HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 24, 2022 Budget & Implementation
MEETING AGENDA
Budget and Implementation Committee
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Date: October 24, 2022
Location: This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials
recommending measures to promote social distancing.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Raymond Gregory, Chair / Mark Carnevale, City of
Cathedral City
Jeremy Smith, Vice Chair / Larry Greene, City of Canyon
Lake
Mary Hamlin / Alberto Sanchez, City of Banning
Lloyd White / David Fenn, City of Beaumont
Linda Molina / Wendy Hewitt, City of Calimesa
Steven Hernandez / Denise Delgado, City of Coachella
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore
Lisa DeForest / Cindy Warren, City of Murrieta
Jan Harnik / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert
Lisa Middleton / Dennis Woods, City of Palm Springs
Chuck Conder / Patricia Lock Dawson, City of Riverside
Michael Heath / Alonso Ledezma, City of San Jacinto
Ben J. Benoit / Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District III
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Annual Budget Development and Oversight
Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs
Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs
Countywide Strategic Plan
Legislation
Public Communications and Outreach Programs
Short Range Transit Plans
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Monday, October 24, 2022
This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials
recommending measures to promote social distancing.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/81677531395
Meeting ID: 816 7753 1395
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,81677531395# US (San Jose)
+16694449171,,81677531395# US
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Budget and
Implementation Committee Meeting please email written comments to the Clerk of the Board at
lmobley@rctc.org and your comments will be made part of the official record of the proceedings
as long as the comment is received before the end of the meeting’s public comment
period. Members of the public may also make public comments through their telephone or Zoom
connection when recognized by the Chair.
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 Committee 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.
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 24, 2022
Page 2
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss
matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the
agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Each individual speaker is limited to
speak three (3) continuous minutes or less.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee 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 Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding
an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
6. 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.
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – AUGUST 22, 2022
Page 1
6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Page 14
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the first quarter
ended September 30, 2022; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. CITIZENS AND SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC
HEARING UPDATE
Page 16
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory
Committee (CSTAC) Transit Needs Public Hearing; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 24, 2022
Page 3
8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Page 25
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for brief announcements or comments on items or
matters of general interest.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at
9:30 a.m., November 28, 2022.
AGENDA ITEM 6A
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Monday, August 22, 2022
MINUTES
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by
Chair Raymond Gregory at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501.
2.ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Ben J. Benoit Lisa DeForest
Chuck Conder Mary Hamlin
Raymond Gregory Jan Harnik
Bob Magee Michael Heath
Scott Matas Steven Hernandez
Linda Molina Jeremy Smith
Lloyd White Chuck Washington
Dennis Woods
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Ben Benoit led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute.
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5.ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
1
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 2
6. 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.
Chair Gregory requested to pull Agenda Item 6D, “Surplus Declaration of Real Property”,
for further discussion.
M/S/C (Benoit/White) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s):
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JUNE 27, 2022
6B. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the fourth
quarter ended June 30, 2022; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6C. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS
1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for the Quarter 1, 2022 (1Q 2022);
and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6E. FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING
ALLOCATIONS TO WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
1) Approve an allocation of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for
planning in the amount of $1,072,500 for Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) and $585,000 for Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) for efforts identified in each agency’s FY 2022/23 LTF
Program Objectives/Work Plan (Work Plan) that supports transportation
planning programs and functions that are consistent with regional and
subregional plans, programs, and requirements; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6F. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2020 AND 2021 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION’S
SECTION 5310 ENHANCED MOBILITY FOR SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES PROGRAM
1) Receive and file an update on the Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2020 and 2021
Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5310 Enhanced Mobility for
Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
2
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 3
6G. QUARTERLY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS REPORT, APRIL – JUNE 2022
1) Receive and file Quarterly Public Engagement Metrics Report for April –
June 2022; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. 2022 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN
Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director, acknowledged Erik Galloway, Project Delivery
Director, as he was the project manager on this effort and will be available to answer any
technical questions. Aaron Hake presented the 2022 Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan, highlighting the following areas:
• Photos of the RCTC lobby at 4080 Lemon Street, Moreno Valley/March Field
station, the 91 Express Lanes Customer Service Center
• Purpose
o ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan by law for any public entity having
50 or more employees
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
o Intended to identify programmatic and physical barriers that may limit
accessibility by persons with disabilities
Standards set by state and federal regulations
• Components
o ADA Self-Evaluation
The Action Plan – Non-Physical barriers
The Transition Plan – Physical barriers
• Self-Evaluation
o Began in summer 2021
o ADA surveys issued to 14 RCTC departments
o A total of 16 facilities were assessed
91/Perris Valley Line Corridor
Nine Riverside County Metrolink stations
Offices/buildings supporting 91 and 15 Express Lanes
RCTC offices at Lemon Street and 10th Street in Riverside
• A summary of the Programmatic (Non-Physical) Barriers
o 42 proposed action items
Language in contracts, employment documents, and notices
Internal procedures, awareness, and training
Availability of auxiliary aids and services
Coordination with partner agencies
Testing of equipment/facilities
o 0-2 years to implement all action items following plan adoption
• An inventory of the physical barriers that were identified at the RCTC facilities
3
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 4
• Physical barriers – Transition Plan tiered by priority including a list of examples of
the barriers identified RCTC will address
• Implementation cost (est.)
o $2,264,000
o Perris-South Station - $1,876,200
Schedule to be developed
− Incorporate into regular maintenance/upgrade schedules
− Funding availability
− Implementation items will be incorporated into agency
budget
− Commission approval for items with fiscal impact
− Procurement regulations will be followed
• Public review and comment
o Public input
RCTC’s ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan was made available
for public review and comment for 30 days, April 18 - May 18, 2022
In compliance with ADA Title II § 35.105 (b), the team identified 11
organizations that were listed to notify of the posting of the
document to seek their input
How the document was made available
Comments were solicited through countywide social media,
regional and local partners
Presentation to RCTC Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory
Committee April 11, 2022, to announce public comment period and
seek input
o Comment(s) received
One comment was received from Independent Living Partnership,
which confirmed receipt of report and link to press release -
“Transportation Bill of Rights Issued for Persons with Disabilities”
• RCTC Contact information for the public to continue to make comments
Chair Gregory expressed appreciation for the presentation as great care was put into
these types of issues when physical facilities are built or when policies are made. It is
surprising over time there ends up being such a large list but that also emphasizes why
they need to take a step back and look at both of those through a specific lens and noted
that it is good this has been done.
Commissioner Benoit expressed appreciation to staff for doing this and stated his sibling
is fully in a wheelchair and it has been eye opening going to various places with her
particularly parking lots, as they have always been an interesting issue. He stated it is
amazing how a deteriorated parking lot can really affect someone that is in a wheelchair
especially when they have lost all their mobility. He expressed appreciation for doing this
and stated at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) they had to also
focus on their website and make sure the website is fully accessible and he figured that is
4
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 5
part of this plan as well. Commissioner Benoit thanked staff for doing this noting it is not
easy to do but it is a very big requirement now.
M/S/C (White/Conder) to:
1) Direct staff to implement the 2022 ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition
Plan; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
Eric DeHate, Transit Manager, presented the Fiscal Year 2022/23 State of Good Repair
(SGR) Program allocations, highlighting the following:
• Background information
o State of Good Repair (SGR) established through Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) in 2017
o Provides approximately $105 million statewide annually
o Eligible projects: maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects
o Apportionments based on State Transit Assistance (STA) formulas: Public
Utility Codes (PUC) 99313 (discretionary) and 99314 (non-discretionary)
o Determined by State Controller’s Office (SCO) – distributed at least twice a
year (January and August)
• A table of the recommended SGR allocations
M/S/C (White/Matas) to:
1) Approve Resolution No. 22-016, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Approving the FY 2022/23 Project List for the
California State of Good Repair Program”;
2) Approve an allocation of $4,376,624 related to Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/23
State of Good Repair (SGR) program funds to eligible Riverside County
transit operators;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to review, approve and
submit projects to Caltrans which are consistent with SGR program
guidelines and to execute and submit required documents for the SGR
program, including the Authorized Agent Form;
4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve administrative
amendments to the FY 2022/23 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for
incorporation of the SGR funds, as necessary; and
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
5
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 6
9. AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT FUNDING HANDBOOK
Monica Morales, Senior Management Analyst, presented background information
regarding the federal, state, Local Formula funding, Transit Development Act (TDA)
funding, the Transit Operators’ Short Range Transit Plans, and Transit Policies and
Procedures; including the procurement process; and the agreement with AMMA Transit
Planning for the development of the Transit Funding Handbook.
Chair Gregory expressed appreciation as this is such a great project to undertake. He
stated it really falls in with how the Commission approaches many things as they try to
take these complex funding issues and realizing that many of their end users cannot put
forth the staff or pay for consultants to try to simplify that. Chair Gregory explained this
is another way where RCTC is taking some very complex policies and methods that must
be taken to get funding and to make sure that funding is properly used and properly
reported and to get it into a format that even smaller users can use.
M/S/C (Molina/Benoit) to:
1) Award Agreement No. 22-62-089-00 to AMMA Transit Planning to
develop the Transit Funding Handbook for a one-year term, in the
amount of $189,985, plus a contingency amount of $9,500, for a total
amount not to exceed $199,485;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreement, on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency
work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services;
and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
David Knudsen, External Affairs Director, presented an update for the state and federal
legislative activities.
Chair Gregory stated in many ways the Commission was successful but as always there is
a little bit of a mixed bag in there and still some things pending.
M/S/C to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 7
11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
6D. SURPLUS DECLARATION OF REAL PROPERTY
Chair Gregory stated this surplus declaration of property appears to be a little
different and asked how this request happened, who made the request as there
is no letter attached, what is anticipated if the Commission declares it surplus,
would it go to the developer, the city or someone else, and does RCTC have any
future need for this property as this was not in the staff report.
Erick Gutierrez, Senior Management Analyst, replied he will go through each of
the points that Chair Gregory addressed. He noted this is property that RCTC owns
in fee, it is property that RCTC purchased from or had got conveyed from the
railroad company. He explained to address Chair Gregory’s first question, there is
an ongoing project called the South Perris Industrial Project in the city of Perris
(Perris) and staff has been interacting with a developer looking to develop a
specific area in Perris. He then displayed some overhead slides to provide some
context in terms of the proposed development, highlighting the following:
• Proposed plan that specifies the limits of the proposed project
• An ariel with the outlining of the proposed commercial development
• Depicts the first two parcels that are in the staff report
In response to Chair Gregory’s clarification, Mr. Gutierrez stated the Commission’s
railroad line is running parallel with Case Road, it is a 100 foot right of way width.
He then presented the street improvements for the proposed commercial
development
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, referred to the street improvements overhead
and stated when looking at the hatched area those are the existing intersections
like the existing intersection of Mapes Road and Case Road that will be removed
and they are going to have a new intersection there. This area has several
nonstandard intersections that have been there for a long time so with the new
construction of the intersection it will be a perpendicular intersection. It will be a
typical intersection and they will install the appropriate railroad crossing
infrastructure that is needed for RCTC’s railroad crossing, which is medians with
gates.
Erick Gutierrez then presented the other two parcels that are in the staff report
In response to Chair Gregory’s clarification the railroad is down the center, Erick
Gutierrez showed that it is running parallel with Case Road. Erick Gutierrez then
presented the proposed plans to Case Road.
7
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 8
Erick Gutierrez stated hopefully this gives a better understanding of the proposed
areas to be sold for surplus with the new requirements by the Department of
Housing and Community Development by the state of California staff now must
follow the Surplus Land Act (SLA). He explained it is not only the Commission
declaring surplus land, but staff has to follow the guidelines of SLA and go ahead
and offer a notice of availability to agencies and developers, and if no response is
received it is put out to the public.
Chair Gregory stated that it is clearer, but it did not answer most of his questions.
Anne Mayer stated this is RCTC’s existing San Jacinto Branch Line where they have
constructed the Perris Valley Line and it is generally 100 feet wide. She explained
as either a public agency in one of the cities through which RCTC’s right of way
exists and/or for a developer if they need to build an at grade crossing for a street,
they must cross RCTC’s railroad tracks. This developer has been conditioned to do
street improvements so if Perris wanted to do these street improvements RCTC
would also surplus the property so they could build the at grade crossings.
Chair Gregory asked for clarification on how the Commission got to this point.
Anne Mayer replied she is uncertain how far back the request goes, but generally
if RCTC is contacted by a developer or a jurisdiction it starts an entire review
process where staff goes through a series of meetings and reviews on what exactly
is being requested. Both RCTC staff and Metrolink provide feedback on the actual
infrastructure that is proposed to be built so prior to it coming to the committee
for a request to surplus staff has gone through an extensive series of meetings
with the developers. She asked Erick Gutierrez when the first meeting had
occurred.
Erick Gutierrez referred to Hector Casillas, Right of Way Manager, to respond.
Hector Casillas replied in January of 2020.
Chair Gregory noted it is confusing because in looking at the item it stated that
staff received a request and it did not include who the developer was until it was
mentioned, which is IDI Development. Since the developer was not included in
the item, he assumed a letter would be attached requesting why the developer
needs this property. Chair Gregory explained from the item it is not what he is
used to seeing as it did not provide enough details and it gets a little hard to
understand how that came about. He noted that it does state it is in support of
this warehouse project, but it is not very specific.
Erick Gutierrez replied it is staff’s desire to address the questions the
Commissioners have, but they are also trying to follow the SLA guidelines and the
first thing is to adopt a resolution of declaration to do that.
8
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 9
Anne Mayer stated it is not uncommon for RCTC to be requested by jurisdictions
and/or developers to surplus land and once it is declared surplus it is a generic
approval independent of who has made the request and who has been engaged
in the process. The decision for the Commission to make is that is this property
needed for public purposes for RCTC purposes yes or no and can it be surplused.
Anne Mayer explained the specifics will come in when staff puts this property out
through the SLA process and they either do or do not get bids on the property it
will come back to the Commission for decisions with specifics named about who
is involved in the transaction. Currently this is a developer in conjunction with the
city they have been working towards approval of this development but when they
surplus the property it may or may not be them who would be the low bidder on
the property.
Chair Gregory replied he is not trying to say that it would matter who asked, he
clarified for the sake of transparency why is it not revealed who asked and it seems
like they went through a very lengthy process, which is great. He understands that
is part of why the Commission does not say they were asked whether that ends
up who gets it and that was part of his question also does staff anticipate who
would get it.
Anne Mayer replied staff does not know and she explained there have been
circumstances before where an individual requested RCTC surplus some property
and the person who requested did not end up being the one RCTC closed escrow
with. She stated there is a lot of uncertainty in the process mainly because the
process is heavily regulated. She understands Chair Gregory’s concerns and wants
to be able to review with legal counsel what is appropriate for staff. She noted
there is the transparency of revealing where the conversation started but by
having open discussions on that does that prejudice against people who might bid
on the property in a public setting. Staff will provide more detail as directed by
legal counsel if it gets through the committee prior to this item going forward to
the Commission in September. Anne Mayer stated whatever is done here will
become RCTC’s process for all surplus land that has been identified and requested
by others to surplus.
Chair Gregory stated that only leaves the third part, which is it might encroach on
the railroad line, and it appears to be split into two parcels. Is RCTC going to
surplus and sell property that possibly in the future somebody may need a grade
separation there or need to put another rail line in there and since the property
was sold RCTC has to try and buy it back. He asked if they are putting RCTC in a
situation or will there be some sort of retained easement where RCTC will have
some type of priority if RCTC needs to use part of that property.
Erick Gutierrez replied yes, it is his understanding an engineering review has been
done on the proposed plans and they looked at it to confirm that it would not
9
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 10
impact capacity and RCTC’s rail operations for any future projects that RCTC has
on that rail line.
Anne Mayer stated at Case and Mapes Roads there is already a street crossing
there where RCTC’s railroad tracks cross at that location it is just being moved to
a different location and she is assuming whoever acquires this property because
it will be a public street it will be deeded over to the city for public right of way.
RCTC has railroad crossings at street right of ways through out the entire length
of their corridor. If they ever were to come back, they have agreements with
Perris about each of RCTC’s railroad crossings, so if RCTC wanted to add additional
track through there it would go through a normal permitting process with the city
because it is an active Public Utilities Commission designated railroad crossing. It
would be no different than any other crossing that RCTC has, and she asked legal
counsel at any of the rail crossings depends on the crossing whether RCTC has
prior rights or not. A. Haviva Shane, legal counsel, replied she does not know.
Anne Mayer stated staff would have to look as there is a whole series of prior
rights determinations for every railroad crossing that RCTC has and in many cases
that old railroad right of way was there before street right of ways, in some cases
it is not. Whoever has prior rights at the location is what dictates how they have
the transaction, so it would be on a case-by-case basis. She noted they generally
do not have issues with RCTC’s member agencies related to railroad crossing.
Chair Gregory expressed concern that the Commission will surplus this and they
do not know who will end up with it and then at some point they end up wanting
to do some type of project through there and they realized that they should have
established a right of way before they surplused it or maybe only licensed a
portion of it for some use. He wanted to make sure the Commission is looking at
those things because he does not want someone coming back in 50 years and
saying what was the Commission doing surplusing this property to help a
warehouse when there were other options the Commission could have
undertaken.
At this time, Commissioner Dennis Woods left the meeting.
Anne Mayer stated that sort of determination is considered each time they surplus
property. Staff looks at will RCTC ever need this property again and is what is
being requested of RCTC feasible in terms of their future use. There are several
areas where they have not sold the property as RCTC had agreed to a license
agreement for the very reason it was mentioned is that they think there might be
a possibility they may need it in the future, so RCTC has done long term license
agreements. She explained it is a long term license agreement and RCTC gives
them two years notice to remove anything they have on the property so RCTC can
have it back. Anne Mayer explained every single surplus property staff reviews
10
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 11
goes through that kind of analysis before it even comes to the Commission for
review and if in the public process the bids that come in does not meet RCTC’s
requirements the Commission does not have to surplus it. She stated as an
example, if the high bidder came in on the property and had a proposed different
use for the property then RCTC would not sell it. She clarified RCTC would not
surplus this property but for public use at a street crossing.
Chair Gregory stated the part that is not clear is once RCTC surplused it, it goes
into this whole process where even other public entities have certain rights too,
but RCTC does not necessarily have to sell it to them if it ends up not being in the
best interest of the Commission.
Anne Mayer concurred and stated that RCTC is agnostic with respect to whatever
the development is from RCTC’s standpoint it is irrelevant whether the
development proposal is a warehouse or a medical building or affordable housing.
If the city is conditioning a project for street improvements that is the only thing
that staff is considering.
Lisa Mobley, Administrative Services Director/Clerk of the Board, stated the
committee just lost their quorum. At this time, Chair Gregory determined the
committee would take a five-minute break until there was a quorum.
At this time, Commissioner Dennis Woods rejoined the meeting.
Chair Gregory made the motion to approve staff’s recommendation and
requested that this item be on discussion at the September Commission meeting.
M/S/C (Gregory/White) to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-017 “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Declaring Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54221 that Various Portions of Parcels of Real Property Owned by
the Commission Located at Assessor Parcel Numbers 310-160-039, 330-
090-023, 327-210-006, and 327-210-008 in Perris, California, are Non-
Exempt Surplus Land, Approving the Form of Notice of Availability
Therefor, Authorizing the Executive Director to Comply with the Surplus
Land Act, and Finding the Foregoing Categorically Exempt from CEQA
Review”;
2) If no response for the non-exempt surplus property is received from
public agencies, developers, and/or contiguous landowners, authorize
the Executive Director to offer the surplus property for sale to the public;
and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 12
12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
• Anne Mayer announced on August 19 Mobility 21 had its first post-pandemic in-
person Summit, it was very well attended and expressed appreciation to
Commissioners Gregory and White for attending. Chair Perez was on a panel with
his colleagues from the other counties talking about issues of critical importance
to Riverside County. There were several other commissioners, the California State
Transportation Agency’s Secretary Toks Omishakin, and the new Caltrans Director
Tony Tavares that attended as well. The keynote speaker at lunch was retired
football player Eric Dickerson and John Standiford, RCTC’s former Deputy
Executive Director, was recognized for a lifetime achievement upon his
retirement.
13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
13A. Chair Gregory announced the Mobility 21 Summit was a great event and there
were about 1,000 people in attendance and there were representatives from all
the different agencies from many of the large companies that particularly do work
on roadways, freeways, consulting work, transit, and clean energy. He noted Anne
Mayer was also on a panel and did a very nice job along with the other executive
directors, elected officials, and other experts. He noted it also shows that the
Commission here in Riverside County is undertaking so many different initiatives
that others are maybe just looking at or thinking about. Chair Gregory expressed
appreciation to Anne Mayer, RCTC staff, and the work of the Commission when
held up to the optics there of that kind of conference gives them the opportunity
to look at.
Anne Mayer noted she came in last in the Jeopardy game that she and her
colleagues played in front of 1,000 people at Mobility 21 at the end. Chair Gregory
stated he assumed that it was just Ms. Mayer’s modesty, and she did not want to
shame some of her colleagues.
13B. Commissioner Linda Molina commended staff for the Commission’s constant
transparency efforts and their user-friendly approach to business as the
Commission does a lot of business and it is very complex.
12
RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes
August 22, 2022
Page 13
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Administrative Services
Director/Clerk of the Board
13
AGENDA ITEM 6B
Agenda Item 6B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: October 24, 2022
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: Alicia Johnson, Senior Procurement Analyst
Jose Mendoza, Procurement Manager
THROUGH: Matthew Wallace, Deputy Director of Financial Administration
SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the first quarter ended
September 30, 2022; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
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.
There are no contracts to report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2022, under the single
signature authority granted to the Executive Director. The unused capacity of single signature
authority for services as of September 30, 2022, is $2,000,000.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2022
14
CONTRACT #
CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT REMAINING
CONTRACT AMOUNT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2022
$2,000,000.00
No Contracts to report for first quarter
AMOUNT USED 0.00
$2,000,000.00
None N/A $- $- $-
Alicia Johnson Matthew Wallace
Prepared by Reviewed by
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2022
Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the first quarter.
AMOUNT REMAINING through September 30, 2022
Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C)
V:\2022\11 November\B&I\6B.AJ.A1.SingleSignQ1
15
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: October 24, 2022
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: Eric DeHate, Transit Manager
THROUGH: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director
SUBJECT: Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee Transit Needs Public
Hearing Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee
(CSTAC) Transit Needs Public Hearing; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The California State Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that transportation planning
agencies ensure the establishment of a citizens’ participation process for each county. This
process includes an element in which the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99238.5
states, “The transportation planning agency shall ensure the establishment and implementation
of a citizen participation process appropriate for each county. The process shall include a provision
for at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction represented by the social services transportation
advisory council.”
The purpose of the public hearing is to garner public participation and solicit input from transit
dependent and transit disadvantaged persons, including the elderly, disabled and persons of
limited means. The CSTAC fulfills the citizens advisory council and the social services
transportation advisory council TDA requirements. It consists of up to 13 members of the public
and two (2) Consolidated Transportation Service Agency members from Riverside Transit Agency
and SunLine Transit Agency. The committee assists the Commission in fulfilling TDA regulations
by promoting transportation service improvements and enhancements that support the mobility
of older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means. It also establishes an
effective communication exchange among Riverside County’s public transit operators, local
specialized transit providers, and representatives from diverse transit dependent populations
regarding matters of mutual concern.
This year the public hearing was held on August 8, 2022, during the CSTAC regularly scheduled
meeting. The public hearing was advertised by transit operators, specialized transit providers,
16
Agenda Item 7
and other stakeholders on buses, facilities, and social media. Staff also published a 30-day
hearing notice in The Press-Enterprise, The Desert Sun, and The Palo Verde Times. The following
methods were made available to the public to submit comments via oral or written testimony:
1) Email at info@rctc.org.
2) Postal Mail to:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Attn: Transit Needs Public Hearing Comments
P. O. Box 12008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208
3) Via the website at www.rctc.org/contact-us/.
4) By phone at (951) 787-7141
In-person via video/teleconference on Monday, August 8, 2022, at 11:00am at the CSTAC
meeting
Typically, the CSTAC receives about two (2) to four (4) comments during the public hearing
process. Staff provides the comments to the appropriate transit operator(s) for consideration
and follow-up as needed. However, this year the CSTAC received 46 public comments, which are
provided in Attachment 1. Staff provided the comments to the appropriate transit operators.
A summary of the types of comments received is as follows:
Public Comment Category No. of
Comments*
Geographic Area(s)
New Service 34 Menifee, Temescal Valley
Frequency 4 Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Valley
Bus Stop Improvements 3 Menifee, Perris, Hemet
Safety 3 Moreno Valley, Coachella Valley
Vehicle Maintenance 2 Coachella Valley
Restore Service 1 Wildomar
Schedule Changes 1 Hemet
Dial-A-Ride 1 Perris
Fares 1 Perris
Other 2 Hemet, Coachella Valley
*Some comments included multiple topics of concern.
This is a receive and file item and there is no fiscal impact.
Attachment: CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
17
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
1Bus stop, Dial‐A‐Ride, Fares
Just to say thank you to the Commission for the Great Work they have done in
these hard times. My suggestions are 1. The new bus stop on Route 41 heading to
Mead Valley via Perris in the city of Perris on the side of the Pulte Homes on Evans
Blvd. and Anira CT can you put a sign there as soon as possible because some of us
residents that have moved in do need that bus stop. 2. Can you put the new Pulte
home‐Stratford Place on Dial ‐Aride so that we seniors can start using the Dial‐Aride
from here. Also do you plan on lowering Dial‐A Ride back to $1 or even $2 per ride
since the regular bus is back to 25c for that we are grateful as well Kudos to you all.
Shalom, Sister Kaycee frequent rider care giver rider with clients
Sister Kaycee Perris
2Bus Stop, Frequency
To Whom It May Concern: I see that RTA ridership is still way down compared to
pre‐pandemic times. Thank you for the opportunity to share my observations. I
understand the necessity of efficiency in every business.
When the Bus Stops are taken away, it hurts my ability to travel. Some Stops are
already too far apart, unless one is using a mobility device, for which I do not
qualify. Over the course of a year, I ride 9 different RTA routes. Frequency of #33
and #42 is 110 minutes, except for the second trip which is 105 minutes.
(Prepandemic there were 3 busses that shared these two Routes, and they started
earlier and ended later ‐ that made riding much easier than the current schedules.)
Two to three times a week, I use these busses for local shopping trips. I live within
the quarter mile radius of the intersection of these two busses, Kirby and Fruitvale,
in Hemet. They are critical beginnings to all my travel. The Hemet Mall "Terminal" is
a 1.3 mile walk. When I have to connect too early or late to use #33 or #42, it
becomes necessary for me to walk to/from Hemet Mall to get to it or return from
it. If the Hemet Bus Terminal is taken away from Hemet Mall and moved to Lyon, I
will be unable to walk to/from the proposed new Terminal. I am a retired senior
without a car. I have been riding RTA for more than 9 years.
It is nice to have #28 in Hemet, running every 40 minutes. It is not my favorite thing
to wait an hour to transfer from #28 to #27 at Perris. I do this trip approximately
once a month. I then connect with #200 at Tyler mall and then another bus
company.
One trip I take 6+ times per month, requires 2 RTA busses: one Route's frequency is
70 min apart & one is 110 minutes apart. Very difficult. I then connect with another
bus company. I feel it is important for Major Transfer points to be near bus friendly
eateries,
(Walmart which has Subway or other Fast Food Restaurants) where one is welcome
to buy a snack and wash ones hands. The beautiful Perris Transit is an example of
this oversight
Nancy Townsend Hemet
3 Frequency
Translated to English "Good afternoon, I made a mistake on the schedule. Instead
of stopping at 1:50, it should stop at 2 because there are several students waiting
just like us. thank you, hopefully you will take it into account."
Ma.Dolores Medina Lake Elsinore
4 Frequency
To whom it may concern. We need a more frequent bus route on Temescal Canyon
road with more additional hours and stops
Thank you
Tanya B Johnson
Tanya Johnson Temescal Valley
5 Frequency
Translated to English "Good morning, I'm a housewife and I don't have a car. I take
my girls to Lakeland school, and they leave 10 [minutes] after the bus passes and
we have to wait an hour for the next bus, can your take into account running the
schedule 10 [minutes earlier]?"
Ma.Dolores Medina Lake Elsinore
6New Service
Temescal Valley need and want a Fixed Bus Route NOW . My husband and I are
both seniors and this would be very helpful to us as well as our grandchildren.
Thank you
Armila Horne Temescal Valley
7New Service
For as long as I've been involved in the Temescal Valley community, I've felt that
our area has not received its "fair share of the pie" in services provided by Riverside
County. Temescal Valley has over 26,000 residents, and yet does not have a fixed
bus route that services our area. Our transportation issues are massive and well‐
known, yet we have no viable options. The needs of our students, general public,
seniors, veterans, and disabled citizens should be considered ‐ and now is the time
for action. Our quality of life has suffered long enough. I respectfully request that
our transportation needs finally be addressed by providing the Temescal Valley
with a fixed bus route. Thank you.
Barbara Paul Temescal Valley
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
18
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
8New Service
I am emailing in regards to public transportation in the Temescal valley area! This is
long overdue. Our nearest high schools are 8 plus miles away. We are a steadily
growing city and definitely need buses. With all the traffic on the 15 freeway and
gas prices at an all time high, having a city bus would help us tremendously. We
have many seniors in the trilogy area whom do not drive and simply cannot afford
Ubers and Lyfts. We have families who need to get their kids to school and have to
work at the same time. Having a bus can give one independence. I am voting yes on
bringing a city bus to Temescal Valley!
Cassie Gilbertson Temescal Valley
9New Service
Dear Commissioners,
As a development consultant and community volunteer, I work on several projects
in the Temescal Valley area and along the corridor
between Corona and Lake Elsinore. There is definitely a need for a "fixed bus route"
to connect the two cities and serve the unincorporated area of Temescal Valley.
The route will provide an alternate mode of transportation for workers and
students to get to their jobs and/or schools. With the traffic congestion on the 15
freeway being as it is and the ridiculously high costs of gas, the residents need a
cost effective way to travel.
Over 26,000 residents live in the Valley and more homes and businesses are
coming. There is an opportunity here to relieve traffic by getting some of these cars
off the freeway and have people use mass transit. Most importantly, there are
currently two 55 and older communities in Temescal Valley as well as at least one
mobile home park and an RV Park. Also, a possible assisted living facility is in the
works. It is imperative that the older and disabled residents have access to the
County's Dial A Ride Program that seems to be only available to persons living
within 3/4 of a mile of a "fixed route". As Temescal Valley continues to grow, please
consider the rising number of seniors already living in the area or moving to
Temescal Valley.
Please recommend that a "the fixed route" be planned and approved, thus enabling
this "at risk" population the ability to get around and be active in the community
through the use of a "Dial A Ride"
Thank you in advance,
Chris Mardis Temescal Valley
10 New Service
I reside in Temescal Valley. We have 26,000 residents and no fixed bus route. Our
area will be expanding with future planned developments. Between our traffic
issues, inflation, concerns about greenhouse gases and the price of gas, people
need reliable transportation. Many cannot afford to buy a car at this difficult time.
Virtually all of us live too far away from resources and services to walk. Please
strongly consider adding a fixed bus
route to our area. Thank you for your time.
Cynthia Hafner Temescal Valley
11 New Service
To Whom It May Concern:
There are over 26,000 residents in Temescal Valley. With this growth, we still
remain isolated from shopping, doctors, Middle and High schools and other
services. Walking is not an option when you are 4 miles or more from your errands,
especially if you have to carry shopping or books home. Please give us a fixed bus
route.
Respectfully,
Erica Leon Temescal Valley
12 New Service
Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route. Our I‐15 corridor has too many
commuters from the southern parts of the county. With a bus, I can go to the
doctor at Riverside Medical Clinic, shop at Trader Joes and other local shops.
Now is the time
Fred
Fred Vogelgesang Temescal Valley
13 New Service
To whom it may concern;
Temescal Valley is lacking a fixed bus route along with Dial a Ride for Seniors. My
mother lives in one of the two over 55 communities in Temescal Valley and is no
longer able to drive. Having Dial a Ride would enable her to have a little more
freedom as it would other Seniors in the same predicament. I was disappointed
when I found out there was no such service for the Senior living communities in
Temescal Valley even though they have quite a high volume of residents. Seniors
without cars who have to rely on family and friends feel isolated and suffer a loss of
independence without a bus service. Hoping that my concerns for bus service and
Dial a Ride are heard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
G Cape
Gabbi Cape Temescal Valley
19
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
14 New Service
To Whom it May concern:
I’m a senior citizen, but growing up I took the bus everywhere. As a teen, it was my
transportation to school, to entertainment venues and to the beach. As a young
adult, I took the bus to college and to my first job!
I’m a resident of Temescal Valley – an unincorporated county community with
more than 26,000 residents and no fixed bus route. My grandson lives with us. If
we had a fixed bus route, he could have taken the bus to El Cerrito Middle School
when he was a student there. Instead, his grandfather drove him to and picked him
up from school every day. My elderly sister lived with us for 13 months last year.
No longer able to drive, if we had a fixed bus route she could have availed herself of
the Dial‐ARide
program. Instead, I drove her to doctor and dental appointments.
Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route.
Temescal Valley has two sizable age‐specific communities – Trilogy and Terramor,
and soon will be getting an assisted living center to accommodate 216 additional
senior residents. Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route. We’ve had commercial
and industrial enterprises discouraged in locating here because of the current
Vehicle Miles Traveled formula used in environmental impact reports and/or
mitigated negative impact reviews
require a fixed bus route to lower the percentage of acceptable miles traveled.
Temescal Valley needs a fixed bus route.
With the push coming from Sacramento for local governments to utilize
alternatives to the automobile for transportation mobility, without a fixed bus
route, Temescal Valley folks have no alternative but to rely on their private vehicles
for transportation needs.
Please consider a fixed bus route for Temescal Valley.
Thank you …
Jannlee Watson
Jannlee Watson Temescal Valley
15 New Service
Dear Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee,
This letter shall serve as support for a Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Fixed Bus
Route along the Temescal Canyon Road. The RTA fixed bus route would run
between the cities of Lake Elsinore and Corona. This RTA bus route is needed for
the following reasons.
Mitigate traffic congestion on the Interstate 15 prior to and following the
development of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension project.
To support the expected development of 2,559 new residential units and the
development of 7.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial space in the
Temescal Valley.
Support employee transportation to and from new commercial/industrial places of
employment Connect current Temescal Valley Residents to commercial centers not
available in the Temescal Valley. This would minimize round trip vehicle travel and
reduce green house gas emissions.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Regards,
Jerry Sincich
Jerry Sincich Temescal Valley
16 New Service
We have over 26k residents ‐ it is an essential need for our continually growing
community ‐ keep us off the Cajalco
crush and let the Dial A Ride program lift us from the loneliness COVID brought to
so many.
With thanks for your time.
Joan Valentine
California Meadows
Joan Valentine Temescal Valley
17 New Service
I am trapped in a transportation desert. I don’t drive and I have no vehicle. A bus
route would be a lifesaver for me and other senior citizens. Please consider the
needs of Temescal Valley residents by establishing a fixed bus route.
Jolinda Curtin Temescal Valley
18 New Service
I am a senior resident of Te mescal Valley. I do not drive and have to rely on my
neighbors for rides for medical appointments, grocery shopping and banking. A
fixed bus route would be a lifesaver for me and many other residents of Temescal
Valley. Please consider establishing a fixed bus route for our area.
Jolinda Curtin Temescal Valley
19 New Service
A bus route is essenƟal for the people of Temescal Valley. The freeways are clogged
with 2 senior communities needing to get to medical appts, shopping, services in
Corona & Lk. Elsinore.
Thank you, Leeann Woodruff
Leeann Woodruff Temescal Valley
20
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
20 New Service
Please, with the building of so many new homes, Temescal Valley needs a transit
system. Please put a bus line through this growing community and help free up the
15, 91 and Temescal Canyon Road as much as possible.
Linda Thompson Temescal Valley
21 New Service
There are over 26,000 residents in Temescal Valley. With this growth, we still
remain isolated from shopping, doctors, Middle and High schools and other
services. Walking is not an option when you are 4 miles or more from your errands,
especially if you have to carry shopping or books home. Please give us a fixed bus
route.
Lori Gray Temescal Valley
22 New Service
We need a Dial A Ride Option near Tom’s Farms bus stop. It needs to run frequently
during the day, we have a large senior 55+ community in the area and a lot of these
people no longer drive and need to get to shops.
Pauline Ingrao Temescal Valley
23 New Service
We are located in the Trilogy community in unincorporated area of Temescal
Valley. We have a number of disabled, seniors and veteran residents who no longer
drive that have transportation needs. Having a bus service route and the
accompanying
availability of Dial A Ride services is extremely important to our area.
Richard and Sue Lewis Temescal Valley
24 New Service
I would like to put out for the meeting on Monday that we get a fixed transit route
in Temescal Valley. We have 26,000 residents in
this area and with present price of operating a vehicle it would be a benefit to our
community for member to get around. With
people on fixed income and retire communities this can give us access to Dial a
Ride for the community members who need it.
Please establish a fixed bus route in Temescal Valley. Thank you for your time.
Robert Hafner Temescal Valley
25 New Service Need bus routes and n Temescal Canyon Road Robert Richardson Temescal Valley
26 New Service
Hello
I've been a resident of Temescal Valley for 12 years. I personally have never used
public transit in this area. I have however worked
with numerous families and youth who need to use it on a daily basis for work or
school. I work for the school district. I have taught
students how to read the bus schedule and to download the app to their phone.
For many families public transit and the kindness of others us their most reliable
and affordable means of transportation. We live in an area that geographically
makes it difficult to walk or ride a bike to places. Or it is just too far. Public transit
gives young students the ability to work and attend school without relying on
others fostering independence and confidence. A fixed route would lead to a more
stable community for our residents.
Thank you
Robin Davenport
Robin Davenport Temescal Valley
27 New Service
I live in Temescal Valley. We are sorely in need of public transportation in this area.
Currently, the only RTA bus that comes through here is a commuter bus that stops
at Tom's Farms only on weekday early mornings and evenings and has very limited
stops.
The Corona Cruiser is the next nearest bus, but the distances of 4.1 miles away for
Dos Lagos (which has Saturday service only) and 5.6 miles for The Crossings makes
it impractical to utilize those routes. How convenient it would be to take a bus from
my
home in Temescal Valley to Dos Lagos or The Crossings!
With both our senior and school age populations on the rise, the convenience of a
fixed bus route connecting our community to shopping centers, schools, and other
businesses and transportation hubs would be of great benefit.
Ruth Brissenden Temescal Valley
28 New Service
Hi ,
We need a fixed route in Temescal valley, so I can take a bus to the station easily
and take my eBike with me to work m. My dad is disabled and he can also take
advantage of the fix route because dial a ride can then come to us if we are under
three quarters of the route. We are located on temescal canyon and mojeska
summit rs.
Saad Awais Temescal Valley
29 New Service
Hello,
In Temescal Valley we are desperate for alternative transportation. We need a bus
route to provide that. Please consider helping the residents young and mature to
get to where we need to be. Our area has a 7/100 walkability score according to
Redfin.
Thank you,
Sarah Bravo
Sarah Bravo Temescal Valley
21
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
30 New Service
I am writing to voice my concerns about there are not any busing to get my son to
and from Liberty High School in Menifee. There is not adequate sidewalks or
shoulders in the roads roads on Garbani and Leon or even Scott Road for my son to
be able to walk or ride his bicycle safely. The nightmare of cars lined up in four
lanes and parked all over around the outside of the school is a nightmare to
navigate and very time consuming for parents trying to quickly pick up their child
and get back to work. Some parents like myself cannot always be there at 3:30 to
pick up their child and there's no safe plan for them to walk or ride their bicycle
home instead. Buses are very much needed for this high school especially with the
location out of the way from most things in Menifee and the not developed areas
that surround it. There will need to be several buses to accommodate the very large
class especially the freshman class this year attending liberty high school. Busing
should have been on the agenda prior to Liberty High School ever opening with the
conditions I mentioned earlier in this email. This was not well planned and thought
out for the working parents. It's even more difficult for single parents such as
myself who do not have someone else to call to pick up my child when I'm at work.
This issue is more needed for after school then it is for the morning.
Stephanie Walker Menifee
31 New Service
There are over 26,000 residents in Temescal Valley. With this growth, we still
remain isolated from shopping, doctors, Middle and High schools and other
services. Walking is not an option when you are 4 miles or more from your errands,
especially if you have to carry shopping or books home. Please give us a fixed bus
route.
Tracy Davis Temescal Valley
32 New Service Please add a new bus route Temescal Valley. I won't add more than what I wrote in,
but we have a large elderly community that does not have access to Dial‐A‐Ride Jannlee Watson Temescal Valley
33 New Service
Tracy Davis has a friend that needs Dial‐A‐Ride and needs to walk two miles to Dos
Lagos. She is not aged qualified for Dial‐A‐Ride. This isn't just for elderly people but
for all people in the area.
Tracy Davis Temescal Valley
34 New Service
I am writing to request that morning and afternoon stops be added to allow
students to safely transition between Liberty High School (Menifee) and the
Spencer's Crossing neighborhood (Murrieta). At this current time, there is no safe
way that students residing in Spencer's Crossing or neighboring areas can SAFELY
walk or bike to Liberty High School as there is no sidewalk/walkway for them to
use. The speed limit on Leon Road is 50 mph, and since I use this road every day, I
know that drivers do not abide by the posted speed limit. This is a tragedy waiting
to happen, especially during peek hours, when everyone is in a rush to get places
and students are walking alongside the busy, high‐speed road. Thank you for your
consideration and for considering the safety of our children.
Anna Price Menifee
35 New Service
Please add more stops over by Liberty High School and one dropping off at Liberty!
So many students need rides, including my daughter. Thank you!
Best,
Hannah DeMarti
Hannah DeMarti Menifee
36 New Service
Parent has a student that attends Liberty High School. There was a bus stop nearly
two miles near Leon rd. Could a new stop be added and times be added for the
school schedule.
Marcia Menifee
37 New Service
Xavier Padilla works at Liberty high school and wondered if they can add a bus stop
near Liberty High School because the closest bus stop is nearly a mile a way.
Voicing concerns of parents and faculty. This is a safety issue.
Xavier Padilla Menifee
38 New Service
As a disabled person in Temescal Valley we must have a fixed bus route. I cannot
drive and the social worker assigned to me could find no help in Riverside County
unless I lived in specific cities. She was shocked as most of the country has services
for the elderly and disabled. To be behind what rural Red states provide should be
embarrassing but I have made requests for years and it seems like no one actually
cares about anyone in the area that happens to be disabled or elderly.
Stacey Mitchell Temescal Valley
22
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
39 New Service, Bus stop
To Whom This May Concern,
I am a driver with Riverside Transit Agency, that has lived in Southwest Riverside
County since 1983. I am honored to be employed in public transit, here in the
community I grew up
in. I have seen this once "small‐town" expand to the community we are today! Not
only am I a driver for Riverside Transit Agency, but also a homeowner within the
growing community of Menifee and am currently raising children that are in High
school & Elementary.
There are a couple areas of improvement that I feel needs to be addressed:
The 1st being added bus service, or offer school trippers, within the Menifee area
of Scott Rd & Leon for the New High School, Liberty High School (Perris Union
School District) this school has opened up last year in August of 2021. I know many
parents are in need of some type of assistance with transportation to & from the
school, especially with the new start times for high school students, along with the
location of the school. The area is very desolate, with no safe walking paths or
sidewalks, along with more building currently underway. As an employee I know
that we do " School Trippers" for couple of schools throughout the County. I am
sending this email hoping that the idea can be considered for Liberty Highschool
Another stop that I notice needs to be considered is a stop along route 19 is
Webster & Ramona Expressway I have a couple of passengers every morning that
work at the warehouses on Romona Expressway, they end up crossing Romona
expressway to get to the Wherehouse's located in that area & traffic is very high at
all times of the day I'm just thinking the safety of the passengers. maybe we can
extend service across Ramona Express way on Webster??
Thank You for this opportunity of allowing me to voice my opinion as a driver.
Roxanne Miller Menifee
40 Other
Ms. Townsend stated that since the Sears has closed at the Hemet Mall, there is no
place to stay cool waiting for a bus. She stated that if a bus could be used as a
cooling station in that area or in the mall parking lot, it would greatly help as she
has to wait more than 30 minutes for her bus.”
Nancy Townsend Hemet
41 Other
Good morning board chair and county supervisors my name is Anthony Garcia. I
was born in Indio and raised in Coachella. I have lived in the Coachella Valley all my
life. I rode sunbus when I was a child. That's what inspired me to be a bus operator
and have proudly served sunline transit agency for over 26 years. I have seen the
changes throughout the valley. I also know who uses our service, who is impacted
by our service, and who needs our service. I was told by a sunline Board Member at
our last Board meeting that I was mindless and that they need to find a way to
make me stop. Another board member, 2nd what they said, and added that we
needed to present facts. Shame on them. As they continue to support this general
manager when they should be supporting the working class, front line works,
person with disabilities, and transit riders who need our public transit service. Fact
is I've work in the public transit sector longer than the Lauren Skiver, sunline's
general manager and her management team that she put there. I am saddened by
what's happened to our transit agency. I ask you, supervisors, is sunline a fueling
station or a public transit agency? It's been well over 15 years since we've
purchased a new CNG bus. Yet, we produce and sell CNG fuel. According to
Anthony Garcia Coachella Valley
42 Restore Service Please reestablish service from Wildomar to Oceanside Hector Ancyra Wildomar
43 Safety, Restore Service
2 comments: 1) Drivers should be given the OK to refuse service to mentally ill
residents behavior with excessive items brought on the bus. 2) Route 18
southbound to Moreno Valley College needs to return. Disservice to the residents
in that area for low income and economically challenged
Joel Johnson Moreno Valley
23
Attachment 1
No. Concern Public Comment Commentor Name Community
CSTAC Public Hearing Comment Log
44 Safety, Vehicle Maintenance
Having problems with hydrogen vehicles and glitches in these systems when people
are waiting in 120 degree weather. I ask that you look into these unsafe vehicles
and help us provide a change as far as going forward with the technology. Green is
good, but these buses aren't working in the desert. They are creating a safety issue
and leaving passengers behind in a system that's not working to provide them to go
to work and doctors, etc. Drivers are getting assaulted, spit on all because these
buses are breaking down and the next driver is coming in and taking the heat from
the passengers. I have been there for 26 years, I love my job, but if we continue to
the change for hydrogen, we need to look into safety. the steering wheels shut off.
I mean the bus shuts off without any warning and the steering wheel gets hard and
creates an unsafe working condition. Thank you.
Anthony Garcia Coachella Valley
45 Safety, Vehicle Maintenance
SunLine member for about 15 years now. My topic mimics Anthony's because we
have buses that are braking down. They shut off completely in the middle of the
freeway and when these hydrogen buses stop, you have to completely shut it off
and wait to go through the motions again to restart and then start it again all
hoping you are not going to rear ended on the 10 freeway. These things will shut
off like this in the middle of an intersection when you are making a turn. These
vehicles are just not working in the desert at all. It is entirely too hot for these
vehicles and then we end up leaving passengers stranded waiting for another bus
and at times and the next bus that comes up is broken down. We just had two
buses broken down the other day. Two buses were towed in at the same time. We
have chronic problems now with driver assaults, passenger assaults on buses,
attempted hijackings, and we have had a murder on a bus. They are just not safe
anymore. With the whole service, something needs to be done and we ask you to
look into this. Thank you.
Joseph Rake Coachella Valley
46 Schedule Changes
Mr. Ruben uses google transit to plan his trips using RTA services in the Hemet –
San Jacinto area.
With the recent RTA schedule changes, the buses that used to stop at Lincoln and
Florida Avenue now stop at Chicago and Florida which is more difficult for me. Mr.
Ruben states that the buses are not on schedule and the layover at Chicago is now
close to 30 minutes. Mr. Ruben also called 511 and they did not have the updated
schedule. What is being displayed google transit is not reality.
Please correct the issue
Alton Ruben Hemet
24
CITIZENS AND SPECIALIZED TRANSIT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSIT
NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE
Eric DeHate, Transit Manager 1
Budget and Implementation Committee
October 24, 2022
Background
2
•Transportation Development Act PUC 99238.5
–Establish a Citizen Participation Process
–Hold one public hearing represented by Social
Services Transportation Advisory Council
•RCTC created Citizens and Specialized Transit
Advisory Committee (CSTAC)
•13 members of the public and two (2) CTSA’s
•Assists the Commission in fulfilling its TDA regulations
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Background (cont.)
3
•Public Hearing was held on August 8, 2022
–Advertised by transit operators, specialized transit
providers and other stakeholders
–30-day notice in The Press Enterprise, The Desert Sun and
The Palo Verde Times
–Comments were made by email, phone, letter or verbally
at the hearing
•Comments and Feedback
–46 public comments received
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Background (cont.)
4
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Staff Recommendation
5
1.Receive and file an update on CSTAC Transit Needs Public
Hearing; and
2.Forward to the Commission for final action.
OCTOBER 24, 2022
QUESTIONS
6
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: October 24, 2022
TO: Budget and Implementation Committee
FROM: David Knudsen, External Affairs Director
THROUGH: Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State Update
The Legislature concluded its 2022 session by sending 1,166 bills to Governor Gavin Newsom for
signature or veto. By October 1, 2022, the Governor signed 997 bills and vetoed 169 bills, a veto
rate of 14.5 percent.
The 169 bills vetoed by the Governor included ones opposed by RCTC, including AB 1951
(Grayson). The bill would have expanded the existing sales and use tax exemption for new
equipment purchases by manufacturers, to include local voter-approved sales and use taxes for
the next five years. While understanding the economic benefits that an expanded manufacturer’s
sales tax exemption could bring, RCTC submitted a veto request to Governor Newsom on
September 8 on the grounds that including local sales taxes in the exemption could harm RCTC’s
ability to build the infrastructure needed to support residents and the local, state, and national
economy. Beyond sales tax revenue alone, the bill would have also impacted RCTC’s ability to
finance infrastructure improvements backed by projected Measure A revenue. The Governor’s
veto message echoed concerns regarding impact transportation services and other local
government functions.
Another bill vetoed by the Governor was AB 2438 (Friedman). AB 2438 would have integrated
strategies identified in the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) into
various transportation funding programs and required future iterations of the California
Transportation Plan to be fiscally constrained. On September 8, staff sent a letter to the
Governor requesting he veto AB 2438. RCTC was joined by several labor groups, the Self-Help
Counties Coalition, the California Association of Councils of Governments, the San Bernardino
25
Agenda Item 8
County Transportation Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and other
transportation advocacy groups, in its opposition to the bill due to concerns about the potential
for it to impact the ability of transportation planning agencies to invest in operational
improvements on roadways and highways while transiting to multimodal transit systems. In his
veto message, the Governor indicated that the state is already taking the climate action called
for in the legislation and expressed concern for language that would have codified the first
version of CAPTI, precluding the state from adapting the plan in the future.
Governor Newsom did sign SB 1121 by Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair of the Senate Transportation
Committee. Supported by RCTC, the bill requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC)
every five years to develop a needs assessment of the cost to operate, maintain, and provide for
the future growth and resiliency of the state and local transportation system. In developing the
needs assessment, the CTC would be required to consult with relevant stakeholders, including,
but not limited to, metropolitan planning organizations, county transportation commissions,
regional transportation planning agencies, local governments, and transit operators. In addition,
the bill requires the CTC to estimate the cost to provide for future growth of the state and local
transportation system in the needs assessment and must include the cost to address climate
change impacts. RCTC previously opposed AB 2237 (Friedman) and AB 2438 (Friedman) due to
concerns regarding legislative efforts that prematurely restructure how transportation projects
are planned, funded, and delivered, without a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure and
service need, nor increased funding and regulatory flexibility. RCTC supported SB 1121 because
it provides a meaningful first step as the state explores how to advance climate action goals by
transitioning our transportation systems to multimodal transit alternatives.
The Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 2594, authored by Assemblymember Phil
Ting. AB 2594 changes various processes in the enforcement and collection of tolls and
associated penalties, the sale of transponders and other electronic toll collection device
mechanisms, and how rental cars can use the toll facilities. The bill was primarily informed by a
report authored by the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR),
a non-profit organization based in the Bay Area focused on advocating for increased equity and
sustainability in urban planning and project design. While the Commission did not take a formal
position on AB 2594, staff working with the other toll agencies within the California Toll Operators
Committee and the author’s office agreed on several amendments that removed the general
opposition of all toll agencies within the state. Although the bill had numerous amendments, it
will still enact several new requirements focused on creating added equity in the operation of
toll facilities. This includes allowing for payment plans, revising state statutory limits on toll
penalties, and allowing for more consistency in customer service across toll agencies. As a result
of these successful negotiations, the author of the bill has also agreed to explore the potential
for future legislation to address concerns toll agencies have advocated over the last few years
related to interoperability requirements and communications.
The Legislature is adjourned until December 5, 2022.
26
Agenda Item 8
State Budget Update
In a sign of fiscal caution, many of the bills vetoed by Governor Newsom relate to ongoing
spending obligations that were not negotiated within the budget. This is significant not just for
the outlook for future budgets, but also for the future year spending proposed in budget
packages. Unless funds are specifically allocated in a given budget for that fiscal year, any funds
that are otherwise proposed for future fiscal years are not binding and therefore may not come
to fruition. While one-time spending was increase due to the unprecedented budget surplus, the
California Department of Finance announced that revenues are coming in roughly $4.4 billion
below what was projected earlier this year.
Federal Update
FY 2023 Appropriations Bills
On September 30, 2022, President Biden signed a Continuing Resolution that will fund the federal
government through December 16th. Because Congress has yet to pass any of the
12 appropriations, negotiations will continue in order to reach an agreement on spending levels
that will allow these bills to pass when Congress returns after the midterm elections. Two
Community Project Funding requests remain pending – a $3 million request from Representative
Calvert for the 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension and a $3 million request from Representative
Takano for the Third Street Grade Separation in Riverside.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is a policy and information item. There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments:
1) State and Federal Update Legislative Matrix – October 2022
2) AB 1951 Veto Request Letter
3) Governor’s Veto Message – AB 1951
4) AB 2438 Veto Request Letter
5) Governor’s Veto Message – AB 2438
27
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION – OCTOBER 2022
Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption
AB 1951 (Grayson) This bill would, on and after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2028,
make this a full exemption of sale and use tax for purchases not
exceeding $200,000,000 for qualified manufacturing equipment.
Vetoed by Governor
September 15, 2022
Opposed
Staff action based on platform
Sept. 8, 2022
SB 1121 (Gonzalez) This bill would require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to
develop and update every five years a needs assessment of the cost to
operate, maintain, and provide for the future growth and resiliency of
the state and local transportation system. In developing the needs
assessment, the CTC would be required to consult with relevant
stakeholders, including, but not limited to, metropolitan planning
organizations, county transportation commissions, regional
transportation planning agencies, local governments, and transit
operators. In addition, the bill requires the CTC to estimate the cost to
provide for future growth of the state and local transportation system in
the needs assessment and must include the cost to address climate
change impacts.
Signed by Governor
September 23, 2022
SUPPORT
Staff action based on platform
June 15, 2022
AB 2344 (Friedman) If enacted as written, AB 2344 would require Caltrans, in consultation
with the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), to establish a wildlife
connectivity project list of wildlife passage projects. The bill would
require the list to be included in the wildlife connectivity action plan and
require Caltrans and DFW to prioritize the implementation of projects on
the list based on specified factors, including, among others, the project’s
ability to enhance connectivity and permeability within a connectivity
area or natural landscape area identified in the wildlife connectivity
action plan.
Signed by Governor
September 30, 2022
OPPOSE Unless Amended
Staff action based on platform
June 3, 2022
SB 1410 (Caballero) This bill would require, by January 1, 2025, to conduct and submit to the
Legislature a study on the impacts and implementation of the guidelines
described above relating to transportation impacts. The bill would
require the office, upon appropriation, to establish a grant program to
provide financial assistance to local jurisdictions for implementing those
guidelines.
Failed to pass
Appropriations Committee
August 11, 2022
Support May 11, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1
28
Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 2237 (Friedman) AB 2237 would limit use of State Transportation Improvement Program
funding and reframe the administration of such, while also seeking a
redefinition of the roles and responsibilities for metropolitan planning
organizations
Failed to pass
Transportation Committee
June 16, 2022
OPPOSE May 11, 2022
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.
Vetoed by Governor
September 29, 2022
OPPOSE Staff action based on platform
March 24, 2022
AB 1778 (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.
Failed passage to pass
Senate Committee on
Transportation
June 29, 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 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
29
Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption 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
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
30
September 8, 2022
Governor Gavin Newsom
State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Veto Request – AB 1951 (Grayson)
Dear Governor Newsom:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write in opposition to AB 1951 (Grayson)
and request a veto of this legislation. If chaptered into law, the bill would expand the existing sales and use tax
exemption for new equipment purchases by manufacturers, to include local voter-approved sales and use taxes
for the next five years. This bill could reduce local sales tax revenue by an estimated $2 billion statewide.
Furthermore, the bill could impact both the credit ratings of public agencies that bond against that revenue and
the ability to meet current, future, or both current and future debt service obligations for which sales and use
tax is the pledged source for repayment.
AB 1951 would usurp the will of voters that have already approved transportation sales tax measures and fails
to recognize the depth of funding self-help counties, like Riverside County, invest in transportation statewide.
Riverside County residents approved in 1988 and again in 2002 Measure A, a half-cent sales tax that funds
improvements for all transportation modes, including highways, commuter rail, public transit, rideshare
programs, complete streets, and even habitat conservation. Some of RCTC’s most consequential projects have
been financed with the backing of the Commission’s credit, thanks to the reliable revenue source Measure A
provides. If signed into law, AB 1951 could harm RCTC’s ability to seek financing, resulting in either higher
interest rates, higher borrowing costs to deliver similar programmed projects, or both. It has taken decades to
deliver some of these projects due to insufficient state and federal funding and cumbersome regulatory
approval processes, and measures such as AB 1951 do not help and set a terrible precedent. We committed to
our residents, based on their vote to support this Measure, to get the job done.
RCTC supports economic development efforts and sees its mission of providing multi-modal mobility solutions
for the residents and businesses of Riverside County as inextricably linked to the performance of our local
economy and prosperity of our communities. The benefit to manufacturers that AB 1951 seeks to provide comes
at a cost to RCTC’s ability to maintain regional infrastructure relied upon for the supply chain and the movement
of commercial goods. Indeed, 40 percent of the nation’s goods travel through our region from the Ports of Los
ATTACHMENT 2
31
Governor Gavin Newsom
September 8, 2022
Page 2
Angeles and Long Beach, and this infrastructure must be maintained. Now is not the time to reduce local
revenue for vital transportation projects.
For these reasons, RCTC opposes AB 1951 and requests a veto of this legislation. If you have any questions
regarding RCTC's position, please contact me at (951) 787-7141. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Aaron Hake
Deputy Executive Director
CC: Ms. Christy Bouma, Legislative Affairs Secretary
Members of the Riverside County Legislative Delegation
32
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SEP 15 2022
To the Members of the Ca lifornia State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1951 without my signature .
This b il l replaces the c u rrent partial manufacturing sales tax exemption with a full
exemption until January 1, 2028. This change would result in substantial revenue
loss to local governments, which impacts essential health, safety, welfare, and
transportation services. Assuming there are no changes in taxpayer behavior,
local agencies are estimated to lose over half a b il lion dollars each year.
As a strong supporter of California 's business cl imate and manufactu ri ng
industry, I agree with the intent of this bill to invest in California's economy,
incentivize innovation, and spur a manufacturing marketplace that is
competitive nation-wide. However, we cannot ask our local governments to
bear this loss in revenue.
With our state facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of
this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined. The Legislature sent measures
with potential costs of well over $20 billion in one-time spending commitments
and more than $10 billion in ongoing commitments not accounted for in the
state budget. Bills with significant cost pressures, such as this measure, should be
considered as part of the annua l budget process. For these reasons , I cannot
sig n this bill.
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM• SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 445-2841
~
ATTACHMENT 3
33
I look forward to working with the Legis lature and stakeholders to propose
something on this topic next year.
34
Se ptember 8, 2022
Governor Gavin Newsom
State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: Veto Request – AB 2438 (Friedman)
Dear Governor Newsom:
On behalf of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I write in opposition to AB 2438 and
request a veto of this legislation. If chaptered into law, the bill would codify the recently established Climate
Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) and incorporate elements into specified transportation
funding program guidelines or plans. This will create policy conflicts and will leave underserved communities
behind.
RCTC recognizes your intention to secure an equitable and climate-resilient future, including for residents in
Riverside County. However, RCTC maintains fundamental concerns regarding the implementation of the state’s
climate action approach. While CAPTI calls for alignment of climate action efforts across the state, RCTC does
not see a coordinated approach between the Legislature and your administration. In an effort to assess state
strategies to advance climate action in transportation, you signed AB 285 (Chapter 605, Statutes of 2019) by
Assemblymember Friedman. But before the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) could finalize its report,
Assemblymember Friedman prematurely introduced AB 2438 under the guise of implementing the draft
recommendations. In fact, AB 2438 passed before SGC was able to conclude public comment and stakeholder
engagement and release its final report. Furthermore, the bill seeks to codify the current iteration of CAPTI, an
administrative document that is subject to adaptation based on the success of its implementation.
RCTC engaged in the drafting process of both CAPTI and AB 2438. However, our concerns were not incorporated
into the final bill and our issues remain unaddressed. While the bill was narrowed in scope in the Legislature, it
still includes SB 1 programs, leaving room for conflict with promises the state made to voters, despite CAPTI
affirming its intent to not change program guidelines beyond current code. Arguments that agencies are already
voluntarily implementing CAPTI, and that AB 2438 would therefore result in no change, are misleading. AB 2438
threatens the flexibility currently available to regional transportation planning agencies to work directly with
the California Transportation Commission to collaboratively develop balanced transportation solutions that
supports growing regions like Riverside County.
Our most disadvantaged communities, who drive to access their jobs or education, do so not necessarily out of
preference, but because of meaningful multimodal transit alternatives do not yet exist for them. Inland regions
ATTACHMENT 4
35
Governor Gavin Newsom
September 8, 2022
Page 2
already struggle to compete for state transportation funding programs. Their lack of resources, necessary rights-
of-way, or sufficient multimodal transit networks from which to augment, would make their applications even
less competitive against those from coastal urban centers. Not only would AB 2438 restrict RCTC’s ability to
compete for state funding for projects that would provide meaningful alternatives to driving, it would also cut
funding eligibility for pro jects intended to provide congestion relief and operational improvements for
communities in the interim.
AB 2438 fails to recognize the staggering investments the state must make in 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. Instead, many will be forced to compromise the socioeconomic well-being of their
families with traffic. With the dramatic growth of population and goods movement in our region, as well as the
further narrowing of state funding programs that AB 2438 proposes, it will only get worse for these
communities.
RCTC appreciates the author’s recognition of the need for the CTP to consider the full cost of implementation,
as well as available resources. Such an analysis that may be objectively compared to regional plans and priorities
is long overdue, but RCTC sees 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 state
funding programs or even directives for how local governments allocate funds may even be considered.
RCTC is a willing partner and has every interest in working with your Administration and the Legislature to turn
the page toward innovative, sustainable transportation solutions that are accessible, equitable, and inclusive.
But these inequities look different from community to community and from region to region. We must work
together to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As such, RCTC will continue to earnestly engage in
discussions of how local and regional agencies may collaborate with the state to ensure a just transition to
multimodal transit systems.
AB 2438 does not provide the sufficient funding and flexibility our communities need to build the capacity of
our multimodal transit systems. Treating transportation funding in California as a zero-sum game dismisses the
disparities that exist across our region and the state after years of underinvestment, therefore threatening to
leave our region and others behind. For these reasons, RCTC opposes AB 2438 and requests a veto of this
legislation. If you have any questions regarding RCTC's position, please contact me at (951) 787-7141. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Aaron Hake
Deputy Executive Director
CC: Ms. Christy Bouma, Legislative Affairs Secretary
Members of the Riverside County Legislative Delegation
36
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SEP 2 9 2022
To the Members of the California State Assemb ly :
I am returning Assemb ly Bil l 2438 without my signature.
This bill requires the alignment of certain transportation funding programs with
the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI ) adopted in July
2021, and requires additional public transparency procedures in the project
se lection process for various transportation programs.
Whi le I share the goa l of addressing th e im pacts of the transportation sector on
climate change, this bill is unnecessary. Work is well under way at the California
State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the California Deportment of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Transportation Commission to align
funding programs in the bil l with CAPTI, with severa l actions already completed.
ColSTA is committed to reviewing outcomes and integrating public feedback in
future years to make modifications to CAPTI , as necessary, to meet the needs of
the statewide transportation system. Linking these programs in statute to a
specific iteration of this plan inhibits the state's ability to appropriately respond
to the evolution of the state 's response to climate change.
A draft Annua l Report on CAPTI Implementation Progress will be released in
October of this year, outlining the progress made on CAPTI implementation
since its adoption last July. My Administration will continue collaborating with
transportation stakeholders to increase program funding accountability and
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM• SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 445-2841
e
ATTACHMENT 5
37
transparency as wel l as enhance financia l plann ing for climate change impacts
to transportation infrastructure.
For these reasons , I cannot sign this bill.
38
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District III X
City of Banning X
City of Beaumont X
City of Calimesa X
City of Canyon Lake X
City of Cathedral City X
City of Coachella X
City of Desert Hot Springs X
City of Lake Elsinore X
City of Murrieta X
City of Palm Desert X
City of Palm Springs X
City of San Jacinto X
City of Riverside X
City of Wildomar X