SCTA-RCPA Board of Directors 02.08.2021

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA February 8, 2021 – 2:30 p.m.

PLEASE NOTE: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SCTA/RCPA Board Members will be video-conferencing into the Board of Directors Meeting via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to listen to the Board of Directors meeting may do so via the following platform:

Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89549617370?pwd=aFhVQjFUVFIyS2dUamEyM1lYdlBzZz09

Webinar ID: 895 4961 7370

Passcode: 398971 Telephone: (669) 900-9128

PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on specific agenda items will only be allowed during the meeting via Zoom Meeting by using the raise hand function. Verbal comments from call-in participants not using the Zoom Video platform can only be made by notifying Drew Nichols at [email protected] and identifying the item number, your name and phone number from which you will be calling. Please include “Public Comment” in the email subject line. The moderator will then ask for your comment.

Public comment will be limited to three (3) minutes. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda must be submitted in electronic written format as provided under Item 2 below.

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)

2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda

As authorized by Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, all public comment must be submitted in electronic written format. Please submit public comment by email before noon on 02/08/21. Include “Public Comment” and the meeting name in the subject line of your email and limit written comments to three hundred (300) words. Send comments to [email protected] and they will be shared with all Board members and identified by the Clerk verbally at the meeting.

3. Consent Calendar

A. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 3.1. Admin – meeting notes from January 11, 2021 (ACTION)* 3.2. Admin – quarterly financial reports for Q2 FY20/21 (ACTION)*

B. SCTA Items 3.3. Caltrans – Project Initiation Document Work Plan status update – (ACTION)*

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89549617370?pwd=aFhVQjFUVFIyS2dUamEyM1lYdlBzZz09

mailto:[email protected]


4. Regular Calendar

A. SCTA Items 4.1 SCTA Projects and Programming

4.1.1 Measure M – FY20/21 Annual Report (ACTION)* 4.1.2 Funding – Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program (ACTION)* 4.1.3 Transit – Future of Transit ad hoc update and member appointment (ACTION)* 4.1.4 Transit – update on MTC Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force (REPORT)*

B. RCPA Items 4.2 RCPA Projects and Programs

4.2.1 Admin – Climate Action Advisory Committee membership (ACTION)*

5 Reports and Announcements 5.1 Executive Committee report 5.2 Regional agency reports 5.3 Advisory Committee agendas* 5.4 SCTA/RCPA staff report

5.4.1 RCPA Activities (REPORT)* 5.4.2 SCTA/RCPA Community Affairs (REPORT)* 5.4.3 Highways – update on State Highway projects (REPORT)*

5.5 Announcements

6 Adjourn *Materials attached.

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held March 8, 2021 Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at http://scta.ca.gov/meetings-and-events/board-meetings/

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact the SCTA/RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the SCTA/RCPA after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the SCTA/RCPA office at 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404, during normal business hours.

Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS: Please consider carpooling or taking transit to this meeting. For more information check www.511.org, www.srcity.org/citybus, www.sctransit.com or https://carmacarpool.com/sfbay

http://scta.ca.gov/meetings-and-events/board-meetings/

http://www.511.org/

http://www.srcity.org/citybus

http://www.sctransit.com/

https://carmacarpool.com/sfbay

The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting was conducted entirely by teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2021

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)

Meeting called to order at 2:34 p.m. by Chair Susan Gorin.

Directors Present: Director Susan Gorin, Chair, First District; Director Logan Harvey, Vice-Chair, City of Sonoma; Director Melanie Bagby, City of Cloverdale; Director D’Lynda Fischer, City of Petaluma; Sarah Gurney, City of Sebastopol; Director Lynda Hopkins, Fifth District; Director Ariel Kelley, City of Healdsburg; Director Mark Landman, City of Cotati; Director David Rabbitt, Second District; Director Chris Rogers, City of Santa Rosa; Director Sam Salmon, Town of Windsor.

Directors Absent: Vacant, City of Rohnert Park.

2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda

N/A

3. Consent Calendar

A. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items

3.1. Admin – meeting notes from December 14, 2020 (ACTION)*

3.2. Admin – meeting schedule for 2021 (ACTION)*

B. RCPA Items

3.3. BayREN – Agreement No. RCPA21003 with BayREN for energy efficiency work (ACTION)*

3.4. BayREN – Agreement No. RCPA21004 with County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Division (ACTION)*

C. SCTA Items

3.5. Planning – amendment to agreement No. SCTA19011 with Fehr & Peers for on call services (ACTION)*

Chair Gorin requested to hold a roll call vote on Item 3.1 separate from the Consent Calendar.

Item 3.1 was approved via acclimation through the following vote:

Aye: Bagby; Gurney; Gorin; Harvey; Kelley; Landman; Rabbitt; Rogers; Salmon.

Noes: N/A

Abstain: Fischer; Hopkins.

Absent: N/A

A roll call vote was held for Items 3.2 through 3.5 on the Consent Calendar and was approved via acclimation through the following vote:

Aye: Bagby; Fischer; Gurney; Gorin; Harvey; Hopkins; Kelley; Landman; Rabbitt; Rogers; Salmon.

Noes: N/A

Absent: N/A

4. Regular Calendar

A. SCTA/RCPA Items

4.1 Admin – Election of Officers for 2021 (ACTION)*

Director Rabbitt nominated Chair Gorin for another year serving as Chair and nominated Vice Chair Harvey for another year serving as Vice Chair, Director Rogers seconded.

The election Director Susan Gorin for Chair and Director Logan Harvey for Vice Chair for 2021 was approved via acclimation through the following vote:


Noes: N/A

Absent: N/A

Chair Gorin further explained the Executive Committee and its functions, and sought nominations for the two open positions.

Director Landman recommended Director D’Lynda Fischer to the Executive Committee and Director Ariel Kelley as the alternate, Director Rogers seconded the nomination.

The nominations of Director Ariel Kelley and Director D’Lynda Fischer to the Executive Committee for 2021 was approved through the following vote:


Noes: N/A

Absent: N/A

4.2 Admin – SCTA/RCPA 2020 Annual Report (ACTION)*

Brant Arthur presented to the Board of Directors the the SCTA/RCPA 2020 Annual Report. The Annual Report can be located at the following link: https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/4.2-Draft-2020-Annual-Report-1-4-21.pdf

Director Landman moved for approval of the 2020 SCTA/RCPA Annual Report, Director Bagby seconded. The 2020 SCTA/RCPA Annual Report was approved through the following vote:


Noes: N/A

Absent: N/A

4.3 Admin – SCTA/RCPA Legislative Platform (ACTION)*

Suzanne Smith outlined the legislative principles related to state and federal legislation, and sough general guidance from the Board of Directors.

The principles were included in the agenda packet and were described the Board of Directors.

Director Hopkins commented on set funding pots that would pit car-centric priorities against GHG priorities and asked how the Board of Directors would address these potential conflicts.

Ms. Smith responded this conflict happens all the time. Federal funding often comes through the One Bay Area Grant and hinges in large part on the priorities of the jurisdictions. If we get projects, tend to recommend a mix of projects to the Board.

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/4.2-Draft-2020-Annual-Report-1-4-21.pdf



This will be an interesting evolution as we look at how the new measure (Go Sonoma) funds will merge, mesh with existing funding sources.

Public Comment

Mark Mortenson commented on the absence of regenerative agriculture. The Healthy Soil Campaign offers an opportunity for local farmers to improve soil and carbon sequestration. This campaign aligns with the Climate Mobilization Strategy and seems to be a good fit.

John Shribbs supported legislation that encourages more trees on local roads and on the highway. Not only do trees provide carbon sequestrian benefits, but also calms traffic and preserves the pavement.

Director Landman added “resource protection” as an overall encompassing term.

Director Hopkins added the need to recognize that some resources are already depleted and suggested to add, “Carbon sequestrian and ecosystem service investments on wild and working lands.”

The motion will include these comments as amended.

The SCTA/RCPA Legislative Platform was approved via acclimation through the following vote:

Aye: Bagby; Fischer; Gurney; Gorin; Harvey Hopkins; Kelley; Landman; Rabbitt; Rogers; Salmon.

Noes: N/A

Abstain: N/A

Absent: N/A

4.4 Admin – SCTA/RCPA Briefing Book (REPORT)*

Suzanne Smith announced the SCTA/RCPA Briefing Book is available for the new Board members and members of the public for their information on SCTA/RCPA.

This can be found at the following link: https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-SCTA-RCPA-Briefing-Book.pdf

This is an informational item.

4.5 Admin – SCTA/RCPA 2021 Work Plan and staffing changes (ACTION)*

Suzanne Smith presented and explained the proposed SCTA/RCPA work plan.

The request to the Board of Directors is to accept the 2021 work plan and to authorize the creation of the two positions. The first position to be created is the Chief Deputy Executive Director and an Assistant Director for Projects and Programming.

Ms. Smith explained the need for these changes and the benefits to the agency if approved by the Board of Directors.

Director Landman supported the staffing changes fully, noting the benefit the organization.

Vice Chair Harvey suggested to add to the work plan the idea of creating a climate plan, meeting the zero emissions by 2030 goal, and need to look at a ballot measure/funding source for such plan is critical.

Ms. Smith responded that by bringing the climate mobilization strategy forward, we are going to have a framework of actions that we should be taking immediate steps to help achieve the goals.

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-SCTA-RCPA-Briefing-Book.pdf



Director Hopkins wondered about the opportunity to consider forming an exploratory committee of environmental activists and advocates.

Director Kelley asked about the next steps for Vision Zero.

Ms. Smith responded Vision Zero project is in collaboration with Sonoma County Department of Health Services. SCTA’s role in the project is to develop a data dashboard.

Public Comment:

Kevin Conway commented on the hope the bike share program will include e-bikes.

Steve Birdlebough noticed the housing and commuters items on the work plan was struck and hoped that we are not retracting efforts in these areas.

Eris Weaver commented on the language around Vision Zero and our desire to reduce traffic fatalities. We need to eliminate “accident” from our vocabulary when speaking of vehicle collisions, since “accident” implies nothing could have been done to avoid it; most of the time, these collisions are avoidable.

Director Gurney commented in support that the reorganization will allow the Executive Director to have time for RCPA-related work and that RCPA work will ramp up as cities start working on the climate effort.

Director Landman move for approval of the 2021 Work Plan and the creation of the two new positions, Director Rogers seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote:

Aye: Bagby; Fischer; Gurney; Gorin; Harvey; Hopkins; Kelley; Landman; Rabbitt; Rogers.

Noes: N/A

Absent: Salmon.

B. RCPA Items

4.6 RCPA Projects and programs

4.6.1 Climate Mobilization – presentation on Climate-Safe California and alignment with Sonoma Climate Mobilization Strategy (ACTION)*

Tanya introduced Ellie Cohen, The Climate Center, to speak on the Climate-Safe California campaign.

Ellie Cohen presented on the campaign. The presentation can be found at the following link: https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Climate-Safe-CA-RCPA-Jan-11-2021.pdf

The Board of Directors is being asked to endorse Climate-Safe California and take back to local jurisdictions for further endorsement and to encourage sending letters to the Governor urging accelerating climate timelines and more funding to local government for climate action.

Ms. Narath added this campaign was compared to the Climate Mobilization for overlap, and the Climate-Safe campaign go above and beyond of what RCPA is proposing. This is no harm with supporting a bigger goal at the safe level.

Director Fischer commented that Petaluma is in a position to adopt a net-neutrality goal at 2030, and asked if it would make sense to align to the net-negative as opposed to neutrality goal.

Ms. Narath responded that 2030 is ambitious.

Ms. Cohen responded that the environmental justice advocates have made it clear that carbon neutrality signals that fossil fuel sources are here to stay, so long as it is captures and sequestered.

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Climate-Safe-CA-RCPA-Jan-11-2021.pdf



That allows the continuation of these impacts. To get to a climate safe future, we need to move beyond fossil fuels. Net-negative is not an end point, and will set up for the next phase.

Director Fischer suggested the Board of Directors supported net-negative when it comes back in March.

Chair Gorin commented on the work in the county to develop a carbon-neutral goal, and would enjoy working with cities and other partners to address this crisis collectively.

Vice Chair Harvey showed complete support for this campaign, stating this agency is suited for this endorsement, and commented that this will show the need for a funding measure that will provide funding to do the necessary work.

Vice Chair Harvey showed caution on signing onto lofty goals without action. This is a climate emergency, and achieving net-neutral/negative is the bare minimum.

Director Hopkins expressed the interest to for carbon-negative and commented that we need to hit the ground running, hard and fast.

Director Rogers commented on the need for action at all levels of government. There is far too much inaction at the federal level and must be made up at the local level.

Public Comment:

Steve Birdlebough supports ambitious goals, but cautions on the need to actually meet these goals. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan will set the standard for whether or not this goal can be met.

Jake Mackenzie commented that the City of Rohnert Park has added “Climate Change” to their priorities.

John Schribbs commented that there needs to be a larger picture, statement described that illustrates the need to address the total emissions, and suggested a statement highlighting that direct emissions, whether transportation or housing, is less than 50% of our total carbon footprint.

Mark Mortensen appreciated that work done by Climate Center and recalled from a previous meeting, that science sets the goals.

Mr. Mortensen further supported the goals and commented on the cost of inaction.

Pete Gang expressed deep gratitude for taking to heart the urgency of the climate crisis. In the discussions with elected officials around the county, Mr. Gang commented there is very little argument to the fact of climate change, but there is little understanding of the screaming urgency of the problem.

The fact is, the timeline is non-negotiable; 2030 to neutral or negative is wildly aggressive, but what we need to do.

Director Hopkins moved to endorse the Climate-Safe California campaign, Director Rabbit seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was approved via the following vote:

Aye: Bagby; Fischer; Gurney; Gorin; Harvey; Hopkins; Kelley; Landman; Rabbitt; Rogers.

Noes: N/A

Absent: Salmon.

5. Reports and Announcements 5.1. Executive Committee report

The Executive Committee did not meet.

5.2 Regional Agency report

N/A

5.3 Advisory Committee agendas*

Included in the agenda packet.

5.4 SCTA/RCPA staff report

5.4.1 RCPA Activities Report


Tanya Narath announced the Water Bill $ave Program achieved milestone with the approval of the master services agreement by ABAG.

Staff will be presenting to the City of Sebastopol staff on this program.

5.4.2 SCTA Planning Activities


5.4.3 SCTA/RCPA Community Affairs Report


5.4.4 Highways – update on State Highway projects

James Cameron provided an update to the highways.

A series of photos were displayed to the Board of Directors illustrating the progress of construction on this segment (MSN C-2 Central Petaluma HOV lanes) of Highway 101.

Mr. Cameron further announced the State Route 37 Policy Committee will be presented with an update on the public meetings regarding coordinated planning efforts on the corridor.

Seana Gause announced the Highway 116/121 project has received an agreement with the property owner and will have access to the parcel in January.

Additionally, Ms. Gause recalled the Hearn Avenue Interchange did not received funding in the LPP

program. SCTA is working with city staff to identify new funding sources.

Director Rabbitt commented on near term flood reduction and lane extension work on SR 37. There is time and effort in moving the projects on Highway 37 forward.

Director Rabbitt further commented on the methodology on the new federal funding.

5.5 Announcements

N/A

6. Adjourn

The SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors meeting adjourned at 4:4 p.m.


Staff Report

Issue

What is the status of year-to-date activities for the SCTA, RCPA, and Measure M Budgets for the Fiscal Year 2020-21, quarter end December 31, 2020?

Recommendation

None, this is an information item only.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

Not applicable to this item.

Alternatives Considered


Executive Summary

This staff report provides a status on operations for each of the budgets as of December 31, 2020. Budget-to-actual comparisons shown on the tables in the following pages reflect actual transactions through the first quarter of the fiscal year.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

None, the Board approved the FY20-21 Final Budgets October 12, 2020, and the reported revenues and expenditures are within the appropriated budgets.

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are:

Background

The Board approved Final 2020-21 Budgets in October of this year for SCTA, RCPA, and Measure M in order for operations to continue.

Below is a brief summary of year-to-date activity as of December 31, 2020.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Item Number: 3.2 Subject: Financial Reporting – FY 2020-21 Q2

Consent Item: ☒ Regular Item: ☐ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

SCTA Budget to Actual 2020-21 Q2

o Revenues are budgeted at $3,121,553 for the fiscal year. The SCTA total revenues as of December 31, 2020 are $606,289:

$27,203 in State funding

$215,431 in Federal funding

$6,060 in Regional funding

$335,508 in Local funding

$18,944 Intergovernmental funding for HOV Lane Violation Fines

$1,466 in Miscellaneous revenue (Refunded Employee Benefit Expense)

$1,677 in Investment Income

o Expenditures are budgeted at $3,170,566 for the fiscal year. The SCTA has total expenditures as of December 31, 2020, are $810,134:

$1,100,259 in Salaries and Benefits

$76,787 in Outside Contract Services

$99,887 in Operational Expenses

($466,799) in reimbursement of interagency transfers of staff time across programs.

RCPA Budget to Actual 2020-21 Q2

o Revenues are budgeted at $2,050,628 for the fiscal year. The RCPA total revenues as of December 31, 2020 are $645,495:

$635,905 in Intergovernmental funding

$8,551 in State funding


o Expenditures are budgeted at $2,006,571 for the fiscal year. The RCPA total expenditures as of December 31, 2020 are $655,179:

$296,542 in Interagency Staff Time

$312,796 in Outside Contract Services


Measure M Budget to Actual 2020-21 Q2

o Revenues were budgeted at $32,625,394 for the fiscal year. The Measure M total revenues as December 31, 2020 are $13,814,088:

$9,288,950 in Sales Tax revenues.

$4,380,163 in Intergovernmental funding


o Expenditures were budgeted at $42,011,531 for the fiscal year. Measure M total expenditures as of December 31, 2020 are $5,007,340:

$147,412 in Interagency Staff Time

$630,215 in Consultant costs

$4,120,178 in Contributions to Other Governments


Supporting Documents

Attached: SCTA Financial Report 20-21 Q2; RCPA Financial Report 20-21 Q2; Measure M Financial Report 20-21 Q2

Description2020-21

Final BudgetActuals

Yr To DateRemaining Balance

% Remaining Balance

Revenues State 456,076$ 27,203$ 428,873$ 94.04%Federal 1,216,074 215,431 1,000,643 82.28%Regional 22,000 6,060 15,940 72.45%Local 1,394,403 335,508 1,058,895 75.94%Intergovernmental 30,000 18,944 11,056 36.85%Miscellaneous - 1,466 (1,466) 0.00%Investment Income 3,000 1,677 1,323 44.10%

Revenues Total 3,121,553$ 606,289$ 2,515,264$ 80.58%Expenditures Salaries and Benefits 2,766,257 1,100,259 1,665,998 60.23%

Outside Contracts/Services 1,228,740 76,787 1,151,953 93.75%Operational Expenditures 465,700 99,887 365,813 78.55%Reimbursements (1,290,132) (466,799) (823,333) 63.82%

Expenditures Total 3,170,565$ 810,134$ 2,360,431$ 74.45%Revenues Less Expenditures (49,012) (203,845) 154,833 Starting Fund Balance 1,053,172 1,053,172 Adjustment to Fund Balance - 5,700 Ending Fund Balance 1,004,160$ 855,027$

SCTA FY2020-21 BUDGET TO ACTUAL AS OF 12/31/20

Description2020-21

Final BudgetActuals


% Remaining Balance

Revenues Intergovernmental 1,987,218$ 635,905$ 1,351,313$ 68.00%State 60,410 8,551 51,859 85.85%Investment Income 3,000 1,039 1,961 65.37%

Revenues Total 2,050,628$ 645,495$ 1,405,133$ 68.52%Expenditures Interagency SCTA Staff Time 913,000$ 296,542$ 616,459 67.52% Outside Contracts/Services 967,536 312,796 654,740 67.67%

Operational Expenditures 126,035 45,841 80,194 63.63%Expenditures Total 2,006,571$ 655,179$ 1,351,393$ 67.35%Revenues Less Expenditures 44,057 (9,684) 53,740 Starting Fund Balance 359,725 359,725 Adjustment to Fund Balance - - Ending Fund Balance 403,782$ 350,042$

RCPA FY2020-21 BUDGET TO ACTUAL AS OF 12/31/20

Description2020-21

Final BudgetActuals


% Remaining Balance

Revenues Tax Revenue 25,146,385$ 9,288,950$ 15,857,435$ 63.06%Intergovernmental Revenues 6,799,863 4,380,163 2,419,700 35.58%Investment Income 679,146 144,975 534,171 78.65%

Revenues Total 32,625,394$ 13,814,088$ 18,811,306$ 57.66%Expenditures Interagency SCTA Staff Time 307,000 147,412 159,588 51.98%

Outside Contract Services 2,530,000 630,215 1,899,785 75.09%Contributions to Other Gov'ts 29,610,887 4,120,178 25,490,709 86.09%Operational Expenditures 355,680 109,535 246,145 69.20%Debt Service 9,207,964 - 9,207,964 100.00%

Expenditures Total 42,011,531$ 5,007,340$ 37,004,191$ 88.08%Revenues Less Expenditures (9,386,137) 8,806,748 (18,192,885) Starting Fund Balance 44,170,043 44,170,043 Adjustment to Fund Balance - (2,375,379) Ending Fund Balance 34,783,906$ 50,601,412$

Measure M FY2020-21 BUDGET TO ACTUAL AS OF 12/31/20


Staff Report

Issue

What is the status of Caltrans’ Three Fiscal Year Work Plan for Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) in Sonoma County? Shall the Board approve the attached list and provide direction to staff to deliver the PID Work Plan to Caltrans?

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Board consider the projects in the attached PID work plan and any additional projects that may need to be added to the list and make a recommendation to staff as to the next appropriate priority for PID development (to be funded by project sponsor). Staff will deliver the Board’s priority list to Caltrans.


The Technical Advisory Committee has reviewed this list and made recommendations.


N/A

Executive Summary

Caltrans has requested that SCTA review and submit a revised three year Work Plan for the development of Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) to the Department. Staff took the list to the TAC and presents the draft list here for the Board’s consideration.


None, it is within policy for the SCTA to identify countywide priorities for PID development.


Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A ☐

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☒ N/A ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are: Local funds from each jurisdiction with a project

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Seana L. S. Gause, Senior - Programming and

Projects Item Number: 3.3

Subject: Project Initiation Document Work Plan – Status Update

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☒ Report: ☐

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

Caltrans has established streamlined estimates for the PID process. Caltrans estimates that developing a PID takes about 16-18 months, and the equivalent work of one person/year (1758 hours). This works out to about $200,000 per PID for oversight. In addition, each PID will cost a certain amount to develop – from $150,000 and up depending on project complexity. Caltrans also estimates that executing a cooperative agreement for such work takes 2-3 months.

Background

Caltrans is required by gubernatorial action to have cost recovery agreements for any oversight provided by Caltrans’ staff. Such requirements necessitate having cooperative agreements with Caltrans in order for funds to be exchanged. Further, Caltrans requires its’ districts to have a three year work plan for production of PIDs, and if a project is to be considered for the work plan, it should be listed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and have secured funding sources through the Environmental Phase.

In December 2019, as in previous years, SCTA staff, at the Board’s direction, submitted a three year work plan. SCTA has received Caltrans’ request for an updated 3-year plan starting with FY20/21. Staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding new/additional PIDs that may be needed.

Staff is soliciting direction from the Board regarding the priority of the listed projects and any additional projects that may need to be added. There is a requirement that PIDs be developed and paid for with local funds, and that projects have committed funding sources through at least the environmental phase in order for Caltrans to enter into a cooperative agreement for oversight on PID development. Caltrans cannot begin work on a PID without an executed cooperative agreement.


Link to: PID Work Plan for FYs20/21, 21/22, and 22/23

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CT-FY-20-21-21-22-22-23-PID-Work-Plan-Post-TAC20210203v2.pdf


Staff Report

Issue

Shall the Board approve the Measure M Annual Report for FY19/20?

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Board approve the FY19/20 Measure M Annual Report.


The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) reviewed this report on January 25 and recommended approval to the Board.



Executive Summary

Every year the SCTA produces a report of Measure M activities from the previous fiscal year. This Annual Report provides information on activities, programming and finances for FY19/20.


The Annual Report serves as a review of the previous year’s expenditures for Measure M.


Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☒ No ☐

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☒ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are: Measure M

Background

Every year the SCTA produces a report of Measure M activities from the previous fiscal year. This Annual Report provides information on activities, programming and finances for FY19/20.


DRAFT Measure M Annual Report_FY19-20.pdf


Projects Item Number: 4.1.1

Subject: FY19/20 Measure M Annual Report


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/4.0c-Measure-M_AnnualReport_FY19-20_v3.pdf


Staff Report

Issue

What is the Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program and how might local jurisdictions be able to use it to fund key projects? Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Board review the following information regarding the Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike funding program.


N/A


N/A

Executive Summary

The Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike program is a regional, competitive grant program to fund projects that can be implemented quickly to benefit communities. The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, transit and transit access improvements, connected mobility, advancing equitable mobility, or other near-term strategies to advance transit recovery and connected mobility. The program does not have a Sonoma County “share” and is performance based. There is a nomination target of approximate $3-$4 million in programing for SCTA. The call for letters of interest was released by SCTA on January 22 and was updated on February 1 when MTC released final requirements of the program.


SCTA is responsible for fund programming in compliance with goals of both the Plan Bay Area and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The Quick Strike program is aligned to address those goals. To address local needs throughout the region, and encourage community-based project investments, each County Transportation Agency (CTA) will act on MTC’s behalf and submit project nominations for their county area. Financial Implications


Projects Item Number: 4.1.2

Subject: The Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Program

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☒ No ☐ N/A ☐

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A ☒

The funding source(s) to be used are: OBAG 2 STP/CMAQ – federal funds

The target amount of funding for Sonoma County is between $3M and $4M.

Background

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission released a call for letters of interest under the program known as Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike. Under this program, responsibility for identifying proposed projects for funding is delegated to the county transportation authorities.

The Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike program is a regional, competitive grant program to fund projects that can be implemented quickly to benefit communities. The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, transit and transit access improvements, connected mobility, advancing equitable mobility, or other near-term strategies to advance transit recovery and connected mobility. More details are included in the MTC Programming and Allocations Committee Resolution and Policy Framework for Quick Strike (attached).

MTC has proposed the following schedule for the implementation of this program:

MTC Project Selection Timeline for SCTA as the County Transportation Authority February 1 MTC releases call for letters of interest to CTAs March 30 Deadline for CTAs to submit letters of interest nominating projects April MTC staff evaluates projects, develops recommended funding approach Late April/Early May Partnership Board: Discussion of staff recommendation May MTC works with Sponsors to refine projects & submit detailed project applications

with defined scopes and funding plans June 9 PAC: Discussion of proposed Safe and Seamless program of projects June 23 Commission: Approval of Safe & Seamless program of projects March 31, 2022 Funds obligated/authorized by an E-76

In order to meet the above deadlines, SCTA is establishing the following schedule refinements: SCTA Project Selection Timeline for Sonoma County jurisdictions eligible for Federal OBAG 2 funding

January 22 SCTA releases call for letters of interest to Federal Aid eligible project sponsors February 1 SCTA posts supplemental information to call for letters of interest, if necessary February 19 Letters of Interest and completed applications due to SCTA by 12:00 P.M. February 25 List of submitted projects presented to SCTA TAC March 8 Staff recommendations for project submittal to SCTA Board for approval

Further, because the MTC guidelines require that all projects under consideration are subject to One Bay Area Grant, Cycle 2 requirements, SCTA is requiring that all letters of interest submitted for 2021 Quick Strike by the deadline be accompanied by a completed SCTA OBAG 2 project application.

The call for letters of interest is attached to this staff report and on the SCTA web site.


MTC Programming and Allocations Committee Staff Report agenda item 3d - dated January 13, 2021

2021 Quick Strike call for letters of interest cover letter.

SCTA OBAG 2 project application for 2021 Quick Strike and instructions.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee

January 13, 2021 Agenda Item 3d - 20-1603

MTC Resolution No. 3925, Revised and 4202, Revised

Subject: Adopt the policy framework for a Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike program to be funded through capacity created by the Federal Highway Infrastructure Program.

Background: For the last several years, annual appropriations bills have included an infusion of

highway apportionment through the Federal Highway Infrastructure Program (FHIP). The FHIP apportionment is provided in addition to funding the STP/CMAQ programs at levels authorized by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Federal Highway Infrastructure Program Apportionment ($ millions, rounded)

2018 2019 2020

Total To Date

Bay Area $18.8 $26.4 $7.7 $52.9 In actions taken at both the February 2019 and July 2020 meetings, the Commission programmed $52.9 million in FHIP funds to the Golden Gate Bridge (GGB) Suicide Deterrent System project.1 As part of these actions, an equal amount of STP/CMAQ funds previously programmed on the GGB project was returned to the regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (STP/CMAQ) balance for re-programming. This new funding capacity – as a complement to the transit funding made available in the federal COVID-19 relief funding package – presents an opportunity to assist with the region’s pandemic recovery by providing meaningful low-cost, near-term deliverable enhancements to the transportation system to get transit out of traffic, enhance equitable mobility options, and make progress on initiatives stemming from the Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force. In addition to the STP/CMAQ freed-up by the FHIP, a $1.5 million small balance also remains within the STP/CMAQ Cycle 1 Regional Bike Share Capital grant program. Given the changing needs for public investment in bike share in recent years, staff proposes to reprogram the $1.5 million along with the $52.9 million resulting from the FHIP. STP/CMAQ Funds Available ($ millions, rounded) Amount STP/CMAQ returned to region by GGBHTD (FHIP swap) $52.9 Regional Bike Share Capital grant program balance $1.5

Total $54.4

1 The GGB Suicide Deterrent System project was recommended to receive the region’s FHIP apportionment as it had a large amount in unobligated STP/CMAQ funds and was prepared to quickly obligate the funds. The project was also eligible for FHIP, which in the first appropriations bill was limited to only the construction of highways, bridges, and tunnels. Although eligibility for the funds have broadened through the subsequent appropriations, the Commission elected to focus FHIP onto the GGB project.

Programming and Allocations Committee Agenda Item 3d - 20-1603 January 13, 2021 Page 2 of 3

Recommendation: Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program Staff recommends programming the $54.4 million in available STP/CMAQ funds, to establish a one-time, competitive grant program to fund local projects that can be implemented very quickly to benefit communities responding and adapting to the COVID-19 environment.

Eligible Project Types & Focus Areas The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, connections to transit, and projects that advance equitable mobility. Eligible project types include:

Quick-build bike, pedestrian, and transit improvements; including bike shareenhancements.

Local safe and seamless mobility projects, including projects that advanceequitable mobility; invest in bicycle/pedestrian safety; improve connectionsto transit; or implement seamless strategies within a transportation corridor.

In addition to capital projects, programs that support safe and seamlessmobility or advance equitable mobility are also eligible (ex. safe routes toschool/transit programs); a limited amount of funding (up to $200,000 percounty) may also be directed towards countywide implementation of safeand seamless mobility planning and programming efforts.

Other near-term implementation of strategies emerging from the Blue-Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force and Partnership Board’s ConnectedMobility Subcommittee.

All funds must be obligated or transferred to FTA by March 31, 2022.

Fund commitments for specific focus areas include: One-quarter of the total program is targeted for bicycle/pedestrian safety

(including local road safety). $5 million is set aside to support early implementation efforts anticipated

from the Blue-Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force.

Project Selection Timeline

Additional program details are provided in Appendix A-11 to the resolution.

Issues: None.

February 1 MTC releases call for letters of interest to CTAs March 30 Deadline for CTAs to submit letters of interest nominating projects April MTC staff evaluates projects, develops recommended funding approach Late April/ Early May

Partnership Board: Discussion of staff recommendation

May MTC works with sponsors to refine projects & submit detailed project applications with defined scopes and funding plans

June 9 PAC: Discussion of proposed Safe and Seamless program of projects June 23 Commission: Approval of Safe & Seamless program of projects March 31, 2022 Funds obligated/authorized in an E-76

Programming and Allocations Committee Agenda Item 3d - 20-1603 January 13, 2021 Page 3 of 3

Recommendation: Refer MTC Resolution Nos. 3925 Revised and 4202 Revised, to modify the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (STP/CMAQ) Cycle 1 program and the One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 2) to include the Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program – to the Commission for approval.

Attachments: MTC Resolution No. 3925, Revised, Attachment B MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised, Attachments A and B-1, and Appendix A-11

Therese W. McMillan

Date: October 28, 2009 W.I.: 1512 Referred by: PAC Revised: 12/16/09-C 07/28/10-C 09/22/10-C 10/27/10-C 02/23/11-C 03/23/11-C 05/25/11-C 06/22/11-C 09/28/11-C 10/26/11-C 02/22/12-C 03/28/12-C 04/25/12-C 06/27/12-C 07/25/12-C 09/26/12-C 02/27/13-C 05/22/13-C 09/25/13-C 12/18/13-C 02/26/14-C 03/26/14-C 04/23/14-C 05/28/14-C 07/23/14-C 11/19/14-C 12/17/14-C 01/28/15-C 05/27/15-C 09/23/15-C 05/25/16-C 07/27/16-C 12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 05/24/17-C 11/15/17-C 02/28/18-C 04/25/18-C 09/26/18-C 02/27/19-C 12/18/19-C 07/22/20-C 01/27/21-C

ABSTRACT

Resolution No. 3925, Revised

This resolution adopts the Project Selection Criteria, policies and programming for the Surface

Transportation Authorization Act, following the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient

Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), and any extensions of SAFETEA in the interim, for the

Cycle 1, Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ) Program. The Project Selection Criteria contains the project categories that

are to be funded with FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 STP/CMAQ funds to be amended into the

currently adopted 2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and subsequent TIP update.

The resolution includes the following attachments:

Attachment A – Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria, and Programming Policies

Attachment B – Cycle 1 Project List

The resolution was revised on December 16, 2009 to add Attachment A and to add $437 million

to Attachment B, the balance of funding to Cycle 1 programs.

Appendix A-1 and A-7 of Attachment A along with Attachment B of the resolution were revised

on July 28, 2010 to add approximately $15.1 million in additional apportionment as follows:

1) Strategic Investment – Advance of SamTrans Payback ($6.0 million); 2) Transportation for

Livable Communities ($4.1 million); 3) Regional Commitment – GGB Suicide Deterrent ($5.0

million). In addition, the framework for second cycle is revised to program “freed up” Second

Cycle Funds of $6 million to the Climate Initiative program.

ABSTRACT MTC Resolution No. 3925, Revised Page 2

This resolution was revised on September 22, 2010 to advance $20 million in Freeway

Performance Initiative project elements to address lower than expected state programming as

well as the opportunity to capture more obligation authority. This action increases federal

programming in First Cycle and reduces federal programming in Second Cycle by an equal

amount.

This resolution was revised on October 27, 2010 to award grants from the Climate Initiatives

Innovative Grant Program ($31 million) and the Safe Routes to Schools Creative Grant Program

($2 million). Attachment B was also updated to show projects nominated by the CMAs for the

CMA Block Grant Program along with other updates reflecting TIP actions.

Attachment B was revised on February 23, 2011 to reflect the addition of new projects selected

by the congestion management agencies, counties, and revisions to existing projects.

Attachment B was revised on March 23, 2011 to facilitate a fund exchange between the Green

Ways to School Through Social Networking Project (TAM) with the Venetia Valley School

SR2S Improvements (Marin County) and to make additional programming updates.

Attachment B was revised on May 25, 2011, to add $2,092,000 to seven new grants for San

Francisco, Fremont, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Walnut Creek.

Attachment B was revised on June 22, 2011, to rescind $1,998,000 for two projects in Hayward

and Hercules.

Appendix A-1 and A-7 of Attachment A along with Attachment B of the resolution were revised

on September 28, 2011 to advance $5.0 million for SFgo in the Climate Initiative Element, and

$13.3 million for the SamTrans Payback in the Regional Strategic Investment element to address

higher than expected federal apportionment in the near-term, while not increasing the overall

funding commitment for the Cycles 1 & 2 framework. This action increases federal

programming in First Cycle and reduces federal programming commitments in Second Cycle by

an equal amount.

Attachment B was revised on October 26, 2011 to provide $376,000 to the Stewart’s Point

Rancheria Intertribal Electric Vehicle Project and to modify the scope of Santa Rosa’s Climate

Initiatives Program grant.

Attachment A (pages 6 and 17), and Appendix A-1 and A-7 of Attachment A along with

Attachment B of the resolution were revised on February 22, 2012 to advance $8,971,587 for the


Lifeline Transportation Program to address higher than expected federal apportionment in the

near-term and to redirect funding to the US 101 Capitol Expressway Interchange project. The

latter revision requires VTA to provide an equal amount of future local/RTIP funds to a TLC

project. This action increases federal programming in First Cycle and reduces federal

programming commitments in Second Cycle by an equal amount, while not increasing the

overall funding commitment for the Cycles 1 & 2 framework.

Attachment A (pages 6 and 17), Appendix A-1 of Attachment A along with Attachment B of the

resolution were revised on March 28, 2012 to add $34 million in STP/CMAQ funds redirected

from Cycle 2 FPI for the Doyle Drive / Presidio Parkway, with an equivalent amount in future

San Francisco RTIP funding to be directed to regional FPI/Express Lanes. The OA Carryover

identified for Cycle 1 is reduced from $54 million to $0 to accommodate this action and the

advance of $20 million for FPI on September 22, 2010. Additional changes were made to the

project listing in Attachment B.

Attachment A (pages 6 and 17), and Appendix A-1 of Attachment A along with Attachment B of

the resolution were revised on April 25, 2012 to address the following: program $1.2 million to

an ACE preventive maintenance project in lieu of an equal amount for SR2S funding for

Alameda county (ACTC agrees to fund an equal amount of SR2S projects using local funds);

advance and program the remaining $2.7 million for the small/ northbay county operators (with

this advance, the entire $31 million STP/CMAQ commitment for the MTC Resolution 3814

Transit Payback as identified in Attachment A has been fulfilled); and redirect $700,000 from

the Climate Initiatives Public Outreach effort to the Spare the Air program. Additional changes

were made to the project listing in Attachment B.

Attachment B to the resolution was revised on June 27, 2012 to reflect the following actions:

program $7.6 million for specific STP/CMAQ projects for the Lifeline program; program $3.7

million to ten new Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning Grants for San Francisco,

Fremont, Concord, Alameda, Alameda County, Richmond, Mountain View and Rohnert Park;

and revise the SamTrans projects receiving the Caltrain Payback, among other changes.

Attachment B to the resolution was revised on July 25, 2012 to add $0.2 million for Lifeline

transportation projects.

Attachment B to the resolution was revised on September 26, 2012 to add $50,000 to the Walnut

Creek fourth cycle PDA planning grant and to move funds between two projects in the Sonoma

County’s County TLC Program.


Attachment B to the resolution was revised on February 27, 2013 to redirect $50,000 to the City

of San Jose’s San Carlos Multimodal project from the Los Gatos Creek Reach 5 Trail project.

This resolution was revised on May 22, 2013 to extend the obligation deadline for the remaining

Cycle 1 funds for projects subject to the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies, and delays in

programming of Lifeline Transportation projects and small/northbay transit operators projects

subject to the MTC Resolution 3814 transit payback commitment, and climate initiative innovative

grant projects. Attachment B to the resolution was also revised to reflect the following actions:

Redirect $180,000 from the City of Concord’s Monument Blvd Corridor Shared Use Trail (Phase

1) to the Monument Blvd Corridor Pedestrian and Bikeway Network (Phase 2) with no change in

total funding; add the Eddy and Ellis Traffic Calming Lifeline project in San Francisco for

$1,175,105; modify the funding amounts between SamTrans’ Caltrain Right-Of-Way payback

commitment projects with no change in total funding; replace the Livermore plaza TLC project

with the Livermore railroad depot restoration project with no change in total funding; deprogram

the electric vehicle taxi climate initiative project for $6,988,000 as a result of Better Place

withdrawing from the project and retain $988,000 for SFMTA’s Electric Vehicles for

Neighborhood Taxi Service project (a sub-element of the original project); and redirect: $875,000

to extend the Dynamic Rideshare project; and redirect $2,800,000 to increase the BAAQMD’s

bike sharing climate initiative project from $4,291,000 to $7,091,000.

Attachment B to the resolution was revised on September 25, 2013 to substitute the City of

Oakland’s Foothill Blvd. Streetscape Project with the Lakeside Green Streets Project.

Attachment B and Appendix A-1 to the resolution were revised on December 18, 2013 to change

$31 million from RTIP to CMAQ in the FPI program and to add a Sonoma US 101 FPI project

and to update the funding amounts for the remaining FPI projects.

Attachment B was revised February 26, 2014 to reprogram Santa Clara’s RTIP-TE funding from

a lapsed project to two new projects in Santa Clara County, redirect $3 million in Public

Outreach Climate Initiatives Funding to the Spare the Air program and reduce funds for the

Richmond Rail Connector Project.

Attachment B was revised March 26, 2014 to add $2.7 million to the Clipper Program to

Implement Phase III and make funding adjustments within the Freeway Performance Initiative

Program by moving funds from the Marin US 101 component to the Solano I-80/ I-680/ SR 12

Interchange component.


Attachment B was revised April 23, 2014 to make changes to the Climate Initiatives Program

including the addition of the Bay Area Bike Share Program (Phase II) and funding amount

adjustments for two other programs.

As referred by the Planning Committee, Attachment B was revised on May 28, 2014 to program

remaining reserve in the TLC/Station Area Plans/PDA Planning Program, in companion with the

programming of Cycle 2 PDA planning funds.

On July 23, 2014, Attachment B was revised to capture returned savings and unspent funding

from various projects including the Richmond Rail Connector and Climate Initiatives EV

strategies, and redirect funding from the Freeway Performance Initiatives (FPI) program which

received funding from other sources, to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent Net.

On November 19, 2014, Attachment B was revised to replace Vacaville’s Accessible Paths to

Transit Project with its SRTS Infrastructure Improvements Project.

On December 17, 2014, Attachment B was revised to de-program $988,000 from SFMTA’s

Electric Vehicles for Neighborhood Taxi project, and redirect these funds to public education and

outreach within the Climate Initiatives program to help address the FY 2016-17 funding shortfall.

On January 28, 2015, Attachment B was revised to de-program $1,446,802 from the city of San

Jose’s Innovative Bicycle Detection System to the San Jose TDM project. A total of $53,198 has

been expended and reimbursed by FHWA and therefore remains programmed on the Bicycle

Detection project.

On May 27, 2015, Attachment B was revised to add Caltrans as a co-sponsor of the Doyle

Drive/Presidio Parkway project and delete the city of San Jose’s Innovative Bicycle Detection

System program and redirect the remaining $53,198 to the San Jose TDM project. The City of

San Jose has repaid FHWA the $53,198 in expended and reimbursed funds freeing up the funds

for redirection to the San Jose TDM project. Attachment B was also revised to reduce the

existing bicycle sharing projects from a total of $9,816,000 to $4,403,000 and redirect

$4,500,000 to Bicycle Sharing in Emerging Communities, and $500,000 to San Mateo

Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements. The remaining $413,000 will be determined at a later date.

On September 23, 2015, Attachment B was revised to reprogram $400,000 for the Climate

Initiatives Outreach Program from MTC to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and

to revise the project scope for the I-80 Freeway Performance Initiative project.


On May 25, 2016, Attachment B was revised to redirect $358,500 from PDA Implementation

Studies/Forums and $1,390 in unprogrammed PDA planning funds within the Transportation for

Livable Communities (TLC) program to ABAG PDA Planning and Implementation.

On July 27, 2016, Attachment B was revised to redirect $548,388 in unobligated balances from

San Francisco Department of Public Works’ Folsom Street Streetscape project to the Second

Street Complete Streets project within the County Transportation for Livable Communities

program.

On December 21, 2016, Attachment B was revised to redirect $3,583,000 to the I-880 Integrated

Corridor Management project within the Incident Management program and redirect $20,000

from MTC’s Public Education Outreach, $240,000 from MTC’s Smart Driving Pilot Program,

and $13,000 in unprogrammed balances to MTC’s Spare the Air Youth Program within the

Climate Change Initiatives Program.

On April 26, 2017, Attachment B was revised to redirect $145,000 within the Regional

Operations program to reflect actual obligations.

On May 24, 2017, Attachment B was revised to increase the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District’s Bicycle-Sharing Pilot Program within the Climate Change Initiatives program by

$1,061,098 to reflect actual obligations; increase MTC’s Bicycle-Sharing Pilot Program within

the Climate Change Initiatives program by $295,636 to reflect estimated final obligations, and

indicate that MTC is the sole sponsor of the project; program $1,440,000 to Concord Commerce

Avenue Complete Streets project within the Regional Transportation for Livable Communities

(TLC) program; remove $681,290 in project savings from San Jose’s San Carlos Multimodal

Streetscape – Phase 2 within the Regional TLC program to address over-programming within the

current cycle.

On November 15, 2017, Attachment B was revised to program $2,584,000 to MTC for Bike

Share Capital and Outreach and $500,000 to San Mateo’s Downtown Parking Technology

Improvement project as part of an exchange to transfer $500,000 in non-federal funds to the San

Mateo Drive Complete Streets project, within the Climate Initiatives Program.

On February 28, 2018, Attachment B was revised to redirect $659,000 from the Fremont Bike

Share Capital and Outreach project to the Fremont Various Streets and Roads Rehabilitation

project as part of an internal funding swap; and to reprogram $1,024,000 for Richmond’s Bike

Share project and $826,000 to Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) for the joint


SCTA/Transportation Authority of Marin Bike Share project into the MTC Exchange Program;

and to clarify exchange project within Cycle 1.

On April 25, 2018, Attachment B was revised to program $15,000,000 in STP apportionment for

the Doyle Drive / Presidio Parkway Landscaping project. This action and funding are related to

the partnership between Caltrans and MTC to provide sufficient resources for the successful

completion of the San Francisco Bay Bridge (SFOBB) Gateway access improvements project.

On September 26, 2018, Attachment B was revised to return $309,000 from Fremont’s Various

Streets and Roads Rehabilitation project (fund exchange to provide local funds to Fremont Bike

Share) to the unprogrammed balance within the Bike Share in Emerging Communities project.

On February 27, 2019, Attachment B was revised to change the fund source of $15,000,000

programmed to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent in Surface Transportation Block Grant

Program (STP) funds to Highway Infrastructure Program (STP Bump) funds provided in the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. The $15,000,000 was returned to the region’s

STP/CMAQ balance to help address the CMAQ shortfall as a result of the region becoming

attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and therefore receiving less CMAQ funds which are

distributed based on air quality status.

On December 18, 2019, Attachment B was revised to redirect $700,000 within the Climate

Initiatives Innovative Grants program from Bike Share in Emerging Communities to Bike Share

Implementation.

On January 27, 2021, Attachment B was revised to redirect the remaining $1,525,000 balance

within the Climate Initiatives Innovative Grants program from Bike Share in Emerging

Communities to the current STP/CMAQ program, the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2).

Further discussion of the Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Program is

contained in the memorandum to the Programming and Allocations Committee dated October

14, 2009, December 9, 2009, July 14, 2010, September 8, 2010; October 13, 2010, February 9,

2011, March 9, 2011, May 11, 2011, June 8, 2011, September 14, 2011, October 12, 2011,

February 8, 2012, March 7, 2012, April 11, 2012, June 13, 2012, July 11, 2012, September 12,

2012, February 13, 2013, May 8, 2013, September 11, 2013, December 11, 2013, February 12,

2014, March 5, 2014, and April 9, 2014, and to the Planning Committee dated May 9, 2014, and

to the Programming and Allocations Committee dated July 9, 2014, November 12, 2014,

December 10, 2014, January 14, 2015 and May 13, 2015, and the Administration Committee on


May 13, 2015, and to the Programming and Allocations Committee dated September 9, 2015,

May 11, 2016, July 13, 2016, December 14, 2016, April 12, 2017, May 10, 2017, November 8,

2017, February 14, 2018, April 25, 2018, September 12, 2018, February 13, 2019, December 11,

2019, and January 13, 2021.

Date: October 28, 2009 W.I.: 1512 Referred By: PAC RE: New Federal Surface Transportation Act (FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12)

Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Program: Project Selection Criteria, Policy, Procedures and Programming

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

RESOLUTION NO. 3925

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional

transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code

Section 66500 et seq.; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the nine-

county San Francisco Bay Area region (the region) and is required to prepare and endorse a

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which includes a list of Surface Transportation

Planning (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)

funded projects; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated recipient for regional STP and CMAQ funds for the

San Francisco Bay Area; and

WHEREAS, MTC has developed policies and procedures to be used in the selection of

projects to be funded with STP and CMAQ funds for the Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Program (23

U.S.C. Section 133), as set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution, incorporated herein as

though set forth at length; and

WHEREAS, using the procedures and criteria set forth in Attachment A of this

Resolution, MTC, in cooperation with the Bay Area Partnership, have or will develop a program

of projects to be funded with STP and CMAQ funds in Cycle 1 for inclusion in the 2009

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) including the subsequent TIP update, as set forth in

Amendment B of this Resolution, incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and

WHEREAS the 2009 TIP and the subsequent TIP update will be subject to public review

and comment; now therefore be it

MTC Resolution No. 3925Page 2

RESOLVED that MTC approves the Project Selection Criteria, Policies, Procedures and

Programming for the New Federal Surface Transportation Act (FY 2009-10, FY 2010-11 and FY

2011-12) Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ funding, as set forth in Attachments A and B of this Resolution;

and be it further

RESOLVED that the regional STP and CMAQ funding shall be pooled and redistributed

on a regional basis for implementation of Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria,

Policies, Procedures and Programming, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP);

and be it further

RESOLVED that the projects will be amended into in the 2009 TIP and the subsequent

TIP update, subject to the final federal approval; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Executive Director is authorized to revise Attachment B as

necessary to reflect the programming of projects as the projects are identified and amended in the

TIP; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Executive Director shall make available a copy of this resolution,

and such other information as may be required, to the Governor, Caltrans, and to other such

agencies as may be appropriate.

METROP LITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Scot,C4

The above resolution was entered intoby the Metropolitan Transportation.Commission at the regular meetingof the Commission held in Oakland,California, on October 28, 2009

Project Category and TitleImplementing

AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1

T4 FIRST CYCLE PROGRAMMING $573,249,420 $130,732,000 $703,981,4201. REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES (STP Planning)Regional Agency Planning Activities

ABAG Planning ABAG $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000BCDC Planning BCDC $893,000 $0 $893,000MTC Planning MTC $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000

SUBTOTAL $4,465,000 $0 $4,465,000County CMA Planning Activities

CMA Planning - Alameda ACTC $2,566,000 $0 $2,566,000CMA Planning - Contra Costa CCTA $2,029,000 $0 $2,029,000CMA Planning - Marin TAM $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000CMA Planning - Napa NCTPA $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000CMA Planning - San Francisco SFCTA $1,867,000 $0 $1,867,000CMA Planning - San Mateo SMCCAG $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000CMA Planning - Santa Clara VTA $2,840,000 $0 $2,840,000CMA Planning - Solano STA $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000CMA Planning - Sonoma SCTA $1,786,000 $0 $1,786,000

SUBTOTAL $18,232,000 $0 $18,232,0001. REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES (STP Planning) TOTAL: $22,697,000 $0 $22,697,000

2. REGIONAL OPERATIONS (RO) PROGRAMSRegional Operations

Clipper® Fare Card Collections System MTC $19,772,000 $0 $19,772,000Clipper® Fare Card Collections System GGBHTD $8,900,000 $0 $8,900,000Clipper® Fare Card Collections System/Preventive Maintenance SamTrans $228,000 $0 $228,000511 - Traveler Information MTC $34,500,000 $0 $34,500,000Regional Transportation Marketing MTC $2,100,000 $0 $2,100,000

SUBTOTAL $65,500,000 $0 $65,500,000FSP/Incident Management SAFE $14,962,000 $0 $14,962,000I-880 Integrated Corridor Management MTC $3,438,000 $0 $3,438,000

SUBTOTAL $18,400,000 $0 $18,400,0002. REGIONAL OPERATIONS (RO) PROGRAMS TOTAL: $83,900,000 $0 $83,900,0003. FREEWAY PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE (FPI)Freeway Performance Initiative

Regional Performance Monitoring MTC $750,000 $0 $750,000Regional Performance Initiatives Implementation SAFE $4,058,000 $0 $4,058,000Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) MTC $3,750,000 $0 $3,750,000

SUBTOTAL $8,558,000 $0 $8,558,000Ramp Metering and TOS Elements

FPI - ALA I-580: SSJ Co. Line to I-880 Caltrans $2,690,000 $3,535,000 $6,225,000FPI - ALA I-680: SCL Co. Line to CC Co. Line Caltrans $2,100,000 $6,673,000 $8,773,000FPI - ALA I-880: SCL Co. Line to Davis Street Caltrans $2,000,000 $7,227,000 $9,227,000FPI - ALA SR 92 (EB): SM/Hayward Bridge to I-880 Caltrans $1,617,000 $4,680,000 $6,297,000FPI - CC SR 4: Alhambra Avenue to Loveridge Road Caltrans $15,740,000 $0 $15,740,000FPI - MRN US 101: SF Co. Line to SON Co. Line Caltrans $4,682,000 $0 $4,682,000FPI - SCL I-680: US 101 to ALA Co. Line Caltrans $3,657,000 $7,498,000 $11,155,000FPI - SCL SR 85: I-280 to US 101 Caltrans $2,068,000 $2,258,000 $4,326,000FPI - SCL US 101: SBT Co. Line to SR 85 Caltrans $4,240,000 $15,000,000 $19,240,000FPI - SOL I-80/I-680/SR12 Interchange Modifications STA/Caltrans $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000FPI - SOL I-80: I-505 to YOL Co Line Caltrans $3,700,000 $0 $3,700,000FPI - SOL I-80: CC Co Line to I-505 Caltrans $3,991,000 $18,086,000 $22,077,000FPI - SON 101 - MRN Co Line - Men Co Line Caltrans $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000

SUBTOTAL $51,485,000 $64,957,000 $116,442,0003. FREEWAY PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE (FPI) TOTAL: $60,043,000 $64,957,000 $125,000,0004. CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES (CCI)Eastern Solano CMAQ Program

Vacaville - Ulatis Creek Bicycle Pedestrian Path Vacaville $810,000 $0 $810,000Vacaville Intermodal Station Phase 2 Vacaville $975,000 $0 $975,000STA - Solano Napa Commuter Information (SNCI) STA $445,000 $0 $445,000STA - Solano Safe Routes To School Program STA $215,000 $0 $215,000Solano County - Vacaville-Dixon Bicycle Route - Phase 5 Solano County $555,000 $0 $555,000

SUBTOTAL $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000Public Education/Outreach

Public Education Outreach including SB1339 Implementation MTC $2,843,000 $0 $2,843,000Public Education Outreach including SB1339 Implementation BAAQMD $400,000 $0 $400,000Electric Vehicle Promotional Campaign MTC $925,000 $0 $925,000Smart Driving Pilot Program MTC $260,000 $0 $260,000Spare the Air Youth Program 1 MTC $3,065,000 $0 $3,065,000Spare the Air Youth Program 2 MTC $208,000 $0 $208,000Spare the Air BAAQMD $3,700,000 $0 $3,700,000

SUBTOTAL $11,401,000 $0 $11,401,000

Attachment B MTC Resolution No. 3925, Attachment B Adopted: 10/28/09-CRevised: 12/16/09-C

07/28/10-C 09/22/10-C 10/27/10-C 02/23/10-C03/23/11-C 05/25/11-C 06/22/11-C 09/28/11-C10/26/11-C 01/25/12-C 02/22/12-C 03/28/12-C04/25/12-C 06/27/12-C 07/25/12-C 09/26/12-C02/27/13-C 05/22/13-C 09/25/13-C 12/18/13-C02/26/14-C 03/26/14-C 04/23/14-C 05/28/14-C07/23/14-C 11/19/14-C 12/17/14-C 01/28/15-C05/27/15-C 09/23/15-C 05/25/16-C 07/27/16-C12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 05/24/17-C 11/15/17-C02/28/18-C 04/25/18-C 09/26/18-C 02/27/19-C

12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONT4 New Federal Act FIRST CYCLE Programming

STP/CMAQ/TE/RTIP/CMIA Funding **MTC Resolution 3925

Project List***Attachment B

January 27, 2021

* NOTE: County CMA Block Grant Planning amounts are at the discretion of the County CMA - up to a maximum of 4% of the total block grant amount.

Metropolitan Transportation CommissionT4 New Act First Cycle STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy Page 1 of 7


AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1

T4 FIRST CYCLE PROGRAMMING $573,249,420 $130,732,000 $703,981,420



12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C




January 27, 2021

Safe Routes To Schools - Regional CompetitiveThe BikeMobile: A Bike Repair and Encouragement Vehicle ACTC $500,000 $0 $500,000Venetia Valley School SR2S Imps (Green Ways to School Through Social Networking) TAM Marin County $383,000 $0 $383,000Bay Area School Transportation Collaborative ACWMA $867,000 $0 $867,000Education and Encouragement School Route Maps STA $250,000 $0 $250,000

SUBTOTAL $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000Safe Routes To Schools - CountySpecific projects TBD by CMAs

Alameda County Safe Routes to School Program ACTC $2,069,065 $0 $2,069,065ACE Preventive Maintenance (for local funds directed to Alameda SR2S) ACE $1,150,935 $0 $1,150,935Brentwood School Area Safety Improvements Brentwood $432,000 $0 $432,000Montalvin Manor Pedestrian and Transit Access Improvements Contra Costa County $265,000 $0 $265,000San Ramon Valley Street Smarts’ Safe Routes to School Program Danville $365,000 $0 $365,000Moraga Way Pedestrian Pathway Orinda $166,000 $0 $166,000Lisa Lane Sidewalk Project Pleasant Hill $250,000 $0 $250,000Central-East County Safe Routes to School Program Pleasant Hill $725,000 $0 $725,000Richmond Safe Routes to School Cycle 2 Project Richmond $264,000 $0 $264,000Marin Strawberry Point School - Strawberry Drive Pedestrian Imps TAM $475,000 $0 $475,000Napa County Safe Routes to School Program Expansion NCTPA $315,000 $0 $315,000San Francisco Safe Routes to School Education and Outreach SF Dept. of Public Health $500,000 $0 $500,000Sunset and AP Giannini Safe Routes to School Improvements SFMTA $579,000 $0 $579,000San Mateo County Safe Routes to School Program CCAG $1,429,000 $0 $1,429,000Mountain View VERBS Program Mountain View $500,000 $0 $500,000Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Palo Alto $528,000 $0 $528,000San Jose Walk N' Roll - Non Infrastructure San Jose $943,000 $0 $943,000San Jose Walk N' Roll - Safe Access San Jose $568,000 $0 $568,000Santa Clara VERBS Program Santa Clara (City) $500,000 $0 $500,000Santa Clara County Safe Routes to School Program Santa Clara County $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000Suisun City - Grizzly Island Trail Suisun City $300,000 $0 $300,000STA - Solano County Safe Routes to School Program STA $642,000 $0 $642,000Sonoma County-wide Safe Routes to Schools Improvements Sonoma County $1,034,000 $0 $1,034,000

SUBTOTAL $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000Innovative Grants

Berkeley Transportation Action Plan (B-TAP) Berkeley $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000Shore Power Initiative Port of Oakland $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000Local Government Electric Vehicle (EV) Fleet Replacement Alameda County $2,808,000 $0 $2,808,000Bicycle-Sharing Pilot Program BAAQMD $5,440,098 $0 $5,440,098Bicycle-Sharing Program (Phase II) MTC $319,636 $0 $319,636Downtown Parking Technology (for San Mateo Dr Complete Streets) San Mateo (City) $500,000 $0 $500,000Cold-In-Place (CIP) Pavement Recycling Napa (City) $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000Bus Automated Vehicle Locators (AVLs) Santa Rosa $600,000 $0 $600,000Dynamic Rideshare SCTA $2,375,000 $0 $2,375,000eFleet: Electric Vehicle (EV) Car Sharing Electrified SFCTA $1,700,000 $0 $1,700,000Public-Private Partnership TDM SFCTA $750,000 $0 $750,000SFgo SFMTA $20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000TDM Strategies for Redwood City SamTrans $1,487,000 $0 $1,487,000San Jose Transportation Demand Management San Jose $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000

Bike Share in Emerging Communities Balance redirected to OBAG2 Safe & Seamless Quick-Strike Program TBD $1,525,000 $0 $1,525,000Bike Share Implementation MTC $700,000 $0 $700,000Bike Share Capital and Outreach - Implementation MTC $75,000 $0 $75,000Fremont: Various Streets and Roads Rehab (for Fremont Bike Share) Fremont $350,000 $0 $350,000Bike Share Capital and Outreach - Richmond (Funding Exchange) MTC/ Richmond $0 $1,024,000 $1,024,000Bike Share Capital and Outreach - SMART Corridor (Funding Exchange) MTC/ SCTA/ TAM $0 $826,000 $826,000Stewart's Point Rancheria Inter-tribal Electric Vehicles (Funding Exchange) Stewart's Point Rancheria $0 $376,000 $376,000

SUBTOTAL $45,604,734 $2,226,000 $47,830,734Climate Action Program Evaluation

Climate Action Program Evaluation MTC $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,000 SUBTOTAL $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,0004. CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES (CCI) TOTAL: $80,205,734 $2,226,000 $82,431,7345. REGIONAL BICYCLE PROGRAM (RBP) *Bike/Ped ProgramSpecific projects TBD by County CMAs

Bicycle - Alameda - Block Grant RBP Implementation ACTC $153,000 $0 $153,000Bicycle - Contra Costa - Block Grant RBP Implementation CCTA $47,000 $0 $47,000Bicycle - Marin - Block Grant RBP Implementation TAM $66,000 $0 $66,000Bicycle - Napa - Block Grant RBP Implementation NCTPA $24,000 $0 $24,000Bicycle - San Francisco - Block Grant RBP Implementation SFCTA $55,000 $0 $55,000Bicycle - San Mateo - Block Grant RBP Implementation SMCCAG $70,000 $0 $70,000Bicycle - Santa Clara - Block Grant RBP Implementation SCVTA $186,000 $0 $186,000Bicycle - Solano - Block Grant RBP Implementation STA $54,000 $0 $54,000Metropolitan Transportation CommissionT4 New Act First Cycle STP/CMAQ Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy Page 2 of 7


AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1




12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C




January 27, 2021

Bicycle - Sonoma - Block Grant RBP Implementation SCTA $49,000 $0 $49,000Albany - Buchanan Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Albany $1,702,000 $0 $1,702,000Oakland - Various Streets Resurfacing and Bike Lanes (Complete Streets) Oakland $435,000 $0 $435,000Pleasanton - Foothill Road at I-580 Bicycle Lane Gap Closure Pleasanton $709,000 $0 $709,000Union City Blvd Bicycle Lanes Phase I Union City $860,000 $0 $860,000Concord - Monument Blvd Corridor Shared Use Trail Concord $486,000 $0 $486,000Concord - Monument Blvd Corridor Pedestrian and Bikeway Network Concord $180,000 $0 $180,000Pittsburg - North Parkside Drive Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Pittsburg $900,000 $0 $900,000Richmond - Barrett Avenue Bicycle Lanes Richmond $600,000 $0 $600,000Larkspur - Dougherty Drive Bikeway Larkspur $85,000 $0 $85,000Sausalito - US 101 Off-Ramp/Brideway/Gate 6 Bicycle Traffic Imps Sausalito $88,000 $0 $88,000TAM - Central Marin Ferry Connection TAM $1,410,000 $0 $1,410,000Napa - Lincoln Avenue Bicycle Lanes City of Napa $170,000 $0 $170,000Napa - California Blvd Bicycle Lanes City of Napa $200,000 $0 $200,000Napa County - Valley Vine Trail Bicycle Path NCTPA $211,000 $0 $211,000San Francisco - Marina Green Trail Improvements SFDPW $988,000 $0 $988,000San Francisco - Cargo Way Bicycle Improvements Port of San Francisco $185,000 $0 $185,000Half Moon Bay - SR-1 Bicycle / Pedestrian Trail Half Moon Bay $420,000 $0 $420,000Redwood City - Bair Island Bay Trail Gap Closure Redwood City $337,000 $0 $337,000Redwood City - Skyway/Shoreway Bicycle Lanes and Imps. Redwood City $256,000 $0 $256,000South San Francisco - Bicycle Lanes Gap Closure South San Francisco $261,000 $0 $261,000Campbell Ave Bicycle Lane and Sidewalk Campbell $424,000 $0 $424,000Gilroy - Western Ronan Channel and Lions Creek Bicycle/Ped Trail Gilroy $672,000 $0 $672,000San Jose - Los Gatos Creek Reach 5 Trail San Jose $1,200,000 $0 $1,200,000San Jose San Carlos Multimodal Streetscape - Phase II San Jose $50,000 $0 $50,000Santa Clara - San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Reach 4 Trail Imps Santa Clara City $1,258,000 $0 $1,258,000Santa Clara - San Tomas Aquino Creek Spur Trail Imps. Santa Clara City $1,081,000 $0 $1,081,000Sunnyvale - Hendy Ave Improvements (Complete Streets) Sunnyvale $437,000 $0 $437,000Fairfield - Linear Park Path Alternate Route (Nightingale Drive) Fairfield $221,000 $0 $221,000Suisun City - Grizzly Island Trail Project Suisun City $814,000 $0 $814,000Healdsburg - Foss Creek New Pathway Segment 6 Healdsburg $876,000 $0 $876,000Santa Rosa - SMART/College Ave Bike/Ped Pathway Santa Rosa $948,000 $0 $948,000Sonoma County - SMART Hearn Ave Bike/Ped Trail Sonoma Co. Reg Parks $620,000 $0 $620,000Berkeley Bay Trail (TE) Berkeley $0 $1,557,000 $1,557,000Pleasant Hill Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements (TE) Lafayette $0 $1,009,000 $1,009,000Sir Francis Drake Class II Bike Lane (TE) Marin County $0 $294,000 $294,000North Yountville Bike Route and Sidewalk Extension (TE) Yountville $0 $183,000 $183,000San Francisco Bicycle Parking Program (Mission/Citywide) (TE) San Francisco MTA $0 $235,000 $235,000Church and Duboce Bicycle / Ped Enhancements San Francisco MTA $0 $388,000 $388,000San Francisco - Pedestrian Safety & Encouragement Campaign San Francisco MTA $0 $174,000 $174,000San Mateo County Bicycle/Pedestrian Enhancements (TE) San Mateo County $0 $200,000 $200,000Bayshore Bicycle Lane Brisbane $0 $627,000 $627,000Gilroy Schools Pedestrian and Bicycle Lane Access Improvements (TE) Gilroy $0 $697,000 $697,000Safe Routes to Schools, Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements (TE) Los Altos Hills $0 $467,000 $467,000Campbell Hacienda Avenue Streetscape and Bicycle Imps (TE) Campbell $0 $159,000 $159,000Milpitas Escuela Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements (TE) Milpitas $0 $501,000 $501,000Fairfield/Vacaville Station Ped and Bicycle Track Crossing Enhancements (TE) Fairfield $0 $400,000 $400,000Dixon West B Street Bike/Ped Undercrossing (TE) STA $0 $77,000 $77,000Copeland Creek Bicycle Path Reconstruction (TE) Rohnert Park $0 $581,000 $581,000

SUBTOTAL $19,788,000 $7,549,000 $27,337,0005. REGIONAL BICYCLE PROGRAM (RBP) TOTAL: $19,788,000 $7,549,000 $27,337,000

6. TRANSPORTATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITES (TLC) *TLC / Station Area Planning Implementation

ABAG Station Area Planning Implementation ABAG $450,000 $0 $450,000MTC Station Area Planning Implementation MTC $402,110 $0 $402,110

Station Area PlansCentral Fremont – City Center Fremont $224,000 $0 $224,000South Fremont/Warm Springs BART Station Fremont $276,000 $0 $276,000Walnut Creek BART Walnut Creek $500,000 $0 $500,000San Francisco Central Corridor, So. segment of the Central Subway San Francisco $68,000 $0 $68,000San Francisco Market Street (Steuart St. to Octavia Blvd.) San Francisco $300,000 $0 $300,000Downtown South San Francisco / Caltrain Station South San Francisco $600,000 $0 $600,000Lawrence Station Area / Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Sunnyvale $450,000 $0 $450,000

Priority Development Area (PDA) PlanningAlameda Naval Air Station Alameda (City) $200,000 $0 $200,000Ashland East 14th Street/Mission Blvd Alameda County $400,000 $0 $400,000Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Fremont $300,000 $0 $300,000Concord Downtown BART Concord $480,000 $0 $480,000Concord Naval Weapons Station/N. Concord BART Concord $240,000 $0 $240,000South Richmond Richmond $496,000 $0 $496,000

* NOTE: Regional Bicycle Program STP fund administered by County CMAs as part of the Block Grant Program.* NOTE: Regional Bicycle Program TE funds to be programmed by County CMAs in 2010 RTIP



AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1




12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C




January 27, 2021

Treasure Island Mobility Management San Francisco $500,000 $0 $500,000San Francisco Central Corridor EIR Augmentation San Francisco $200,000 $0 $200,000El Camino/San Antonio Mountain View $400,000 $0 $400,000Central Rohnert Park Rohnert Park $448,000 $0 $448,000MTC PDA Planning Implementation MTC $1,101,000 $0 $1,101,000ABAG PDA Planning Implementation ABAG $609,890 $0 $609,890

Smart Growth Technical Assistance Program MTC $360,000 $0 $360,000 SUBTOTAL $9,005,000 $0 $9,005,000Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

Transit Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) (Funding Exchange) MTC $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 SUBTOTAL $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000Regional Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program

West Dublin BART Station Golden Gate Dr Streetscape Enhancements BART $860,000 $0 $860,000Berkeley Downtown BART Plaza and Transit Area Imps BART / Berkeley $1,805,000 $0 $1,805,000West Dublin BART Station Golden Gate Dr Streetscape Enhancements Dublin $647,000 $0 $647,000South Hayward BART / Dixon St Streetscape and Access Imps Hayward $1,800,000 $0 $1,800,000Livermore RxR Depot Restoration (for Livermore Land Banking) Livermore $2,500,000 $0 $2,500,000Lakeside Complete Streets and Road Diet Oakland $2,200,000 $0 $2,200,000San Leandro BART-Downtown Pedestrian Interface Imp San Leandro $4,610,000 $0 $4,610,000Union City Intermodal Station East Plaza Union City $4,450,000 $0 $4,450,000Concord Commerce Ave Complete Streets Concord $1,440,000 $0 $1,440,000Richmond Nevin Avenue Imps Richmond $2,654,000 $0 $2,654,000SF South of Market Alleyways Imp, Phase 2 San Francisco $1,381,000 $0 $1,381,000SF 24th Street/Mission BART Plaza and Pedestrian Imps San Francisco $2,109,000 $0 $2,109,000SF Market and Haight Street Transit and Pedestrian Imps San Francisco $2,800,000 $0 $2,800,000SF Phelan Public Plaza and Transit-Oriented Development San Francisco $1,120,000 $0 $1,120,000San Carlos East Side Community Transit Connectivity San Carlos $2,221,000 $0 $2,221,000San Mateo Delaware Street Bike Path and Streetscape San Mateo $605,000 $0 $605,000San Jose The Alameda - A Plan for The Beautiful Way San Jose $3,132,000 $0 $3,132,000San Jose San Fernando Street Enhanced Bikeway and Pedestrian Access San Jose $1,425,000 $0 $1,425,000San Jose San Carlos Multimodal Streetscape - Phase II San Jose $1,342,710 $0 $1,342,710Vallejo Downtown Streetscape Phase 3 Vallejo $400,000 $0 $400,000Cotati Train Depot Cotati $1,516,000 $0 $1,516,000Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet Petaluma $708,000 $0 $708,000Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Utility Infrastructure Upgrade Santa Rosa $1,045,000 $0 $1,045,000

SUBTOTAL $42,770,710 $0 $42,770,710County Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Program

Specific projects TBD by CMAsCounty TLC - Alameda - Block Grant TLC Implementation ACTC $238,000 $0 $238,000County TLC - Contra Costa - Block Grant TLC Implementation CCTA $83,000 $0 $83,000County TLC - Marin - Block Grant TLC Implementation TAM $40,000 $0 $40,000County TLC - Napa - Block Grant TLC Implementation NCTPA $22,000 $0 $22,000County TLC - San Francisco - Block Grant TLC Implementation SFCTA $125,000 $0 $125,000County TLC - San Mateo - Block Grant TLC Implementation SMCCAG $115,000 $0 $115,000County TLC - Santa Clara - Block Grant TLC Implementation SCVTA $285,000 $0 $285,000County TLC - Solano - Block Grant TLC Implementation STA $67,000 $0 $67,000County TLC - Sonoma - Block Grant TLC Implementation SCTA $47,000 $0 $47,000BART - MacArthur Station Entry Plaza Renovation BART $625,000 $0 $625,000Fremont - Midtown Catalyst Project Fremont $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000Livermore - Downtown Livermore Iron Horse Trail Livermore $1,566,000 $0 $1,566,000Livermore - Downtown Livermore Lighting Fixtures Retrofit Livermore $176,000 $0 $176,000Oakland - MacArthur Blvd Streetscape Oakland $1,700,000 $0 $1,700,000El Cerrito - Central Ave & Liberty St Streetscape El Cerrito $816,000 $0 $816,000Lafayette - Downtown Pedestrian, Bicycle & Streetscape Lafayette $1,690,000 $0 $1,690,000Richmond Transit Village: Nevin Ave and BART Station Bike/Ped Imps Richmond $1,217,000 $0 $1,217,000Marin County - Various Bicycle/Ped Improvements Marin County $970,000 $0 $970,000American Canyon - PDA Development Plan American Canyon $318,000 $0 $318,000American Canyon - Theresa Avenue Sidewalk Imps. Phase II American Canyon $200,000 $0 $200,000San Francisco - Folsom Streetscape (Complete Streets) SFDPW $516,612 $0 $516,612SF Market and Haight Street Transit and Pedestrian Imps San Francisco $948,000 $0 $948,000San Francisco - Broadway Streetscape Phase III (Complete Streets) SFDPW $1,104,000 $0 $1,104,000Second Street Complete Streets SFDPW $548,388 $0 $548,388Burlingame - Burlingame Ave. and Broadway Districts Streetscape Burlingame $301,000 $0 $301,000Daly City - Citywide Accessibility Improvements Daly City $420,000 $0 $420,000Millbrae - El Camino Real/Victoria Pedestrian Enhancement Millbrae $355,000 $0 $355,000San Bruno - Transit Corridor Pedestrian Connection Imps. San Bruno $263,000 $0 $263,000



AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1




12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C




January 27, 2021

San Bruno - Street Medians and Grand Boulevard Imps San Bruno $654,000 $0 $654,000San Mateo - El Camino Real Phase 1 Improvements San Mateo $503,000 $0 $503,000Campbell - Winchester Blvd Streetscape Phase II Campbell $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000Milpitas - Abel Street Pedestrian Improvements Milpitas $788,000 $0 $788,000VTA - US 101 Capitol Expressway (Exchange) **** Santa Clara VTA $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000Santa Clara Co. - Almaden Expwy Bicycle Signal Detection (Complete Streets) Santa Clara Co. $500,000 $0 $500,000Saratoga - Saratoga Village Ped Enhancement Phase 2 Saratoga $1,161,000 $0 $1,161,000Sunnyvale - Hendy Avenue Improvements (Complete Streets) Sunnyvale $523,000 $0 $523,000Sunnyvale - Downtown Streetscape Sunnyvale $594,000 $0 $594,000Vallejo - Streetscapes Improvements Vallejo $1,277,000 $0 $1,277,000Cotati - Downtown Streetscape Cotati $1,100,000 $0 $1,100,000Santa Rosa - Streetscape Palettes Deleted - Funds moved to Cotati Train Depot Santa Rosa $0 $0 $0Cotati Train Depot Cotati $200,000 $0 $200,000

SUBTOTAL $26,256,000 $0 $26,256,000SFPark Parking Pricing (Fund Exchange) SFMTA $22,000,000 $0 $22,000,000 SUBTOTAL $22,000,000 $0 $22,000,0006. TRANSPORTATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITES (TLC) TOTAL: $100,031,710 $10,000,000 $110,031,710

7. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS (LSR)Pavement Technical Advisory Program (PTAP) MTC $4,500,000 $0 $4,500,000Pavement Management Program (PMP) MTC $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000

SUBTOTAL $6,000,000 $0 $6,000,000Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) Commitment *

Specific projects TBD by CountiesAlameda County - Rural Roads Pavement Rehabilitation Alameda County $2,135,000 $0 $2,135,000Contra Costa - Kirker Pass Road Overlay Contra Costa County $1,611,000 $0 $1,611,000Marin County - Novato Boulevard Resurfacing Marin County $1,006,000 $0 $1,006,000Napa County - Silverado Trail Pavement Rehabilitation Napa County $312,000 $0 $312,000Napa County - Various Streets Rehabilitation Napa County $1,114,000 $0 $1,114,000San Mateo County - Pescadero Creek Road Resurfacing San Mateo County $1,070,000 $0 $1,070,000Santa Clara County - Various Streets and Roads Pavement Rehabilitation Santa Clara County $2,041,000 $0 $2,041,000Solano County - Pavement Overlay Program Solano County $1,807,000 $0 $1,807,000Sonoma County - Various Streets and Roads Asphalt Overlay Sonoma County $3,917,000 $0 $3,917,000

SUBTOTAL $15,013,000 $0 $15,013,000Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Rehabilitation **

Specific projects TBD by CMAsLS&R Rehab - Alameda - Block Grant LS&R Implementation ACTC $662,000 $0 $662,000LS&R Rehab - Contra Costa - Block Grant LS&R Implementation CCTA $215,000 $0 $215,000LS&R Rehab - Marin - Block Grant LS&R Implementation TAM $97,000 $0 $97,000LS&R Rehab - Napa - Block Grant LS&R Implementation NCTPA $75,000 $0 $75,000LS&R Rehab - San Francisco - Block Grant LS&R Implementation SFCTA $310,000 $0 $310,000LS&R Rehab - San Mateo - Block Grant LS&R Implementation SMCCAG $272,000 $0 $272,000LS&R Rehab - Santa Clara - Block Grant LS&R Implementation SCVTA $689,000 $0 $689,000LS&R Rehab - Solano - Block Grant LS&R Implementation STA $259,000 $0 $259,000LS&R Rehab - Sonoma - Block Grant LS&R Implementation SCTA $229,000 $0 $229,000Alameda - Otis Drive Reconstruction Alameda (City) $837,000 $0 $837,000Alameda County - Central County Pavement Rehabilitation Alameda County $1,121,000 $0 $1,121,000Albany - Pierce Street Pavement Rehabilitation Albany $117,000 $0 $117,000Berkeley - Sacramento Street Rehabilitation Berkeley $955,000 $0 $955,000Dublin - Citywide Street Resurfacing Dublin $547,000 $0 $547,000Fremont - Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Fremont $2,706,550 $0 $2,706,550Fremont - Osgood Road Rehabilitation Fremont $431,450 $0 $431,450Hayward - Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Hayward $1,336,000 $0 $1,336,000Livermore - Various Streets Rehabilitation Livermore $1,028,000 $0 $1,028,000Newark - Cedar Blvd and Jarvis Ave Pavement Rehab Newark $682,000 $0 $682,000Oakland - Resurfacing and Bike Lanes (Complete Streets) Oakland $3,617,000 $0 $3,617,000Pleasanton - Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Pleasanton $876,000 $0 $876,000San Leandro - Marina Blvd Street Rehabilitation San Leandro $807,000 $0 $807,000Union City - Dyer Street Rehabilitation Union City $861,000 $0 $861,000Antioch - Hillcrest, Putnam and Contra Loma Pavement Rehab Antioch $1,907,000 $0 $1,907,000Brentwood - Various Streets Overlay Brentwood $823,000 $0 $823,000Concord - Concord Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation Sixth-Glazier Concord $2,147,000 $0 $2,147,000Contra Costa - Countywide Arterial Micro Surface Project Contra Costa County $2,121,000 $0 $2,121,000Pittsburg - Railroad Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Pittsburg $848,000 $0 $848,000Richmond - Dornan Drive/Garrard Blvd Tunnel Rehabilitation Richmond $500,000 $0 $500,000San Ramon - Alcosta Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation San Ramon $825,000 $0 $825,000Walnut Creek - Various Arterials and Collectors Rehabilitation Walnut Creek $1,856,000 $0 $1,856,000Marin County - Southern Marin Road Rehabilitation Marin County $1,196,000 $0 $1,196,000Mill Valley - Edgewood Avenue Resurfacing Mill Valley $123,000 $0 $123,000

* NOTE: Two thirds of the TLC Program administered by MTC. One third administered by County CMAs, as part of the Block Grant Program.



AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1




12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C




January 27, 2021

San Rafael - Citywide Street Resurfacing San Rafael $1,019,000 $0 $1,019,000Napa - Linda Vista Pavement Overlay City of Napa $654,000 $0 $654,000Napa - Cape Seal Pavement Rehabilitation City of Napa $625,000 $0 $625,000Napa County - Silverado Trail Pavement Rehabilitation Napa County $526,000 $0 $526,000San Francisco - Folsom Streetscape (Complete Streets) SFDPW $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,000San Francisco - Second Street Phase 1 - Sfgo Signal Rehabilitation SFDPW $530,000 $0 $530,000San Francisco - Broadway Streetscape Phase III (Complete Streets) SFDPW $350,000 $0 $350,000San Francisco - Citywide San Francisco Street Improvements SFDPW $3,368,000 $0 $3,368,000Burlingame - Street Resurfacing Program 2010-11 Burlingame $308,000 $0 $308,000Daly City - Various Streets Rehabilitation Daly City $1,058,000 $0 $1,058,000Menlo Park - Various Streets Resurfacing Menlo Park $385,000 $0 $385,000Pacifica - Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Pacifica $383,000 $0 $383,000Redwood City - Various Streets Overlay Redwood City $946,000 $0 $946,000San Bruno Various Streets Resurfacing San Bruno $398,000 $0 $398,000San Carlos - Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation San Carlos $319,000 $0 $319,000San Mateo - Various Streets Rehabilitation San Mateo (City) $1,255,000 $0 $1,255,000San Mateo County - Various Roads Resurfacing San Mateo County $1,416,000 $0 $1,416,000South San Francisco - Various Streets Resurfacing So. San Francisco $712,000 $0 $712,000Campbell - Citywide Arterial & Collector Street Rehab Campbell $500,000 $0 $500,000Cupertino - Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Cupertino $500,000 $0 $500,000Gilroy - Wren Ave and Church Street Resurfacing Gilroy $614,000 $0 $614,000Los Altos - San Antonio Road Microseal Los Altos $259,000 $0 $259,000Los Gatos - University Avenue Rehabilitation Los Gatos $500,000 $0 $500,000Mountain View - Church Street Improvements Mountain View $530,000 $0 $530,000Palo Alto - Various Streets Pavement Overlay Palo Alto $549,000 $0 $549,000San Jose - Various Streets Rehabilitation San Jose $7,987,000 $0 $7,987,000Santa Clara City - Various Streets Rehabilitation Santa Clara (City) $1,163,000 $0 $1,163,000Santa Clara County Roads Pavement Rehabilitation Santa Clara County $1,157,000 $0 $1,157,000Santa Clara County Expressways Pavement Rehabilitation Santa Clara County $530,000 $0 $530,000Saratoga - Various Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Saratoga $500,000 $0 $500,000Sunnyvale Ave/Old San Francisco Rd Reconstruction and Ped Enhancements Sunnyvale $638,000 $0 $638,000Sunnyvale - Hendy Avenue Improvements (Complete Streets) Sunnyvale $1,117,000 $0 $1,117,000Benicia - Columbus Parkway Overlay Benicia $371,000 $0 $371,000Fairfield - Various Streets Overlay Fairfield $1,370,000 $0 $1,370,000Solano County Pavement Overlay Solano County $1,689,000 $0 $1,689,000Suisun City - Pintail Drive Resurfacing Suisun City $437,000 $0 $437,000Vacaville - Various Streets Overlay Vacaville $1,324,000 $0 $1,324,000Vallejo - Citywide Street Overlay Vallejo $1,595,000 $0 $1,595,000Petaluma - Sonoma Mountain Parkway Rehabilitation Petaluma $1,036,000 $0 $1,036,000Rohnert Park - Arlen Dr and E. Cotati Ave Overlay Rohnert Park $563,000 $0 $563,000Santa Rosa - Various Streets Citywide Overlay Santa Rosa $2,072,000 $0 $2,072,000Sonoma County - Various Roads Pavement Preservation Sonoma Co. TPW $4,912,000 $0 $4,912,000Windsor - Hembree Lane Resurfacing Windsor $348,000 $0 $348,000

SUBTOTAL $80,789,000 $0 $80,789,0007. LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS (LSR) TOTAL: $101,802,000 $0 $101,802,000

8. REGIONAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS (RSI)Richmond Rail Connector Caltrans $6,330,000 $0 $6,330,000GGBH&TD Preventive Maintenance (for Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent) GGBH&TD $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent GGBH&TD $12,000,000 $15,000,000 $27,000,000Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway ***** Caltrans/SFCTA $34,000,000 $0 $34,000,000Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway Landscaping Caltrans/SFCTA $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000SamTrans Preventive Maintenance (for Caltrain Right-Of-Way Payback) SamTrans $15,942,309 $0 $15,942,309SamTrans Bus Replacement (for Caltrain Right-Of-Way Payback) SamTrans $1,085,808 $0 $1,085,808SamTrans Advanced Comm. Sys.Upgrades (for Caltrain Right-Of-Way Payback) SamTrans $2,260,796 $0 $2,260,796SCL I-280 I/C Improvements VTA $1,000,000 $31,000,000 $32,000,000SCL I-280/Winchester I/C Modifications VTA $500,000 $0 $500,000

Small/Northbay Operators (Transit Payback Commitment)Clipper Phase III Implementation Various $2,691,476 $0 $2,691,476

SUBTOTAL $95,810,389 $46,000,000 $141,810,3898. REGIONAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS (RSI) TOTAL: $95,810,389 $46,000,000 $141,810,3899. LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (LIFE)Transit Payback Commitment: Lifeline Transportation Program

Community Based Transportation Plan Updates ACTC $475,000 $0 $475,000Cherryland - Hathaway Avenue Transit Access Imps Alameda County $430,000 $0 $430,000East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Terminus/ San Leandro BART Imps AC Transit $1,225,539 $0 $1,225,539Baypoint - Canal Road Bike/Ped Imps Contra Costa County $1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000

* NOTE: Section 182.6(d)(2) of the California Streets and Highways Code requires that An amount not less than 110 percent of the amount that the county was apportioned under the Federal-Aid Secondary The FAS amounts in Cycle 1 represent the total annual FAS commitments for the entire 6-year period of the new federal act beginning in FY 2009-10. San Francisco does not have any routes designated FAS, ** NOTE: Local Streets and Roads Rehab administered by County CMAs as part of the Block Grant Program.



AgencyTotal

STP/CMAQTotal Other

TE/RTIP/CMIATotal

Cycle 1




12/18/19-C 01/27/21-C




January 27, 2021

Richmond Easy Go Low-Income Mobility Access Imps Richmond $203,291 $0 $203,291Advanced Communications and Information System GGBHTD $233,728 $0 $233,728Community Based Transportation Plan Updates NCTPA $80,000 $0 $80,000ADA Bus Stop Upgrades NCTPA $116,794 $0 $116,794Eddy and Ellis Traffic Calming SFMTA $1,175,105 $0 $1,175,105Redwood City - Middlefield/Woodside Rd (SR 84) Intersection Imps Redwood City $339,924 $0 $339,924City of San Mateo - North Central Ped Infrastructure Imps San Mateo (City) $339,924 $0 $339,924East San Jose Pedestrian Improvements Santa Clara County $2,127,977 $0 $2,127,977Fairfield-Suisun - Local Bus Replacement Fairfield-Suisun Transit $481,368 $0 $481,368Vacaville SRTS Infrastructure Imps Vacaville $40,000 $0 $40,000Healdsburg Pedestrian Safety & Access Imps Healdsburg $202,937 $0 $202,937Central Sonoma Valley Trail Sonoma County $500,000 $0 $500,000

SUBTOTAL $8,971,587 $0 $8,971,5879. LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (LIFE) TOTAL: $8,971,587 $0 $8,971,587

First Cycle Total $573,249,420 $130,732,000 $703,981,420

*** NOTE: All funds are subject to applicable regional, state and federal requirements and deadlines. Funds that miss established deadlines are considered lapsed and are no longer available for the project.**** NOTE: Santa Clara VTA agrees to provide an equal amount of local/STIP funds for a TLC project by Fall 2014. If VTA has not programmed an equal amount, MTC will recommend programming of Santa Clara's RTIP share.***** NOTE: Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway - Contingent upon $34 million in future San Francisco RTIP funds being prioritized for regional FPI/Express Lanes after Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PPM) the remaining $88 million commitment to the Central Subway project.

J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP-RES\MTC\RES-3925_ongoing_STP-CMAQ_Cycle1\[tmp-3925_Attach-B_Jan.xlsx]Attach B 1-27-21

** NOTE: Attachment A, T-4 First-Cycle Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policies, govern this project list. All funding changes to a program or project are subject to Commission approval.The project phase, fiscal year and fund source will be determined at the time of programming in the TIP. MTC Staff will update the project listing (Attachment B) to reflect MTC actions as projects are included or revised in the TIP.


Date: November 18, 2015 W.I.: 1512 Referred by: PAC Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/21/16-C 03/22/17-C 04/26/17-C 05/24/17-C 06/28/17-C 07/26/17-C 09/27/17-C 10/25/17-C 11/15/17-C 12/20-17-C 01/24/18-C 02/28/18-C 03/28/18-C 04/25/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 07/25/18-C 09/26/18-C 11/28/18-C 12/19/18-C 01/23/19-C 02/27/19-C 03/27/19-C 06/26/19-C 07/24/19-C 09/25/19-C 10/23/19-C 11/20/19-C 02/26/20-C 05/27/20-C 07/22/20-C 09/23/20-C 11/20/20-C 01/27/21-C

ABSTRACT

Resolution No. 4202, Revised

Adoption of the project selection policies and project programming for the second round of the

One Bay Area Grant program (OBAG 2). The project selection criteria and programming policy

contain the project categories that are to be funded with various fund sources including federal

surface transportation act funding available to MTC for its programming discretion to be

included in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the OBAG 2 funding

period.

The resolution includes the following attachments:

Attachment A – OBAG 2 Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Attachment B-1 – OBAG 2 Regional Program Project List

Attachment B-2 – OBAG 2 County Program Project List

On July 27, 2016, Attachment A, and Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to add additional

funding and projects to the OBAG 2 framework, including $72 million in additional Fixing

America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) funding, and to incorporate housing-related policies.

On October 26, 2016, Attachment A, and Attachment B-1 were revised to clarify language related to

the North Bay Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program in Attachment A and to deprogram

$2,500,000 from the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Ferry Service

Enhancement Pilot within the Regional Active Operational Management Program.

On December 21, 2016, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to redirect $417,000 in un-

programmed balances from the Regional Active Operational Management program to MTC’s Spare


the Air Youth within the Climate Initiatives Program; divide MTC’s Rideshare Program into three

subcomponents totaling $10,000,000: $720,000 for Rideshare Implementation, $7,280,000 for the

Carpool Program, and $2,000,000 for the Vanpool Program; direct $1,785,000 from 511 Next Gen

to the Commuter Benefits program; direct $1,000,000 in un-programmed balances to SMART’s

Multi-Use Pathway; transfer $1,000,000 from MTC’s Casual Carpool project to MTC’s Eastbay

Commuter Parking project within the Bay Bridge Forward program, as the former will be funded

with non-federal funds; transfer $500,000 from the Freeway Performance Initiative program and

$500,000 in un-programmed balances to US 101/Marin Sonoma Narrow’s B2 Phase 2 project in the

Regional Active Operational Management Program; shift $40,000,000 from the BART Car

Replacement/Expansion project to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent project and $13 million

from MTC’s Clipper project to un-programmed balances within the Transit Priorities program as

part of a RM2 funding action to address a cost increase on the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent

project; and program $5,990,000 to Alameda County’s Safe Routes to School Program in the County

Program.

On March 22, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $17,000,000 in un-programmed

balances within the Regional Transit Priorities Program to MTC’s Clipper Program, as part of the

FY17 Transit Capital Priorities program.

On April 26, 2017, Attachment B-2 was revised to program $1,655,000 to the Sonoma Safe Routes

to School program; and redirect $1,000 from Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Planning

Activities Base to its discretionary balance and $1,000 from San Francisco County Transportation

Authority’s Planning Activities Base to its discretionary balance to address an inconsistency between

amounts programmed to planning activities in Appendix A-3 and reflect actual amounts obligated

for planning.

On May 24, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to redirect $1,237,000 from 511 Next Gen to AOM

Implementation within the Regional Active Operational Management program to reflect re-

organization of staff between program elements; direct $18,000,000 in Arterial/Transit Performance

to the Program for Arterial System Synchronization ($5,000,000) and the Next Gen Arterial

Operations Program ($13,000,000) within the Regional Active Operational Management program;

direct $19,000,000 from the Transportation Management System (TMS) Field Equipment Devices

Operations and Maintenance to TMS Implementation ($2,910,000), Performance-Based Intelligent

Transportation Systems Device Maintenance and Rehabilitation ($5,940,000), Transportation

Management Center Asset Upgrade and Replacement ($4,000,000), I-880 Communication Upgrade


and Infrastructure Gap Closures ($4,000,000) and a Detection Technology Pilot ($5,000,000) within

the Regional Active Operational Management program; and remove $290,556 in un-programmed

balances from the Regional Active Operational Management program to address over-programming

in a previous cycles of the STP/CMAQ regional programs.

On June 28, 2017, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to reprogram $1,000,000 from the

SMART Pathway – 2nd to Andersen to San Rafael’s Grand Ave Bike/Pedestrian Improvements

within the Regional Climate Initiatives program as part of a funding exchange within the City of

San Rafael, conditioned on San Rafael committing $1 million in non-federal funds to the

construction of the pathway, and a resolution of local support for the use of federal funds on the

Grand Ave project, and TAM approval of the redirection of local measure funds between the

projects; split out $8,729,000 from the 511 Next Gen program to 511 Implementation within the

Regional Active Operational Management program; program $1,250,000 to Golden Gate Bridge

Highway and Transportation District for the Bettini Transit Center as part of the Marin County

Program; and program $2,617,000 within the San Mateo County Program to the San Mateo

County Office of Education for the SRTS program, including $223,000 in supplemental funds

from San Mateo’s discretionary balance.

On July 26, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $12,000,000 to the US 101 Marin

Sonoma Narrows project as part of a fund exchange agreement with Sonoma County

Transportation Authority; $11,000,000 in exchange funds are added to the program for tracking

purposes, with the final $1 million in exchange funds to be identified through a future

Commission action.

On September 27, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to change the name of the Next Gen

Arterial Operations Program (NGAOP) to Innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials

(IDEA) to reflect program rebranding and additional focus on advanced technologies; program

$4,160,000 to Incident Management Implementation and $8,840,000 to I-880 Integrated Corridor

Mobility project within the Regional Active Operational Management program; split out the

Connected Vehicles/Shared Mobility program into the Connected Vehicles/Automated Vehicles

program for $2,500,000 and the Shared Use Mobility program for $2,500,000; and program

$16,000,000 for three corridors within the Freeway Performance Program, with $8,000,000 for I-

680, $3,000,000 for I-880, and $5,000,000 for SR-84.


On October 25, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $10,000,000 to the Bay Area Air

Quality Management District for the Spare the Air program, in lieu of the Electric Vehicle

Programs within the Regional Climate Initiatives Program, conditioned on the Air District

contribution of an additional $10 million to advance implementation of electric vehicles within

the region.

On November 15, 2017, Attachment B-2 was revised to program $200,000 in the Alameda

County Program to the I-580 Corridor Study, to support a joint corridor study between Alameda

County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and MTC; $122,000 within the Napa County

Program to Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) for the Napa County Safe Routes to

School (SRTS) Program; and $300,000 within the Contra Costa County Program to San Ramon

for the San Ramon Valley Street Smarts Program.

On December 20, 2017, Attachments A, Appendix A-3, B-1, and B-2 were revised to program

$334 million in the County Program to local and county projects recommended by the nine

Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs); redirect $10,248,000 from BART Car

Replacement/Expansion to Clipper within the Regional Transit Priorities Program; revise the

CMA Planning Activities funding amounts to reflect the supplementary funds requested by

several CMAs through their County Programs; and clarify the program details for the Local

Housing Production Incentive program (also known as the 80K by 2020 Challenge Grant).

On January 24, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to redirect $4,100,000 from Performance-

Based ITS Device Maintenance and Rehabilitation to I-880 Communication Upgrade and

Infrastructure Gap Closures, within the Transportation Management System program.

On February 28, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $13 million in

Innovative Deployments to Enhance Arterials (IDEA) program grants within the Regional

Active Operational Management Program; redirect $822,000 within Contra Costa County’s Safe

Routes to School Program (SRTS) for future SRTS projects; program $2,813,000 to San

Francisco SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program within the San Francisco County Program; and

clarify MTC exchange fund projects.

On March 28, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to distribute the $1.5 million Community-

Based Transportation Planning Program among the nine county Congestion Management Areas

(CMAs); clarify the limits of three Freeway Performance Program projects within the Regional


Active Operational Management Program; and reflect the programming of $30,000 in MTC

exchange funds for Bay Area Greenprint Functionality Improvements, as part of the PCA

program.

On April 25, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $8,200,000 in Priority Conservation

Area (PCA) grants within the North Bay PCA Program; $3,400,000 to Sonoma County

Transportation Authority (SCTA) for the Marin Sonoma Narrows B2 Phase 2 project, as part of

an exchange agreement in which an equal amount of SCTA’s future Regional Transportation

Improvement Program (RTIP) funds will be programmed at MTC’s discretion; $7,288,000 in

PDA Planning and Implementation grants; and $500,000 to MTC for PDA Implementation.

On May 23, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to change the project sponsor from

MTC to VTA for the IDEA Program project at the Veteran’s Administration Palo Alto Medical

Center; redirect funds within the Santa Clara County OBAG 2 County Program to reduce San

Jose’s West San Carlos Urban Village Streetscape Improvements by $2,050,000, redirecting

$1,000,000 from the project to Santa Clara’s Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 and $1,050,000 to

Saratoga’s Prospect Rd Complete Streets project; and direct an additional an additional $25,000

in unprogrammed balances within Santa Clara County OBAG 2 County Program to Saratoga’s

Prospect Rd Complete Streets project.

On June 27, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $800,000 to MTC’s

Carsharing Implementation and $325,000 to Targeted Transportation Alternatives within the

Climate Initiatives Program; redirect from MTC’s 511 NextGen program $8,271,000 to 511

Implementation, $2,000,000 to Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA’s) I-80 Central

Ave Interchange Improvements project, and $380,000 to an unprogrammed balance within the

Regional Active Operational Management program; clarify the scope of MTC’s Freeway

Performance Program I-880 to reflect the project limits of I-80 to I-280; and redirect $1,394,000

from Vallejo’s Local Streets Rehabilitation project to Fairfield’s Heart of Fairfield project within

the Solano County Program.

On July 25, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $1,600,000 to Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority (VTA) for the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study as part of a fund

exchange agreement; remove Rohnert Park’s $65,000 Central Rohnert Park PDA/Creekside

Neighborhood Subarea Connector Path Technical Assistance grant from the Regional PDA

Planning Grant program as it will be funded through a prior cycle; reduce the funding for


Windsor’s PDA Planning and Implementation Staffing Assistance grant by $85,000 as this

project will receive an equivalent amount of funds through a prior cycle; a total of $150,000

balance created by these two revisions was returned to the Regional PDA Planning Grant

Program un-programmed balance.

On September 12, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $3,000,000 within

the Freeway Performance Program to the US 101 corridor in San Mateo and Santa Clara

counties; direct an additional $6,000,000 within the Freeway Performance Program to the I-680

corridor within Contra Costa County, $4,000,000 of which is part of an exchange agreement with

Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA); redirect $15,000 within the Innovative

Deployment for Enhanced Arterials (IDEA) program from IDEA Technical Assistance to VTA’s

IDEA grant at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Medical Center; redirect $48,000 from MTC’s

Clipper to the BART Car Replacement/Expansion project within the Transit Priorities program

to reflect program amounts previously adopted through the Transit Capital Priorities (TCP)

program; revise the amount programmed to VTA’s SR 85 Transit Guideway Study within

Regional Strategic Initiatives to $1,200,000 to reflect amount previously approved; redirect

$1,214,000 from Berkeley’s North Shattuck Avenue Rehabilitation project to its Southside

Complete Streets and Transit Improvements project within the Alameda County Program; from

Sunnyvale’s East Sunnyvale Area Sense of Place Improvements, redirect $1,000,000 to Los

Altos’ Miramonte Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements and $1,140,000 to the Safe

Routes to School program balance within the Santa Clara County Program; and program

$4,500,000 available from a previous funding cycle to the following projects within Regional

Strategic Initiatives: $617,000 to Novato’s Pavement Rehabilitation (for Downtown Novato

SMART Station) as part of a local funding exchange, $1,120,000 to the Transportation Authority

of Marin (TAM) for the Old Redwood Highway Multi-Use Pathway project, $763,000 for San

Rafael’s Grand Ave Bridge project, and $2,000,000 to TAM for the US 101 Marin Sonoma

Narrows project.

On November 28, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to make adjustments related to the

MTC/SCVTA Funding Exchange Agreement MTC Resolution No. 4356 and to the MTC/CCTA

Funding Exchange Agreement MTC Resolution No. 4357, and to program $4,000,000 in MTC

exchange funds in accordance with MTC Resolution 3989, to the following projects: $619,000 to

CCTA for Innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials; $621,000 to the city of Walnut Creek

for innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials; $500,000 to the city of Richmond for the


Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bikeway Access; $1,160,000 to MTC for Richmond-San Rafael

Bridge Forward; and $1,100,000 to MTC for Napa Valley Transportation Demand.

On December 19, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to redirect $5,200,000 from

MTC’s I-880 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Central Segment to the I-880 ICM

Northern Segment project within the Regional Active Operational Management Program; clarify

the Diridon Integrated Station Area Concept Plan project within the Regional Priority

Development Planning and Implementation Program to reference Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority (VTA) as a project partner; within the Santa Clara County Program,

redirect $794,000 in unprogrammed balances to Sunnyvale’s East Sunnyvale Sense of Place

Improvements, clarify the remaining unprogrammed balance is discretionary, and clarify the

division of funding for Santa Clara’s Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 project between the county’s

Safe Routes to School program and its discretionary program.

On January 23, 2019, Attachment B-2 was revised to redirect $15,980,000 within the San

Francisco County Program from the Better Market Street project to the Central Subway project.

On February 27, 2019, Attachment B-1 was revised to change the fund source of $3,779,849

programmed to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent in Surface Transportation Block Grant

Program (STP) funds to federal Highway Infrastructure Program (STP Bump) funds provided in

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. Of the $3,779,849 freed up by this swap, $1,000,000

is returned to the region’s STP/CMAQ balance to help address the CMAQ shortfall as a result of

the region becoming attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and therefore receiving less CMAQ

funds which are distributed based on air quality status. The remaining $2,779,849 is held for

future Commission action.

On March 27, 2019, Attachment A, Appendix A-8, Appendix A-10, and Attachment B-1 were

revised to clarify provisions pertaining to the interim status report requirements for Priority

Development Area (PDA) Investment & Growth Strategies; change the recipient of the Concord

IDEA project from CCTA to the City of Concord and reduce the MTC Exchange funding from

$619,000 to $589,000; and redirect the $30,000 in MTC Exchange funds to a new MTC-led

Concord IDEA project.

On June 26, 2019, Attachment B-2 was revised to program $822,000 in unprogrammed Safe

Routes to School Program (SRTS) balances within the Contra Costa County Program to six


existing projects; and to redirect $251,000 within the San Mateo County Program from

Atherton’s Middlefield Road Class II Bike Lanes to its James Avenue Rehabilitation.

On July 24, 2019, Attachment A was revised to delegate authority to the Executive Director or

designee to sign Letters of Understanding for the exchange of STP/CMAQ funds with other

regions, within certain conditions and limitations, and to delegate to a Committee of the

Commission the authority to approve exchanges beyond these conditions and limitations.

On September 25, 2019, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to clarify that the $300,000

programmed to Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) within the Community

Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Updates program will be directed to its Congestion

Management Agency (CMA) Planning program as part of an internal fund exchange within

ACTC; redirect $9.6 million from 511 Implementation to 511 Next Gen within the Bay Area 511

Traveler Information Program; within the Freeway Performance Program redirect $625,000 in

from MTC’s SR 84 (US 101 to I-880) to the environmental phase of MTC’s I-580 WB HOV

Lane Extension project and change the project sponsor of the I-80/Central Ave. Interchange

Improvements project from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to City of

Richmond; within the Innovative Deployment to Enhance Arterials (IDEA) program, clarify that

LAVTA is a partner agency for the Dublin Category 2 IDEA project; within the Transportation

Management Systems (TMS) program, change the name of the overall program to Connected

Bay Area, redirect $2 million from the Detection Technology Pilot project and $1.8 million from

the Performance-Based ITS Device Maintenance and Rehabilitation project to provide an

additional $3.8 million to the I-880 Communications Upgrade and Infrastructure Gap Closures

project; within the Incident Management program, redirect $1 million from MTC’s I-880

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Central Segment to the Northern Segment; within the

San Francisco County program, redirect $3,366,000 from John Yehall Chin Elementary Safe

Routes to School (SRTS) Improvement; and within the Santa Clara County program, redirect $1

million from Los Altos’ Miramonte Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements project to

Cupertino’s McClellan Rd Separated Bike Lane project, and program $1,346,000 in

unprogrammed discretionary balances to Campbell’s Harriet Ave Sidewalk project and Los

Gatos Shannon Rd Complete Streets project.

On October 23, 2019, Attachment B-1 was revised to redirect $3 million from MTC’s Detection

Technology Pilot project to establish the InterConnect Bay Area grant program within the

Connected Bay Area program; direct $5 million ($4 million Solano County and $1 million other


North Bay counties) within the Housing Incentive Pool program to establish the Sub-HIP

program, with specific projects to be recommended through future programming actions; and

program $1 million to BART for AB2923 Implementation from unprogrammed balances within

the PDA Planning & Implementation program.

On November 20, 2019, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $6,023,000 in MTC

exchange funds in accordance with MTC Resolution No. 3989 to 13 projects within the Priority

Conservation Area (PCA) Grants program; and within the Contra Costa County program,

redirect $1,025,000 from Brentwood’s Various Streets and Roads Preservation project to

Pittsburg’s Pavement Improvements project, redirect $618,000 from San Pablo’s Market Street

Pavement Rehabilitation project to Giant Road Pavement Rehabilitation project; and revise the

name of Walnut Creek’s Ygnacio Valley Road Rehabilitation project to reflect the latest

proposed scope of work.

On February 26, 2020, Attachments A, B-1, and B-2 were revised to program $1 million to MTC

for SR 37 corridor planning in Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties and $3 million to

MTC for I-80 corridor planning from the Carquinez Bridge to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay

Bridge (SFOBB) Toll Plaza within the Freeway Performance Program; revise the name of the

Concord Willow Pass Road Rehabilitation and Safe Routes to School project within the Contra

Costa County Program to reflect the project’s current scope; and clarify language within the

OBAG 2 Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy to reflect the Commission adoption

of Housing Incentive Pool (HIP) program guidelines, MTC Resolution No. 4348.

On May 27, 2020, Attachment B-1 was revised to clarify the scope of MTC’s Freeway

Performance Program planning-only project on I-80 extends from Carquinez Bridge in Contra

Costa to Fremont Street in San Francisco; change the sponsor for three projects within the

Regional Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Grant program; and to redirect $104,000 in the

North Bay Priority PCA Grant program from Novato’s Carmel Open Space Acquisition project

to Novato’s Hill Area National Recreation Area, as the former project has been cancelled.

On July 22, 2020, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $5 million to five projects in Solano,

Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties within the Housing Incentive Pool Pilot Program (Sub-HIP)

and program $1 million to the Napa Valley Forward Traffic Calming and Multimodal

Improvements project within the Freeway Performance Program (FPP); and incorporate

$7,681,887 in federal Highway Infrastructure Program apportionment provided through the


Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2020 to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide

Deterrent.

On September 23, 2020, Attachment B-2 was revised to redirect $2,000,000 from Napa’s

Silverado Trail Five-way Intersection Improvement project to Napa Valley Transportation

Authority’s Vine Transit Bus Maintenance Facility within the Napa County Program, and

$1,394,000 from Fairfield’s Heart of Fairfield Improvements to its Cadenasso Dr. repaving

project within the Solano County Program.

On November 20, 2020, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $1,000,000 to SFCTA for the

environmental phase of the Yerba Buena Island/Treasure Island Multi-Use Pathway project

within the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Grants program, with payback from BATA at a

future date; $647,000 in MTC exchange funds in accordance with MTC Resolution No. 3989 to

four projects within the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Grants program; and to clarify the

project sponsor of the Old Redwood Highway Multi-Use Pathway project as Larkspur, rather

than the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM).

On January 27, 2021, Attachments A and Attachment B-1 were revised, and Appendix A-11 was

added, to incorporate additional funding into the OBAG 2 framework, including $52.9 million in

STP/CMAQ program balances made available through FY2018-FY2020 appropriations of

Federal Highway Infrastructure Program (FHIP) funds, and a $1.5 million balance redirected

from the Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Climate Initiatives program, as part of the Safe & Seamless

Mobility Quick-Strike program.

Further discussion of the project selection criteria and programming policy is contained in the

memorandum to the Programming and Allocations Committee dated November 4, 2015, July 13,

2016, October 12, 2016, December 14, 2016, February 8, 2017 (action deferred to March 2017),

March 8, 2017, April 12, 2017, May 10, 2017, June 14, 2017, July 12, 2017, September 13,

2017, October 11, 2017, November 8, 2017, December 13, 2017, January 10, 2018, February 14,

2018, March 7, 2018, and April 11, 2018; the Planning Committee dated April 6, 2018; and the

Programming and Allocations Committee dated May 9, 2018, June 13, 2018, July 11, 2018,

September 12, 2018, November 14, 2018, December 12, 2018, January 9, 2019, February 13,

2019, March 6, 2019, June 12, 2019, July 10, 2019, September 4, 2019, October 9, 2019,

November 13, 2019, February 12, 2020, May 13, 2020, July 8, 2020, September 9 2020,

November 4, 2020, and January 13, 2021.

Date: November 18, 2015 W.I.: 1512 Referred By: Programming & Allocations RE: One Bay Area Grant Program Second Round (OBAG 2) Project Selection Criteria and Programming

Policy


RESOLUTION NO. 4202

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the Regional Transportation

Planning Agency (RTPA) for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code Section 66500

et seq.; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the nine-

county San Francisco Bay Area region and is required to prepare and endorse a Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP) which includes federal funds; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated recipient for state and federal funding assigned to the

RTPA/MPO of the San Francisco Bay Area for the programming of projects; and

WHEREAS, state and federal funds assigned for RTPA/MPO programming discretion are

subject to availability and must be used within prescribed funding deadlines regardless of project

readiness; and

WHEREAS, MTC, in cooperation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development

Commission (BCDC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Congestion Management

Agencies (CMAs), county Transportation Authorities (TAs), transit operators, counties, cities, and

interested stakeholders, has developed criteria, policies and procedures to be used in the selection of

projects to be funded with various funding including regional federal funds as set forth in Attachments

A, B-1 and B-2 of this Resolution, incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and

WHEREAS, using the policies set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution, MTC, in

cooperation with the Bay Area Partnership and interested stakeholders, will develop a program of

projects to be funded with these funds for inclusion in the federal TIP, as set forth in Attachments B-1

and B-2 of this Resolution, incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and

WHEREAS the federal TIP and subsequent TIP amendments and updates are subject to public

review and comment; now therefore be it

MTC Resolution 4202Page 2

RESOLVED that MTC approves the “Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy” for

projects to be funded in the OBAG 2 Program as set forth in Attachments A, B-i and B-2 of this

Resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED that the regional discretionary funding shall be pooled and distributed on a regional

basis for implementation of project selection criteria, policies, procedures and programming, consistent

with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and be it further

RESOLVED that the projects will be included in the federal TIP subject to final federal approval

and requirements; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee may make technical adjustments and other

non-substantial revisions, including updates to fund sources and distributions to reflect final funding

criteria and availability; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee is authorized to revise Attachments B-i and

B-2 as necessary to reflect the programming of projects as the projects are selected, revised and included

in the federal TIP; and be it further

RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee shall make available a copy of this

resolution, and attachements as may be required and appropriate.

The above resolution was entered intoby the Metropolitan TransportationCommission at the regular meetingof the Commission held in Oakland,California, on November 18, 2015


Dave Cortese, Chair

Metropolitan Transportation Commission OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Date: November 18, 2015 W.I.: 1512 Referred by: P&A Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C Attachment A Resolution No. 4202

OBAG 2

One Bay Area Grant Program Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Metropolitan Transportation Commission OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 November 18, 2015

Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 3 Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Revenue Estimates and Program Architecture ................................................................................ 1 Program Categories and Project List ................................................................................................ 6 General Programming Policies ......................................................................................................... 6 Regional Programs ........................................................................................................................... 12 County Programming Policies ........................................................................................................ 16 County Programs.............................................................................................................................. 22 Appendices Appendix A-1 Regional and County Program Categories Appendix A-2 County Program Fund Distribution Appendix A-3 Regional and County Planning Activities Appendix A-4 County Federal-Aid Secondary (FAS) Appendix A-5 County Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Appendix A-6 Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Appendix A-7 CMA Call for Projects Guidance Appendix A-8 County PDA Investment and Growth Strategy Appendix A-9 Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Implementation Appendix A-10 Checklist for CMA and Local Jurisdiction Compliance with MTC Resolution 4202 Appendix A-11 Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


The One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 2) is the second round of the federal funding program designed to support the implementation of Plan Bay Area, the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). OBAG 2 covers the five-year period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2021-22. The proposed revenue estimates, funding approach, programming policies, project guidance, and timeline for OBAG 2 are outlined in this attachment. BACKGROUND The inaugural One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 1) was approved by the Commission in May 2012 (MTC Resolution 4035). The OBAG 1 program incorporated the following program features:

Targeting project investments to the region’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs); Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need

Allocation (RHNA) process and produce housing; Supporting open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs); and Providing a larger and more flexible funding pot to deliver transportation projects in categories

such as Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing dedicated funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School activities and PCAs.

The early outcomes of the OBAG 1 program are documented in the One Bay Area Grant Report Card located at: (http://files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/OBAG_Report_Card.pdf). The key findings of the report highlight a variety of improvements as compared to previous federal highway funding programs, including: increased grant and project size, complexity, and multi-modality; significant investments in active transportation and TLC projects; region wide achievement of PDA investment targets; and compliance with local performance and accountability requirements. Considering the positive results achieved in OBAG 1, and in order to further extend the timeframe for OBAG to meet its policy goals, OBAG 2 maintains largely the same framework and policies. REVENUE ESTIMATES AND PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE OBAG 2 funding is based on anticipated future federal transportation program apportionments from the regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Programs. Originally, the programming capacity estimated for OBAG 2 amounted to $790 million (down from $827 million programmed with OBAG 1). The estimated decrease in revenues between program cycles reflects annual apportionment amounts in the federal surface transportation act (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21) authorized after approval of OBAG 1 not keeping pace with estimated growth rates, as well as changes in state and federal programs that impacted estimated regional funding levels (such as the elimination of the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program). Subsequent to the Commission’s original adoption of OBAG 2, Congress approved the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, providing an additional


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


estimated $72 million during the OBAG 2 period. The revised total STP/CMAQ funding for OBAG 2 is $862 million. The OBAG 2 program continues to integrate the region’s federal transportation program with California’s climate statutes and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and contributes to the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Regional Transportation Plan. Funding distribution formulas to the counties will continue to encourage land-use, housing and complete streets policies that support the production of housing with supportive transportation investments. This is accomplished through the following principles:

1. Realistic Revenue Assumptions: OBAG 2 funding is based on anticipated future federal transportation program apportionments. In past years, the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement programs (STP/CMAQ) have not grown, and changes in the federal and state programs (such as elimination of the Transportation Enhancement (TE) program) resulted in decreases that were not anticipated when OBAG 1 was developed. For the initial OBAG 2 estimates, a 2% annual escalation rate above current federal revenues was assumed, consistent with the mark-up of the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Even with the 2% escalation, revenues for OBAG 2 were expected to be 4% less than OBAG 1 revenues. Following the Commission’s original adoption of OBAG 2, an additional $72 million in FAST Act revenue was made available, for a total of $862 million for OBAG 2 - an increase of 4% over the OBAG 1 funding level. If there are significant changes in federal apportionments over the OBAG 2 time period, MTC will return to the Commission to recommend adjustments to the program. These adjustments could include increasing or decreasing funding amounts for one or more programs, postponement of projects, expansion of existing programs, development of new programs, or adjustments to subsequent programming cycles. Upon enactment and extension of the federal surface transportation authorizations expected during the OBAG funding period, MTC will need to closely monitor any new federal programs, their eligibility rules, and how funding is distributed to the states and regions. It is anticipated that any changes to the current federal programs would likely overlap to a large extent with projects that are currently eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C., although the actual fund sources may no longer mirror the current STP and CMAQ programs. Therefore, any reference to a specific fund source in the OBAG 2 programming serves as a proxy for replacement fund sources for which MTC has discretionary project selection and programming authority. OBAG 2 programming capacity is based on apportionment rather than obligation authority. Because obligation authority (the amount actually received) is less than the apportionment level, there is typically a carryover balance from year to year of unfunded


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


commitments. MTC’s current negative obligation authority imbalance is $51 million, and has held steady the past few years as a result of the region’s excellent delivery record. Successful project delivery has allowed MTC to capture additional, unused obligation authority (OA) from other states, enabling the region to deliver additional projects each year. Because this negative balance has held steady, there does not appear to be a need to true-up the difference at this time. MTC staff will continue to monitor this OA shortfall throughout the OBAG 2 period and make adjustments as necessary in the next round of programming.

2. Support Existing Programs: Originally, the OBAG program was expected to face declining revenues from $827 million in OBAG 1 to $790 million in OBAG 2. Therefore, no new programs were introduced with OBAG 2 and the anticipated funding reduction was spread among the various transportation needs supported in OBAG 1. With the $72 million in additional revenues from the FAST Act, funding for OBAG 2 increased to $862 million. The OBAG 2 program categories and commitments for the regional and county programs are outlined in Appendix A-1.

3. Support Plan Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy by Linking OBAG Funding to Housing: County Program Distribution Formula OBAG 1’s county distribution formula leveraged transportation dollars to reward jurisdictions that produce housing and accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. The formula also considered the share of affordable housing within housing production and RHNA allocations. In OBAG 2, the county distribution formula is updated to use the latest housing data from the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG). The formula is also based on housing over a longer time frame, considering housing production between 1999 and 2006 (weighted 30%) and between 2007 and 2014 (weighted 70%) in order to mitigate the effect of the recent recession and major swings in housing permit approvals. The OBAG 2 formula places additional emphasis on housing production and the share of affordable housing within both production and RHNA. The formula also expands the definition of affordable housing to include housing for moderate-income households in addition to low- and very low-income households. Furthermore, housing production is capped at the total RHNA allocation. The distribution formula factors for OBAG 2 are detailed in the table below.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


OBAG 2 County Distribution Formula Factors

*OBAG 2 housing affordability factor includes housing at the very low, low and moderate income levels which are weighted within both housing production and RHNA allocation. The distribution formula is further adjusted to ensure that CMA base planning funds are no more than 50% of the total distribution for that county. The resulting proposed county program formula distributions are presented in Appendix A-2. Priority Development Areas (PDAs) OBAG 2 continues to support the SCS for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs).

PDA Investment targets remain at OBAG 1 levels: 50% for the four North Bay counties and 70% for the remaining counties.

PDA Investment and Growth Strategies should play a strong role in guiding the County CMA project selection and be aligned with the Plan Bay Area update cycle.

Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) OBAG 2 maintains the two separate Priority Conservation Area (PCA) programs as introduced in OBAG 1, with one program dedicating funding to the four North Bay counties and one competitive program for the remaining counties.

4. Continue Flexibility and Local Transportation Investment Decision Making: OBAG 2 continues to provide the same base share of the funding pot (40%) to the county CMAs for local decision-making. The program allows CMAs the flexibility to invest in various transportation categories, such as Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning and outreach activities. In addition to the base county program, two previously regional programs, Safe Routes to School and the Federal-Aid Secondary (rural roads), have been consolidated into the county program with guaranteed minimum funding amounts to ensure the programs continue to be funded at specified levels.

5. Cultivate Linkages with Local Land-Use Planning: As a condition to access funds, local jurisdictions need to continue to align their general plans’ housing and complete streets policies as a part of OBAG 2 and as separately required by state law.

Population Housing RHNA

Housing Production

Housing Affordability *

OBAG 2 50% 20% 30% 60%


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Complete Streets Requirement Jurisdictions must adopt a complete streets resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC, incorporating MTC’s required complete streets elements as outlined in MTC’s Complete Streets Guidance. Alternatively, to recognize local jurisdictions’ efforts to update their general plan circulation element to incorporate the provisions of the 2008 Complete Streets Act in response to the provisions stated in OBAG 1, a jurisdiction may adopt a significant revision to the circulation element of the general plan that complies with the Act after January 1, 2010 and before the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC. The approach above focuses on the adoption of local complete streets resolutions, while acknowledging the jurisdictions that took efforts to update their circulation element in anticipation of future OBAG requirements. Housing Element Requirement Jurisdictions (cities and counties) must have a general plan housing element adopted and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2014-2022 RHNA by May 31, 2015. Jurisdictions that have failed to meet this deadline must have their housing elements certified by HCD by June 30, 2016 in order to be eligible to receive OBAG 2 funding. Furthermore, under state statute, jurisdictions are required to submit Housing Element Annual Reports by April 1 every year. All cities and counties receiving OBAG 2 funding must comply with this requirement during the entire OBAG 2 funding period or risk deprogramming of OBAG 2 funding.

The complete streets and housing requirements are not required for jurisdictions with no general plan or land use authority such as Caltrans, CMAs or transit agencies under a JPA or district (not under the governance of a local jurisdiction). However, in such instances the jurisdiction in which the project is physically located must meet these requirements, except for transit/rail agency property such as, track, rolling stock or a maintenance facility.

Surplus Land Requirement Cities and counties receiving funds through the County Program must adopt a surplus land resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC. The resolution must verify that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdiction complies with the State Surplus Land Act, as amended by AB 2135, 2014. MTC will issue guidance to assist cities and counties in drafting a resolution to meet this requirement. This guidance will be posted on the OBAG 2 website: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


This requirement shall not apply to charter cities unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities are subject to the provisions of the Act. In addition, the resolution is not required for public agencies with no general plan or land use authority.

6. Continue Transparency and Outreach to the Public Throughout the Process: CMAs will continue to report on their outreach process as part of their solicitation and selection of projects for OBAG. Each CMA will develop a memorandum addressing outreach efforts, agency coordination, distribution methodology and Title VI compliance. CMA reporting requirements are provided in Appendix A-10, the Checklist for CMA and Local Jurisdiction Compliance with MTC Resolution 4202.

PROGRAM CATEGORIES AND PROJECT LIST Appendix A-1 outlines the OBAG 2 program categories and commitments. Attachment B of Resolution 4202 contains the list of projects to be programmed under the OBAG 2 program. Attachments B-1 and B-2 list the projects receiving OBAG 2 funding through the regional programs and county programs respectively. The project lists are subject to project selection actions (conducted by MTC for most of the regional programs and by the CMAs for the county programs and other funds distributed to them). MTC staff will update Attachments B-1 and B-2 as projects are selected or revised by the Commission and CMAs and are included in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). GENERAL PROGRAMMING POLICIES The following programming policies apply to all projects funded in OBAG 2: 1. Public Involvement. MTC is committed to a public involvement process that is proactive

and provides comprehensive information, timely public notice, public access to key decisions, and opportunities for continuing involvement. MTC provides many methods to fulfill this commitment, as outlined in the MTC Public Participation Plan, Resolution No. 4174. The Commission’s adoption of the OBAG 2 program, including policy and procedures, meets the provisions of the MTC Public Participation Plan. MTC’s advisory committees and the Bay Area Partnership have been consulted in the development of funding commitments and policies for this program; and opportunities to comment have been provided to other stakeholders and members of the public. Furthermore, investments made in the OBAG 2 program must be consistent with federal Title VI requirements. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, income, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Public outreach to and involvement of individuals in low income and minority communities covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Executive Order pertaining to Environmental Justice is critical to both local and regional decisions. Additionally, when CMAs select projects for funding at the county level, they must consider equitable solicitation and


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


selection of project candidates in accordance with federal Title VI requirements (as set forth in Appendix A-7).

2. Commission Approval of Programs and Projects and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects approved as part of the OBAG 2 program must be amended into the TIP. The federally-required TIP is a comprehensive listing of all San Francisco Bay Area surface transportation projects that receive federal funds, and/or are subject to a federally required action, such as federal environmental clearance, and/or are regionally significant for air quality conformity or modeling purposes. It is the project sponsor’s responsibility to ensure their project is properly programmed in the TIP in a timely manner. Where CMAs are responsible for project selection, the Commission will revise the TIP to include the resulting projects and Attachment B to this Resolution may be updated by MTC staff to reflect these revisions. Where responsibility for project selection is assigned to MTC, TIP amendments and a revision to Attachment B to add or delete a project will be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Changes to existing projects in Attachment B may be made by MTC staff following approval of a related TIP revision.

3. Minimum Grant Size. Funding grants per project must be a minimum of $500,000 for counties with a population over 1 million (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties) and $250,000 for counties with a population under one million (Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties). The objective of a grant minimum requirement is to maximize the efficient use of federal funds and minimize the number of federal-aid projects which place administrative burdens on project sponsors, CMAs, MTC, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff. To provide flexibility, an alternative averaging approach may be used. For this approach, a CMA may program grant amounts no less than $100,000 for any project, provided that the overall average of all grant amounts within their County CMA Program meets the county minimum grant amount threshold. This lower threshold of $100,000 also applies to Safe Routes to School projects, which are typically of smaller scale. Furthermore, all OBAG 2 programming amounts must be rounded to thousands.

4. Air Quality Conformity. In the Bay Area, it is the responsibility of MTC to make a regional air quality conformity determination for the TIP in accordance with federal Clean Air Act requirements and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conformity regulations. MTC evaluates the impact of the TIP on regional air quality during the update of the TIP. Non-exempt projects that are not incorporated in the current finding for the TIP will not be considered for funding in the OBAG 2 program until the development of a subsequent air quality finding for the TIP. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated the Bay Area as a non-attainment area for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Therefore, based on consultation with the MTC Air Quality Conformity Task Force, projects deemed Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) must complete a hot-spot analysis as required by the Transportation Conformity Rule. Generally, POAQC are those projects that result in significant increases in, or concentrations of, emissions from diesel vehicles.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


5. Environmental Clearance. Project sponsors are responsible for compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section § 15000 et seq.), and the National Environmental Protection Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) standards and procedures for all projects with federal funds.

6. Application and Resolution of Local Support. Once a project has been selected for funding, project sponsors must submit a completed project application for each project through MTC’s Funding Management System (FMS). The project application consists of two parts: 1) a project submittal and/or TIP revision request to MTC staff through FMS, and 2) a Resolution of Local Support approved by the project sponsor’s governing board or council and submitted in FMS. A template for the Resolution of Local Support can be downloaded from the MTC website using the following link: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2.

7. Project Screening and Compliance with Regional and Federal Requirements. MTC staff will perform a review of projects proposed for OBAG 2 to ensure 1) eligibility; 2) consistency with the region’s long-range plan; and 3) project readiness. In addition, project sponsors must adhere to directives such as the Complete Streets Requirements, Housing Element Requirements, and the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606), as outlined below, and provide the required matching funds. Project sponsors should note that fund source programs, eligibility criteria, and regulations may change as a result of the passage of new surface transportation authorization legislation. In this situation, MTC staff will work to realign new fund sources with the funding commitments approved by the Commission.

Federal Project Eligibility: STP is the most flexible source of federal funding, with a wide range of projects that may be considered eligible. Eligible projects include roadway and bridge improvements (construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration), public transit capital improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transportation system management, transportation demand management, transportation control measures, mitigation related to an STP project, surface transportation planning activities, and safety. More detailed eligibility requirements can be found in 23 U.S.C § 133 and at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ factsheets/stp.cfm. CMAQ is a more targeted funding source. In general, CMAQ funds may be used for new or expanded transportation projects, programs, and operations that help reduce emissions. Eligible project categories that meet this basic criteria include: Transportation activities in an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), alternative fuels, traffic flow improvements, transit expansion projects, new bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, travel demand management, outreach and rideshare activities, telecommuting programs, intermodal freight, planning and project development activities, and experimental


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


pilot projects. For more detailed information, refer to FHWA’s revised guidance provided at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/ cmaq/policy_and_guidance/. MTC reserves the right to assign specific fund sources to projects based on availability and eligibility requirements. In the event that a new surface transportation authorization is enacted during implementation of OBAG 2 that materially alters these programs, MTC staff will work with the CMAs and project sponsors to match projects with appropriate federal fund programs.

RTP Consistency: Projects funded through OBAG 2 must be consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (currently Plan Bay Area). Project sponsors must identify each project’s relationship with meeting the goals and objectives of the RTP, including the specific RTP ID number or reference. RTP consistency will be verified by MTC staff for all OBAG 2 projects. Projects in the County program will also be reviewed by CMA staff prior to submitting selected projects to MTC.

Complete Streets Policy: Federal, state and regional policies and directives emphasize the accommodation of bicyclists, pedestrians, and persons with disabilities when designing transportation facilities. MTC's Complete Streets Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3765) created a checklist that is intended for use on projects to ensure the accommodation of non-motorized travelers is considered at the earliest conception or design phase. The county CMAs ensure that project sponsors complete the checklist before projects are considered by the county for OBAG 2 funding and submitted to MTC. The CMAs are required to make completed checklists available to their Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for review prior to CMAs’ project selection actions. Related state policies include: Caltrans Complete Streets Policy Deputy Directive 64 R1, which stipulates pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities must be considered in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations, and project development activities and products; and the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, which requires local agency general plan circulation elements to address all travel modes.

Project Delivery and Monitoring: OBAG 2 funding is available in the following five federal fiscal years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. Funds may be programmed in any of these years, conditioned upon the availability of federal apportionment and obligation authority (OA), and subject to TIP financial constraint requirements. In addition, in order to provide uninterrupted funding to ongoing efforts and to provide more time to prepare for the effective delivery of capital projects, priority of funding for the first year of programming apportionment (FY 2017-18) will be provided to ongoing programs, such as regional and CMA planning, non-infrastructure projects, and the preliminary engineering phase of capital projects.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Specific programming timelines will be determined through the development of the Annual Obligation Plan, which is developed by MTC staff in collaboration with the Bay Area Partnership technical working groups and project sponsors. Once programmed in the TIP, the funds must be obligated by FHWA or transferred to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within the federal fiscal year the funds are programmed in the TIP. Additionally, all OBAG 2 funds must be obligated no later than January 31, 2023.

Obligation deadlines, project substitutions and redirection of project savings will continue to be governed by the MTC Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606 and any subsequent revisions). All funds are subject to obligation, award, invoicing, reimbursement and project close-out requirements. The failure to meet these deadlines may result in the de-programming and redirection of funds to other projects.

To further facilitate project delivery and ensure all federal funds in the region are meeting federal and state regulations and deadlines, every recipient of OBAG 2 funding is required to identify and maintain a staff position that serves as the single point of contact (SPOC) for the implementation of all FHWA-administered funds within that agency. The person in this position must have sufficient knowledge and expertise in the federal-aid delivery process to coordinate issues and questions that may arise from project inception to project close-out. The agency is required to identify the contact information for this position at the time of programming of funds in the TIP, and to notify MTC immediately when the position contact has changed. This person will be expected to work closely with FHWA, Caltrans, MTC and the respective CMA on all issues related to federal funding for all FHWA-funded projects implemented by the recipient.

Project sponsors that continue to miss delivery milestones and funding deadlines for any federal funds are required to prepare and update a delivery status report on all projects with FHWA-administered funds they manage, and participate, if requested, in a consultation meeting with the county CMA, MTC and Caltrans prior to MTC approving future programming or including any funding revisions for the agency in the TIP. The purpose of the status report and consultation is to ensure the local public agency has the resources and technical capacity to deliver FHWA federal-aid projects, is fully aware of the required delivery deadlines, and has developed a delivery timeline that takes into consideration the requirements and lead-time of the federal-aid process within available resources.

By applying for and accepting OBAG 2 funding, the project sponsor is acknowledging that it has and will maintain the expertise and staff resources necessary to deliver the federal-aid project within the project-funding timeframe.

Funding Exchange: Sometimes federal funds may not be the best fit for projects being implemented to meet plan and program goals and objectives. In such cases, federal OBAG funding may be exchanged with non-federal funds. MTC staff will work with the


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


CMAs when such opportunities arise. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331) and the locally-funded project must be included in the federal TIP.

Local Match: Projects funded with STP or CMAQ funding require a non-federal local match. Although local match requirements are subject to change, the current local match requirement for STP and CMAQ funded projects in California is 11.47% of the total project cost, with FHWA providing up to 88.53% of the total project cost through reimbursements. For capital projects, sponsors that fully fund the project development or Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase with non-federal funds may use toll credits in lieu of a match for the construction phase. For these projects, sponsors must still meet all federal requirements for the PE phase.

Fixed Program and Specific Project Selection: Projects are chosen for the program based on eligibility, project merit, and deliverability within established deadlines. The OBAG 2 program is project-specific and the funds programmed to projects are for those projects alone.

The OBAG 2 program funding is fixed at the programmed amount; therefore, any project cost increases may not be covered by additional OBAG 2 funds. Project sponsors are responsible for securing the necessary match, and for cost increases or additional funding needed to complete the project, including contingencies.

8. Regional STP/CMAQ Exchanges. It is often difficult for smaller regions to fully utilize their

federal funds and deliver projects through the federal-aid process. This can place these more rural regions in conflict with state and federal timely use funds provisions, such as Sections 182.6 and 182.7 of the State Streets and Highways Code which require federal apportionment to be secured (obligated) within three years of federal eligibility, or when Congress enacts rescissions of unobligated funds. The SF Bay Area region is often in the opposite situation – more projects are ready for delivery than funds available each year. Regions also find themselves in situations where a project or activity is ineligible for a certain federal fund source such as CMAQ, and may require STP, while another region can easily use either fund source. To avoid the lapsing of funds and address these funding issues, regions may enter into exchange agreements, where older unused STP/CMAQ funds subject to lapse or rescission from one region are “exchanged” with future funds from a region that can use the funds by the deadline. Or a simple fund source exchange is needed. Such exchanges benefit both regions by avoiding the loss of funds in one region, while another region can advance projects that may be stalled due to a lack of eligible funding. To facilitate such exchanges, the MTC Executive Director or designee is hereby authorized to sign letters of understanding with other regions for the exchange of STP/CMAQ funds with the following conditions and limitations.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


The exchange does not negatively impact the delivery of regional STP/CMAQ projects.

The amount exchanged does not exceed $2 million per region per year. The exchange is a dollar for dollar exchange. The exchange is allowed under Caltrans’ obligation authority management policy. The Letter of Understanding can be executed in time for the MTC to secure the funds

prior to any lapse or rescission. If any timely use of funds deadlines or Caltrans processes are not met in time and

therefore result in the loss of apportionment balance, MTC’s apportionment shall not be negatively affected and the Letter of Understanding is null and void.

Exchanges beyond these conditions and limitations may be approved by a standing Committee of the Commission.

REGIONAL PROGRAMS The programs below comprise the OBAG 2 Regional Programs, managed by MTC. Funding amounts for each program are included in Appendix A-1. Individual projects will be added to Attachment B-1 and B-2 as they are selected and included in the federal TIP. 1. Regional Planning Activities This program provides funding to support regional planning and outreach activities. Appendix A-3 details the funding amounts and distribution for planning and outreach activities. 2. Pavement Management Program This continues the region’s acclaimed Pavement Management Program (PMP) and related activities including the Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP), training, and regional and statewide local streets and roads needs assessment. MTC provides grants to local jurisdictions to perform regular inspections of their local streets and roads networks and to update their pavement management systems which is a requirement to receive certain funding. MTC also assists local jurisdictions in conducting associated data collection and analysis efforts including local roads needs assessments and inventory surveys and asset management analysis that feed into regional planning efforts. MTC provides, training, research and development of pavement and non-pavement preservation management techniques, and participates in the statewide local streets and roads needs assessment effort. To support the collection and analysis of local roads asset conditions for regional planning efforts and statewide funding advocacy, and to be eligible for OBAG 2 funding for local streets and roads, a jurisdiction must:

Have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent) updated at least once every three years (with a one-year extension allowed); and

Fully participate in the statewide local streets and road needs assessment survey (including any assigned funding contribution); and


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Provide updated information to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) at least once every 3 years (with a one-year grace period allowed).

3. Regional Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning & Implementation Funding in this program implements the following: Regional PDA Planning and Implementation: The PDA Planning Program places an emphasis on intensifying land uses at and near transit stations and along transit corridors in PDAs. The key goals of the program are to: increase supply of affordable and market rate housing, jobs and services within the PDA planning area; boost transit ridership and thereby reduce vehicle miles traveled by PDA residents, employees and visitors; increase walking and bicycling by improving multi-modal access and effectively managing parking; and locate key services and retail within the PDA planning area. Funding is available for regional planning and implementation efforts and grants to jurisdictions to provide PDA planning support, and typically fund specific plans and programmatic Environmental Impact Reports. PDA plans funded through the program focus on a range of transit-supportive elements including market demand analysis, affordable housing strategies, multi-modal connectivity including pedestrian-friendly design standards, parking demand analysis, infrastructure development, implementation planning and financing strategies and implementation of the best practices identified in the Air District’s Planning Healthy Places guidelines. The PDA Planning Program will give priority to cities with high risk of displacement in order to support the development of local policies and programs to meaningfully address identified housing issues. Community-Based Transportation Planning: A portion of this program will be dedicated to the Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant program. These locally-led plans address the mobility needs of low-income households in the region’s 35 Communities of Concern. Grant funds will be used to update CBTPs that are in many cases more than 10 years old. Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH): Consistent with the OBAG 2 framework and PDA Planning Program, a NOAH revolving loan fund will be established as a complement to the existing TOAH loan products for new construction. NOAH loans would be used to buy apartment buildings to create long-term affordability where displacement risk is high and to secure long-term affordability in currently subsidized units that are set to expire. NOAH investments will be made in PDAs or Transit Priority Areas. 4. Climate Initiatives Program The purpose of the OBAG 2 Climate Initiatives Program is to support the implementation of strategies identified in Plan Bay Area to achieve the required CO2 emissions reductions per SB375 and federal criteria pollutant reductions. Investments focus on projects and programs with effective greenhouse gas emission reduction results. Spare the Air Youth: A portion of the Climate Initiatives program would be directed to the implementation of Spare the Air Youth program.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


5. Regional Active Operational Management This program is administered at the regional level by MTC to actively manage congestion through cost-effective operational strategies that improve mobility and system efficiency across freeways, arterials and transit modes. Funding continues to be directed to evolving MTC operational programs such as next generation 511, Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), incident management program, managed lanes and regional rideshare program. Funding will also be directed to new initiatives such as the Columbus Day Initiative that deploys advanced technologies and Transportation Management Systems that ensures the existing and new technology infrastructure is operational and well-maintained. Columbus Day Initiative The Columbus Day Initiative (CDI) builds on the proven success of its predecessor program (the Freeway Performance Initiative), which implemented traditional fixed time-of-day freeway ramp metering and arterial signal timing projects that achieved significant delay reduction and safety on Bay Area freeways and arterials at a fraction of the cost of traditional highway widening projects. The CDI aims to deliver cost-effective, technology-driven operational improvement projects such as, adaptive ramp metering, hard shoulder running lanes, queue warning signs, connected vehicle technologies, shared mobility technologies, and regional arterial operations strategies. Projects would target priority freeway and arterial corridors with significant congestion. Funding for performance monitoring activities and corridor studies is included to monitor the state of the system and to identify and assess the feasibility of operational strategies to be deployed. Transportation Management Systems This program includes the operations and management of highway operations field equipment; critical freeway and incident management functions; and Transportation Management Center (TMC) staff resources needed to actively operate and maintain the highway system. Bay Bridge Forward Project As part of the overall OBAG 2 framework, this project encompasses the implementation of several near-term, cost-effective operational improvements that offer travel time savings, reliability and lower costs for carpooling and bus/ferry transit use to increase person throughput and reduce congestion, incidents, and emissions in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge corridor. 6. Transit Priorities Program The objective of the Transit Priorities Program is to assist transit operators to fund major fleet replacements, including the BART Car Replacement Phase 1 project, fixed guideway rehabilitation and other high-scoring capital needs, including replacement of Clipper equipment and development of Clipper 2.0, that are consistent with MTC’s Transit Capital Priorities policy for programming federal transit funds (MTC Resolution 4140 or successor resolution). The program also implements elements of the Transit Sustainability Project by making transit-supportive investments in major transit corridors that can be carried out within two years


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


through the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI). The focus of TPI is on making cost-effective operational improvements on significant trunk lines which carry the largest number of passengers in the Bay Area including transit signal prioritization, passenger circulation improvements at major hubs, boarding/stop improvements and other improvements to improve the passenger experience. 7. Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program The Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program provides funding for the development of plans and projects to assist in the preservation and enhancement of rural lands. Specifically, projects must support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands and open space amidst a growing population across the Bay Area, for residents and businesses. The PCA program includes one approach for the North Bay counties (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) and a second approach for the remaining five counties. In the North Bay, each of the four CMAs will take the lead to develop a county-wide program, building on PCA planning conducted to date to select projects for funding. For the remaining counties, MTC will partner with the Coastal Conservancy, a California State agency, to program the PCA funds. MTC will provide federal funding which will be combined with the Coastal Conservancy’s own program funds in order to support a broader range of projects (i.e. land acquisition and easement projects) than can be accommodated with federal transportation dollars alone. The Coastal Conservancy, MTC, and ABAG staff will cooperatively manage the call for proposals. The minimum non-federal match required for PCA-program funding is 2:1. As a part of the update to Plan Bay Area, MTC is exploring implementing a Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) Program. RAMP would mitigate certain environmental impacts from multiple planned transportation projects, rather than mitigating on a less-efficient per-project level. Partnering arrangements can be established to leverage multiple fund sources in order to maximize benefits of the RAMP and PCA programs. As such, PCA funds may be used to deliver net environmental benefits to a RAMP program project. In instances where federal funds may not be used for this purpose, sponsors may exchange OBAG 2 funds with eligible non-federal funds. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331). Appendix A-9 outlines the framework for this program including goals, project screening, eligibility, eligible sponsors, and project selection.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


8. Housing Production Incentive As part of the OBAG 2 framework, MTC developed a challenge grant program for the production and preservation of affordable housing. The purpose of the program is to reward local jurisdictions that produce the most housing units at the very low, low, and moderate income levels. The funds provided for the HIP program through OBAG 2 would be STP/CMAQ, and would need to be used only for federally-eligible transportation purposes. Additional funds may be added outside of OBAG 2 to increase the size of the challenge grant program. 9. Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike The Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike program is a regional, competitive grant program to fund projects that can be implemented quickly to benefit communities. The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, transit and transit access improvements, connected mobility, advancing equitable mobility, or other near-term strategies to advance transit recovery and connected mobility. Appendix A-11 outlines the framework for this program including program focus areas, project eligibility, evaluation criteria, and the project nomination and selection process. 10. Regional Strategic Initiatives The Regional Strategic Initiatives program reflects regional funding commitments to projects not captured in the original OBAG 2 framework as well as projects funded through unspent STP/CMAQ balances from prior cycles and various funding exchanges. COUNTY PROGRAMMING POLICIES The policies below apply to the programs managed by the county Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) or substitute agency:

Program Eligibility: The CMA, or substitute agency, may program funds from its OBAG 2 county fund distribution to projects that meet the eligibility requirements for any of the following transportation improvement types:

Planning and Outreach Activities Local Streets and Roads Preservation Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Transportation for Livable Communities Safe Routes To School Priority Conservation Areas Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) Improvements


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Fund Sources & Formula Distribution: OBAG 2 is funded primarily from two federal fund sources: STP and CMAQ. The CMAs will be provided a breakdown of specific OBAG 2 fund sources, with the understanding that actual fund sources are subject to change. Should there be significant changes to federal fund sources, MTC staff will work with the CMAs to identify and realign new fund sources with the funding commitments approved by the Commission. Furthermore, due to strict funding availability and eligibility requirements, the CMAs must adhere to the fund source limitations provided. Exceptions may be granted by MTC staff based on actual fund source availability and final federal apportionment levels.

Consistent with OBAG 1, 60% of available OBAG 2 funding is assigned to Regional Programs and 40% assigned to the base County CMA Programs. The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) programs augment the county base funding, bringing the final proportionate share to 55% regional and 45% county. The Base county funds (SRTS & FAS have their own formula distribution) are distributed to each county based on the OBAG 2 county distribution formula (see page 3). Counties are further guaranteed that the funding amount for planning purposes will not exceed 50% of their total distribution. This results in the county of Napa receiving additional funding. This planning guarantee clause results in a slight deviation in the final OBAG 2 fund distribution for each county. The base County CMA Program fund distribution after the planning guarantee adjustment is shown in Appendix A-2.

Priority Development Area (PDA) Policies PDA minimum investment: CMAs in larger counties (Alameda, Contra Costa,

San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) shall direct at least 70% of their OBAG 2 investments to PDAs. For North Bay counties (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) this minimum target is 50% to reflect the more rural nature of these counties. CMA planning and outreach costs partially count towards PDA minimum investment targets (70% or 50%, in line with each county’s PDA minimum investment target). The guaranteed minimum for Priority Conservation Area (PCA), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) do not count towards PDA targets. The PDA/non-PDA funding split is shown in Appendix A-2.

PDA boundary delineation: Refer to http://gis.mtc.ca.gov/interactive_maps/ which provides a GIS overlay of the PDAs in the Bay Area to exact map boundaries including transportation facilities. This map is updated as ABAG approves new PDA designations.

Defining proximate access to PDAs: The CMAs may determine that a project located outside of a PDA provides proximate access to the PDA, and thus counts towards the county’s minimum PDA investment target. The CMA is required to map these projects along with the associated PDA(s) and provide a policy justification for designating the project as supporting a PDA through


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


proximate access. This information should assist decision makers, stakeholders, and the public in evaluating the impact of the investment on a nearby PDA, to determine whether or not the investment should be credited towards the county’s PDA minimum investment target. This information must be presented for public review when the CMA board acts on OBAG programming decisions.

PDA Investment & Growth Strategy: Updates to each county’s PDA Investment & Growth Strategy are required every four years and must be adopted by the CMA Board. The updates should be coordinated with the countywide plan and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) updates to inform RTP development decisions. Interim status reports are required two years after each update to address needed revisions and provide an activity and progress status. The interim status report required for 2019 will be satisfied through a collaborative effort between the CMAs and MTC. See Appendix A-8 for details.

Project Selection: County CMAs or substitute agencies are given the responsibility to develop a project selection process. The process should include solicitation of projects, identifying evaluation criteria, conducting outreach, evaluating project applications, and selecting projects.

Public Involvement: In selecting projects for federal funding, the decision making authority is responsible for ensuring that the process complies with federal statutes and regulations. In order to ensure that the CMA process for administering OBAG 2 is in compliance with federal regulations, CMAs are required to lead a public outreach process as directed by Appendix A-7.

CMAs must adopt a specific scoring methodology for funding allocation to projects within PDAs or Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) that rewards jurisdictions with the most effective housing anti-displacement policies.

MTC and the CMAs will conduct an analysis of the impact of this incentive-based scoring methodology on project selection and local anti-displacement and affordable housing production policy development. The findings will be used to inform future planning and funding priorities.

Unified Call for Projects: CMAs are requested to issue one unified call for projects for their OBAG 2 program. Final project lists are due to MTC by July 31, 2017, with all associated project information submitted to MTC using the Fund Management System (FMS) by August 31, 2017. On a case-by-case basis and as approved in advance by MTC staff, these deadlines may be waived to allow coordination with other county-wide call for projects or programming needs. The goal is to coordinate the OBAG2 call for projects, and provide project sponsors the maximum time to deliver projects.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Project Programming Targets and Delivery Deadlines: CMAs must program their block grant funds over the OBAG 2 period (FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22). In general, the expectation is that on-going activities such as CMA planning, non-infrastructure projects and the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase of projects would use capacity in the first year, followed by the capital phases of project in later years.

OBAG 2 funding is subject to the provisions of the Regional Project Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution 3606, or its successor) including the deadlines for Request for Authorization (RFA) submittal and federal authorization/ obligation. Additionally, the following funding deadlines apply for each county, with earlier delivery strongly encouraged:

o At least half of the OBAG 2 funds, must be obligated (federal authorization/FTA Transfer) by January 31, 2020.

o All remaining OBAG 2 funds must be obligated by January 31, 2023. Performance and Accountability Policies: Jurisdictions need to comply with the

following policies, as well as other requirements noted in the document, in order to be eligible recipients of OBAG 2 funds.

Adopt a complete streets resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC, incorporating MTC’s required complete streets elements as outlined in MTC’s Complete Streets Guidance. Alternatively, to recognize local jurisdiction’s efforts to update their general plan circulation element to incorporate the provisions of the 2008 Complete Streets Act in response to the provisions stated in OBAG 1, a jurisdiction may adopt a significant revision to the circulation element of the general plan that complies with the Act after January 1, 2010.

For compliance, a substantial revision of the circulation element, passed after January 1, 2010, shall “…plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan,” while complying with the other provisions of CA Government Code Section 65302 and Complete Streets Act of 2008.

The approach above focuses on the adoption of local complete streets resolutions, while acknowledging the jurisdictions that took efforts to update their circulation element in anticipation of future OBAG requirements.

Jurisdictions (cities and counties) must have a general plan housing element adopted and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2014-2022 RHNA by May 31, 2015. Jurisdictions that have failed to meet this deadline must have their housing


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


elements certified by HCD by June 30, 2016 in order to be eligible to receive OBAG 2 funding.

Furthermore, under state statute, jurisdictions are required to submit Housing Element Annual Reports by April 1 every year. All cities and counties receiving OBAG 2 funding must comply with this statute during the entire OBAG 2 funding period or risk deprogramming of OBAG 2 funding.

General law cities and counties must adopt a surplus land resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC. The resolution must verify that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdiction complies with the State Surplus Land Act, as amended by AB 2135, 2014. MTC will issue guidance to assist cities and counties in drafting a resolution to meet this requirement. This guidance will be posted on the OBAG 2 website: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2. Charter cities do not have to adopt a surplus land resolution unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities are subject to the provisions of the Act.

For jurisdictions with local public streets and roads, to be eligible for OBAG 2 funding, the jurisdiction must: o Have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or

equivalent) updated at least once every three years (with a one-year extension allowed);

o Fully participate in the statewide local streets and road needs assessment survey; and

o Provide updated information to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) at least once every 3 years (with a one-year grace period allowed).

For a transit agency project sponsor under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or district (not under the governance of a local jurisdiction), or an agency where housing and complete streets policies do not apply, the jurisdiction where the project is located (such as station/stop improvements) will need to comply with the policies and other requirements specified in this attachment before funds may be programmed to the project sponsor. However, this is not required if the project is transit/rail agency property such as, track, rolling stock or a transit maintenance facility.

OBAG 2 funds may not be programmed to any jurisdiction out of compliance with the policies and other requirements specified in this attachment.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


The CMA will be responsible for tracking progress towards all OBAG 2 requirements and affirming to MTC that a jurisdiction is in compliance prior to MTC programming OBAG 2 funds to its projects in the TIP. CMAs will provide the following prior to programming projects in the TIP (see Appendix A-10): o Documentation of the approach used to select OBAG 2 projects

including outreach efforts, agency coordination, Title VI compliance, the methodology used for distributing funds within the county, and the specific scoring methodology used for allocating funds to projects within PDAs or TPAs that rewards local jurisdictions with the most effective housing anti-displacement policies;

o The board adopted list of projects recommended for OBAG 2 funding; o Self-certification that all projects recommended for funding are

consistent with the current RTP (including documentation) and have completed project-specific Complete Streets Checklists (including documentation);

o Identification of the Single-Point of Contact assigned by the jurisdiction for all FHWA-funded projects, including OBAG 2 projects;

o Documentation of local jurisdiction compliance with MTC’s Complete Streets Policy, including a list of the status of each jurisdiction, a letter from the CMA for each jurisdiction describing how the jurisdiction meets the policy requirements, and supporting documentation for each local jurisdiction (resolutions and/or circulation elements)

o Documentation of local jurisdiction compliance with MTC’s Housing Element requirements, including a list of the status of each jurisdiction’s Annual Housing Element Progress Report as well as any supporting documentation for each jurisdiction (progress reports and copies of submittal letter to HCD). This documentation will be required annually from CMAs (April 30 each year) throughout the OBAG 2 programming period;

o Documentation of compliance with the State’s Surplus Land Act requirements, for each applicable jurisdiction (copy of adopted resolution).

o Documentation for any projects recommended for funding that apply toward the county’s minimum PDA investment target. This includes mapping of all mappable projects (projects with a physical location). For projects that are not physically located within a PDA, the CMA is required to map each project along with the associated PDA(s) and provide a policy justification for designating each project as supporting a PDA through proximate access. CMAs must also document that this


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


information was used when presenting its program of projects to their board and the public; and

o Self-certification that the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy has been completed and adopted by the CMA Board, or will be adopted in coordination with the RTP update. The interim progress report requirement for 2019 will be satisfied through a collaborative effort between the CMAs and MTC. Documentation of subsequent required updates and interim progress reports must also be submitted by the CMAs throughout the OBAG 2 period.

COUNTY PROGRAMS The categories below comprise the eligible OBAG 2 County Programs, administered by the nine county CMAs. The CMAs should ensure that the project selection process and selected projects meet all eligibility requirements throughout this document as well as in federal statutes and regulations. MTC staff will work with CMAs and project sponsors to resolve any eligibility issues which may arise, including air quality conformity exceptions and requirements. County CMA Program The base OBAG 2 County program accounts for 40% of the total funding available through OBAG 2 and is distributed to each county according to the OBAG 2 county formula after accounting for the CMA Planning minimum guarantee (see Appendices A-2 and A-3). This program includes CMA planning and outreach as well as the various projects selected through each county’s competitive call for projects. Projects selected through the base county program are subject to the PDA investment minimum requirements. 1. CMA Planning and Outreach This category provides funding to the county Congestion Management Agency (CMA) or substitute agency to support programming, monitoring and outreach activities. Such efforts include, but are not limited to: county-based planning efforts for development of the RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); development of PDA growth strategies; development and implementation of a complete streets compliance protocol; establishing land use and travel forecasting process and procedures consistent with ABAG/MTC; ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of federal-aid local projects; and undertaking the programming of assigned funding and solicitation of projects. The minimum funding level for the CMA planning and outreach program continues OBAG 1 commitments by escalating FY 2016-17 amounts at 2% per year. In addition, counties are guaranteed that the base funding level for the CMA’s planning and outreach program will not exceed 50% of the county’s total OBAG 2 County Program distribution. Actual CMA planning and outreach amounts for each county, are shown in Appendix A-3.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


At their discretion, the CMAs may choose to designate additional funding from their County Program to augment their planning and outreach efforts. All funding and activities will be administered through an interagency agreement between MTC and the respective CMA. 2. Local Streets and Roads Preservation This category is for the preservation of local streets and roads on the federal-aid system. To be eligible for funding of any Local Streets and Roads (LSR) preservation project, the jurisdiction must have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent). In addition, selected pavement projects should be based on the needs analysis resulting from the established Pavement Management Program (PMP) for the jurisdiction. This requirement ensures that streets selected for investment are cost effective. MTC is responsible for verifying the certification status of jurisdictions. The current certification status of area jurisdictions can be found at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/services/pmp/. Furthermore, to support the collection and analysis of local roads asset conditions for comprehensive regional planning efforts and statewide funding advocacy, a jurisdiction must fully participate in the statewide local streets and road needs assessment survey to be eligible for OBAG 2 funding for pavement rehabilitation. Eligibility requirements for specific project types are included below:

Pavement Rehabilitation: All pavement rehabilitation projects, including projects with pavement segments with

a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) below 70, must be consistent with segments recommended for treatment within the programming cycle by the jurisdiction’s PMP.

Preventive Maintenance: Only projects where pavement segments have a PCI of 70 or above are eligible for

preventive maintenance. Furthermore, the local agency's PMP must demonstrate that the preventive maintenance strategy is a cost effective method of extending the service life of the pavement.

Non-Pavement: Eligible non-pavement activities and projects include rehabilitation or replacement of

existing features on the roadway facility, such as bridge structures, storm drains, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), curbs, gutters, culverts, medians, guardrails, safety features, signals, signage, sidewalks, ramps, complete streets elements and features that bring the facility to current standards. Jurisdictions must have a certified PMP to be eligible to receive funding for improvements to non-pavement features.

Activities that are not eligible for funding include: Air quality non-exempt projects (unless granted an exception by MTC staff), new roadways, roadway extensions, right of way acquisition for future expansion, operations, routine maintenance, spot application, enhancements that are


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


above and beyond repair or replacement of existing assets (other than bringing roadway to current standards or implementing compete streets elements) and any pavement application not recommended by the PMP unless otherwise allowed above. Federal-Aid Eligible Facilities: Federal-aid highways as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6) are eligible for local streets and roads preservation funding. A federal-aid highway is a public road that is not classified as a rural minor collector or local road (residential) or lower. Project sponsors must confirm the eligibility of their roadway through the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) prior to the application for funding. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements This category funds a wide range of bicycle and pedestrian improvements including Class I, II and III bicycle facilities; cycle tracks; bicycle education, outreach, sharing and parking; sidewalks, ramps, pathways and pedestrian bridges; user safety and supporting facilities; and traffic signal actuation. Bicycle and pedestrian projects may be located on or off the federal-aid highway system. Additional eligibility requirements will apply to bicycle and pedestrian projects that are funded with CMAQ funds rather than STP funds, given the more limited scope of the CMAQ funding program. According to CMAQ eligibility requirements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities must not be exclusively recreational and should reduce vehicle trips resulting in air pollution reductions. Also, the hours of operation need to be reasonable and support bicycle/pedestrian needs, particularly during commute periods. For example, the policy that a trail be closed to users before sunrise or after sunset may limit users from using the facility during the portions of peak commute hours, particularly during times of the year with shorter days. 4. Transportation for Livable Communities The purpose of Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) projects is to support community-based transportation projects that bring new vibrancy to downtown areas, commercial cores, high-density neighborhoods, and transit corridors; enhancing their amenities and ambiance and making them places where people want to live, work and visit. The TLC program supports the RTP/SCS by investing in improvements and facilities that promote alternative transportation modes rather than the single-occupant automobile. General project categories include the following:

Transit station improvements such as plazas, station access, pocket parks, and bicycle parking.

Transit expansions serving PDAs. Complete Streets improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian access and

encourage use of alternative modes. Cost-effective, technology-driven active operational management strategies for local

arterials and for highways when used to augment other fund sources or match challenge grants.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects including car sharing, vanpooling traveler coordination and information, and Clipper®-related projects.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Transit access projects connecting high density housing/jobs/mixed land use to transit, such as bicycle/pedestrian paths and bridges and safe routes to transit.

Streetscape projects focusing on high-impact, multi-modal improvements or associated with high density housing/mixed use and transit, such as bulb outs, sidewalk widening, crosswalk enhancements, audible signal modification, mid-block crossing and signals, new striping for bicycle lanes and road diets, pedestrian street lighting, medians, pedestrian refuges, wayfinding signage, tree grates, bollards, permanent bicycle racks, signal modification for bicycle detection, street trees, raised planters, planters, costs associated with on-site storm water management, permeable paving, and pedestrian-scaled street furniture including bus shelters, benches, magazine racks, garbage and recycling bins.

Mobility management and coordination projects that meet the specific needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities and enhance transportation access for populations beyond those served by one agency or organization within a community. Examples include the integration and coordination of services for individuals with disabilities, seniors, and low-income individuals; individualized travel training and trip planning activities for customers; the development and operation of one-stop transportation traveler call centers to coordinate transportation information on all travel modes and to manage eligibility requirements and arrangements for customers among supporting programs; and the operation of transportation brokerages to coordinate providers, funding agencies and passengers. Selected project sponsors may need to transfer the STP/CMAQ funds received to FTA.

PDA planning and implementation, including projects that incentivize local PDA transit oriented development housing (within funding eligibility limitations unless exchanged).

Density incentives projects and non-transportation infrastructure improvements that include density bonuses, sewer upgrade, land banking or site assembly (these projects require funding exchanges to address federal funding eligibility limitations).

Activities that are not eligible for funding include: air quality non-exempt projects (unless granted an exception by MTC staff), new roadways, roadway extensions, right of way acquisition for future expansion, operations, and routine maintenance. Additional County Programs In addition to the base County CMA Program, OBAG 2 directs additional funds to the CMAs to distribute to eligible project types. These programs are the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, the Federal Aid Secondary Shares Continuation (FAS) program, and for the North Bay Counties, the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) program. 1. Safe Routes to School Eligible projects for the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program include infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects that facilitate reduction in vehicular travel to and from schools. It is important to note that this program is funded exclusively by the CMAQ funding program. Given


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


the intent of the CMAQ program to reduce vehicular emissions, the OBAG 2 SRTS program is targeted towards air quality improvement rather than the health or safety of school-aged children. Despite this limitation, project eligibility under CMAQ largely overlaps with typical eligibility requirements for Safe Routes to School programs. Detailed examples of eligible projects are provided below: Eligible Non-Infrastructure Projects Public Education and Outreach Activities

Public education and outreach can help communities reduce emissions and congestion by inducing drivers to change their transportation choices

Activities that promote new or existing transportation services, developing messages and advertising materials (including market research, focus groups, and creative), placing messages and materials, evaluating message and material dissemination and public awareness, technical assistance, programs that promote the Tax Code provision related to commute benefits, and any other activities that help forward less-polluting transportation options

Air quality public education messages: Long-term public education and outreach can be effective in raising awareness that can lead to changes in travel behavior and ongoing emissions reductions; therefore, these activities may be funded indefinitely

Non-construction outreach related to safe bicycle use Travel Demand Management (TDM) activities including traveler information services,

shuttle services, carpools, vanpools, parking pricing, etc. Eligible Infrastructure Projects

Constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (paths, sidewalks, bike racks, support facilities, etc.), that are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle trips

Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas

New construction and major reconstructions of paths, tracks, or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest

Traffic calming measures Exclusions found to be ineligible uses of CMAQ funds

Walking audits and other planning activities (Upon the CMA’s request and availability of funds, STP funds will be provided for these purposes)

Crossing guards, vehicle speed feedback devices, and traffic control that is primarily oriented to vehicular traffic rather than bicyclists and pedestrians

Material incentives that lack an educational message or exceed a nominal cost Within the SRTS program, funding is distributed among the nine Bay Area counties based on K-12 total enrollment for private and public schools as reported by the California Department of Education for FY 2013-14 (see Appendix A-5). SRTS funding distributed to CMAs based on enrollment is not subject to the PDA minimum investment requirements. However, if a CMA


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


chooses to augment the SRTS program with additional funding from their base OBAG 2 County CMA program, this additional funding is subject to the PDA minimum investment requirements. Before programming projects into the TIP, the CMAs shall provide the SRTS projects, recommended county program scope, budget, schedule, agency roles, and federal funding recipient(s). In programming the funds in the TIP, project sponsors may consider using non-federal funds to fund SRTS activities ineligible for federal funding. In such instances, the sponsor is allowed to use toll credits for the federal project, conditioned upon a minimum of 11.47% in non-federal funds being dedicated for SRTS activities. Separate accounting of a federalized project and a non-federalized project to fund a single program can be challenging, so care should be taken when using this option. CMAs with an established SRTS program may choose to program local funds for SRTS projects in lieu of OBAG 2 funds and use the OBAG 2 funding for other eligible OBAG 2 projects. In such instances the local SRTS project(s) must be identified at the time the CMA submits the county OBAG 2 program to MTC and subsequently programmed in the federal TIP. 2. Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) Shares The Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) program, which directed funding to rural roads, was eliminated in 1991 with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). However, California statutes provide for the continuation of minimum funding levels to counties, guaranteeing their prior FAS shares for rural county roads. The county CMAs are required to ensure the counties receive their guaranteed annual funding through the CMA-managed OBAG county program. The county of San Francisco has no rural roads, and therefore does not receive FAS funding. In addition, the counties of Marin, Napa, and San Mateo may exchange their annual guaranteed FAS funding with state funding from Caltrans, as permitted by state statute. Caltrans takes these federal funds “off the top” before distributing regional STP funds to MTC. The CMAs for these three counties are not required to provide FAS guaranteed funding to these three counties for years in which these counties request such an exchange, as the statutory requirement is met through this exchange with Caltrans. Counties may access their FAS funding at any time within the OBAG 2 period for any project eligible for STP funding. Guaranteed minimum FAS funding amounts are determined by California’s Federal-Aid Secondary Highways Act (California Code § 2200-2214) and are listed in Appendix A-4. This FAS funding is not subject to the minimum PDA investment requirement. Any additional funding provided by the CMAs to the counties from the OBAG 2 county base formula distribution is subject to the minimum PDA investment requirements. 3. Priority Conservation Area (PCA) The Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program provides funding for the development of plans and projects to assist in the preservation and enhancement of rural lands and open space. Generally, eligible projects include PCA planning activities, bicycle and pedestrian access to open space and parklands, visual enhancements and habitat/environmental enhancements.


Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C 02/26/20-C 01/27/21-C


Specifically, projects must support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands amidst a growing population across the Bay Area, for residents and businesses. Land acquisition for preservation purposes is not federally eligible, but may be facilitated through CMA-initiated funding exchanges. The PCA funding program includes one approach for the North Bay program (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) and a second for the remaining five counties. In the North Bay, each CMA will receive dedicated funding, lead a county-wide program building on PCA planning conducted to date, and select projects for funding. For the remaining counties, MTC will partner with the Coastal Conservancy, a California State agency, to program the PCA funds. Appendix A-9 outlines the framework for this program including goals, project screening eligibility, eligible sponsors, and project selection. Any CMA may use additional funding from its base OBAG 2 County Program to expand its dedicated PCA program (North Bay counties), augment grants received from the regionally competitive PCA program (remaining counties), or develop its own county PCA program (all counties). The North Bay program framework is to be developed by the four North Bay CMAs, building upon their PCA planning and priorities carried out to date. Project eligibility is limited by the eligibility of federal surface transportation funding; unless the CMA can exchange these funds or leverage new fund sources for their programs. As a part of the update to Plan Bay Area, MTC is exploring implementing a Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) Program. RAMP would mitigate certain environmental impacts from multiple planned transportation projects, rather than mitigating on a less-efficient per-project level. Partnering arrangements can be established to leverage multiple fund sources in order to maximize benefits of the RAMP and PCA programs. As such, PCA funds may be used to deliver net environmental benefits to a RAMP program project. In instances where federal funds may not be used for this purpose, sponsors may exchange OBAG 2 funds with eligible non-federal funds. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331).

Attachment B‐1MTC Resolution No. 4202OBAG 2 Regional ProgramsFY 2017‐18 through FY 2021‐22January 2021

OBAG 2 Regional Programs Project ListPROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE SPONSOR Total STP/CMAQ OtherOBAG 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS $503,583,781 $59,121,219

1. REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIESRegional Planning MTC $9,555,000

1. REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES TOTAL: $9,555,000

2. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMPavement Management Program MTC $1,500,000Pavement Technical Advisory Program (PTAP) MTC $7,500,000Statewide Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Needs Assessment MTC/Caltrans $250,000

2. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL: $9,250,000

3. PDA PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATIONPDA Planning and ImplementationPDA Implementation MTC $2,000,000PDA Supportive Studies MTC $500,000PDA Planning Union City: Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area Specific Plan 2.0 MTC $800,000El Cerrito: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and EIR Update/Amendments MTC $308,000Moraga: Moraga Center Specific Plan Implementation Project MTC $140,000San Rafael: Downtown Precise Plan MTC $500,000San Francisco: HUB Area EIR MTC $500,000San Francisco: Transit Corridors Study MTC $500,000San Jose/VTA: Diridon Integrated Station Area Concept Plan MTC $800,000San Jose: SW Expressway/Race Street Light Rail Urban Village Plans MTC $500,000Vacaville: Downtown Specific Plan MTC $350,000Santa Rosa: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Update/Amendment MTC $800,000

Staffing AssistanceEmeryville: Mitigate Regulation‐Induced Displacement, Streamlined Asset Mngmt MTC $180,000Fremont: SB743 Implementation MTC $150,000Hayward: SB743 Implementation MTC $150,000Oakland: ADU Initiative MTC $200,000Oakland: Innovative Construction Initiative MTC $200,000Concord: VMT‐based Transportation Impact Standards MTC $150,000Concord: Galindo Street Corridor Plan MTC $200,000Lafayette: Updated Parking Ordinance and Strategies MTC $150,000San Jose: PDA/Citywide Design Guidelines MTC $200,000Windsor: Parking Management and Pricing MTC $35,000

Technical AssistanceEmeryville: Developing the Highest and Best Use of the Public Curb MTC $65,000Oakland: General Plan Framework ‐ PDA Community Engagement Program MTC $65,000San Francisco: Mission‐San Jose PDA Housing Feasibility Analysis MTC $65,000San Francisco: PDA Density Bonus Program MTC $65,000Belmont: Transportation Demand Management Program MTC $65,000

BART AB2923 Implementation BART $1,000,000Unprogrammed balance MTC $7,862,000Community‐Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Updates MTC

MTC $300,000CCTA: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $215,000TAM: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $75,000NVTA: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $75,000SFCTA: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $175,000C/CAG: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $120,000VTA: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $300,000STA: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $95,000SCTA: Community‐Based Transportation Plans MTC $110,000CBTP Program Evaluation MTC $35,000

3. PDA PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION TOTAL: $20,000,000

4. CLIMATE INITIATIVESClimate Initiatives $10,875,000Spare the Air & EV Program Outreach (for Electric Vehicle Programs) BAAQMD $10,000,000Carsharing Implementation MTC $800,000Targeted Transportation Alternatives MTC $325,000

Spare the Air Youth Program ‐ 2 MTC $1,417,0004. CLIMATE INITIATIVES TOTAL: $23,417,000

5. REGIONAL ACTIVE OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENTActive Operational ManagementAOM Implementation MTC $23,737,000

Bay Area 511 Traveler Information

ACTC: CMA Planning (for Community‐Based Transportation Plans)

MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B‐1

Adopted: 11/18/15‐C

Revised: 07/27/16‐C 10/26/16‐C 12/21/16‐C 03/22/17‐C 05/24/17‐C 06/28/17‐C 07/26/17‐C

09/27/17‐C 10/25/17‐C 12/20/17‐C 01/24/18‐C 02/28/18‐C 03/28/18‐C 04/25/18‐C 05/23/18‐C

06/27/18‐C 07/25/18‐C 09/26/18‐C 11/28/18‐C 12/19/18‐C 02/27/19‐C 03/27/19‐C 06/26/19‐C

09/25/19‐C 10/23/19‐C 11/20/19‐C 02/26/20‐C 05/27/20‐C 07/22/20‐C 11/20/20‐C 01/27/21‐C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 1 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B‐1





Revised: 07/27/16‐C 10/26/16‐C 12/21/16‐C 03/22/17‐C 05/24/17‐C 06/28/17‐C 07/26/17‐C

09/27/17‐C 10/25/17‐C 12/20/17‐C 01/24/18‐C 02/28/18‐C 03/28/18‐C 04/25/18‐C 05/23/18‐C

06/27/18‐C 07/25/18‐C 09/26/18‐C 11/28/18‐C 12/19/18‐C 02/27/19‐C 03/27/19‐C 06/26/19‐C

09/25/19‐C 10/23/19‐C 11/20/19‐C 02/26/20‐C 05/27/20‐C 07/22/20‐C 11/20/20‐C 01/27/21‐C

511 Next Gen MTC $26,148,000511 Implementation MTC $7,450,000

RideshareRideshare Implementation MTC $720,000Carpool Program MTC $7,280,000Vanpool Program MTC $2,000,000Commuter Benefits Implementation MTC $674,000Commuter Benefits Program MTC $1,111,000Napa Valley Transportation Demand Strategies (Fund Exchange) MTC/NVTA $1,100,000

Bay Bridge ForwardTransbay Higher Capacity Bus Fleet/Increased Service Frequencies AC Transit $1,200,000Pilot Transbay Express Bus Routes AC Transit $800,000Eastbay Commuter Parking MTC $2,500,000

Transbay Higher Capacity Bus Fleet/Increased Service Frequencies WestCat $2,000,000Dumbarton Forward

MTC $4,375,000Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge Forward

Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge Bikeway Access (Fund Exchange) Richmond $500,000

Richmond‐San Rafael Bridge Forward (Fund Exchange) MTC $1,160,000

Freeway Performance Program

Freeway Performance Program MTC $14,240,000FPP: I‐880 (I‐80 to I‐280) MTC $3,000,000

MTC $625,000FPP: I‐80 (Carquinez Bridge to Fremont St., SF) PL only MTC $3,000,000FPP: CC I‐680 NB HOV/Express Lanes (Ala Co. to Sol Co.) MTC $10,000,000FPP: I‐80 Central Ave Interchange Improvements Richmond $2,000,000FPP: SR 37 (US 101 to I‐80) PL only MTC $1,000,000FPP: Napa Valley Forward Traffic Calming & Multimodal Imps. MTC $1,000,000FPP: US 101 (SR 85 to San Francisco Co. Line) MTC $3,000,000

SCTA $1,000,000Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) MTC $5,000,000Innovative Deployments for Enhanced Arterials (IDEA)IDEA Technical Assistance MTC $1,532,000IDEA Category 1

AC Transit: Dumbarton Express Route (SR84) MTC $2,300,000Alameda: Webster & Posey Tubes (SR 260), Park St MTC $276,000Hayward: Various Locations MTC $302,000Oakland: Bancroft Ave MTC $310,000Pleasanton: Various Locations MTC $290,000Union City: Union City Blvd & Decoto Rd MTC $710,000San Ramon: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Crow Canyon Rd MTC $563,000San Rafael: Downtown San Rafael MTC $830,000South San Francisco: Various Locations MTC $532,000San Jose: Citywide MTC $1,400,000

IDEA Category 2 LAVTA/Dublin: Citywide MTC $385,000Emeryville: Powell, Shellmound, Christie & 40th St MTC $785,000Concord: Concord Blvd, Clayton Rd & Willow Pass Rd (Fund Exchange) MTC $589,000MTC Concord Blvd, Clayton Rd & Willow Pass Rd (Fund Exchange) MTC $30,000

Walnut Creek: Various locations (Fund Exchange) MTC $621,000Los Gatos: Los Gatos Blvd MTC $700,000VTA: Veterans Admin. Palo Alto Medical Center VTA $845,000

Connected Vehicles/Automated Vehicles (CV/AV) MTC $2,500,000Shared Use Mobility MTC $2,500,000

Connected Bay Area TMS Implementation MTC $2,910,000TMC Asset Upgrade and Replacement MTC $1,150,000I‐880 Communication Upgrade and Infrastructure Gap Closures MTC $11,940,000InterConnect Bay Area Program MTC $3,000,000

Incident Management Incident Management Implementation MTC $4,160,000I‐880 ICM Northern MTC $6,200,000I‐880 ICM Central MTC $2,640,000

Unprogrammed Balance TBD $380,0005. REGIONAL ACTIVE OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOTAL: $173,000,000 $4,000,000

6. TRANSIT PRIORITIES

SR 84 (US 101 to I‐880) Dumbarton Forward

FPP: I‐580 WB HOV Lane Extension (SR 24 to I‐80/SFOBB approach) PL & ENV Only

FPP: SCTA US 101/Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) B2 Phase 2






Revised: 07/27/16‐C 10/26/16‐C 12/21/16‐C 03/22/17‐C 05/24/17‐C 06/28/17‐C 07/26/17‐C

09/27/17‐C 10/25/17‐C 12/20/17‐C 01/24/18‐C 02/28/18‐C 03/28/18‐C 04/25/18‐C 05/23/18‐C

06/27/18‐C 07/25/18‐C 09/26/18‐C 11/28/18‐C 12/19/18‐C 02/27/19‐C 03/27/19‐C 06/26/19‐C

09/25/19‐C 10/23/19‐C 11/20/19‐C 02/26/20‐C 05/27/20‐C 07/22/20‐C 11/20/20‐C 01/27/21‐C

BART Car Replacement/Expansion BART $99,800,000

GGB Suicide Deterrent (for BART Car Replacement/Expansion) GGBH&TD $2,078,781 $37,921,219Clipper MTC $34,200,000Unprogrammed Balance $15,283,000

6. TRANSIT PRIORITIES TOTAL: $151,361,781 $37,921,219

7. PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREA (PCA)Regional Peninsula, Southern and Eastern Counties PCA Grant ProgramBay Area GreenPrint: PCA Functionality Imps (Fund Exchange) MTC/GreenInfo Network $30,000PCA Grant Implementation MTC/Coastal Conservancy $500,000Alameda County: Niles Canyon Trail, Phase 1 Alameda County $321,000Albany: Albany Hill Access Improvements Albany $251,000Livermore: Arroyo Road Trail Livermore $400,000WOEIP/Urban Biofilter: Adapt Oakland Urban Greening in West Oakland WOEIP/Urban Biofilter $300,000EBRPD: Bay Trail at Point Molate (RSR Bridge to Point Molate Beach Park) East Bay Regional Parks District $1,000,000JMLT: Pacheco Marsh/Lower Walnut Creek Restoration and Public Access John Muir Land Trust $950,000SFCTA: Yerba Buena Island Multi‐Use Pathway (PE/ENV) SFCTA $1,000,000San Francisco: McLaren Park and Neighborhood Connections Plan SF Recreation and Parks $194,000San Francisco/Coastal Conservancy: Twin Peaks Trail Improvement SF Rec and Park/Conservancy $74,000GGNPC/NPS: Rancho Corral de Tierra Unit Management Plan Engagement National Parks Service $200,000

SMCHD: Pillar Point Public Access Improvements San Mateo Co. Harbor District $298,000Menlo Park: Bedwell Bayfront Park Entrance Improvements Menlo Park $520,000San Mateo Co.: Colma Creek Adaptation Study (Colma Creek Connector) San Mateo Co. $110,000San Mateo Co.: San Bruno Mtn. Habitat Conservation Plan Grazing Pilot San Mateo Co. $137,900South San Francisco: Sign Hill Conservation and Trail Master Plan South San Francisco $135,100Point Blue: Pajaro River Watershed: Habitat Restoration and Climate Resilient Imps. Point Blue Conservation Science $379,000SCVOSA: Coyote Ridge Open Space Preserve Public Access, Phase 1 Santa Clara Valley Open Space Auth. $400,000SCVOSA: Tilton Ranch Acquisition Santa Clara Valley Open Space Auth. $1,000,000

North Bay PCA Grant ProgramMarin County: Hicks Valley/Wilson Hill/Marshall‐Petaluma Rehab. (for Corte Madera: ParadisMarin County $312,000Marin County: Hicks Valley/Wilson Hill/Marshall‐Petaluma Rd Rehab Marin County $869,000

Novato $104,000Novato: Vineyard Rd Improvements (for Hill Recreation Area Imps.) Novato $265,000National Parks Service: Fort Baker's Vista Point Trail NPS $500,000NVTA: Vine Trail ‐ St. Helena to Calistoga NVTA $711,000Napa: Vine Trail ‐ Soscol Ave Corridor Napa $650,000Napa County: Silverado Trail Rehabilitation ‐ Phase L Napa County $689,000Solano County: Suisun Valley Farm‐to‐Market ‐ Phase 3 Bike Imps Solano County $2,050,000Sonoma County: Crocker Bridge Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Sonoma County $1,280,000Sonoma County: Joe Rodota Trail Bridge Replacement Sonoma County $770,000

7. PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREA (PCA) TOTAL: $9,200,000 $7,200,000

8. BAY AREA HOUSING INITIATIVESBay Area Preservation Pilot (BAPP) (Funding Exchange) MTC $10,000,000Housing Incentive Pool TBD $25,000,000Sub‐HIP Pilot ProgramFairfield: Pavement Preservation/Rehabilitation (for One Lake Apts. Linear Park Trail) Fairfield $2,100,000Vacaville: Pavement Preservation/Rehabilitation (for Allison PDA Affordable Housing) Vacaville $1,900,000Marin County: Marin City Pedestrian Crossing Imps. Marin County $300,000NVTA: Imola Park and Ride NVTA $300,000Santa Rosa: Downtown Multi‐modal and Fiber Improvements Santa Rosa $400,000

8. BAY AREA HOUSING INITIATIVES TOTAL: $30,000,000 $10,000,000

9. SAFE & SEAMLESS MOBILITY QUICK‐STRIKE

TBD TBD $52,900,0009. SAFE & SEAMLESS MOBILITY QUICK‐STRIKE TOTAL: $52,900,000

10. REGIONAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS (RSI)CC I‐680 NB HOV/Express Lanes Ala Co to Sol Co (Fund Exchange) CCTA/MTC $4,000,000Pavement Rehab (for Downtown Novato SMART Station) Novato $617,000Old Redwood Highway Multi‐Use Pathway Larkspur $1,120,000Grand Ave Bridge San Rafael $763,000Grand Ave Bike/Ped Imps (for SMART 2nd to Andersen Pathway) San Rafael $1,000,000US 101 Marin‐Sonoma Narrows TAM $2,000,000US 101/Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) B2 Phase 2 (Fund Exchange) SCTA $15,400,000

10. REGIONAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS (RSI) TOTAL: $24,900,000

OBAG 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $503,583,781 $59,121,219J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP‐RES\MTC\RES‐4202_ongoing_OBAG2\[tmp‐4202_Attachment‐B‐1_Jan.xlsx]Jan 2021

Novato: Nave Dr/Bell Marin Keys Rehabilitation (for Hill Recreation Area Imps.)


Attachment A, Appendix 11, MTC Resolution No. 4202 January 27, 2021


Appendix A-11: Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program The Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike program is a one-time, competitive grant program within the One Bay Area Grant program (OBAG 2) framework. Federal funding is available to support local and regional projects that can be implemented quickly to benefit communities responding and adapting to the COVID-19 environment. Available funding includes a mix of Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and Federal Highway Infrastructure Program (FHIP) funds, with FHIP funds exchanged with STP/CMAQ funds to the extent possible to meet federal other funding deadlines and requirements. CMAQ funds will be used for eligible projects that demonstrate air quality benefits and implement Plan Bay Area’s climate initiative goals and priorities. Project Eligibility & Focus Areas The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, connections to transit, and projects that advance equitable mobility. Eligible project types include:

Quick-build bike, pedestrian, and transit improvements; including bike share enhancements.

Local safe and seamless mobility projects, including projects that advance equitable mobility; invest in bicycle/pedestrian safety; improve connections to transit; or implement seamless strategies within a corridor.

In addition to capital projects, programs that support safe and seamless mobility or advance equitable mobility are also eligible (ex. safe routes to school/transit programs); a limited amount of funding, (up to $200,000 per county) may also be directed towards countywide implementation of safe and seamless mobility planning and programming efforts).

Other near-term implementation of strategies emerging from the Blue-Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force and Partnership Board’s Connected Mobility Subcommittee.

Fund commitments for specific focus areas include:

One-quarter of the total program is targeted for bicycle/pedestrian safety (including local road safety).

$5 million is set aside to support early implementation efforts anticipated from the Blue-Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force.

Evaluation Criteria MTC staff will evaluate nominated projects against the following program criteria. Nominated projects should:

Align with Connected Mobility Framework Values and Goals (see inset below) Be the direct result or outcome of a community engagement process Be within or directly connected to a Priority Development Area (PDA) or Transportation

Priority Area (TPA) and/or serve a Community of Concern (CoC), Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program area, or similar local designation. PDAs and TPAs may be existing or recently designated as part of the Plan Bay Area 2050 growth framework.

Addresses transit connectivity gaps, especially in areas significantly impacted from the pandemic

Attachment A, Appendix A-11, MTC Resolution No. 4202 January 27, 2021


Demonstrate partnership among jurisdictions, transit agencies, and counties. Demonstrate ability to quickly deliver, and meet federal funding requirements, as funds

must be obligated by March 31, 2022. To ensure consistency with the implementation of county and regional plans and priorities, as well as encourage discussion and coordination in developing investment proposals, projects co-nominated by MTC and a CTA will be given extra consideration if meeting regional goals and priorities. Below are the regional connected mobility values and goals guiding these investments: Project Nominations To address local needs throughout the region, and encourage community-based project investments, each County Transportation Agency (CTA) will act on MTC’s behalf and submit project nominations for their county area. County targets have been provided as a guide, for each county (see table at right). However, final project selection by MTC will not necessarily adhere to these targets. Target amounts are based on the OBAG 2 county program distribution. In addition to county submissions, MTC may consider projects that would be implemented regionwide or in more than one county. Where applicable, MTC staff will work with CTAs to coordinate on co-nominations for regional projects. As the final program of projects must reflect regional or multi-county priorities, in addition to local priorities within each county, the final programming per county will not correspond exactly to nomination targets. To ensure each county is provided sufficient funding to have a meaningful community impact, each county’s nomination target will be a minimum of $1 million.

County Nomination Targets ($ millions, rounded)

% Alameda 19.9% Contra Costa 14.6% Marin 2.8% Napa 2.1% San Francisco 12.5% San Mateo 8.4% Santa Clara 27.0% Solano 5.5% Sonoma 7.2% 100.0%

Note: Final project selection and fund programming will not correspond exactly to nomination targets.



Project Selection Process The prioritization process is designed to quickly distribute funds to competitive and impactful investments throughout the region.

Letters of Interest: County Transportation Agencies (CTAs) submit Letters of Interest to nominate projects within their counties. In addition to basic project information (project description, sponsor, total cost, funding request), submittals should also describe how the project meets the program eligibility requirements and evaluation criteria, and how well the proposed project sponsor meets state and federal funding requirements.

Evaluation: MTC staff evaluate CTA nominations as well as regional program

considerations to develop a recommended program of projects. Program recommendations presented to Bay Area Partnership Board for review and discussion.

Project Applications: MTC and CTA staff work with project sponsors to submit project

applications with a detailed scope, delivery schedule, and funding plan.

Program Approval: MTC Commission consideration and approval of projects and fund programming.

Programming Policies and Requirements Unless otherwise noted within these guidelines, OBAG 2 General Programming Policies (see MTC Resolution No. 4202, Attachment A, pages 6-11), and Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606) apply.

Project sponsors: Eligible sponsors are those approved by Caltrans to receive FHWA federal-aid funds (including cities, counties, transit agencies, CTAs, and MTC). Sponsors must also have a demonstrated ability to meet timely use of funds deadlines and requirements (see Project Delivery and Monitoring, below).

Minimum Grant Size: Project nominations should be consistent with OBAG 2 minimum grant size requirements per county ($500,000 grant minimum for counties with population over 1 million, and $250,000 minimum for all other counties). Final funding awards may deviate from grant minimums per county, should one or more grant awards span multiple counties or regionwide. Additionally, deviations from the OBAG 2 minimum grant size requirements for project nominations may be considered on a project-by-project basis. However, grant awards must be at least $100,000.

Local Match: Toll credits may be requested in lieu of non-federal cash match.

Supplanting of Funds Prohibited: Supplanting of existing funds on fully-funded projects is prohibited, as the program is intended to infuse transportation investment into communities responding and adapting to the COVID-19 environment. If funds are



requested to address a funding shortfall on a project due to reduced local revenues, CTAs must demonstrate why the project should be a priority for regional funding, if it was not the highest priority for available local funding. In their nomination, CTAs should describe how the county and local jurisdictions determined which projects are prioritized for reduced local revenues.

Project Phases: The Environmental (ENV), Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Right Of Way (ROW) phases are eligible for capital projects as long as the construction (CON) phase of the project is delivered and funds obligated by March 31, 2022.

Project Delivery and Monitoring: Project sponsors must have a record of consistently

meeting state and federal timely use of funds deadlines and requirements, or demonstrate/identify revised/new internal processes to ensure they will meet funding deadlines and requirements moving forward at the time of project nomination. In addition to the provisions of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606), the following specific funding deadlines/requirements apply:

o Funds must be obligated (authorized in a federal E-76, or transferred to FTA) no later than March 31, 2022.

o Funds must be encumbered or awarded in a contract within 6 months of federal obligation.

o Funds must be invoiced against within 3 months of encumbrance/award and invoiced against and receive a federal reimbursement quarterly thereafter.

o If there could be complications with invoicing against the construction phase within 9 months of federal obligation, then the sponsor should consider including Construction Engineering (CE) in the federal obligation so that eligible costs may be invoiced in order to meet the invoicing deadline.

o Project sponsor must meet all other timely use of funds deadlines and requirements, for all other state and federal transportation funds received by the agency, during the duration of project implementation (such as, but not limited to, project award, federal invoicing, and project reporting).

o To help ensure compliance with state and federal invoicing requirements, as part of the application submittal, the Finance/Accounting Manager/Director for the agency receiving the funds must provide written documentation on the agency’s internal process and procedures for complying with FHWA federal-aid timely use of funds requirements, especially with regards to meeting federal invoicing requirements.

o CTAs nominating successful projects must monitor the project sponsors within their respective county in meeting the timely use of funds deadline requirements in MTC Resolution No. 3606 and report quarterly to MTC on the agency’s status in meeting regional, state, and federal timely use of funds deadlines and requirements.

Additional Requirements Apply:

o Project sponsor must comply with MTC’s Complete Street Policy and submit a Complete Streets Checklist for the project.



o Project sponsor must adopt a Resolution of Local Support prior to adding the project into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

o Project sponsor must satisfy the OBAG 2 housing policy requirements – have a certified Housing Element, submit the Annual Progress Report for the Housing Element, and have adopted a resolution affirming compliance with the California Surplus Lands Act.

o CTAs must make each project’s Complete Streets Checklist available for review by the appropriate Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) prior to MTC Commission approval of projects and fund programming. Documentation this has occurred must be included with the project application.


January 22, 2021 Safe and Seamless Mobility – Quick Strike Program Call for Letters of Interest To all Interested Parties: Sonoma County Transportation Authority seeks letters of interest from any eligible agencies who may have a transportation infrastructure project that can be implemented quickly to benefit communities. The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, transit and transit access improvements, connected mobility, advancing equitable mobility, or other near-term strategies to advance transit recovery and connected mobility. The program does not have a Sonoma County “share” and is performance based. There is a nomination target of approximate $3-$4 million in programing. SCTA seeks interested agencies that must be eligible under Surface Transportation Program/ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program , as well as One Bay Area Grant guidelines (please see attached MTC resolutions 3925 and 4202 for details and criteria). All interested parties should submit letters of Interest to Seana L. S. Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects by email at [email protected] by noon (12 P.M.) February 19th, 2021. All inquiries regarding this process should be similarly forwarded to Ms. Gause.

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) Application – Quick Strike 2021

January 2021 Page 1 of 5

Project Sponsor:

Single Point of Contact:

Email/Phone:

Project Title:

Project Location/Description:

Project Type: Check all that apply; indicate percentage of each if there is more than one element

Transit Improvements % Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements1 % Safe Routes to Schools or Transit1 % Transportation for Livable Communities1 % Priority Conservation Areas % February 1, 2021 Supplemental Call for Interest notification was

consulted prior to submittal of this application.

Is project within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD)? Y N

Eligible Project Type (select):

Quick-build bike, pedestrian, and transit improvements; including bike share enhancements. Local safe and seamless mobility projects, including projects that advance equitable mobility;

invest in bicycle/pedestrian safety; improve connections to transit; or implement seamless strategies within a transportation corridor.

Programs that support safe and seamless mobility or advance equitable mobility (ex. safe routes to school/transit programs).

Other near-term implementation of strategies emerging from the Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force and Partnership Board’s Connected Mobility Subcommittee.

RTP ID#:

Transportation for Livable Communities: 21011 Regional Bicycle Program: 22247 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance: 230700 Other:



RTP Goals: Please describe the relationship of project to meeting goals of the MTC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Check which goals apply:

Climate Protection Adequate Housing Reduce Premature Death from Particulate Matter Reduce # of Injuries and Fatalities from Collisions Increase Average Daily Walking and Biking for Transportation by 60%

Open Space and Agricultural Preservation

Equitable Access Economic Vitality Decrease Average Per Trip Travel Time Maintain the Transportation System in a State of

Good Repair Please answer the following questions regarding the proposed project:

1. Has the sponsor failed to comply with regional or state delivery milestones in the past 3 years?

Y N

2. Is there a Project Map attached to the current application? Y N

3. Is the proposed project inside the boundaries of an approved Priority Development Area (PDA), Rural Investment Area (RIA) or Employment Center?

Y N

4. Does the Project serve a PDA? Y N 5. If the project serves a PDA, please explain how: 6. Did sponsor do public engagement to develop this project

specifically? Y N

Please provide documentation of the public engagement process including dates and times of meetings held, number of participants, accessibility arrangements and notification process:

7. Funding Estimates: Round to nearest thousand for programming purposes

Phase FFY21/22 Federal

Fund Local Match

Preliminary Engineering

$ $

Construction $ $

Indicate source(s) of matching funds here:

Source Amount $ $ $ $ $ $



8. Establishing Connections to Land Use:

8a. Is the project located in high impact area?

8b. Is the project located in a Disadvantaged Community or Community of Concern? https://sonomamap.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=da1597e4edad4ecb8ea1948093b6dde8

8c. Does the project represent an investment that is consistent with the Air District’s Planning Healthy Places guidelines?

8d. Is the project located in PDAs that overlap or are co-located with 1) populations exposed to outdoor toxic air contaminates, as identified in the Air District’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program and / or 2) freight transport infrastructure?

8e. Does the sponsor employ any of the anti-displacement land use policies and regulations?

Condominium Conversion Regulations Y

Mobile Home Conversion Regulations Y

Living Wage Ordinance Y Inclusionary Policy: Housing Element Y In Lieu Fee for Affordable Housing Y Commercial Linkage Fee Y Preservation of Affordable Housing Projects Y Rent Control or Stabilization Y Single Room Occupancy Preservation Policies

Y

Other Y If “Other” is chosen above please explain:

9. Complete Streets Components: Please indicate all the complete streets elements proposed as part of this project:

9a. Choose an item. 9b. Choose an item. 9c. Choose an item. 9d. Choose an item. 9e. Choose an item. 9f. Choose an item. 9g. Choose an item. 9h. Choose an item. 9i. Choose an item. 9j.

https://sonomamap.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=da1597e4edad4ecb8ea1948093b6dde8

https://sonomamap.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=da1597e4edad4ecb8ea1948093b6dde8



10. Schedule: Please provide project development schedule:

Phase Begin MO/YR End MO/YR Scoping ENV PSE R/W CON

Please indicate the dates sponsor anticipates achieving the following milestones. Base schedule on June 23, 2021 MTC commission grant award date and add justification and narrative where appropriate:

10a. Resolution of Local Support for project:

10b. FMS Application:

10c. Field Review:

10d. Cultural Resources record search:

10e. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Local Assistance Procedures Manual Form 9-B:

10f. Request for Authorization:

10g. Receipt of Authorization (E-76):

11. Does sponsor have a current, certified Pavement Management Program?

Y N

11a.Please indicate the date of last certification:

Required Attachments: FOR INTERNAL SCTA USE ONLY

General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Amendment or Complete Streets Policy Resolution Housing &Community Development (HCD)Certification for General Plan Housing Element Complete Streets Checklist Project Map (including Priority Development Area (PDA) boundaries) Transit District: GP and HCD Exempt Project on Tribal Lands: GP and HCD Exempt Current Certified Pavement Management Program? Complete Streets Act Compliant GP (Post 2010) or Resolution for Complete Streets

Policy?

OBAG 2 Application Instructions

490 Mendocino Ave. #206, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov Page 1

Required Attachments: If an agency is submitting multiple applications, an application for each project should be submitted, however, it is not necessary to provide multiple copies of the required elements. Please submit ONE copy of required elements. All sponsors must have adopted a Complete Streets Resolution incorporating MTCs nine required complete streets elements or have adopted a significant revision to the General Plan Circulation element after January 1, 2010 that complies with the Complete Streets Act of 2008.

Project Sponsor: Please indicate the Agency sponsoring the project. Agency must have a master agreement with Caltrans to be eligible to receive federal transportation funds.

Single Point of Contact: Agencies must choose ONE single point of contact for all Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funded projects, per MTC project and delivery monitoring requirements. Please update FMS if an agency’s single point of contact has changed.

Email/Phone: Please provide the email address and primary phone number for the single point of contact listed above.

Project Title: Please provide the project title. If project is a LSRP project please use “Year Rehabilitation of Various Streets in X jurisdiction” for the title. Use the expanded project location category below to outline street names and segments. When projects are programmed into MTC’s Fund Management System (FMS) this will facilitate minor scope changes to project without the need for a full Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) amendment.

Project Location/Description: Please provide an expanded project description of your proposed project, including if applicable, street names, PDA name, how project focuses growth of PDA and proposed improvements.

Project Type: Please indicate the Project Type by checking the appropriate box listed. Please also indicate the percentage of each project type if you are applying for more than one. The fund sources available are Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). If applying for a project to be funded with CMAQ, please indicate if the project is located within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) boundary. Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements do not need to be located on federal aid eligible roadways, however, they must be included in the Countywide Bike Plan. CMAQ funds may NOT be used for routine maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. CMAQ funds may be used if substantially upgrading bicycle and pedestrian facilities where improvements will substantially increase use (dirt

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

path to paved pathway, etc). Please see the links for more information on STP and CMAQ eligibility criteria:

STP: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_g/g04stp.pdf

CMAQ: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_g/g05cmaq.pdf

Eligible Project Type: Please see 1/28/2021 TAC agenda Item 9.2 attachment MTC Programming and Allocations Committee Item 3d – dated January 13, 2021 for full details.

RTP ID#: Please identify the RTP identification number.

RTP Goals: Please identify the relationship of the proposed project to meeting the goals of the MTC Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area). See attachment. Also please check all the boxes of the listed RTP goals that apply to the proposed project.

Guidance to questions 1-16

1. Regional Delivery Deadlines: Please indicate (Yes or No) if sponsor agency has failed to meet regional delivery deadlines (as defined in MTC Resolution 3606) in the last three years.

2. Project Map: Please indicate (Yes or No) if a Project Map is attached to the current OBAG application. Project Map (including Priority Development Area (PDA) boundaries) should show the project location, including street names and boundaries of any PDA, if being served. Applications without a project map will be rejected.

3. Priority Development Areas: Please indicate (Yes or No) if the proposed project is located within an approved Priority Development Area (PDA), Rural Investment Area (RIA), or Employment Center boundary. See http://arcg.is/2fS9kDI If yes, skip to #10.

4. If the proposed project is not within an approved PDA boundary, please indicate (Yes or No) if the project serves a PDA.

5. If the project serves a PDA, please explain how it serves the PDA in detail (ex: provides bike path from residential neighborhood to school located in PDA; improves streets leading to shopping or services located in PDA; provides transit stops within reasonable walking distance to goods and services in PDA, etc).

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_g/g04stp.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/prog_g/g05cmaq.pdf

http://arcg.is/2fS9kDI

6. Public Engagement: Please indicate (Yes or No) per Title VI, if any public engagement was done as part of project development by sponsor agency specifically for the proposed project. Please attach documentation in the form of a MS Word document or Adobe pdf that include dates of any meetings held, the number of participants that attended the meetings, whether alternative language services were included and what the public notification process entailed (local newspaper public notice, web posting, radio spots, bus advertisements etc.). Please also indicate the feedback received from the engagement.

7. Funding Estimates: please provide project total cost (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars). Please indicate the federal fiscal year (FFY) and phase in which sponsor jurisdiction is requesting the funding be programmed. Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. Preliminary Engineering consists of scoping, environmental, design (or PS&E) and right-of-way phases. Construction/Construction Engineering are programmed separately. Field reviews should be completed or scheduled with Caltrans in 2021. Deadlines for submittals of COMPLETE Requests for Authorization (RFA) and receipt of Authorization to Proceed (E-76) for each federal fiscal year (FFY) are listed below:

• FFY 21/22 RFA package to Caltrans Local Assistance is November 1, 2021. E-76 from FHWA: January 31, 2022. Program deadline for obligation 3/31/22.

Please also note that all OBAG projects will require a minimum 11.47% local match. In order to determine the amount of federal funding requested and the amount of match, please estimate the total project cost, and then multiply by 11.47% to determine the minimum match amount. ONLY funds expended AFTER federal authorization to proceed is received are eligible for reimbursement*. Please indicate if project will apply for Toll Credits.

*Unless “Advanced Construction” is secured. See Local Assistance Procedures Manual for details

Please also indicate the amount of matching funds per source. Be specific about the source of matching funds (EXAMPLE: Flowerfield Apartment Mitigation Funds $20K, or General Fund allocation $500K).

8. Connections to Local Land Use: a. High Impact Areas are defined as:

• PDAs taking on significant housing growth (total number of units) in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) including RHNA allocations, as well as housing

production, especially those PDAs that are delivering large numbers of very low, low and moderate income housing units;

• Dense job centers in proximity to transit and housing (both current levels and those included in the SCS) especially those which are supported by reduced parking requirements and Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs;

• Improved transportation choices for all income levels (reduces VMT), proximity to quality transit access, with an emphasis on connectivity (including safety, lighting, etc.)

8b. Communities of Concern (COC) as defined by MTC: See the following map for Sonoma County COCs http://scta.ca.gov/planning/comprehensive-transportation-plan/sonoma-disadvantaged-communities/

8c. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District website for Planning Healthy Places Guidelines: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/planning-healthy-places.

8d. Indicate if the project is located in PDAs that overlap or are co-located with populations exposed to outdoor toxic contaminates or freight transportation infrastructure.

8e. Please check each of the boxes that apply to regulations or policies employed within the sponsor jurisdiction and provide reference (not necessarily full text) of where this policy is located (i.e. General Plan, City Ordinance, Council Resolution number, etc.). For each three policies chosen, 1 point will be awarded. If “other” is chosen please indicate how the policy applies to anti-displacement. If policy not listed in application is specific to anti-displacement, an additional point for that policy may be awarded. For those project sponsors (such as transit districts) which might occur in multiple jurisdictions, all the policies in all the jurisdictions in question may be marked cumulatively on the application.

9. a through j. Complete Streets Components Please use the pull down menus to indicate all the applicable complete streets elements included as part of your proposed project. Options include sidewalks, ADA ramps, crosswalks, bulb outs, bike lanes, signage, signals, street furniture, bus stops, bus pull outs, bus routes, truck routes. Use box 11i to indicate “other” and 11j to list other elements not listed in the above pull-down menu.

10. Schedule: Please indicate the month and year beginning and end of each developmental phase Preliminary Engineering (Scoping, Environmental or ENV, Design or PSE), Right-of-Way or R/W, and Construction or CON (and Construction Engineering) of proposed project. If proposed project does not conform to the standard infrastructure milestones, please use the Construction phase (CON) to indicate your project implementation beginning and end.

http://scta.ca.gov/planning/comprehensive-transportation-plan/sonoma-disadvantaged-communities/

http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/planning-healthy-places

Project Delivery Milestones a through f. Please indicate the dates upon which your agency anticipates achieving the listed milestones: Resolution of Local Support (must be completed by the time the FMS application is submitted to MTC), FMS application (to be submitted after SCTA approval of Program of Projects for OBAG), Field Review (see deadlines listed above in number 10), Request for Authorization (see deadlines listed above in number 10), Receipt of Authorization to Proceed or E-76 (see deadlines listed above in number 10). New to this application is the Cultural Resources record search date. This will help identify any valuable cultural resources early in the development process in order to avoid and protect such resources and avoid costly delays. 0-5 points will be awarded based on the demonstrated understanding of regional deadlines and deliverability of the project.

11. Certified Pavement Management Program: Transit Districts and Non-infrastructure projects may skip this question. Please indicate (Yes or No) if sponsor agency has an approved certified Pavement Management Program (PMP). Proposed LSRP projects from agencies without a certified PMP are ineligible for OBAG funding. Please provide the date of the last MTC certification of the PMP.


Staff Report

Issue

What is the status of the Future of Transit ad hoc committee membership and activities?

Recommendation

Appoint a Board member to fill the vacant position on the ad hoc that had been held by Director Kathy Miller.


There are no Committee recommendations at this time. The Transit Technical Advisory Committee provides staff support and recommendations to the ad hoc on a regular basis.


This is an initial discussion item on possible actions to support the future of transit.

Executive Summary

In September 2020, the SCTA Board elected to appoint an ad hoc committee tasked with facilitating a discussion about the future of transit that would explore improvements on multiple fronts, including: rider experience, efficiency, governance, innovation and funding?


The SCTA’s guiding principle is to improve safety, equity and quality of life. This effort would help address equitable access to mobility.

The SCTA goals of Connected and Reliable and Zero Emissions would be addressed.



Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☒

The funding source(s) to be used are: Staff time that is funded from local contributions and from MTC can be used for initial work. Funding may be required for more in depth study, expertise and analysis.

Background

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Item Number: 4.1.3 Subject: Future of Transit ad hoc update and member appointment


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

The Chair appointed the Future of Transit ad hoc in September and they have met three times since with monthly meetings planned through the spring. The ad hoc reports out to the full Board monthly. Members of the committee include: Ad Hoc Chair Chris Rogers, Board Chair Susan Gorin, Board Vice Chair Logan Harvey, and Directors David Rabbitt, Sarah Gurney, and Kathy Miller. With Director Miller leaving office there is now a vacancy.

Context for the work of the committee:

The Bay Area is a diverse region both geographically and economically with transit operators providing approximately 2 million weekday trips via rail, ferry and bus to address commuter needs, feeder service, local travel, school service, tourism and other trip types. Transit agencies have evolved over time with different purposes and priorities defined by the governing and funding framework available. Transit funding is complex and relies on various sources from fares, local fees and taxes, to state and federal programs.

The pandemic (and its aftermath) has created challenges to both short-and long-term planning for Bay Area transit. Context for the Board’s discussion includes work taking place at the regional level and State legislative interests. Specifically, MTC is leading a Blue Ribbon Task Force on Transit that initially was established to address the distribution of federal funds from the CARES package of economic relief and the health and safety protocols required of operators during the pandemic. In addition, by mid-2021, the Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force shall submit a Bay Area Public Transit Transformation Action Plan to the Commission for its consideration and possible adoption. The Plan will have a five-year horizon to 2025 and should identify actions needed to re-shape the region’s transit system into a more connected, efficient, and user-focused mobility network across the entire Bay Area and beyond. For more information see the MTC web site here MTC Blue Ribbon Task Force.

State Legislators from the Bay Area have also keyed in on transit and the importance of a seamless system. Bills such as AB2057 (Chiu) and its intent are still under consideration in Sacramento.

Sonoma County has a population of just under 500,000 and is served by three local bus operators, one regional bus operator and a passenger rail operator. The SCTA distributes sales tax and fuel tax funds for transit to all of the operators annually. In response to the pandemic, the federal government provided approximately $11M in economic relief to the three bus operators via the CARES Act at the end of FY19/20. A second round of relief funds have been approved but the local distribution approach has not yet been finalized.

The Future of Transit ad hoc is utilizing the Transit Integration and Efficiency Study (TIES) (2019) to advance recommendations to deliver more seamless transit service that improves passenger experience, reduces operating and capital costs, and better integrates the existing operating systems.

Prior to the pandemic, the transit operators have indicated commitment to working through most of the phase one and two recommendations via the Coordinated Appendix for the Short Range Transit Plans (link below). Progress has been slow but steps have been made on TIES recommendations such as joint procurements, a shared IT staff person between Petaluma and Santa Rosa, coordination of fares programs including the launch of the Clipper START program, and integration of real-time arrival information on the 511.org system.

The pandemic and recent fires have created the immediate need for action on health and safety, service changes, budget issues, and most recently, evacuations. In light of current needs for recovery, the transit

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/blue-ribbon-transit-recovery-task-force

managers have identified service planning coordination and collaboration on information sharing with the public as high priorities. As operators work toward restoring service, a coordinated approach would ensure more efficiency and effective transfers between systems and routes at each phase of restoration. Similarly, a more streamlined and unified approach to communicating with the public is important while schedules are being reinstated and moving forward.


Link: SRTP coordinated appendix

Link: TIES study

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019-SRTP-Joint-Appendix_11.15.19_Final.pdf

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/TIES-Final-Report_11.4.19.pdf


Staff Report

Issue

What is the status of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force (BRTF)? How is it crafting the Transit Transformation Action Plan?

Recommendation

None.


There are no recommendations at this time. The Transit Technical Advisory has been tracking the work of the BRTF.


Not applicable.

Executive Summary

The MTC convened a Blue Ribbon Task Force made up of elected officials, public transit operators, and advocates tasking it to complete three objectives: 1) Expedite the distribution of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) transit funds, 2) Develop a safety plan to protect the health of transit workers and riders in the region, and 3) Identify ways to improve regional transit network connectivity, financial sustainability, and system equity. This report will provide a summary of the Blue Ribbon Task Force activities and next steps.


The SCTA’s guiding principle is to improve safety, equity and quality of life. This effort would help address equitable access to mobility.

The SCTA goals of Connected and Reliable and Zero Emissions would be addressed.




To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Item Number: 4.1.4 Subject: MTC Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force update


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


Background

In response to the economic and health crisis associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and specifically the impacts to Bay Area public transit providers, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) convened a Blue Ribbon Task Force. The 32-member Task Force is comprised of MTC commissioners, including SCTA Director /MTC Commissioner David Rabbitt, transit officials, business representatives and transit advocates. The Task Force Chair is MTC Commissioner Jim Spering (Solano County).

The Task Force’s mission is comprised of three tasks:

1) Oversee the distribution of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)

2) Develop a safety plan to protect the health of transit workers and riders in the region

3) Identify ways to improve regional transit network connectivity, financial sustainability and system equity.

The Task force has adopted four goals to frame the work moving forward. These include:

Goal 1: Recognize critical recovery challenges facing transit agencies. The objectives outlined for this goal underscore the timely distribution of future stimulus funds and the need to advocate for new funds.

Goal 2: Advance equity. The objectives outlined for this goal identify a set of Equity Principles to guide transformation planning and focused outreach to riders.

Goal 3: Identify near-term actions to implement beneficial long-term network management and governance reform. The objectives for this goal include defining the problems and identifying resolutions by building on existing knowledge to address legal, labor, oversight, and funding considerations. The objectives also focus on consolidation of small transit markets and identifying policy and legislative actions that support transit transformation including transit priority advantages on streets and highway.

Goal 4: Establish how current MTC and State Transit Initiatives should integrate with Network Management & Governance Reforms. The objective of this goal is to inform members of the Task Force about MTC, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and other initiatives.

At its December 14th meeting, the Blue Ribbon Task Force received reports focused on each of the four goals. Much of the discussion focused on Goal 3. The Task Force received a report from MTC Staff about some of the initiatives that are already underway, including:

• Regional Transit Priority – MTC staff summarized efforts to improve transit operations on major corridors around the region, including the Dumbarton Forward and Bay Bridge Forward efforts.

• Regional Mapping and Wayfinding: MTC in coordination with the region’s transit operators have developed a regional map and inventory of wayfinding signage and deficiencies. Signage at all hubs and stations adhere to regional design standards.

• Connectivity and Mobility: The Partnership Board subcommittee, the Connected Mobility Committee, is identifying ways to improve coordination among the various platforms used for deploying transportation technology. Specifically, the effort seeks to define data standards and coordinate technology development and develop and propagate new technologies to improve transportation operations for all modes throughout the region.

• Transit Fare Coordination: The Fare Integration Task Force is looking at ways to normalize fares between systems, consider equity issues, and remove obstacles for riders that transfer between systems. The region’s transit operators have all adopted the regional fare card, Clipper. MTC has devised a partial solution to address fare equity and recently introduced the Clipper START program which subsidizes low income adult fares. This was expanded to smaller systems in 2020 and the NVTA board approved funding the subsidy when the MTC revenues are depleted.

To delve further into the challenges presented by Goal 3, the Task Force is convening two ad hoc committees:

• Problem Statement (Ad-Hoc Working Group #1)

Purpose: Development of a problem statement that will be presented to the Task Force at its January 25th meeting.

• Network Management Alternatives (Ad-Hoc Working Group #2)

Purpose: Discuss Network Management alternatives. The Task Force also received two other presentations related to Goal 4:

In January the BRTF deliberated on equity, the problems facing the transit systems in the region and the role a transit network manager might play. Attached are documents from MTC about these three issue areas.


Revised Draft Equity Principles

Draft Problem Statement

Possible Network Management Roles and Responsibility

TO: Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force DATE: January 25, 2021

FR: Steve Kinsey, CivicKnit

RE: Equity Principles

I am providing the following Revised Equity Principles for BRTF review and approval at the January 25, 2021 meeting of the Task Force. The revisions reflect member and public comments received at the December 9, 2020 Policy Advisory Council meeting, December 14, 2020 BRTF meeting, January 14, 2021 Community-based Organization (CBO) Leaders’ Discussion Group, and proposed edits submitted by MTC staff. I want to acknowledge MTC staff member, Anup Tapase, for his excellent facilitation of the CBO meeting and Ursula Vogler, Marti Paschal, and Cheryl Chi for their thoughtful integration of the received comments into these draft edits. I want to especially acknowledge the following community leaders who willingly offered their insight (see attached summary) to help make these Principles more reflective of the needs of transit riders with low incomes, riders with disabilities, and riders who are people of color:

Alissa Abdo, On the Move Leslie Aguayo, Greenlining Institute Marisela Barbosa, Green Hive Tamika Butler, Tamika L. Butler Consulting David Cota, EBALDC Michael Galvan, Community Resources for Independent Living Mary Lim-Lampe, Genesis Nyantara Narasimhan, First Community Housing Iris Podschun, RCF Connects Brooke Staton, Reflex Design Collective Adria Stauber, TransForm Adoubou Traore, African Advocacy Network

Once adopted by the Task Force, the Equity Principles will be used to guide specific recommendations in the Transit Recovery Action Plan.

Agenda Item 4

Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force - Draft Principles

Principles Description

Invest Equitably

Prioritize equitable planning and decision-making to achieve proportionally greater investments in communities of color and low-income communities to address transit disparities and reflect needed mobility options.

Increase Accessibility

Increase transit access, prioritize service investments and improve travel experiences for riders with disabilities and/or low-incomes by increasing fare affordability and service connectivity.

Be Inclusive

Pursue anti-racist strategies as a core element of transit’s mission and actions. Ensure full participation of underserved residents to co-create strategies and solutions by engaging meaningfully and directly, in partnership with culturally-specific, community-trusted local organizations.

Use Data to Inform

Decisions

Make people-centered and transparent transit investment and strategy decisions by collecting and using race, gender identity, disability, age and income data. Routinely monitor data to ensure equitable investments for underserved communities.

Advance Health

& Safety

Incorporate public health and safety measures for transit riders and staff in the day-to-day operations of the transit system. Partner with social service and public health agencies to improve personal health and safety of riders and staff.

1

Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Community-Based Organization Discussion Group Thursday, January 14, 2021

1:00 – 3:00 p.m. Attendees Alissa Abdo, On the Move Leslie Aguayo, Greenlining Institute Marisela Barbosa, Green Hive Tamika Butler, Tamika L. Butler Consulting David Cota, EBALDC Michael Galvan, Community Resources for Independent Living Mary Lim-Lampe, Genesis Nyantara Narasimhan, First Community Housing Iris Podschun, RCF Connects Brooke Staton, Reflex Design Collective Adria Stauber, TransForm Adoubou Traore, African Advocacy Network Karin Betts, MTC Cheryl Chi, MTC Melanie Choy, MTC Marti Paschal, MTC Anup Tapase, MTC Ursula Vogler, MTC Steve Kinsey, CivicKnit What are the key issues that your constituents face during COVID-19? Pre-Covid-19?

1. The issues are the same but I would add that the concern of safety is bigger now. There is the fear: Will it be safe for me to take public transit? There is also concern about being around others at bus stops. How do you respond to this?

2. My institutional members are mostly congregations that have had to go online and continue

their ministry to people who are very isolated, people who have mental health concerns, and people who are dying because of sickness. In its organizing, we have had to create a way to engage with people online. There is a big technology divide with low-income people. We have people who are essential workers who have no choice but to take public transit so they have the health and safety issues that anyone has on public transit. Our work includes impacting public policy: I have attended a Board of Supervisors meeting where elected officials randomly cut off public comment after attendees had waited for three hours. COVID-19 has greatly reduced the access of regular folks to get into a Zoom webinar, sit for hours, have elected officials who may or may not be on the screen listening, then who can cut off public speakers indiscriminately. This is more blatant via Zoom than in person. Also, people who are hearing-impaired cannot access Zoom; there are very few ways to make this technology accessible to people with disabilities.

3. A lot of the issues are shared and exist before COVID-19: housing and homelessness are the top

issues in our communities; lack of income for utilities and bills; mental and physical health supports; activities for youth; systemic racism, including the threat of violence in some

2

communities and the ways that legacy is impacting policies and disinvestment. This continues to disproportionately impact communities of color.

4. With the disability community, the issues are the same as before COVID-19 but are more

emphasized with isolation and poverty being key. Ninety-five percent of our consumers live on less than $12,000/year. Public transportation is their major means of getting around.

Most persons with disabilities have compromised immune systems; riding public transit now is terrifying. I do not know how long it will take to get people back on public transit. Something wheelchair users have said: If you thought elevators were unsanitary before COVID-19, elevators are one of the main ways the virus is spread. Now people are uncomfortable using BART, a major means of transportation. We need to talk about different ways of accessing the train platforms.

5. Our residents have faced the same struggles as well. One of the main issues highlighted by our

residents is that even before COVID, the location of affordable housing made it harder to have access to higher-paying jobs that provide an income to support a family. It’s been hard to find a job with a good salary that also allows them to beat the traffic to pick up their kids from school or drop them off in the morning, pre-COVID. Now parents have had to forfeit jobs in order to stay at home and take care of children learning remotely. Safety is also a huge concern, especially given where affordable housing is located.

6. A lot of the low-income parents we are working with are struggling with childcare, tech access,

literacy, the ability to support their children in school and a limited ability to work when they need to stay home to facilitate distance learning. Spanish speakers have issues around language access and ability to understand the new information about COVID. People have been laid-off or furloughed and are unable to pay their bills.

7. Our constituents are mostly Black, heavily low-income, underemployed and have been hit badly

by the housing crisis, forcing them to move from Oakland, Richmond and San Francisco to places farther away.

For some African immigrants, having a car is a status symbol; we have had to work to change that mindset and encourage people to use public transportation.

People still want in-person service and come to our offices in San Francisco; the digital divide is a big issue. There are still some people who do not believe that COVID-19 exists until they know someone who dies from COVID-19.

Language access is an issue, given the huge number of languages spoken by African immigrants. There is also the issue of equity, e.g., social conditions, how to access better jobs, how to make more money to afford better housing located closer to work.

Principle #1 Invest Equitably

1. Did residents who are impacted in the communities they are serving provide input in these principles? How will they be involved in the decision-making process?

3

2. The principle is wordy – it is hard to get to the heart of it. Some of the points already raised regarding outreach occurred to me as well: Are we investing without listening?

Regarding the phrase “low-income and communities of color,” I suggest switching the order because people of color, no matter their income, face disparities. Make sure this isn’t the agency coming in and saying, “We know the answer. Here are the things we’re going to do.” but that you will actually listen to people. Listening and letting people lead with their solutions throughout every principle is very important.

3. While I like the first principle, I would hesitate to share it with our consumers. It is very difficult

to understand. I suggest getting a journalist or writer to revise it to ensure that the sentences are clean and short. Make the principles accessible to people.

4. Regarding the phrase “provide proportionally,” I agree in principle with that phrase, but I am

concerned. Given our organizing around the regional body, this is a really hard principle to implement without pitting communities against each other. We have transit riders and advocates who have seen the opposite come into play when it comes to the regional body and transit funds. Some of our leaders might think that this is an empty principle.

5. The phrase “greatest risk” brings up the question of how this is determined. Think about the

wording here as well.

6. In my work, I focus on applying stronger equity provisions and standards in electric vehicle investment. Often, we will hear the issue of accessibility vs X. The strongest tool we have to look at disadvantaged communities is the CalEnviroScreen. The CalEnviroScreen is race-blind – this is a big fault of the tool. Just because you invest in a certain area based on a tool, does not mean that the people you are trying to target are benefitting from the investment. Be clear who is accessing the investment, not just where it is.

The word “restore” comes across as seeing a community from a place of lack; it is a paternalistic view of “we are going to come and fix your community.”

7. The key question is: How do we make sure that communities own these ideas? How do we

express the content, how do we make the content accessible? Communities need to know that they have a say.

8. What do we mean by “equity”? People have very different understandings of what that means.

In order to simplify the language of this principle, break this down and be specific about what we mean by “equity.”

Regarding “restore” – are we talking about reparations? Will we be specific about naming particular historical dynamics that have impacted communities? How will we work towards a remedy for these specific events, in terms of taking responsibility as a government agency?

Regarding “investment” – government agencies should set up deeper partnerships between agencies and communities. One frequent question is about paying community folks for their expertise. Rather than “investment and decision-making,” it should be “investment in decision-making” and decision-making by the most impacted people. We should get more specific about

4

how we lift up the expertise by investing in the lived experience that has to be at the center of planning processes.

9. How can we explain this to community members? As soon as public transportation is made

available, people with higher incomes move to those places, forcing communities into other places where public transportation is hardly accessible. How do we approach the idea of restoring the community and how do we prioritize?

Principle #2 Increase Accessibility

1. I recommend including “efficiency” into the principle. This needs to be more clearly defined. Also, define “network connectivity.”

2. One piece of persistent feedback I get from people who have access issues is connected to

transit drivers or the transit staff - the frontline in facilitating access (in addition to infrastructure, schedules and timing). There is a need for the principle to call out the need for the system to set up these principles to be facilitated at the level of staff interacting directly with the public. That piece is missing. If the idea is to get people back to ridership, one bad experience could cloud their willingness or ability to continue to use transit.

3. Regarding “connectivity” – they have consumers who live in Livermore who go to San Francisco

for medical appointments. This could take two hours and be quite a task.

So many wheelchair users have been passed by at bus stops because there are only so many wheelchairs slots available on a bus. If we are talking about equity, which means fairness and access to transportation, we have to figure this out. The use factor is also part of the formula, e.g., if you are on the outskirts of an urban area, and there aren’t that many people using the system, you’ll lose a lot of money if you have frequent access out there. But at the same time, how do we balance it so we’re able to provide access? Paratransit is not the answer because it is not always reliable and is not a viable option for people who use a power chair or a wheelchair.

4. Both “equity” and “accessibility” need to be defined – they can mean a lot of different things.

We need to know what MTC means when we say these words.

5. How much decision-making power are we willing to give impacted communities? I don’t want to create a situation where we’re getting their feedback and nothing happens with it. If there is curiosity about how to talk about these things that is accessible, welcoming and clear, reverse the process to see what people want and need, then shape our language around them, instead of the reverse. We create something as staff, bring it to the grass top leaders, and then finally it reaches the community. Sometimes then it is so far along that we won’t get any feedback, even if it’s unclear. This is an idea for the future. Pairing with that, give people a clear idea of what we are willing to change. If there are things beyond what they can influence, it’s important to be clear about that.

6. Safety should be included in this principle. If public transit is not safe, it is not accessible for

people to use.

Regarding efficiency, I would advocate for greater frequency of buses and trains.

5

7. Language accessibility comes up a lot in a community: language that folks can understand, language that is not just culturally competent but is culturally appropriate. Is it going to resonate? Will it be in a language they understand?

Regarding safety, it is important to be thoughtful because it can mean so many things. Safety often gets equated with policing, which for many of us is not safe.

Principle #3 Be Inclusive

1. I like where we are starting to go with this principle and that we have called out racial equity. However, in 2021, we should push a little bit further and not just be inclusive but be anti-racist and be proactive about this.

I love centering partnerships with CBOs and folks on the ground who are really doing the work. The language of “full and fair participation of underserved residents” is good; it takes a lot of investment, e.g., the same way we invest in consultants that are hired for planning projects, invest in the expertise of folks with lived experience and create paid opportunities to do these things, invest in access, invest in the CBOs who lead a lot of this work. Language should be stronger around this. Have a goal of centering the decision-making of folks who are most impacted, rather than just including it.

2. This issue has come up in our organizing around transit police (BART, AC Transit): There is a

concern about requirements re: face masks, social distancing and any other requirements for transit access that police may be called to enforce by transit agencies. We all know that there has been a disparity in the way that people of color are treated vs. people who identify as white. There is a systemic way that transit has been used, e.g., Oscar Grant’s death, concerns in the immigrant community that transit police will be cooperative with ICE, when will the sheriff be called in different transit systems, etc. If we are going to include flowery words about inclusiveness, there also needs to be a recognition that there should not be an investment in police presence on transit.

3. Where communities lose trust is not in planning and decision-making but in the implementation

of which decisions are made. The idea of feedback loops should be an aspect of inclusivity. This also helps build trust over time. I also echo the comments of compensating individuals for their time when we are asking people to be part of these processes to give feedback.

4. It is important that “inclusion” does not get reduced to “everyone feels welcome here.” How

authentic is it? True inclusion, authentic inclusion is the folks who we say we want to feel welcome actually have some decision-making power.

The language around “full and fair participation” does not lead me to believe that there will be a true investment in making sure that the folks who have been marginalized or underserved are part of the decision-making. It seems like traditional planning has suffered from: we are going to talk to folks throughout the process but ultimately, we are the professionals, we know what’s best and we are going to make the decisions. Or, a more generous read of the principle is that we do really want to partner but we’re still partnering with community organizations that can sometimes be very grass tops. Our constituents also have valuable insight and information. So how do you actually acknowledge power and how does the agency say we actually want to

6

share some of that power? That’s what inclusion is; true inclusion requires shifts and sharing of power.

Regarding the phrase “culturally competent” – in 2021, we want things that are culturally specific. This is a notch above being culturally competent and what we should be trying to do.

5. When I talk about investing in community partnerships and decision-making, compensating folks

for their time is one thing, but there are also other elements, e.g., leaving enough time in the project timeline for authentic partnership to develop - move at the speed of trust – build relationships with folks, be respectful of people’s schedules, their availability and capacity (rather than coming in in a big rush). It also means investing in the capacity of planning staff to be literate in these concepts, e.g., knowing what anti-racism is, understanding power dynamics. There are lots of ways to invest.

Principle #4 Use Data to Inform Decisions

1. Define the phrase “benefits and burdens.”

2. How do you collect data? What data are you getting? Does it include feedback from users? How often would this data be collected? What is “data”?

3. Transit is one of three campaigns we have worked on and is the most technical. Regarding the

phrase “(making) people-centered and transparent decisions,” I believe that all of the transit systems (regional, county, local transit operators) want to do this but often the transparency is challenged by the fact that it is so hard for a regular rider to understand some of these decision-making bodies. I have been organizing in transit for 13 years and barely understand some of the acronyms; for a regular rider, we have had to provide lots of training on the agencies and processes.

Principle #5 Advance Health & Safety

1. It is important not to underestimate people’s anxiety about coming back to public transit, some of which has to do with protocols. In the organization I run, a lot of parents have been with their kids for a very long time and are now going through a period of separation anxiety. Just as there are other ways to define safety, think about health from a mental health perspective. It will take people time to process what their feelings are. Making sure there is an awareness around this would be critical to ultimately see people come back to transit.

2. The term “high” (in “high health and safety standards”) is up to interpretation. Make sure that

we are creating standards based in science and state of the art and based in research. With the broad base of constituents, what does “high” mean? I agree that communications is an issue. I am many months from feeling comfortable putting my teenaged child back on public transit.

3. Racism is a public health issue but no mention of this in the principle – it is important to include

this, especially when the inclusive principle (Principle #3) says “pursue racial equity as central to transit’s mission and actions.” If racial equity is central to transit’s mission and actions, it should be central to all the principles, including health and safety.

7

I noticed that climate language is not included in any of the principles, including health and safety. Environmental racism is real and that transit/transportation in the state is the number one source of air pollution, specifically for lower income people and communities of color, which makes them more vulnerable to diseases like COVID-19. All of it is related to each other and that should be acknowledged, especially in the time we live now – we don’t want to be tone deaf to what is happening.

As we collect future data, it is just as important to collect data retroactively. We must look back at the injustices in the policies and designs which were actively racist in order to be intentionally anti-racist. How do you look at the past, the present, and the future altogether to inform decisions, so you do not repeat racist actions moving forward? We know that the health issues that existed before COVID-19 were always there and had to do with race and income; COVID-19 just exacerbated them. How do we include language that acknowledges these things?

4. Until shelter-in-place, we conducted a lot of travel training with individuals and with groups. As

we go back to public transit, we will have more and larger groups to introduce to public transportation. Travel training includes a safety component. One of the great ways to get people back to public transit is with group travel training processes, whether it is at senior centers, high schools, daycare centers, etc. The training has a word-of-mouth effect which is so much faster (as a method of promotion).

There is also a need to make sure that changes in the system are widely advertised before large groups of people come back to public transit. E.g., BART is no longer accepting paper tickets. Group trainings are a better form of advertisement than TV ads to shift thinking.

5. What are you doing to get my trust? What can I do as a community member? What is my active

participation in making sure that health and safety are being advanced?

6. I want to build on the former point re: the big, broader picture of health and the social determinants of health, e.g., how healthy is the society we live in and what role does transportation play in that? This ties into everything already talked about, e.g., access to jobs, how far you have to commute to see a doctor, etc. Folks are not always thinking about transportation in a silo.

I suggest considering a 6th principle: find ways to coordinate with other agencies to address some of these priorities in parallel. When people work only within their one discipline, things fall through the cracks. All it would take is a coordinated effort to make sure everyone is addressing each of these pieces.

How Could Transit be Improved for Your Constituents?

1. We should lift-up the need for geography - for those individuals in rural areas or outer lying areas, this is a huge issue. One example: getting from the upper valley areas in Napa County to the City of Napa can often take 2-1/2 – 3 hours. This should be called out in some way.

2. In customer experience, the notion around transit police: a few of our youth have been

repeatedly questioned to show tickets when adults do not seem to get the same harassment. Maybe this should have its own bullet: the presence of police and policing customers, especially youth of color.

8

3. We need to look at the increased transportation/frequency and housing. E.g., with Warm Springs BART, you can now buy a townhome near the station for $1M. When we move our transportation systems to certain areas, because so many of them are commuter-oriented, we will have questions of housing (affordability). We cannot deal with transportation and the frequency of transportation by itself. How does that impact the larger community and how does that impact housing? We can increase transportation frequency but also realize that we must build affordable housing nearby.

4. How will this happen? Signage, language access, content, clarity, and accessibility of the

messages so that people with limited English proficiency or who do not speak English at all can find their way.

5. I know of someone who lives in the county area with no sidewalks and they have difficulty

reaching the bus stop. This accessibility issue falls within the customer experience category.

6. Parking is a barrier for folks who might want to utilize public transit but cannot find parking.

7. I echo a comment made earlier about frontline staff; this is a big part of how transit can be improved: there needs to be more staff who reflect the customers/people they serve, both frontline and in leadership and decision-making positions.

8. I add to earlier comments about schedules and frequency: Once the BART station at Berryessa

opened, local bus schedules and routes were changed. I suggest that there be a way to continue the preexisting schedules and routes instead of residents having to modify which public transit option they could use. Add more to the transit services rather than making it a give and take.

Return to Transit Overview: How do We Best Reach Those Dependent on Transit?

1. For the African community, language access is a big problem. Congregations are important in reaching Black immigrants; they are steady groups that meet regularly.

2. Reach transit-dependent riders through trusted messengers, e.g., CBOs, texting campaigns, at

local food markets, schools. 3. Use phone town halls for people without access to texting – AARP does great phone town halls.

4. We have conducted travel training for 7-8 years, one-on-one and in groups, e.g., special ed

classes at high schools, housing and senior centers. Participants get the support needed to become independent and see that public transportation can improve the quality of their lives.

Transit Recovery Blue Ribbon Task Force DATE: January 25, 2021

FR: Steve Kinsey

RE: Draft Problem Statement for Review and Comment

I am providing you with a one-page Draft Problem Statement Context statement followed by a one-page Draft Problem Statement for BRTF review and comment at the January 25, 2021 meeting of the Task Force. Five categories of transit challenges were presented at the December 14, 2020, in tandem with an Operators’ presentation highlighting their coordinated efforts to improve transit. At that meeting, Task Force members and the public shared comments used to inform these documents.

The Task Force also approved the use of a 13-person Working Group whose purpose was to help guide development of the enclosed draft Problem Statement. The Working Group met twice, on January 8th and 15th, and reviewed information provided in advance of each meeting. In addition, many Working Group members spent time outside of the joint meetings preparing and submitting suggested content and language. Much of the document that you are receiving reflects their own words.

The Task Force and the public will be asked to comment on the draft documents at the January 25th meeting, after which further revisions will be made in advance of the Task Force’s final review and approval at its February 22, 2021 meeting. Once adopted by the Task Force, the Problem Statement will be used to guide development of several Network Management concepts that will be evaluated in order to identify a preferred network management approach in the Transit Recovery Action Plan.

I want to thank all of the members of the Working Group listed below, as well as Karin Betts, MTC staff, who recorded excellent meeting notes at both meetings.

Problem Statement Working Group

Large Transit Operators (3) Smaller Transit Operators (2) Alexandra Hallowell (SMTA) Ruby Horta (County Connection) Robert del Rosario (AC Transit Michael Gougherty (WETA) Sebastian Petty (Caltrain)

Social Justice (1) MTC staff (2) Bob Allen (Urban Habitat) Andy Fremier Rebecca Long Business (1)

Gwen Litvak (Bay Area Council) CBO Planner (1) Jonathan Kass (SPUR) Cal/STA (1)

Chad Edison Advisory Council (1) Randi Kinman Labor (1)

John Courtney (ATU)

Agenda Item 6a

BLUE RIBBON

TRANSIT RECOVERY TASK FORCE

Problem Statement Context

January 25, 2021

By June 2021, the Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force (BRTF) is expected to submit a Transit Transformation Action Plan (Plan) that identifies actions needed to re-shape the region’s transit system into a more connected, more efficient, and more user-focused mobility network across the entire Bay Area and beyond. In November 2020, the BRTF adopted four Plan goals, including Goal 3A, which states:

“Develop a clear Problem Statement that addresses what issues or

problems Network Management reforms seek to resolve.”

The BRTF also adopted a definition of “transit transformation” that establishes the desired outcome from implementing its Action Plan:

“Design, adequately invest in and effectively manage a public transit network that is equitable, inclusive, frequent, affordable, accessible, reliable, and integrated with unified service, fares, schedules, customer information and identity, serving all Bay Area populations, resulting in increased transit ridership and reduced growth in vehicle miles traveled.”

Working toward this result is not a new idea. MTC’s Resolution 3866 incorporates nearly 50 years of legislated transit coordination mandates, including administering fare revenue-sharing, governing inter-operator transfers, and deciding discretionary fund sources and amounts to achieve coordination and connectivity. In spite of this, significant barriers to the BRTF’s vision still exist and must be addressed in a region where physical geography, jurisdictional boundaries, urban settlement patterns and travel patterns overlap and intersect in complicated ways, while also considering how megaregional and interregional travel services will interface with the Bay Area system.

In 2017 and 2018, the Bay Area lost over 5% of its annual riders, despite a booming economy and service increases. The decline occurred even as most major operators increased service in terms of both mileage and hours of operation. The steepest ridership losses came on buses, at off-peak times, on weekends, in non-commute directions, on outlying lines, and on lines that did not serve the region’s core employment clusters. Systems with falling overall ridership but increased commute time ridership saw limited operational savings. COVID greatly compounded declining transit ridership trends, with an average reduction in ridership of 77% by the end of 2020.

Transit also faces substantial financial challenges. Operating expenses are subject to intense inflationary pressures and capital construction costs have escalated precipitously over the past decades. Locally-generated sales or property taxes have restrictions limiting an agency’s ability to serve areas outside their county and local return on services is critical to retain public support.

Some factors contributing to transit’s ridership decline and equitable access cannot be solved by operators alone. Bay Area governments and the planning profession at large have played a central role in systematically denying opportunities to Black people and other minorities through practices like redlining, the clearance of neighborhoods for construction of urban highways, exclusionary zoning, redevelopment, policing bias and outright discrimination and segregation. Furthermore, macro-economic trends, locally decided land uses, housing affordability and low gasoline prices also affect public transit ridership in the Bay Area.

If sustained, this decline in ridership threatens to plunge the region’s transit system into a downward spiral, jeopardizing both the near and long term financial viability of individual transit operators, negatively impacting riders, and fundamentally undermining the value of the public’s past and future investments in transit as a public good. makes it harder to raise new revenue.

Draft Problem Statement Summary January 19, 2021 To advance Plan Bay Area 2050’s vision of a more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy, and vibrant Bay Area for all by meeting its ambitious transit ridership target, action is needed to restore and grow transit ridership. The current organizational structure of the San Francisco Bay Area’s 27 agencies is not envisioned, designed, governed, or funded to deliver equitable, convenient, efficient sub-regional, regional or interregional transit mobility. There is no network management entity with sufficient resources to ensure that multiple separate transit agencies plan, operate and are held accountable for providing equitable, inclusive, frequent, affordable, accessible, reliable, and integrated service in all nine Bay Area counties and beyond. Also, there is a lack of public agency urgency and coordination to implement travel time advantages for buses on state highways and key local corridors. Below are key problems identified by the Ad Hoc Problem Statement Working Group. Organizational/Institutional Challenges

• Independent locally-oriented governance makes it difficult to achieve beneficial regional consensus and cooperation across multiple agencies is time-consuming at all staff levels.

• Nimble and coordinated responses to unpredictable and evolving travel patterns, continuously advancing technology, and environmental/health emergencies is impeded.

• Consolidated planning and service delivery for long-distance and cross-jurisdictional trips, paratransit and school services, micro-mobility integration and demand management is limited.

Customer Experience • Transit is too slow and unreliable because vehicles are stuck in traffic, transfers are inefficient, and wait

times are often long. • Fares are confusing, vary by agency, create penalties for using more than one operator, have

inconsistent discount policies, are unaffordable for low-income riders and have been slow to change. • The lack of unified trip planning, real-time information, inconsistent signage and wayfinding is confusing

to riders. • Real and perceived security concerns for riders and transit staff frustrate ridership and inhibit attracting

new riders. Past and Current Disparities

• Transit riders who have low incomes, disabilities or reside in communities of color have been and remain marginalized in transit planning and decisions, making it difficult to obtain proportionally greater transit access benefits in outlying areas, low-income neighborhoods, and communities of color.

• Trips that currently rely on uncoordinated and costly transfers attract only those who lack alternative travel options and force many other low income riders into costly car ownership.

Transit Costs and Funding • Regional transit coordination will require new funding that has not been identified. • The current structure reduces opportunities for administrative and operational efficiencies, such as

centralization of certain business functions and systems, unified data collection, procurement and delivery of capital investments.

• Poor coordination and lack of a service vision across transit agencies reduces public support for transit in a way that makes it harder to raise new revenue.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT: BRAINSTORM

PresenterSteve Kinsey, CivicKnitJanuary 25, 2021

Agenda Item 6b

NETWORK MANAGEMENT BRAINSTORM: POTENTIAL ROLES/ RESPONSIBILITIES

Customer FacingFare Policy and CollectionNetwork Planning and CoordinationService CoordinationBranding and WayfindingStation Hub Design ReviewTechnology and Mobile StandardsMarketing/ Public Information ServicesParatransit CoordinationAdvance Bus Transit PriorityMicro-mobility Integration

Administrative/ InstitutionalProcurement and ContractingCapital Project PrioritizationMega-project Delivery and OversightEmergency CoordinationData Collection and CoordinationProgram Eligibility VerifierPerformance Management Financial Assessment and Advocacy

2

NEXT STEPS: NETWORK MANAGEMENT PROBLEM STATEMENT

• Blue Ribbon Task Force review and comment on Problem Statement• Brainstorm possible Network Management responsibilities

JANUARY 2021

• Ad Hoc Working Group workshop to identify possible Network Management concept alternatives

• Blue Ribbon Task Force approves Network Management Problem Statement

FEBRUARY 2021

• Task Force approves Network Management concepts and criteria for evaluation

• Sonoma County Transportation Authority - service consolidation and governance options

• CalSTA presentation on State initiatives benefitting Network Management• Consultant evaluation of Network Management concept alternatives

MARCH-MAY 2021

3

4

THANK YOU.

www.mtc.ca.gov/mtc.ca.gov/blue-ribbon-transit-recovery-task-force


Staff Report

Issue

The Climate Action Advisory Committee (CAAC) needs a revised membership structure in order to address equity, increase participation, and support the Sonoma Climate Mobilization as it launches in 2021.

Recommendation

RCPA staff recommends revising the 2017 CAAC Charter to reflect several changes to membership. Currently, each of the 12 RCPA Board members appoint two members. Staff recommends the following changes:

• Board members each appoint one community member from their jurisdiction.

• Board selects up to 12 organizations who each then appoint a representative.

• Revise the CAAC charter to allow members to take votes on agendized action items.

Staff envisions issuing an open call for organizations interested in being represented on the CAAC (similar to the process used for the SCTA’s Citizens Advisory Committee). Staff would share the interest form with the list of community groups suggested by the CAAC, and with organizations recommended by the RCPA Board. Staff recommends bringing back a proposal to revise the CAAC Charter for approval at the March 8, 2021 SCTA/RCPA Board meeting.


CAAC members discussed the changing needs and staff’s broad ideas to revise membership at the January 15, 2021 CAAC meeting. CAAC members were generally supportive and provided constructive feedback on the proposed changes.


In December 2020, RCPA staff considered convening a Sonoma Climate Leadership Council with diverse representation from a wide range of stakeholders, representing various communities and sectors, to guide the development and implementation of the Sonoma Climate Mobilization campaign.

Executive Summary

The CAAC was established in February 2017, when the RCPA needed a committee to provide expert guidance on the implementation of the Climate Action 2020 and Beyond plan, with the work done through member jurisdictions and partner agencies. With a new focus on the Sonoma Climate Mobilization, and actions to

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Brant Arthur, Community Affairs Specialist Item Number: 4.2.1 Subject: Climate Action Advisory Committee membership


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

support reaching carbon neutrality in Sonoma County by 2030, a revised membership is needed to support increased levels of equity, participation and involvement from community organizations.


None





Background

The RCPA can best support jurisdictions in reaching their climate and resiliency goals by reforming the CAAC to engage a wider range of individuals and organizations under a format that can more effectively mobilize climate action in our community.

The RCPA has identified equity as one of the guiding principles for the Sonoma Climate Mobilization (SCM) and would like the CAAC to advise on the integration of equity into the strategy. In order to do this effectively, the composition of the CAAC will need to include members from groups not yet represented on the committee.

In addition to revising the CAAC charter, staff is considering expanding the Spring and Fall CAAC meetings to be held as a Sonoma Climate Mobilization Forum focusing on the GHG inventory, other indicators, and the 10-year policy package. CAAC members would be augmented by staff members from each jurisdiction, plus partner organizations like Sonoma Clean Power and Sonoma Water.


RCPA CAAC Charter

RCPA Climate Action Advisory Committee

The following is a description of the roles and responsibilities of the Climate Action Advisory Committee (CAAC) and guidelines for how meetings will be conducted.

Purpose

The purpose of the CAAC is to provide information and advice to the Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) Board, staff and project consultants during the development and implementation of climate action programs. The CAAC will not take official votes or make direct recommendations to any hearing body.

Composition

The CAAC consists of stakeholders selected by the RCPA Board of Directors, to represent a diversity of viewpoints and areas of technical expertise. Two representatives will be chosen by each RCPA Board members from their respective jurisdictions. The RCPA Executive Committee may also extend invitations to additional stakeholders to contribute perspectives not represented by other members, in order to ensure adequately diverse sector representation. None of the members will hold public elective office on a governing board of any city or the County. Representatives are to have the following qualifications:

General understanding of the goals and objectives of RCPA

General understanding of climate change policy matters as they relate to local government, planning and project implementation

Community leadership and ability to represent the sentiment of the community you live in or sector you represent

Sectors sought for representation in the Advisory Group include:

Renewable Energy

Agriculture

Viticulture

Business

Community Non-profits

Environmental

Transportation

Social Justice

Environmental Justice

Real estate

Health

Economic Development

Education

Open Space

Waste

Water

Building Efficiency

Duration

The CAAC appointments will be for two years and staggered by one year across appointees from each Director. If an appointee is unable to serve the full term, the Director shall identify a replacement who will serve the rest of the original term. CAAC appointments will be renewed every two years. When a new Director is seated he or she will have the opportunity to confirm or replace the CAAC member.

Meetings

A total of four CAAC meetings will be held each year. Meetings will generally last for two hours including presentations, comments and questions/answer.

Each meeting will include, but not be limited to, presentation on:

1. Current RCPA projects and programs

2. Future RCPA project and program opportunities

3. Community based efforts (reports from CAAC members)

Meetings will be focused on CAAC members; however, they will be open to public. Because of the limited time available for each meeting, and the nature of the CAAC process, members of the public will be able to provide comments at the end of the meeting. A time limit will be imposed on each speaker during the public comment period.

RCPA staff will be responsible for running CAAC meetings.

The meetings of the CAAC are subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, and therefore subject to the Act's

notice and posting requirements. Following each meeting, minutes will be created by staff and posted

to the RCPA website.

Expectations of CAAC Members

Primary role:

Work with staff to develop and implement greenhouse gas reduction programs and measures in Sonoma County communities.

Anticipated activities will include:

Reviewing and considering materials, proposals, ideas and concepts introduced to them by RCPA and jurisdiction staff

Engaging in constructive discussion with CAAC members and staff about challenges and opportunities in the implementation of climate action measures

Fostering communication outside of the CAAC regarding progress and outcomes of RCPA initiatives; particularly as they relate to a member’s jurisdiction or sector

Communication with Staff and Consultants

Outside of CAAC meetings, RCPA staff will serve as the CAAC liaisons and primary contacts for members. All CAAC member questions, comments, and other correspondence should be directed to RCPA staff. Correspondence from members requiring consultant response or clarification for specific jurisdictions will be forwarded to the appropriate contact through RCPA staff.

2020/21 CAAC Member List

Jurisdiction Director Nominees Term Ends Organization Main Sector of InterestJane Elias 6/30/2022 County of Sonoma, Energy and Sustainability Division Environmental

Dan FitzSimmons 6/30/2021Indivisible Cloverdale, Cloverdale Performing Arts Center, Clover Springs HOA

Environmental, EJ, Health, Open Space, Renewables, Social Justice

Carl Mears 6/30/2022Center for Climate Protection (Board Member), Remote Sensing Systems (Sr. Climate Scientist) Transportation

Judith Newton 6/30/2021 Coordinator for Transition Cotati Community Non-profitsRichard Bugarski 6/30/2021 -

Merrilyn Joyce 6/30/2022 Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable SolutionsWastewater/Renewable Energy/Environmental

Bill Wolpert 6/30/2022 Architect, former Petaluma Planning Commissioner Building/ConstructionPete Gang 6/30/2021 USGBC Redwood Empire Chapter Building/Construction

Paul Libeu 6/30/2022Marin-Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District Board Health/Environmental

Susan Haydon * 6/30/2021 City of RP Planning Commission (Chair), SCWA Water/Open SpaceKevin Conway 6/30/2022 Friends of SMART Renewable EnergySteve Birdlebough 6/30/2021 Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Coalition EnvironmentalZeno Swijtink 6/30/2022 - OtherSteven Pierce 6/30/2021 - Renewable EnergyBrian Wallace Alternate LACO Associates WaterMatt Metzler 6/30/2022 Sonoma Community Services and Environment CommissioEnvironmentalDavid Leland 6/30/2021 - TransportationMitch Conner * 6/30/2022 Archilogix Building/ConstructionChristopher Peck 6/30/2021 Natural Investments LLC BusinessTom Conlon 6/30/2021 GeoPraxis, Inc., Transition Sonoma Valley Board TransportationKen Wells 6/30/2022 AB939 Local Task Force WasteAdrienne Pettit * 6/30/2022 Community Action Partnership Community NonProfits

Amy Rider 6/30/2021 Archamy ConsultatingBuilding Construction/Education

Sastra McGinley 6/30/2022 SSU Student WaterKerry Fugett 6/30/2021 Daily Acts Environmental

* No longer interested in serving on the committee

Cloverdale Bagby

Cotati Landman

Healdsburg Naujokas

Petaluma Miller

Rohnert Park Callinan

Santa Rosa Rogers

Sebastopol Gurney

Sonoma Harvey

Town of Windsor Salmon

County of Sonoma Gorin

County of Sonoma Rabbitt

County of Sonoma Zane


Transit – Technical Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA

Please Note: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. T-TAC members will be teleconferencing into the T-TAC meeting. Members of the public who wish to listen to the T-TAC meeting may do so via the following Zoom link:

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82913209122?pwd=ckxncElHWGw4dDlYeHh6cjNzeHVNQT09

Meeting ID: 829 1320 9122

Passcode: 139588

Instructions for Public Comment: Please submit any comments in writing to Drew Nichols at [email protected] by 5:00pm on January 12, 2021 (please identify the agenda item related to your comment and indicate whether your comment should be read aloud or only submitted for the record).

January 13, 2021 – 10:00 a.m.

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Meeting location: Zoom, information provided above

ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Approval of Meeting Notes: December 9, 2020 – ACTION*

3. 2021 Proposed SCTA/RCPA Advisory Committee Schedule – Information*

4. Future of Transit Ad Hoc update – Discussion

5. MTC Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force, Public Transit Transformation Action Plan – Discussion

6. Regional Funding Updates 6.1. Proposed Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program Update - Discussion 6.2. TDA revenues for FY20-21 Q2 – Discussion*

6.2.1. Coordinated Claim, Preliminary TDA Estimate - Discussion** 6.3. Transportation Fund for Clean Air FYE 2022 Policy and Schedule Update – Discussion

6.3.1. Quarterly report for FY20/21 Q2 – Information**

7. Transit Operator updates – Discussion

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


8. Transit Fares, including Clipper START - Discussion

9. Other Business / Comments / Announcements

10. Adjourn – ACTION *Materials attached **Materials to emailed out and posted ahead of meeting

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held February 8, 2021 The next T-TAC meeting will be held February 10, 2021

ACCOMMODATION FOR PERSONS LIVING WITH A DISABILITY: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA/RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Transit-Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King Street, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS: Please consider carpooling or taking transit to this meeting. For more information check www.511.org, www.GoSonoma.org

http://www.511.org/

http://www.gosonoma.org/

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Climate Action Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA

January 10, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. SCTA-RCPA Conference Room

411 King Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404

ITEM

1. Introductions 2. Public Comment 3. Administrative – Approval of October 11th, 2019 meeting notes* 4. Report-out from attendees (1 minute each) 5. RCPA update on activities 6. Presentation on carbon sequestration and the potential for Sonoma County

Guest speakers: Dr. Jeff Creque, Director of Rangeland and Agroecosystem Management at the Carbon Cycle Institute; Valerie Minton Quinto, Executive Director, Sonoma Resource Conservation District; and Brittany Jensen, Executive Director, Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District

7. Announcements

7.1. 2020 Proposed SCTA/RCPA Committee schedule** 8. Adjourn

*Materials attached. **Materials to be handed out.

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held January 13, 2020 The next CAAC meeting will be held in April 10, 2020

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.rcpa.ca.gov

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Climate Action Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Regional Climate Protection Authority office at 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA during normal business hours.


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


Transit Paratransit Coordinating Committee

1BMEETING AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by

teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. TPCC Members will be calling or video-

conferencing into the TPCC Meeting via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting may do so via the following conference line or Zoom platform:

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84664334791?pwd=aUpxa3Y3TjI0SmJldGFJUFZwME5Vdz09

Meeting ID: 846 6433 4791

Passcode: 985240

Call in: 1 (669) 900-9128

Instructions for Public Comment: Please submit any comments in writing to Drew Nichols at [email protected] by 12:00 noon on January 19 (please identify the agenda item related to your

comment and indicate whether your comment should be read aloud or only submitted for the record).

January 19, 2021 – 1:30 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Meeting to be held remotely via Zoom. Information provided above. ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Approval of Meeting Notes: November 17, 2020 – DISCUSSION / ACTION*

3. Administrative Items

3.1. Officer Elections for 2021 – DISCUSSION / ACTION*

3.2. SCTA/RCPA Meeting Schedule for 2021 – Information*

3.3. TPCC Member Roster and Vacancies – Information*

3.4. TPCC By-Laws – Information*

4. COVID Vaccine Transportation Coordination for Transit Dependent - Discussion

5. Roundtable Updates - Discussion

5.1. Transit / Paratransit Operators

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


5.2. Mobility Partner Reports

6. Public Comment

7. Items for Next Agenda – Discussion


9. Adjourn *Materials attached.

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held February 8, 2021 The next TPCC meeting will be held March 16, 2021

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.scta.ca.gov.

ACCOMMODATION FOR PERSONS LIVING WITH A DISABILITY: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Transit Paratransit Coordinating Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King Street, during normal business hours.



Citizens Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA

Please Note: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. CAC members will be teleconferencing into the CAC meeting. Members of the public who wish to listen to the CAC meeting may do so via the following Zoom link:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83992276793?pwd=L0JyNitkUGMrdGVGMW90cTg1dytFQT09

Meeting ID: 839 9227 6793

Passcode: 558823

Dial by your location: (669) 900-9128

Instructions for Public Comment: Please submit any comments in writing to Drew Nichols at [email protected] by 12:30pm on January 25 (please identify the agenda item related to your comment and

indicate whether your comment should be read aloud or only submitted for the record).

January 25, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Meeting location: Zoom, information provided above.

1. Introductions

2. Public Comment ACTION ITEMS

3. Administrative

a. Approval of November 30, 2020 Meeting Minutes* - ACTION

b. 2021 SCTA/RCPA Committee Meeting Schedules* - INFORMATION

4. Measure M – DISCUSSION/ACTION

a. Measure M Project Presentation – City of Healdsburg, Foss Creek Trail

b. Measure M 2021 Strategic Plan update Development Schedule*

c. DRAFT FY 19/20 Measure M Annual Report* Link: https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/4.0c-Measure-M_AnnualReport_FY19-20_v3.pdf

d. Measure M Financial Statements* - INFORMATION

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

5. Sonoma Climate Mobilization Strategy - DISCUSSION

6. Moving Forward 2050, Comprehensive Transportation Plan update - DISCUSSION

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/4.0c-Measure-M_AnnualReport_FY19-20_v3.pdf

7. Highway Updates* – DISCUSSION

8. Announcements

9. Adjourn *Materials attached ** Materials to be handed out

The next SCTA meeting will be February 8, 2021 The next CAC meeting will be February 22, 2021

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Citizens Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 during normal business hours.



Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. CBPAC Members will be calling or video-conferencing into the CBPAC Meeting via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting may do so via the following platform:

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82577854062?pwd=QmxxZEJVQks0KzROSGJEMCtiaVpFQT09

Meeting ID: 825 7785 4062

Passcode: 794010

Dial by your location: (669) 900-9128 Instructions for Public Comment: Please submit any comments in writing to Drew Nichols at [email protected] by 10:00 am on January 26 (please identify the agenda item related to your comment and indicate whether your comment should be read aloud or only submitted for the record).

January 26, 2021 – 1:30 p.m.

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Via Zoom

Santa Rosa, CA

ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Approval of Meeting Notes: November 24, 2020 - DISCUSSION / ACTION*

3. Public Comment

4. Elections for CY 2021 Chair and Vice Chair – ACTION*

5. 2021 Proposed SCTA-RCPA Committee Meeting Dates – Information*

Discussion Items

6. Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick-Strike Program, Call for Projects – Discussion**

7. TDA3 Preliminary Call for Projects FY21/22 - Discussion*

8. Grant application to update Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan – Discussion*

9. Roundtable Updates – Discussion

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


10. Vision Zero Update – Discussion

11. Bike Share Update – Discussion

Information Items

12. TFCA/TDA3 Report for FY 20/21 Quarter 2 - Information*

13. Public Draft Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan, survey and comments due by February 5, 2021 – Information

13.1. Public survey: https://survey.catplan.org/Home?sid=4 13.2. Draft Report: http://catplan.org/d4pedplan

14. Caltrans Bike Highway Study Website and Survey – Online survey open through end of February https://d4bikehighwaystudy.org - Information

15. Other Business / Comments / Announcements – Discussion

16. Adjourn – ACTION *Materials attached **Materials to be handed out

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held February 8, 2021 The next CBPAC meeting will be held March 23, 2021

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.scta.ca.gov.

ACCOMMODATION FOR PERSONS LIVING WITH A DISABILITY: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA/RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King Street, during normal business hours.

Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system. TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS: Please consider bicycling, carpooling or taking transit to this meeting. For more information check www.511.org, www.GoSonoma.org.

https://survey.catplan.org/Home?sid=4

https://d4bikehighwaystudy.org/

http://www.scta.ca.gov/

http://www.511.org/

http://www.gosonoma.org/


Technical Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: The SCTA/RCPA Business Office is closed, and this meeting will be conducted entirely by

teleconference pursuant to the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-35-20, suspending certain requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. TAC Members will be video-conferencing into the

TAC Meeting via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to listen to the meeting may do so via the following platform:

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87428008878?pwd=Z2FaNFJLaDJ4WmVUQVJINzloWTd0dz09

Meeting ID: 874 2800 8878

Passcode: 135370

Phone: (669) 900-9128

Instructions for Public Comment: Please submit any comments in writing to Seana Gause at [email protected] by 12:30pm on January 28, 2020 (please identify the agenda item related to your

comment and indicate whether your comment should be read aloud or only submitted for the record).

January 28, 2021 – 1:30 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Meeting to be held remotely via Zoom. Information provided above.

ITEMS

1. Introductions

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes, December 3, 2020* DISCUSSION/ACTION

4. SB743/VMT Update

5. CTP/Long Range Planning Update

6. Project Initiation Documents (PID) List for FYs 20/21, 21/22, and 22/23* DISCUSSION / ACTION

7. TFCA/TDA3* DISCUSSION / ACTION

7.1 Quarterly Report

7.2 TDA3 Preliminary Call for Projects

8. Measure M DISCUSSION / ACTION

8.1 Invoicing/Obligation Status*

8.2 Maintenance of Effort*

a. Compliance Old Policy (11/12 baseline)

b. Compliance New Policy (FYs17/18, 18/19, 19/20 baseline)

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/


8.3 Proposed Schedule 2021 Strategic Plan Update*

8.4 LSR/LBT Allocation Estimates for FY21/22

9. Regional Information Update DISCUSSION/ACTION

9.1 Inactive Federal Obligation Status*: project sponsors should be prepared to address status of inactive obligations at the meeting: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/projects/inactive-projects

Currently Inactive: County of Sonoma, City of Sonoma, and City of Rohnert Park

9.2 Safe and Seamless Mobility Quick Strike Call for Letters of Interest*

9.3 Federal Economic Stimulus: Potential Projects List*

9.4 COVID Federal Relief Highway Funding*

9.5 Vision Zero Working Group Update*

10. SCTA/RCPA Board Meeting February 8, 2021* – DRAFT

11. 2021 SCTA/RCPA Meeting Date Schedules


13. Adjourn *Materials attached.

**Materials distributed separately

The next S C T A meeting will be held February 8th, 2021

The next TAC meeting will be held on February 25th, 2021

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.scta.ca.gov

DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format, or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation.

SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King St, Santa Rosa, during normal business hours.

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/projects/inactive-projects

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/projects/inactive-projects

TAC Voting member attendance – (6 Month rolling 2020)

Jurisdiction April May June July September Nov/Dec January

Cloverdale Public Works

Cotati Public Works

County of Sonoma DHS*

County of Sonoma PRMD*

County of Sonoma Regional Parks*

County of Sonoma TPW*

Healdsburg Public Works

Petaluma Public Works & Transit

Rohnert Park Public Works

Santa Rosa Public Works**

Santa Rosa Transit**

Sebastopol Public Works

SMART

Sonoma County Transit*

Sonoma Public Works

Windsor Public Works

NB: August TAC was cancelled and timely announcements were provided by email

*One Vote between all **One Vote between all


Staff Report

Issue

Information Only.

Recommendation

Information Only.





Executive Summary

BC Capps joined the RCPA team on January 12 as our new extra help Climate Change Program Analyst. BC’s primary responsibility will be to support the development of the Sonoma Climate Mobilization Strategy.

The Sebastopol City Council approved the Water Upgrades $ave Master Service Agreement with ABAG. The Water Upgrades $ave program team began work with Sebastopol to prepare for program launch in Spring 2021.


All activities support RCPA policies and goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.



Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☒ No ☐


RCPA operational funding and various grants including BayREN, California Energy Commission Shift Implementation Grant and funding through Sonoma Clean Power for technical assistance to support EV infrastructure expansion.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Tanya Narath, Director of Climate Programs Item Number: 5.4.1 Subject: RCPA Activities Report


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

Background Planning and Coordination

Sonoma Climate Mobilization

BC Capps joined the RCPA team on January 12 as our new extra help Climate Change Program Analyst. BC’s primary responsibility will be to support the development of the Sonoma Climate Mobilization Strategy.

RCPA staff presented the Sonoma Climate Mobilization Strategy to business and agriculture groups including the North Bay Leadership Council, Sonoma County Alliance Environmental Committee, Sonoma County Winegrowers, North Bay Realtors Association, Santa Rosa Metro Chamber, Sonoma County Economic Development Board, and Sonoma County Farm Bureau.

Staff presented an update on the strategy to the Climate Action Advisory Committee and gathered committee input on potential changes to the committee structure to include representation from environmental, economic, and equity stakeholders.

Staff continued work on updating the strategy to reflect Board and stakeholder input. Staff plans to bring a revised version of the strategy to the Board for adoption at its March meeting.

Urban Land Institute (ULI) Resilience Advisory Panel

RCPA staff met with ULI staff to review options for hosting a virtual panel in April 2021. The dates under consideration are:

• April 14, 15, 16, (weekend break) 19, 20, 21 or

• April 21, 22, 23, (weekend break) 26, 27, 28

The proposed schedule is designed to avoid "zoom fatigue" by spreading the panel out over six days with a weekend break. Other significant changes from the original in person panel are:

• Replace in person site tour on first day with a virtual briefing/tour

• Conduct stakeholder interviews over two days instead of one

• Increase time for panel deliberations and report writing from one to two days

RCPA staff will coordinate another meeting with the Steering Group in February to finalize the panel schedule and scope.

Member and Partner Support

RCPA staff participated in the City of Santa Rosa’s Climate Change Adaptation Workshop. Staff facilitated a meeting with RCPA Members and Partners to provide an update on the Sonoma Climate Mobilization, share information on BayREN programs, and discuss Member and Partner climate priorities for 2021. Staff plans to host these meetings every other month to facilitate communication and support implementation of climate goals.

Program Coordination

RCPA staff coordinated energy program implementation with County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Division staff on the following programs:


• Bay Area Regional Energy Network’s Single Family, Multifamily, and Codes and Standards programs

• Sonoma County Energy Independence Program

• Sonoma County Energy Watch • Sonoma County Green Business

Program

RCPA staff met with Sonoma Clean Power staff to leverage resources and advance implementation of programs including:

• EV 101 • Electrify America collaboration • EverGreen outreach • Advanced Energy Center

• Municipal solar and storage • CALeVIP • E-bike incentive pilot program

Implementation

California Energy Commission Grant: Shift Sonoma County Implementation

With a grant from the California Energy Commission, RCPA staff are collaborating with The Climate Center (formally known as the Climate Protection Campaign) to boost electric vehicle (EV) awareness within Sonoma County through EV101, an EV concierge service to serve as a one-stop-shop for consumers to find information on EVs and charging. Staff continue to promote the EV101 knowledge base and answer questions, with over 1M impressions in online vehicles searches and related internet activity over the life of the project.

On 12/30/20 we shared the EV101 Testimonial Video: Think an electric vehicle isn’t a family car? Think again! | ¿Piensas que un vehículo eléctrico no es un auto familiar? ¡Piénsalo de nuevo! The video reached 5,426 Sonoma County residents and was watched for a total of 2,035 minutes.

This third video was our first bi-lingual video in English and Spanish, and featured EVs as a great car for families. In order to support our first bi-lingual outreach, the team added a Spanish language tab on the EV101 Helpscout page: https://ev101.helpscoutdocs.com/

The team also partnered with Sonoma Clean Power on an EV101 webinar titled: The Electric Car Revolution is Here. The webinar, held on January 14, provided an overview of electric vehicles (EVs) and current trends in the automotive industry. There were 44 registrations with 29 unique attendees.

On 1/15/21 we shared the EV101 Testimonial Video: Think your life is too busy for an electric car? Think again! The video featured Sonoma County District 5 Supervisor, and RCPA Board member, Lynda Hopkins. The video reached 6,400 Sonoma County residents and was watched for a total of 2,210 minutes.

Bay Area Regional Energy Network

The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) implements effective energy saving programs on a regional level and draws on the expertise and experience of local governments to develop and administer successful climate, resource, and sustainability programs. BayREN is a collaboration of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area. The RCPA represents Sonoma County in BayREN and partners with the County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Division (ESD) to implement the single family, multifamily, and codes and standards programs. More information at www.bayren.org

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

https://ev101.helpscoutdocs.com/

http://www.bayren.org/

BayREN is working with its program administrators and county members to address the COVID-19 crisis. BayREN staff and program teams are working remotely in accordance with shelter-in-place orders and continuing to provide support for program participants, contractors, and stakeholders. COVID Response Plans are being developed for the six BayREN programs to adapt priorities and activities to shelter-in-place protocols and prepare to return to full service as communities gradually resume a more normal status. BayREN is also looking at ways it can provide additional support to local governments in the coming months.

Single Family Home+

BayREN Home+ offers cash rebates for single-family home improvements, plus certified contractors and support every step of the way. Bay Area single-family residents can choose from a menu of single measure upgrades to save energy and improve their home. More information at www.bayrenresidential.org

• ESD continues to see great interest in the webinar series and is building content for an on-demand virtual workshop library that is expected to launch February 2021. In addition, ESD will host two live online workshops in January 2021.

o January 2021 workshops: Electrification and Solar Home Energy Use at Home

o On-demand topics include: Saving Energy at Home Solar Power and Battery Backup Basics Funding Your Project — Incentives, rebates, and financing Wildfire Safety Improvements — Build resilience Healthy Homes — Why Indoor Air Quality Matters Converting to Electric at Home Seismic Strengthening at Home

Table: Sonoma County Home+ Participation January 1, 2019, to December 1, 2020

Number of households 778 Number of submitted rebates 2539 Sum of kWh Savings 84,034.52 Sum of Terms Savings 52,828.89 Rising Run Energy Kits Delivered 575 Home Energy Scores Completed (2020) 117

BayREN Business

The BayREN Business program is designed to work with the schedule, budget, and needs of small and medium commercial business property owners. BayREN will offer specialized technical assistance and financial resources to help businesses find the best approach to reduce costs and improve the quality of a building and business. Services include: Online evaluations, on-site energy assessments, project recommendations, implementation of improvements, incentives, financing, and micro-loans.

BayREN Business has launched a microloan program administered by Mission Asset Fund. The program offers $2,500 loans at 0 percent interest to entities (including tribal and public) that operate commercial space. The monies can be used for installing Energy Star certified equipment and appliances along LEDs.

o ESD continues to promote the microloan program through outreach that includes email and direct mail to Certified Green businesses and those that are in the process of Green certification, social

http://www.bayrenresidential.org/

media campaign, advertisements in the North Bay Business Journal, and outreach to the Chambers of Commerce and Economic Development Board to share the information with their networks.

o Joule Energy presented at the December committee meeting on the soon-to-launch Pay for Performance program. ESD requested additional training for all staff on the program so that it can be better promoted in Sonoma County.

Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancement Program Supports Housing Affordability

The Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancement (BAMBE) supports housing affordability by lowering energy costs at apartment complexes, making them more affordable for tenants. Heating, cooling, domestic hot-water equipment, lighting fixtures, and appliances are among the areas where energy savings can be found during free inspections of multi-family units. The program also provides a $750 per unit rebate to help pay for upgrades. More information at www.bayareamultifamily.org.

BAMBE is still accepting new projects and working remotely to start the development of project scopes of work. However, its technical assistance team has paused in-person visits. For projects that are ready to close out, they are allowing verification of installation through photos and invoices.

Table: Sonoma County BAMBE Participation (as of December 31, 2020)

In Technical Assistance

In Construction Completed Projects 2019

Total Completed 2013-2021

7 properties (546 units)

1 property (100 units)

1 property (27 units)

16 properties (1163 units)

Codes and Standards

RCPA staff continue to work with BayREN to support our member cities in exploring the benefits of and the process to establish and support the implementation of reach codes to reduce energy use and increase use of renewable energy for new construction. As RCPA’s representative, ESD continues to lead local codes and standards activities:

• As BayREN liaison to Redwood Empire Association of Code Officials (REACO), ESD continues to promote BayREN Codes & Standards program trainings and resources during monthly REACO International Code Council (ICC) meetings. REACO allows liaisons to share flyers with information about program resources and scheduled trainings and provide a summary during monthly meeting liaison reports. Information about BayREN’s upcoming live online trainings, the BayREN On-demand training library, Quarterly C&S Forums, the Municipal ZNE/C Technical Assistance Program, Reach Code Support resources, E-permit tool, etc. are shared with REACO members during these monthly meetings.

• ESD has coordinated with BayREN to schedule the Residential New Construction BayREN Codes & Standards training during the educational program timeslot at the REACO ICC monthly meeting on March 2, 2021.

• ESD is working with the BayREN Codes & Standards education and training team to coordinate hosting and scheduling monthly and/or bimonthly trainings that have been identified and requested by the REACO Education Committee. All trainings are presented as webinars at this time.

• ESD is promoting the upcoming BayREN Codes & Standards Heat Pump Water Heater and Quality Insulation Installation webinars scheduled for February and March 2021.

http://www.bayareamultifamily.org/

• ESD continues to provide California Energy Code technical advisory support for city and county building department staff, municipalities, contractors, and property owners and the BayREN Codes & Standards program.

• ESD staff provided a presentation to the BayREN Codes & Standards Committee at the request of the BayREN Codes & Standards Program Manager during the January 2021 monthly Codes & Standards Committee meeting. The presentation was an overview of the professionals involved in the Energy Code compliance process and their associated qualifications.

• ESD continues to work with the BayREN Codes & Standards Municipal ZNE/ZNC Technical Assistance Program to bring ZNE technical engineering/analysis support to municipalities in Sonoma County. ESD has participated in BayREN Municipal ZNE/ZNC coordination calls with BayREN, kW Engineering and the City of Sonoma. ESD staff has provided support for kW Engineering to facilitate completion of the ZNE/ZNC study of the Santa Rosa Veterans Hall for the County of Sonoma. The BayREN Municipal ZNE Technical Support program team (kW Engineering) completed the site visit for the BayREN ZNE study of Santa Rosa Vets Hall on December 10, 2020. The ZNE/ZNC study report is expected to be delivered to the County of Sonoma for the Santa Rosa Veterans Hall in February 2021.

• ESD will coordinate with Travis Wagner, Sustainability Coordinator with the City of Sonoma to develop a presentation to share each municipality’s experience with the BayREN Municipal ZNE/ZNC Technical Assistance program. The presentation will be developed after the City of Sonoma and County of Sonoma receive and review the program reports/deliverables. ESD will work with the City of Sonoma to develop a presentation about the program and coordinate with RCPA to promote and increase awareness about this excellent resource to other local government entities in Sonoma County.

• ESD continues to update the ESD Existing Building Retrofit Better Building and New Construction Rebuild presentations, outreach/marketing materials and consultation support materials that ESD developed for the 2016 California Energy Code to the 2019 California Energy Code and to include information about Sonoma County local jurisdiction reach codes.

BayREN Water Upgrades $ave

RCPA staff continued to develop Water Upgrades $ave ― formerly known as the Water Bill Savings regional program — in collaboration with Partner Utilities from Town of Windsor, City of Hayward, and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Program Committee members representing BayREN’s single family, multifamily, and codes and standards programs and ES Division representative.

During December-January, the RCPA program team:

• Sebastopol Joins Water Upgrades $ave. City of Sebastopol become the first water utility to enroll in Water Upgrades $ave on January 19. By a unanimous vote, the Council authorized its City Manager to execute the Water Upgrades $ave Master Agreement and adopted the Rates and Fee Schedule. The agreement is expected to be executed within the next few weeks. We are most grateful to the Sebastopol City Council and to Vice Major Sarah Gurney for their support.

• Completed a series of seven on-boarding meetings with new Program Operator, EEtility Company addressing contractor recruitment, program design feedback, marketing strategy, finance service process, and Customer Relationship Management platform features/needs (December 8 through 21).

• Completed a series of two meetings with MTC Finance and ABAG Accounting Teams to review and discuss content for the ABAG-RCPA Finance Service Agreement currently scheduled to be presented to the ABAG Executive Board in March (January 21).

• Completed meeting with ReScape California to review detailed scope of work for deliverables for outdoor improvement development and water savings calculation methodologies that will enable the program to provide drought tolerant landscaping and turf removal services in line with State policy (January 21).

• Met with the City of Palo Alto to introduce the Water Upgrades Save program (January 19).

• Attended all-day BayREN Coordinating Circle meeting that addressed regional decarbonization initiatives, BayREN communications and interagency collaboration, and strategies to build collaboration with Bay Area Community Choice Agencies (January 15).

• CPUC Clean Energy Financing Workshop presentation. In response to a CPUC invitation to be a panelist for the upcoming California Public Utilities Commission Clean Energy Financing Workshop (January 29), RCPA met with CPUC event coordinators and program team to determine the panel presentation focus (January 6, 8, 12, and 14). The workshop objectives are to identify lessons learned from existing clean energy finance efforts, identify priorities and objectives for CPUC’s new financing rulemaking, and begin to shape future decisions on energy financing in California.

• Convened weekly meetings with BluePoint Planning marketing consultant to develop utility enrollment tools including utility-facing infographics and video (January 7 and 21).

• Convened the monthly Water Upgrades $ave program committee (January 6) to provide updates on program launch progress including the Program Operator contract, utility enrollment marketing campaign, and outdoor improvement development, and to discuss how to better capture committee feedback on challenges and missed opportunities.

• Convened on-boarding meeting with Program Operator EEtility to plan Q1 program activities (January 4).

• Met with the Sonoma County Energy and Sustainability Division (ESD) for a monthly check-in (December 22). ESD is performing Phase 2 of our Contractor Request for Information campaign to plumbing and landscape contractors (ongoing).


None


Staff Report

Issue Update on Sonoma County community affairs related to transportation and climate change.

Recommendation Not applicable to this item.

Advisory Committee Recommendation Not applicable to this item.



Executive Summary The December 2020 Community Affairs Update covers the following subjects:

a. Plan Bay Area Survey: What Are Your Top Priorities for a Better Bay Area? b. Safe and Seamless Mobility - Quick Strike Program c. Transportation and Public Works launches traffic safety education campaign d. CEC Awards $2M to California Native American Tribes for Climate and Clean Energy Projects e. Upcoming events f. Social media g. Related News


No policy impacts.


Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A ☒


Background

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 2/8/21 From: Brant Arthur, Senior Community Affairs Specialist Item Number: 5.4.3 Subject: SCTA/RCPA Community Affairs


tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

News

Plan Bay Area Survey: What Are Your Top Priorities for a Better Bay Area?

MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are inviting members of the public to take part in a survey about the Implementation Plan phase of Plan Bay Area 2050. The survey asks participants to rank their priorities for issues identified in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint. Plan Bay Area 2050 (https://www.planbayarea.org/plan-bay-area-2050-1) is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of transportation, housing, the environment and the economy of the Bay Area over the next 30 years.

The 13-question survey will be open through February 1, 2021, and is available in:

• English, https://mtcbata.typeform.com/to/FqikBbrv

• Spanish, https://mtcbata.typeform.com/to/taX2RFAU

• Chinese, https://mtcbata.typeform.com/to/wc9N5wCp

Safe and Seamless Mobility - Quick Strike Program

SCTA staff are seeking letters of interest from any eligible agencies who may have a transportation infrastructure project that can be implemented quickly to benefit communities. The program emphasizes bicycle/pedestrian safety and mobility, transit and transit access improvements, connected mobility, advancing equitable mobility, or other near-term strategies to advance transit recovery and connected mobility.

Interested agencies that must be eligible under Surface Transportation Program/ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program, as well as One Bay Area Grant guidelines. All interested parties should submit letters of Interest by noon (12 P.M.) February 19th, 2021. For more information: https://scta.ca.gov/about-scta/working-with-scta/

Partner News

Transportation and Public Works launches traffic safety education campaign

The County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works (TPW) has announced the rollout of a second series of warning signs as part of its traffic safety education program in response to road fatalities and concerns about unsafe and aggressive driving. The program involves the placement of three new warning signs: “W2F!,” “Way 2 FAST!,” and “Slow Down Sonoma County” along road segments that are known trouble spots to county officials and law enforcement. The traffic educational outreach program supports Sonoma County’s Vision Zero Program, which aims to achieve a goal of zero road system fatalities and severe injuries.

CEC Awards $2M to California Native American Tribes for Climate and Clean Energy Projects

California Native American Tribes taking action on climate change are getting a boost from a new State program designed to support tribally led efforts. Nearly $2 million was awarded from the

https://www.planbayarea.org/plan-bay-area-2050-1

https://mtcbata.typeform.com/to/FqikBbrv

https://mtcbata.typeform.com/to/taX2RFAU

https://mtcbata.typeform.com/to/wc9N5wCp

https://scta.ca.gov/about-scta/working-with-scta/

California Energy Commission (CEC) through the Tribal Government Challenge Planning Grant Program to support projects that identify solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve clean energy access, and advance climate resiliency on Tribal lands and in tribal communities.

The Kashia Band of Pomo Indians in Sonoma County received $250,000 for a comprehensive energy planning project for residential and community facilities including onsite renewable energy generation. The grant will also fund a study to examine the feasibility of biomass fuel and energy production from tribally owned forests. Learn more: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/state-awards-2-million-10-california-native-american-tribes-climate-and-clean

Upcoming Events

• 1/28/21 Smart Cycling Workshop (Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition), 6:30-8pm, https://bikesonom.z2systems.com/np/clients/bikesonom/event.jsp?event=586

• 2/2/21 - Smart and Efficient, Electric Water Heating for Homes (Sonoma Clean Power) 3-4pm, https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/smart-and-efficient-electric-water-heating-for-homes-everything-you-need-to-know

• 2/4/21 - On-Bill Financing: 0% Financing. 100% Easy (Sonoma Clean Power), 12-1pm, https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/on-bill-financing-0-financing-100-easy

• 2/9/21 - Battery Storage Basics (Sonoma Clean Power), 12-1pm, https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/battery-storage-basics-building-resiliency-1

• 2/27/21 - Smart Cycling Workshop (Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition), 1-2:30pm, https://bikesonom.z2systems.com/np/clients/bikesonom/event.jsp?event=591

Social Media / Community Outreach

Facebook activity, 12/28/20 – 1/24/21 SCTA RCPA CA37

Page Likes (change from last month) 637 (0%) 646 (+1%) 682 (0%)

People reached last month 1,129 (+42%) 9,616 (+84%) 24 (-8%)

Post engagements last month 133 (+93%) 2,269 (+140%) 0 (N/A)

Newsletter:

• Monthly newsletters for SCTA and RCPA were sent on January 8, 2021 • The SCTA newsletter was sent to 304recipients with a 29% open and 5% click rate • The RCPA newsletter was sent to 338 recipients with a 37% open and 9% click rate

https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/state-awards-2-million-10-california-native-american-tribes-climate-and-clean

https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-01/state-awards-2-million-10-california-native-american-tribes-climate-and-clean

https://bikesonom.z2systems.com/np/clients/bikesonom/event.jsp?event=586

https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/smart-and-efficient-electric-water-heating-for-homes-everything-you-need-to-know

https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/smart-and-efficient-electric-water-heating-for-homes-everything-you-need-to-know

https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/on-bill-financing-0-financing-100-easy

https://sonomacleanpower.org/events/battery-storage-basics-building-resiliency-1

https://bikesonom.z2systems.com/np/clients/bikesonom/event.jsp?event=591

Related News Articles Guest Commentary: On Monday, the climate change fight hits home 1/6/21 - Petaluma Argus Courier https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/guest-commentary-on-monday-the-climate-change-fight-hits-home/

Local climate summit streams Sunday 1/7/21, Sonoma Index-Tribune https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/local-climate-summit-streams-sunday/?sba=AAS

SMART looks to ultraviolet light as coronavirus blocker 1/10/21, Marin IJ https://www.marinij.com/2021/01/10/smart-looks-to-ultraviolet-light-as-coronavirus-blocker/

PD Editorial: The window for climate action is closing 1/15/21, Press Democrat https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-the-window-for-climate-action-is-closing/

County launches traffic safety education campaign 1/18/21, Sonoma Index-Tribune https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/county-launches-traffic-safety-education-campaign/?sba=AAS

Local tribe receives grant to fight climate change 1/22/21, North Bay Business Journal https://thebusinessjournal.com/local-tribe-receives-grant-to-fight-climate-change/

Santa Rosa panel floats redesign for dangerous stretch of road 1/25/21, Press Democrat https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-panel-floats-redesign-for-dangerous-stretch-of-road/?artslide=4

Council reviewing Cloverdale Boulevard development details 1/25/21, Cloverdale Reveille https://www.sonomawest.com/cloverdale_reveille/news/council-reviewing-cloverdale-boulevard-development-details/article_90785e70-5eb4-11eb-9d3f-8b049d07316b.html

https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/guest-commentary-on-monday-the-climate-change-fight-hits-home/

https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/guest-commentary-on-monday-the-climate-change-fight-hits-home/

https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/local-climate-summit-streams-sunday/?sba=AAS

https://www.marinij.com/2021/01/10/smart-looks-to-ultraviolet-light-as-coronavirus-blocker/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-the-window-for-climate-action-is-closing/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-the-window-for-climate-action-is-closing/

https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/county-launches-traffic-safety-education-campaign/?sba=AAS

https://www.sonomanews.com/article/news/county-launches-traffic-safety-education-campaign/?sba=AAS

https://thebusinessjournal.com/local-tribe-receives-grant-to-fight-climate-change/

https://thebusinessjournal.com/local-tribe-receives-grant-to-fight-climate-change/

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-panel-floats-redesign-for-dangerous-stretch-of-road/?artslide=4

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/santa-rosa-panel-floats-redesign-for-dangerous-stretch-of-road/?artslide=4

https://www.sonomawest.com/cloverdale_reveille/news/council-reviewing-cloverdale-boulevard-development-details/article_90785e70-5eb4-11eb-9d3f-8b049d07316b.html

https://www.sonomawest.com/cloverdale_reveille/news/council-reviewing-cloverdale-boulevard-development-details/article_90785e70-5eb4-11eb-9d3f-8b049d07316b.html

1

Highway Projects

SCTA Update and Caltrans SHOPP Report

February 8, 2021

Highway 101

1. North B-Airport Interchange and Windsor Sound Walls Project

Permits/Mitigation • Monitoring and reporting of mitigation planting:

On-site work complete. Off-site work will continue through 2021 to address corrective

measures at Cresta due to 2017 fire damage. California Department of Fish and Wildlife permit sign off in 2022.

Project Closeout • Caltrans accepted the construction contract on August 3, 2015. • Final close out in 2022.

2. Central A (HOV lanes)

• Construction complete with project closeout pending North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board enforcement action.

3. Central C (Old Redwood Hwy I/C)

Project Close Out

• Final right of way mapping funded at February 2019 SCTA Board meeting. Scheduled completion summer 2021.

4. MSN B-2 (Petaluma River Bridge and Petaluma Blvd. South interchange) Project Close Out

• Project accepted in June 2017 and close out activities through 2021. • Utility closeout requires resolution of the City of Petaluma sewer

easements and utility vault water intrusion.

2

5. MSN C-2 (Central Petaluma HOV lanes) Right of Way

• Cooperative agreement amendment approved February 2020 due to utility relocation cost increases, temporary construction easement extensions and business relocation payments exceeding original estimates. Amendment excluded budget for loss of goodwill and will require an additional amendment if a goodwill claim is found to have merit.

Construction • First working day was October 8, 2019 and carpool lanes will open by the

end of 2022. • Sound walls scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2021. Sound

wall between North Petaluma Railroad Overcrossing and Corona Road is near complete. Sound wall between Caulfield and East Washington will continue work through the winter.

• SMART multiuse path (MUP) in Petaluma between Payran Street and Southpoint Boulevard is closed for the demolition of existing bridges and construction of new bridge over railroad. The path is schedule to be reopened in 2023. Closure applies to the path; construction will not affect passenger train schedules.

• Lynch Creek and Washington Creek bridge deck work was completed in 2020, ahead of schedule. Barrier work on creek bridges will be completed as weather allows.

• Construction activities include retaining wall construction, sound wall construction, paving, utility relocation and bridge work at 2 locations, including the bridge over the railroad and the future Rainier undercrossing.

• Demolition of the existing northbound bridge over the railroad will occur in February. There will be no impacts to the SMART passenger rail schedule.

• Major Stage 2 traffic shift of northbound vehicles into the median was completed on January 14th.

• Consultant budget for design services during construction is nearly expended, contract amendment for $200k was approved on November agenda of the SCTA Board. Future amendment will be required, once additional funds are identified.

3

6. MSN B-3 (San Antonio Creek Bridge at Sonoma/Marin County Line) Construction

• Bike route under the new Highway 101 San Antonio Creek Bridge opened on August 30, 2019.

• Construction Contract Acceptance (CCA) was achieved on 4/30/2020, close out work is expected through 2021.

• Storm water mitigation work pending approval. 7. MSN – B2 Phase 2 - Sonoma Median Widening Construction

• The project opened over 4 miles of the carpool lanes (south of San Antonio Creek to north of Lakeville interchange).

• Construction Contract Acceptance (CCA) was achieved 11/24/2020. • Close out work is expected through 2021.

8. State Route 37 Corridor Protection and Enhancement Project • Four North Bay counties Policy Committee established November 2015 • Memorandum of Understanding with the Bay Area Toll Authority

(BATA), Caltrans and four North Bay Counties regarding the Resilient State Route 37 Program established February 2019.

• SCTA now hosting Policy meetings and Drew Nichols is the Clerk of the Policy Committee.

• January 7, 2021 Policy Committee Meeting agenda included: o Funding Update – Tolling Legislation o Corridor Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) o US 101- SR121 – Design Alternative Analysis o SR 121- Mare Island – Interim Congestion Relief - EIR Scoping

meeting comment summary (updated) o Caltrans Projects update o SR 37 Solano Fairgrounds Interchange update o Solano County Access Plan Presentation

4

• Future Policy Meeting Schedule: o 9:30 AM, March 4, 2021 o 9:30 AM, June 3, 2021 o 9:30 AM, October 7, 2021

• Future Policy Meeting Topics: o Public Engagement in April 2021 o Legislation to Toll SR 37. o SR 121- Mare Island Interim Delivery Update o MTC/Caltrans -Ultimate Environmental Phase

Advance Planning including: Corridor Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) and US 101 – SR 121 Design Alternative Assessment (DAA)

o Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) o AA for the Bay – Restoration Projects in San Pablo Bay o Alternative Modes and TDM -Implementation

Final Corridor plan dated June 2018 with technical revisions to Exhibit 12 Environmental Resources and Exhibit 18A Bicycle / Pedestrian Access is now available at:

http://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SR-37-Corridor-Plan_Final_June2018_wAppendices.pdf

SCTA Project Web site: http://scta.ca.gov/projects/highway37/ Project Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/route37/ Caltrans Project Web site: http://www.SR37CorridorProjects.com 9. Highway 116/121 Intersection Improvements Environmental

• Project Approval and completion of the Environmental Documentation (PAED) was April 13, 2018. A roundabout is the preferred alternative.

• A revalidation of the Environmental Document was completed in September 2019.



http://scta.ca.gov/projects/highway37/

https://www.facebook.com/route37/

http://www.sr37corridorprojects.com/

5

DESIGN (PS&E) • A contract for Parsons to complete the Plans Specifications and Estimates

(PSE or DESIGN) phase of the project was approved by the Board in June 2017. Parsons is responding to comments received on the 95% plans (submitted Nov 6, 2019) and working on 100% plan Parsons, SCTA staff and Caltrans met with County Transportation and Public Works Department to initiate the maintenance agreement process. The County has tentatively agreed to maintain the center of the roundabout and the sidewalks/pedestrian facilities and lighting. Further details will be resolved in on-going cooperative meetings prior to signing of the maintenance agreement. Caltrans has received the County’s comments on the draft agreement and is reviewing them before sending a final copy for signature. Constructability reviews were completed in December 2018 and January 2019. On December 20, 2019 Supervisor Gorin held a meeting with a number of adjacent property owners to discuss the aesthetics of the interior of the roundabout. The next Project Development Team (PDT) meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2021.

Right of Way

• In June of 2017 SCTA entered into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to complete the R/W Phase. The agreement was amended to increase support and capital costs at the September 2020 Board meeting. Appraisals are completed. Outreach and negotiations with property owners and their representatives is on-going. Agreement has been reached with the property owner of the NE parcel and access to the parcel is expected in January.

Construction

• The 2020 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) was approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in May 2020. This project was included in the SHOPP for $19M. The funding becomes available in Fiscal Year 22/23. This project is fully funded.

6

10. Hearn Avenue Interchange Improvements PAED (Environmental) was completed in December 2016.

DESIGN (PS&E) The City of Santa Rosa selected AECOM as the consultant and is actively working on completion of the Design Phase. AECOM submitted the 100% Plans Specifications and Estimate Documents to Caltrans in July 2019. Both a constructability and management review were completed in October and December 2018 and no unplanned issues arose from the review. Right of Way acquisition with willing sellers is progressing. The City is actively seeking construction funding. The CTC staff released recommendations for the SB-1 competitive programs in mid-November and Santa Rosa was unsuccessful in its application for funding from the Local Partnership Program. A debriefing meeting was held on December 15 for staff from Santa Rosa and SCTA to discuss the application’s strengths and weaknesses. The next PDT meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2020.

of 9 Draft Projects Status Report, Sonoma County- January 2021 Rev. 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PID (Project Initiation Document) EA (Project Number) SON- ## - ## (County-Route-Postmile) PAED (Project Approval/Environmental Document) PS&E (Plans, Specifications, & Estimate) RWC (Right of Way Certification) RTL (Ready to List) CCA (Construction Contract Acceptance) ADV (Advertise Contract) BO (Bid Open) AWD (Award Contract) CAPM (Capital Preventative Maintenance) TBD (To Be Determined) Con. Cap. (Construction Cap)

1 of 9

About the SHOPP (State Highway Operation and Protection Program): SHOPP is a four-year

programming document, continually updated/amended, and adopted by the California Transportation

Commission in each even-numbered year. SHOPP projects are identified through periodic condition

assessments and field reviews, and include capital improvements relative to the maintenance, safety,

operation, and rehabilitation of the state highway system that do not add new capacity. For more

information please visit the following link:

https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-highway-operation-and-protection-program

Link to California State Routes & Post Miles: https://postmile.dot.ca.gov

PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENTS

EA 4Q800 Son 1-24.2/30.5 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM 0.4 MILE NORTH OF RUSSIAN GULCH BR. TO 2.15 MILE SOUTH OF MEYERS GRADE RD. – CAPM PID:06/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap. $15,200K EA 4AC50 Son 12-T17.34 /17.70 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM 0.2 MILE EAST OF BRINGHAM AVE TO FOURTH ST. CAPM PID:6/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $2,700K EA 4AC40 Son ALL ROUTES - VARIOUS IN SONOMA COUNTY, INSTALL CURVE WARNING SIGNS IN ALL ROUTES IN SONOMA COUNTY AT VARIOUS LOCATION PID:3/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $2,100K EA 0W670 Son 128-11.4/24.3 IN SONOMA COUNTY FROM ALEXANDER VALLEY ROAD TO FOSS HILL ROAD, REHABILITATE CULVERTS PID:6/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $3,500K

https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-highway-operation-and-protection-program

https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2 of 9

PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENTS (Continued) EA 2Q430 Son 128-0.0/24.8 IN SONOMA COUNTY, GEYSERVILLE MAINLINE CAPM PID:5/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $27,700K EA 2Q580 Son 128-11.4/24.3 IN SONOMA COUNTY, SANTA ROSA MAINTENANCE STATION RELOCATION PID:5/20/20; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $15,500K 3Q640 Son 116-22.130/22.130 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NORTHWEST OF CITY OF SEBASTOPOL AT GREEN VALLEY ROAD, NEAR GRATON IMPROVE INTERSECTION PID:6/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $6,600K EA 4Q830 SON-12-27.83/31.667 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN KENWOOD, FROM KENWOOD INN & SPA TO 0.125 MILE W. OF BABB ROAD IN GLEN ELLEN COMMUNITY; WIDEN SHOULDERS TO STANDARD 8’, AND TO INSTALL SHOULDER AND CENTERLINE RUMBLE STRIPS PID:3/2021; SHOPP 2022 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $8,700K

EA 1Q250 SON-1-24.5/24.6 IN SONOMA COUNTY, RUSSIAN GULCH BRIDGE RAIL REPLACEMENT/UPGRADE PID:6/28/19; SHOPP 2026 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $4,100K

EA 1Q650 SON-101-24.86/25.0 IN SONOMA COUNTY, RIVER ROAD BRIDGE RAIL REPLACEMENT/UPGRADE PID: TBD; SHOPP 2024 Candidate/ Con. Cap.: $1,500K

EA 0P870 SON-116-30.1/30.5 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IMPROVE INTERSECTION AT LONE PINE ROAD/ MT VERNON ROAD PID: TBD; SHOPP Candidate YEAR TBD/ Con. Cap.: TBD


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


3 of 9

PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENTS (Continued) EA 0Q880 SON-116-27.9/34.1 IN SONOMA COUNTY, BETWEEN SEBASTOPOL AND WEST OF COTATI; PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PID: TBD; SHOPP Candidate YEAR TBD/ Con. Cap.: TBD

PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE

EA 0AA63 Son 116-1.130 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR JENNER AT SHEEPHOUSE CREEK; RECONSTRUCT WINGWALLS PAED:7/2022 PS&E:8/2023 RWC:8/2023 RTL:10/2023 CCA:12/2024 Con. Cap.: $2,750K EA 4G780 SON-1-0.0/58.36 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM MARIN/SONOMA COUNTY LINE TO SONOMA/MENDOCINO COUNTY LINE INSTALL CENTERLINE AND SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIPS PAED:2/2023 PS&E:5/2024 RWC:5/2024 RTL:6/2024 CCA: 12/2026 Con. Cap.: $13,500K EA 2Q770 SON-116-38.72 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN PETALUMA AT INTERSECTION OF STAGE GULCH ROAD AND LAKEVILLE ROAD INSTALL SIGNALS OR ROUNDABOUT PAED:3/2022 PS&E:10/2023 RWC:1/2024 RTL:2/2024 CCA:12/2024 Con. Cap.: $5,200K EA 1Q700 SON-101-22.8/32.79 IN SONOMA COUNTY, AT MENDOCINO AVE, FULTON ROAD, SHILOH ROAD, & LIMERICK LANE OVERCROSSINGS; BRIDGE RAIL UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT PAED:10/2022 PS&E:3/2024 RWC:4/2024 RTL:5/2024 CCA:8/2026 Con. Cap.: $8,100K


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4 of 9

PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE (Continued) EA 1Q480 SON-37-3.78/4.0 & SON 121-0.0/0.15 IN SONOMA COUNTY, AT JUNCTION OF SR 37 AND SR 121; INSTALL ROUNDABOUT PAED:10/2022 PS&E:1/2024 RWC:2/2024 RTL:3/2024 CCA:12/2025 Con. Cap.: $6,000K EA 2Q200 SON-37-3.92/4.12 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM SR 121 TO 1000 FEET EAST OF THE SMART FREIGHT RAILWAY CROSSING LANE WIDENING TO IMPROVE OPERATION PAED:10/2022 PS&E:1/2024 RWC:2/2024 RTL:3/2024 CCA:12/2025 Con. Cap.: $11,700K EA 2Q440 SON-121-6.52/8.43 IN SONOMA COUNTY, AT PM 6.52 AT YELLOW CREEK BR#20-0021 AND AT PM 8.43 ARROYO SECO Br#20-0023; BRIDGE RAIL UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT PAED:8/2022 PS&E:1/2024 RWC:2/2024 RTL:3/2024 CCA:8/2026 Con. Cap.: $7,800K EA 1Q340 SON-1-19.2/21.8 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR GENNER AT GOAT ROCK ROAD, AND AT BURKE AVE., REPAIR/REPLACE CULVERT PAED:4/2022 PS&E:10/2023 RWC:1/2024 RTL:2/2024 CCA:8/2026 Con. Cap.: $4,900K EA 1K720 SON-1-1.0/28.7 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM 0.6 MILE SOUTH OF MIDDLE ROAD (.9 MILE NORTH OF VALLEY FORD) TO JEWELL GULCH PAED:10/2022 PS&E:11/2023 RWC:2/2024 RTL:4/2024 CCA:1/2026 Con. Cap.: $3,600K EA 2Q420 Son 116-19.90/33.40 IN SONOMA COUNTY, AT JONES CREEK, BLUCHER CREEK, AND GOSSAGE CREEK OVERFLOW ALONG SR-116; BRIDGE RAIL UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT PAED:10/2022 PS&E:3/2024 RWC:4/2024 RTL:5/2024 CCA:8/2026 Con. Cap.: $4,300K


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


5 of 9

PROJECTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE (Continued) EA 1K760 SON-1-45.4/45.4 IN SONOMA COUNTY, AT 2.7 MILE SOUTH OF SKAGGS SPRINGS ROAD; DRAINAGE SYSTEM RESTORATION-REHABILITATE CULVERT PAED:10/2022 PS&E:4/2024 RWC:6/2024 RTL:2/2024 CCA:10/2025 Con. Cap.: $1,000K EA 2Q780 SON-12-19.83 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN SANTA ROSA, AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR 12 AND S. BOAS DRIVE; INSTALL SIGNALS/ROUNDABOUT PAED:2/2022 PS&E:6/2023 RWC:11/2023 RTL:11/2023 CCA:6/2025 Con. Cap.: $2,100K EA 2K360 SON-116-9.6 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR MONTE RIO, AT 0.7 MILE EAST OLD MONTE RIO ROAD; STORM DAMAGE REPAIR -SOLDIER PILE WALL PAED:12/2021 PS&E:2/2023 RWC:4/2023 RTL:5/2023 CCA:12/2024 Con. Cap.: $6,000K

PROJECTS IN DESIGN PHASE EA 1K750 SON-1-41.2/54.6 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM 0.2 MILE NORTH OF MILLER CREEK TO 0.1 NORTH OF VANTAGE ROAD AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS; DRAINAGE SYSTEM RESTORATION-REHABILITATE CULVERTS PAED:10/15/20 PS&E:5/2022 RWC:6/2022 RTL:6/2022 CCA:5/2024 Con. Cap.: $4,800K EA 2K350 SON-101-55.8 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR CLOVERDALE 2 MILES NORTH OF SR 128 JUNCTION; STORM DAMAGE PERMANENT RESTORATION SOLDIER PILE WALL PAED:6/12/20 PS&E:5/2021 RWC:7/2021 RTL:9/2021 CCA:9/2022 Con. Cap.: $2,600K


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


6 of 9

PROJECTS IN DESIGN PHASE (Continued) EA 4J460 SON-116-11.8/R12.2 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN GUERNEVILLE; INSTALL/UPGRADE CURB RAMPS & PEDSTRIAN FACILITIES TO ADA STANDARDS PAED:6/30/20 PS&E:4/2022 RWC:4/2022 RTL:5/2022 CCA:12/2023 Con. Cap.: $3,000K EA 0J300 SON-1-26.7/26.9 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR JENNER, FROM 0.3 TO 0.4 MILE NORTH OF MYERS GRADE ROAD; PERMANENT RESTORATION OF ROADWAY SLIPOUTS PAED:7/31/20 PS&E:5/2021 RWC:6/2021 RTL:6/2021 CCA:12/2022 Con. Cap.: $13,900K EA 0K130 SON-12 &116/ MRN-1&131/ NAP-29 IN SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES, AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS; PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENT; INSTALL HYBRID BEACONS, STOP AND YIELD LINES, CROSSWALKS AND BULBOUTS, & UPGRADE CURB RAMPS PAED:6/5/2020 PS&E:9/1/2021 RWC:9/1/2021 RTL:1/3/2022 CCA:12/31/23 Con. Cap.: $2,800K EA 0K520 SON-12-11.0/17.4 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM LLANO RD TO NEAR FARMERS LANE; PAVEMENT PRESERVATION (CAPM) & UPGRADE CURB RAMPS PAED:6/29/2020 PS&E:4/1/2021 RWC:11/1/2021 RTL:12/1/2021 CCA:3/20/2024 Con. Cap.: $27,700K EA 1K730 SON-1-30.8/40.6 IN SONOMA COUNTY, FROM MILL GULCH TO 0.5 MILE SOUTH OF MILLER CREEK AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS; DRAINAGE SYSTEM RESTORATION-REHABILITATE CULVERTS PAED:5/8/20 PS&E:5/2022 RWC:5/2022 RTL:6/2022 CCA:5/2024 Con. Cap.: $4,300K


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


7 of 9

PROJECTS IN DESIGN PHASE (Continued)

EA 2K240 MRN-101-15.57 & SON-101-16.5/19.0 IN MARIN COUNTY, IN SAN RAFAEL AT MILLER CREEK ROAD, & IN SONOMA COUNTY IN SANTA ROSA AT TODD ROAD & BAKER AVE. OVERCROSSINGS; REPLACE/UPGRADE BRIDGE RAILS PAED:9/24/19 PS&E:6/2021 RWC:8/2021 RTL:9/2021 CCA:3/2023 Con. Cap.: $4,400K EA 0G680 SON-121-3.4/6.5 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR SCHELLVILLE FROM 1.8 MILES NORTH OF TOLAY CREEK BRIDGE TO YELLO CREEK BRIDGE; WIDEN FOR STANDARD SHOULDERS, UPGRADE CURVES TO STANDARD, AND INSTALL MEDIAN AND SHOULDER RUMBLE STRIPS PAED:12/19/18 PS&E:9/2021 RWC:12/2021 RTL:12/2021 CCA:12/2023 Con. Cap.: $25,000K EA 4H050 SON-12-25.8/33.3 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN AND NEAR SONOMA, AT SONOMA CREEK, STUART CREEK, AND HOOKER CREEK BRIDGES; REPLACE SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES PAED:9/28/18 PS&E:2/26/20 RWC:3/2021 RTL:3/2021 CCA:12/2022 Con. Cap.: $6,800K EA 0A020 SON-1-15.1/15.8 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR BODEGA BAY, NEAR THE GLEASON BEACH AREA, FROM 0.2 MILE SOUTH TO 0.4 MILE NORTH OF SCOTTY CREEK CULVERT; REALIGN ROADWAY PAED:6/30/16 PSE:8/18/20 RWC:12/17/20 RTL:12/18/20 CCA:12/2023 Coastal Development Permit (CDP) issued by Coastal Commission on November 6, 2020 Con. Cap.: $24,300K EA 1J360 SON-12-35.1/38.9 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN AND NEAR SONOMA, FROM VALLEJO AVE TO EAST OF LEVERONI ROAD/NAPA ROAD; PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PAED:4/3/2018 PS&E:8/14/2020 RWC:8/14/2020 RTL:8/14/2020 CCA:12/2021 Con. Cap.: $6,200K


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


8 of 9

PROJECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PHASE

EA 1A210 SON-37-2.6 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR VALLEJO, EAST OF SR 121; REPLACE HIGH-SPEED WEIGH-IN-MOTION SYSTEM IN BOTH DIRECTIONS OF ROUTE 37 PAED:4/10/18 PS&E:4/11/19 RWC:4/11/19 RTL:6/12/19 CCA:12/30/20 Con. Cap.: $2,300K EA 0J100 SON-101-9.0 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR PETALUMA NORTH OF PEPPER ROAD; REPAIR SLIDE/REGRADE SLOPE PAED:6/29/2018 PS&E:4/11/19 RWC:4/22/19 RTL:6/28/19 CCA:7/2021 Con. Cap.: $1,300K EA 0J642 SON-101-29.3/54.2 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN AND NEAR WINDSOR, HEALDBURG, AND CLOVERDALE, FROM GEYSERVILLE (OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY) TO CLOVERDALE, 2.0 MILES SOUTH OF MENDOCINO COUNTY LINE; BIG PAVE 2 - PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, AND FROM WINDSOR TO CLOVERDALE; CULVERT REPLACEMENT PAED:4/19/2018 PS&E:6/21/2019 RWC:6/21/2019 RTL:6/28/19 CCA:12/2021 Con. Cap.: $79,000K EA 1G840 SON-116-26.6/26.9 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN SEBASTOPOL, FROM KEATING AVE TO WILLOW STREET; ALSO FROM MCKINLEY STREET TO JOE RODORA TRAIL; UPGRADE CURB RAMPS, DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PAED:9/30/15 PS&E:5/19/17 RWC:6/1/17 RTL:7/31/19 AWD:10/11/19 CCA:12/2020 Con. Cap.: $3,100K EA 0Q850 SON/MRN/NAP/LAK-Var IN SONOMA, MARIN, NAPA, AND LAKE COUNTIES; REMOVE DROUGHT STRICKEN TREES PAED:6/19/19 PS&E:6/19/19 RWC:6/20/19 RTL:6/20/19 CCA:12/2020 Con. Cap.: $6,400K


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


9 of 9

PROJECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Continued) EA 4G380 SON-116-31/31.3 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR SEBASTOPOL, AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR 116 AND NB LLANO ROAD; CONSTRUCT LEFT-TURN AND MERGE LANES PAED:9/21/16 PS&E:6/7/18 RWC:6/18/18 RTL:6/29/18 CCA:12/30/20 Con. Cap.: $6,500K EA 2J540 SON-1-23.4/24.4 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR JENNER AT 0.1 MILE SOUTH OF RUSSIAN GULCH BRIDGE (AT 1.5 MILES SOUTH OF MEYERS GRADE ROAD); REPAIR ROADWAY SLIPOUTS - SOLDER PILE WALL PAED:2/15/2018 PS&E:6/5/2018 RWC:6/5/2018 RTL:6/29/2018 CCA:11/30/2020 Con. Cap.: $3,900K EA 2J500 SON-37-0.27 IN SONOMA COUNTY, NEAR NOVATO AT THE EAST APPROACH OF PETALUMA RIVER BRIDGE; SETTLEMENT RESTORATION-RECONSTRUCT PAVEMENT/CELLULAR CONCRETE SUBGRADE PAED:9/13/17 PS&E:5/25/18 RWC:6/5/18 RTL:6/15/18 CCA:12/15/2020 Con. Cap.: $1,500K EA 4G220 SON-12-17.7/18.2 IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN SANTA ROSA FROM FARMERS LANE TO 0.2 ILE WEST OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD; INSTALL CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER AND MIDWEST GAURDRAIL SYSTEM Cost: $7,000 K Con. Cap. PAED:7/29/16 PS&E:6/6/17 RWC:6/20/17 RTL:6/22/17 CCA:10/6/2020 Con. Cap.: $7,000K EA 264H6 SON-12 & 101-VAR IN SONOMA COUNTY, IN AND NEAR PETALUMA AND SANTA ROSA; MSN FOLLOW-UP LANDSCAPING PAED:10/29/09 PS&E3/27/15 RWC:6/17/16 RTL:6/24/16 CCA:12/2021 Con. Cap.: $2,500K (STIP FUNDS)

The Above Information is Subject to Continuous Update

SCTA-RCPA Board of Directors 02.08.2021

Documents

Transcript of SCTA-RCPA Board of Directors 02.08.2021