January 27, 2017 Ms. Susan Bransen, Executive Director California Transportation Commission 1120 N Street, MS-52 Sacramento, CA 95814 Susan.Bransen@dot.ca.gov VIA E-MAIL Subject: Response to January 10, 2017 letter regarding the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3

Application for CV Link Dear Ms. Bransen: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) strongly recommend approval of ATP Cycle 3 funding for CV Link. On January 11, 2017, the RCTC overwhelmingly approved the programming of $5.584 million of MPO ATP funds on the CV Link, offering the greatest support to the project that we can provide under the CTC approved state and regional ATP guidelines. We recognize the ultimate authority of the CTC and Caltrans in project scoring, program approval and eligibility review. As these determinations are made, we trust you will find the following information addresses the inaccurate claims made against this project and recommend approval of this transformative project. Specifically, we would like to take this opportunity to address the concerns raised in the January 10, 2017 letter addressed to us sent by California Walks, California Bicycle Coalition, and Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability regarding their “Urgent Request to Reconsider Eligibility of CV Link Application.” The letter references a previous letter dated November 28, 2016 submitted to the CTC by these organizations, as well as others, requesting that the CTC rescore the Coachella Valley Association of Governments’ (CVAG) CV Link application due to missing census tract information related to Narrative Question #1 – Disadvantaged Communities. Upon a second review of the application, the CTC revised the CV Link project score from 89.5 points to 85.5 points; thereby, taking it out of contention for the statewide ATP recommendations. Upon approval at the December 7, 2016 CTC meeting, CVAG staff also acknowledged the error and supported the revised score. The January 10, 2017 letter contends that “Since that time, additional information has come to light regarding this project application that warrants reconsideration of the project’s eligibility…” Specifically, they reference a letter from city of Rancho Mirage Councilmember, G. Dana Hobart, dated December 28, 2016, citing the following:

According to Mr. Hobart, the project sponsors failed to disclose within the application that the cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells have withdrawn from the CV Link project, resulting in substantial gaps in the proposed 50-mile project. These two gaps constitute 10% of the project’s length and greatly impact

Ms. Susan Bransen Page 2 January 27, 2017

the stated benefits to disadvantaged community residents—in terms of access to services and jobs—as well as the claimed benefits to improved active transportation mobility.

RCTC and SCAG staff have reviewed these allegations and have determined them to be inaccurate. At the January 11, 2017 RCTC Commission meeting, Commissioner Dana Reed of Indian Wells asserted the following in regards to the January 10, letter, “The letter before us indicates that Indian Wells has withdrawn from CV Link project. I’m unaware of any such withdrawal. We’ve had spirited debate, and that continues on to today. We have, our voters have, spoken and have said if and when CVAG comes forward with a concrete proposal for the location of CV Link in our city, that the voters want to approve it. Of course, that presupposes that CV Link, I mean that CVAG, has a concrete proposal and so that we, that something that could be presented to the voters. That’s a far cry from withdrawing from the project.” Furthermore, the application clearly reflects alternative routes that are being considered in the project location map (Attachment C). The Conceptual Master Plan, which is also provided in the application (Attachment J) describes the route variations in Rancho Mirage and highlights the City’s position (Section 6: Segment Descriptions, page 108):

On April 16, 2015, the Rancho Mirage City Council voted to oppose the CV Link routes proposed adjacent to the Rancho Mirage Public Library and along the Butler/Abrams Trail on the Whitewater River Channel. On May 7, 2015, the Rancho Mirage City Council passed a resolution prohibiting CV Link from using any portion of Highway 111 and Bob Hope Drive within its city limits. In response to votes taken by Rancho Mirage City Council, the CVAG Executive Committee has added a “no build” alternative to the Rancho Mirage sections of the Master Plan.

The letter also claims that a gap in the project would “greatly impact the stated benefits to the disadvantaged community residents...” If a no-build option is pursued for Rancho Mirage, the change in benefits would not “greatly” differ because existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the city would still be available for connectivity. The benefits of the project remain as stated in the application as the potential benefit differential of a no-build option is immaterial. In terms of benefits to disadvantaged communities, there would be no impact to disadvantaged communities as they are generally located along other segments of CV Link. The letter alleges that the project sponsor has “purposefully misrepresented information” and goes on to request that the “California Transportation Commission exclude this project application from the current cycle and the next cycle in alignment with the adopted Program Guidelines. If the Commission chooses to not exclude this project application, then we request that SCAG and the Riverside County Transportation Commission rescore this application in light of a drastically different scope that would impact the project’s score for Narrative Question #2 – Potential for Increasing Walking and Bicycling.” Again, based on our review of the information provided in the application there is no evidence that CVAG intentionally withheld information regarding the cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells; therefore, there is no basis for the CTC to exclude this project in the current or future cycles. Moreover, the impact that the advocates argue that it makes on Narrative Question #2 – Potential Increasing Walking and Bicycling, has no merit. In addition, the ATP processes established by SCAG and RCTC are based on the scoring criteria and procedures established by the CTC. Our processes only provide for upward adjustments of CTC scoring up to a maximum

Ms. Susan Bransen Page 3 January 27, 2017 of 10 points. We have confidence in the CTC scoring processes and outcomes and will not be rescoring this or any other projects. We appreciate the time that CTC staff has worked with us throughout the ATP process and are confident that our recommendation to include CV Link in the Large MPO program not only satisfies the ATP program guidelines, but also exceeds the program goals. Should you have any questions at any time, please do not hesitate to contact either of us. Sincerely,

________________________________________ Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501

________________________________________ Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 c: Tom Kirk, Executive Director, CVAG, tkirk@cvag.org Mitchell Weiss, Deputy Director, CTC, Mitchell.Weiss@dot.ca.gov Laurie Waters, Associate Deputy Director, CTC, Laurie.Waters@dot.ca.gov Dana Reed, SCAG Regional Council, RCTC Commissioner, dreed@indianwells.com Sarah Jepson, Active Transportation & Special Programs Manager, SCAG, jepson@scag.ca.gov Stephen Patchan, Senior Planner, SCAG, patchan@scag.ca.gov Encl: January 10, 2017 Letter to CTC, RCTC, and SCAG Project Location Map, Attachment C of CV Link ATP Application Conceptual Master Plan, Attachment J of CV Link ATP Application

January 10, 2017

Susan Bransen, Executive Director California Transportation Commission 1120 N St, MS-52 Sacramento, CA 95814

Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017

Anne Mayer, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501

VIA E-MAIL Re: Urgent Request to Reconsider Eligibility of CV Link Application Dear Ms. Bransen, Mr. Ikhrata, and Ms. Mayer: Our organizations are writing you to follow up with additional information that impacts the rescoring of the CV Link - Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor application. A number of our organizations submitted a request to rescore this application on November 28, 2016 based on missing Census tract information related to Narrative Question #1--Disadvantaged Communities (enclosed). CTC staff subsequently rescored the application resulting in the project’s removal from the staff recommendations list that was approved by the Commission at the December 7, 2016 meeting. Since that time, additional information has come to light regarding this project application that warrants reconsideration of the project’s eligibility in the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) competition for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) portion of Active Transportation Program funds. On December 28, 2016, Council Member G. Dana Hobart of the City of Rancho Mirage submitted a letter to CTC staff regarding additional inaccuracies and misrepresentations within the CV Link application. According to Mr. Hobart, the project sponsors failed to disclose within the application that the cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells have withdrawn from the CV Link project, resulting in substantial gaps in the proposed 50-mile project. These two gaps constitute 10% of the project’s length and greatly impact the stated benefits to disadvantaged community residents--in terms of access to services and jobs--as well as the claimed benefits to improved active transportation mobility. The 2017 Active Transportation Program Guidelines (Section III.9, Page 5) state that “A project applicant found to have purposefully misrepresented information that could affect a project’s score may result in the applicant being excluded from the program for the current cycle and the next cycle.” Accordingly, we write to request that the California Transportation Commission exclude this project application from the current cycle and the next cycle in alignment with the adopted Program Guidelines. If the Commission chooses to not exclude this project application, then we request that SCAG and the Riverside County Transportation Commission rescore this application in light of a drastically different scope that would impact the project’s score for Narrative Question #2--Potential for Increasing Walking and Bicycling.

We thank the Commission for working with all stakeholders to ensure the success and integrity of the Active Transportation Program. Sincerely,

Tony Dang, Executive Director California Walks

Jeanie Ward-Waller, Policy Director California Bicycle Coalition

Mariela Magaña, Policy Advocate Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability

Encl. cc: Tom Kirk, Executive Director, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, tkirk@cvag.org Sarah Jepson, Manager, Active Transportation & Special Programs, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Jepson@scag.ca.gov Stephen Patchan, Senior Planner, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), patchan@scag.ca.gov Mitchell Weiss, Deputy Director, California Transportation Commission, mitchell.weiss@dot.ca.gov Laurie Waters, Associate Deputy Director, California Transportation Commission, laurie.waters@dot.ca.gov

November 28, 2016 California Transportation Commission 1120 N St, MS-52 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Urgent Request to Reevaluate CV Link Application Dear Commissioners and CTC staff: In the interest of ensuring the success of the Active Transportation Program and all projects awarded ATP funds, especially with regard to assured benefits to disadvantaged communities, our organizations have carefully reviewed the successful project applications that have received staff recommendation for Cycle 3 awards. We discovered an issue in the CV Link - Multi-Modal Transportation Corridor application in the response to Narrative Question #1 - Disadvantaged Communities, that warrants additional review and possible rescoring of the application. The instructions for Narrative Question #1 state that the applicant “must provide information for all Census Tract/Block Group/Place # that the project affects” (emphasis added). This should include Census tracts that qualify as disadvantaged, as well as those that do not qualify as disadvantaged. A median of household incomes for all the affected Census tracts--both low- and high-income--adjacent to the project is then used to calculate a “severity” subscore which indicates the depth of disadvantage of the whole area affected by the project and is worth up to 4 points in the application. In the case of the CV Link project, there are dozens of Census tracts in the vicinity of the 50-mile project, some of which are very low-income but also many that are high-income. Unfortunately, the applicant agency only provided data for the Census tracts that meet the criteria for low-income (below 80% of median household income) in their response to Narrative Question #1 and failed to list the adjacent census tracts that are not low-income. Therefore, the median of all household incomes for all affected census tracts appears very low because only the low-income affected census tracts were used in the calculation, ultimately resulting in a higher severity subscore for the whole area adjacent to CV Link than should have been awarded. We write to you in earnest with the understanding that the Commission aims to adopt the staff recommendation at the December 7 meeting and that any changes to the staff recommended project list could have implications for funding a number of other projects on the list. Sincerely,

Jeanie Ward-Waller, Policy Director California Bicycle Coalition

Wendy Alfsen, Executive Director California Walks

Mariela Magana-Ceballos, Policy Advocate Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability

Bill Sadler, Senior CA Policy Manager Safe Routes to School National Partnership

Kim Chen, Government Affairs Manager CA Pan-Ethnic Health Network

Laura Cohen, Western Region Director Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

Tamika Butler, Executive Director Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

Angela Glover Blackwell, CEO PolicyLink

lmoeluna

Text Box

CVAG CV Link Application Attachment C: Project Location Map

108 | CV LINK MASTER PLAN

SIX: SEGMENT DESCRIPTIONSCONNECTORSBelow are connectors along Segment 4.

• Eisenhower Medical Center: widened LSEV/bike lanes on Country Club Drive and Bob Hope Drive

• Palm Valley Channel to Painters Path bridge and Cahuilla Park: a path with undercrossings at Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111, and signage along Painters Path.

CROSSINGSBelow are the crossings along segment 4:

• Highway 111 at Thunderbird Road: enhanced signals • Highway 111 at Thunderbird Channel: new CV Link bridge • Highway 111 at Paxton Drive: enhanced signals• Paxton Drive at Magnesia Falls Channel: new CV Link bridge• Highway 111 at Magnesia Falls Channel: undercrossing• San Jacinto Drive at Rancho Las Palmas Drive: at-grade crossing• San Jacinto Drive at Bob Hope Drive: at-grade crossing• Bob Hope Drive at Rancho Palmas Shopping Center: new traffic signals

are proposed at the main entrance of the Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center. A discounted option involving a viaduct overcrossing of Bob Hope Drive between The River and Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center is no longer feasible due to the planned installation of traffic signals where the overcrossing would have been located.

• Highway 111 at Bob Hope Drive: at-grade crossing• Highway 111 at Magnesia Falls Drive: at-grade crossing• Highway 111 at Desert Drive: at-grade crossing on west side of highway• Parkview Channel: undercrossing• Parkview Drive at Monterey Avenue: the existing traffic signals would be

used. In the future, two overcrossing alternatives have been proposed. A perpendicular bridge would be lower cost, but it would involve ramps with out-of-direction travel. A skewed bridge would reduce travel time, but it would require a longer bridge structure and a ramp in front of the church parking lot.

ROUTE DESCRIPTION A mix of gated communities and commercial land uses front the route variations through Rancho Mirage.

• Country Club Drive to Paxton Drive: upgrade existing paths on the south side of Highway 111, and replace the bridge over Thunderbird Channel.

• Paxton Drive to Rancho Mirage Community Park: there are two alternatives for this segment:

• Cross Highway 111 using an upgraded traffic signal at Paxton Drive; create a new path through the vacant land to the Whitewater River Channel side of the Rancho Mirage library; the new Magnesia Channel bridge leads to Rancho Mirage Community Park.

• Continue along the west side of Highway 111 to Magnesia Canyon Channel. Use the undercrossing at Magnesia Channel and follow the channel to the levee path.

• New channel bridge to Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center: there are three alternatives for this segment:

• Whitewater River Channel to Bob Hope Drive. Bob Hope Drive to Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center.

• San Jacinto Drive to Bob Hope Drive: build a two-way path on San Jacinto Drive to the south side of Rancho Las Palmas Drive. Rancho Las Palmas to Bob Hope Drive. Bob Hope Drive to Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center.

• Intersection of San Jacinto and Bob Hope Drives to Parkview Drive: complete the existing path on the west side of Bob Hope Drive to Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center.

• Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center to Parkview Drive: there are four alternatives:

• East side of Highway 111 to Parkview Channel.

• West side of Highway 111 to Parkview Channel.

• West side of Highway 111 to Desert Drive and Rio Del Sol Road to Parkview channel.

• West side of Highway 111 back side of Mor Furniture For Less commercial building. Connect to Parkview channel.

• Parkview Drive to Monterey Avenue: A two-way path on the north side of Parkview Drive would require either bridge widening at the Palm Valley Channel or removal of the median left turn bay to reallocate space.

• On April 16, 2015, the Rancho Mirage City Council voted to oppose the CV Link routes proposed adjacent to the Rancho Mirage Public Library and along the Butler/Abrams Trail on the Whitewater River Channel. On May 7, 2015, the Rancho Mirage City Council passed a resolution prohibiting CV Link from using any portion of Highway 111 and Bob Hope Drive within its city limits. In response to votes taken by Rancho Mirage City Council, the CVAG Executive Committee has added a “no build” alternative to the Rancho Mirage sections of the Master Plan.

ACCESS POINTSIn addition to access from adjacent private properties (as may be provided by property owners) and at every intersection along the route, CV Link access point facilities are proposed at the following locations:

• Rancho Mirage Public Library (Regional): enhance existing• Rancho Mirage Community Park (Regional): enhance existing• Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center at Bob Hope Drive frontage

(Commercial): new access point• Barbara Drive and Highway 111 (Local): new access point

DESTINATIONSBelow are key destinations along Segment 4.

• Rancho Mirage Library• Whitewater Park• The River, Rancho Las Palmas Shopping Center, and other commercial

developments• Bump-n-Grind, El Paseo, and Cahuilla Park via connector

SEGMENT 4: RANCHO MIRAGE4.1 mi. | Country Club Drive to Monterey Avenue | Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert | Volume 3 Map Pages 30-36