 mile section to Anaheim. Of great concern, is the risk that if the funding does not materialize for the LA -A HSR expansion the BNSF Colton Project will be environmentally cleared and move forward. The negative impacts of the Colton projects would be realized without any public benefit associated with passenger rail expansion. Given the uncertainty that the Governor has expressed regarding HSR expanding beyond the Central Valley, it raises doubts about the current LA -A approach. It may make sense to propose that Colton Project be restricted from proceeding to construction until the HSR LA -Anaheim track improvements are constructed, and expanded passenger service are implemented. At least that would provide some guarantee of public benefit for this project. As the LA -A project moves forward staff will reach out to the Authority to discuss opportunities to mitigate the negative impacts of this project and address these local concerns. In addition, staff is working closely with our partners at the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to ensure our joint regional interests are being heard. Staff will provide the Commission future updates as the planning effort continues. There is no financial impact for this item. Attachments: 1) California High -Speed Rail Statewide System Map — Proposed Statewide Alignment 2) Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section Map — BNSF Components 3) Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section Map — BNSF Colton Component 4) Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section Map — BNSF Lenwood Component 20 ATTACHMENT B Metrolink Stations HSR Stations Los Parks • Anaheim HSR Passenger Rail Corridor Leawood Component Track KERN COUNTY Colton Component had billing Railroad County 6oudades LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles - Anaheim HSR Passenger Rail Corridor a ©LOS ANGELES UNION STATION Ann FW NORWALK/ SANTA FE SPRINGS STATION FULLERTON ` ASTATION STATION O 6 12 ORANGE COUNTY 18 24 Mlles CALIFORNIA wir High -Speed Roil Authority BNSF Lenwood Component SAN B ARDINO COUNTY BNSF Colton Component PAK r.� 1p RIVERSIDE Lk) T 22 ATTACHMENT C 10 COIL 7TTV IV A. 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Ailes �CALIFORNIA Miyh•5ptted Roil AuttIriry `us M ELESTOANAr(W' PROJECT SECT On liNS? UMWCUW Attrl GRAND rfA4ACf LEGEND Colton Component Approach Tract — Existing Railroad City Count, Boundaries Colton IntetntodalUaulit, (Colton Component) Boundary SOURCE rtrdonrt opspnapAlc. MAW OR ,, 1 • F111111WARY it 1100 23 ATTACHMENT D SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 0 1 2 3 4 ilea a CALIFORNIA I4#rspo.J Roy Autheriy _L» ANGELE)1U ANAHEIM PROJECT E4 10N 131,15F LENWOcOCOMPONEW BARSTOW LEGEND Lear3od Stages) 1ratls flenwood Gunmen Guest/ — Enesq Rukoad CiryKasnry Boundary SOURCE. Varwmad Geography.^. ESR' DRAFT 1 - FEBRUARY 17, Z020 24 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL LOS ANGELES TO ANAHEIM PROJECT SECTION UPDATE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager 1 Statewide HSR Program 2 •Phase 1 –Bay Area to LA/ANA •Central Valley Priority •2007 Environmental Studies Continue for Southern California Project Sections •Phase 2 to San Diego via IE and to Sacramento Timeline Uncertain/ 2050? LA-Anaheim Project Section Overview 3 •Approximately 30 miles •State Preferred Alternative uses BNSF/OCTA Corridor •Residential, Business, and local agency concerns •HSR will not travel at full- speed 200 mph only 79 mph •Commission retains purchased Shared Use Rights Los Angeles Union Station Anaheim (ARTIC) 4 The LA-Anaheim Project Section Scoping 5 •Revised Notice of Preparation / Notice of Intent on August 25 •Two new components added •“Relieves congestion within LA-A” •Scoping Comment Period ends on September 24 •Two Virtual Open House Meetings –Sep 10 (5pm) & 12 (10 am) Colton Intermodal Facility Component Barstow/Lenwood Staging Track Component 6 Track Plan 7 Track Plan 8 26 34 36 29 30 86 13 20 40 96 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Restored Schedule Per SUA Agreement The Plan 2040 Daily Train Moves LA-FUL LOSSAN OC Line 91/PVL Line HSR High Speed Rail Service Proposal 9 68 84 •Passenger Train Growth = 279% •If service 4 am to 12 M or 20 hour window •Results = 1 train every 5 min all day •LA-FUL Daily freight trains grow 104 to 162 –That is a 56% increase •FUL-RIV Daily freight trains grow without capacity improvements from HSR 258 Project Challenges 10 •Increased truck and rail freight traffic in our region –Minimum 10 new daily freight trains FUL-RIV –Each train carries 250-300 containers –Potentially 3,000 daily new trucks –Impacts SR-60 (Rubidoux Blvd), I-10, I-215 –Crossing delays •Increased regional noise and air quality impacts Project Challenges 11 •Social Justice issues •No increased in local passenger rail benefits •RCTC/BNSF Shared Use Agreement Conflicts •Unrealized benefits to Riverside County •Freight yard happens regardless of HSR moving forward Next Steps 12 •Commission submit official scoping comments •Work with Authority staff to address concerns •Monitor LA-A Project Section progress and Phase 2 development •Provide Commission Updates QUESTIONS Project Website: www.meethsrsocal-la-a.org 13 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: David Knudsen, Legislative Affairs Manager SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation. State Update The Legislature adjourned the 2019-2020 legislative session at midnight on August 31, 2020. The number of bills that Governor Newsom will act upon this year is 428. Historically, between 900 and 1,200 measures are sent each year to the Governor's desk. In his first year in office, Governor Newsom acted upon 1,042 bills. The Governor has until midnight on September 30, 2020, to act on legislation sent to his desk. In late July, state legislative leaders announced a $100 billion Joint Economic Stimulus Plan to stimulate the economy after significant job loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislative session ended before a final stimulus package could be passed. However, in the last weeks of session, SB 1351 (Beall) was introduced with the intent of accelerating SB 1 transportation funds to create jobs and improve the State's highway system. This measure would authorize the issuance of revenue bonds as part of the State Senate's 2020 state economic recovery efforts. The bill would dedicate Transportation Improvement Fee funds (SB 1 vehicle fee) to pay for the bonds and debt service. The final bill was amended to include a $5 billion limit on any bonds issued, authorizing Caltrans to make project recommendations to the California Transportation Commission, and eligible projects must be listed in the 2020 adopted State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) with completed environmental review. As of this writing, the Governor has not signed or vetoed the bill. RCTC staff will evaluate what projects in Riverside County would be eligible for this accelerated funding. The 2021-2022 legislative session will likely produce a robust assortment of transportation - related bill proposals on topics ranging from transit to tolling to project delivery. RCTC staff will plan, monitor, and participate in the legislative process and seek Commission input as the new legislative session unfolds. 26 Federal Update On September 8, 2020, Congress began returning from summer recess with three weeks to pass surface transportation program extension legislation and to pass either the annual appropriation bills or a continuing resolution (CR) to avoid a government shutdown. These issues need to be addressed by September 30, 2020. At the same time, Congress continues to debate the need for and size of another COVID-19 relief package. Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation Congress has not yet finalized, as of this staff report, a multi -year surface transportation reauthorization legislation. The current law, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, will expire on September 30, 2020. Therefore, Congress will need to enact an extension of the FAST Act programs by that date. Current Congressional discussions are focused on the length of such an extension. According to Congressional Committee staff, both the House and Senate are eyeing a one-year extension of the FAST Act and delaying a new surface transportation bill until after the November election, possibly into the next Congress. RCTC staff continue to work with partner agencies to develop and submit surface transportation bill language as part of the multi -year reauthorization effort. The RCTC proposed language will benefit Self -Help Counties and California Tolling Operators to advance transportation project delivery in Riverside County. Appropriations As previously reported, the House passed a $1.3 trillion package of fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills. This package included the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill to fund the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. The USDOT would receive $107.2 billion in total budgetary resources, an increase of $21.1 billion above FY20 appropriations. The bill also includes an additional $26 billion in emergency funding for resilient transportation programs and supporting economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. To date, the House has passed 10 of the 12 annual appropriations bills. With the pending September 30 deadline to keep the federal government open, combined with the Senate having not considered any of the twelve appropriations bills, a CR appears to be the chosen path for lawmakers and the White House. Passing a CR will avoid a government shutdown at the end of September and just weeks before the November election. While we do not yet know the length of the CR at the time of the writing of this report, it is likely the stopgap bill would extend government funding until sometime in December. Passage of a CR for a period of time has become a traditional practice in Congress, especially in an election year. 27 COVID-19 Federal Response Bipartisan talks concerning the need for and cost of a new COVID-19 relief package have stalled between the House, the Senate, and the White House. It is possible that an agreement will not be reached on a new relief package before the fall Congressional recess expected to begin on October 5, 2020, which will last until after the elections on November 3. Three key issues have to be resolved between Congress and the White House: the cost of the package, the programs to be funded, and whether or not to include COVID-19 liability protections for businesses. The House passed their version of a new COVID-19 relief package in May with a cost of over $3 trillion. Senate Republicans have released two versions of a new COVID-19 relief package: one released in July that had a cost of $1 trillion and another version on September 8, 2020, with a cost of $500 billion. Senate and House Democratic leadership have already indicated that the Republican bills do not go far enough and will not support them. RCTC staff will continue to participate in the federal process to advocate for transportation infrastructure policies that benefit Riverside County residents and commuters. 28 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jenny Chan, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program — Metropolitan Planning Organizations' Regional Program Guidelines —20 Points Distribution for Riverside County Project Applications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1. Approve the 20-points distribution methodology for the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5; and 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATP is a highly competitive statewide program that funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs to enhance or encourage walking and biking. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) awards 50 percent of the funds at the statewide competitive level, 10 percent to small urban and rural regions, and 40 percent at the large MPO level. The ATP process allows applicants two opportunities for award — at the statewide level and the large MPO level. As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide and those that are not ranked high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share. As the MPO, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is required to work with county transportation commissions, the CTC, and Caltrans to develop its regional program recommendations. As part of the development of the regional program guidelines, SCAG allows each county transportation commission to assign up to 20 points to the CTC's project scores. Each county transportation commission in the SCAG region is responsible for defining "plans" and developing its guidance and methodology for assigning the 20 points. For ATP Cycle 5, it is estimated that the Commission will have approximately $11 million available for award. At the July 2020 TAC meeting, staff presented four 20-points methodology options for TAC consideration and discussion. The four options reflected the Commission's goal for funding projects that are construction ready and awarding agencies that invested in pre -construction activities. Based on TAC feedback, staff is recommending the following point distribution as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Recommended 20 Points Distribution Criteria Points 1. Requesting construction -only funding 6 2. Construction funding in the first two years of programming & PA/ED completed 10 3. Projects identified in WRCOG Sub -regional Active Transportation Plan or CVAG Non -Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan, bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan 4 30 Projects will be evaluated based on the submitted ATP Cycle 5 applications to the CTC. Preliminarily, Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) completion will be evaluated based on Part A5, Project Schedule of the ATP application (Figure 1). The requested California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) signature page will be used to confirm Project PA/ED completion. All applicants must upload all submitted ATP applications and if available, copies of the CEQA or NEPA signature pages, onto the RCTC Sharepoint link that was emailed to each agency. The Sharepoint links are specific to each agency. Applicants must upload the ATP applications by September 16, 2020 and will have until March 1, 2021 to upload the CEQA/NEPA signature pages if they were not previously available. The Commission will also request state -only funding for projects with completed CEQA, but there is no guarantee the request will be fulfilled. Figure 1: Project Schedule from ATP Application Part AS: Project Schedule NOTES: 1) Per CTC Guidelines, all project applications must be submitted with the expectation of receiving federal funding and therefore the schedule below must account for the extra time needed fur Federal project delivery requirements and approvals, including a NEPA environmental clearance and for each CTC allocation there must also be a Notice to Proceed with Federally Reimbursable work. 2) Prior to estimating the durations of the project delivery tasks (below). applicants are highly encouraged to review the appropriate chapters of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and work closely with District Local Assistance Staff. 3) The proposed CTC Allocation dates must be between July 1. 2021 and June 30, 2024 to be consistent with the available ATP funds for Cycle 5. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS: PA&ED Project Delivery Phase: Will ATP funds be used in this phase of the project? Yes No Proposed CTC "PA&ED Allocation" Date: Notice to Proceed with Federally Reimbursable ATP Work: Expected or Past Start Date for PA&ED activities: Time to complete the separate CEQA & NEPA studies/approvals: Expected or Past Completion Date for the PA&ED Phase: Applicatwns showing the PA&ED phase as complete_ must include/attach the signature pages for the CEQA and NEPA documents, which include project descriptions covering the full scope. months (See note #2, above) Staff is recommending the TAC approve the 20 points methodology and forward this item to the Commission for approval and inclusion into SCAG's ATP MPO Regional Program Guidelines. 31 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jenny Chan, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Refresh STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the updated Transportation Development Act Article 3, or Senate Bill 821 Policy, Guidelines, and Evaluation Criteria; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: TDA Article 3, or SB 821, is a discretionary program administered by the Commission to fund local bicycle and pedestrian projects. The program is funded through the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), a state sales tax. Each year, 2% of LTF revenues is set aside for the program and on every odd -numbered year, the Commission conducts a competitive Call for Projects. Eligible projects include construction of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and ADA curb ramps, and the development of bicycle and pedestrian master plans. DISCUSSION: During the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019/20 Call for Projects, staff received constructive feedback from applicants and evaluators relating to general program policy, questions on the application, and the scoring rubric. A subcommittee of the TAC was formed in March 2020 to review the feedback and update the SB 821 program policies and procedures. The subcommittee included 10 TAC representatives from the cities of Banning, Canyon Lake, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Menifee, Murrieta, and Wildomar, the County of Riverside, and Western Riverside and Coachella Valley Council of Governments. The subcommittee met in March and July 2020 via video conference to discuss changes to the guidelines and the application. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed changes developed through consultation with the subcommittee. Changes are summarized in Table 1. The complete program guidelines and project application are provided for review in Attachments 1 and 2. Upon Commission adoption, the guidelines and application will be implemented for the FY 2021/22 Call for Projects, to be released on February 1, 2021. For this upcoming Call for Projects, applications will be submitted online; hardcopies will not be required. 33 Table 1— 58 821 Summary of Changes CURRENT PROPOSED Policy & Guidelines Revisions 24 months to complete project 36 months to complete project. New - Limit 3 applications per city. For Riverside County, limit 2 applications per Supervisorial District. New - Maximum request for each application is 10% of current Call for Project's programming capacity. New - Total award to one jurisdiction is limited to 20% of current Call for Project's programming capacity. Project can start upon MOU execution Project can start on July 1 of the Call for Project Fiscal Year Cycle. E.g.: for FY 21/22 Call for Projects, awarded projects can start on July 1, 2021. New - MOU executed by October 1 of the Call for Project Fiscal Year Cycle. E.g.: for FY 21/22 Call for Projects, MOUs must be executed by October 1, 2021. New - Use Safety Question to settle tiebreakers. Evaluation Criteria Safety Question — 10 points max Safety Question — 15 points max, added question regarding Project Feature Safety Enhancements. Destinations Served — 15 points max, 3 points for each destination Destinations Served — 14 points max, 2 points for each destination. Multi -Modal Access — 4 points max Multi -Modal Access — 6 points max, added "bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and crosswalks" as eligible multi -modal elements for consideration. Attachments 1) RCTC SB 821 Policy and Guidelines 2) FY 21/22 Call for Project Guidelines & Application 34 ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES — PENDING COMMISSION APPROVAL JANUARY 2021 Transportation Development Act Policies 1. Up to 5% of Article 3 apportionment can be used to supplement other funding sources used for bicycle and safety education programs; the allocation cannot be used to fully fund the salary of a person working on these programs. 2. Article 3 money shall be allocated for the construction, including related engineering expenses, of the facilities, or for bicycle safety education programs. 3. Money may be allocated for the maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed to motorized traffic. 4. Facilities provided for the use of bicycles may include projects that serve the needs of commuting bicyclists, including, but not limited to, new trails serving major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available. 5. Within 30 days after receiving a request for a review from any city or county, the transportation -planning agency shall review its allocations. 6. Up to 20 percent of the amount available each year to a city or county may be allocated to restripe Class II bicycle lanes. 7. A portion of each city's allocation may also be used to develop comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Plans must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel rather than solely recreational activities; a maximum of one entire allocation per five years may be used for plan development. 8. Allowable maintenance activities for the local funds are limited to maintenance and repairs of Class I off-street bicycle facilities only. RCTC Policies 1. The SB 821 Call for Projects will occur on a biennial basis, with a release date of the first Monday of every other February and a close date of the last Thursday of every other April, beginning in 2015. 2. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award. To handle tiebreakers, RCTC will use, in terms of priority, the safety question first then construction readiness. 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. 4. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon submitting adequate proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited. Claims need to include: the claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, copies of paid invoices, a copy of the Notice of Completion (NOC), and photographs of the completed project. 5. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. For projects completed under the allocated amount, the agency_ will be reimbursed at the matching ratio s presented in the application. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES — PENDING COMMISSION APPROVAL JANUARY 2021 will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. 6. An agency will have twenty four (24thirty-six (36) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project. There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason for the delay can be demonstrated. Where substantial progress or a compelling reason for delay can be shown, the agency may be granted administrative extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. 7. Any programmed and unused Article 3 Program funds will be forfeited unless that agency can a) utilize the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project or b) apply the funds to a project previously submitted under an Article 3 call for projects and approved by the Commission, subject to Executive Director approval. 8. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria for non -motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 9. Temporary facilities, projects in the bid process, or projects that are under construction will not be funded. 10. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year. 11. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley versus Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the Coachella Valley's share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the percentage of funds applied for should also be taken into consideration). _If the allocation is often found to be inequitable to the Coachella Valley, staff will recommend adoption of a new policy to correct the imbalance. 12. Certain costs at times associated with bicycle/pedestrian projects are not eligible when the benefit provided is not the exclusive use of bicyclists/pedestrians, such as: curb and gutter as part of roadway drainage system, driveway ramps installed across sidewalks, and where roadway design standards require a roadway shoulder width that is at least as wide as a standard bike lane. 13. For each Call for Projects, a city is eligible to submit up to three (3) 36 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES PENDING COMMISSION APPROVAL JANUARY 2021 applications, and the County of Riverside is eligible to submit up to two (2) applications per Supervisorial District. 14. Each application is limited to a maximum request of 10% of the current Call for Projects programming capacity. 15. Total award to one jurisdiction is limited to 20% of current Call for Project's programming capacity. 16. Awarded agencies can commence reimbursable project activities on July 1 of the Call for Project fiscal year cycle. E.g.: for FY 21/22 Call for Projects, reimbursable work starts on July 1, 2021. 1-2,17. Awarded agencies have until October 1 of the Call for Project fiscal year cycle to execute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RCTC. E.g.: for FY 21/22 Call for Projects, MOUs must be executed by October 1, 2021. 37 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor • Riverside, CA Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12008 • Riverside, CA 92502-2208 951.787.7141 •951.787.7920 • www.rctc.org TDA Article 3 (SB 821) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Biennial Call for Projects Guidelines FY 2021/2022 38 Background/Funding Capacity: TDA Article 3, or SB 821, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, is provided through the Transportation Development Act (TDA), funded through a cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA). The LTF provides funding for essential transit and commuter rail services, TDA Article 3/SB 821 and planning. Each year, two percent of the LTF revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the TDA Article 3/SB 821 program. This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. Based on the FY 2020/21 mid -year adjustments, FY 2021/22 apportionments, and project savings, the amount available for programming in the 2021 TDA Article 3/SB 821 Call for Projects is an estimated $TBD Eligible Applicants: Per TDA, Riverside County cities and the County are eligible to submit applications. Each city is eligible to submit up to three applications, and Riverside County is eligible to submit two applications per Supervisory District. Each application is limited to a maximum request% of the current Call for Projects programming capacity. For total award, each agency is limited to 20% of the current Call for Projects programming capacity. Program Schedule: The SB 821 Call for Projects occurs on a biennial basis, with a release date on the first Monday in February and a close date on the last Thursday in April. Per Commission's Article 3/SB 821 adopted policies, awardees receiving an allocation have 24 36 months from award, defined as July 1 of the Call for Projects fiscal year cycle to complete construction and submit final claim forms. Where substantial progress or compelling reason for delay can be shown, awardees may be granted time extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. Calendar February 1, 2021 Call for Projects released. Guidelines and application available at h t tp: //rctc. org/s b821 call 1 39 February 2 — April 22, 2021 April 29, 2021 @ 5:00 p.m. Ma 12, 2021 June 9, 2021 One -on -One Sessions on program eligibility and guidance with RCTC Staff are available on requests. Submit requests to Jenny Chan at jchan@rctc.orz Proposals due to RCTC Evaluation Committee scores proposals Present recommended funding allocation to Commission for project award. Execute Memorandum of Understanding (MOU} with awardccs July 1, 2021 Project Starts may commence after execution of MOU October 1, 2021 Deadline to Execute MOU with Commission July 1, 2024 Project Completion Eligible Projects: Per TDA, eligible projects include: eg) Construction, including related engineering expenses, of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or for bicycle safety education programs. (7b Maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed to motorized traffic. (7b Maintenance and repairs of Class I off-street bicycle facilities only. Restriping Class II bicycle lanes. Facilities provided for the use of bicycles that serve the needs of commuting bicyclists, including, but not limited to, new trails serving major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available. db Development of comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans (limitations apply). Plans must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel rather than solely recreational activities. Temporary facilities, projects in the bid process, or projects that are under construction will not be funded. One -on -One Sessions: RCTC Staff is available for one-on-one sessions with interested applicants to discuss project eligibility, scoping and any other program guidance. Sessions will occur between February 2 to April 22, 2021. Please note, applications are due on April 29, 2021 at 5:00 P.M., or four (4) business days after the last available one-on-one session. Please contact Jenny Chan (jchan@rctc.org/(951) 787-7924) to schedule a one-on-one session. 2 40 Project Proposal Submittal Process: The 2019 SB 821 Call for Projects Guidelines and Application will be posted on the Commission webpage at http://rctc.org/sb821call on Monday, February 1, 2021. Project proposals are due on Thursday, April 29, 2021 by 5:00 p.m. It is highly recommended to limit the application to only 15-20 pages. Please use 81/2 x 11 paper for any maps or exhibits provided in the application. Please contact Jenny Chan (jchan@rctc.org/(951) 787-7924) if you have any questions regarding the submittal process or for any other questions. Evaluation Criteria: DESTINATIONS SERVED (145 pts) Three Two points will be awarded for each destination served by the proposed project (e.g. employment center, school/college, retail center, downtown area, park or recreation facility, library, museum, government office, medical facility) up to a maximum of 145 points. *Must include map on 8 x 11 paper listing all destinations served. • For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be within a 3/4-mile or less radius of the proposed project. • For bicycle projects, destinations served must be within a two-mile or less radius of the proposed project. SAFETY (158 pts) - The extent to which the proposed project will increase safety for the non - motorized public .public. Additionally explain any safety countermeasures or safety enhancement features included in the project scope, such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, bicycle box, see (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/). Points will be given for any combination of the following project characteristics: no existing shoulder within project limits, no ecisting/planned sidewalk or bike route/lane/path adjacent to the project; and/or by providing: documented pedestrian/bicycle collision history, most current and valid 85th percentile speed of motorized traffic in project limits, photos of existing safety hazards project will address, existing pedestrian/bicycle traffic counts, student attendance figures for school served by project. PROJECT ENHANCEMENT (5 pts) Up to five points will be awarded based on the extent that lockers or other bicycle amenities, or completing a missing link. Enhancements must exist or be part of the project proposal. MULTIMODAL ACCESS (65 pts) - One point will be awarded for each transit ctoproute, Metrolink stations, or park and ride facility, bicycle lanes, sidewalks or crosswalks improved 3 41 served by the proposed project up to a maximum of five six points. *Must include map on 8 1/2 x 11 paper listing all transit stops or park and rides served. • For pedestrian projects, transit stops served must be within a 3/4-mile or less radius of the proposed project. • For bicycle projects, transit stops served must be within a two-mile or less radius of the proposed project. MATCHING FUNDS (10 pts) — One point is awarded for each 5% of match provided by the local agency, for a maximum of 10 points at a 50% match. *Supporting documentation of proposed match must be included. POPULATION EQUITY (5 pts) — Points for population equity is calculated by RCTC Staff. Population equity is scored by comparing the agency's total SB 821 allocation received in the last ten fiscal years versus the agency's share based on per capita basis. RCTC Staff calculates the ratio between the two factors and assigns points based on the table below. Ratio of Total Allocation to Per Capita 0.80 — 0.99 1 Point 0.60 — 0.79 2 Points 0.40 — 0.59 3 Points 0.20 — 0.39 4 Points 0 — 0.19 5 Points The equity table for the 202149 SB 821 Call for Projects is provided on the following page. 4 42 FY2019-28SE 821 PROGRAM AGENCY POETS P1043.1 % POP. 9A SANG 0.0 31 B2 1.29% 6EALiMCFJT 0.0 48,237 2.00% aLYTHE} 5_9 16,SE 0.68% CALIMESA 5.0 8.876 0.37% CANYON 3.A10E 1.0 11,018 0.46% CATHEDRAL CITY 4.0 54,791 2.27% COACHELLA 0.0 45,635 1.89% CORONA 5.0 168,574 6.98% DESERT HOT SPRINGS 0.0 29,742 1.23% EASTVALE 210 64,855 2.68% HEMET 1.0 83,166 3.44% INDIAN WELLS 3.0 5,574 0.23% INDIO 0 0 87,883 3.64% JLJRUPA VALLEY 4.0 106.054 4.39% LAKE ELSINORE 0.0 63.365 2.62% LA 4UINTA 1.0 41204 1.71% MENIFEE 5.0 91,901 3.80% MORENO VALLEY 2.0 207,629 8.59% MURRJETA 5.0 113,511 4.70% NORCO 5.0 26.761 1.11% PALM DESERT 4.0 52,769 2.18% PALM SPRINGS 0.0 47306 1.97% PERRIS 3.0 77,837 3.22% RANCHO MIRAGE 0 0 18,738 0.78% RIVERSIDE 2.0 325.860 13.49% RIVERSIDE COUNTY' 0 0 388,817 16.09% SAN JACINTO 0.0 48,146 1.99% T EMECULA 3.0 113,181 4.68% WILDOMAR 0.0-ZZ121. TOTAL 2,415154 109.00% :IRIFJ.I kwilatca weft. leca6ingnernagrAgles'E61N7131e5!E-51 Leas Cnul*awallaSlate Prison P17p113tlon o1ZEE4 VIM' a, flan RCTC France 112372019 31nduae5 Cllur*awalla Popilalan JC_ 123r19 Evaluation Committee: The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests and geographic areas, such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, Western Riverside, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year. Allocation: Based on the results of the evaluation committee's scores, staff will develop a recommended funding allocation. Starting from the highest ranked project on the the full amount requested will be allocated until a project cannot be fully funded. The allocati ommendation will be presented to the Commission for final approval on June 9, 2021. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award. If there is insufficient funding to award all projects with the same score, RCTC may recommend funding based on, in order of priority, safety question, then construction readiness. Memorandum of Understanding: Per Commission's SB 821 adopted policies, awardees receiving an allocation have 236months upon award, defined as July 1 of the Call for Projects fiscal year cycle executing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to complete construction and submit final claim forms. MOUs shall be executed by October 1, 2021. A sample MOU is provided in the application. Where substantial progress or compelling reason for delay can be shown, awardees may be granted time extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive Director. Claims: The claim form corresponding to the fiscal year for which an allocation was recommended is to be used to claim reimbursement for approved SB 821 projects. Adequate supporting documentation substantiating the cost of the claim is required. Supporting documentation are: before and after pictures of project site, copy of notice of completion, and copies of paid invoices from project contractor. 6 44 FY20/21 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION SUMMARY OF SCOPE of WORK (500 Characters) FUNDING Double click on table below to open the Excel spreadsheet. The gray cells contain formulas that will calculate the Total Project Cost, SB 821 Request, and the Percentage Splits. Provide a letter on agency letterhead committing to the local match as Appendix A and an Engineers Estimate as Appendix B. PA/ED $ 80,000 PS&E $ 250,000 BROW $ - Construction $ 400,000 Administration $ 20,000 Total Project Cost I $ 750,000 Split % Local Match $ 200,000 27% SB 821 Request $ 550,000 73% 100.00% SCHEDULE For completed phases, provide supporting documentation such as copies of environmental clearance, title sheet of 100% plans with engineer's stamp, or right of way clearance as Appendix C. START END* PA/ED PS&E ROW CON CLOSE OUT 45 FY20/21 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION III. PROJECT BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the project background and the existing conditions of the larger project area and or project vicinity. Discussion can include background information on current roadway configuration, missing bike and pedestrian facilities, and importance of project to local active transportation users. If possible, provide photographs of existing conditions. Describe the project in its entirety. Include the purpose and need, benefit, and location of the project. Provide a map showing existing and proposed project improvements. If available, provide typical cross -sections showing vehicular lane widths, active transportation facilities width, and any landscaping or lighting features. IV. DESTINATIONS SERVED (2 pts for each destination served, max 14 points) Briefly summarize and list all the destinations served by the proposed project. Provide a project vicinity map identifying all the destinations served by the proposed project within a % mile or a 2-mile radius. Destinations are schools or higher education facilities, commercial centers, municipal or any other civic centers, medical facilities, and recreational centers. For pedestrian projects, the destinations need to be within % mile radius to be eligible. For bicycle or multi -use trail projects, destinations need to be within a 2-mile radius. Each destination served will receive 3 points each. On the map, provide a % mile buffer or a 2-mile buffer surrounding the project site. Maps without the marked buffer will receive half of its eligible points. V. SAFETY (15 points) Describe the extent to which the proposed project will increase safety for the non -motorized public. Additionally, explain any safety enhancement features included in the project scope, such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons, bicycle box (see https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/). Include information about project characteristics such as: no existing shoulder within project limits, no existing/planned sidewalk or bikeway adjacent to the project, etc. Applicants may wish to consider including documented pedestrian/bicycle collision or injury history, most current and valid 85' percentile speed of motorized traffic in project limits, photos of existing safety hazards the project will address, existing pedestrian/bicycle traffic counts, student attendance figures for school served by project. Additionally generate a collision heat map for the project site using collision data from 46 FY20/21 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION the last ten years. Heat map can be generated using the ATP Maps & Summary interface from TIMS (https://tims.berkeley.edu/) or Crossroads. VII. MULTIMODAL ACCESS (1 point each, max 6 points) In a project vicinity map, identify all the bus routes, Metrolink stations, park -and -ride facilities, bicycle lanes, sidewalks or crosswalks improved by the proposed project within a % mile or a 2- mile radius. For pedestrian projects, these amenities need to be within % mile radius to be eligible. For bicycle or multi -use trail projects, amenities need to be within a 2-mile radius. Each amenity will receive 1 point. On the map, provide a % mile buffer or a 2-mile buffer surrounding the project site. Maps without the marked buffer will receive half of its eligible points. Discuss how the project along with its nearby amenities encourage multi-modalism. Briefly summarize and list all the bus stops, Metrolink Stations, park -and -ride facilities, missing bicycle or sidewalks, or crosswalks enhanced by the proposed project and indicate if the items are existing or planned. MATCHING FUNDS (10 POINTS) Points will be calculated based on the Funding Table above. Match % Points 50% 10 45% 9 40% 8 35% 7 30% 6 25% 5 20% 4 15% 3 10% 2 5% 1 0% 0 POPULATION EQUITY (5 POINTS) 47 FY20/21 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program BIENNIAL CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION IIX. CERTIFICATION I certify that the information presented herein is complete and accurate and, if this agency receives funding, it will be used solely for the purposes stated in this application and following the adopted policies. Signature Title Date Appendix A: Commitment to Local Match Appendix B: Engineers Estimate Appendix C: If applicable, copies of completed environmental document, title sheet, or right-of- way clearance. 48 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager SUBJECT: Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Adoption STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the TAC to approve in concept the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP) as consistent with California Transportation Commission guidelines for CMCPs and recommend adoption by the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2017, the California state legislature approved Senate Bill (SB 1), which created and funded a new competitive grant program: Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP), among others. SB 1 requires that SCCP funding be available for projects that make specific performance improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation choices for residents, commuters, and visitors to the area of the corridor while preserving the character of the local community and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects. SB 1 dictates that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will develop guidelines for the programs the legislation created. The SCCP guidelines the CTC adopted requires that projects awarded funding be included in a CMCP. The CTC adopted guidelines for CMCPs in 2018. As such, regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions throughout California have begun developing CMCPs to ensure their projects' eligibility in upcoming rounds of SCCP grant funding. DISCUSSION: In partnership with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), Caltrans District 8, and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Commission staff applied for a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant to prepare the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP). The team received a $500,000 grant and SCAG, as the lead for the project, awarded a contract to Cambridge Systematics. Staff has been developing the IE CMCP since July 2019 in coordination with Cambridge Systematics as the lead consultant. The IE CMCP is intended to go beyond traditional freeway planning efforts and identify potential multimodal infrastructure opportunities within Western Riverside County and the valley -area of San Bernardino County. In the future, Commission staff 50 can work with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) on developing a multimodal corridor plan for the Coachella Valley or to update the IE CMCP to include the Coachella Valley. Completing the IE CMCP is required for regional transportation planning agencies to compete for SCCP funding in the current cycle and thereafter. Projects proposed for SCCP funding need to be identified in a multimodal corridor plan to be eligible. The project team developed the IE CMCP in accordance with the adopted CMCP Guidelines. As specified in the guidelines, "There is no specific format that a CMCP must meet. Plans are unique to the region in which they are prepared." By the same token, the definition of a corridor is also context sensitive. "A corridor can be defined as a linear geographic area with one or more modes of transportation ... Origins and destinations, land use, place types and existing and future developments that surround the transportation infrastructure influences how the corridor and its limits are defined." The CMCP guidelines require that a number of topics be discussed in the plan, such as: • Clear demonstration of collaboration amongst stakeholders; • Short, medium, and long-term planning horizon; • Specific corridor objectives; • Multimodal consideration for, and approaches to, addressing transportation issues; • Identification and evaluation of performance measures for recommended projects and strategies; and • Consistency with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, the California Transportation Plan, and other regional or local planning documents. The IE CMCP was originally structured as two very large corridors: north -south from Temecula to Victorville and east -west, from Banning/Beaumont to Los Angeles and Orange counties. It was realized during the study process that these very large corridors contain within them a great deal of diversity, so much so that it was becoming difficult to define the problems and analyze the solutions in an effective, multimodal way. Variations include: terrain/geography, land uses, congestion levels, community composition and needs, existing multimodal networks, and strategies and solutions. As such, it was determined the problems and strategies could be more clearly identified by breaking down the two corridors into sub -corridors. The study team engaged in a collaborative process for determining local geographic sub -corridors. Ultimately, five sub - corridors were identified for each of the two large corridors. The sub -corridors are described as areas between cities or geographically definable points, such as county lines, and are identified below: North -South Sub -Corridors (Figure 1) 1. Victorville to San Bernardino 2. San Bernardino to Riverside 3. Cajon Pass to Eastvale 4. Riverside to Temecula 5. Beaumont to Temecula 51 Figure 1. North -South IE CMCP Sub -Corridors rib 1 1 1 1 Lake Ern_ - le VAT!, East-West Sub -Corridors (Figure 2) 1. Apple Valley to LA County Line 2. Banning to Rialto 3. Riverside/Rialto to LA County Line 4. Riverside to Orange County Line 5. Hemet to Corona Sub -corridors I Vctorwille to San Bemarc no I San Bema lino to Rivers de Ca}on to Eastvale I Riwersideto Temecula Beaumont lc Temecula h —3 - Miles Figure 2. East-West IE CMCP Sub -Corridors Sub -corridors r, Apple Valley to LA County Line ▪ Banning to Radio Riverside to LA aunty Line r, Riverside to Orange County Lace Hemet to Corona • N 0 27555 Miles The final draft IE CMCP (Attachment 1) provides a review of the characteristics, future growth potential, problems, opportunities, strategic issues, and approaches that may apply to each of the ten identified sub -corridors. Each sub -corridor may have features in common with other sub - corridors, as well as features that are unique to that sub -corridor. The intent is to capture the themes or strategies that define the future investments in multimodal improvements in each sub -corridor while being responsive to its environmental and community characteristics. To illustrate such strategies intended to define future multimodal investments, consider the Riverside to Orange County Line Sub -Corridor (starting on IE CMCP page 5-116) which contains the State Route (SR) 71/91 Interchange Improvement Project for which the Commission recently submitted an SCCP grant application to fully fund the construction phase of the project. After defining the sub -corridor and identifying: key transportation facilities, land use and socioeconomic factors, travel patterns, congestion/delay and vehicle miles traveled, transit usage, and projected future conditions, each IE CMCP sub -corridor analysis results in a list of problems to be addressed and the strategies for doing so. In summary, the problems to be addressed in this sub -corridor are: • SR-91 being heavily congested by long commute and freight trips connecting multiple counties; • Lack of adequate alternate routes due to topography; 53 • Jobs -housing imbalance due to the affordable housing dichotomy between Riverside County and Los Angeles and Orange counties. Strategies identified for addressing these problems, include (exhaustive list on page 5-129 of the IE CMCP): • Complete the SR-71/91 connector and SR-241/91 connector to facilitate commute and goods movement from Orange County to Riverside and San Bernardino counties; • Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for the IE/OC line and construct accessibility improvements and station improvements to existing Metrolink stations; and • Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips. Over the last 15 months, the project team has been working diligently to complete the IE CMCP by October 1, the date the team committed to completing the plan. Some of the more recent activities completed include: identifying corridor characteristics, engaging with local agencies, reviewing existing transportation plans, and defining specific sub -corridor strategies within the study area. Staff presented elements of the IE CMCP to the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in both March and May 2020. The TAC also approved in concept the final draft IE CMCP on September 21, 2020. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the final draft IE CMCP and authorize staff to make minor updates as necessary to keep the plan current. Once the IE CMCP is finalized, the study team will continue collaborating to make minor revisions as needed. The study team envisions updating the IE CMCP every few years. Attachments: IE CMCP Final Draft 54 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jenny Chan, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: At -Risk Preliminary Engineering Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file an update on At -Risk Preliminary Engineering from Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On August 12, 2020, Caltrans Local Assistance published Office Bulletin #20-03 detailing guidance for at -risk preliminary engineering, as provided in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Section 1440 of the FAST Act authorizes FHWA to reimburse recipients and subrecipients for preliminary engineering (PE) costs incurred prior to project authorization (E-76), assuming the costs are federally eligible and the project and phase are included in the SCAG FTIP. If eligible, and once project E-76 is received, incurred costs can be reimbursed back to the effective date of the FAST Act, October 1, 2015, or the federal approval date of the FTIP, whichever occurs later. Provided in Attachment 1 is the Local Assistance Office Bulletin explaining the policy and procedures. If interested in utilizing at -risk preliminary engineering for a project, please contact RCTC staff and the respective Local Assistance Area Engineer or Planner. Attachment: Local Assistance Office Bulletin #20-03 56 ATTACHMENT 1 `t Division of Local Assistance - Office Bulletin Office of Implementation - South ailtrans DLA OB #20-03: At -Risk PE lei - Issued - August 11, 2020 'J At -Risk Preliminary Engineering I. BACKGROUND Expires — Upon Issuance of LPP On March 19, 2019, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Memorandum titled "At -Risk Project Pre -Agreement Authority for Preliminary Engineering" which clarifies Section 1440 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). Section 1440 of the FAST Act authorizes FHWA to reimburse recipients and subrecipients for preliminary engineering (PE) costs incurred prior to project authorization, assuming the costs are for otherwise eligible activities on eligible projects, and the project and phase are included in a federally -approved Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) document or amendment. If eligible, and once federal authorization is received, incurred costs can be reimbursed back to the effective date of the FAST Act, October 1, 2015 or the federal approval date of the FSTIP, whichever occurs later. Section 1440 of the FAST Act does not waive any additional Federal -Aid Highway Program requirements, projects must still meet all applicable cost eligibility conditions, and all conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act must be met. Section 1440 of the FAST Act does not waive any federal A&E requirements and approvals (as documented in Chapter 10 of the Local Assistance Procedure Manual), such as for Consultants in a Management Support Role (CMSR), nor does it release local agencies from establishing DBE goals and requirements and evaluating GFE's. However, until authorized and obligated, these funds are still considered "At -Risk". There is no guarantee of Federal funding for any pre-authorized/pre-obligated PE work; recipients and subrecipients invoking Section 1440 authority assume all risk. II. POLICY Except for projects with federal funds that require allocation by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) (e.g., Active Transportation Program, Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, and State Transportation Improvement Program funds), local agencies may begin reimbursable PE work prior to receiving federal authorization for such work, assuming the project and phase are included in a federally -approved FSTIP document or amendment prior to incurring costs. Programming projects in the FSTIP or starting reimbursed work prior to authorization does not necessarily constitute eligibility of such projects for federal aid reimbursement. For projects with federal funding that require CTC allocation, only costs incurred after CTC allocation are eligible for reimbursement. Full funding for a subsequent phase of the project (final design, right-of-way acquisition, or construction) must be included in an approved FSTIP document or amendment before the NEPA document can be signed. Also, all project phases must be included in the fiscally constrained Regional/Metropolitan Transportation Plan before a NEPA document can be signed. If the "No Build" alternative is selected, the project may still be eligible for reimbursement under Section 1440. Page 1 of 4 57 `t Division of Local Assistance - Office Bulletin Office of Implementation - South ailtrans DLA OB #20-03: At -Risk PE lei - Issued — August 11, 2020 'J III. PROCEDURE To invoke the flexibilities allowed under Section 1440 of the FAST Act when submitting a request for authorization for the PE phase (LAPM 3-A), a local agency must provide both the original and current FSTIP document listing or amendment as supporting documents. As an alternative, only the current FSTIP listing may be provided if it references the date of the original FSTIP listing. However, in such instances, the original listing must be provided if requested by Caltrans to meet programming requirements or if there are any questions or concerns for funding authorizations. The original FSTIP federal approval date documenting inclusion of the PE phase will be the "Effective PE Reimbursement Date", whereby all otherwise eligible costs incurred on or after this Effective PE Reimbursement Date will be reimbursable. The original FSTIP listing does not need to specify federal funds to begin reimbursable work; however, federal funds will need to be included in the current FSTIP when an agency submits their authorization request. Note: The current FSTIP listing may reference the date of the original FSTIP listing and state that the original listing can be provided if requested to meet programming requirements. Caltrans, however, may request the original listing if there are questions or concerns for funding authorization. Reimbursements of funds can begin after funds are authorized and obligated by FHWA via the E-76. To ensure timely processing of invoices, local agencies will need to include the Effective PE Reimbursement Date on all invoices (LAPM 5-A) for reimbursement of incurred PE costs on all projects invoking Section 1440 of the FAST Act. IV. APPLICABILITY/IMPACTS The At -Risk PE option is only available for the PE phase of federally funded projects. It is not available for the Right of Way, Construction, Construction Engineering, Non - Infrastructure, or Other phases. LAPM 3-A and LAPM 5-A have been revised and are available for download at the Division of Local Assistance website. This new policy will be incorporated into Chapter 3 (Authorization) and Chapter 5 (Invoices) of the LAPM during the next LPP update. This policy should lead to expedited delivery of local projects, fewer Inactive projects, more timely obligations, and fewer PE>10 projects. Approved: Original Signature By 8/11/2020 Heidi Borders, Acting Chief Date Office of Project Implementation - South Page 2 of 4 58 `t Division of Local Assistance - Office Bulletin Office of Implementation - South ailtrans DLA OB #20-03: At -Risk PE lei - Issued — August 11, 2020 'J At -Risk Preliminary Engineering - FAQs 1. Does an agency need to "invoke their rights under Section 1440 of the FAST Act" at time of authorization? Yes, that's a good analogy. 2. How far into Design can we go? Can we request PE and CON Authorizations at the same time? There is not a limit on how far into design an agency can go before requesting authorization of At -Risk PE. Yes. 3. A&E Issues with Design Consultants? Locals still need to follow the federal requirements including the LAPM 10-C, FHWA approval required for CMSR (Consultant in a Management Support Role) prior to advertisement, DBE requirements and reporting, etc. Also, ICRP rates must be approved before contract execution. 4. How do agencies show that their project was programmed at the time work was performed? How do we satisfy the requirement for programming? The project must have funds for the PE phase programmed in an approved FSTIP or approved Amendment prior to start of work for which the agency is seeking At -Risk PE reimbursement. This is referred to as the original FSTIP document listing, and this original FSTIP listing does not need to show a federal funding presence to establish an "Effective PE Reimbursement Date." When a local agency is ready to request an authorization of federal funds, the project must be included in a current approved FSTIP or Amendment, and the federal funds requested must be shown as programmed. 5. What about multiple -funded projects, such as CTC Allocated funds - how does this affect getting reimbursed for work prior to Authorization? Can agencies identify multiple reimbursement dates, one for federal, one for state? CTC Allocated projects that have federal funds embedded in the programs (ATP, TCEP, STIP) will only be able to invoke Section 1440 reimbursement for costs incurred AFTER CTC Vote and Programming. The CTC considers individual votes for the ATP, TCEP and STIP projects to cover State and Federal funds, so beginning work on these program projects prior to the CTC Vote will not be reimbursable. 6. Apportionment Impacts? OA Impacts? Programming will handle by deducting when it comes in; Programming sees no additional risk beyond the current process. 7. Do we require an E-76 prior to NEPA Document? Prior to PES? No and No, but .... the NEPA environmental review process can begin without demonstrating fiscal constraint, however, full funding for a subsequent phase of the project (e.g., final design, right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, or construction) must be included in the approved FSTIP before the Record of Decision (ROD), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or Categorical Exclusion can be signed. All project phases (e.g., PE, final design, ROW, utility relocation, construction, and/or construction phases) planned within the life of the transportation plan have to be included in the fiscally constrained RTP/MTP in order for Caltrans to sign the ROD, FONSI or approve the CE. 8. How far back can charges go? The effective date is the same as the FAST Act: October 1, 2015. 9. Do At -Risk options apply to "Other" phase? No, At -Risk PE only applies to the PE phase and cannot be invoked on the "Other" phase, which may still be federally eligible, but is not the PE phase. 10. Can we go "back in time" on a previously authorized PE request? Yes, this is allowable, but a PE modification electing Section 1440 At Risk PE would be required. Agencies can get reimbursed for eligible work back to October 1, 2015 if they can show the project was programmed in an approved FSTIP or Amendment at that time. 11. What if the "No Build" option is selected in the NEPA document? The project would still be eligible for reimbursement under Section 1440. Page 3 of 4 59 EtDivision of Local Assistance - Office Bulletin Office of Implementation - South DLA OB #20-03: At -Risk PE lei - Issued — August 11, 2020 kJ 12. If the PE Phase is programmed in the FTIP but outside the Four -Year Element - does this qualify for the At - Risk PE? No. PE needs to have been programmed within the Four -Year Element to qualify for At -Risk PE. 13. Where can I find more information regarding this policy? FHWA's March 19, 2019 Memorandum titled "At -Risk Project Pre -Agreement Authority for Preliminary Engineering" and FAQ's can be found on FHWA's website. 14. What date is used when applying the "10 year PE rule"? The date of federal authorization of PE is the date used not the effective reimbursement date established by invoking Section 1440 of the FAST Act (AKA At -Risk PE). 15. What amount is eligible for federal reimbursement? FSTIP programming utilized to determine effective PE reimbursement date only determines start date not amount of reimbursement eligible. Any federal reimbursement will occur after authorization and is limited to funds authorized. Page 4 of 4 60 AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jenny Chan, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file an update from Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Caltrans' Local Assistance Program oversees more than one billion dollars annually available to over 600 cities, counties, and regional agencies for the purpose of improving their transportation infrastructure or providing transportation services. This funding comes from various Federal and State programs specifically designated to assist the transportation needs of local agencies. Annually, over 1,200 new projects are authorized through the Local Assistance Program of which approximately 700 are construction projects. Caltrans District 8 Local Assistance is responsible for obligating and allocating federal and state funds, providing guidance on federal and state regulations, and direction on processes and procedures that are tied to each funding program. Local Assistance is responsible for the current funding programs as identified in Table 1. Table 1: Caltrans Local Assistance funding program responsibilities Federal Programs State Programs Active Transportation Program (ATP) Active Transportation Program (ATP) Emergency Relief (ER) Local Partnership Program (LPP) Off -system Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) Off -system Highway Bridge Program (HBP) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Off -system Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) Off -system State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Off -system Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) 62 AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission Meeting Highlights: August 2020 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file August 2020 California Transportation Commission (CTC) meeting highlights. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: August 12-13, 2020 CTC Meeting (Agenda) TAB 19 — Update on the Highway Bridge Program TAB 23 —Adoption of the FY 2020-21 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Local Streets and Roads Funding Initial Report of Eligible Cities and Counties TAB 25 — Update on Applications Received for SB 1 Programs and the Active Transportation Program TAB 64 —SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to add 12 new projects into the 2020 SHOPP; revise 14 projects currently programmed in the 2020 SHOPP TAB 76 — Request $1,262,150,000 for 53 SHOPP projects TAB 90 — Request of $13,836,000 for 17 ATP projects TAB 92 — Request to extend the period of project development expenditure for 18 projects, per SHOPP guidelines 64 AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2020 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Lorelle Moe -Luna, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: RCTC Commission Meeting Highlights: August, September 2020 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file August and September 2020 Commission meeting highlights. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: August 2020 Commission Meeting (Agenda) Item 51 — Fiscal Years (FY) 2020/21 — 2024/25 Measure A Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for the Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Program The Commission approved FY 2020/21 — 2024/25 Measure A Five -Year CIPs for LSR as submitted by the participating agencies. Item 7R — Update on Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Sales Tax Revenues The Commission received an update on Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues, which concluded that April and May revenues were higher than expected and will continue to be closely analyzed for economic and cash trends to understand how COVID-19 is impacting sales taxes, payment extensions, and deferrals granted to businesses. Item 8 — Coachella Festival Special Events Train Platform Development Project Update The Commission suspended planning and development for the Coachella Festival Special Events Train Platform Development Project, including rescinding the State Rail Assistance grant of $5,942,510 and associated agreements with the California State Transportation Agency, LOSSAN, and Amtrak related to the funding and operations of the service due to negotiation challenges with Union Pacific Railroad related to capacity and conflicts with high priority freight operations. Item 9 — Award of State Route 91 (SR-91) Corridor Operations Project Construction Agreement to OHL USA 66 The Commission awarded an agreement to OHL USA to construct the SR-91 Corridor Operations Project, which will add a 2-mile long general purpose lane in the westbound direction on SR-91 from Green River Road westbound on -ramp to SR-241. Construction is expected to begin in October 2020 and will take about 12 months to complete. September 2020 Commission Meeting (Agenda) Item 7 — California High -Speed Rail (HSR) Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Update The Commission received a report on the California HSR Authority's Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section progress and potential impacts to the Commission and to direct the Chair or Executive Director to submit comments that express the Commission's rightful concerns regarding potential environmental impacts of the project. 67 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 21, 2020 ROLL CALL AGENCY IAC MtMIStK ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE and EMAIL BANNING BEAUMONT BLYTHE CALIMESA CALTRANS CANYON LAKE ART VELA Acting Director of Public Works JEFF HART Director of Public Works/City Engineer DAN OJEDA MICHAEL THORNTON City Engineer ,ALBERT VERGEL DE DIOS Acting District Local Assistance Engineer BRAD BROPHY CATHEDRAL CITY .JOHN CORELLA City Engineer COACHELLA GABOR PAKOZDI COACHELLA MARTIN MAGANA VICE CHAIR VALLEY Director of Transportation ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CORONA DESERT HOT SPRINGS TOM KOPER Acting Public Works Director ,DANIEL PORRAS Public Works Director/City Engineer Holly Stuart Public Works Analyst Robert Vestal Sean Yeung Acting District Local Assistance Engineer Mike Borja Administrative Services Manager Crystal Sandoval Assistant Engineer Maritza Martinez Interim Public Works Director Eric Cowie Transportation Program Manager Rosalva Ureno Senior Engineer Nick Haecker Public Works Manager f �y1,L t__k_ C. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 21, 2020 ROLL CALL AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE EASTVALE 'WILLIAM HEMSLEY Craig Bradshaw City Engineer HEMET / Nancy Beltran a--1-L- Management Assistant INDIAN WELLS KEN SEUMALO Tanya Williams Public Works Director Senior Management Analyst INDIO OTHY T. WASSIL Eric Weck Public Works Director Principal Civil Engineer JURUPA VALLEY EVE LORISO Rod Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Manager LA QUINTA KINNEY Julie Mignogna }YANMC City Engineer Management Analyst LAKE ELSINORE �IMON HABIB Senior Civil Engineer MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY ICHAEL WOLFE Public Works Director/City Engineer MURRIETA 1BOB MOEHLING City Engineer NORCO CHAD BLAIS Public Works Director Yu Tagai Associate Engineer 'Carlos Geronimo Senior Engineer Michael Lloyd Engineering Division Manager/Assistant City Engineer Jeff Hitch Principal City Engineer Sam Nelson Deputy City Engineer/ Deputy Public Works Director TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 21, 2020 ROLL CALL AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE and EMAIL PALM DESERT 1,Z6M GARCIA Director of Public Works PALM SPRINGS PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY PERRIS RANCHO MIRAGE RIVERSIDE Randy Bowman Sr. Project Engineer JOEL MONTALVO Marcus Fuller Assistant Director of Engineering Services Assistant City Manager K. GEORGE COLANGELI Transit General Manager JESSE ECKENROTH Public Works Director .P RSHID MOHAMMADI Engineering Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY, P�t�TTY ROMO (Director of Transportation RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SAN JACINTO KRISTIN WARSINSKI Director of Planning Dale Reynolds CHAIR Gilbert Hernandez Public Works Department lahed Salama Deputy Director of Transportation Jennifer Nguyen Planning and Programming Specialist L ..Brad Brophy SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TEMECULA Brittney B. Sowell v,R6han Kuruppu Clerk of the Board/Special Assistant to the CEO PATRICK THOMAS ,Amer Attar Director of Public Works TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 21, 2020 ROLL CALL AGENCY j TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE and EMAIL WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WILDOMAR !CHRISTOPHER GRAY Director of Transportation t/lerSAN YORK Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works/City Engineer .Chris Tzeng Program Manager Craig Bradshaw E LC i 0 jcorella Shirley A Vela Albert Verge! de Dios Amer Attar Brad (T, Bryan McKinney CICarlos Geronimo Chris Melo 1:0 Chris Tzeng Crystal Sandoval ph D. York 0 Jillian Guizado, RCTC (Me) LILisa Mobley (Host) go] g Sheldon Peterson 4 Co Farshid Mohammadi, city of River... (1/42., EP 0 Da 11 g 0 ')/e=q/to? 101 D. York Daniel Porras David Knudsen Eric Cowie Jennifer Nguyen Jenny Chan JHart John Standiford RCTC Leslie Avila Lorelle laptop Lorelle Moe -Luna ® Martin Magana Michael Wolfe CImsalama Patrick Thomas Patty Romo 0 Paul Rodriguez - RCG Remon Habib Richard Marcus Rohan Anthony Kuruppu Stephen Loriso CI Thomas Garcia ID Tim Saenz Tim Wassil Zoom user 17147636233 bob moehling Martha Masters - computer 0 m