Loading...
09 September 17, 2018 Technical advisoryComments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA Technical Advisory Committee Time 10:00 a.m. (PLEASE NOTE TIME) Date September 17, 2018 Location Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor March Field Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Lori Askew, City of Calimesa Armando Baldizzone, City of Blythe Chad Blais, City of Norco Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert K. George Colangeli, PVVTA John Corella, Cathedral City Jesse Eckenroth, City of Rancho Mirage Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Christopher Gray, WRCOG Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Amer Jakher, City of Beaumont Bryan Jones, City of Eastvale Rohan Kuruppu, Riverside Transit Agency David Lee, Caltrans District 8 Steve Loriso, City of Jurupa Valley Martin Magana, CVAG Bryan McKinney, City of La Quinta Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside Vice Chair Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris and San Jacinto Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Aaron Palmer, City of Canyon Lake Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells – Chair Sudi Shoja, City of Hemet Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Art Vela, City of Banning Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Michael Wolfe, City of Moreno Valley Dan York, City of Wildomar Vacant, City of Palm Springs Vacant, SunLine Transit Agency COMM-TAC-00064 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:00 A.M. DATE: September 17, 2018 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor March Field Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787‐7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a public meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self-Introductions 3. Approval of May 21, 2018 Minutes 4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. Vanpool Presentation (Attachment) 6. Next Generation Rail Study (Attachment) 7. SB 1 Education Update (Verbal Presentation) 8. Regional Logistics Fee Study Update (Attachment) 9. Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Update (Attachment) 10. Active Transportation Program 20-Point Recommendation (Attachment) 11. 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Update (Verbal Presentation) 12. 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (Attachment) 13. Obligation Report FFY 2017/18 (Attachment) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 17, 2018 Page 2 14. Obligation Delivery Plan – FFY 2018/19 (Attachment) 15. Caltrans Update (Verbal Presentation) 16. September Commission Meeting Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 17. Other Announcements 18. Other Business 19. Adjournment The next meeting will be November 19, 2018 at CVAG, Board Room, Palm Desert at 10:30 a.m. MAY 21, 2018 MINUTES AGENDA ITEM 5 VanClub.net 844-VANCLUB Join VanClub – a vanpool subsidy program by the Riverside County Transportation Commission Save Money: Save up to 70% in commute costs when switching from driving alone. Save Time: Zip past traffic in the carpool lane or in the express lanes for free or reduced tolls. Breathe Easier: Relax on the way to work while reducing fuel consumption and air pollution. START ASTRESS FREE COMMUTE TODAY VanClub participants experience reduced stress from vanpooling, save money on gas, maintenance, insurance, reduce wear and tear on their own vehicles, and make new friends! Special thanks to theMobile Source Air PollutionReduction Review Committeefor sponsoring this project © 2018 VanClub is a program of theRiverside County Transportation Commission Apply Online Today! Visit VanClub.net Subsidy Qualification Requirements • Lease the vanpool through Enterprise Rideshare or CalVans • Your destination (employer location) is in Southern or Western Riverside County • All passengers and the driver must be commuters and volunteers in the vanpool; only the vanpool’s leaseholder may apply for a VanClub subsidy • Commute must be at least 30 miles round trip each day • Vanpools must start with a 70% or greater occupancy and maintain a 50% or greater occupancy (ratio of passengers to your vanpool’s seating occupancy, including the driver) • Operate at least 12 days during each calendar month • Vanpool leaseholder understands that VanClub will publicize the vanpool and any empty seats • Vanpool leaseholder must comply with all VanClub Program Guideline requirements and sign a Participation Agreement Enterprise Rideshare provides customized newer vehicles for an economical and comfortable commute to work. Leases include the vehicle, lease, insurance, maintenance and roadside assistance. The California Vanpool Authority (CalVans) is a great choice for agricultural workers, college/vocational students or cost-conscious commuters. Leases include maintenance, insurance, towing and a fuel card. For more info or to apply, visit VanClub.net, email info@VanClub.net or call 844-VANCLUB (844.826.2582) Vanpooling has made my 100-mile daily commute manageable. Sharing the commute with others provides camaraderie. It also reduces my carbon emissions and saves money. Driving alone no longer makes sense. - Jamie E., VanClub Rider Eligible vanpools getup to $400 per month towards the cost of their vanpool lease. Subsidy Details and Leasing Options Through a VanClub approved leasing vendor (Enterprise Rideshare or CalVans), VanClub subsidizes qualified vanpools on an ongoing basis, up to $400 a month/not to exceed 50% of the lease cost. Technical Advisory Committee Updates September 17, 2018 Brian Cunanan Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission Transportation Demand Management Motorist Aid 3 Transportation Demand Management Call Boxes Motorist Aid 4 Transportation Demand Management Call Boxes EXPANDED Service! NEW Service! 2018 Rideshare Week! Motorist Aid •3 New Beats •6 More Trucks •39 More Miles New South County FSP Service Expansion 6 7 TELL EVERYONE about VanClub! 8 The First Rule of VanClub: TELL EVERYONE about VanClub! 9 The First Rule of VanClub: TELL EVERYONE about VanClub! 10 Minimum Qualifications •Commute more than 30 miles each day •Commute 12 or more days each month •Willing to share your commute with at least four co-workers / other riders •Western Riverside County destinationReceive up to $400 per month to offset the costs of the lease. Approved Lease Providers VanClub.net 844-VANCLUB 11 12 Single Occupant Vehicle 13 Before 14 Before After 15 16 Rideshare Week October 1 –5 More info: IECommuter.org 866-RIDESHARE 17 Living Room Set Fishing Trip and Whale Watching Tickets One Night Stay, Desert Springs Recliner Pledge to Rideshare at IECommuter.org Two Night Stay, Indian Wells Sample of Rideshare Week Prizes AGENDA ITEM 6 9/10/2018 1 © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. NEXT GENERATION RAIL STUDY Presented to RCTC TAC September 17, 2018 Identify corridors with potential for rail extension or new rail service Evaluate and prioritize corridors for near- term project development activity Perform initial planning activities for high- priority corridor PURPOSE NEXT GENERATION RAIL STUDY ORIGIN Perris Valley Line opened in June 2016 Action item in RCTC Strategic Assessment 9/10/2018 2 POTENTIAL CORRIDORS FOR EVALUATION Light Rail Diesel Multiple Unit Commuter Rail Intercity Rail Express Bus Bus Rapid Transit POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR REGIONAL TRANSIT 9/10/2018 3 INTER-COUNTY CORRIDORS – FOR CONSIDERATION OUTSIDE THIS STUDY •Los Angeles – Riverside – Indio (Coachella Valley Rail) CORRIDORS NOT SUITED TO RAIL TECHNOLOGY •Lake Elsinore to Perris •Hemet to Banning INTRA-COUNTY CORRIDORS FOR DETAILED SCREENING •Corona to Lake Elsinore •Perris to San Jacinto •Perris to Temecula RESULTS OF INITIAL SCREENING DETAILED SCREENING: CORRIDOR ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES Corona to Lake Elsinore Perris to San Jacinto Perris to Temecula Advantages •Higher travel demand corridor (I-15) •Connectivity to multiple Metrolink lines (91/PVL and IEOC) •Extension to an existing transit system •Availability of rail ROW •Included in an adopted plan •Extension to an existing transit system •Higher travel demand corridor (I-215) •Higher densities (population and employment) along the corridor •Transit-supportive land uses/ employment centers adjacent to corridor •Included in an adopted plan Disadvantages •Lower densities (population and employment) along the corridor •Lack of transit-supportive land uses/employment centers adjacent to corridor •ROW needs to be acquired •Lower travel demand corridor (SR-74) •Lower densities (population and employment) along the corridor •Lack of transit-supportive land uses/employment centers adjacent to corridor •Less connectivity to other Metrolink lines (91/PVL only) •Less connectivity to other Metrolink lines (91/PVL only) •ROW needs to be acquired 9/10/2018 4 Currently evaluating the three corridors for: o Ridership potential o Capital and operating cost o Cost-effectiveness o Right-of-way requirements o Funding potential o Environmental fatal flaws Outreach to corridor stakeholders Evaluate corridor advantages/disadvantages Identify priority corridor for additional analysis NEXT STEPS QUESTIONS? AGENDA ITEM 7 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 7. AGENDA ITEM 8 Agenda Item 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 12, 2018 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Acting Multimodal Services Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on the Regional Truck and Logistics Mitigation Fee Study and Review of the Draft Nexus Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file an update on the Regional Logistics Fee Study. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Purpose of the Study In 2015, the Commission and the County of Riverside (County) filed a lawsuit against the City of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview, the developer of the World Logistics Center (WLC) project. The lawsuit challenged the environmental impact report to ensure adequate mitigation to impacts created by the WLC project. The WLC is proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the city, southerly of State Route 60, between Redlands Boulevard and Gilman Springs Road. The project would encompass over 2,610 acres with 40 million square feet for a large-scale logistics operation and is estimated to attract over 14,000 truck trips and 68,721 trips daily. In July 2016, a settlement agreement was reached between the Commission, the County, the City of Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview. A key provision of the settlement required that the four parties each contribute $250,000, for a total of $1 million, for the Commission to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee, including the fee structure and implementing mechanism. A result of the study could be a new fee program that would, for example, set a fee on new distribution center warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for highway improvements. This fee would differ from existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Programs in that it would only focus on highway projects, as compared to the regional TUMF Programs, which collect funds for regional arterials and local streets. Per the settlement agreement, if the County or at least 75 percent of the Commission’s member cities adopt a regional warehouse fee within two years after a final court judgment is issued, Highland Fairview will pay 65 cents per square foot for each operating warehouse within the 269 Agenda Item 10 WLC. If no regional fee is adopted, the fee would be 50 cents per square foot. Proceeds would be used for projects identified as part of the regional truck study. Scope of Work The scope of work includes five tasks as summarized in the table below: Task/Scope Task 1: Existing and Future Conditions Analysis • Inventory existing and forecasted (2040) logistics facilities in the County, analyze the various types of logistics facilities, the functions that they serve, and the types of businesses that utilize them. • Quantify truck traffic and impacts on the highway system related to existing and forecasted (2040) logistics facilities in the County; describe the nature of the truck trips such as origin/destination, type of cargo, time-of-day, and equipment. Task 2: Funding and Cost Analysis • Identify and quantify currently available funding sources and mechanisms to offset impacts of logistics facilities in the County. • Identify and quantify costs of addressing existing deficiencies in highway infrastructure in the County. Task 3: Nexus Study • Establish the relationship between growth of logistics-related facilities within the County, truck traffic growth, and the needed improvements to mitigate such growth. Task 4: Fee Allocation Structure and Implementing Mechanism • Design a fee program based on the research and review of existing and similar fess throughout the County and other states with consideration to the legal, political, and practical implications; conduct an economic elasticity analysis that measures the impact of a logistics-related facilities mitigation fee, particularly focused on local employment and economic development. • The proposed fee program will, at minimum, include: legal requirements; actions required by the Commission and other local jurisdictions; implementation mechanism; fee schedule; anticipated revenues; parameters of expenditures from fee revenues; and timeframe of the fee program. 270 Agenda Item 10 Task 5: Study Recommendations • A compilation of all information gathered from all tasks to make findings and recommendations to the Commission on actions it can take to establish a new regional logistics-related facilities mitigation fee in the County. Project Status In January 2017, the Commission approved the award for a regional truck study and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee to WSP USA, formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. The study was kicked off in spring 2017 and a study advisory team was created to review and discuss the data and deliverables provided by the consultant team. Since then, staff also provided updates on the study to the Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of Public Works Directors and City Engineers as appointed by the City Managers. At its June 2018 Commission meeting, staff and the project consultant provided an update on this effort. At that time, Tasks 1 and 2 were completed, and Task 3 was underway. A summary of the completed tasks, concluded the following: • Sufficient data sources are available to justify the completion of a Nexus Study; • Logistics warehousing is estimated to grow in Riverside County by about 37 million square feet by 2040; • Future deficiencies in the highway network caused by logistics growth were identified in western county; • Proposed projects to mitigate the logistics growth could range from the addition of an auxiliary lane at on-and-off ramps, or, the widening of a mainline; • Existing capacity deficiencies, pass-through trips in Riverside County, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned or have been completed (i.e. SR-91 Capital Improvement Program or French Valley Parkway) would be excluded; • Total cost of infrastructure improvements is estimated at $383.3 million, of which the attributable share to logistics growth is $47.8 million; and • A potential fee could be up to $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area. A Nexus Study is under development to establish the relationship between growth related to logistics facilities and truck traffic and the improvements needed to mitigate such growth. The Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee, as follows: 1. Purpose of the Fee 2. Use of Fee Revenues 3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship 4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship 5. Proportionality Relationship 271 Agenda Item 10 As the Nexus Study is further developed, the report will be presented to the Commission for review and discussion after additional stakeholder outreach is conducted. Stakeholder Outreach At the July 2018 Commission meeting, public comments were made regarding the Fee Study. Since then, additional letters were also submitted to the Clerk of the Board. See the attachment for copies of the letters. A stakeholder workshop will be held on Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:30 am at the County Administrative Center, Board Chambers, at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501. An additional workshop is also tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, 2018. The workshop will target public and private stakeholders, including local and regional agencies and the development community, and will be advertised via the website, social media, the study advisory team, the Commission and partnering-agency distribution lists. In addition, a webpage for the study, located at www.rctc.org/feestudy, will also be accessible for stakeholders to submit comments and review study materials. Comments received will be compiled and provided to the Commission at a future meeting for consideration. Next Steps The scope also calls for an analysis of the Fee Allocation Structure and Implementing Mechanism (Task 4). This task is also underway and will include the review of other similar types of fees, the administration and structure of a logistics-related fee program, and an economic market analysis to see how a fee might impact development growth in the county. Staff proposes returning to the Commission by the end of the year with an update on the status of the study, including outcomes from the workshops. Fiscal Impact There is no financial impact for this item. Attachment: Letters Submitted Regarding the Logistics Fee Study 272 25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (951) 710-8768 NAIOP 2018 OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRESIDENTMike Del Santo, Alere Property Group, LLC PRESIDENT-ELECTJohn Dobrott, Conor Commercial Real Estate TREASURERSteve Haston, Lee & Associates - Ontario SECRETARYLarry Cochrun, LDC Industrial Realty NAIOP CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVEKim Snyder, Prologis Steven Ames, USAA Real Estate Company Thomas Bak, Trammell Crow Companies Todd Burnight, Carson Companies John Condas, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Eloy Covarrubias, CBRE, Inc. Giancarlo Da Prato, IDI Logistics Dan de la Paz, CBRE, Inc. Tommy Dirks, Trammell Crow Company Travis Durfee, Prologis Matt Englhard, Proficiency Capital LLC Carter Ewing, CT Realty Paige Fullmer West, Fullmer Construction Trevor Halverson, TH Real Estate Scott Hildebrandt, Albert A. Webb Associates Mike Lee, City of Moreno Valley Milo Lipson, Cushman & Wakefield of California Ward Mace, Goodman Tom Myers, Ware Malcomb Brian Parno, Stirling Development LLC Tony Perez, Oltmans Construction Co. Matt Pilliter, First American Title Insurance Eric Ruehle, West Harbor Capital Chris Sanford, Black Creek Group Brian Thienes, Thienes Engineering, Inc. Terry Thompson, San Bernardino County Jeffrey N. Trenton, Proficiency Capital LLC Kyle Valley, Majestic Realty Co. Ron Washle, Newmark Knight Frank Sharon Wortmann, JLL ADVISORY BOARD Stephen Batcheller, Batcheller Equities, Inc. Chuck Belden, Cushman & Wakefield of California Inc. David Burback, Kidder Mathews Gary Edwards, Western Realco Ed Konjoyan, Majestic Realty Co. John Magness, Hillwood, A Perot Company Kevin McKenna, Colliers International Graham Tingler, Space Center, Inc. NAIOP INLAND EMPIRE STAFF Robert Evans, Executive Director Devon Sulli, Executive Assistant www.naiopie.org July 9, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board LMobley@RCTC.org Anne Mayer, Executive Director AMayer@RCTC.org Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: RCTC Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Dear Ms. Mobley: Please accept this letter as preliminary comments from NAIOP Inland Empire (NAIOP) in connection with the proposed “Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee” (“Fee”). At this time, NAIOP has not been provided with the background data in order to provide formal comments on the technical issues. With the limited data provided to date, NAIOP has serious reservations about the proposed Fee from a legal, technical, and policy perspective. NAIOP also believes it is a mischaracterization to label NAIOP as a “stakeholder” in the process to date and believes the notion that NAIOP has been a contributing member to the process is a misrepresentation. In fact, after raising policy and legal concerns with the proposed Fee, NAIOP was informed that the time to comment on these types of issues was in the future and we were advised to cease such communication until a later date (“[NAIOP] and other affected parties will also have the opportunity to argue the merits of such a program if and when a specific proposal is brought to our Commission, but that has yet to be scheduled and will not take place until the completion of the technical work. [February 7, 2018 Letter from Executive Director Anne Mayer”]). Accordingly, NAIOP has ceased raising these categories of issues until now and seek a public forum to do so. We request the Commission properly agendize this matter for public hearing before RCTC so that NAIOP and other stakeholders can be heard. ATTACHMENT 1 Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 273 Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission July 9, 2018 Page 2 The below encompasses our preliminary comments on the proposed Fee: •The Fee is Not Needed to Fund Improvements. In a March 2018 Technical Memorandum prepared for RCTC, it was determined that a “relatively small proportion of …cost [for deficient roadway segments] can be attributed to new warehousing and logistics developments.” It was further determined that “the estimates of alternative funding sources (absent the Fee) clearly indicate that the remaining costs to complete [the identified] improvement projects could reasonably be expected to be obtained from existing and proposed funding sources.” •The Fee is Based on Faulty Assumptions. The Fee is based on the false and/or unsubstantiated assumptions that: (i) there will be future deficiencies in the County’s freeway network and supporting infrastructure during peak traffic hours (which dictate design issues for solutions); and, (ii) distribution center land uses are major contributors to the truck traffic and congestion on the freeways. There is no evidence showing that trucks from logistics and distribution facilities located within the County are a direct and major contributor to peak hour traffic congestion and impacts either now or in the future. In fact, for most of the improvements, RCTC’s own consultants have determined for the majority of improvements, the percentage of deficiency attributable to new trucking uses is 2% or less. •The Fee Fails to Consider Project-Specific Circumstances and Impacts. The Fee fails to adequately account for the specific locations and relative transportation impacts of individual logistics centers that would be subject to the Fee in the future. For example, a distribution facility situated on the fringes of the County and requiring minimal use of County freeways and roads by trucks servicing the facility would pay the same fee amount as a different, more centrally- located logistics center that requires a much greater number of truck trips over County freeways and, consequently, is theoretically responsible for a much larger number of transportation-related impacts. •The Fee Would Not Actually Reduce Peak Traffic Impacts. The Fee would not result in any significant or measurable reduction to freeway congestion during peak traffic hours; rather, the improvements to be funded by the Fee would only benefit and improve congestion conditions before and after peak traffic hours. Moreover, as a matter of industry practice, Southern California logistics facilities delay their traffic loads to off-peak hours in order to avoid contributing to congestion and/or other transportation-related impacts and enhance the efficiency of their own operations. The technical documents prepared in support of the Fee, do not properly account for the fact that the vast majority of truck trips are during off-peak times. It is highly inappropriate to utilize employment at logistic centers and blindly convert that data point into daily and peak-hour trips. Instead, RCTC should use actual traffic counts for High Cube and E- Commerce from the Inland Empire to generate truck trip rates for the peak hour. NAIOP already ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 274 Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission July 9, 2018 Page 3 has this data and RCTC’s consultants are in the initial phases of conducting studies to determine actual traffic counts. •The Fee Is Based on Limited and Incomplete Data. RCTC’s own consultants readily admit the data and assumptions to calculate the Fee are limited and incomplete and that future studies are in the process which would provide adequate data. NAIOP’s offer to share data with RCTC has been rebuffed. Actual data is available regarding trip generation of these facilities in the Inland Empire, and importantly how many truck trips are generated in the peak hours. Data exists about the truck mix that serves logistic locations based on actual counts. It does not match the SCAG truck mix which is analyzed for the entire region and for all land uses. This data is not accurate. The models should be run omitting the World Logistics Center which proposes to build over 40 million square feet of warehouses in order to demonstrate the impact of that single development and whether any identified deficiencies would disappear in order to determine whether the deficiencies are caused by this specific project. In the Technical Report (March 2018), RCTC’s consultants noted that their analysis contains one zone that contains a very significant amount of the future amount of logistics employment growth. The report states that, “Figure 2-10 shows the TAZs with the highest warehousing growth in the SCAG model SED. The large majority of growth is associated with the World Logistics Center—this TAZ contains 91% of the growth for the county. After the five TAZ with the largest growth, there are six TAZs each with less than 1% of the warehousing employment in the county.” The deficiency analysis appears to be driven by one particular area. Why should all logistics centers throughout the County pay for a problem generated by a specific project? No analysis is provided for whether such a Fee program would discourage logistics development in Riverside County and cause a large majority of these uses to move to San Bernardino County. A model should be completed to analyze this scenario. Such an analysis would test the Fee elasticity. It would also test the impact on the Riverside freeway network if all new warehousing would be in San Bernardino County. If the vast majority of new logistic facilities are in San Bernardino County, there will likely be the same truck traffic in Riverside County in order to get goods into the San Bernardino facilities and deliver the goods to Riverside County addresses. •The Fee Assumes Trucks are the Only Contributors to Deficiencies. The Fee analyzes new logistics growth and future non-logistics growth but determines its logistics traffic alone that adds the last bit of traffic and pushing the totals over the available capacity. Why isn’t it the other future growth that pushes the traffic over the limit? In virtually all cases, the non-logistic growth ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 275 Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission July 9, 2018 Page 4 far out paces the logistic growth traffic. The Fee is based on the faulty conjecture that new logistics growth is solely responsible for the identified deficiencies by ignoring other contributors. •The Fee Would Suppress Vital Economic Development. There is no dispute that warehousing and distribution center jobs have surpassed retail and commercial as the highest paying employment opportunities in the County. County residents depend upon these jobs for survival. Cities depend upon these projects as revenue sources. If approved, the Fee may dissuade industrial developers from building new distribution and logistics center projects within the County and thereby deny County residents of vital employment opportunities and deprive local cities of essential sources of revenue. The natural result is that industrial developers will choose to site industrial buildings in neighboring Counties close to the respective County lines. •The Majority of the Fee Would be Utilized to Fund Improvements in a Centralized Location Resulting in Cities Whose Projects Do Not Have Land Uses Which Contribute Trips to Subsidize Improvements Caused Far Outside Their Borders. As an example, Desert communities’ projects would be subject to the same Fee, but no improvements are identified in the locale. •The Fee is Unprecedented. No other city or county in Southern California has adopted a similar, uniformly-applied, land-use specific transportation mitigation fee. As such, the Fee not only has the potential to disincentive logistics and distribution center development in the County and surrounding region, but may also expose the County to significant liability. •The Fee Singles Out a Specific Industry. No fee is proposed for other new land uses which generate automobile and truck trips, such as residential, retail, or office. Very truly yours, Robert Evans, Executive Director NAIOP Inland Empire Chapter cc: All RCTC Commissioners (via email only) ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 276 0 CARSON COMPANIES CARSON ESTATE TRUST CARSON DOMINGUEZ PROPERTIES, L.P. CARSON ENERGY LLC www.carsoncompanies.com July 17, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: RCTC Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Dear Ms. Mobley: LMobley@RCTC.org AMayer@RCTC.org The Carson Companies is one of the leading developers and long-term owners of buildings ideally suited for manufacturing, logistics, distribution and supply chain management businesses in southern California. Our company has been in business for over 100 years. We have a vested interest in, and longstanding commihnent to, furthering the economic development of this region for both residents and commercial interests. It has come to our attention that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is considering the adoption of a Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee (Logistics Fee) intended to mitigate and offset the traffic-related impacts of future logistic and goods distribution centers in Riverside County. Based upon the limited information made available for our review, there appears to be several issues and potential areas of concern regarding the Logistics Fee. Most notably is the potential for the Logistics Fee to deter industrial development within Riverside County and thereby deprive the County of vital sources of income, revenue and employment opportunities. Fees and taxes such as the proposed RCTC Logistics Fee ultimately affect all of us-the population and citizens of California who are the ultimate consumer of the goods being transported to homes, stores and businesses. In the end, the Logistics Fee you are proposing hurts the citizens of California. The recent, second statewide increase in the gas & diesel excise rates and increase in sales taxes applied to diesel purchases (SBl) was supposed to go towards improved transportation infrastructure -the same infrastructure the Logistics Fee is targeting. Existing excises, taxes and fees are already crippling California business. When will enough be enough? CORPORA TE OFFICE 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 3500 Newport Beach California 92660 949/725-6500 FAX 949/725-6550 RANCHO DOMINGUEZ OFFICE 18710 S. Wilmington Avenue, Suite 200 Rancho Dominguez , California 90220 FAX 310/884-5932 TEXAS OFFICE 9821 Katy Freeway , Suite 440 Houston, Texas 77024 713/360-7934 FAX 713/360-7952 ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 277 Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission July 17, 2018 Page2 As an active industrial developer and owner w ithin the Co unty, Carson Companies will undoubte dly b e impacted b y the proposed RCTC Logistics Fee. Our goal therefore is to ensure that the interests of Carson Companies and other st a keholders are g iven due consideration b y the RCTC and County. To that end, we urge the RCTC to publicly release all available studies, data and other information related to or justifyin g the Lo gistics Fee and provide an avenue for stakeholders, such as Carson Companies, to participate in the current and future public hearing process related t o the Log is tics Fee. We appreciate the RCTC's consideration of this le tter and, on behalf of Carson Companies, we l ook forward to working collaboratively with the RCTC and County on evaluating and addressing the potential significant impacts attributable to the Lo gi stics Fee. Carson Companies ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 278 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 901 Via Piemonte, Suite 175 Ontario, CA 91764 Phone 909 382 0033 Fax 909 382 0073 hillwood.com July 20, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board LMobley@RCTC.org Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: RCTC Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Dear Ms. Mobley: We have recently been made aware that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is considering the adoption of a Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee (Logistics Fee) intended to mitigate and offset the traffic-related impacts of future logistic and goods distribution centers in Riverside County. We have not yet evaluated the potential impacts associated with this Logistics Fee, however, based upon the limited information made available for review, there appears to be several issues and potential areas of concern regarding this Logistics Fee. Of great concern, there is the potential for the Logistics Fee to deter industrial development within Riverside County, thus depriving the County of crucial sources of income, revenue and employment opportunities. Hillwood is ranked today as one of the top industrial, commercial and residential real estate developers in the country. Our signature projects have become premier environments for residents and customers to live and work. We actively develop and buy industrial land and buildings across the U.S. and have projects in the Inland Empire, including the County of Riverside. Hillwood strives to make an impact on the communities we serve by incorporating insightful master-planning development, innovation and creativity and focusing on long-term sustainability. As an active industrial and logistics/distribution facility developer within the County, Hillwood will unquestionably be impacted by the proposed RCTC Logistics Mitigation Fee. Therefore, our purpose is to ensure that the interests of Hillwood and other stakeholders are given due consideration by the RCTC as well as the County. We strongly request the RCTC to publicly release all available studies, data and other information related to or justifying the Logistics Fee and provide an opportunity for ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 279 Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission July 20, 2018 Page 2 of 2 stakeholders, such as Hillwood, to participate in the current and future public hearing process related to the Logistics Fee. We appreciate the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s consideration of this letter. We at Hillwood, look forward to working in association with the RCTC and the County of Riverside on evaluating and addressing the potential substantial impacts attributed to the Logistics Fee. Sincerely, John Magness Senior Vice President ATTACHMENT 1: Letters submitted regarding the Logistics Fee Study 280 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 17, 2018 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Martha Masters, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2009, the county of Riverside, in partnership with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Commission, funded the developmen t of a countywide travel demand model referred to as RIVTAM. RIVTAM was based on the SCAG regional model with greater network detail in Riverside County yet remaining consistent with the SCAG regional model. RIVTAM has been used by the Commission and local agencies as a tool to evaluate plans, programs, and projects to forecast and analyze traffic impacts and land use outcomes. RIVTAM is in need of an update to incorporate changes to the network and modeling assumptions to be a reliable tool for transpor tation modeling and forecasting. WRCOG is the lead in updating the 2009 RIVTAM and will present on the status of the current update. Attachment: WRCOG Staff Report Western Riverside Council of Governments Staff Report Subject: Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM) Update Contact: Christopher Gray, Director of Transportation, cgray@wrcog.us, (951) 405-6710 Date: September 17, 2018 The purpose of this item is to provide a report on the status of the RIVTAM update. WRCOG has kicked-off the project and is requesting jurisdictions provide count data to assist with the accuracy of the RIVTAM update. Requested Action: 1. Receive and file. As one of the agencies which regularly uses the RIVTAM, WRCOG expressed an interest in participating in an update of RIVTAM, as the last major update occurred in 2009. The procurement process commenced in Fall 2017 with the original agencies participating in the consultant selection. The project team has been selected and the project has kicked off. The project team selected to lead the RIVTAM Update will be led by WSP. WRCOG would like to request jurisdictions provide their latest-and-greatest count data for this project. Update WRCOG worked with the original MOU signatories (Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Riverside County Transportation Commissions (RCTC), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Caltrans) on a procurement process in the fall of 2017. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was released in November 2017. Three consultant teams submitted responses to the RFQ and it was determined by the Proposal Review Committee (PRC), which consisted of staff from TLMA, CVAG, RCTC, SCAG, and WRCOG, that all three teams met the qualifications as stated in the RFQ. The teams were then invited to respond to the RFQ. The RFQ requested a final Work Plan that provided the teams’ final recommendation on work to be completed as part of the update, additional detail on the Work Plan provided in their Statement of Qualifications, key staff that will work on each task, and how the Model Specifications set forth integrate with their Work Plan. Interviews were then held to further discuss each team’s proposed Work Plan and approach to meeting the necessary Model Specifications. A team led by WSP was selected after the PRC considered their submittals on the RFQ and RFP, as well as the answers provided during the interview process. A kick-off meeting for the RIVTAM update was held with the project team and WRCOG staff. The kick-off meeting went over the agreed upon Scope of Work, schedule, and expectations. Quarterly meetings will be held with the original MOU signatories (Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (TLMA), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Caltrans) will be held. Project Scope and Understanding The scope of this project will be to build a completely new analysis model. Based on input received from jurisdictions and users of the RIVTAM, it is understood there are long-standing issues with the model structure and data in the current version of the model. The project team is working on the best approach to gather input on issues to the existing version of RIVTAM and how best to address them with the new model. Some of the issues may not be relevant with a new model but it should be built so that existing issues do not persist so they should be noted and understood. For example, issues that pertain to specific zones in the RIVTAM may not be relevant to the new model as it will have a new zonal structure, but the issue will be noted and the project team will figure out the best methodology to resolve the issues. Outreach/Engagement with Jurisdictions In order to maximize engagement with member agencies, the RCTC TAC will be utilized for the outreach process. WRCOG may also utilize its Public Works Committee as another group to conduct supplemental outreach. In the coming months, the project team will present to this Committee the goals of the project, the desired outcomes of the update, and outline key inputs needed from member agencies for the update process. WRCOG would like to ensure key inputs are provided, so the consultant team will be made available to conduct further outreach. The team is aware of the need to consider the limited resources WRCOG member agencies have to review data and results. Data Request One of the inputs of RIVTAM is count data. WRCOG would like to request jurisdictions provide their latest-and- greatest count data in order for the model to provide forecasts utilizing the most accurate data. WRCOG staff will follow up with the respective jurisdiction staff to inquire about the data. RIVERSIDE COUNTY MODEL RIVCOM Presented by:Presented to:+ Riverside County Model -RIVCOM RIVCOM Project Goals ‒Ensure transparency within the model ‒Utilize accurate input data ‒Focus on Riverside County and surrounding regions ‒Develop model that is useful, reliable, and responsive Riverside County Model -RIVCOM RIVCOM TEAM Project Manager Model Design Model Data Development Model Implementation & Validation Model Delivery Rosella Picado Jason Pack FP Christi Byrd Dawn McKinstry Christi Byrd Darren Henderson Principal-in-ChargeLEGEND Fehr & Peers Task Leads FP Riverside County Model -RIVCOM The More Things Change…. ‒RIVCOM is being developed to focus on Riverside County ‒Data tailored to Riverside County (e.g. Wine Country, increased population in Coachella Valley, etc.) ‒Data will be largely developed from scratch to ensure accuracy ‒RIVCOM will have… ‒A smaller, more detailed network compared to the RIVTAM/SCAG model ‒Jurisdiction-approved SED data ‒Focused land use inputs that are specific to Riverside County ‒A base year of 2018 ‒Built in reporting and post-processors for legislative requirements (e.g. air quality and VMT processors) ‒Improved run time compared to the current RIVTAM/SCAG models Riverside County Model -RIVCOM The More They Stay the Same…. ‒RIVCOM will continue to be consistent with the RIVTAM/SCAG model in certain areas: ‒All RIVCOM zones will nest within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 SCAG zones but will be refined to match city and other relevant boundaries ‒SCAG SED data will be compared to jurisdiction-specific data ‒RIVTAM network will be starting point for RIVCOM but will be reviewed for accuracy and reflect current and upcoming improvements ‒User-interface will remain easy to use ‒RIVCOM and SCAG will be consistent at external model stations ‒Model will be usable for fee studies, TIAs, VMT assessment, general plans, specific plans, etc. Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Frequently Asked Questions ‒Q: What if I think RIVTAM is no good? ‒A: You’re in luck. RIVCOM is not RIVTAM re-packaged. ‒Updated data, networks –more detailed TAZs ‒Tailored to RC needs –land uses, trip purposes, available source code ‒Fewer output files due to less trip purposes and fewer segmentations ‒Faster runtimes ‒Dynamically validated to make sure it gives logical results ‒See slide 4 ‒Q: How much of the RIVTAM model are we keeping? ‒A: Short answer –not much. Longer answer -the user-interface, the basic sequence of components, spare TAZs, the ability to model seasonal residents and visitors to Coachella Valley. See slides 4 & 5 Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Frequently Asked Questions ‒Q: How much of the SCAG model are we keeping? ‒A: Short answer –almost none. Longer answer –data control totals, the basic sequence of components, some parameters, the heavy vehicle model, etc. See slides 4 & 5 ‒Q: How will we go about updating the networks and TAZ data? ‒A: Local consultants (and model users) Jason Pack and Jinghua Xu will be reviewing networks and TAZ data ‒Networks –consistency with RTP/SCS, RIVTAM, General Plans, TUMF, funded projects with jurisdictional sign-off ‒TAZ –consistency with SCAG projections, city models, and jurisdictional sign-off Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Frequently Asked Questions ‒Q: How will we work with jurisdictions? ‒A: Attendance at scheduled meetings such as this one; one-on-one conversations with jurisdiction contacts; review of city, county sub-area and general plan models. ‒Q: Will users have access to the source code in case the model breaks? ‒A: YES!! ‒Q: Will RIVCOM model weekend traffic? ‒A: No. Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Frequently Asked Questions ‒Q: Will RIVCOM include transit? ‒A: Not initially. Development of RIVCOM v1.0 is focused on creating a reliable, accurate input data set and validating the traffic forecasts. ‒Q: Will there be training? ‒A: Yes, when the model is validated and ready for use by agencies and consultants. Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Data Request –Traffic Counts ‒Roadway segment counts within the County ‒Send counts to: ‒Christi.byrd@wsp.com Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Data Request –Land Use Data Review ‒Review consistency with SCAG projections ‒Will review City models and compare for reasonableness ‒Consultant review; but need stakeholder review for reasonableness Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Data Request –Network Data Review ‒Review consistency with RTP/SCS and update accordingly ‒Consistency with RIVTAM ‒Consistency with General Plans ‒Consistency with TUMF ‒Need to identify funded projects Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Data Request –Local City Models ‒Need copies of all localized models ‒Models we are aware of: ‒Eastvale General Plan Model ‒Corona Citywide Model ‒Lake Elsinore General Plan Model ‒Murrieta Citywide Model (NEED) ‒Temecula Wine Country Model ‒City of Riverside Model –Outdated ‒Moreno Valley Model (Need) ‒Calimesa General Plan Model ‒Beaumont General Plan Model ‒Banning General Plan Model (Need) ‒Palm Desert Citywide Model ‒La Quinta Citywide Model (Need) ‒Indio Citywide Model ‒Coachella Citywide Model ‒County Sub-Area Models: ‒Lakeview Area ‒Eastern Moreno Valley ‒Paradise Valley ‒Others? Riverside County Model -RIVCOM Data Request –What Needs to be Fixed? ‒What issues have you had that need to be updated? ‒How are you planning to use it? ‒Other comments/questions? AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 17, 2018 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Martha Masters, Senior Management Analyst SUBJECT: Active Transportation Program – Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Program Guidelines and Recommended Revisions for Additional Points for Riverside County Project Applications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Discuss and approve draft staff recommended changes to the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Regional Program Guidelines for the county share; and 2) Forward the approved recommendation to the Budget and Implementation Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATP is a highly competitive statewide program that funds bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs to enhance or encourage walking and biking. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) awards 50 percent of the funds at the statewide competitive level, 10 percent to small urban and rural regions, and 40 percent at the large Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level. The ATP process allows applicants two opportunities for award – statewide and large MPO level. As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide and those that are not ranked high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share. As the MPO, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is required to work with county transportation commissions, the CTC, and Caltrans to develop its regional program recommendations. As part of the development of the regional program guidelines, SCAG in past cycles allowed each county transportation commission to assign up to 10 points to the CTC’s project scores for projects that are consistent with local and regional plans. For the ATP Cycle 4, SCAG revised the assignment of points to change from 10 to 20 which was approved at the August CTC meeting. Each county transportation commission in the SCAG region is responsible for defining “plans” and developing its guidance and methodology for assigning the additional 20 points. In addition, if a county transportation commission assigns points to a project for which it is the lead applicant, an explanation must be provided on how the scoring process resulted in an unbiased evaluation of projects. At the May Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), staff set forth revised policies recommendations which the TAC discussed:  Tiebreaker: In the event of a tie between projects, staff will work with the local agencies to determine if the funds can be split equally between applicants, without reducing the scope and benefits of the proposed project, and the local agencies commit to fully funding the difference with other local sources. If this option is not viable for the applicants, then staff will utilize the tie breaker method that CTC utilizes under the statewide component. The adopted 2019 ATP Statewide Guidelines state the following: If two or more project applicants receive the same score that is [at] the funding cut-off score, the following criteria will be used to determine which project(s) will be funded in the following priority order: o Infrastructure Projects o Construction readiness o Highest score on the highest point value question o Highest score on the second highest point value question (on the Plan application, this includes questions 3 & 4)  Proposed fund request exceeds amount available: In the event that any one project scores high enough to be funded through the county share but the requested funding exceeds the amount available, staff will work with the project applicant to determine if the local agency can fully fund the difference of the project without reducing the scope and benefits proposed. Staff will also work with the local agency to strategize whether re-applying in a future cycle and obtaining a higher score to be funded under the statewide component is feasible or practical.  20 Point Distribution: o Option A: (Revision to show 20 points instead of 10 as previously discussed) Up to 20 points be added to projects that meet the following criteria:  4 points for projects requesting construction-only funding  6 points for projects requesting construction funding in the first two years of programming  10 points for projects identified within the Western Riverside Council of Government’s Subregional Active Transportation Plan; Coachella Valley Association of Governments Non-Motorized Plan; or an adopted local active transportation plan, bike or pedestrian master plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan. o Option B: (Status Quo) All points (20) assigned to projects consistent with adopted plans. In developing the criteria for the additional 20 points, staff considered other programs for which the Commission is also responsible for nominating projects such as the Transportation Development Act Article 3 (also known as SB 821) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds where project readiness is emphasized in evaluating and awarding projects. Similarly, for this program, staff recommends that project readiness be a factor that should be weighted more heavily as it illustrates the local agency’s commitment to leverage other funding sources and meets one of the Commission’s goals to deliver active transportation facilities as a partner with local agencies. Additionally, projects that are identified or prioritized in a local active transportation plan, or bike or pedestrian master plan further justifies a local agency’s commitment to implementing projects that are part of a cohesive network and advances the goals of the program further. For comparison, staff also compiled how other county transportation commissions assigned their 10-points from previous cycles, as shown in the table below. ATP MPO 10-Point Policy by County Transportation Commission County Points Criteria San Bernardino 10 Consistent with local and regional plan Imperial 10 Consistent with local and regional plan Orange Maximum of 10 points 5 A planned bikeway in the Orange County Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan 5 Project is included in the Orange County Non-motorized Metrolink Accessibility Strategy 5 Project is a sidewalk on a facility within the Master Plan of Arterial Highways 3 Project is included in a local agency bicycle or pedestrian master plan or active transportation plan 2 Project is included in a local Safe Routes to School Plan 2 Project is included in a specific plan or corridor plan 1 Project is included in local agency general plan or circulation plan Los Angeles 7 Consistent with local and regional plan 3 Successful in the Metro Call for Projects, all projects with Metro Board commitment, and all projects which implement Metro active transportation plans and policies Ventura 5 Consistent with local and regional plan 5 Safe Routes to School Project Next Steps Staff has sought feedback and comments from TAC members and is recommending that the proposed revisions be discussed and approved by the TAC and forwarded to the October Budget and Implementation Committee/November Commission for approval for inclusion into SCAG’s MPO Regional Program Guidelines. AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. AGENDA ITEM 12 Due Date (by Noon)Amendments Administrative Modifications Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Amendment #19-01 Including 2018 STIP, 2018 SHOPP, HBP and changes to address comments received on Draft 2019 FTIP only. Concurrent with 2019 FTIP base Tuesday, October 23, 2018 Administrative Modification #19-02 Thursday, January 8, 2019 Amendment #19-03 Tuesday, February 26, 2019 Administrative Modification #19-04 Tuesday, April 9, 2019 Amendment #19-05 Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Administrative Modification #19-06 Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Amendment #19-07 2019 FTIP AMENDMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION SCHEDULE AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 17, 2018 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jenny Chan, Management Analyst Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director SUBJECT: Obligation Authority Report – FFY 2017/18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is responsible for ensuring that federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds apportioned for Riverside County are allocated and obligated in a timely manner to prevent funds from lapsing. Federal Obligation Authority (OA) for the region is provided on an annual basis and has to be spent in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) it is provided. The Commission’s goal is to ensure that 100 percent of its OA is obligated. As we near the end of the FFY 2017/18, the Commission has obligated approximately $22.1 million as of July 31, 2018 or 57% of its obligation authority (OA was $38,693,273). Through our own tracking of on-going obligations for August and September, the Commission has obligated approximately $64.1 million, or 165% of the OA, opening up the opportunity for August Redistribution. Commission staff has worked closely with our local agencies and Caltrans to ensure projects on the Obligation Delivery Plan were obligated and delivered, and most of them were. Many of these projects were from the 2013 Multi-Funding Call for Projects, 2013 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Call for Projects, CVAG’s 2014 CMAQ Call for Projects, and various other projects that had been awarded CMAQ or STBG funds by the Commission. As we transition to the new FFY 2018/19, it is recommended you start your federal-aid process early on in the year to ensure timely obligation of federal funds, and to ensure sufficient OA is available. Attachment: FFY 2017/18 Obligation Report Agency Project Title/Description Federal Funds 000's 2013 RSTP/ STBG Call for Projects 2013 Multi- Funding Call for Projects2 CVAG's 2014 CMAQ Call for Projects BEAUMONT 8TH STREET FROM PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE TO XENIA AVENUE $ 220 X CORONA MAGNOLIA AVENUE OVER TEMESCAL WASH FROM EL CAMINO AVENUE TO 1,000 FEET EAST OF ALL AMERICAN WAY 443 X MORENO VALLEY NASON STREET AT STATE ROUTE 60 IN MORENO VALLEY 125 X CALIMESA AVENUE L FROM APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF CALIMESA BOULEVARD TO APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF 4TH STREET 54 X INDIAN WELLS COOK STREET FROM THE FORMER STATE ROUTE 111 TO FRED WARING DRIVE 135 X RIVERSIDE SCOTT ROAD AT I-215 INTERCHANGE FROM HAUN ROAD TO ANTELOPE ROAD, BR. NO. 56 0649 8,000 X RIV CO TRANS CO I-15 FROM CAJALCO ROAD IN THE CITY OF CORONA TO STATE ROUTE 60 IN THE CITIES OF EASTVALE AND JURUPA VALLEY 74 X RIV CO TRANS CO I-15 FROM CAJALCO ROAD IN THE CITY OF CORONA TO STATE ROUTE 60 IN THE CITIES OF EASTVALE AND JURUPA VALLEY 3,612 X CALTRANS I-15 FROM CAJALCO ROAD IN THE CITY OF CORONA TO STATE ROUTE 60 IN THE CITIES OF EASTVALE AND JURUPA VALLEY 7,709 X MORENO VALLEY VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 790 X MORENO VALLEY VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 752 X PALM SPRINGS NORTHBOUND GENE AUTRY TRAIL (SR 111) AT THE INTERSECTION OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL AND VISTA CHINO 246 X Subtotal as of July 30, 2018 $ 22,160 RIVERSIDE ADAMS STREET AT 91 IC $ 935 X BANNING RAMSEY ST. PAVEMENT REHAB 182 X INDIO PAVING OF FOUR (4) RESIDNEITAL ROADS IN INDIO 1,132 X MORENO VALLEY CATCUS, ALESSANDRO, AND DAY (DYANMIC MESSAGE SIGNS) 341 X RCTC SR60 Truck Climbing/Descending Lanes 37,396 CVAG CV LINK 2,000 X Projected Aug & Sept Obligations $ 41,986 Total 2017/18 Obligation 64,146$ FFY 2017/18 Obligation Report As of 9/11/2018 AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 17, 2018 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Jenny Chan, Management Analyst Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director SUBJECT: Obligation Delivery Plan – FFY 2018/19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is responsible for ensuring that federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds apportioned to Riverside County are allocated and obligated in a timely manner to prevent funds from lapsing. Federal Obligation Authority (OA) for the region is provided on an annual basis and has to be used in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) it is provided. The Commission’s goal is to ensure that 100 percent of its OA is obligated. RCTC works closely with our local agencies and Caltrans to ensure projects on the Obligation Delivery Plan are obligated and delivered. Many of these projects are from the 2013 Multi-Funding Call for Projects, 2013 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) Call for Projects, CVAG’s 2014 CMAQ Call for Projects, and various other projects that had been awarded STBG or CMAQ funds by the Commission. The attached obligation plan is an outline of the projects that have STBG or CMAQ programmed in FFY 2018/19. If your agency has a project that can be delivered (obligated) in FFY 2018/19 but is not included in this draft obligation plan FFY 18/19, please contact staff to ensure the project is added to this year’s obligation plan. As we transition to the new FFY 2018/19, it is recommended to start the federal-aid process early on in the federal fiscal year to ensure timely obligation of federal funds. Attachment: FFY 2018/19 Obligation Plan FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 18/19 OBLIGATION PLAN - SEPTEMBER TAC MEETING PA&ED PA&ED Date STATE HWY Evita Premdas RCTC HP21STPL- 6054(082) Pachappa Underpass (SR91 HOV Remnant Work)$9,756,000 Con Evita Premdas Riverside County TBD I-10 at Portola Ave 1,275,000 Con David, Leslie, Enrique, Vu Calimesa CML 5460(008)I-10/Cherry Valley IC 443,000 Con Subtotal 443,000 11,031,000 LOCAL HWY David, Leslie, Enrique, Vu Riverside STPL 5058(102) Magnolia Ave from Buchanan to Banbury (Widening 4 -6 lns) 2,620,000 Con Cleared 1/25/2018 Albert Vergel de Dios Rancho Mirage CML 5412(016) Ramon Rd and Dinah Shore Dr Traffic Flow Imp & Sand Fencing 31,000 R/W Evita Premdas CVAG 6164(021)CVAG Regional Synch 5,315,000 Con Evita Premdas Riv. Co.CML 5956(241)Salt Creek Multi-Modal Trail 5,090,000 Con Cleared 10/20/2017 Subtotal 10,436,000 2,620,000 Total 10,879,000 13,651,000 CMAQ STP-L Funding Phase Project Approvals Project LocationCaltrans Staff Agency FPN Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM 15 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 15. $*(1'$,7(0  $SUHVHQWDWLRQZLOOEHPDGHEXW WKHUHLVQRDWWDFKPHQWWRWKH DJHQGDIRULWHP