HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 11, 2022 CommissionComments 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: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, May 11, 2022
LOCATION: BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside
COMMISSIONERS
Chair – V. Manuel Perez
Vice Chair – Bob Magee
Second Vice Chair – Lloyd White
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
Mary Hamlin / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning
Lloyd White / David Fenn, City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck / Johnny Rodriguez, City of Blythe
Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Jeremy Smith / Larry Greene, City of Canyon Lake
Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, 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 / Malcolm Lilienthal, City of Hemet
Dana Reed / Donna Griffith, City of Indian Wells
Waymond Fermon / Oscar Ortiz, City of Indio
Brian Berkson / Guillermo Silva, 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
Yxstian Gutierrez / Edward Delgado, City of Moreno Valley
Lisa DeForest / Cindy Warren, City of Murrieta
Ted Hoffman / Katherine Aleman, 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
Chuck Conder / Patricia Lock Dawson, City of Riverside
Michael Heath / Alonso Ledezma, City of San Jacinto
Maryann Edwards / Zak Schwank, 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
9:30 a.m.
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
Board Room
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the
meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the
public prior to the meeting on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order N-29-20, and the
Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed
to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge.
Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made
to provide assistance at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less.
The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this
three-minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of
speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous
minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30)
minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious.
Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be
distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies
to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public
comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such
matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration.
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.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
May 11, 2022
Page 2
6. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Budget;
and
2) Conduct a public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed
FY 2022/23 Budget on May 11 and June 8, 2022, and thereafter close the public hearing.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR – All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion
unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
7A. AB 361 DETERMINATION
Page 28
Overview
This item is for the Commission to Reaffirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, “A
Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission Authorizing Virtual Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361.” The
findings are as follows:
a. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, related to the
COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exist today; and
b. State or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing.
7B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 13, 2022
Page 33
7C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Page 44
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report
for the third quarter ended March 31, 2022.
7D. ADOPTED 2022 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Page 46
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) adopted 2022 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
May 11, 2022
Page 3
7E. 91 EASTBOUND CORRIDOR OPERATIONS PROJECT
Page 50
Overview
This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to proceed with the Project Approval
and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase for the 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations
Project.
7F. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT FOR BI-
COUNTY RIDESHARE PROGRAM SERVICES AND COMMUTER ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Page 53
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-41-090-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 20-41-090-00 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
(SBCTA) for a two-year term to reimburse the Commission for an additional
amount of $2.4 million, and a total amount not to exceed of $4,800,000, for
commuter/employer rideshare (IE Commuter) programs and vanpool program
support administered by the Commission, on behalf of both agencies; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Page 58
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Adopt the following bill position:
a) AB 2237 (Friedman)—Oppose;
b) SB 1410 (Caballero) —Support.
9. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT STATUS AND REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS
Page 70
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file an update on negotiations with the city of Perris (City) regarding Mid
County Parkway (MCP) since the March 28, 2022, Western Riverside County Programs
and Projects Committee meeting;
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
May 11, 2022
Page 4
2) Direct staff to defer work on the Mid County Parkway Construction Package 2 from
Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (MCP2) as currently scoped within the city;
3) Direct staff to work with the county of Riverside (County) to scope a different construction
package within County jurisdiction, along Ramona Expressway, to address ongoing safety
issues and continue progress on the overall MCP project; and
4) Direct staff to return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to
reprogram funds currently committed to MCP2 onto the newly scoped package.
10. APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER
Page 102
Overview
This item is for the cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and
Temecula to select a representative to set on the Executive Committee.
11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for brief announcements or comments on items or matters of
general interest.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
June 8, 2022.
AGENDA ITEM 6
PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda Item 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Sergio Vidal, Chief Financial Officer
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2022/23
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1)Discuss, review, and provide guidance on the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 Budget;
and
2)Conduct a public hearing in order to receive input and comments on the proposed FY
2022/23 Budget on May 11 and June 8, 2022, and thereafter close the public hearing.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Staff completed the initial budget preparation process and the attached executive summary for
the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget. The policy goals and objectives approved by the Commission
on March 9 formulate the basis for the upcoming FY 2022/23 budget. The long-term policy
goals that support the Commission’s objectives considered during the preparation of the
budget relates to promoting quality of life; achieving operations excellence; connecting the
economy; being a responsible partner; and maintaining fiscal accountability.
At the meeting, staff will present highlights of significant items included in the budget and
seeks review and input on the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget. Additionally, staff recommends
opening of the public hearing on May 11. As a result of input received from the public and the
Commission and any final staff revisions to budget amounts, staff will make the necessary
changes to the budget document for the Commission’s final review, closing of the public
hearing, and formal adoption at its June 8 Commission meeting. If any amendments to budget
amounts after the May 11 Commission meeting are needed, staff will provide a detailed
reconciliation of such revisions.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission’s budget is primarily project-driven and includes service-driven enterprise
operations such as the express lanes operations. As a project driven-agency, the Commission
accumulates funds, or reserves, for specific projects and programs – resulting in flexibility to
1
Agenda Item 6
adjust project development or programs during times of economic downturns. The proposed
FY 2022/23 Budget anticipates that total uses will exceed sources by approximately $109
million. Similar to prior years, the accumulated reserves, will fund the deficiency. In the
executive summary, Tables 18-20 provide a summary of budgeted sources and uses from
different perspectives (comparative, operating and capital, and fund).
Since the Commission is primarily project-driven, personnel costs represent less than two
percent of budgeted expenditures totaling approximately $17 million. As approved by the
Executive Committee, on March 9, budgeted personnel costs reflect the following changes for
the upcoming fiscal year:
Changes in Personnel Costs - FY 2022/23:
New Positions:
• Accountant
• Administrative Assistant
• Human Resources Assistant
• Regional Conservation Deputy Director
Reclassification of Existing Positions:
Current Title New Title
• Regional Conservation Deputy Regional Conservation Director
Executive Director
• Technical Information Program Senior Management Analyst – GIS
Manager
• Administrative Services Manager / Administrative Services Director /
Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board
• Human Resources Administrator Human Resources Manager
Other Items:
• Four (4) percent pool for performance merit-based salary increases;
• Four (4) percent annual salary range cost of living adjustment (COLA). The COLA only
applies to the Commission’s salary range structure and is not automatically applied to
the current employees’ salaries. In June 2019, the Board approved the COLA will be
predicated on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – All Urban Wage
Earners, covering Riverside, CA for the 12-month period ending December 31, rounded
to the nearest half a percent, with a maximum adjustment of 4 percent. The COLA will
be equal to the CPI, but no less than 0 percent and no greater than 4 percent. The CPI
for the All Urban Wage Earners, covering Riverside, CA for the 12-month period ending
December 31, 2021 was 6 percent. In accordance with the Board’s action, CPI was
capped at 4 percent and applied to the Commission’s salary range structure for
FY 2022/23; and
• Additional $750 monthly increase towards the employer’s contribution for health care
(total Commission maximum contribution for each employee is $1,500 per month).
2
Agenda Item 6
With the FY 2022/23 Budget, the Commission will continue to move forward current capital
projects to construction, thereby providing a stimulus to the local economy. Significant capital
projects and its current project phase are as follows:
Construction and/or Design-Build Phase:
• 71/91 Connector in Corona
• 15/91 Express Lanes Connector in Corona
Completion Phase (Anticipated):
• 60 Truck Lanes in the Badlands
• I-15 Express Lanes Project in northwestern Riverside County,
• Moreno Valley-March Field station upgrades and grade separation projects
• Design-build activities on the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector in Corona
• RCTC 91 Express Lanes projects
• Mid County Parkway’s (MCP)
o Interstate (I)-215/Placentia Avenue interchange in Perris
Preliminary engineering, final design, and/or right of way acquisitions Phase(s):
• I-15 Express Lanes Project-Southern Extension
• I-15 Express Lanes Corridor Operations Project
• MCP’s second construction project
• 71/91 Connector in Corona
Other major capital projects:
• Pass-through funding for Measure A local streets and roads
• SB132 projects in northwestern Riverside County
• Western County TUMF and Measure A regional arterial projects
• Several commuter rail station upgrades and improvements
Table 21 in the executive summary presents a summary of highway, regional arterial, rail, and
regional conservation program projects.
A public hearing to allow for public comment on the proposed budget is required prior to the
adoption of the proposed budget, including proposed salary schedule. Accordingly, staff
recommends the Commission opens the public hearing on May 11, continues the public
hearing to June 8 followed by adoption of the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget. In accordance
with the Commission’s fiscal policies, the budget must be adopted no later than June 15 of each
year.
3
Agenda Item 6
A summary of the proposed FY 2022/23 Budget is as follows:
FY 2022/23 Budget
Revenues and other financing sources:
Sales taxes-Measure A and Local Transportation Funds $ 385,000,000
Reimbursements (federal, state, and local) 247,867,200
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Funds, including reimbursements 31,000,000
State Transit Assistance 30,964,600
Tolls, penalties, and fees 97,771,800
Other revenues 707,000
Interest on investments 1,168,400
Transfers in 244,603,200
Total revenues and other financing sources 1,039,082,200
Expenditures and other financing uses:
Personnel salaries and fringe benefits 17,367,100
Professional services 17,983,700
Support services 17,865,000
Projects and operations 752,238,500
Capital outlay 6,348,900
Debt service (principal and interest) 91,756,300
Transfers out 244,603,200
Total expenditures and other financing uses 1,148,162,700
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over
(under) expenditures and other financing uses
(109,080,500)
Beginning fund balance (projected) 1,278,326,000
Ending fund balance (projected) $ 1,169,245,500
At its June 8 Commission meeting, staff will present the entire budget document with detailed
narratives, the FY 2022/23 salary schedule, and Resolution No. 22-009 “Fixing the Employer
Contribution Under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act at an Amount for
Employees and Annuitants”.
Attachment: Executive Summary for the Proposed FY 2022/23 Budget
4
Agenda Item 6
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on April 25, 2022
In Favor: 10 Abstain: 0 No: 0
5
Executive Summary
Introduction
The budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23 is presented to the Board of Commissioners (Board) and the
citizens of Riverside County. The budget outlines the projects and programs the Commission plans to
undertake during the year and appropriates expenditures to accomplish these tasks. The budget also
shows the funding sources and fund balances for these projects and programs. This document serves
as the Commission’s monetary guideline for the fiscal year. To provide the reader a better
understanding of the projects and programs, staff included descriptive information regarding each
department and major programs and projects.
In early March 2020, the federal government as well as the California Governor issued emergency
declarations related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, on March 19, 2020, the Governor issued an
executive stay at home order to protect the health and well-being of all Californians and to establish
consistency across the State to slow the spread of COVID-19. The County of Riverside also issued a
directive to county residents supporting the Governor’s executive order. Over the past year, the
restrictions have been revoked in response to the changing nature of the pandemic. The end of the
COVID-19 pandemic appears to be in sight with vaccine distributions widely dispersed, more
Californians returning to work or leisure activities, and financial relief to families and businesses most
impacted by the pandemic.
The COVID-19 pandemic will likely remain a public health and economic challenge in future years and
continue its negative impacts on the local, regional, state, and federal economies; the magnitude and
duration of post COVID-19 pandemic impacts remain uncertain. This budget is presented based on
the best available economic information. The Board and staff will continuously monitor, assess, and re-
prioritize the budgeted revenues and expenditures as necessary throughout these challenges and
duration of economic recovery.
Policy Goals and Objectives
As approved at its March 9, 2022 meeting, the Commission is driven by four core mission statements and
underlying goals for the residents of Riverside County and the transportation system upon which they
rely:
QUALITY OF LIFE
RCTC is focused on improving life for the people of Riverside County and empowering them to live
life at their pace.
Choice RCTC empowers the residents of Riverside County to choose how to safely get
to where they are going.
Environmental
Stewardship
RCTC protects and preserves the County’s environment for its residents.
Mobility RCTC provides access, equity, and choice in transportation; RCTC is a
multimodal mobility partner.
Equity
RCTC supports transportation services and projects that address inequities,
including those in rural, low income, and disadvantaged communities.
Access
RCTC projects and programs are the connection to employment, housing,
schools, community institutions, parks, medical facilities, and shopping in the
region.
Goods Movement
RCTC facilitates the funding and delivery of projects that mitigate the impact
of increased goods movement flow through Riverside County and advocates
for a reasonable balance between the need to create jobs and to protect
public health.
6
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
RCTC is a responsible and conservative steward of taxpayer dollars.
State of Good Repair RCTC invests in road safety and maintenance in its residents’ neighborhoods
and sustainable practices to maintain its stations and facilities.
Promises Fulfilled Projects are completed on-time, on-budget; RCTC delivers on its promises as a
steward of Riverside County residents’ investment.
Efficiency RCTC operates in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Innovation Program and project delivery innovations drive results, savings, and greater
economic opportunities for Riverside County residents.
Information RCTC operations are transparent and easily accessible; customers get prompt,
reliable, quality service.
CONNECTING THE ECONOMY
RCTC is a driver of economic growth in Riverside County.
Workforce Mobility
RCTC improves the economy by creating a robust workforce to workplace
system; RCTC fosters workforce development by improving transportation
access to major employment and education centers.
Population Growth
Since 1976, RCTC has been responsible for connecting the County’s economy
as the County’s population has quadrupled from 550,000 to over 2.4 million
today. RCTC is sensitive to each geographic area’s unique needs.
Economic Impact
RCTC has invested over $4.6 billion in the County’s economy thanks to Measure
A and toll revenues, which has a multiplier impact in terms of jobs and
economic opportunity throughout Riverside County.
RESPONSIBLE PARTNER
RCTC partners with local, regional, and state governments to deliver road and transit projects.
Streets and Roads RCTC has invested over $1.3 billion in local priorities for maintaining streets and
roads and fixing potholes.
Transit
RCTC partners with transit operators to provide residents mobility choices,
flexibility, intercity and intercounty connectivity, and access—especially
during a post-pandemic recovery.
Active Transportation
Facilities
RCTC continually improves its stations for better bicycle and pedestrian access
and partners with agencies within the County to promote active
transportation alternatives, including the building of regional trails and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in accordance with local general master and active
transportation plans.
Grants RCTC is a steward of state and federal grants to leverage Measure A dollars
and improve mobility for our communities.
Local Measure A Value RCTC invests Measure A dollars into projects and programs that benefit local
communities throughout the County.
Staff used these core mission statements and goals to prepare this budget and develop the following
short-term objectives to further guide the planning for the FY 2022/23 budget.
Capital Project Development and Delivery
Continue preliminary engineering, design, right of way acquisition, and/or construction of projects
included in the Western County Highway Delivery Plan, and projects to improve operations of
Metrolink commuter rail service.
Continue to support operations planning and design of projects led by other agencies.
As lead agency for partner agency projects, closeout the I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange
project, commence preliminary engineering of the I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange
project, and continue environmental clearance efforts for the Santa Ana River Trail.
7
Consider opportunities to implement technology-based strategies, or Smart Freeway projects, to
manage traffic, reduce congestion and pollution, increase safety, and improve the quality of
commutes. Commence Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the Smart Freeway project on
I-15 in Temecula.
Maintain and enhance communication and collaboration with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to improve the Commission’s ability to deliver critical projects.
Collaborate with local jurisdictions to implement Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
regional arterial program projects and facilitate the delivery of eligible arterial improvements in
western Riverside County (Western County).
Continue active engagement in state and federal efforts to streamline and modernize the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to improve
the Commission’s ability to deliver critical projects.
Operations
Efficiently operate express lanes and achieve high customer satisfaction through reduction in
congestion, mobility improvements, and management of demand.
Efficiently and cost effectively operate the commuter rail stations and facilities and 91/Perris Valley
Line (PVL) rail corridor to ensure reliable high quality commuter rail service.
Efficiently provide motorist assistance services so that motorists can conveniently travel and use
transportation facilities as safely as possible.
Regional Programs
Proactively engage state and federal legislators and agencies to advance principles identified in
the adopted Legislative Platform to ensure that the Commission receives proper consideration for
transportation projects and funding.
Monitor transit trends and the associated economic, social, and public health factors that impact
ridership and create barriers to transit growth.
Subsidize reliable and cost-effective Metrolink commuter rail service to and from Riverside County;
SCRRA is the operator of Metrolink.
Provide continued leadership in the planning and development for the Coachella Valley-San
Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service.
Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders
with special transit needs.
Promote cost controls and operating efficiency for transit operators.
Maintain effective partnerships among commuters, employers, and government to increase the
efficiency of our transportation system by encouraging and promoting telework and motorized and
non-motorized transportation alternatives such as vanpools.
Management Services
Maintain close communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of
importance to the Commission.
Develop and execute a communications and public engagement strategy for the purposes of
education, information, and customer service.
Maintain administrative program delivery costs below the policy threshold of 4% of Measure A
revenues; the FY 2022/23 Management Services budget is1.86% of Measure A revenues.
Maintain administrative salaries and benefits at less than 1% of Measure A revenues; the FY 2022/23
administrative salaries and benefits is 0.73% of Measure A revenues.
Maintain prudent cash reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures or
economic downturns.
Maintain current strong bond ratings with rating agencies.
Establish and maintain revenues and reserves generated from toll operations to be available for
debt service in accordance with toll supported debt agreements; maintenance, repair,
rehabilitation, administration, and operations; and capital projects within the corridor.
8
Linking Commission and Departmental Mission Statements
The following matrix (Table 1) illustrates the linkage of the Commission’s core mission statements
described in this section to the individual departmental mission statements included in each
department’s section.
Table 1 – Relationship between Commission and Departmental Mission Statements
Department Quality
of Life
Operational
Excellence
Connecting
the Economy
Responsible
Partner
Management Services
Executive Management X X X X
Administration X
External Affairs X X X X
Finance X
Regional Programs
Planning and Programming X X X X
Rail Maintenance and Operations X X X X
Public and Specialized Transit X X X X
Commuter Assistance X X X X
Motorist Assistance X X X X
Regional Conservation X X X X
Capital Project Development and
Delivery X X X X
Toll Operations X X X X
Budget Overview
Total sources (Table 2) are budgeted at $1,039,082,200, an increase of 5% over FY 2021/22 projected
sources and 40% decrease over the FY 2021/22 budget. The decrease is largely as a result in the
reduction in debt proceeds due to the refinancing of the 91 Express Lanes 2013 Toll Revenue Bonds and
TIFIA loan pre-payment (2021 Refunding). Total sources are comprised of revenues of $794,479,000 and
transfers in of $244,603,200. The projected fund balance at June 30, 2022 available for
expenditures/expenses (excluding amounts restricted for debt service of $11,538,600 and advances
receivable of $17,491,500) is $1,249,295,900. Accordingly, total funding available for the FY 2022/23
budget totals $2,288,378,100.
Table 2 – Sources FY 2021-2023
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Measure A Sales Tax 242,943,800$ 250,000,000$ 250,000,000$ 255,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 2%
LTF Sales Tax 123,038,700 127,000,000 127,000,000 130,000,000 3,000,000 2%
STA Sales Tax 23,576,900 23,909,100 28,465,200 30,964,600 7,055,500 30%
Intergovernmental 189,518,200 340,267,000 295,114,800 247,867,200 (92,399,800) -27%
TUMF Revenue 28,301,500 30,000,000 30,100,000 31,000,000 1,000,000 3%
Tolls, Penalties, and Fees 51,769,400 65,123,700 98,646,900 97,771,800 32,648,100 50%
Other Revenue 6,733,900 658,600 1,403,000 707,000 48,400 7%
Investment Income 2,711,100 910,100 5,012,900 1,168,400 258,300 28%
Transfers In 173,536,200 198,692,000 153,217,400 244,603,200 45,911,200 23%
Debt Proceeds 15,661,000 685,197,000 - - (685,197,000) -100%
TOTAL Sources 857,790,700$ 1,721,757,500$ 988,960,200$ 1,039,082,200$ (682,675,300)$ -40%
Riverside County has specific competitive advantages over nearby coastal counties (Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Diego), including housing that is more available and affordable as well as plentiful
commercial real estate and land available for development at lower costs. Prior to the COVID-19
pandemic in early 2020, Riverside County’s economy benefitted from employment gains due to the
9
County’s ability to attract businesses with lower commercial rents and a skilled labor force. Population
migration to the Inland Empire (i.e., Riverside and San Bernardino counties) occurred due to these
employment opportunities and a lower cost of living compared to the coastal counties. Stability in the
local labor market and housing advantages has increased economic activity and post COVID-19
pandemic recovery contributing to stable sales tax revenue growth as noted on Chart 3.
Chart 3 – Sources: Five-Year Trend
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
$800,000,000
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Measure A Sales Tax
LTF Sales Tax
STA Sales Tax
TUMF
Federal, State, Local Revenues
Toll Revenue
Transfers In
Debt Proceeds
Regardless of the current and future economic conditions, the Commission faces formidable ongoing
challenges in terms of providing needed infrastructure enhancements to support a population and an
economy that has outgrown the capacity of its existing infrastructure. Fortunately, the foundation of the
regional economy continues to retain many of the fundamental positive attributes that fueled its earlier
growth, including more affordable real estate with proximity to coastal communities, a large pool of
skilled workers, and increasing wealth and education levels.
While the Commission’s primary revenues are the Measure A and LTF sales taxes, other revenues and
financing sources are required to fund the Commission’s programs and projects as illustrated in Chart
4. The Commission receives Measure A and LTF sales tax revenues from the California Department of
Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), as statutorily created and authorized successor to the former
California State Board of Equalization.
Chart 4 – Sources: Major Categories
Measure A Sales Tax 25%
LTF Sales Tax 12%
STA Sales Tax3%
Intergovernmental24%
TUMF Revenue3%
Tolls, Penalties, and Fees9%
Investment Income 0%
Transfers In24%
Debt Proceeds0%
10
After considering the state of the local economy, staff projects Measure A sales tax revenues of
$255,000,000 for FY 2022/23. This is a 2% change from the FY 2021/22 revised projection of $250,000,000.
Generally, the Commission reassesses its sales tax revenue projections at midyear based on the
economy and revenue trends; however, the Commission anticipates more frequent reviews throughout
FY 2022/23 as the post COVID-19 impacts become known along with other key economic indicators.
On behalf of the County, the Commission administers the LTF for public transportation needs, local
streets and roads, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The majority of LTF funding received by the
County and available for allocation is distributed to all public transit operators in the County. The
Commission receives allocations for administration, planning, and programming in addition to funding
for Western County rail operations included in the commuter rail Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). LTF sales
tax revenue is budgeted at $130,000,000, a 2% change from the FY 2021/22 revised $127,000,000
projection.
A statewide sales tax on motor vehicle diesel fuel generates STA funds, which the State Controller
allocates by formula to the Commission for allocations to the County’s public transit operators. SB 1
provides additional STA revenues, including State of Good Repair (SGR) funds for transit maintenance,
rehabilitation, and capital projects. The FY 2022/23 STA/SGR allocations, based on recent State
estimates, is $30,964,600.
Intergovernmental revenues include reimbursement revenues from federal sources of $83,605,900, state
sources of $147,821,900, and local agencies of $16,439,400 for highway and rail capital projects, rail
operations and station maintenance, commuter assistance, and motorist assistance programs as well
as planning and programming activities. The decrease of 27% in FY 2022/23 compared to the FY 2021/22
budget is related to decreases in federal, state, and local agency reimbursements. Senate Bill 132 (SB
132) enacted in April 2017 provides state funding for the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector and pass-
through funding to the County for the Hamner Bridge widening and to both the County and city of
Corona for various grade separation projects. Other state reimbursements will fund the SR-60 Truck
Lanes, 71/91 Connector, Mid County Parkway (MCP) I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange, MCP second
construction contract package, Smart Freeways, and station rehabilitation projects. Federal
reimbursements provide funding for the I-15 Express LanesSouthern Extension, I-15 Smart Corridor, SR-91
East Corridor Operations Project, 71/91 Connector, MCP second construction contract package, Smart
Freeways, and station rehabilitation projects. Local reimbursements will fund the I-15 Express Lanes –
Northern Extension, MCP I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange, Santa Ana River Trail Extension, rideshare
services, and regional conservation. Reimbursement revenues vary from year to year depending on
project activities and funding levels.
Based on an amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG), the Commission receives 45.7% of TUMF revenues (as updated by the most
recent Nexus study). TUMF represents fees assessed on new residential and commercial development
in Western County. The Commission projects FY 2022/23 TUMF fees at $31,000,000.
FY 2021/22 marked the fifth complete fiscal year of toll operations for the RCTC 91 Express Lanes
following substantial completion of the 91 Project in March 2017. Since opening and through February
2020, the RCTC 91 Express Lanes traffic and toll revenues surpassed initial 2013 financing assumptions
and an updated Riverside County 91 Express Lanes Extension Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue
Study approved by the Commission in December 2018. Based on the impacts of post COVID-19 on the
RCTC 91 Express Lanes, the Commission cautiously estimates FY 2022/23 toll revenues, penalties and fees
of $64,044,800 — comparable to the FY 2021/22 projected revenues of $64,516,800.
FY 2021/22 marked the first full year of toll operations for the 15 Express Lanes following substantial
completion of the I-15 Express Lanes Project and opening of the 15 Express Lanes in April 2021. For FY
2022/23, the Commission projects $33,727,000 in toll revenues, penalties and fees for the 15 Express Lanes
– comparable to the FY 2021/22 projected revenues of $34,130,100.
11
Other revenue of $707,000 includes property management generated from properties acquired in
connection with various highway and rail properties.
The Commission anticipates a 28% increase in FY 2022/23 investment income from the FY 2021/22
budget due to higher cash and investment balances. The FY 2022/23 budget conservatively projects
investment income at a 0.10% investment yield, no change from the prior year budget.
Transfers in of $244,603,200 relate to the transfer of LTF funding for general administration, planning and
programming, rail operations, and grade separation project allocations; approved interfund allocations
for specific projects and administrative cost allocations; and debt service requirements from highway,
new corridors, and regional arterial funds.
Debt proceeds decreased 100% in FY 2022/23 due to the one-time refinancing of the 91 Project toll
debt with proceeds from the 2021 Refunding Bonds in FY 2021/22. Additionally, the Commission issued
the final draw on the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan for the I-15 Express
Lanes project.
Total uses (Table 3), including transfers out of $244,603,200, are budgeted at $1,148,162,700 a 36%
decrease from the prior year budget amount of $1,799,414,100. Program expenditures and transfers out
totaling $1,031,709,400 represent 90% of total budgeted uses in FY 2022/23. Program costs increased by
2% from $1,010,081,000 in FY 2021/22 due to projects and programs identified below.
Table 3 – Uses FY 2021-2023
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials 378,394,900$ 645,053,500$ 469,790,600$ 541,533,500$ (103,520,000)$ -16%
Capital Local Streets and Roads 73,745,400 75,897,300 75,897,300 77,101,900 1,204,600 2%
Commuter Assistance 3,071,800 4,783,700 3,788,400 4,645,100 (138,600) -3%
Debt Service 76,880,600 766,693,600 96,911,800 91,756,300 (674,937,300) -88%
Management Services 17,872,900 22,639,500 20,251,800 24,697,000 2,057,500 9%
Motorist Assistance 6,452,000 9,096,600 8,443,900 9,537,100 440,500 5%
Planning and Programming 2,814,400 8,129,400 6,732,100 9,065,600 936,200 12%
Public and Specialized Transit 57,562,800 146,873,800 109,878,900 198,802,200 51,928,400 35%
Rail Maintenance and Operations 18,456,900 42,781,900 30,884,900 54,879,400 12,097,500 28%
Regional Conservation 1,721,400 5,768,200 5,530,200 10,353,700 4,585,500 79%
Toll Operations 19,342,500 71,696,600 38,491,500 125,790,900 54,094,300 75%
TOTAL Uses 656,315,600$ 1,799,414,100$ 866,601,400$ 1,148,162,700$ (651,251,400)$ -36% Note: Management Services includes Executive Management, Administration, External Affairs, and Finance.
Capital highway, rail, and regional arterials budgeted uses of $541,533,500 are 16% lower compared to
the FY 2021/22 budget due to significant completion on the SR-60 Truck Lanes and 91 COP; project
activity on the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector, County’s Hamner Bridge widening, County and various
City of Corona grade separation projects, MCP I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange; and completion
and close-out activities on the I-15 Express Lanes Project.
Local streets and roads expenditures of $77,101,900 reflect an increase of $1,204,600 over the FY 2021/22
budget and represent the disbursements of 2009 Measure A sales tax revenues to local jurisdictions for
the construction, repair, and maintenance of local streets and roads.
Commuter assistance budgeted expenditures of $4,645,100 are 3% lower than the FY 2021/22 budget
due to restructuring of rideshare/vanpool platforms.
Debt service of $91,756,300 decreased 88% in FY 2022/23 due to the one-time refinancing of the 91
Project toll debt with proceeds from the 2021 Refunding Bonds in FY 2021/22.
12
Management services expenditures of $24,697,000 increased 9% due to the addition of three Full-Time
Equivalents (FTE) approved by the Commission’s Executive Committee in March 2022. These positions
were identified and necessary for workload management and continuance of service levels specifically
for the Administration, Human Resources, and Finance departments; strengthened communication and
engagement efforts; and technology equipment upgrades and maintenance.
Motorist assistance expenditures of $9,537,100 increased 5% due to transfers out for SAFE matching funds
to FSP, commuter assistance special projects, and increased towing rates in the FSP program.
Planning and programming budgeted expenditures of $9,065,600 increased 12% due to increased
projects and operation activities in connection with LTF disbursements for planning and programming,
other agency projects, and special studies.
Public and specialized transit budgeted expenditures of $198,802,200 are 35% higher than the FY
2021/22 budget due to the use of federal stimulus funds available in the prior year to help respond to
COVID-19 impacts rather than traditional operating subsidies to public transit operators.
The rail maintenance and operations budgeted expenditures of $54,879,400 are 28% higher than the FY
2021/22 budget due to the use of federal stimulus funds for COVID-19 impacts available in the prior year
to fund Metrolink operations, rather than traditional operating subsidies.
Regional conservation budgeted expenditures of $10,353,700 reflects a second full year serving as the
managing agency for the RCA. FY 2022/23 reflects an increase of $4,826,300 or 87% primarily due to
the Commission’s Finance department assuming the accounts payable invoice processing for the RCA.
RCA will reimburse the Commission 100% of costs incurred. Additionally, the FY 2022/23 budget reflects
the addition of one FTE for a Regional Conservation Deputy Director approved in March 2022 by the
Commission’s Executive Committee to manage RCA workload and continuance of service.
Toll operations expenses are budgeted at $125,790,900 to manage the operations, maintenance, and
capital support of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes and to pay interest on 91 Express
Lanes toll revenue debt. The 75% increase is due to operations and maintenance on the RCTC 91
Express Lanes; required repair and rehabilitation activity on the RCTC 91 Express Lanes; 91 Express Lanes
eastbound lane to McKinley Avenue project funding; and transfer of toll operations surplus revenues for
the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector project.
Chart 5 is an illustration of total uses included in the FY 2022/23 budget by major categories.
Chart 5 – Uses: Major Categories
Capital Highway, Rail, and
Regional Arterials
47%
Capital Local Streets and
Roads
7%
Commuter Assistance
0%
Debt Service
8%
Management Services
2%
Motorist Assistance
1%
Planning and
Programming
1%
Public and Specialized
Transit
17%
Rail Maintenance and
Operations
5%
Regional Conservation
1%
Toll Operations
11%
13
Commission Personnel
The Commission’s salaries and benefits total $17,367,100 for FY 2022/23. This represents an increase of
$1,153,900 or 7% over the FY 2021/22 budget of $16,213,200 (Chart 6). The increase relates primarily to
the addition of four staff positions – Accountant, Administrative Assistant, Human Resources Assistant,
and Regional Conservation Deputy Director; reclassification of four existing positions – Administrative
Services Director/Clerk of the Board, Human Resources Manager, Regional Conservation Director, and
Senior Management Analyst; an increase to the Commission’s contribution to employee health benefits;
a 4% pool for performance merit-based salary increases; and a 4% annual salary range cost of living
adjustment (COLA). The COLA only applies to the to the Commission’s salary range structure and is not
automatically applied to the current employees’ salaries. In June 2019, the Board approved the COLA
will be predicated on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – All Urban Wage Earners,
covering Riverside, CA for the 12-month period ending December 31, rounded to the nearest half a
percent, with a maximum adjustment of 4%. The COLA will be equal to the CPI, but no less than 0% and
no greater than 4%. The CPI for the All Urban Wage Earners, covering Riverside, CA for the 12-month
period ending December 31, 2021 was 6%. In accordance with the Board’s action, CPI was capped at
4% and applied to the Commission’s salary range structure for FY 2022/23. Significant variances in prior
years (Chart 6) are primarily due to the Commission’s one-time disbursement to pay down the California
Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) unfunded actuarial pension liability of $8.6 million in FY
2019/20; six months serving as the managing agency for the RCA in FY 2020/21; and reorganization of
the toll program, the addition of three new positions, and a full year serving as the managing agency
for the RCA in FY 2021/22. The Commission’s salary schedule for FY 2022/23 is included in Appendix B
and complies with Government Code §20636 “Compensation Earnable” and California Code of
Register §570.5, “Requirements for a Publicly Available Pay Schedule.”
Chart 6 – Salaries and Benefits Cost: Five-Year Comparison
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
The 81 FTE positions included in the FY 2022/23 budget (Table 4) reflects an increase of four FTEs from the
FY 2021/22 budget and along with an increase of 18 FTE from FY 2020/21. The 81 FTE positions include 16
regional conservation positions. Management continues its commitment with its intent for the
Commission’s enabling legislation requiring a lean organization. The Commission will continue providing
staff the tools needed to ensure an efficient and productive work environment. However, small should
not be viewed in an absolute context; it is relative to the required tasks and the demands to be met.
14
Table 4 – Full-Time Equivalents by Department FY 2021—2023
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23
Executive Management 1.1 1.0 0.5
Administration 5.4 5.7 8.9
External Affairs 3.1 4.2 5.3
Finance 8.8 9.4 10.5
Planning and Programming 5.2 5.6 5.7
Rail Maintenance and Operations 4.4 4.4 4.0
Public and Specialized Transit 2.8 2.7 2.9
Commuter Assistance 1.7 1.7 1.3
Motorist Assistance 1.0 1.4 1.4
Regional Conservation 12.9 17.5 18.2
Capital Project Development and Delivery 12.4 14.5 14.9
Toll Operations 4.2 8.9 7.4
TOTAL 63.0 77.0 81.0
The Commission provides a comprehensive package of benefits to employees. The package includes
health, dental, vision, life insurance, short and long-term disability, workers’ compensation, tuition
assistance, sick and vacation leave, retirement benefits in the form of participation in the CalPERS,
postretirement health care, deferred compensation, and employee assistance program. Chart 7
illustrates the compensation components.
Chart 7 – Personnel Salaries and Benefits
Salaries
67%
Retirement
17%
Health
15%
Other Fringes
1%
Department Initiatives
Staff prepared each department’s budget based on key assumptions, accomplishments in FY 2021/22,
major initiatives for FY 2022/23, and department goals and related objectives. Tables 5 through 16
present the key initiatives and summary of expenditures/expenses for each department. The
department budgets section contains detailed discussions about each department.
Executive Management
Continue project development and delivery as the key Measure A priority.
Foster growth in usage of express lanes and ensure their financial success.
Actively monitor, assess, and manage financial implications of the COVID-19.
Continue planning efforts to advance passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio
Pass Corridor.
Advocate for state and federal investments in transportation to fund needed transportation priorities
in the County and stimulate the local economy.
15
Maintain regional cooperation and collaboration as a significant effort consistent with the
philosophy and mission of the Commission.
Support a comprehensive social media outreach program to build awareness of the Commission
and its role in the community.
Maintain an effective mid-sized transportation agency with dedicated staff.
Table 5 – Executive Management
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 482,900$ 388,900$ 384,700$ 330,900$ (58,000)$ -15%
Professional 142,300 300,000 113,900 300,000 - 0%
Support 64,700 91,800 62,100 96,700 4,900 5%
TOTAL 689,900$ 780,700$ 560,700$ 727,600$ (53,100)$ -7%
Administration
Provide high quality support services to the Commission and to internal and external customers.
Maintain transparency and public accessibility to Commission business during COVID-19.
Maintain an accurate and efficient electronic records management system.
Provide timely communications and high-quality support services to Commissioners.
Update technology to improve internal processes and interaction with the public.
Support and develop a motivated workforce with a framework of activities and practices that
comply with employment laws and regulations.
Table 6 – Administration
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 714,000$ 881,200$ 715,400$ 1,241,400$ 360,200$ 41%
Professional 1,016,100 1,241,600 1,071,000 1,194,000 (47,600) -4%
Support 811,600 1,350,400 1,052,400 1,425,200 74,800 6%
Capital Outlay - 360,000 235,000 325,000 (35,000) -10%
Debt Service 15,800 - - - - N/A
TOTAL 2,557,500$ 3,833,200$ 3,073,800$ 4,185,600$ 352,400$ 9%
External Affairs
Develop effective partnerships with transportation providers to communicate a unified message to
Congress regarding mobility needs.
Advocate on behalf of Riverside County’s interests regarding the State’s Climate Action Plan for
Transportation Infrastructure.
Advocate positions in the State Legislature and in Congress that advance the County’s
transportation interests.
Continue a leadership role in formulating a countywide direction on federal transportation policies.
Conduct a concerted outreach effort to new federal and state representatives on local
transportation issues.
Use modern technology to support a robust public communication and engagement effort
focusing on accessible and transparent communication of the Commission’s projects and
programs.
Engage and seek understanding of the Riverside County’s community-based stakeholders to build
trust and gain support to inform the decision-making process.
Build awareness and support for the RCA and the implementation of the MSHCP.
16
Table 7 – External Affairs
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 640,000$ 974,600$ 737,200$ 1,318,100$ 343,500$ 35%
Professional 505,800 1,014,900 950,000 1,347,000 332,100 33%
Support 15,100 230,500 175,500 235,100 4,600 2%
Capital Outlay - - - 5,000 5,000 N/A
TOTAL 1,160,900$ 2,220,000$ 1,862,700$ 2,905,200$ 685,200$ 31%
Finance
Proactively monitor, assess, manage, and minimize COVID-19 financial impacts on the Commission’s
programs and projects to the maximum extent possible.
Continue appropriate uses of long- and short-term financing to advance the Commission’s 2009
Measure A projects.
Provide support to the RCTC 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes toll operations contractor back
offices to ensure the proper accounting of toll revenues and operations and maintenance costs.
Keep abreast of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) technical activities affecting
the Commission’s accounting and financial reporting activities and implement new
pronouncements.
Upgrade the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system to benefit all staff in the management of
accounting and project information and automation of a paperless workflow system.
Manage a centralized procurements process in order to strengthen controls and ensure consistency
in the application of procurement policies and procedures and adherence to applicable laws and
regulations.
Support outreach activities to encourage disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) and small
business enterprise (SBE) participation in various contracts.
Table 8 – Finance
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 1,421,800$ 1,706,200$ 1,706,200$ 1,973,800$ 267,600$ 16%
Professional 1,377,900 2,217,000 1,697,100 2,450,300 233,300 11%
Support 591,500 933,800 868,700 1,059,800 126,000 13%
Capital Outlay 73,300 870,000 404,000 1,313,900 443,900 51%
Transfers Out 10,015,900 10,078,600 10,078,600 10,080,800 2,200 0%
TOTAL 13,480,400$ 15,805,600$ 14,754,600$ 16,878,600$ 1,073,000$ 7%
Planning and Programming
Monitor funding authority and responsibility related to the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
Ensure administration and implementation of STIP/Regional Improvement Program (RIP), Active
Transportation Program (ATP), and other funded projects consistent with California Transportation
Commission (CTC), Caltrans, and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) policies.
Continue to strategically program projects for all local agencies countywide into the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and obligate funds in an expeditious manner for the
maximum use of all available funding, including monitoring the use of such funding to prevent from
lapsing.
Monitor all projects programmed to receive 2009 Measure A, TUMF, state, and federal funds to
ensure timely delivery and prevent funds from lapsing.
Focus on interregional concerns and maintain effective working relationships involving various multi-
county transportation issues.
Coordinate planning efforts with regional and local agencies relating to the development of
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and greenhouse gas
reduction (GHG) implementation guidelines.
Administer the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program (SB 821).
Implement a customized database system to assist in the administration of 2009 Measure A local
streets and roads and LTF SB 821 programs.
17
Table 9 – Planning and Programming
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 864,700$ 1,265,600$ 917,600$ 1,359,100$ 93,500$ 7%
Professional 46,300 133,000 31,000 111,500 (21,500) -16%
Support 4,500 28,600 33,200 84,500 55,900 195%
Projects and Operations 1,578,800 5,520,200 4,555,900 5,315,500 (204,700) -4%
Capital Outlay 29,500 340,000 352,400 200,000 (140,000) -41%
Transfers Out 290,600 842,000 842,000 1,995,000 1,153,000 137%
TOTAL 2,814,400$ 8,129,400$ 6,732,100$ 9,065,600$ 936,200$ 12%
Rail Maintenance and Operations
As a member of the SCRRA, continue active participation in the governance and operations of the
Metrolink commuter rail system.
Continue the planning and implementation of capital improvements at the commuter rail stations
in the County, including security and rehabilitation projects and meeting parking requirements.
Continue to support and evaluate activities related to the PVL service, such as promoting ridership
especially for weekend service.
Establish the best approach to build, maintain, and operate cost effective and environmentally
sustainable facilities that meet the public’s transportation needs.
Lead the service development process and actively coordinate with all stakeholders along the
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor for intercity passenger rail service.
Advance the next generation rail feasibility study to evaluate future growth opportunities for
passenger rail in the County.
Table 10 – Rail Maintenance and Operations
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 679,600$ 930,300$ 930,300$ 844,600$ (85,700)$ -9%
Professional 1,032,000 2,231,900 1,912,600 1,065,300 (1,166,600) -52%
Support 2,287,800 3,630,400 2,414,600 2,844,400 (786,000) -22%
Projects and Operations 13,860,200 33,213,700 23,412,500 47,421,700 14,208,000 43%
Capital Outlay 167,900 1,867,700 1,307,100 1,680,000 (187,700) -10%
Transfers Out 429,400 907,900 907,800 1,023,400 115,500 13%
TOTAL 18,456,900$ 42,781,900$ 30,884,900$ 54,879,400$ 12,097,500$ 28%
Public and Specialized Transit
Coordinate the operation of all public transportation services, especially for disadvantaged
communities and essential workers, within the County by promoting program efficiency between
transit operators.
Monitor and coordinate federal stimulus (CARES Act, Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, and American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) allocations for COVID-
19-related service impacts with transit operators, with an emphasis on recovery.
Monitor and coordinate state and federal regulations for operating and/or capital impacts with
transit operators.
Continue public transit operator oversight and fiduciary responsibilities to ensure completion of
annual fiscal audits and state triennial performance audits in accordance with TDA regulations.
Support innovative programs that provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas or for riders
having very special transit needs and monitor funding of these programs.
Continue long-range planning activities to ensure that anticipated revenues are in line with
projected levels of service by transit operators.
18
Table 11 – Public and Specialized Transit
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 494,100$ 547,700$ 471,900$ 593,000$ 45,300$ 8%
Professional 255,100 1,179,700 237,700 949,900 (229,800) -19%
Support 69,600 115,600 93,500 111,600 (4,000) -3%
Projects and Operations 39,668,100 124,531,400 91,674,700 165,663,400 41,132,000 33%
Transfers Out 17,075,900 20,499,400 17,401,100 31,484,300 10,984,900 54%
TOTAL 57,562,800$ 146,873,800$ 109,878,900$ 198,802,200$ 51,928,400$ 35%
Commuter Assistance
Operate a cost-effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program within the County
that results in a reduction of single occupant vehicles, vehicle miles traveled, and emissions.
Transition from a locally provisioned Inland Empire-based rideshare and vanpool system to a
regional platform/database.
Maintain and grow employer partnerships through value-added services and tools for rideshare and
telework programs.
Continue to pilot expanding Commuter Assistance services and incentives to the Coachella Valley
to stimulate countywide employer and TDM participation.
Maintain the long-term partnership with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to
manage and implement a “sister” commuter assistance program for residents and employers in San
Bernardino County; release a request for proposals for the Commission and SBCTA’s next evolution
of the region’s TDM program.
Optimize Park and ride facilities to support shared-ride arrangements and facilitate transit
connections.
Table 12 – Commuter Assistance
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 324,600$ 319,400$ 260,100$ 269,200$ (50,200)$ -16%
Professional 255,900 509,200 357,700 369,700 (139,500) -27%
Support 2,300 57,900 30,200 59,900 2,000 3%
Projects and Operations 2,301,000 3,600,600 2,898,800 3,686,600 86,000 2%
Transfers Out 188,000 296,600 241,600 259,700 (36,900) -12%
TOTAL 3,071,800$ 4,783,700$ 3,788,400$ 4,645,100$ (138,600)$ -3%
Motorist Assistance
Maintain a high benefit-to-cost ratio related to the performance of the FSP program.
Support regional mobility by providing 24/7 access to real-time traffic information, transportation
options, and services.
Enhance highway safety and reduce congestion by providing a roving motorist assistance service
that patrols designated urban freeways and assists stranded or disabled vehicles.
Continue to pilot focused effort that expands access to transportation demand management
services and incentives to eastern Riverside County constituents.
Table 13 – Motorist Assistance
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 134,800$ 223,500$ 199,100$ 253,900$ 30,400$ 14%
Professional 282,000 535,300 449,000 205,500 (329,800) -62%
Support 114,000 203,600 181,600 186,000 (17,600) -9%
Projects and Operations 3,765,700 5,227,000 4,707,000 5,459,500 232,500 4%
Transfers Out 2,155,500 2,907,200 2,907,200 3,432,200 525,000 18%
TOTAL 6,452,000$ 9,096,600$ 8,443,900$ 9,537,100$ 440,500$ 5%
19
Regional Conservation
Maintain commitment to protecting sensitive habitat and ensuring open space is a key component
in enhancing the quality of life for local residents.
Enhance communications to stakeholders, members of the public, and elected officials to be
transparent about the RCA’s conservation efforts, funding, and collaboration opportunities.
Build upon relationships with local, state, and federal agencies to manage lands purchased or
controlled by the RCA.
Table 14 – Regional Conservation
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 1,176,200$ 3,550,100$ 3,550,100$ 3,660,800$ 110,700$ 3%
Professional 48,600 243,900 158,300 3,614,100 3,370,200 1382%
Support 8,100 60,300 7,900 369,800 309,500 513%
Projects and Operations 124,300 500,000 400,000 839,600 339,600 68%
Transfers Out 364,200 1,413,900 1,413,900 1,869,400 455,500 32%
TOTAL 1,721,400$ 5,768,200$ 5,530,200$ 10,353,700$ 4,585,500$ 79%
Capital Project Development and Delivery
Continue project work on the 91 COP, I-15 Express LanesSouthern Extension, 15/91 Express Lanes
Connector, I-15 Corridor Operations Project (15 COP), MCP I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange,
MCP second construction contract package, 71/91 Connector, SR-60 Truck Lanes, and Smart
Freeway projects included in the Western County Delivery Plan as well as projects on behalf of other
agencies, including the I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange, I-10/Highland Springs Road Interchange,
and Santa Ana River Trail.
Continue design and operations planning of the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector, 91 Express Lanes
eastbound lane to McKinley Avenue, and design and development led by other agencies related
to the 241/91 Express Lanes Connector and I-15 Express LanesNorthern Extension.
Provide 2009 Measure A funding to the incorporated cities and the County for local streets and
roads maintenance, repair, and construction and to the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) for highways and regional arterials.
Provide TUMF regional arterial funding and support to local jurisdictions for regional arterial project
engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction.
Maintain a right of way acquisition and management program in support of capital projects and in
the most cost-effective manner within project schedules, while adhering to federal and state
regulations.
Maintain and manage the access, use, safety, and security of Commission-owned properties
including commuter rail stations, properties in acquisition process, and income-generating
properties.
Develop strategies to implement alternative financing structures including public express lanes.
Table 15 – Capital Project Development and Delivery
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 2,796,300$ 3,569,800$ 3,558,000$ 3,839,300$ 269,500$ 8%
Professional 2,285,400 4,683,300 2,698,500 2,765,400 (1,917,900) -41%
Support 1,414,800 1,174,000 378,000 1,496,600 322,600 27%
Projects and Operations 305,958,100 565,724,000 423,679,600 489,915,700 (75,808,300) -13%
Capital Outlay 4,552,900 4,482,000 2,950,000 2,700,000 (1,782,000) -40%
Debt Service 69,744,900 70,037,700 69,594,300 69,555,300 (482,400) -1%
Transfers Out 135,132,800 141,317,700 112,423,800 117,918,400 (23,399,300) -17%
TOTAL 521,885,200$ 790,988,500$ 615,282,200$ 688,190,700$ (102,797,800)$ -13%
20
Toll Operations
Manage the operations of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes adhering to the
Commission’s Express Lanes toll policies.
Manage toll operations using investment grade traffic and revenue studies and cost estimate
assumptions specific to each express lane facility.
Provide timely and effective reporting of toll operation metrics including revenue, transactions,
carpool usage, and performance indicators.
Support the design-build activities related to the 15/91 Express Lanes Connector and 91 Express
Lanes eastbound lane to McKinley Avenue; and the design and development led by other
agencies related to the 241/91 Express Lanes Connector and I-15 Express LanesNorthern Extension.
Participate in the California Toll Operators Committee (CTOC) to advance regional and statewide
tolling initiatives, technology, interoperability, and coordination among California toll agencies.
Table 16 – Toll Operations
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Personnel 816,400$ 1,855,900$ 1,710,900$ 1,683,000$ (172,900)$ -9%
Professional 1,419,900 5,327,000 2,423,200 3,611,000 (1,716,000) -32%
Support and Maintenance 3,438,300 8,775,500 5,152,300 9,895,400 1,119,900 13%
Projects and Operations 11,309,500 35,129,500 22,159,900 33,936,500 (1,193,000) -3%
Capital Outlay - 180,000 43,800 125,000 (55,000) -31%
Debt Service 7,119,900 696,655,900 27,317,500 22,201,000 (674,454,900) -97%
Transfers Out 2,358,400 20,428,700 7,001,400 76,540,000 56,111,300 275%
TOTAL 26,462,400$ 768,352,500$ 65,809,000$ 147,991,900$ (620,360,600)$ -81%
Fund Balances
The projected total fund balance as of June 30, 2022 is $1,278,326,000. The Commission expects the FY
2022/23 budgeted activities to result in an $109,080,500 decrease of total fund balance at June 30, 2023
to $1,169,245,500. The primary cause of the decrease is project activities in FY 2022/23 related to the
15/91 Express Lanes Connector, 15 COP, 91 COP, SR-60 Truck Lanes completion, MCP projects, I-
15/Railroad Canyon Interchange, close-out activity on the 91 Project, rail station rehabilitation and
maintenance, Western County Measure A and TUMF regional arterial projects, and public transit
allocations. Table 17 presents the components of the projected fund balance by program at June 30,
2023.
Table 17 – Projected Fund Balances by Fund Type and Program at June 30, 2023
Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Other Total
Restricted:
Bond Financing 28,849,300$ -$ -$ -$ 28,849,300$
Commuter Assistance 19,418,400 - - - 19,418,400
Debt Service - - - 11,550,100 11,550,100
Economic Development 9,396,600 - - - 9,396,600
Highways 96,183,800 66,546,900 - 41,754,200 204,484,900
Local Streets and Roads 900 300 - - 1,200
New Corridors 63,243,600 - - - 63,243,600
Planning and Programming - - - 2,186,100 2,186,100
Public and Specialized Transit 13,274,900 767,900 - 372,578,700 386,621,500
Rail 46,550,400 - - 28,428,400 74,978,800
CETAP - - - 74,523,400 74,523,400
Regional Conservation - - - 200 200
Regional Arterials 73,107,900 - - 33,198,600 106,306,500
Motorist Assistance - - - 9,702,000 9,702,000
Toll Operations - - - 171,605,000 171,605,000
Assigned:
Management Services - - - 6,377,900 6,377,900
TOTAL Fund Balance 350,025,800$ 67,315,100$ -$ 751,904,600$ 1,169,245,500$
Measure A Sales Tax
Chart 8 illustrates the actual and projected trends in fund balances for each governmental and
enterprise fund type from FY 2019/20 through FY 2022/23.
21
Chart 8 – Projected Fund Balance Trends by Fund Type FY 2020 – 2023
$5,000,000
$105,000,000
$205,000,000
$305,000,000
$405,000,000
$505,000,000
$605,000,000
$705,000,000
$805,000,000
$905,000,000
$1,005,000,000
General Fund Special Revenue
Funds
Capital Projects
Funds
Debt Service Fund Enterprise Fund
FY 19/20
FY 20/21
FY 21/22
FY 22/23
Budget Summary
The overall budget for FY 2022/23 is presented in Table 18 by summarized line items, Table 19 by
operating and capital classifications, and Table 20 by fund type. Highway, regional arterial, rail, and
regional conservation program projects expenditures are summarized in Table 21.
22
Table 18 – Budget Comparative by Summarized Line Item FY 2021—2023
FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Dollar Percent
Actual Revised Budget Projected Budget Change Change
Revenues
Measure A Sales Tax 242,943,800$ 250,000,000$ 250,000,000$ 255,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 2%
LTF Sales Tax 123,038,700 127,000,000 127,000,000 130,000,000 3,000,000 2%
STA Sales Tax 23,576,900 23,909,100 28,465,200 30,964,600 7,055,500 30%
Federal Reimbursements 60,679,800 107,438,700 68,130,000 83,605,900 (23,832,800) -22%
State Reimbursements 115,962,800 210,931,000 212,859,800 147,821,900 (63,109,100) -30%
Local Reimbursements 12,875,600 21,656,500 14,125,000 16,439,400 (5,217,100) -24%
TUMF Revenue 28,301,500 30,000,000 30,100,000 31,000,000 1,000,000 3%
Tolls, Penalties, and Fees 51,769,400 65,123,700 98,646,900 97,771,800 32,648,100 50%
Other Revenue 6,733,900 658,600 1,403,000 707,000 48,400 7%
Investment Income 2,711,100 910,100 5,012,900 1,168,400 258,300 28%
TOTAL Revenues 668,593,500 837,627,700 835,742,800 794,479,000 (43,148,700) -5%
Expenditures/Expenses
Personnel Salaries and Benefits 10,545,400 16,213,200 15,141,500 17,367,100 1,153,900 7%
Professional and Support
Professional Services 8,667,300 19,616,800 12,100,000 17,983,700 (1,633,100) -8%
Support Costs 8,822,300 16,652,400 10,450,000 17,865,000 1,212,600 7%
TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 17,489,600 36,269,200 22,550,000 35,848,700 (420,500) -1%
Projects and Operations
Program Operations 24,449,100 41,108,600 32,059,200 38,950,700 (2,157,900) -5%
Engineering 18,315,900 27,562,300 16,064,500 29,503,200 1,940,900 7%
Construction 115,376,900 271,061,600 174,120,000 223,273,900 (47,787,700) -18%
Design Build 61,861,100 96,159,000 75,635,500 82,493,500 (13,665,500) -14%
Right of Way/Land 19,539,300 69,467,200 53,560,500 57,471,000 (11,996,200) -17%
Operating and Capital Disbursements 52,159,900 155,885,400 114,971,200 211,200,900 55,315,500 35%
Special Studies 181,700 2,021,000 1,180,200 2,243,400 222,400 11%
Local Streets and Roads 73,745,400 75,897,300 75,897,300 77,101,900 1,204,600 2%
Regional Arterials 12,936,400 34,284,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 (4,284,000) -12%
TOTAL Projects and Operations 378,565,700 773,446,400 573,488,400 752,238,500 (21,207,900) -3%
Debt Service
Principal Payments 28,505,100 555,986,600 29,995,000 31,405,000 (524,581,600) -94%
Interest Payments 48,375,500 60,335,600 56,400,100 60,351,300 15,700 0%
Cost of Issuance - 2,883,400 3,783,000 - (2,883,400) -100%
TOTAL Debt Service 76,880,600 619,205,600 90,178,100 91,756,300 (527,449,300) -85%
Capital Outlay 4,823,600 8,099,700 5,292,300 6,348,900 (1,750,800) -22%
TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 488,304,900 1,453,234,100 706,650,300 903,559,500 (549,674,600) -38%
Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over
(under) Expenditures/Expenses 180,288,600 (615,606,400) 129,092,500 (109,080,500) 506,525,900 -82%
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers In 173,536,200 198,692,000 153,217,400 244,603,200 45,911,200 23%
Transfers Out (168,010,700) (198,692,000) (153,217,400) (244,603,200) (45,911,200) 23%
Debt Proceeds - 638,300,000 - - (638,300,000) -100%
TIFIA Loan Proceeds 15,661,000 6,919,000 - - (6,919,000) -100%
Bond Premium - 39,978,000 - - (39,978,000) -100%
Payment to Escrow Agent - (147,488,000) (6,733,700) - 147,488,000 -100%
Net Financing Sources (Uses)21,186,500 537,709,000 (6,733,700) - (537,709,000) -100%
Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over
(under) Expenditures/Expenses and Other
Financing Sources (Uses)201,475,100 (77,897,400) 122,358,800 (109,080,500) (31,183,100) 40%
Beginning Fund Balance 954,492,100 1,155,967,200 1,155,967,200 1,278,326,000 122,358,800 11%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,155,967,200$ 1,078,069,800$ 1,278,326,000$ 1,169,245,500$ 91,175,700$ 8%
23
Table 19 – Operating and Capital Budget FY 2022/23
FY 22/23 FY 22/23 FY 22/23
Operating Budget Capital Budget TOTAL Budget
Revenues
Measure A Sales Tax 35,152,000$ 219,848,000$ 255,000,000$
LTF Sales Tax 130,000,000 - 130,000,000
STA Sales Tax 30,964,600 - 30,964,600
Federal Reimbursements 19,643,800 63,962,100 83,605,900
State Reimbursements 8,739,400 139,082,500 147,821,900
Local Reimbursements 12,654,800 3,784,600 16,439,400
TUMF Revenue - 31,000,000 31,000,000
Tolls, Penalties, and Fees - 97,771,800 97,771,800
Other Revenue - 707,000 707,000
Investment Income 481,500 686,900 1,168,400
TOTAL Revenues 237,636,100 556,842,900 794,479,000
Expenditures/Expenses
Personnel Salaries and Benefits 11,703,600 5,663,500 17,367,100
Professional and Support
Professional Services 11,599,800 6,383,900 17,983,700
Support Costs 6,473,000 11,392,000 17,865,000
TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 18,072,800 17,775,900 35,848,700
Projects and Operations
Program Operations 13,157,400 25,793,300 38,950,700
Engineering - 29,503,200 29,503,200
Construction - 223,273,900 223,273,900
Design Build - 82,493,500 82,493,500
Right of Way and Land 945,000 56,526,000 57,471,000
Operating and Capital Disbursements 210,213,400 987,500 211,200,900
Special Studies 2,143,400 100,000 2,243,400
Local Streets and Roads - 77,101,900 77,101,900
Regional Arterials - 30,000,000 30,000,000
TOTAL Projects and Operations 226,459,200 525,779,300 752,238,500
Debt Service
Principal Payments - 31,405,000 31,405,000
Interest Payments - 60,351,300 60,351,300
TOTAL Debt Service - 91,756,300 91,756,300
Capital Outlay 3,523,900 2,825,000 6,348,900
TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 259,759,500 643,800,000 903,559,500
Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over
(under) Expenditures/Expenses (22,123,400) (86,957,100) (109,080,500)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers In 46,786,800 197,816,400 244,603,200
Transfers Out (50,144,800) (194,458,400) (244,603,200)
Net Financing Sources (Uses)(3,358,000) 3,358,000 -
Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over
(under) Expenditures/Expenses and Other
Financing Sources (Uses)(25,481,400) (83,599,100) (109,080,500)
Beginning Fund Balance 499,886,200 778,439,800 1,278,326,000
ENDING FUND BALANCE 474,404,800$ 694,840,700$ 1,169,245,500$
24
Table 20 – Budget by Fund Type FY 2022/23
FY 22/23
General Fund Special Revenue Capital Projects Debt Service Enterprise TOTAL Budget
Revenues
Measure A Sales Tax -$ 255,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 255,000,000$
LTF Sales Tax - 130,000,000 - - - 130,000,000
STA Sales Tax - 30,964,600 - - - 30,964,600
Federal Reimbursements 19,442,400 61,351,400 - 2,812,100 - 83,605,900
State Reimbursements 3,167,200 144,654,700 - - - 147,821,900
Local Reimbursements 1,000 16,438,400 - - - 16,439,400
TUMF Revenue - 31,000,000 - - - 31,000,000
Tolls, Penalties, and Fees - - - - 97,771,800 97,771,800
Other Revenue - 607,000 - - 100,000 707,000
Investment Income 36,400 907,400 41,700 11,500 171,400 1,168,400
TOTAL Revenues 22,647,000 670,923,500 41,700 2,823,600 98,043,200 794,479,000
Expenditures/Expenses
Personnel Salaries and Benefits 7,030,700 8,653,400 - - 1,683,000 17,367,100
Professional and Support
Professional Services 6,017,800 8,354,900 - - 3,611,000 17,983,700
Support Costs 3,252,100 4,717,500 - - 9,895,400 17,865,000
TOTAL Professional and Support Costs 9,269,900 13,072,400 - - 13,506,400 35,848,700
Projects and Operations
Program Operations - 20,153,700 - - 18,797,000 38,950,700
Engineering - 29,503,200 - - - 29,503,200
Construction - 213,517,900 - - 9,756,000 223,273,900
Design Build - 77,110,000 - - 5,383,500 82,493,500
Right of Way/Land - 57,471,000 - - - 57,471,000
Operating and Capital Disbursements 45,050,000 166,150,900 - - - 211,200,900
Special Studies 2,143,400 100,000 - - - 2,243,400
Local Streets and Roads - 77,101,900 - - - 77,101,900
Regional Arterials - 30,000,000 - - - 30,000,000
TOTAL Projects and Operations 47,193,400 671,108,600 - - 33,936,500 752,238,500
Debt Service
Principal Payments - - - 31,405,000 - 31,405,000
Interest Payments - - - 38,150,300 22,201,000 60,351,300
TOTAL Debt Service - - - 69,555,300 22,201,000 91,756,300
C apital Outlay 3,343,900 2,880,000 - - 125,000 6,348,900
TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 66,837,900 695,714,400 - 69,555,300 71,451,900 903,559,500
Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over
(under) Expenditures/Expenses (44,190,900) (24,790,900) 41,700 (66,731,700) 26,591,300 (109,080,500)
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers In 43,220,600 131,827,300 - 69,555,300 - 244,603,200
Transfers Out (2,990,800) (159,223,400) (3,036,900) (2,812,100) (76,540,000) (244,603,200)
Net Financing Sources (Uses)40,229,800 (27,396,100) (3,036,900) 66,743,200 (76,540,000) -
Excess (deficiency) of Revenues over
(under) Expenditures/Expenses and Other
Financing Sources (Uses)(3,961,100) (52,187,000) (2,995,200) 11,500 (49,948,700) (109,080,500)
Beginning Fund Balance 40,030,200 960,454,100 44,749,400 11,538,600 221,553,700 1,278,326,000
ENDING FUND BALANCE 36,069,100$ 908,267,100$ 41,754,200$ 11,550,100$ 171,605,000$ 1,169,245,500$
25
Table 21 – Highway, Regional Arterial, Rail, and Regional Conservation Program Projects FY 2022/23
Description
HIGHWAY ENGINEERING
15 COP 3,700,000$
15 Interim COP 250,000
71/91 Connector 580,000
91 COP eastbound 1,000,000
Grade separation projects 850,000
I-15 Express Lanes―Southern Extension 6,000,000
I-15 Smart Corridor 1,060,200
I-15 Express Lanes - Ingress/Egress 1,000,000
Mid County Parkway (MCP)50,000
MCP I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange 100,000
MCP Sweeney mitigation 10,000
MCP second construction package 5,000,000
Riverside County-Santa Ana River Trail Extension (details presented in Section 3.2 Planning and Programming)1,710,000
SR-91 corridor operations project 10,000
SR-74 corridor ― Ethanac Road 968,000
SR-79 realignment 200,000
SR-60 Truck Lanes 10,000
Smart Freeways 1,400,000
SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING 23,898,200
REGIONAL ARTERIAL ENGINEERING
I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange 300,000
I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange 1,000,000
Various Western County MARA and TUMF regional arterial projects 2,210,000
SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL ENGINEERING 3,510,000
RAIL ENGINEERING
Moreno Valley - March Field station upgrade 275,000
Riverside layover facility 115,000
Riverside Downtown station track and platform 1,705,000
SUBTOTAL RAIL ENGINEERING 2,095,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL ENGINEERING 29,503,200$
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
15/91 Express Lanes Connector 4,177,000$
15 Interim COP 1,250,000
71/91 Connector 46,500,000
91 COP 1,700,000
91 Project 1,464,500
91 Express Lanes (details presented in Section 3.4 Toll Operations)9,756,000
Hamner Bridge widening 22,773,000
I-15 Express Lanes 2,500,000
I-15 Express Lanes - Northern Extension 50,000
Jurupa Avenue grade separation 35,839,000
MCP I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange 8,250,000
McKinley Avenue grade separation 34,435,000
Pachappa Underpass 2,000
SR-60 Truck Lanes 2,650,000
Smart Freeways 10,300,000
General (details presented in Section 3.3 Capital Projects)3,698,400
SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION 185,344,900
REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTION
I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange 1,050,000
Various Western County MARA and TUMF regional arterial projects 22,074,000
SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL CONSTRUCTION 23,124,000
RAIL CONSTRUCTION
Moreno Valley - March Field station upgrade 14,800,000
Riverside layover facility 5,000
SUBTOTAL RAIL CONSTRUCTION 14,805,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION 223,273,900$
26
Table 21 - Highway, Regional Arterial, Rail, and Regional Conservation Program Projects, continued
Description
HIGHWAY DESIGN BUILD
15/91 Express Lanes Connector 75,851,000$
91 Express Lanes (details presented in Section 3.4 Toll Operations)2,631,800
91 Express Lanes eastbound lane to McKinley Avenue (details presented in Section 3.4 Toll Operations)2,651,700
91 Project 460,000
I-15 Express Lanes 299,000
I-15 Express Lanes - Northern Extension 500,000
SR-91/241 Connector (details presented in Section 3.4 Toll Operations)100,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY DESIGN BUILD 82,493,500$
HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND
15/91 Express Lanes connector 95,000$
60/215 East Junction high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane connectors 50,000
71/91 Connector 1,850,000
91 Project 13,146,000
I-15 Express Lanes 100,000
I-15/Limonite interchange 1,228,000
Jurupa Avenue grade separation 2,000,000
McKinley Avenue grade separation 2,387,000
MCP 110,000
MCP I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange 15,850,000
MCP Sweeney mitigation 3,000,000
Riverside County-Santa Ana River Trail Extension (details presented in Section 3.2 Planning and Programming)295,000
SR-60 Truck Lanes 600,000
SR-91 HOV lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 interchange 30,000
General (details presented in Section 3.3 Capital Projects)2,402,500
SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 43,143,500
REGIONAL ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND
I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange 10,000
I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange 10,000
Various Western County MARA and TUMF regional arterial projects 13,020,000
SUBTOTAL REGIONAL ARTERIAL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 13,040,000
RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND
Moreno Valley - March Field station upgrade 35,000
Riverside Downtown station track and platform 450,000
General 152,500
SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 637,500
REGIONAL CONSERVATION RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND
Regional Conservation acquisition consultant costs (details presented in Section 3.2 Regional Conservation)650,000
TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, RAIL, AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND 57,471,000$
GRAND TOTAL HIGHWAY, REGIONAL ARTERIAL, RAIL, AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 392,741,600$
27
PROPOSED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2022/23
Sergio Vidal, Chief Financial Officer
1
AGENDA
•Outline of Budget Process
•FY 2022/23 Budget Considerations
•Budget Overview
•Revenue and Expense
•Capital Project Development and Delivery
•Next Steps
2
BUDGET PROCESS
3
Budget
Development
Budget
Compilation
Budget Review
and Adoption
•Resource Estimation
•Commission Goals
•Department Goals and
Budget Development
•Analysis
•Reconciliation
•Initial: Executive summary
•Final: Budget document
FY 2022/23 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
4
Sales tax and TUMF revenues
•Use of Measure A and TUMF revenues for project expenditures
•Use of LTF/STA revenues for transit operations and capital needs
•Stronger than expected sales taxes during pandemic
RCTC projects and programs
•Use of accumulated reserves for projects and programs, as
necessary
•Flexibility to change scope and timing of capital projects
•Significant outsourcing of engineering and operations
BUDGET SUMMARY
5
FY 2022/23
Beginning Fund Balance (7/1/2022)1,278,326,000$
Revenues 794,479,000
Transfers In 244,603,200
Total Estimated Sources 1,039,082,200
Expenditures/Expenses (811,803,200)
Debt Service (91,756,300)
Transfers Out (244,603,200)
Total Estimated Uses (1,148,162,700)
Uses Over Sources (offset by beginning fund balance)(109,080,500)
Ending Fund Balance (6/30/2023)1,169,245,500$
REVENUES/SOURCES BREAKDOWN
6
FY 2021/22 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23
Revised Budget Projected Budget
Measure A Sales Tax 250,000,000$ 250,000,000$ 255,000,000$
LTF Sales Tax 127,000,000 127,000,000 130,000,000
STA Sales Tax, including SGR 23,909,100 28,465,200 30,964,600
Intergovernmental 340,026,200 295,114,800 247,867,200
TUMF Revenue 30,000,000 30,100,000 31,000,000
Tolls, Penalties, and Fees 65,123,700 98,646,900 97,771,800
Other Revenue 658,600 1,403,000 707,000
Investment Income 910,100 5,012,900 1,168,400
Transfers In 198,692,000 153,217,400 244,603,200
Debt Proceeds 685,197,000 - -
TOTAL Sources 1,721,516,700$ 988,960,200$ 1,039,082,200$
REVENUES/SOURCES COMPARISON
7
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
FY 2021/22 Revised Budget
FY 2021/22 Projected
FY 2022/23 Budget
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT
8
FY 2021/22 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23
Revised Budget Projected Budget
Capital Highway, Rail, and Regional Arterials 645,053,500$ 469,790,600$ 541,533,500$
Capital Local Streets and Roads 75,897,300 75,897,300 77,101,900
Commuter Assistance 4,783,700 3,788,400 4,645,100
Debt Service 766,693,600 96,911,800 91,756,300
Management Services 22,639,500 20,251,800 24,697,000
Motorist Assistance 9,096,600 8,443,900 9,537,100
Planning and Programming 8,129,400 6,732,100 9,065,600
Public and Specialized Transit 146,873,800 109,878,900 198,802,200
Rail Maintenance and Operations 42,781,900 30,884,900 54,879,400
Regional Conservation 5,768,200 5,768,200 10,353,700
Toll Operations 71,696,600 38,491,500 125,790,900
TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 1,799,414,100$ 866,839,400$ 1,148,162,700$
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES COMPARISON
9
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
$550
$600
$650
$700
$750
$800
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
FY 2021/22 Revised Budget
FY 2021/22 Projected
FY 2022/23 Budget
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHTS
10
15/91 Express Lanes Connector
I-15 Express Lanes –Southern Extension
I-15 Corridor Operations Project
I-15 Express Lanes Project completion
SR-91 Corridor Operations Project close out
SR-91 Project close out
Mid County Parkway
71/91 Connector Project
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES BY FUNCTION
11
FY 2021/22 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 Percent
Revised Budget Projected Budget Change
Salaries and Benefits 16,213,200$ 15,141,500$ 17,367,100$ 7%
Professional Services 19,616,800 12,100,000 17,983,700 -8%
Support Costs 16,652,400 10,450,000 17,865,000 7%
Projects and Operations 773,446,400 573,488,400 752,238,500 -3%
Debt Service 579,227,600 90,178,100 91,756,300 -84%
Capital Outlay 8,099,700 5,292,300 6,348,900 -22%
TOTAL Expenditures/Expenses 1,413,256,100$ 706,650,300$ 903,559,500$ -36%
*Excludes transfers out
EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES BY FUNCTION COMPARISON
12
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Salaries and Benefits Professional Services Support Costs Projects and
Operations
Debt Service Capital Outlay
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
*Excludes transfers out
FY 2021/22 Revised Budget
FY 2021/22 Projected
FY 2022/23 Budget
MEASURE A CAP ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
13
NEXT STEPS
14
Close public hearing and adopt budget June 8, 2022
Review the final budget draft, close the public hearing, and adopt the final budget
Open public hearing May 11, 2022
Receive input on the proposed budget and open the public hearing
Continue monitoring revenues and costs
Measure A administrative salaries and benefits
Funding needs for projects and transit operations
Sales Tax and TUMF revenue trends
Timeliness of federal and state reimbursements
AGENDA ITEM 7A
Agenda Item 7A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk of the Board
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: AB 361 Determination
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Reaffirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, “A Resolution of the Board of
Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Virtual
Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361.” The findings are as follows:
a. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, related to the
COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exist today; and
b. State or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Since the onset of the COVID-19 in early 2020, California government agencies have been able to
continue to discharge their legal responsibilities through the use of virtual teleconferencing
platforms such as Zoom to hold public meetings that enabled agencies to meet and conduct
business, comply with social distancing orders and most importantly, provide access to the
public. In many cases, virtual meetings have actually enhanced public participation, particularly
in larger counties including Riverside County where traveling to a public meeting can be
inconvenient or require traveling a long distance. Both the RCA and RCTC have been meeting on
Zoom since March of 2020, when many Executive Orders were issued by Governor Newsom in
response to the pandemic. One such order altered Brown Act requirements to allow for virtual
meetings.
Although transmission, hospitalization and death rates from COVID-19 have sharply declined
since the original onset of the pandemic and subsequent Delta Variant surge, an air or uncertainty
remains regarding the pandemic and many counties continue to recommend masking inside and
social distancing. Given that environment and a desire to continue allowing for the flexibility of
holding virtual meetings, the Legislature recently approved, and Governor Newsom signed,
Assembly Bill 361 to temporarily allow for virtual meeting under proscribed circumstances.
28
Agenda Item 7A
AB 361
Effective immediately, AB 361 amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue
using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology in certain circumstances. Under the Bill,
legislative bodies can continue to meet remotely as long as there is a “proclaimed state of
emergency” and the Commission can make either of the following findings: (a) state or local
officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or (b) whether
as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or
safety of attendees.
The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020 related to the COVID-19
pandemic, which State of Emergency continues to exist to this day. Further, both State and
Riverside County officials continue to recommend the social distancing.
AB 361 requires specific procedural safeguards for the public. To accommodate individuals
during these teleconferences and virtual meetings, a public comment period will be offered
where the public can address the legislative body directly in real time. Additionally, public
comments will be allowed up until the public comment period is closed at the meetings. The
agenda will include information on the manner in which the public may access the meeting and
provide comments remotely. If technical problems arise that result in the public’s access being
disrupted, the legislative body will not take any vote or other official action until the technical
disruption is corrected and public access is restored.
The attached Resolution allows the Board to implement AB 361 by making the findings discussed
above. This findings will be in effect for 30 days or until the Board makes findings that the
conditions listed therein long longer exist, whichever is shorter. The findings can be extended by
the Board upon a finding that conditions supporting the findings included in the Resolution still
exist. The authorization to meet remotely will apply to any Committees that meet during the 30-
day effective period.
AB 361 will allow for virtual meetings during other state-proclaim emergencies, such as
earthquakes or wildfires, where physical attendance may present a risk. AB 361 is scheduled to
sunset January 1, 2024.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Reafirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, “A Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of
the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing Virtual Board and Committee
Meetings Pursuant to AB 361”.
Attachment: Resolution No. 22-007
29
RESOLUTION NO. 22-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING VIRTUAL BOARD AND
COMMITTEE MEETINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Commission”) is
committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the Board
of Commissioners, Executive Committee, Budget and Implementation Committee, Western
Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, Toll Policy and Operations Committee,
Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the Commission’s legislative bodies, including its Board of
Commissioners, Executive Committee, Budget and Implementation Committee, Western
Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, Toll Policy and Operations Committee,
Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee are open
and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 – 54963), so that any
member of the public may attend and participate in the Commission’s meetings; and
WHEREAS, starting in March 2020, in response to the spread of COVID-19 in the State of
California, the Governor issued a number of executive orders aimed at containing the COVID-19
virus; and
WHEREAS, among other things, these orders waived certain requirements of the Brown
Act to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Governor’s executive orders, the Commission has been
holding virtual meetings during the pandemic in the interest of protecting the health and safety
of the public, Commission staff and Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Governor’s executive order related to the suspension of certain provisions
of the Brown Act expired on September 30, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 the Governor signed AB 361 (in effect as of October 1,
2021 – Government Code Section 54953(e)), which allows legislative bodies to meet virtually
provided there is a state of emergency, and either (1) state or local officials have imposed or
recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (2) the legislative body determines by
majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of
attendees; and
WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the Commission, specifically, a state of
emergency has been proclaimed related to COVID-19 and state or local officials are
recommending measures to promote social distancing,
30
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 2. Findings. Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section
54953(e), the Board of Commissioners finds and determines that (1) a state of emergency related
to COVID-19 is currently in effect and (2) state or local officials have recommended measures to
promote social distancing in connection with COVID-19.
Section 3. Remote Teleconference Meetings: Based on the findings and
determinations included herein, the Board of Commissioners authorizes and directs any of its
legislative bodies, including without limitation its Board of Commissioners, Executive Committee,
Budget and Implementation Committee, Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee, Toll Policy and Operations Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens
and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee to conduct remote teleconference meetings under
the provisions of Government Code Section 54953(e) and that such bodies shall provide public
access to their meetings as provided in Section 54953(e).
Section 4. Full and Fair Access: In making the findings included herein the board
specifically relies on Section 8(b) of Stats.2021, c.165 (A.B.361), § 3, eff. Sept. 16, 2021.) which
provides as follows:
(b) The Legislature finds and declares that [the changes made by AB 361 to]
Section 54953 of the Government Code, all increase and potentially limit the public’s right
of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies
within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that
constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the
interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
(1) By removing the requirement that public meetings be conducted at a
primary physical location with a quorum of members present, this act protects the
health and safety of civil servants and the public and does not preference the
experience of members of the public who might be able to attend a meeting in a
physical location over members of the public who cannot travel or attend that
meeting in a physical location.
(2) By removing the requirement for agendas to be placed at the location
of each public official participating in a public meeting remotely, including from
the member’s private home or hotel room, this act protects the personal, private
information of public officials and their families while preserving the public’s right
to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.
31
Section 5. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect upon
adoption and shall be effective for 30 days unless earlier extended by a majority vote of the Board
of Commissioners in accordance with Section 5 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Extension by Motion. The Board of Commissioners may extend the
application of this Resolution by motion and majority vote by up to 30 days at a time, provided
that it makes all necessary findings consistent with and pursuant to the requirements of Section
54953(e)(3). Any such extension may be made before or after the expiration of the preceding
30 day period.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission this 9th day of March 2022, by the following vote:
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of March, 2022.
_____________________________________
V. Manuel Perez, Chair
Riverside County Transportation Commission
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
32
AGENDA ITEM 7B
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, April 13, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair V. Manuel Perez
at 9:30 a.m., via Zoom Meeting ID 820 0824 0042. This meeting was conducted virtually and
in-person in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials recommending measures to
promote social distancing.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Mike Beauchamp Linda Krupa* Chuck Conder
Ben J. Benoit* Bob Magee Yxstian Gutierrez
Brian Berkson* Scott Matas* Linda Molina
Joseph DeConinck* Lisa Middleton* Lloyd White
Lisa DeForest V. Manuel Perez
Maryann Edwards* Dana Reed*
Waymond Fermon* Jeremy Smith*
Kathleen Fitzpatrick* Wes Speake*
Raymond Gregory* Karen Spiegel
Michael Heath* Michael M. Vargas
Mary Hamlin* Chuck Washington*
Jan Harnik* Ted Weill*
Steven Hernandez* Bill Zimmerman*
Jeff Hewitt*
Ted Hoffman
Kevin Jeffries*
Clint Lorimore*
*Joined the meeting virtually.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Bob Magee led the Commission in a flag salute.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Thomas G. Elder, Amazon Towing & Recovery, requested that RCTC re-evaluate their
bidding process for the upcoming bid on the Freeway Service Patrol Program. He
expressed concern that the qualifications ask for five years minimum owning a towing
33
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 2
company and he has no experience owning a towing company, but he has 20 years in the
gasoline industry. He has owned a gasoline company for over nine and a half years, his
company has never had a loss run, his company has had a contract with Arco to Solar
Logistics and during that time he has held many permits: hazardous material, U.S.
Department of Transportation, the California Highway Patrol, and Department of Motor
Vehicles permits. They can look up his company named All Fuel Movers on Snapshot and
see he has very low scores. Mr. Elder stated in reading some of the guidelines it only
takes six weeks to become a driver trainer of a tow truck company, but the owner needs
to have the company for five years. Mr. Elder restated to reconsider as he will not go out
on the freeway without any experience. He is in the process of filling out some
applications with a company and doing a background so he can gain experience, but he
believes in the six weeks to become a driver trainer he will have that experience. He will
be putting a bid in on April 14 and the name of his company is Amazon Towing & Recovery.
5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk of the Board, announced there was
a revision to the March 9 Commission minutes where the Chair was incorrectly identified
for adjourning the meeting and it will be corrected.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Weill/Hoffman) to approve the following Consent Calendar items.
6A. AB 361 DETERMINATION
Reaffirm the findings in Resolution No. 22-007, “A Resolution of the Board of
Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Authorizing
Virtual Board and Committee Meetings Pursuant to AB 361.” The findings are as
follows:
a. The Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency on March 4, 2020, related
to the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exist today; and
b. State or local officials have recommended measures to promote social
distancing.
6B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 9, 2022
6C. AWARD OF BUDGET DATABASE SOFTWARE AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES
TO QUESTICA LTD.
1) Award Agreement No. 21-19-069-00 to Questica Ltd. for the
implementation, integration, and report development of the budget
database software package, including annual cloud-based services or
Software as a Service (SaaS) to replace the Commission’s current budget
34
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 3
tools for a five-year term, and in the amount of $1,333,358, plus a
contingency amount of $133,336, for a total amount not to exceed
$1,466,694;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review,
to finalize and execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of
the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency
work pursuant to the agreement terms up to the total amount.
6D. QUARTERLY REPORTING OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS
Receive and file the Quarterly Report of Contract Change Orders for Construction
Contracts for the three months ended December 30, 2021.
6E. SURPLUS DECLARATION OF REAL PROPERTY
1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-005 “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54221 that Certain Real Property Owned by the Commission is Non-
Exempt Surplus Land, Approving the Form of Notice of Availability
Therefore, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus
Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA
Review”; and
2) If no response is received from public agencies, developers, and/or
contiguous landowners, authorize the Executive Director to offer the
surplus property for sale to the public.
6F. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM
RESOLUTION
Adopt Resolution No. 22-008 “Authorization for the Execution of the Certifications
and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low Carbon Transit
Operations Program for the Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program in the amount
of $2,406,486”.
7. AGREEMENT FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY ZERO-EMISSION BUS ROLLOUT AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Eric DeHate, Transit Manager, presented the agreement for the Riverside County
Zero-Emission Bus Rollout and Implementation Plans, highlighting the following:
• Background information
35
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 4
California Air Resources Board Innovative Clean Transit Regulation was
adopted in December of 2018
The small operators approached Commission staff to conduct zero-
emission bus (ZEB) rollout plans on their behalf
In June 2021, the Commission was awarded $271,380 from Caltrans for its
Riverside County ZEB Rollout and Implementation Plans
• Key activities related to the scope of work
Reviewing the existing conditions including a demographics, service area
characteristics, fleet sizes and conditions, the locations and statuses of
charging and maintenance infrastructure for each of the operator's service
area
Provides stakeholder engagement with the agencies involved with these
plans, including public utilities, municipalities, and any private owners that
maybe directly impacted with this implementation
Provides a detailed capital and operation financial analysis comparing all
the ZEBs that needs to be purchase and comparing against the CNG or
gasoline buses that will also provide a longer-term implementation
strategy
Prepare the ZEB reports based on the findings and conclusions of earlier
work and provide a mode or modes to transition to
Seek the respective transit agencies’ board approvals based on these
findings of the bus rollout and implementation plans for submission to
CARB
• Procurement process
RFP was released by staff on January 7, 2022
Posted on the Commission’s PlanetBids website
− Emails were sent to 556 firms, 87 of which are located in Riverside
County
− 41 firms downloaded the RFP and 2 of these firms are located in
Riverside County
Commissioner Karen Spiegel stated this is the first step to meeting the 2040 goal knowing
that by 2040 there will need to be another transition because what is the lifetime of a
bus.
Eric DeHate replied right now for a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) bus it is approximately
12 years or 500,000 miles.
Commissioner Spiegel replied so no more than 20 years. She stated if the ultimate goal
is for them to transition to fully electric what is RCTC, or California Air Resources Board
(CARB), or anybody doing about looking to the challenge of an electricity situation. As an
example, at yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting Supervisor Kevin Jeffries
announced there was a problem with Southern California Edison (SCE) providing
adequate electricity down in the Temescal Valley area. She expressed if there is an
36
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 5
earthquake and there is no electricity and they do not have transportation they will not
be able to do anything, this is the one challenge that is not being looked at. Commissioner
Spiegel expressed getting wrapped into this without at least doing due diligence on
looking at an alternative if in case it happens and if they are saying by 2040 everything is
electric there is no alternative backup and that is the challenge.
Eric DeHate stated he can comment on part of that. For example, Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) have decided to go with hydrogen as their
main fueling source. SunLine is currently trying to upgrade and build a solar microgrid
component in the Coachella Valley to create their own hydrogen facility. RTA is still
looking at ways to either dole out their own or to ship it in through truck. Mr. DeHate
explained some of this will have to be done through the resiliency planning and look at
how do they have redundant sources, so they are able to still deliver the services they
need to do or look at emergency type planning. He is uncertain if this will completely take
care of everything, but it is supposed to look at the resiliency planning as well to see what
is available.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel’s inquiry that hydrogen was not the ultimate
alternative, Mr. DeHate replied hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric are the two options
currently so both of them offer that. There might be a little bit of a mixed fleet and right
now the battery range is not very large and there is a lot of anxiety over the range issues.
The bigger operators have currently chosen to go with hydrogen because of the range.
He mentioned in Palo Verde Valley they have wellness programs and the battery electric
bike itself might not be able to take it all the way to Coachella Valley. That would more
than likely be recommended to be hydrogen as opposed to their circular routes that stay
within the city that may likely be electric.
Commissioner Spiegel stated she supports this, but for this set of buses they really need
to dig down and find something and she then made the motion to approve staff’s
recommendation.
Chair Perez concurred with Commissioner Spiegel’s comments and stated not only did
Commissioner Jeffries bring it up at the Board of Supervisors meeting, but they have been
having discussions about the issues they are facing in the Coachella Valley with Imperial
Irrigation District (IID). He explained hearing from a developer that is having the same
issues in the Central Valley and in the Central Coast, so this is a larger infrastructure issue
that needs to be discussed at a state level. He suggested there may need to be some sort
of ad hoc committee or an entity that is going to deliver this message and discuss this
with folks out there to figure out what is coming next and if they are going to achieve
these goals.
Commissioner Ted Hoffman expressed concern that they were going through CNG and
gas powered, but Eric DeHate had already answered the question on the hydrogen. He is
aware RTA was going to go on the hydrogen buses because he sits on that Board, but he
37
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 6
was curious on how they were going to plan to do it. He stated that he used to sit on
Western Community Energy, which was a choice segregation group, and it did not do very
well. Partly because they were limited on what they had as far as alternative energy
sources and suggested the Board should look into it as the choices are out there. As
Commissioner Spiegel noted this is a short-term deal and they have to look at the long
term 10-20 years down the road. Diesel power and gases are not going to be there
because that is not what they are going to have, CARB is not going to allow it, so it is
electric where do they plug them in, and he expressed they are going to be short.
Commissioner Wes Speake expressed support for the project and complimented the
presentation and noted he has been working a little bit with the hydrogen folks. They are
going to see an acceleration of that technology and SunLine has been kind of the future
looking forward. Commissioner Speake wanted to make sure that hydrogen and
hydrogen powered buses are a significant part of anything they are doing moving forward
because of the battery storage. He explained even though it will continue to increase it
will get a little better, the technology will get a little better, they need to leapfrog and
really be the forefront of doing the right thing but at the same time having something that
is reliable and is going to be able to be used throughout the County.
M/S/C (Spiegel/Speake) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 22-62-008-00 to Center for Transportation and the
Environment (CTE) to develop the Riverside County Zero-Emission Bus
Rollout and Implementation Plans, for a two-year term in the amount of
$412,676, plus a contingency amount of $41,267, for a total amount not
to exceed $453,943;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreement including the option term,
on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency
work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services.
8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
David Knudsen, Interim External Affairs Director, presented an update for the state and
federal legislative activities. He recognized and thanked those that have provided support
letters to RCTC on their behalf for the CV Rail Tier 2, Riverside-Downtown Third Street
Grade Separation, and the I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension projects and the
requested earmarks. David Knudsen recognized Representative Ken Calvert for securing
the $5 million in funding for the I-15 Smart Freeway Pilot Project in the last round of
earmarks.
38
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 7
In response to Chair Perez’s inquiry regarding who is the author of one of the bills and
where is that individual from, David Knudsen replied AB 2438 and the author is Assembly
Member Laura Friedman and she is from Glendale.
Commissioner Karen Spiegel expressed appreciation to David Knudsen for an excellent
presentation and suggested his presentation should be put all over social media so that
the voters know they are trying because they are getting blasted in their region to stop
building but keep building the highways. The voters do not realize they are doing what
they can and if they do not let them know whether it is editorials or on social media, they
need to get the voices of the constituents who are the ones complaining. She stated when
they see it in print for some reason it makes a lot more sense then just saying it to them.
Commissioner Spiegel suggested pushing this and she would help because that was a
great presentation as it was not a bashing it was an explanation, and it was well done.
Commissioner Jan Harnik expressed that AB 2438 is such an insult to everything they have
worked for, the reason they have done what they have done with self-help counties is
because they have long been overlooked by Sacramento with their one size fits all. They
have worked long and hard to get their measure in place so that they could raise the
money to fill in the gaps that Sacramento has created. She stated now they are saying
they cannot fix the problems that decades of ignoring the needs of Riverside County have
created, this is something they really do have to speak loudly and passionately about.
Commissioner Harnik concurred with Commissioner Spiegel’s comments, and she noticed
it got the Chair’s attention, so this is all great news.
Commissioner Wes Speake explained being asked to participate in the AB 285 (Friedman)
California Transportation Plan meetings, there were two held on April 4 and 5 and two
more meetings will be held on April 14 and 15 discussing different topics. He expressed
concern for the past week as to what he heard and what he read in that report and those
on Zoom he posted all five working papers, which was received for record. He
understands the idea and as David Knudsen noted the idea, he does not disagree with but
how they get there is the problem. As elected officials all of their jobs are to ensure the
wellbeing and prosperity of their constituents and transportation is a basic need for their
residents and for the economic wellbeing as they go forward. Commissioner Speake
urged the Commissioners to read this and provide comment as he and the city of Corona
will be providing comments. After these next two meetings he will summarize what he
has learned to go back and understand that the recommendations here are to increase
the cost of travel. The gas tax will be going up and there are going to be these monster
numbers, there are big issues here that they need to address and make sure the assembly
hears their voices, because they are at a crossroads. Commissioner Speake expressed
unless they raise their voices and push this forward so all the voters understand that they
are not taking their votes out of the voters’ hands and having this done at the state level.
This one size fits all stick does not work they have increased the cost for travel over the
past few years and it has not stopped. There needs to be another plan here besides keep
beating commuters, beating their residents, and beating their businesses from being able
39
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 8
to move about in their County. He stated they understand how transportation works in
their County and noted that Commissioner Middleton was on the first call and was able
to hear some of this craziness as well. Commissioner Speake expressed making sure the
Commissioners read the working papers and be able to offer some input because the
state looks like it is coming for them and coming for what they have prescribed in what
the state thinks can help their County and help their constituents and they need to fight
back.
Commissioner Lisa Middleton sat through the presentation on AB 285 along with
Commissioner Speake and stated it was a depressing morning, but there are avenues for
them to express their concerns and be very pragmatic in expressing them. Assembly
Member Friedman is a friend, she listens to good arguments, and they need to be
affective as they make their presentations as to why some of these programs will not
work in the fashion that they are being presented. Commissioner Middleton stated if all
they do is show their anger folks in the California Legislature know very well how to listen
to that, but it is usually not effective.
Commissioner Maryann Edwards stated in following along those lines, for Southwest
Riverside County the first thing she thought of is the impact it will have on the agencies
like the Boys and Girls Club. The Boys and Girls Club serves children from Canyon Lake,
Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Murrieta, Temecula, and Menifee and it is tens of thousands of
trips per year to get children to and from school. Commissioner Edwards expressed if
they put a face on it that is a great face, those kids do not have any other way to get to
school. They do not have any care for after or before school and the Boys and Girls Clubs
provide all of that so just for locally Southwest Riverside County, they need to put the
faces of 10,000 children in Sacramento.
M/S/C to receive and file an update on state and federal legislation.
9. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
There were no items pulled from the consent calendar.
10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
11A. Anne Mayer announced:
• Nationally across the board everybody has been having a lot of struggles
over the past couple of years, but it has been very challenging as well for
their construction industry partners. Whether it be materials, suppliers, or
actual contractors they have done a great job of weathering what has
happened with COVID and making sure they keep projects moving and
keep people working. There is currently a cement shortage and one of the
major suppliers of cement in the Inland Empire area had a plant shutdown
40
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 9
for several weeks, which is delaying the provision of cement. The
contractors are doing a good job of trying to schedule their work around
the shortage of the supplies. Ms. Mayer used the State Route 60 Truck
Lanes Project as an example because it is nearing completion and they
need to build a median barrier and they need concrete to do that. She
noted there may be some slight delays on projects related to a cement
shortage and projects in their cities or the County might start experiencing
the same.
• On April 21 in the city of Lake Elsinore there is a ribbon cutting ceremony
scheduled for the Railroad Canyon Interchange Project and she hoped that
all the Commissioners can attend.
• In May 2022, they had planned a ribbon cutting ceremony for the SR-60
Truck Lanes Project, but it will probably be pushed out a few weeks just to
make sure the crews can finish all that concrete work. Also, regarding the
SR-60 Truck Lanes Project, if they have been through there lately it looks
amazing but there is still some additional work to go. It is also that time of
year where the Coachella and Stagecoach Music Festivals are occurring, so
they are trying to weave the lane closures on SR-60 in between all the
travel for Coachella, Stagecoach, and trying to avoid the holidays being
celebrated soon.
• Acknowledged and congratulated Mike Beauchamp, Caltrans District 8
District Director, for his retirement after 39 years of public service with
Caltrans. He has been a true public servant and outstanding professional
supporting work in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and especially
on RCTC projects. They have been through some big projects together, the
60/91/215 Interchange, the 91 Express Lanes Project in Corona, as well as
many others. She thanked Mr. Beauchamp for his partnership and service
to the residents of Riverside County and wished him all the best in his
retirement. She acknowledged his wife Paula Beauchamp who was in the
audience and had just retired from San Bernardino County Transportation
Authority.
Mike Beauchamp expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer and stated he
was thankful and appreciated the strong partnership with RCTC both the
staff and the Commission, and all the members. He will truly miss working
with RCTC, but after 39 years it is time to go.
Chair Perez thanked Mike Beauchamp and his wife Paula Beauchamp for
all their hard work.
Commissioner Chuck Washington congratulated and thanked Mike
Beauchamp for his friendship especially through some very tough times in
2019 because of some heavy rains and damage to SR-74 and SR-243 in
41
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 10
getting them through, as they developed a very effective partnership,
collaboration, and a friendship and he wished him well in his retirement.
Mike Beauchamp expressed appreciation to Commissioner Washington.
Commissioner Edwards congratulated Mike and Paula Beauchamp on
behalf of the city of Temecula on their retirement. They have received so
much support from Caltrans over the years for the I-15 project they have
committed to, and they are ongoing, and it would not have been possible
without the help from Caltrans.
Commissioner Waymond Fermon congratulated Mike and Paula
Beauchamp on their retirement. He stated Mr. Beauchamp mentioned 39
years that is a lot of work, and they greatly appreciate him. Commissioner
Fermon stated regarding Anne Mayer’s comments about the festivals, the
first weekend of the Coachella Festival to the end of the month with
Stagecoach he had asked the Commissioners in their communities from
the Inland Empire to the Coachella Valley to monitor traffic and traffic flow
and any of the issues that they see. In the future this is going to paint a
picture for the support for rail given to the Coachella Valley all the way
down to Indio and Coachella, he hopes it can be revisited in the future. He
is aware the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Rail Project has been in the
works for a long time but hopes to monitor the situation. If anyone is
attending the festivals to let them know how their trip was all the way to
Indio.
Commissioner Spiegel noted Anne Mayer mentioned it, but she is certain
the highlight of Mr. Beauchamp’s career was working the SR-91 in Corona.
When looking at this and some of the people who were vocal during the
process were realizing if they did nothing it would have been so much
worse. Commissioner Spiegel stated that pain goes through the process of
growth, and she thanked Mr. Beauchamp for his leadership because it was
very tough. They are making it better as they keep moving forward and as
it was noted earlier, the more houses that have to be built per the state
puts more cars on the road, and they are just never going to get ahead of
it. She also thanked Mr. Beauchamp for his tenacity and persistence to get
it done and most everybody within that area and particularly those outside
of Corona appreciate the work that was done.
Mike Beauchamp expressed appreciation to Commissioner Spiegel.
42
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2022
Page 11
11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
11A. Commissioner Middleton stated next weekend is the first weekend of the
Coachella Festival, after that is Coachella and Stagecoach Festivals and all of them
in Coachella Valley will get a reminder as to why the Coachella Valley-San
Gorgonio Rail Project is so critically important. She encouraged anyone who can
to avoid I-10 as it is going to be again another problematic weekend, because they
do not have the rail service their region deserves. Commissioner Middleton
expressed appreciation to all her colleagues for the work they have done on this
project.
11B. Chair Perez announced starting in May the Commission and Committee meetings
that are held in the Boardroom moving forward will be held in-person.
12. CLOSED SESSION
12A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Item Property Description Property Owner Buyer(s)
1 a portion of APN 219-103-
006 RCTC Javier Garcia
Todd Gibboney
There were no announcements for the Closed Session item(s).
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, Chair Perez adjourned the meeting at 10:39 a.m. The next Commission
meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 11, 2022.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Administrative Services Manager/
Clerk of the Board
43
AGENDA ITEM 7C
Agenda Item 7C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Alicia Johnson, Senior Procurement Analyst
Jose Mendoza, Procurement Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the
third quarter ended March 31, 2022.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the Commission’s
Procurement Policy Manual adopted in March 2021. The Executive Director is authorized to sign
services contracts that are less than $250,000 individually and in an aggregate amount not to
exceed $2 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Public Utilities Code
Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign contracts for supplies, equipment,
materials, and construction of all facilities and works under $50,000 individually.
The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the third quarter ended
March 31, 2022, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director.
The unused capacity of single signature authority for services as of March 31, 2022 is $1,564,321.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of March 31, 2022
44
CONTRACT #
CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT REMAINING
CONTRACT AMOUNT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2021
$2,000,000.00
18-24-067-00 Ultimate Maintenance Service Janitorial Services for Stations and Toll Facilities 120,000.00 74,000.00 46,000.00
22-31-016-00 Globic Advisors Information and Tender/Exchange Agent services related to 91 Express Lanes
refinancing
20,000.00 17,294.26 2,705.74
22-18-010-00 Ralph Andersen & Associates Professional recruitment search for CFO position 28,000.00 16,800.00 11,200.00
09-31-081-08A Parsons Transportation Group Project and Construction Management Services for SR-91 Corridor
Improvements 126,000.00 126,000.00 0.00
21-31-023-02 HGN Corona Partners Parking Agreement for SR-91 COP 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00
22-19-021-00 Eide Bailly LLP Finance Department Consulting Services 55,000.00 6,325.00 48,675.00
22-18-037-00 CVS Pharmacy, Inc.COVID-19 Testing Services 8,000.00 6,750.00 1,250.00
22-66-044-00 Ecointeractive Planning & Programming Database 12,375.00 0.00 12,375.00
22-72-055-00 Thompson & Thompson Appraisal Services (Valuation updates) for Temporary Construction Easement 17,000.00 15,677.00 1,323.00
21-31-023-03 HGN Corona Partners Parking Agreement for SR-91 COP 4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00
21-31-070-03 Stantec SART Phase 4 Design 12,304.00 2,500.00 9,804.00
22-18-069-00 Ralph Andersen & Associates Professional recruitment search for Project Delivery Director 30,000.00 0.00 30,000.00
AMOUNT USED 435,679.00
$1,564,321.00
None N/A $- $- $-
Alicia Johnson Matthew Wallace
Prepared by Reviewed by
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF MARCH 31, 2022
Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the third quarter.
AMOUNT REMAINING through March 31, 2022
Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C)
V:\2022\05 May\B&I\6B.AJ.A1.SingleSignQ3
45
AGENDA ITEM 7D
Agenda Item 7D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Adopted 2022 State Transportation Improvement Program
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
adopted 2022 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the March 16-17, 2022 CTC meeting, the 2022 STIP was adopted. The adopted STIP
program of projects for Riverside County differs only slightly from what the Commission
approved at its October 2021 meeting. Changes to proposed programming affect the Coachella
Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (CV Rail) project and Planning, Programming, and
Monitoring (PPM) funds.
The CTC is required to adopt a financially constrained STIP per year. Therefore, CTC staff strive
to accommodate each county’s programming proposals. However, if every county frontloads its
STIP or programs beyond its STIP target shares, which occurs most STIP cycles, the CTC must
adhere to the STIP guidelines to balance out the proposals in a fair and equitable manner.
Despite CTC disclosing during the STIP development process that the only new STIP programming
capacity was in the outer years of the program, Fiscal Years (FYs) 2025/26 and 2026/27, there
was a chance STIP capacity would be freed up as a result of projects being delayed or
de-programmed. As such, the Commission proposed programming $15 million of STIP funding
on CV Rail in FY 2023/24 just in case there was capacity.
DISCUSSION:
2022 STIP Programming Revisions
The CTC ultimately could not fulfill the Commission’s request to program 2022 STIP funding on
CV Rail in FY 2023/24 but instead programmed the project for STIP funding in FY 2025/26.
Additionally, staff is very pleased that the CTC approved programming an additional $10 million
on CV Rail in response to a Caltrans partnering request with the Commission. In total, CV Rail has
46
Agenda Item 7D
$25,658,000 of 2022 STIP funding programmed for the Tier 2 Environmental Document in
FY 2025/26.
STIP PPM funds are available for planning, programming, and monitoring activities. At the
October 13, 2021 meeting, the Commission approved programming STIP PPM funds through
FY 2027/28. Each STIP is a five-year program of projects. For the 2022 STIP, programming was
only available between FYs 2022/23 through 2026/27. As such, the $319,000 proposed in
FY 2027/28 was reprogrammed in FY 2026/27 for a total amount of $519,000 as illustrated in
Table 1.
Other 2022 STIP Programming
In accordance with the STIP Intracounty Memorandum of Understanding with Western Riverside
Council and Governments and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), the
Coachella Valley share of 2022 STIP programming was $7,550,259. CVAG nominated Interstate
10/Monroe Street interchange for this funding in FY 2025/26 and also requested the $2 million
previously programmed in the 2020 STIP for the Interstate 10/Avenue 50 interchange be
de-programmed. This request was based on action the CVAG Executive Committee took at its
September 30, 2019 Executive Committee meeting. The $2 million deprogrammed will need to
be added back into the Coachella Valley share during the 2024 STIP cycle.
The Commission’s other 2022 STIP programming proposals were accepted as submitted,
including programming $14,698,381 on the Interstate 10/Highland Springs interchange project
in FY 2026/27; $13 million on the Temescal Canyon Road widening also in FY 2026/27.
Table 1 depicts what the CTC ultimately approved versus what the Commission approved at its
October 13, 2021 meeting.
47
Agenda Item 7D
Table 1. 2022 STIP Programming in Riverside County
RIP $(000’s)
Agency Project Description Phase FY
20/21
FY
21/22
FY
22/23
FY
23/24
FY
24/25
FY
25/26
FY
26/27
FY
27/28
Caltrans/
Temecula
I-15/French Valley IC
(extension to FY 21/22) Cons 47,600
RCTC SR-71/SR-91 IC
(AB 3090 - $66,377) Cons 66,377
19,913
33,189
13,275
RCTC SR-71/SR-91 IC
CRRSAA Cons 10,069
Coachella I-10/Ave 50 IC Cons 2,000
CVAG
Coachella Valley
Regional Signal
Synchronization, Ph 2
Cons 2,472
RCTC I-10/Highland Springs IC Cons 14,698
County of
Riverside Temescal Canyon Road Cons 13,000
CVAG I-10/Monroe Street IC Cons 7,550
RCTC CV Rail PA&ED 15,658 15,658
RCTC PPM Cons 1,000 900 696 600 315 200 200
519 319
RCTC PPM - CRRSAA Cons 205
TOTAL 48,600 3,372 20,609 33,789 13,590 23,408 28,217 0
TOTAL - CRRSAA 10,274
48
Agenda Item 7D
FISCAL IMPACT:
CTC approved the following STIP 2022 funding during its March 2022 meeting:
PPM funds (Construction Phase)
FY 2024/25 - $315,000
FY 2025/26 - $200,000
FY 2026/27 - $519,000
I-10/Highland Springs Interchange (Construction Phase)
FY 2026/27 - $14,698,381
CV Rail (Project Approval & Environmental Document Phase)
FY 2026/27 - $15,658,000
STIP funding for Commission projects and PPM will be included in future budgets. STIP funding
for projects not led by RCTC will not pass through the Commission but will be received directly
by project sponsors.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2024/25+ Amount: $31,395,281
Source of Funds: 2022 STIP Budget Adjustment: N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.:
652040 415 41502 106 65 41501 $ 1,034,000 (PPM)
005135 415 41502 210 72 41501 $14,698,381 (I-10/Highland
Springs)
004202 415 41502 245 25 41501 $15,658,000 (CV Rail)
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 04/15/2022
49
AGENDA ITEM 7E
Agenda Item 7E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects and Committee
David Thomas, Toll Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to authorize staff to proceed with the Project Approval and
Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase for the 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The PA/ED for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), from SR-241 to Pierce
Street, was completed in 2012. Due to funding constraints, a Project Phasing Plan was developed
to allow an Initial Phase (as identified below) to move forward as scheduled, with the remaining
ultimate improvements to be completed later. The approved project included the following
scope:
• Fifth general purpose lane in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 (Initial Phase)
• Westbound operational lane from SR-241 to SR-71 (partially completed with 91 Corridor
Operations Project)
• Eastbound operational lane from SR-241 to SR-71 (subject of this staff report)
• Auxiliary lanes at various locations (Initial Phase)
• Collector-distributor lanes at the Interstate 15/SR-91 interchange (Initial Phase)
• Extension of the 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to I-15 (Initial Phase)
• Express Lanes median direct connector to and from I-15 South (Initial Phase)
• Express Lanes median direct connector to and from I-15 North (under construction with
15/91 Express Lanes Connector project)
• One Express Lane and one operational lane in each direction from I-15 easterly to east of
McKinley Street (Future Phase)
The segment of SR-91 in the eastbound direction between SR-241 and SR-71 continues to
experience operational deficiencies, particularly in the afternoon hours. The 91 Eastbound
Corridor Operations Project (the subject of this staff report) is a component of the SR-91 CIP that
was not constructed with the Initial Phase (refer to Figure 1) and would help to improve traffic
operations along eastbound SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71.
50
Agenda Item 7E
Figure 1: 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Senate Bill 1316, signed into law in September 2008, authorized the Commission to extend the
91 Express Lanes into Riverside County and instituted systematic coordination of projects on the
91 corridor in Orange and Riverside counties. This was established through the development of
the annual 91 Implementation Plan and the creation of the 91 Advisory Committee with specific
responsibilities composed of board members from the Commission and the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) as well as the Caltrans District 8 and 12 Directors. The 91
Advisory Committee has expressed concern with the delay of the 91 eastbound operational lane
from SR-241 to SR-71, which has been included as a project in the 91 Implementation Plan since
2018.
In May 2020, OCTA, in coordination with RCTC, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA),
Caltrans, and the cities of Anaheim, Yorba Linda, and Corona initiated a 91 Eastbound Corridor
Operations Project Alternative Analysis study. The purpose of the study was to identify feasible
alternatives and range of cost for adding the 91 eastbound operational lane from SR-241 to
SR-71 as identified with the SR-91 CIP PA/ED effort. The Alternative Analysis study report
(attached) was completed on April 1, 2022 and recommends four feasible design variations that
range in total cost from $49 million to $154 million.
51
Agenda Item 7E
DISCUSSION:
The Eastbound 91 Corridor Operations Project is a component of the SR-91 CIP Ultimate Project
that was approved in the 2012 EIR/EIS. This component is not currently in the Commission’s
10-year delivery plan, though it is a Measure A project. The Alternative Analysis study has
identified new alternatives that will require environmental revalidation and an updated scoping
document to identify the preferred alternative. As noted above, these alternatives would
improve operations on eastbound SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71. It is estimated that this
effort will take approximately two to three years and cost approximately $5 million. Project
coordination will be required with multiple agencies including Caltrans, OCTA, TCA, city of
Corona, and environmental resource agencies. Caltrans District 8 concurs with moving forward
in Fiscal Year 2022/23 with the PA/ED phase as the lead agency for the environmental
revalidation. Procurement of an engineering and environmental consultant would occur in
FY 2022/23.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends proceeding with the PA/ED phase for the 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations
Project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item is to authorize staff to proceed with the PA/ED phase of the project. Staff time to be
incurred for the PA/ED contract (Contract) procurement is estimated to be $100,000.
Preliminarily, staff has identified Federal Formula Highway Infrastructure Program and Surface
Transportation Block Grant funds as well as Measure A Western County Highways or 91 Surplus
Toll Revenue (local match) as the funding sources for the Contract. Once an engineering and
environmental consultant has been procured, staff will return to the Commission with a request
for action to award the Contract. At that time, the fiscal impact will be known and the detailed
funding sources will be provided.
Attachment: Final 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project Alternative Analysis Report – Click
on the Link: https://www.rctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/7E.DT_.A1.SR-91-Alternative-
Analysis-Report_2022-04-01.pdf
Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on
April 25, 2022
In Favor: 11 Abstain: 0 No: 0
52
AGENDA ITEM 7F
Agenda Item 7F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Brian Cunanan, Commuter & Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Amendment for Bi-County
Rideshare Program Services and Commuter Assistance Update
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-41-090-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 20-41-090-00 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for
a two-year term to reimburse the Commission for an additional amount of $2.4 million,
and a total amount not to exceed of $4,800,000, for commuter/employer rideshare
(IE Commuter) programs and vanpool program support administered by the Commission,
on behalf of both agencies; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission’s Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) works to increase the awareness and
consideration of all commute options and incentives available to commuter constituents in
Riverside County. CAP fosters to increase the utilization of alternative modes of transportation
such as riding a bus or train, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, bicycling, and telework. As such,
the Commission implemented the CAP as a specific requirement under the original and 2009
Measure A Western County Public Transit program to address congestion mitigation. In addition
to improving mobility overall, commuter assistance or ridesharing helps reduce commuter stress
for employees, helps employers lower costs and increase employee productivity, and has a
positive impact on the environment and quality of living in the region.
Since 1993, SBCTA has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement, and manage a
CAP for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of several projects:
• Program Outreach – Branded as IE Commuter, engage commuters and employers to
establish rideshare programs at worksites throughout western Riverside and San
53
Agenda Item 7F
Bernardino counties. Marketing campaigns are provided to employer partners and
distributed to their respective employee base. Online advertising, social media, events,
and regional promotions such as Rideshare Week engage commuters directly.
• Employer Services – Various services to employers in the bi-county area including the
provision of marketing promotions, rideshare survey processing, employer network
meetings, and event support. The program administrator also assists employers with
average vehicle ridership calculations related to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 2202 requirements for employers with 250 or more employees.
• Rideshare Incentives – Incentives focused on increasing consideration for alternative
commute modes and include: (a) the new $5/Day Rideshare Incentive for rideshare
participants that try ridesharing to work for a three-month trial period; (b) Monthly
Rideshare Spotlight or Monthly Telework Spotlight program for chances towards winning
monthly prize drawings to encourage commuters to continue ridesharing and log their
rideshare activity; (c) Annual California Rideshare Week sweepstakes, an annual
opportunity to encourage ridesharing for opportunities to win premium prizes sponsored
by IE Commuter employer partners, local businesses, and organizations.
• Guaranteed Ride Home – A guaranteed ride home is available at no cost to employees
who rideshare to work in the event of an emergency or unexpected overtime by them or
the driver of their rideshare arrangement (max two per year).
• Ridematching and Information Services – Commuter and employer access to online tools
and resources and a call center (866-RIDESHARE) during business hours for those
interested in personal assistance with ridematching or transit options and to address
general rideshare questions.
• Vanpool Support – Vanpool program administration staffing and support services such as
providing employer and commuters with information and support, coordination with
vanpool vendors, and program reporting and ensuring compliance with transit reporting
requirements.
Staff recommends approval of an additional two-year (FYs 2022/23 – 2023/24) term with SBCTA
for a total agreement amount not to exceed $4.8 million. It is anticipated that minimum SBCTA
reimbursements will total $1.2 million during FY 2022/23 and $1.2 million during FY 2023/24 for
the provision of core rideshare program and vanpool program support in San Bernardino County.
The proposed agreement between SBCTA and the Commission was approved by SBCTA’s Board
of Directors during its April 6th meeting.
54
Agenda Item 7F
FISCAL IMPACT
Reimbursement funding anticipated to be received from SBCTA is included in the proposed
FY 2022/23 budget as follows: – $1.2 million for core rideshare and vanpool services and an
estimated $470,500 for potential special projects (rail recovery project, incentives, etc.).
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2022/23
FY 2023/24 Amount: $1,200,000 revenues
$1,200,000 revenues
Source of Funds:
SBCTA reimbursements and 2009
Measure A Western County Public
Transit-CAP funds
Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting
No.:
002111/002112/002127/002139/002182/002188/002191/632113 416 41605
263 41 41203
Fiscal Procedures
Approved:
Date: 04/18/2022
Attachment: Draft FY 2022/23 – FY2023/24 SBCTA Funding Agreement
Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on
April 25, 2022
In Favor: 11 Abstain: 0 No: 0
55
Agreement No. 20-1002371-02 Page 1 of 2
RCTC Agreement No. 20-41-090-01
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 20-1002371
BY AND BETWEEN
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR
THE PROVISION OF RIDESHARE
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
This Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement (“Amendment No. 2”) is made and entered into
as of July 1, 2022 by and between the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (“SBCTA”),
whose address is 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor, San Bernardino, California 92410-1715, and Riverside
County Transportation Commission (“RCTC”), located at 4080 Lemon St, Riverside, California 92501.
SBCTA and RCTC are each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”.
RECITALS:
A. WHEREAS, The Parties entered into a Cooperative Agreement dated July 1, 2020 for the
Provision of Rideshare and Vanpool Program Implementation and Software (“Cooperative
Agreement”); and
B. WHEREAS, The Parties amended the Cooperative Agreement on September 21, 2021 to remove
the provision of rideshare and vanpool software and related confidentiality provisions, which
were transferred to a new five (5)-county regional rideshare software agreement with Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, RCTC,
SBCTA and Ventura County Transportation Commission; and
C. WHEREAS, The Parties desire to amend the Cooperative Agreement to extend the Term through
June 30, 2024 and adjust SBCTA’s total obligation to RCTC; and
D. WHEREAS, The Parties have operated a bi-county Rideshare program which provides services
and support for each Party’s respective Transit and/or Multi-modal programs; and
E. WHEREAS, RCTC will engage and has the necessary resources to manage contractors providing
miscellaneous rideshare and multi-modal services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the terms and conditions contained
herein, SBCTA and RCTC agree to amend the Cooperative Agreement as follows:
1. ARTICLE 3. TERM. Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“3.1 This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2020 and terminate on June 30, 2024, unless it is
extended by a written amendment approved by the Parties.”
2. ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION, Subsection 2.3.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
“That SBCTA’s total obligation to RCTC shall not exceed Four Million Eight Hundred Thousand
56
Agreement No. 20-1002371-02 Page 2 of 2
Dollars ($4,800,000), for the services rendered through the SERVICES CONTRACTOR.”
3. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2, all other provisions of the Agreement as previously
amended shall remain in full force and effect.
5. This Amendment No. 2 is effective upon execution by the Parties.
6. A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 2 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other
means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an
original executed copy of this Amendment No. 2 for all purposes. This Amendment No. 2 may be
signed using an electronic signature. This Amendment No. 2 may be signed in counterparts, each of
which shall constitute an original.
7.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement below.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Curt Hagman
President, Board of Directors
Anne Mayer,
Executive Officer
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: By:
Julianna K. Tillquist
General Counsel Best, Best & Krieger, LLP,
General Counsel
Date: Date:
57
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
David Knudsen, Interim External Affairs Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Adopt the following bill position:
a) AB 2237 (Friedman)—Oppose;
b) SB 1410 (Caballero) —Support.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State Update
April 7, 2022, saw the beginning of the Legislative Spring Recess, which concluded when the
legislature reconvened on April 18. This period closes in on the first major policy committee
deadline of April 29, 2022, which is the last date policy committees may report approval of bills
with a fiscal effect to the Appropriations Committee of the same house. Additionally, May 6,
2022, will be the last day for policy committees to hear and report to the floor non-fiscal bills
introduced in their house. Consequently, the emphasis this month is on fine-tuning of bills with
amendments in preparation to meet the deadline.
The budget actions in this period leading into May 2022, are focused on budget subcommittee
analysis and reviews of the Administration’s annual series of adjustments to the pending Budget
Act. Consequently, budget-related public hearings are relegated to May, when the Governor will
release updated state revenue estimates and workload adjustments, as well as any new major
budgetary initiatives, known as the May Revise.
Assembly Bill 2237 (Friedman) – Staff Recommendation: Oppose
Assembly Bill (AB) 2237, authored by Assemblymember Laura Friedman (Glendale), Chair of the
Assembly Transportation Committee, would prohibit a regional transportation planning agency
(RTPA) or county transportation commission from funding projects in a Regional Transportation
58
Agenda Item 8
Improvement Program (RTIP) not aligned with the state's climate goals or most recent
Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). The bill also requires the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), to reallocate
funds not consistent with the state's climate goals or most recent SCS. It appears if a project is
found to be inconsistent, a regional agency would be prohibited from funding that project,
regardless of fund source—even local funds and fix-it first programs such as SB 1. Finally, the
legislation creates a task force to include CARB, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development, and the California State Transportation Agency to review the role and
responsibilities of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).
While the bill's objective is to ensure that regions adhere to the applicable regionally adopted
SCS, the bill is overly restrictive in its approach and neglects the California Transportation
Commission's role to prepare and adopt guidelines for the development and preparation of each
SCS. The bill assumes current Transportation Improvement Plans are inconsistent with SCS based
on flawed analysis in the Strategic Growth Council's California Transportation Assessment Report,
pursuant to AB 285 (Friedman) Chapter 605, Statutes of 2019.
As a result of this continued shift away from local control and toward alignment with climate
goals without commensurate new funding, staff recommends that the Commission oppose this
bill. Taking this position is consistent with the Commission adopted 2022 State and Federal
Legislative Platform, including:
Equity and Fairness
• Policies should be implemented recognizing regional variance by distinguishing high-
growth regions for their impact on the economy, environment, and should be dynamic in
order to address future population growth.
Regional Control
• Project selection and planning authority for state/federal funds should be as local as
possible, preferably in the hands of the Commission.
Environment
• Oppose efforts to place new environmental criteria (such as GHG reduction or vehicle
miles traveled reduction) on transportation projects and programs without
commensurate funding for alternatives or mitigations.
Funding
• Policies should be sensitive to each region’s unique needs and avoid “one size fits all”
assumptions, over-reliance on one mode of transportation, and lack of distinction
between urban, suburban, and rural needs.
• Support maintaining the legislative intent behind Senate Bill 1 (Statutes 2017) and historic
base program funding, by:
59
Agenda Item 8
o Opposing efforts to tie distribution of transportation funding to ancillary policy
matters, such as housing.
o Opposing efforts to deviate from legislative intent and existing statute.
Senate Bill 1410 (Caballero) – Staff Recommendation: Support
Senate Bill (SB) 1410, authored by Anna Caballero with Senators Andreas Borgeas and Richard
Roth as coauthors, was recently amended to require the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to conduct and submit a study to the Legislature by January 1, 2025, on the
impacts and implementation of the guidelines previously issued by OPR modifying the state’s
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regulations.
Prior to this amendment, SB 1410 was to limit the consideration of development impacts to VMT
to only projects proposed in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). A TPA is an area within one mile of a
major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed
within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program. In areas outside
of TPAs, Levels of Service (LOS) would be used to assess transportation impacts on the
environment for projects subject to CEQA review, as all projects were previously evaluated prior
to OPR’s guidelines.
In 2013, SB 743 (Steinberg) directed OPR to develop an alternative traffic analytical process for
CEQA guidelines for analyzing transportation impacts of projects within TPAs. The longstanding
metrics that had previously formed the basis of environmental analyses for traffic impacts had
been the engineering-based LOS standards. SB 743 allowed but did not require the revised CEQA
guidelines to apply an alternative to the LOS reviews for transportation impacts of projects
outside of TPAs. However, the state adopted new CEQA guidelines in 2018 that have now been
applied across the state, rather than in TPAs or urbanized areas alone.
OPR and Caltrans implemented the new VMT regulation in 2020 with a zero-increase approach
to VMT when considering transportation projects for funding. At that time former RCTC Chair,
Ben J. Benoit sent a letter to the Governor, in addition to a letter signed by a group of Legislators,
requesting a delay to the implementation. The delay was not granted.
The County of San Diego and other jurisdictions have subsequently proposed VMT mitigation fees
for new homes, which would drive up the cost of housing in those areas, demonstrating one of
many potential consequences to one-size-fits-all approaches to reducing or mitigating VMT.
As amended, OPR would be required to conduct the study “in collaboration with other interested
entities, including academic and research institutions with demonstrated expertise in
transportation impacts and analyzing vehicle miles traveled.”
Supporting SB 1410, even with the amendment, continues the discussion on the challenges of
the one-size-fits-all approach to VMT reduction requirements.
60
Agenda Item 8
Supporting this legislation if amended is consistent with the Commission’s adopted 2022 State
and Federal Legislative Platform, including:
Environment
• Support the simplification of SB 743 VMT modeling and analysis for highway projects
Equity and Fairness
• Policies should be implemented recognizing regional variance by distinguishing high-
growth regions for their impact on the economy, environment, and should be dynamic in
order to address future population growth.
Federal Update
Congressionally Directed Spending and Community Project Funding
The recently signed omnibus federal appropriations bill included nearly 5,000 earmarks totaling
nearly $9 billion across 10 of the 12 appropriations bills. This omnibus bill included $5 million to
fund RCTC’s request for the I-15 Smart Freeway Pilot project.
While the House and Senate have chosen different names for their earmarking process,
Community Project Funding (CPF) in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) in
the Senate, both are soliciting earmark requests as part of the upcoming FY 2023 appropriations
process.
Therefore, RCTC is requesting $21 million in funds for three projects for FY 2023. These requests
are:
• $5 million for Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Tier II from each
from Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, as well as from Representative Raul Ruiz;
• $3 million the Downtown Third Street Grade Separation, Safety and Mobility project from
Representative Mark Takano; and
• $3 million for the I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension from Representative Ken Calvert.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is a policy and information item. There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments:
1) State and Federal Update Legislative Matrix – April 2022
2) Congressionally Directed Spending Request to Senator Dianne Feinstein
3) Congressionally Directed Spending Request to Senator Alex Padilla
4) Community Project Funding request to Representative Raul Ruiz, M.D.
5) Community Project Funding request to Representative Mark Takano
6) Community Project Funding request to Representative Ken Calvert
61
Agenda Item 8
Approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee on April 25, 2022
In Favor: 9 Abstain: 0 No: 0
62
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION – APRIL 2022
Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption
AB 2438 (Friedman) This bill would require the agencies that administer those programs to
revise the guidelines or plans applicable to those programs to ensure that
projects included in the applicable program align with the California
Transportation Plan, the Climate Action Plan for Transportation
Infrastructure adopted by the Transportation Agency, and specified
greenhouse gas emissions reduction standards.
The bill would require the Transportation Agency, the Department of
Transportation, and the California Transportation Commission, in
consultation with the State Air Resources Board and the Strategic Growth
Council, to jointly prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on or
before January 1, 2025, that comprehensively reevaluates transportation
program funding levels, projects, and eligibility criteria with the objective
of aligning the largest funding programs with the goals set forth in the
above-described plans and away from projects that increase vehicle
capacity.
Referred to Assembly
Appropriations
March 29, 2022
OPPOSE Staff action based on platform
March 24, 2022
AB1778 (Cristina Garcia)
This bill would prohibit any state funds or personnel time from being used
to fund or permit freeway widening projects in areas with high rates of
pollution and poverty.
Referred to Assembly
Transportation Committee
February 10, 2022
OPPOSE March 9, 2022
AB 1499 (Daly) Removes the January 1, 2024 sunset date for Department of
Transportation and regional transportation agencies to use the design-
build procurement method for transportation projects in California.
Signed by the Governor
September 22, 2021
SUPPORT April 14, 2021
SB 623 (Newman) Clarifies existing law to ensure toll operators statewide can improve
service to customers and enforce toll policies while increasing privacy
protections for the use of personally identifiable information (PII).
Failed to Pass House of
Origin by January 31, 2022
deadline.
February 1, 2022
SUPPORT
Staff action based on platform
April 5, 2021
SB 261 (Allen) This bill would require that the sustainable communities strategy be
developed to additionally achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2045 and 2050 and
vehicle miles traveled reduction targets for 2035, 2045, and 2050
established by the board. The bill would make various conforming
changes to integrate those additional targets into regional transportation
plans.
Failed to Pass House of
Origin by January 31, 2022
deadline.
February 1, 2022
OPPOSE May 12, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1
63
Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption Federal HR 972 (Calvert) This bill establishes the Western Riverside County Wildlife Refuge which
would provide certainty for development of the transportation
infrastructure required to meet the future needs of southern California.
Ordered Reported by the
House Committee on
Natural Resources
July 14, 2021
SUPPORT Staff action based on platform
June 11, 2021
64
April 4, 2022
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Subject: Request funding for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Dear Senator Feinstein:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am pleased to request $5 million in Congressionally
Directed Spending for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Project) - Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation. This Project is critical to bringing new passenger rail service between Los Angeles Union
Station to the communities of Coachella Valley.
RCTC is taking the lead in developing this 144-mile route connecting Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside
Counties into the Coachella Valley. Inland Southern California is the only region of its size and population in the state
without daily intercity rail service. That’s what makes this project so important.
The Service Development Plan and National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA)
Tier I environmental clearance for the corridor is expected to be approved this year. With your support, the requested
funds would help advance both the NEPA/CEQA Tier II project-level environmental documentation and preliminary
engineering phase of the Project, the next step toward construction.
Both Congress and the State Legislature have prioritized investment in transportation projects that reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), ensure equity and access, and support a climate-resilient future. To meet these goals, RCTC is working
with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Rail Administration to environmentally clear
this new intercity passenger rail service corridor.
The Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Service Project is a once-in-a-generation and regionally transformational
project that will connect our diverse communities, spur economic growth and prosperity, and provide mobility options to
our growing region. For these reasons, we are proud to request Congressionally Directed Spending to advance the Project.
Senator Feinstein, I would like to take a moment to thank you for supporting RCTC projects throughout your years of
service. Your voice of collaboration has made a difference in transportation for Riverside County. Please contact me at
(951) 787-7141 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 2
65
ATTACHMENT 3
66
April 8, 2022
The Honorable Raul Ruiz, M.D.
United States House of Representatives
2342 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: Request for CPF Funding for the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Dear Representative Ruiz:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am pleased to request $5 million in Community
Project Funding (CPF) for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Projec t) Tier II Project Approval
and Environmental Documentation phase. This Projec t is critical to bringing new passenger rail service between
Los Angeles Union Station to the communities of Coachella Valley.
RC TC is taking the lead in developing this 144-mile route connecting Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside
Counties into the Coachella Valley. Inland Southern California is the only region of its size in the state without daily inte rcity
rail service. That’s what makes this project so important.
The Service Development Plan and National Environmental Policy Act/California Environmental Quality Act (NEPA/CEQA)
Tier I environmental clearance for the corridor is expected to be approved this ye ar. With your support, the requested
funds would help advance both the NEPA/CEQA Tier II Project Approval and the Environmental Documentation phase of
the Project , the next step toward construction.
Bot h Congress and the State Legislature have prioritized investment in transportation projects that reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), ensure equity and access, and support a climate-resilient future. To meet these goals, RCTC is working
with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Rail Administration to environmentally clear
this new intercity passenger rail service corridor.
The Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Service Project is a once-in-a-generation and regionally transformational
project that will connect our diverse communities , spur economic growth and prosperity, and provide mobility options to
our growing region. For these reasons, we are proud to request this Community Project Funding.
Please accept our sincere appreciation for your ongoing support for transportation mobility in Riverside County. If you
have questions regarding this request, please contact me at (951) 787-7141.
Sincerely,
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 4
67
April 8, 2022
The Honorable Mark Takano
United States Senate House of Representatives
420 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515
Subject: Community Project Funding Request for the Downtown Third Street Grade Separation
Dear Representative Takano:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write to request $3 million in Community Project
Funding (CPF) to help complete construction of the Downtown Third Street Grade Separation, Safety and Mobility Project
(Project). Led by the City of Riverside, this Project is a regional priority that addresses significant mobility and safety issues
in the Downtown area of Riverside and would reconnect the community.
The Project will improve connectivity between Downtown Riverside, the Eastside Neighborhood, and an active freight
system network, which will allow high volumes of automobile traffic, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles to safely
move through a crowded area.
Active rail lines bisect Riverside’s Downtown including the BNSF Railway mainline and Union Pacific Railroad. RCTC and
the City of Riverside recognize these railroad crossings as the area’s most significant conflict points for rail and road tra ffic,
causing undue traffic delays to motorists, transit riders, and rail commuters, as well as safety risks to cyclists and
pedestrians.
Not only is the Inland Empire the fastest growing region in California and the fifth fastest growing in the country, it is also
the thoroughfare for goods traveling from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the rest of the country, carrying
over 100 total train movements daily. The grade separation and junction improvements resolve a bottleneck and
inefficient operat ions on these significant regional and national routes.
With Community Project Funding, this project will substantially improve safety as well as reconnect two of Riverside’s
oldest neighborhoods. Please accept our sincere appreciation for your ongoing support for transportation mobility in
Riverside County. If you have questions regarding this request, please contact me at (951) 787-7141.
Sincerely,
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 5
68
April 8, 2022
The Honorable Ken Calvert
United States Senate House of Representatives
2205 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Subject: Community Project Funding Request for I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension
Dear Representative Calvert:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write to request $3 million in Community Project
Funding (CPF) to help complete the final design of the Interstate (I) 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension (Project). RCTC,
in partnership with the California Department of Transportation, is conducting preliminary engineering and environmental
studies to support an Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the proposed Project.
The I -15 Express Lanes Southern Extension Project extends from Cajalco Road in Corona, through Temescal Valley, to Main
Street in Lake Elsinore for a length of 15.8 miles. The Project will add express lanes in each direction to extend the existing
I-15 Express Lanes and will add auxiliary lanes at the south end of the Project. Once built, the Project would improve traffic
operations, expand travel choices through carpooling and mass transit, increase travel time reliability, and improve air
quality. Implementation of the Project will further expand the Riverside Express Lanes network and southern California
express lanes network.
Not only is the Inland Empire the fastest growing region in California and the fifth fastest growing in the country, it is also
the thoroughfare for goods traveling from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the rest of the country. As you know,
many in our region compete with goods movement for limited space on our roadways each day to get to work. If awarded,
this funding will bols ter mobility choice for residents and support economic development.
The pre-construction, design, and construction represent an estimated $600 million investment and will provide a
cost -effective mobility solution that will significantly benefit the res idents and businesses of Riverside County.
Please accept our sincere appreciation for your years of support for transportation mobility in Riverside County, including
the funding for the Smart Freeway Pilot Project that you recently secured. If you have questions regarding this request,
please contact me at (951) 787-7141.
Sincerely,
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 6
69
From:Tara Byerly
To:Tara Byerly
Cc:Lisa Mobley
Bcc:Anne Mayer; John Standiford; Steven DeBaun; bbenoit@cityofwildomar.org; bberkson@jurupavalley.org; trollings@jurupavalley.org; Haviva.Shane@bbklaw.com; clorimore@eastvaleca.gov;
mvargas@cityofperris.org; mmartinez@cityofperris.org; jsmith@cityofcanyonlake.com; dreed@indianwells.com; cterrones@indianwells.com; aavila@indianwells.com; lwhite@beaumontca.gov;
alwhite524@gmail.com; ksspiegel@rivco.org; lallin@rivco.org; wbugtai@rivco.org; jhewitt@rivco.org; kcline@rivco.org; district3@rivco.org; cmaunz@rivco.org; c.washington@rivco.org;
Lisa.middleton@palmspringsca.gov; cindy.cairns@palmspringsca.gov; llubi.rios@palmspringsca.gov; jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org; jharnik@dc.rr.com; thileman@cityofpalmdesert.org;
ecastellano@cityofpalmdesert.org; rmagee@rivco.org; mafelix@rivco.org; schedule4@rivco.org; luisa.tovar@temeculaca.gov; Maryann.edwards@citycouncil.org; district1@rivco.org;
kjustus@rivco.org; lkrupa@cityofhemet.org; smccomas@cityofhemet.org; Wes.Speake@CoronaCA.gov; angela.nieto@coronaca.gov; naomi.ramirez@coronaca.gov;
Lyndsay.Burgett@CoronaCA.gov; ldeforest@murrietaca.gov; RVega@MurrietaCA.gov; bzimmerman@cityofmenifee.us; smanwaring@cityofmenifee.us; mstephens@cityofmenifee.us;
yxstiang@moval.org; patjn@moval.org; cityclerk@moval.org; claudiam@moval.org; naudias@moval.org; weis@moval.org; droa@ci.norco.ca.us; thoffman@ci.norco.ca.us;
swmatas@gmail.com; smatas@cityofdhs.org; rgregory@cathedralcity.gov; charrison@cathedralcity.gov; tmartinez@cathedralcity.gov; shernandez@coachella.org; cconder@riversideca.gov;
farreola@riversideca.gov; arcs8lady@gmail.com; dgerdes@cityofcalimesa.net; mheath@sanjacintoca.gov; lsampson@ci.banning.ca.us; mhamlin@banningca.gov; kfitzpatrick@la-quinta.org;
carmelabungalow@gmail.com; tthompson@la-quinta.org; wfermon@indio.org; strujillo@indio.org; ssanchex@indio.org; tedw@ranchomirageca.gov; sylvian@ranchomirageca.gov;
vickys@ranchomirageca.gov; joeydeconinck@gmail.com; msutterfield@cityofblythe.ca.gov; diane.morales@dot.ca.gov; Exec.Sec.D08@dot.ca.gov; Jean.Advincula@dot.ca.gov
Subject:RCTC: Additional Information - May Commission Agenda Item 8
Date:Wednesday, May 18, 2022 9:20:00 AM
Attachments:LA Times.Freeway Expansions.5.6.22.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Template.AB 1778 Garcia.Oppose.final.docx
Template.AB 2237 Friedman.Oppose.final.docx
Template.AB 2438 Friedman.Oppose.final.docx
This email is being sent on behalf of Anne Mayer.
Hello Commissioners,
As you may recall from our robust discussion at the May Commission meeting and past briefings, the State and some legislators are making dramatic moves to
reshape how transportation projects are programed, funded, and delivered in California. Ceasing highway expansions creates problems that even labor
organizations recognize. Attached is the Los Angeles Times article I referenced at the meeting.
Not only does the California Transportation Agency’s (CalSTA) Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) call for guidelines for competitive
state funding programs to be revised to prioritize projects that advance the state’s climate action goals, the Strategic Growth Council’s (SGC) AB 285 Report
points the finger at county transportation commissions and local governments as the problem.
But as noted by a number of Commissioners in the meeting, RCTC has a responsibility to continue to deliver mobility solutions for Riverside County and make
good on our promise to voters through Measure A. At the request of Supervisor Spiegel, staff have prepared template letters that the County and cities may
send to your legislators to register your opposition to AB 2438 (Friedman), AB 2237 (Friedman), and AB 1778 (Cristina Garcia).
Below you will find a table that provides brief descriptions of these bills with links to the current language and status, as well as links to RCTC’s opposition
letters:
Bill Description Status Link to RCTC
Letter
AB 2438
(Friedman)
Would require projects funded by specified state transportation funding
programs to align with state climate goals.
Hearing pending in Assembly
Appropriations
(Click Here)
AB 2237
(Friedman)
Would require projects funded by local tax measures to align with CAPTI and
regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) and prohibit county
transportation commissions from funding a project or program determined
to be inconsistent with its most recently adopted SCS or the state’s climate
goals by ARB.
Referred to Assembly Appropriations
Suspense File; Hearing pending
(Click Here)
AB 1778 (Garcia)Would halt highway expansions in disadvantaged communities – the very
communities that rely on them to get to work.
Hearing pending in Assembly
Appropriations
(Click Here)
The attached letters are structured so that your respective agencies may register your opposition to your respective Senator and Assemblymember. Should
these bills advance to the Senate, staff will keep you apprised of future hearings and opportunities to register your opposition with the appropriate legislative
committees. Additionally, staff will provide updated templates should amendments require changes to our argument.
Please share copies of any letters you send to Tyler Madary, Senior Management Analyst for Legislative Affairs, at tmadary@rctc.org. Staff stand ready to
answer any questions you have and will keep you apprised of opportunities to engage further.
Thank you for your leadership and advocacy.
Anne
Tara Byerly
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
951.787.7141 W |951.787.7906 F
4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502
rctc.org
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2022-05-06/freeway-expansions-california-
organized-labor
HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS
A bid to stop freeway expansions in California
hits a roadblock: Organized labor
BY LIAM DILLON,
BEN POSTON, RACHEL URANGA
MAY 6, 2022 5 AM PT
After more than 60 years and 15,000 miles of highway and interstate
construction in California, momentum is growing to end the state’s freeway
expansion era.
Top state transportation officials recently pulled the plug on a $6-billion
interstate widening in L.A. County and are pledging to funnel billions of
dollars toward mass transit and road repairs. Multiple state lawmakers want
to do the same, including one proposal that would prohibit freeway
expansions in underserved communities across California, an effort that
would be the first of its kind in the country.
Supporters of this approach cite freeways’ legacy of displacement and
pollution in Black and Latino communities, the need to fight climate change
and research showing that widening freeways in cities doesn’t ultimately ease
congestion.
No longer will the state add freeway lanes solely to allow more cars and trucks
to use them, said Toks Omishakin, secretary of the California State
Transportation Agency, which oversees the state’s transportation network.
“That is the past,” Omishakin said. “We cannot do projects like that moving
forward.”
Yet the efforts to end California’s embrace of freeways face opposition from a
powerful group: trade unions. Labor leaders contend that limiting freeway
widening overestimates the state’s ability to transition from an automobile-
centered culture and does so at the expense of good-paying jobs.
“We’re not the organization of ‘no’ when it comes to climate change. We’re the
organization of ‘slow,’” said Joseph Cruz, executive director of the California
State Council of Laborers. “Put a plan together where you make the other
transportation opportunities available before you talk about shutting down
freeways.”
Cruz’s group and other labor organizations are against the most aggressive
plan to stymie freeway expansion, Assembly Bill 1778, written by
Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), which would block
freeway widening in areas of the state with high levels of pollution and
poverty.
The bill, which advanced following a legislative committee hearing last
month, was inspired by a recent Times investigation that documented the
effects of freeway construction over the last three decades.
The Times found that more than 200,000 people nationwide have lost their
homes because of federal road projects during that time, and that some of the
country’s largest recent highway expansions, including in California, have
forced out residents in Black and Latino neighborhoods at disproportionately
high rates. And that’s in addition to the more than 1 million people pushed out
during the initial period of freeway building in the mid-20th century via routes
that often targeted Black communities for demolition.
“Freeways and cars and driving might be synonymous with California,” Garcia
said. “Us trying to be leaders on social justice, healing communities, on
environmental justice as well, is also in line with who California is.”
But Andrew Meredith, president of the State Building and Construction
Trades Council of California, which represents 450,000 construction workers,
said that the road network must continue to grow to support drivers and the
state’s economy.
“The idea that we’re displacing people that are living close to the highways,
this is natural in the terms of the way development happens,” Meredith said.
“Infrastructure sometimes has to come first. If we made decisions completely
based on the impacts on relatively small amounts of people, nothing would
ever get done.”
He contended that Garcia’s bill would instead harm low-income residents
living near freeways, arguing its passage would hurt their commute times.
But in urban areas at least, increasing evidence shows freeway widenings
reduce traffic only temporarily and can actually worsen congestion
long term by encouraging more driving. California’s most famous example of
the phenomenon is the Interstate 405 widening through L.A.’s Sepulveda Pass
a decade ago, which required a multiday closure dubbed “Carmageddon.”
Within a year of the $1-billion project’s completion, rush-hour traffic was just
as tied up as it was beforehand.
Residents who live close to freeways are more likely to suffer from asthma and
increased cancer risks related to vehicle pollution, according to the California
Air Resources Board, and widening freeways enlarges the areas subject to the
greatest problems.
The situation is worst for those living within 500 feet of a freeway as
particulate pollution levels are 70% higher there, the agency found. A 2017
Times analysis similarly determined that pollution readings next to the 110
and 5 freeways were three to four times higher than in neighborhoods farther
from traffic.
Beyond air quality concerns, continued expansion of California’s freeway
network threatens the state’s target of reducing carbon emissions to 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030.
More than 40% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions now come from
transportation, the largest of any sector. The state’s climate regulators have
long concluded that even a rapid increase in electric vehicle usage won’t be
enough to reach climate goals unless that’s combined with an overall
reduction in driving.
With the new $1 trillion in infrastructure spending signed by President Biden
last year, the same climate change issues are emerging nationally.
A December report from the Georgetown Climate Center found that if those
dollars are prioritized toward repairing existing roads and investing in transit
and other low-carbon transportation options, then the massive spending plan
could decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
By contrast, if even just a little more than a quarter of the new funding were to
go toward freeway expansion, then the infrastructure bill would result in more
carbon emissions than if nothing had passed, the report concluded.
“The climate crisis is imminent,” said Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-
Glendale), who chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee. “We would be
committing a huge crime to not take action knowing what we know.”
Friedman has written her own legislation, Assembly Bill 2438, which would
require the state’s transportation spending to align with its climate change
targets and, as a consequence, limit freeway widening. Her bill also is opposed
by labor groups.
“We can’t both say we need to change and then say there’s too many reasons
we can’t change,” she said.
Already, state officials are taking some action to block freeway expansions.
Last year, Omishakin, who was then the director of the California Department
of Transportation, said that a proposed 18-mile widening of the 710 Freeway
from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the 60 Freeway in East Los
Angeles shouldn’t move forward because of pollution, climate change and
displacement concerns.
In February, Caltrans formally pulled out of the project’s environmental
review, effectively killing an expansion that’s been on the books for two
decades.
“As we double down on our approach on equity and climate change and safety,
how do we make sure these projects in these early phases actually fit that?”
Omishakin said.
State transportation officials have been reexamining planned freeway
widenings across California to determine whether they should move forward,
he said. Omishakin declined to name other projects under review, though he
noted that a proposed expansion of the 5 and 605 freeways in southeast L.A.
County has similar pollution and displacement concerns as the canceled 710
effort.
Still, Omishakin said some freeway widening projects would continue,
including those under construction or about to break ground. Proposals to add
carpool or toll lanes to freeways also could be considered, he said. And the
state plans to continue prioritizing repairs to existing roads and freeways.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has yet to take a position on either
Garcia or Friedman’s bills, both of which would commit the state to a more
assertive policy against freeway expansion.
Besides labor organizations, many other interests are opposed to the
legislation, including business groups, road contractors and local
transportation agencies, which cite recent voter-approved tax measures to
fund infrastructure projects, including highway widening.
“Worsening bottlenecks in the supply chain will hurt the state’s ability to grow
well-paying jobs and make the critical investments in the infrastructure we
need to address the current goods movement crisis and build a more resilient
system moving forward,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California
Business Roundtable, an organization that represents many of the state’s
largest companies.
Nevertheless, labor is likely the biggest hurdle. The building and construction
trades are among the most influential lobbies within the Democratic Party
coalition that controls all statewide elected offices and more than two-thirds of
lawmakers in both houses of the Legislature.
Freeways are just the latest front in a long-standing battle between
environmental and labor organizations over policies affecting the state’s
climate change goals, including disputes over solar panel installation and the
future of oil refineries, many of which employ union workers.
Omishakin said that he isn’t concerned about labor’s stance on the state
moving away from freeways. The huge infusion of infrastructure dollars, both
from increased gas taxes approved by the Legislature in 2017 and the federal
infrastructure bill, should ease any problems.
Newsom’s proposed transportation budget for next year is $15 billion, and the
state is likely in line for more than $40 billion in funding — the bulk of which
is dedicated to highway programs — over the next five years through federal
transportation dollars.
“We’re about to have more money being spent in transportation than at any
time in the history of the state,” Omishakin said. “It’s a ripe opportunity for all
of us, including labor, to make sure those investments are the right
investments. The dollars are coming.”
Draft
May 11, 2022
The Honorable XXX XXX
[Senator/Assemblymember], District XX
California State [Senate/Assembly]
[Address 1]
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Opposition to AB 1778 (Cristina Garcia)
Dear Senator/Assemblymember XXX:
On behalf of the [City or County], I write in opposition to AB 1778 (Cristina Garcia). As written, AB 1778
would prohibit state funds or personnel time from being used for the funding or permitting of specified
freeway projects in areas that fall within the zero to 50th percentile on the housing and environmental
variables analyzed through the California Healthy Places Index.
If implemented, this bill would impact projects slated for or currently in construction, many of which were
developed for the safety and operational improvement of the state highway system. Completely
eliminating highway widenings and interchange expansions as an option in disadvantaged communities
would negatively impact their ability to utilize the state highway system to make ends meet, or access
employment and education opportunities.
Transportation projects already undergo extensive and interactive environmental review and permitting
processes to meet state and federal requirements. This process includes community engagement, public
comment, and mitigation of any adverse impacts from a project. The [City or County] strongly believes in
collaboration, consensus, and local control in making regional transportation decisions.
The [City or County] supports actions that reduce air pollution and provide mobility options for all
communities across Riverside County and recognize efforts to address past transportation decisions that
have instituted and perpetuated inequities, particularly to disadvantaged and low-income individuals and
communities.
However, the [City or County] fears that this bill may unintentionally harm the very individuals and
communities it seeks to uplift. Divesting from the state highway system in suburban and rural areas where
housing is more available and affordable, could harm disadvantaged and low-income communities that
rely on the highway system to get to jobs and education centers. This bill similarly fails to recognize the
billions of dollars in state investments that would be needed to develop robust and reliable multimodal
transit alternatives in these regions to place all communities on an equitable footing.
For these reasons, the [City or County] opposes AB 1778. If you have any questions regarding AB 1778 and
how it would impact our region, please contact Anne Mayer, Executive Director for the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, at (951) 787-7141.
Sincerely,
Name
Title
Draft
May 12, 2022
The Honorable XXX XXX
[Senator/Assemblymember], District XX
California State [Senate/Assembly]
[Address 1]
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Opposition to AB 2237 (Freidman), as Amended on April 18, 2022
Dear Senator/Assemblymember XXX:
On behalf of the [City or County], I write in opposition to AB 2237 (Friedman). The [City or County]
recognizes the state’s intention to secure an equitable and climate-resilient future, including for residents
in Riverside County. For decades, our [city or county] as a member of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) has supported local investments in all modes of transportation to reduce traffic
congestion and offer mobility choices—and has done so in a manner that preserves the region’s natural
habitat via the Riverside County Integrated Project. Actions like these can be accomplished because we
have the flexibility to be responsive to our community’s needs while also achieving regional transportation
and environmental goals.
The [City or County] takes exception to two significant issues in this bill:
1. Constraints placed on voter-approved transportation sales tax measures; and
2. Prohibiting projects inconsistent with the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure
(CAPTI) from being funded.
AB 2237 fails to recognize the depth of funding self-help counties, like Riverside County, have already
invested in all modes of transportation despite the State’s historical lack of funding resources until the
implementation of Senate Bill 1. The [City or County] supports improving air quality and providing safe
and efficient walking, biking, and transit access in our region. Riverside County residents approved in 1988
and again in 2002 Measure A, a half-cent sale tax that funds improvements for all transportation modes,
including highways, commuter rail, public transit, rideshare programs, complete streets, and even habitat
conservation. Projects funded with Measure A not only provide operational improvements to the state
highway system and multi-modal transit alternatives, but also funds local transportation projects that
provides substantial benefits to our communities. While it has taken decades to deliver some of these
projects due to insufficient state and federal funding and cumbersome regulatory approval processes,
their need in our communities has not changed, even as the State’s policies have. As a member of RCTC,
we committed to our residents, based on their vote to support this Measure, to get the job done.
AB 2237 would reduce the local voice on mobility improvements by requiring new oversight by the
California Air Resources Board and the California Transportation Commission on regional transportation
plans. This action is unnecessary, overly bureaucratic, and could eliminate local officials’ ability to respond
to the needs of its communities. Regionally significant projects, like the ones included in voter-approved
transportation sales tax measures, are already taken into account in regional transportation plans (RTP)
and sustainable communities strategies (SCS). The SCS is designed to facilitate the delivery of a suite of
projects that meet the varying mobility needs of each community and provide balance to the types of
projects that are delivered.
The [City or County] disagrees with the bill’s requirement that projects found to be inconsistent with
CAPTI, SCS, and other climate and air quality goals, should not be funded. While CAPTI will influence the
modes of projects RCTC can deliver for our communities in the future, it should not be used to eliminate
planned projects. The State should allow local transportation agencies the flexibility to adjust according
to the needs of its residents to ensure a just transition to an even more robust multimodal transportation
system.
The [City or County] is interested in turning the page toward innovative, sustainable transportation
solutions that are accessible, equitable, and inclusive. But inequities look different from community to
community and from region to region. We must work together if the state’s climate goals are going to be
achieved. Still, the State must provide its own funding for regions like Riverside County — not just in
coastal urban centers that are already built out — before a comprehensive review of pipeline projects can
be considered. AB 2237 would deny under-resourced regions and their disadvantaged communities of a
just transition to a climate-resilient future because many communities do not have the funding,
infrastructure, or available space to eliminate roadway usage on command.
For these reasons, the [City or County] opposes AB 2237. If you have any questions regarding AB 2237 and
how it would impact our region, please contact Anne Mayer, Executive Director for the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, at (951) 787-7141.
Sincerely,
Name
Title
Draft
May 11, 2022
The Honorable XXX XXX
[Senator/Assemblymember], District XX
California State [Senate/Assembly]
[Address 1]
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Opposition to AB 2438 (Friedman)
Dear Senator/Assemblymember XXX:
On behalf of the [City or County], I write in opposition to AB 2438 (Friedman). As written, AB 2438 would
require specified funding program guidelines to align with the Climate Action Plan for Transportation
Infrastructure (CAPTI), the California Transportation Plan (CTP), and greenhouse gas emissions reduction
standards.
The [City or County] recognizes the State’s intention to secure an equitable and climate-resilient future,
including for residents in Riverside County. However, AB 2438 appears to conflict with promises the State
made in the voter-affirmed SB 1, despite CAPTI affirming its intent to not change program guidelines
beyond current code.
Furthermore, AB 2438 fails to recognize the staggering investments the State must make—not just in
coastal urban centers, but also in more inland regions—before a comprehensive rewrite of critical funding
programs can be considered. To place the cart before the horse as AB 2438 does would deny under-
resourced regions and their disadvantaged communities of a just transition to a climate-resilient future
because many communities do not have the funding, infrastructure, or necessary rights-of-way to
immediately transition away from roadway usage.
If it were not for voter-approved transportation plans and local sales tax measures in Riverside County,
we would struggle to keep people and goods moving safely because of the limited state resources
available to our region. As a result of historically limited state and federal funding, we have areas where
transportation infrastructure and transit options are decades behind where we want them to be. With
the dramatic growth of population and goods movement in our region, we may never catch up without
overwhelming state investment.
The [City or County] appreciates Assemblymember Friedman’s recognition of the need for the CTP to
consider available resources before providing recommendations for the allocation of funds. Such an
analysis that may be objectively compared to regional plans and priorities is long overdue, but we see this,
along with substantial state investment in the development of multimodal systems in inland regions with
new funds, as a prerequisite before a comprehensive rewrite of existing funding programs and directives
for how local governments allocate funds may even be considered.
The [City or County] is interested in turning the page toward innovative, sustainable transportation
solutions that are accessible, equitable, and inclusive. But inequities look different from community to
community and from region to region. We must work together if the state’s climate goals are going to be
achieved.
AB 2438 does not provide our communities with the investments and flexibility required to build the
capacity of our multimodal transit systems, therefore threatening to leave our region and others behind.
For these reasons, the [City or County] opposes AB 2438. If you have any questions regarding AB 2438 and
how it would impact our region, please contact Anne Mayer, Executive Director for the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, at (951) 787-7141.
Sincerely,
Name
Title
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Mid County Parkway Project Status and Reprogramming of Funds
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file an update on negotiations with the city of Perris (City) regarding Mid
County Parkway (MCP) since the March 28, 2022, Western Riverside County Programs
and Projects Committee meeting;
2) Direct staff to defer work on the Mid County Parkway Construction Package 2 from
Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (MCP2) as currently scoped within the city;
3) Direct staff to work with the county of Riverside (County) to scope a different construction
package within County jurisdiction, along Ramona Expressway, to address ongoing safety
issues and continue progress on the overall MCP project; and
4) Direct staff to return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to
reprogram funds currently committed to MCP2 onto the newly scoped package.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The MCP is a proposed 16-mile east-west highway that will stretch from State Route 79 in the
Hemet Valley to Interstate 215 at Placentia Avenue in the city of Perris. In 1998, the Commission
began work on a process to locate new major transportation facilities to serve the current and
future transportation needs of Western Riverside County while preserving critical habitat. This
process, called the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP),
represented a balanced approach to the provision of important transportation improvements,
while limiting the impacts on communities and the environment. The CETAP corridors are an
integral part of the County’s general plan and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP). As part of the CETAP process, the Commission approved moving forward with project
level environmental studies for the MCP project on December 13, 2003.
At its April 2015 meeting, the Commission as the lead agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) certified the final environmental impact report, adopted findings pursuant to
70
Agenda Item 9
CEQA, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopted a statement of
overriding considerations, and approved the MCP project. As the lead agency under the National
Environmental Policy Act, FHWA approved the final environmental impact statement on April 15,
2015, and issued a record of decision for the MCP project in August 2015.
As the Commission developed its Strategic Assessment, which was approved in January 2016, it
was recognized that to deliver the major new corridor projects such as the MCP and
79 Realignment, separate smaller construction packages would have to be developed that are
fundable and buildable, and at the same time provide immediate public benefit. Staff was
directed to study phasing and prioritization alternatives to determine if/how projects can be
scaled or deferred to reflect funding constraints and state and federal policy challenges.
Subsequently, at its January 2016 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to proceed with
design and right of way (ROW) acquisition for the first construction package, the I-215/Placentia
Avenue Interchange project. At its October 24, 2016, Commission meeting, the Commission
authorized the acquisition of ROW and mitigation property for the entire MCP in accordance with
the Commission’s ROW policies and procedures. At its June 2020 meeting, the Commission
approved the construction contract for the I-215/Placentia Avenue interchange project, which is
scheduled for completion in September 2022.
DISCUSSION:
At the February 28, 2022, meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee (Committee), staff planned to present an item to award an agreement for
preparation of plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E) for the Mid County Parkway
Construction Package No. 2 from Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (Project). However,
the Committee received a letter from the city of Perris (City) just prior to the meeting raising
objections to the interim project (Attachment 1) and received verbal comments from the City as
well. In response to these comments, staff was directed to meet with the City at the earliest
possible opportunity to address these objections. The Executive Director and staff attended the
March 8, 2022, City Council meeting and presented information concerning the interim project
(see Attachment 2). In the discussion that followed, the City Council expressed the concerns
raised to the Committee on February 28, and mentioned other concerns, including impacts of the
alignment through the city that was chosen (Alternative 9), as well as the need for the project
itself.
71
Agenda Item 9
Figure 1. MCP Construction Package No. 2 Map
Staff followed up with a letter to the City on March 11, 2022 (Attachment 3), which committed
to resolving the outstanding issues by working closely with the City throughout the design
process.
On Tuesday, March 22, the City Council met in closed session and its decision is documented in a
letter dated March 23, 2022 (Attachment 4), which states that the City will support the project
only if the Commission prohibits truck traffic on the MCP through the city of Perris.
At its March 28, 2022, meeting, the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
(Committee) received an update on this item, presenting the decision of the City at its March 22
meeting not to support the MCP2 project unless certain conditions were met. Staff explained
that these conditions could not be accepted because they are inconsistent with the need and
purpose of the project and outside the purview of the Commission. Therefore, the Committee
directed staff to make another attempt to reconcile the differences with the City and report back
to the Committee at its April meeting.
The Executive Director met individually with City Council members who expressed opposition to
the project, presenting information about the MCP and answering questions. The City Council
then considered the item in closed session at their April 12 meeting. A letter summarizing the
City’s position was received by RCTC, dated April 14, 2022, stating a majority of the City Council
supported the project subject to certain conditions being met (see Attachment 5). A clarification
letter was received April 18, 2022 (Attachment 6), which clarified conditions pertaining to the
potential Redlands Avenue/Morgan Avenue/Indian Avenue route for trucks, which is reflected in
this staff report. The following is a summary of the conditions.
Placentia Avenue (City preferred option)
1. Acquire and remove 12 homes along the south side of Placentia Avenue between
Redlands Avenue and Perris Blvd. Consider a parkway with sound walls where the homes
currently stand, to mitigate noise impacts to the next row of houses to the south.
72
Agenda Item 9
2. Conduct a noise study using the City’s noise ordinance and mitigate any noise impacts to
residences along Placentia Avenue, including installation of sound walls and landscaping.
3. Install a traffic signal on Placentia Avenue at Fire Station 90.
4. Install traffic signal at Placentia Avenue at Spokane Street and modify access points to
Paragon Park.
5. Modify existing signals along Placentia Avenue as needed.
6. Install traffic signals at Redlands Avenue at the new MCP2 and at Redlands
Avenue/Placentia Avenue.
7. Evaluate the conditions and width of pavement on Placentia Avenue and upgrade as
needed to accommodate MCP2 traffic.
Redlands Avenue/Morgan Avenue/Indian Avenue (City alternative option)
1. This option is desired if the Placentia Avenue option is not feasible due to reasons other
than cost.
2. Design the Redlands Avenue/MCP2 intersection so that trucks are directed north to
Morgan Avenue.
3. Evaluate the condition and width of existing pavement along the route and install
additional improvements as needed. The City offered to be the lead agency for the
environmental/design and construction of necessary improvements and right of way
acquisitions subject to a contribution/reimbursement by the Commission.
4. Include Placentia Avenue mitigation items 2-7 above.
The City also requested that an agreement be executed between the Commission and the City to
acknowledge these conditions.
Evaluation of City Conditions
The conditional majority support for the interim project, although a step forward, still results in
a significant impact to the project viability. Key concerns are as follows:
• Conditions result in a significant cost increase estimated to range from $25 to
$40 million
• Twelve (12) residential parcels would have to be acquired from willing sellers. It is
unlikely that the Commission could legally or would willingly condemn these
parcels since the required finding that the properties are required to build the
project is not satisfied.
• The City’s alternative option would divert truck traffic to a city preferred route
requiring Commission contribution or reimbursement and could result in
Commission project efforts outside of the approved environmental footprint,
potentially necessitating supplemental environmental review and permitting. In
addition to contributing financially to these off-site improvements, the
73
Agenda Item 9
Commission would also be funding similar improvements on Placentia Avenue
although truck traffic would be diverted.
• Although a Cooperative Agreement between the Commission and the City would
provide greater assurance of continued support, funds could still be expended at
risk to the Commission.
Due to the increased project cost and risks to the Commission’s successful and timely delivery of
this interim MCP phase, the Committee recommends that this segment be deferred until such
time that the project is financially and technically feasible. Continuing with this phase given the
financial and conditional uncertainty could jeopardize the overall corridor progress. As a
reminder, the Commission must maintain timely progress on this corridor to meet FHWA Major
Project Guidelines.
Addressing Current Safety Needs and Advancing the MCP – An Alternative Approach
Commission staff has preliminarily evaluated other possible MCP construction packages along
the 16-mile corridor to determine if it would be possible to pivot to another segment that could
be developed quickly to keep the overall corridor project moving while providing benefits to the
public as quickly as possible. Recent news reports have highlighted safety concerns regarding a
portion of Ramona Expressway within the footprint of the future MCP project. In addition, the
Commission received correspondence and detailed information from the County regarding
severe injury and fatality accidents along Ramona Expressway from Dawson Road to Warren
Road. It is the consensus of Commission and County staff that a project could be scoped in this
area, consistent with MCP, that provides improvements to increase safety on Ramona
Expressway, especially for accidents involving vehicles crossing over the centerline of the
roadway (see Attachment 7).
Maintaining MCP progress is essential to preserving the benefits of the investments made by the
Commission over the past 20 years in addition to the commitments made to communities along
this corridor. This includes the eventual completion of the portion in Perris as well as the entire
corridor. Staff’s recommendation to address Ramona Expressway will advance the corridor while
addressing a current safety need.
Improving east/west mobility and safety is critical and includes not only MCP improvements but
also investments in other corridors such as Cajalco Road. Continued coordination and investment
in these corridors are also essential as the County completes the environmental processes for
improvements to those corridors. Although Cajalco Road is not part of MCP, the Commission did
make a commitment to invest in the corridor in conjunction with MCP improvements. Future
Commission investments in additional east/west corridors will be discussed after the
environmental document approvals for those projects.
74
Agenda Item 9
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact currently. However, staff will return to the Commission through the
Committee seeking approval for both scope and a contract related to the safety concerns raised
along Ramona Expressway and reprogramming of funds, if applicable.
Attachments:
1) Letter from city of Perris dated February 28, 2022
2) Presentation to the city of Perris City Council March 8, 2022
3) Letter responding to city of Perris March 11, 2022
4) Letter from city of Perris dated March 23, 2022
5) Letter from city of Perris dated April 14, 2022
6) Letter from city of Perris dated April 18, 2022
7) Email from County of Riverside dated April 20, 2022, and Exhibits
8) Exhibit Map – MCP2, Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
Approved by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee on
April 25, 2022
In Favor: 11 Abstain: 0 No: 0
75
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
February 28, 2022
Riverside Count Transportation Commission
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Agenda Item No. 7 of the February 28, 2022 RCTC Meeting – Mid County Parkway Project
Construction Package No. 2 from Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
Dear Commissioners,
The City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this item (Mid County Parkway Project
Construction Package). The city has been involved for many years with RCTC in this major transportation
facility to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County. While we
understand that there is an opportunity for interim improvements to be constructed at this time, the city has
the following concerns that will result from constructing the proposed interim realignment:
1)The I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange is currently under construction and was originally designed
to connect directly with an interchange at Redlands Avenue. The proposed interim alignment
proposes to stop construction at Redlands Avenue, thereby directing traffic to travel south to
Placenta Avenue, and then westerly through a residential area in order to get to the I-215 freeway.
The section between Redlands Avenue and Perris Blvd. is not a truck route and impacts/mitigation
to this residential area were not evaluated under the EIR for this project. Impacts to traffic and noise
were not considered in the EIR for this change to the original alignment.
2)The proposed interim alignment removes the Evans Road interchange. This is a significant change
to the original design of the MCP alignment. Traffic impacts under the EIR for this change have not
been assessed.
3)The proposed interim alignment does not take into account that a new high school been constructed
since the approval of the EIR for the project. The proposed interim alignment cuts access across El
Nido Avenue for students attending Orange Vista High School. These are impacts that were not
evaluated in the EIR and circumstances have significantly changed since the project design approval
that warrants additional review and mitigation.
ATTACHMENT 1
76
Under the Final Project Report, it states that if a decision is made after project approval to construct the
MCP project in phases, then RCTC would identify the impacts and needed mitigation measures of a first
phase and would compare these to the impacts and mitigation measures addressed and committed to in the
Final EIR/EIS through an Environmental Revalidation, which would determine whether an EIR Addendum,
Supplemental EIR, or Subsequent EIR would be required under CEQA, and whether a Supplemental EIS
would be required under NEPA. If new adverse impacts or mitigation are identified for the first phase or a
subsequent phase, then RCTC would prepare supplemental environmental documentation for approval of
that project phase. The proposed interim alignment and improvements will result in long term impacts to
the City of Perris that were not evaluated under the original EIR.
The city would like to take this opportunity to request that the proposed interim Mid County Parkway
alignment not move forward at this time until there is funding available to move forward with the ultimate
design within the City of Perris. The proposed interim improvements have not been reviewed for impacts
on Perris residents and traffic.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Rita Rogers, Perris Councilmember
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
Attachments:
77
78
79
80
MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT
City of Perris Council Meeting
March 8, 2022
Anne Mayer, RCTC Executive Director
1
ATTACHMENT 2
81
MID COUNTY PARKWAY HISTORY
2
•Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) initiated in 1998
–Integrated land use, transportation, and conservation
–Model for nation
•Transportation (CETAP) & Conservation (MSHCP) ‐adopted 2003
•Mid‐County Parkway (MCP) from CETAP, began studies 2003
•EIR/EIS approved 2015
82
3
MCP ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED
83
CITY OF PERRIS
RESOLUTION NO. 4428
4
•City project approvals June 2011
–City selected the alignment (Alternative 9)
that was then adopted by Commission
–Required Placentia IC to be part of MCP, first
phase
–Construction to start at west end of
MCP, recognizing entire facility would not be
built at once
–Ethanac corridor investigated
Placentia interchange construction is 70% complete
Ethanac studies proceeding
MCP2 design –using Alt 9
84
5
COMMISSION ACTIONS SINCE 2011
•Acquired right of way, mitigation land, permits
•2016 Strategic Assessment – due to funding realities, staff
directed to develop fundable/buildable packages
•Placentia Interchange
•Placentia Avenue improvements with City
•Spent $163+ million (since inception)
•Programmed $58 million for future work
85
6
MCP CONSTRUCTION COST
•Entire MCP: $2.8 billion
•Ultimate MCP in City of Perris: $1.4 billion (displaces 92 dwellings)
•MCP2 (proposed interim): $231 million (displaces 1 dwelling)
86
7
CITY OF PERRIS CONCERNS
•Traffic/air/noise impacts of interim condition
•Revalidation will be done with design, analyzing impacts
•Reduction/mitigation of impacts will be developed with City
•E.g. soundwall along Placentia, etc.
•New high school built after the MCP approved
•0.6 miles away from project
•El Nido is cul‐de‐sac in EIR; MCP is 40' higher
•Evans Road provides similar length path
87
8
RCTC NEXT STEPS
•EIR has limited shelf life, requires progress
•Commission funds have time constraints
•City Council support essential for interim project
•March 28 RCTC Committee project reconsideration
•April 13 RCTC Board action
88
QUESTIONS
9
89
March 11, 2022
Ms. Clara Miramontes, City Manager
City of Perris
101 North “D” Street
Perris, CA 92570
SUBJECT: Response to the City of Perris’ Concerns regarding the Mid -County Parkway Project Construction Contract 2
(MCP2)
De ar Ms. Miramontes:
Thank you for communicating your interest in the Mid-County Parkway Project Construction Contract 2 (MCP2) and for discussing
your concerns with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC is in receipt of City of Perris’ (City) letter dated
February 28, 2022, which requested that RCTC not move forward with design of MCP2 at this time, due to impacts of the interim
project. On March 8, 2022, RCTC presented information about the project at the Perris City Council meeting. At this meeting, the
council expressed its concerns with the MCP2 Project. In response, RCTC would like to express its commitment to resolve these
concerns in cooperation with the City, by agreeing to the following:
1. Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to
schools.
2. Maintain the San Jacinto trail under proposed MCP2.
3. A nalyze expected truck traffic on MCP2 and develop a strategy to restrict truck traffic to the City’s desired routes. Study
the impacts of vehicular traffic expected to use Placentia Avenue and its impact on residential areas and Paragon Park,
including noise, air quality, and speed, and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
These measures are subject to technical feasibility and environmental analysis to ensure that none of them results in a greater
environmental impact than the previously approved EIR/EIS for Mid-County Parkway. RCTC understands the City’s concerns and
anticipates we will be able to incorporate these features as we proceed with design.
Th e City’s involvement and participation during the design phase is crucial to the MCP2 project’s success. With the commitments
outlined above, we hope to garner the City’s support of the MCP2. We look forward to your response on this regionally important
project. As stated at the c ouncil meeting on March 8, we anticipate discussion of this issue at the March 28 Western County
Programs and Projects committee meeting.
Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact me at (951) 787-7141 or AMayer@RCTC.org.
Sincerely,
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 3
90
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
March 23, 2022
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements)
Dear Ms. Mayer,
The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the city to address concerns related to
the MCP2 improvements and thanks you for your presentation at the May 8, 2022, City Council meeting.
The City Council has carefully considered the impacts that the MCP2 project may create on the city, such
as traffic, air quality, and noise impacts to residential areas, city streets, and a local park. For these reasons,
the City Council majority can only support the MCP2 project provided that there is “no truck traffic”
allowed, thereby prohibiting truck traffic along the MCP2 corridor entering or traveling through the City of
Perris.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Rita Rogers, Perris Councilmember
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
ATTACHMENT 4
91
01006.0001/783734.1
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
April 14, 2022
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements)
Dear Ms. Mayer,
The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the City to address concerns related
to the MCP2 improvements. The concerns related to traffic, air quality, and noise impacts on nearby
residential areas, city streets, a fire station, and a local park, remain of great concern for us. The City has
reviewed the potential impacts and, along with your assistance, explored possible mitigation measures that
need to be considered in order to support the MCP2 project. For these reasons, the City Council majority
supports the MCP2 project, provided that the following items be included as part of the MCP2 project:
1.Placentia Ave Route (preferred): The proposed MCP2 improvements propose that all traffic travel
southbound from Redlands Avenue to Placentia Avenue for access to the future Placentia Avenue
interchange. The City agrees that the desired route is along Placentia Avenue, provided the following
items are included in the MCP2 project design:
a)Acquire and remove the twelve homes on the south side of Placentia Avenue, between
Redlands Ave. and Perris Blvd. This area should then be considered for a parkway with walls
to mitigate noise for residences further south of Placentia Ave.
b)A noise study shall be completed to assess necessary noise mitigation for the residences
along Placentia Avenue and shall meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. This should include the
installation of sound walls and additional landscaping on both sides of Placentia Ave,
adjacent to existing residential units.
c)Install signal at Fire Station 90 North Perris.
d)Install signals at the intersection of Placentia and Spokane Street and modify ac cess points
to the park, including a crosswalk.
e)Modify the existing traffic signals along Placentia Avenue, as needed.
ATTACHMENT 5
92
01006.0001/783734.1
f) Install traffic signals at Redlands/MCP2 and Redlands Ave/Placentia Ave.
g) Evaluate the conditions and width of existing pavement and upgrade as needed to
accommodate additional MCP traffic along Placentia Ave.
2. Redlands Ave/Morgan Ave/Indian Ave Route (alternative): Should the Placentia Avenue route
not be feasible due to reasons other than cost, truck traffic shall be diverted northbound at Redlands
Ave., continuing westbound on Morgan Ave., southbound on Indian Ave., and connecting back to
Placentia Avenue westbound onto the interchange. Trucks traveling eastbound, exiting the I-215
freeway, shall also be required to follow the same truck route to access the corridor at Redlands Ave.
The following items shall be included in the MCP2 project design:
a) Provide physical design features for the routing of trucks northbound on Redlands Avenue.
b) Provide additional sound mitigation to comply with the City Noise Ordinance along
residential the areas including Placentia Avenue.
c) Evaluate the condition and width of existing pavement along the route and install additional
improvements as needed. The City can be the lead agency for the environmental/design and
construction of this work subject to a contribution/reimbursement by RCTC.
d) Placentia Avenue mitigation shall be similar to items 1.b through 1.g, as necessary.
3. El Nido Avenue: Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain
continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to schools.
4. San Jacinto Trail: Maintain the San Jacinto trail under the proposed MCP2.
In order to acknowledge these conditions, the City requests that an agreement be executed between the City
and RCTC. The City of Perris values and appreciates our partnership with RCTC. Thank you for your
collaboration and we look forward to continuing to work together on this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Habib Motlagh, Perris Special Projects
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
93
01006.0001/783734.1
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
April 18, 2022
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements)
Dear Ms. Mayer,
The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the City to address concerns related
to the MCP2 improvements. The concerns related to traffic, air quality, and noise impacts on nearby
residential areas, city streets, a fire station, and a local park, remain of great concern for us. The City has
reviewed the potential impacts and, along with your assistance, explored possible mitigation measures that
need to be considered in order to support the MCP2 project. For these reasons, the City Council majority
supports the MCP2 project, provided that the following items be included as part of the MCP2 project:
1.Placentia Ave Route (preferred): The proposed MCP2 improvements propose that all traffic travel
southbound from Redlands Avenue to Placentia Avenue for access to the future Placentia Avenue
interchange. The City agrees that the desired route is along Placentia Avenue, provided the following
items are included in the MCP2 project design:
a)Acquire and remove the twelve homes on the south side of Placentia Avenue, between
Redlands Ave. and Perris Blvd. This area should then be considered for a parkway with walls
to mitigate noise for residences further south of Placentia Ave.
b)A noise study shall be completed to assess necessary noise mitigation for the residences
along Placentia Avenue and shall meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. This should include the
installation of sound walls and additional landscaping on both sides of Placentia Ave,
adjacent to existing residential units.
c)Install signal at Fire Station 90 North Perris.
d)Install signals at the intersection of Placentia and Spokane Street and modify ac cess points
to the park, including a crosswalk.
e)Modify the existing traffic signals along Placentia Avenue, as needed.
ATTACHMENT 6
94
01006.0001/783734.1
f) Install traffic signals at Redlands/MCP2 and Redlands Ave/Placentia Ave.
g) Evaluate the conditions and width of existing pavement and upgrade as needed to
accommodate MCP traffic along Placentia Ave.
2. Redlands Ave/Morgan Ave/Indian Ave Route (alternative): Should the Placentia Avenue route
not be feasible due to reasons other than cost, truck traffic shall be diverted northbound at Redlands
Ave., continuing westbound on Morgan Ave., southbound on Indian Ave., and connecting back to
Placentia Avenue westbound onto the interchange. Trucks traveling eastbound, exiting the I-215
freeway, shall also be required to follow the same truck route to access the corridor at Redlands Ave.
The following items shall be included in the MCP2 project design:
a) Provide physical design features for the routing of trucks northbound on Redlands Avenue.
b) Provide additional sound mitigation to comply with the City Noise Ordinance for the
residential areas along Placentia Avenue.
c) The City can be the lead agency for the environmental/design and construction of necessary
right-of-way improvements and right-of-way acquisition along the truck route, subject to a
contribution/reimbursement by RCTC.
d) Placentia Avenue mitigation shall be similar to items 1.b through 1.g, as necessary.
3. El Nido Avenue: Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain
continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to schools.
4. San Jacinto Trail: Maintain the San Jacinto trail under the proposed MCP2.
In order to acknowledge these conditions, the City requests that an agreement be executed between the City
and RCTC. The City of Perris values and appreciates our partnership with RCTC. Thank you for your
collaboration and we look forward to continuing to work together on this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Habib Motlagh, Perris Special Projects
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
95
1
From: Perez, Juan <JCPEREZ@RIVCO.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:50 AM
To: Anne Mayer <AMayer@RCTC.org>
Cc: Leach, Charissa <cleach@rivco.org>; Lancaster, Mark <MLancaster@Rivco.org>; Marlin Feenstra
<mfeenstra@rctc.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] MCP, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Expressway
Good morning Anne,
I am writing to request that RCTC engage with the County on a conversation about how we can collectively pursue major
safety improvements on Ramona Expressway. Over the years, the County has worked to implement various safety
strategies on Ramona Expressway including installing passing lanes, signals and intersection improvements, and striping
and pavement management measures. Tragically, as you can see by the attached collision diagrams, we continue to
experience a high number of fatalities and severe injury collisions on this road.
RCTC’s adoption of the Mid County Parkway environmental document provides a pathway for improvements on Ramona
Expressway over time as a critical part of the overall MCP project. We now have an opportunity to implement the more
significant improvements, such as incremental segment widenings, that are truly needed to address immediate safety
needs, while being complimentary to a gradual approach to deliver the overall MCP project over time.
Similarly, as you are aware the County has completed public circulation of the EIR for Cajalco Expressway, and we
anticipate bringing the document before our Board for certification in the near future. Cajalco experiences a similar
significant collision history as Ramona Expressway. While the County has also over the years implemented many spot
safety measures, more must be done in order to achieve major safety benefits, and the nearing completion of the
Cajalco environmental document provides an opportunity to do so.
We stand at a moment of opportunity to see plans that were put into motion many years ago to make improvements to
the Cajalco Expwy/MCP/Ramona Expwy Corridor advance to the next stage of implementation. This implementation
needs to be done in an incremental and balanced way that will allow the overall system to function properly, without
putting any additional strain on any one roadway component. The improvements of these corridors, to address both
immediate safety needs and also plan for our continued growth, are of the highest priority for our Board of Supervisors
and County staff.
We look forward to working together with the RCTC team to develop an overall corridor phasing and delivery plan that
can be presented to our Board and the RCTC Commission for consideration.
Regards,
Juan
Juan C. Perez
Chief Operating Officer
County of Riverside
JCPerez@RIVCO.org
951‐955‐1147
ATTACHMENT 7
96
2
www.rivco.org
This email message, including any attachments, is intended for the sole viewing and use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
confidential and privileged information, which is prohibited from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or the taking of any action in
reliance on the information contained in this email, including attachments, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copy of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received a copy of this email in error, please notify the sender by reply
email immediately, and remove all copies of the original message, including attachments, from your computer.
Confidentiality Disclaimer
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be
privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.
If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author
immediately.
County of Riverside California
97
Date Time Location Type No. Killed PCF
8/10/2019 410 923 Feet E/of Bridge Street VEH 1 23152A
9/18/2019 603 600 Feet E/of 5th Street VEH 1 21460A
9/28/2019 530 534 Feet E/of Martin Street VEH 1 23152A
12/10/2019 2132 1810 Feet W/of Lakeview VEH 1 21650
3/4/2020 1922 472 Feet E/of Lakeview PED 1 22350
3/24/2020 1330 1329 Feet E/of Hansen Ave. VEH 1 22107
4/16/2020 2140 1270 Feet E/of Bridge St. PED 1 22107
5/20/2020 427 748 Feet E/of 6th Street VEH 1 21460A
9/13/2020 250 60 Feet E/of I-215 VEH 1 21658A
9/25/2020 1950 3 Feet W/of Bridge St. PED 1 21964A
2/8/2021 1605 2919 Feet W/of Lakeview Ave. VEH 1 22350
2/11/2021 434 2428 Feet E/Day Street PED 1 21954A
3/17/2022 539 Intersection at Hansen Ave VEH 1 incomplete
4/4/2022 630 1103 Feet E/First St. VEH 1 incomplete
98
¬
¬
V
V
(
(
(
PERRIS
RAMO
N
A
E
X
P
Y
C AV
E
A A
V
E
11TH S
T
6T
H
S
T
9TH ST
10TH S
T
HA
N
S
E
N
A
V
E
LAK
E
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
YUC
C
A
A
V
E
MARVIN RD
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
B AVE
PI
C
O
A
V
E
MARTIN ST
12TH ST
DA
V
I
S
R
D
BROWN AVE
SUNSET AVE
LAKEVIEW AV
E
E
PALM AVE
FERN AVE
WOLFSKILL AVE
RES
E
R
V
O
I
R
A
V
E
LAURENA ST
BEL
L
A
V
E
SI
X
T
H
S
T
PA
L
O
M
A
R
R
D
WATER AVE
C
I
T
R
U
S
S
T
CHA
S
E
A
V
E
PO
Z
O
S
R
D
O
R
A
N
G
E
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
D
R
AN
T
E
L
O
P
E
R
D
PHILIP
R
D
E
U
C
A
L
Y
P
T
U
S
S
T
MEADOW BLOSSOM RD
WALNUT AVE
RIDER ST
ORANGE AVE
BERNASCONI RD
NO
R
M
A
N
R
D
JACK CI
R
WILDFIR
E
C
I
R
D
A
W
S
O
N
R
D
W
A
L
K
E
R
S
T
DEBBIE
L
N
ARM
A
N
D
O
D
R
TAK
A
J
I
M
A
R
D
B A
V
E
WATER AVE
RESERVOIR A
V
E
WATER AVE
12TH S
T
D
A
V
I
S
R
D
WALNUT AVE
R C IT , E a g le A e r ia l
RAMONA EXPRESSWAY - FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISION PIN MAP
SEGMENT 1 OF 2
(01/01/2017 - 04/14/2022)±1 inch = 1,751 feet
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet The County of Riverside assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information
represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes. County GIS and other sources should be queried for the most current information.
Do not copy or resell this map. Orthophotos Flown 2016Printed by dacuna on 4/14/2022
4/18/2018 - Head-On
(Passing Other Vehicle)
9/28/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
6/12/2018 - Vehicle - Ped (Ped Under the Influence)
(Ped in Roadway)
2/8/2021 - Rear-End
(Unsafe Speed)
5/25/2018 - Head-On (DUI)
(Traveling Wrong Way - Not Passing)
12/10/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
3/4/2020 - Vehicle - Ped
(Unsafe Speed - Ped in Roadway)
6/5/2018 - Head-On (DUI)
(Passing Other Vehicle)
3/24/2020 - Broadside
(Unsafe Speed)
4/23/2018 - Hit Object (DUI)
9/15/2018 - Vehicle - Ped
(Pedestrian Violation)
3/28/2019 - Hit Object
6/6/2019 - Hit Object
11/9/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Ran Red Light)
2/1/2020 - Sideswipe (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
6/25/2020 - Head-On
(Ran Red Light)
7/23/2020 - Head-On
(Improper Passing)
12/3/2020 - Head-On
(Ran Red Light)
12/23/2021 - Head-On
(Ran Red Light)
3/17/2022 - Hit Object
(PROVISIONAL)
Legend
Fatal Collision
Severe Injury Collision
*2021 & 2021 Collisions are Provisional
99
¬
¬
(
SAN JACINTO
RAMONA EXPY
BRIDGE
S
T
5TH
S
T
6TH
S
T
WA
R
R
E
N
R
D
YUCCA
A
V
E
MARVIN RD
PICO RD
MA
I
N
R
D
OLD PICO RD
PU L S ARVIEW R D
YUCC
A
A
V
E
WATER AVE
4T
H
S
T
S L E G E R S S T
LAKE
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
E
C H A
S
T
I
T
Y
R
D
MIKE
R
E
E
D
R
D
BROWN AVE
B
E
T
T
I
N
G
E
R
A
V
E
5T
H
S
T
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
R
D
FO
U
R
T
H
A
V
E
6TH
S
T
M
T
R
U
D
O
L
F
R
D
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
TH
I
R
D
S
T
W
A
R
N
E
R
A
V
E
GATE
W
A
Y
A
V
E
RAYMO
N
D
A
V
E
MEADOW BLOSSOM RD
WAR
R
E
N
S
T
SECON
D
S
T
FI
R
S
T
S
T
WOLFSKILL AVEMI
K
E
L
N
LAURENA ST
DUNCAND
R
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
SUMME R
S
T
PO
P
P
Y
R
D
5
T
H
S
T
P
U
L
S
ARVIEWRD RC I T, E a gl e A er ia l
RAMONA EXPRESSWAY FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISION PIN MAP
SEGMENT 2 OF 2
(01/01/2017 - 04/14/2022)±1 inch = 1,920 feet
0 1,800 3,600900
Feet The County of Riverside assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information
represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes. County GIS
and other sources should be queried for the most current information. Do not copy or resell this map. Orthophotos Flown 2016Printed by dacuna on 4/14/2022
6/11/2018 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
3/16/2018 - Rear-End (DUI)
9/25/2020 - Vehicle - Ped
(Ped in Roadway)
8/10/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
4/16/2020 - Vehicle - Ped
(Ped Hit while within Shoulder)
11/16/2017 - Head-On
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
9/8/2017 - Sideswipe
(Improper Passing)
9/25/2018 - Vehicle - Ped
(Ped in Roadway; Ped Under the Influence)
6/11/2018 - Head-On
(Right-of-Way Violation)
6/17/2021 - Head-On
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
4/4/2022 - Broadside
(PROVISIONAL)
5/20/2020 - Head-On
(Improper Passing)
Legend
Fatal Collision
Severe Injury Collision
*2021 & 2022 Collisions are Provisional
9/18/2019 - Head-On
(Improper Passing)
100
10
215
220 225
23 0
235
240
245
250 255 260
275 280 285 290 295 300
305 310 315 320 325 330 335
340
34 5
5
5
265 270
25
30
35
10
350
35 5
360
36536
0
365
365
355
360 30
25
35
40
45
50
34 5
3 5 0
355
255
260
265
15
20
25
3
0
270
215 220
225 230
235
22 0
225
230
215
270
275
280
285
255
260
26 5
265
270
27
5
275 280
285 290
345
350
355
360
260
26
5
270 275 280
370
375
380
3 7 0
375
370
365
375
380
9 240 1 2 3 4 245 6 7 8 9 250 1 2 3 4 255 6 7 8 9 260 1 2 3 4 265 6 7 8 9 270 1 2 3 4 275 6 7 8 9 280 1 2 3 4 285 6 7 8 9 290 1 2 3 4 295 6 7 8 9 300 1 2 3 4 305 6 7 8 9 310 1 2 3 4 315 6 7 8 9 320 1 2 3 4 325 6 7 8 9 330 1 2 3 4 335 6 7 8 9 340 1 2 3 4 345 6 7 8 9 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 35 5 6
7
8
9 360 1
2
3
4 365 6 789370123437567893801234
PER
R
IS V
A
LL
EY STO
RM
D
R
AIN
EVA
N
S Rd
RAMO
N
A Exwy
PLACENTIA Ave
W
ILSO
N
Ave
EL NIND
O
Ave
EUREKA
St
WALNUT St
LEGEND:
2000
Mid County Parkway Project
100
Feet
Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
Construction Contract 2
MCP Interim Buildout Package
Parcel Boundary
Bridge
Toe of Fill
Top of Cut
Ultimate MCP
Plan Exhibit
REDLAN
D
S Ave
ATTACHMENT 8
101
ADVANCING THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT
Improving the Ramona Expressway
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
1
MID COUNTY PARKWAY HISTORY
2
•Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) initiated in 1998
–Integrated land use, transportation, and conservation
–Model for nation
•Transportation (CETAP) & Conservation (MSHCP) -adopted 2003
•Mid-County Parkway (MCP) from CETAP, began studies 2003
•EIR/EIS approved 2015
3
MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR
•2016 Strategic Assessment –staff directed to pursue smaller project segments
•Part 1:I-215 Placentia Ave Interchange (under construction)
•City widening Placentia Avenue, Indian Avenue to Redlands Avenue (RCTC obtaining ROW)
•MCP 2: new 3-mile roadway, Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
4
MCP PROJECT COMPONENTS
Perris Raises Concerns on MCP
5
•02/28 WRC Committee
•Staff recommended contract award for final design of MCP2
•City of Perris communicates objections to project prior to meeting
•City Concerns include:
•Pedestrian access to new High School
•Trail preservation
•Truck Traffic
•Committee directed staff to work with the City
Addressing City Concerns
6
•03/08 Perris City Council
•Staff presented project, received feedback
•03/28 Perris letter
•Support only if trucks prohibited
•03/28 WRC Committee
•Staff recommended defer project: City conditions not consistent with
need and purpose of project, outside of Commission’s purview
•Committee direction to continue working with City
Ongoing Communication with Perris
7
•04/06 Meetings with individual Councilmembers
•04/12 & 04/18 City outlines needed conditions:
–Route trucks on Placentia, purchase 12 homes, construct sound walls, add signals
–If all 12 homes cannot be purchased, direct trucks to alternate route: Redlands
Avenue/Morgan Street/Indian Avenue
–Provide pavement upgrades on Placentia and alternate route if chosen
–Mitigate noise/A.Q. impacts along Placentia and alternate route if chosen
–Construct bridge undercrossing at El Nido
–Maintain access to trail in channel
•Map shows proposed MCP CC#2 (Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway) in dark red
•City conditions include:
•Add undercrossing bridge at El Nido Avenue
•Maintain trail in Perris Valley Storm Drain channel
8
CITY CONDITIONS
CITY CONDITIONS
9
Proposed MCP2Placentia
Interchange Traffic SignalsPurchase and
demolish 12 homes
Route for Trucks
Evaluation of City Conditions
10
•City conditions result in additional costs of $25 to $40 Million
•Twelve residential parcels would have to be acquired from
willing sellers
•Alternative truck route requires efforts outside of the
approved environmental footprint,requires new analysis
•Although a Cooperative Agreement between the Commission
and the City would provide greater assurance of continued
support,funds could still be expended at risk to the
Commission
11
MID COUNTY PARKWAY AREA MAP
MCP construction
contract 3 in County
MCP construction
contract 2 in Perris
12Source: County of Riverside
13Source: County of Riverside
14
DESIGN FUNDING
Funding Source Dollar Amount
LPP Formula Cycle 3 $5,686,000
CRRSAA STBG $6,313,592
STBG $1,545,899
Total $13,545,481
RIGHT-OF-WAY FUNDING
Funding Source Dollar Amount
Federal STBG $36,939,000
TUMF-CETAP $6,340,000
Total $43,279,000
CURRENT MCP2 FUNDING
Benefits of Working on MCP 3
15
•Maintains ongoing progress on MCP by advancing MCP 3
•Provides needed congestion and safety improvements to
an area that needs it
•Allows for future development of MCP 2 in Perris if
feasible
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
16
•Defer work on MCP2 in Perris from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway
•Work with County of Riverside to scope a project (MCP3)
within County jurisdiction,along Ramona Expressway,which
will address safety issues
•Direct staff to develop funding plan for MCP3 and
recommendations for reprogramming of funds currently
programmed on MCP2
QUESTIONS?
17
From:Lisa Mobley
To:Lisa Mobley
Cc:Tara Byerly
Subject:RCTC: MCP item #9 on RCTC agenda of 5/11/22
Date:Tuesday, May 10, 2022 2:50:35 PM
Good afternoon Commissioners,
Please see below email received from Richard and Myriam Hall, property owners of APN 300-020-
022.
Thank you,
Lisa Mobley
From: Jim Ness <newsradio@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 1:21 PM
To: Lisa Mobley <LMobley@RCTC.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] MCP item #9 on RCTC agenda of 5/11/22
Lisa Mobley, the clerk of the RCTC board at lmobley@rctc.org.
For the RCTC agenda on 5/11/22 Agenda item #9 Public comment
Re: Mid-County Parkway – Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
As property owners in the path of the Mid-County Parkway (MCP) just outside the
City of Perris, we are asking that the RCTC either move ahead – now - OR abandon
the segment of this project.
Aside from the taxpayer money that has been spent to date, our lives and those of
our neighbors have been in limbo since we were informed at a public meeting called
by the RCTC in 2013 that our property would fall under eminent domain.
Over the past 20-years, two environmental impact statements, debate over nine
routing alternatives, court challenges and most recently property appraisals have
been completed. Results and buy-out offers were promised 7-months ago. Time
frames for the MCP have been elusive and so have plans for our lives.
Up front is the 3-mile segment through our unincorporated area and a portion of City
of Perris where mega-warehouses are quickly being built. Resulting truck traffic on
residential streets is having an impact. Residential yards are being used to park truck
trailers.
We are not against growth and there is no doubt that another east-west corridor
through the Perris Valley is sorely needed to improve traffic flow. But, controlled
growth has fallen by the wayside as Perris fails to recognize the need for a temporary
moratorium on warehouse construction.
The original alignment of the MCP on either side of the I-215 has been a train wreck
in the making and now the City of Perris is attempting a derailment by failing to abide
by the commitments of its previous city leaders.
We urge the RCTC to stay the course and move ahead with the Redlands Avenue to
the Ramona Expressway segment.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard and Myriam Hall
P.O. Box 368
20448 Eureka Street
Perris, CA 92571
AGENDA ITEM 10
Agenda Item 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 11, 2022
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk of the Board
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Appointment of Executive Committee Member
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and
Temecula to select a representative to set on the Executive Committee.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Executive Committee Appointments
In accordance with the Administrative Code, the membership of the Executive Committee shall
be as follows: (1) The Chair of the Commission, (2) The Vice Chair of the Commission, (3) The
Second Vice Chair of the Commission, (4) The Past Chair of the Commission, (5) Two regular
members of the Commission representing the cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley,
Murrieta, Riverside, and Temecula, (6) A regular member of the Commission representing one of
the following cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Hemet, Lake Elsinore,
Menifee, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Wildomar, (7) A regular member of the Commission
representing the following cities: Blythe, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian
Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage, (8) Three members of the
Commission who are members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
Appointees to the Executive Committee serve for a two-year term. Appointments for the cities
were made to the Executive Committee for the 2021/22 term at the January 2021 Commission
meeting. Commissioners Brian Berkson and Matt Rahn were appointed to represent the cities of
Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Riverside, and Temecula.
On January 23, 2022, the city of Temecula notified clerk staff that Matt Rahn would no longer be
the representative to RCTC, creating a vacancy on the Executive Committee.
Commission members from the cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta,
Riverside, and Temecula will be given time to caucus and appoint a new representative to fill
Commissioner Rahn’s unexpired term. This representative will fill the vacancy for the remainder
of the year.
102
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET
MAY 11, 2022
NAME
AGENCY
E_MAIL ADDRESS
ry /I Vi F6fialied
,- 0 t
i ii
0 4,,r) Y) i il 7
in hinfkilq222-0P
'Z_ irk k ;
i c'`. c.I. 4x 6.---tr7:-.
' I Vi_ cZ y., 64 'U:
or k
Ei t]r w, s
(to2co
IWor,u. Chet. c,,.c .a
- V -74-s
PC'72.2rs
oa coet,0-boi-7N
v.(' -)--
IV ,ire -11.x% r-? Z
, ,,,f
') v Go
_
�"Yb W% // t
3.:-/4 !/g2D,r""
V tic (Crude)..-
? 1 -f,
/(e;14 -tat-
9a �`7 ,r