Technical Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA SCTA ... · you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation

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

Technical Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA SCTA Headquarters Office

June 27, 2019 – 1:30 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Large Conference Room 411 King Street, Second Floor Santa Rosa, California 95404

Nearest Public Parking is available on 5th Street, Garage or Surface Lot, both between D and E Streets ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes, May 23, 2019*

4. SB 743/Travel Behavior Study Update DISCUSSION

5. Long Range Planning DISCUSSION / ACTION

5.1 SCTA Submission of Regionally Significant Projects for Plan Bay Area 2050

5.2 CTP/M Reauthorization Call for all Projects – Draft Application

6. Measure M DISCUSSION / ACTION

6.1 Measure M Reminder Letter*

6.2 Measure M CAC Presentation Schedule*

6.3 Measure M Invoicing/Obligation Status*

6.4 Measure M Reauthorization

7. Regional Information Update DISCUSSION/ACTION

7.1 Inactive Federal Obligation Status*: project sponsors should be prepared to address status of inactive obligations at the meeting: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/Inactiveprojects.htm Currently Inactive: Healdsburg, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and Sonoma County

7.2 Caltrans Local Assistance Title VI Survey

7.3 Local Streets and Roads/Programming and Delivery Working Group Agenda items of note*:

• Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) Certification Status • Single Point of Contact (SPOC) Certification Status • Federal Project Obligation Status FY18/19 • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Projects with approaching delivery deadlines • Highway Bridge Program(HBP) – Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit (LBSR) Program delivery status • 2018 Regional Pavement Condition Summary Report • Draft FFY19/20 Annual Obligation Plan and Obligation Requirements • Preliminary Draft FY19/20 California Transportation Commission (CTC) Allocation Plan

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/Inactiveprojects.htm

8. SB-1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program Funding Applications received DISCUSSION / ACTION

9. SCTA/RCPA DRAFT Board Agenda, July 8, 2019

10. Other Business / Comments / Announcements DISCUSSION

11. Adjourn ACTION *Materials attached. **Materials distributed separately

The next S C T A meeting will be held July 8th, 2019 The next TAC meeting will be held on July 25th 2019

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.

TAC Voting member attendance – (6 Month rolling 2018/2019) Jurisdiction January February March April May June

Cloverdale Public Works

Cotati Public Works

County of Sonoma DHS*

County of Sonoma PRMD*

County of Sonoma Regional Parks*

County of Sonoma TPW* (by phone)

Healdsburg Public Works (by phone)

Petaluma Public Works & Transit (by phone)

Rohnert Park Public Works (by phone)

Santa Rosa Public Works**

Santa Rosa Transit**

Sebastopol Public Works (by phone)

SMART

Sonoma County Transit* (by phone)

Sonoma Public Works (by phone) (by phone)

Windsor Public Works

*One Vote between all **One Vote between all NB: No meeting held in October or November 2018

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES

Meeting Notes of May 23, 2019

ITEM

1. Introductions

Meeting called to order at 1:33 p.m. by Chair Katherine Wall.

Committee Members: Katherine Wall, Chair, City of Sonoma; Nancy Adams, Vice Chair, City of Santa Rosa; Eydie Tacata, City of Rohnert Park; Larry Zimmer, City of Healdsburg; Eric Janzen, City of Cloverdale; Kari Svanstrom, via phone, City of Sebastopol.

Guest: Steve Birdlebough, Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Coalition.

Staff: Seana Gause; James Cameron; Janet Spilman; Chris Barney; Dana Turrey; Drew Nichols.

2. Public Comment

Steve Birdlebough commented on a letter to the editor that suggested that there is too much traffic congestion on Highway 12.

Mr. Birdlebough noted the common thought that addressing congestion by adding additional lanes is not the only option; rather, other alternative modes available, such as e-bikes which are lengthening the distance an individual can ride to work, can be encouraged.

Mr. Birdlebough requested the need to spread the word that one cannot build your way out of congestion, but to make a public shift in thinking about these other modes.

3. Approval of Minutes, April 25, 2019 - ACTION

Approved as submitted following a motion from Eric Janzen and a second by Nancy Adams; Katherine Wall abstained from voting on the item.

4. SB 743/Travel Behavior Study updates

Chris Barney provided an update to the Travel Behavior Study. Preliminary summaries are anticipated to be received by this summer.

In terms of SB 743 implementation, an outline for the implementation white people was provided to the committee for their interest. This discusses implementation, setting thresholds, and calculating VMT among other topics.

Staff is working to schedule a VMT workshop with Fehr & Peers. This would be scheduled in conjunction with the Planning Advisory Committee on July 18th at 10:30 AM. There is an interest to have both the planning and public works staff from the jurisdictions together for an information sharing session.

5. Regional Transportation Plan

Janet Spilman recalled a presentation was made in February introducing the RTP Project list, and March presented on the Call for Projects that will be issued.

Ms. Spilman recalled the Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA) update and noted these two plans are separate of each other. PBA is currently in the Horizons phase and during this phase, MTC is developing a list of large, transformative projects.

In the early fall/late summer, a Call for Projects will be issued for projects for all the projects. Projects that are not regionally significant will be placed in programmatic categories.

Two projects have been received by SCTA. One is an update to a project already on the project list; the

other project submitted is from the City of Healdsburg.

Ms. Spilman asked the committee to think about the projects on the project list and whether they are to remain exactly as they are on the project list or to be updated.

The committee discussed programmatic and regionally significant projects and the differences between the two lists.

6. Measure M – DISCUSSION/ACTION

6.1. Measure M Invoicing/Obligation Status*

Included in the agenda packet for the committee’s information.

6.2. Measure M Reauthorization

Seana Gause announced an Ad Hoc committee was formed to discuss the reauthorization of Measure M.

The Ad Hoc will be determining whether to go to the ballot in 2020 or not. In developing the RTP, and the Countywide Transportation Plan as well, it is likely these plans will assist in informing the reauthorization measure. Staff will seek input from the jurisdictions.

A Request for Proposals is under development that will hire a consultant to conduct polling for the reauthorization and related projects.

James Cameron noted the input of match requirements and the maintenance of effort elements for the reauthorization.

The Ad Hoc members include: SCTA Chair Mark Landman, Vice Chair Susan Gorin, Melanie Bagby, Sarah Gurney, Supervisor David Rabbitt, and Chris Rogers.

7. Regional Information Update – Discussion

7.1. Inactive Federal Obligation Status*

This is a standard item on the agenda.

Seana Gause requested an update from the jurisdictions.

7.2. PDWG

Seana Gause reported on the recent PDWG meeting.

The BUILD grants have become available. This is a $900 million program, with project maximum limit of $25 million. This is a highly competitive program.

The SAFE Vehicle Rule that is being proposed by EPA and NTSB would adjust the air quality rules and create a ripple effect. This rule change would hold the emissions standards at 2020 levels and would apply to all 50 states; thus nullifying the California waiver on air quality standards.

Information can be found at the CALCOG webpage.

Additionally, Ms. Gause reported on the CTC Annual Obligation Plan and MTC’s interest to align the delivery deadlines for Resolution 3606 to all SB 1 programs.

Furthermore, Caltrans has reached the obligation authority. If a sponsor is seeking obligation, not already having it, then it will not be obligated until more authority opens up.

Lastly, Ms. Gause reported on the Bridge Seismic Retrofit program. The CTC is seeking delivery agreements.

8. AB 2363 Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force

Seana Gause noted this item is on the agenda after the Town of Windsor contacted SCTA expressing interest. A concerned citizen is determined to have speed limits reduced in several areas and has made

the Town’s staff aware of the task force for zero fatalities.

MTC has requested participation in the task force.

The assembly bill establishing the task force was included in the agenda packet for the committee’s interest and awareness.

9. SCTA/RCPA DRAFT Board agenda, June 10, 2019

Included in the agenda packet for the committee’s interest.

10. Other Business / Comments / Announcements – Discussion

N/A

11. Adjourn Action

The committee adjourned at 2:23 p.m.

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

Staff Report To: Technical Advisory Committee

From: Janet Spilman, Director of Planning

Item: SCTA submission of regionally significant projects

Date: March 28, 2019

Issue:

How will jurisdictions and the SCTA respond to the MTC request for submission of regionally significant projects for inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050?

Background:

The process toward MTC’s adoption of Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050) in 2021 began with the visioning exercise of Horizon. Horizon identified and assessed the impacts of a variety of potential futures. See more on Horizon here https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/horizon. During this process, project sponsors of the costliest regionally significant projects from Plan Bay Area 2040 (adopted in 2017) were asked to update project assumptions. The next step was an open request for “Transformative Projects” (new projects costing more than $1 billion).

Highway 37 widening + resilience + express bus project was submitted by multiple agencies for multiple components as a Transformative Project earlier in this process. SMART to Solano, SMART across the Richmond Bridge and Highway 12 widening in Solano County were also submitted. These projects are all subject to MTC performance assessment, which is underway.

Regionally Significant Projects

As Horizon winds down and PBA 2050 begins, MTC requests submittal of new “Regionally Significant” projects. These projects are large (more than ¼ mile) on the principal arterial system or on fixed guideways. They would add capacity and generally cost over $250 million.

This map shows the principal arterial system in Sonoma County. For a better look see Caltrans’ website here: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com

After SCTA approval in July 2019, new regionally significant projects will be submitted to MTC. MTC will then assess the costliest projects to estimate their societal benefits to inform project prioritization and the development of Plan Bay Area 2050’s investment strategy. Prior to the Plan’s adoption, MTC will collectively assess the prioritized projects to estimate potential environmental impacts.

These projects will be included for consideration in the SCTA Comprehensive Transportation Plan and will not require a separate submission for the countywide plan.

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/horizon

https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a3e5668538

The application is attached.

Carryover from Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017)

Below is the list of Regionally Significant projects from Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017). Of them, Hearn Avenue and 101 Marin Sonoma Narrows are in the TIP and eligible to receive funding. All other projects need review.

Project name Cost in $M

Santa Rosa Hearn Avenue Interchange $ 36

Windsor Arata Lane Interchange $ 4

Cotati Cotati US 101/Railroad Avenue Improvements (incl. Penngrove) $ 56

Windsor Shiloh Road Interchange Reconstruction $ 27

Petaluma Petaluma Crosstown Connector and Rainier Interchange $ 123

SCTA Hwy 37 $374

Santa Rosa Farmers Lane extension between Bennett Valley Rd and Yolanda Avenue $72

SMART SMART Petaluma Infill Station $11

SMART SMART Rail Extension to Windsor + Environmental to Cloverdale + Bike Path $49

Programmatic categories

Projects that do not meet the criteria for regionally significant will be included in their respective programmatic categories. These smaller projects would not be subject to the same performance assessment. Listing a project in a programmatic category will allow flexibility for some change in the project name, scope and cost later when it is considered for inclusion in the TIP and eligible for funding. See Exhibit B for the Draft Programmatic Categories. The submittal process for these projects will occur later this year and will be coordinated with the CTP Call for Projects.

Policy Impacts:

Approval of Regionally Significantly projects and submission to MTC for inclusion in PBA 2050 is within SCTA policies.

Fiscal Impacts:

PBA 2050 is a fiscally constrained plan and the SCTA is budgeted $2.6 billion for consideration of projects. This is more than twice the budget in the last plan. As revenue estimates are firmed up the amount is likely to be reduced. Projects included in PBA 2050 will be eligible for future funding.

Staff Recommendation:

Information only.


Staff Report

To: Technical Advisory Committee

From: Janet Spilman, Director of Planning

Re: Comprehensive Transportation Plan call for all projects, draft application

Date: June 27, 2019 Issue:

What is the status of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) call for projects? What is the application process?

Background:

SCTA is concluding solicitation for MTC’s Plan Bay Area’s round of “regionally significant” projects, those large and costly projects that require modeling for Air Quality Conformity and will undergo performance assessment.

SCTA has aligned the CTP process with MTC’s Plan Bay Area, for all other projects and is also incorporating project submittals for the proposed Measure M renewal.

All Projects Round

The next call for projects, the All Projects Round, is about to launch. For clarification these are projects for long range (out to 2050) planning. Inclusion in planning documents makes projects eligible for funding and guides policy. After the regionally significant projects are submitted, MTC requests that all other projects be identified and categorized by project type by SCTA. SCTA will submit a menu of categories that have costs in aggregate. The total “budget” has not yet been determined and is dependent on their revenue forecast that is now in the works. In the interim we are asked to stay within $2.6 billion.

SCTA is simultaneously updating the Sonoma County CTP, including the project list. The task here is to 1) update the existing projects by removing them or updating project information and 2) submit new projects. Please note that all projects collected by SCTA for MTC will be included in the CTP list of projects.

This year SCTA is also investigating projects to be included in an expenditure plan for the renewal of Measure M. Each jurisdiction may select up to ten (10) projects, of all modes, that should be ranked 1 – 10.

To simplify the multiple processes and project types there will be a single application form.

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

Timing

The call for projects will be officially released on July 9, with projects due September 4.

Over this summer SCTA will also engage the public in discussions about the CTP and transportation needs of the communities. The findings of this outreach will be shared with the TAC in late August, before projects are due in September.

Next steps

Please review the attached draft application. We hope to streamline this process for all parties and welcome your input before we present the call for projects to the SCTA Board on July 8.

CTP PROJECT APPLICATION

Department:

E-Mail Address:

E-Mail Address:

No

Yes No

Not applicable

Does the project reduce GHG emissions? Yes No

If yes, please describe estimated annual GHG emission reductions and how project will achieve. Include assumptions made in estimating reductions.

Project Type [select one from list below]:

Highway Improvements (highway extension or new lane, interchange modification)

Roadway Improvements (local road extension or new lane)

Intersection Improvements (intersection channelization; intersection signalization at individual intersections)

Transit Improvements (expansions to fleet and service; construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks; small-scale/CE bus terminals and transfer points; ADA compliance; noise mitigation; landscaping; associated transit improvements (including bike/pedestrian access improvements); alternative fuel vehicles and facilities)

Transit Capital Projects (Vehicles, Bus shelters, Transit facilities)

New Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities (new and extended bike and pedestrian facilities)

Management Systems (incident management; signal coordination; ITS)

Travel Demand Management (car and bike share; alternative fuel vehicles and facilities; parking programs; carpool/vanpool, ridesharing activities; information, marketing and outreach; traveler information)

Multimodel Streetscape Improvements (bicycle and/or pedestrian facility gap closure; ADA compliance; landscaping; lighting; streetscape improvements; road diet)

Emission Reduction Technologies

If yes, please email to [email protected]

Not applicable

CONTACT INFORMATION

Project Sponsor:

Primary Contact:

Phone Number:

Second Contact:

Phone Number:

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name:

Project Map Available? Yes

Does the project raise the PCI?

Project Description:

Project Location:

initiator:[email protected];wfState:distributed;wfType:email;workflowId:0bc293bdb9d76f4181ce24890d184764

Date Received by SCTA:

Yes No

Yes

No

If yes, to what?

TRANSIT PROJECT INFORMATION

Route Number:

Does project increase frequencies?

Does project increase hours of service?

Does project add service in new location?

PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COST

Year of construction or implementation:

Amount in year of expenditure (in $M):

Amount in year of implementation (in $M, if applicable):

Annual costs? Yes No

Amount of identified funds (in $M):

Source(s) of identified funds:

MEASURE M

Include project in expenditure plan for Measure M renewal? Yes No

If yes, please rank the priority of this Measure M project relative to all Measure M projects you plan to submit with #1 being the highest priority and #10 being the lowest priority:

If yes, to what?

If yes, where?Yes

No

Date application completed:

CTP Project applications are due to SCTA by September 4, 2019.Submit your completed application by clicking on "Submit Form" in the upper right corner of the screen.

Revised 6/19/19

June 19, 2019 Attachment 2 CTP APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS The CTP Application is an interactive pdf and may be filled in on your computer. It has a submit button on the form and can be submitted directly from there. The following fields are required:

• Project Sponsor

• Project name is limited to 65 characters.

• Description – please be thorough but concise.

• GHG emissions – if your project will reduce GHG emissions, please include an estimate of the annual emission reductions as a result of the project.

• Project Type

• Year of Construction/Year of Implementation should be as specific as possible if the project is anticipated to be implemented in the next 10 years.

• Cost of the project should be calculated in year of expenditure, and entered in millions. Every project must have some cost listed.

• Measure M – please identify projects you would like to be included in an expenditure plan for the renewal of Measure M. You may submit up to ten projects for inclusion and must rank these projects from 1 to 10 with 1 the highest and 10 the lowest priority.

Bike Projects

The CTP will include bike/ped projects by reference to the Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. If you have a bike/ped project for the CTP that is not in the Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, please discuss with SCTA staff. All new bike/ped projects over $1 million should be submitted in a CTP Application. SCTA staff will be working through the CBPAC to update the Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan project list. All bike/ped projects under $1 million will be generalized into appropriate categories with aggregate costs. Submittal Instructions

Applications for new projects should be submitted using the PDF form by September 4, 2019.

490 Mendocino Ave. #206, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

June 3, 2019 Re: Measure M Reporting and Invoicing Requirements Dear Measure M Recipients, The current fiscal year is nearing completion and July 1, 2019 begins the next fiscal year (FY19/20). It also begins the reporting cycle for the Local Streets Rehabilitation, Local Bus Transit, Local Street Projects, Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, and Rail Programs in Measure M. These programs all require completion of reporting letters to be submitted no later than September 16, 2019 (See Measure M Strategic Plan Policy 4.12). Your jurisdiction carried forward a $ balance of unspent Local Streets Rehabilitation funds. Please enter this amount on line “B” of the LSR Annual Reporting Letter Template form found on the SCTA website http://scta.ca.gov/measure-m/documents-and-forms/. If your jurisdiction is banking LSR funds, please be advised that these funds can only be banked for three consecutive years before draw down must occur at the end of the third year (See Measure M Strategic Plan Policy 4.1). If, for some reason draw down cannot be achieved, please provide a justification for why not, and a schedule for anticipated draw down of funds. Failure to provide justification will result in a withholding of LSR funds at the next quarterly payment cycle. Any photographs submitted should be in electronic .jpeg or .gif format. “PDF” and MS Word format photographs are unusable for preparation of the Measure M Annual Report. Finally, please include the location (street names, distances) when reporting improvements funded with Measure M LSR funds. If your agency is receiving Local Bus Transit funds through Measure M, an annual audit is also required to be submitted showing how Measure M funds were expended (Measure M Strategic Plan Policy 4.15). Most transit agencies have this requirement for Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA3) funding as well, thus the audit produced to comply with said requirement will also fulfill the Measure M policy, provided the audit shows expenditure of Measure M funds. Finally, I would also like to remind you that as the fiscal year draws to a close, Measure M invoices for FY18/19 related to Local Streets Projects, Rail Projects, or Bicycle Pedestrian Projects Programs must be received or estimated before July 9, 2018. If preparing an invoice for the close of the fiscal year is infeasible, your jurisdiction can provide an invoicing estimate to your Project Development Manager (PDM) at the SCTA by the above deadline for estimating purposes. SCTA very much appreciates your cooperation with this requirement. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (707) 565-5372 if you have questions regarding the above listed requirements or policies. Thank you again for your continued cooperation. Sincerely,

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

http://scta.ca.gov/measure-m/documents-and-forms/

Seana L. S. Gause Project Delivery Manager, Measure M Coordinator Sonoma County Transportation Authority cc:

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

Staff Report

To: Sonoma County Transportation Authority – Citizen’s & Technical Advisory Committee

From: Seana L.S. Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects

Item: Measure M Project Presentation Schedule for FY19/20

Date: June 24th & 27th, 2019

Issue:

On what schedule will the Measure M LSP, Rail, and Bike/Ped Projects be presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)?

Background:

The CAC is tasked with public oversight of the implementation of Measure M. The CAC review is meant to provide transparency of the project delivery process for the general public. As such, each fiscal year Measure M project sponsors programmed to receive Measure M funds are scheduled to come before the CAC and discuss the status of their projects. Specifically, how Measure M funds have been used on the project to date, how many dollars will be used in the future and for what purpose. Sponsors generally come before the CAC with a project status sheet, showing scope, schedule and cost of the project, matching funds being used (if any) and location of the proposed project.

Below is a proposed schedule for the Measure M projects to be brought before the CAC for review:

Project Name Project Sponsor Meeting Date 116/121 Intersection Improvements SCTA August 26, 2019 Foss Creek Trail Healdsburg September 30, 2019 Petaluma River Trail Petaluma October 28, 2019 Airport Blvd Landscape Improvements So Co TPW November 25, 2019 Arnold Drive Bike Lanes So Co TPW November 25, 2019 No Mtg in December Hearn Avenue Interchange Improvements

Santa Rosa January 27, 2020

Fulton Ave Improvements Santa Rosa January 27, 2020 Santa Rosa Creek Trail Santa Rosa January 27, 2020 Central Sonoma Valley Trail So Co Reg Parks February 24, 2020 Sonoma Schellville Bike Trail So Co Reg Parks February 24, 2020 Bodega Bay Trail So Co Reg Parks Febrary 24, 2020 Access Across 101 (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park March 30, 2020 NWPRR/SMART Bike Trail SMART April 27, 2020 No Mtg in May Bike Safety and Education SRTS SCBC June 29, 2020 Bike Safety and Education Bike Month SCBC June 29, 2020

There are no meetings scheduled in December or May.

Policy Impacts:

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

None, this action is consistent with policy 4.11 in the 2017 Measure M Strategic Plan.

Fiscal Impacts:

None


Staff recommends that the TAC and CAC review and consider approving the above listed schedule.

Inactive ObligationsLocal, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail Projects

Projects with >$50K Remaining

Updated 06/13/2019

Project No.

Status Agency Action Required State Project No Prefix District County Agency RTPA MPO Description Latest Date Authorization Date

Last Expenditure Date

Last Action Date

Program Codes

Total Cost Federal Funds Expenditure Amount

Unexpended Balance

5027010 Inactive Carry over project. Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor for progress.

04924820L BRLS 4 SON Healdsburg Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

HEALDSBURG AVE. BRIDGE OVER THE RUSSIAN RIVER 20C0065, BRIDGE REHABILITATION

9/26/2017 7/8/2009 9/26/2017 9/26/2017 M240 , L1CE , L1C0

$17,966,546.00 $15,173,157.00 $14,537,964.76 $635,192.24

5920147 Inactive Invoice overdue. Contact DLAE. 0415000107L STPL 4 SON Sonoma County



SONOMA CO.(SONOMA MARIN AREA TRAIL TRANSIT AIRPORT STATION.), DEVELOP A NEW STATION AREA PLAN AND UPDATE OF 1984

6/22/2018 2/17/2015 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 M23E $395,347.00 $350,000.00 $145,584.17 $204,415.83

5920148 Inactive Invoice overdue. Contact DLAE. 0415000108L STPL 4 SON Sonoma County



SPRINGS AREA PLAN IN SONOMA COUNTY., PDA PLANNING - SPRINGS AREA PLAN

6/22/2018 2/17/2015 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 M23E $508,303.00 $450,000.00 $245,732.19 $204,267.81

5022054 Inactive Invoice returned to agency. Contact DLAE.

0413000163L HSIPL 4 SON Petaluma Metropolitan Transportation Commission


LAKEVILLE HWY(SR116) / PINE VIEW WAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

4/25/2018 11/27/2013 4/25/2018 4/25/2018 ZS30 , MS30

$302,677.00 $272,400.00 $84,600.00 $187,800.00

5123015 Inactive Carry over project. Invoice returned to agency. Contact DLAE.

0414000170L STPL 4 SON Sebastopol Metropolitan Transportation Commission


KEATING AVENUE FROM NORTH MAIN STREET TO PITT AVENUE, REHABILITATE ROADWAY (TC)

9/13/2016 3/26/2015 9/13/2016 9/13/2016 M23E $249,392.00 $249,392.00 $166,262.07 $83,129.93

5028072 Inactive Carry over project. Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor for progress.

0414000295L CML 4 SON Santa Rosa Metropolitan Transportation Commission


THIRD ST BETWEEN MORGAN AND B ST. PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

8/31/2017 2/7/2014 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 Z240 , Z003 , M003

$727,118.00 $643,120.00 $563,353.50 $79,766.50

1of1

Inactive ObligationsLocal, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail Projects

Projects <$50 Remaining

Updated on 06/13/2019

Project No. Status Agency Action Required State Project No Prefix District County Agency RTPA MPO Description Latest Date Authorization Date

Last Expenditure Date

Last Action Date

Program Codes

Total Cost Federal Funds Expenditure Amount

Unexpended Balance

5920056 Inactive Invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor for progress.

04923147L STPLZ 4 SON Sonoma County



WOHLER RD. AT MARKWEST CR. BR # 20-0139, REPLACE BRIDGE, LOCAL SEISMIC (TC)

12/14/2017 3/1/1999 12/14/2017 12/14/2017 Q110 , L11E

$865,000.00 $712,000.00 $667,980.97 $44,019.03

6364015 Inactive Records indicate project is in Final Voucher process. District to contact Final Voucher Unit to check status of project closure.

0413000368L HPLUL 4 SON Sonoma County Transportation Authority


SAN ANTONIO CR BR TO PETALUMA BLVD SOUTH I/C (MARIN SONOMA NARROWS - PHASE II), MEDIAN WIDENING FOR NB AND SB HOV LANES (TC)

5/3/2018 7/2/2013 5/3/2018 5/3/2018 LY20 $2,492,000.00 $2,492,000.00 $2,469,525.91 $22,474.09

5379021 Future Submit invoice to District by 08/20/2019 0415000181L CML 4 SON Rohnert Park



IN ROHNERT PARK: COMMERCE & COPELAND CREEK, COMMERCE & ENTERPRISE, MID BLOCK CROSSING OF HUNTER & COMMERCE, ENTERPRISE & HUNTER, SEED FARM & ENTERPRISE, COPELAND CREEK & STATE FARM, SEED FARM & COPELAND CK, AND CITY CENTER/PLAZA INSTALL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (TC)

8/14/2018 6/24/2016 8/14/2018 8/14/2018 Z003 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $459,688.25 $40,311.75

5920142 Future Submit invoice to District by 08/20/2019 0414000269L CML 4 SON Sonoma County



CENTRAL SONOMA VALLEY TRAIL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE PATH

9/19/2018 12/31/2013 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 Z003 , M400

$705,745.00 $500,000.00 $487,905.53 $12,094.47

1of1

P a g e 1 | Title VI Revision Date: 3/6/2019

Caltrans Division of Local AssistanceTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI)

Desk Compliance Review Questionnaire (Due by June 28, 2019)

City of Healdsburg

Division/Department Contact:

Name:

Title:

Telephone number:

Email Address:

A. GENERAL:

1. Is the City adequately staffed to effectively implement Civil Rights requirement? (23 CFR 200.9 (b)(2)).

2. Has the City included in its directives, specific discriminatory practices that are prohibited? (49 CFR 21.5(b)).

B. IMPLEMENTATION:

3. Does the City have a Title VI Coordinator? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(1)). If yes, please provide the name of the coordinator.

4. Does the Coordinator have easy access to the Head of the City? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(1)). If yes, name of the Head of the City.

5. Has the City designated a Title VI Specialist with the responsibility to monitor Title VI activities and prepare required reports? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(1)).

6. Has the City provided or coordinated Title VI training to its staff? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(9)). If yes, please briefly describe training.

7. Has the Title VI Specialist submitted a Title VI Implementation Plan to the City for approval? If yes, please provide a copy. (23 CFR 200.9(b)(11)).

Title VI Program Desk Compliance Review Questionnaire City of Healdsburg


8. Has the City developed Title VI information for dissemination to the general public

and, where appropriate, in languages other than English? (23 CFR 200.9(a)(b)(12)).

C. PROCEDURES:

9. Has the City developed procedures for processing and resolving Title VI complaints? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(3)).

10. Does the City have personnel trained in complaint investigations? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(3)).

11. Does the City have a Title VI complaint log that identifies each Complainant by race, color, sex, or national origin, age or disability? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(3)) and 23 CFR 200.5(p)(6)).

12. Does the City have procedures to collect and analyze statistical data of participants and beneficiaries of the Local Agency programs? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(4)).

13. Has the City established procedures to identify and eliminate discrimination when found? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(14)).

14. Has the City established procedures for promptly resolving deficiencies and reducing to writing the remedial action agreed to be necessary, within 90 days? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(15)).

PROGRAM REVIEWS:

15. Has the City developed a program to conduct Title VI reviews of program areas? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(5)).

16. Has the City conducted annual Title VI reviews of its (major) program areas to determine the effectiveness of program area activities at all levels? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(6)).

17. Has the City conducted Title VI reviews of subrecipients (i.e., cities, counties, consultants, contractors, college, universities, MPOs, and other recipients of Federal aid highway funds)? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(7)).

18. Has the City used onsite compliance reviews to determine if discriminatory practices exist? (23 CFR 200.9)

Title VI Program Desk Compliance Review Questionnaire City of Healdsburg


D. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY:

19. Has the City conducted a needs assessment by using the four-factor analysis recommended by United States Department of Transportation? If yes, please provide a copy of the assessment. (Executive Order 13166; Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 239)

20. Does the City provide translation services in languages other than English to the public upon request? If yes, please provide a copy of the procedures. (Executive Order 13166; Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 239)

21. Does the City disseminate Title VI information in languages other than English? (23 CFR 200.9(b)(12); Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 239)

a. If yes, list the languages used to interpret (oral communication) or translate (written communication) Title VI information disseminated to the public. Please provide samples (i.e., posters, brochures, notices) for each language translated.

22. How often does the City receive requests for services and information from customers with limited-English proficiency? (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 239)

DOCUMENTATION SUBMISSIONS

Organizational Charts:

(1) Functional organizational chart

(2) Staff organizational chart that includes staff position, title, and name.

(3) Sample of Public Notices

AUTHORITIES Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 162 (a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987; 49 CFR Part 21; 23 CFR Part 200; USDOT Order 1050.2; Executive Order #12898 (Environmental Justice); Executive Order #13166 (Limited-English-Proficiency

Sonoma County Transportation AuthorityMeasure M Appropriation/Invoice Status Report

FY 16/17

Project Sponsor Project NameMeasure M Program

Prior Apprp Balance

18/19 Programmed

18/19 Amount Apprp

Appropriation Date

Last Invoice Date

Balance Remaining Notes

Santa Rosa Hearn Avenue (Phase 3) LSP $702,020 $0 $0 7/10/17 6/7/19 $611,075 R/W Santa Rosa Hearn Avenue (Phase 3) LSP $1,564,248 $0 7/10/17 6/7/19 $945,512 PSE Santa Rosa Fulton Road Impvrovements LSP $980,178 $0 9/11/17 6/7/19 $399,322 PSE Santa Rosa Fulton Road Impvrovements LSP $195,100 $0 9/11/17 6/7/19 $29,705 R/W SUP Sonoma County Airport Blvd Landscaping LSP $23,696 $0 3/27/17 12/18/18 $23,062 CON SUPSonoma County Airport Blvd Landscaping LSP $350,496 $0 3/27/17 12/18/18 $345,281 CON CAPSanta Rosa Santa Rosa Creek Trail Bike/Ped $0 $162,000 $52,000 6/11/18 6/7/19 $45,615Rohnert Park Access Across 101 Bike/Ped $0 $250,000 $250,000 6/11/2018 6/14/2019 $247,011 Approp req to Board 6/11/18 for 18/19Sonoma Co Reg Parks Central Sonoma Valley Trail Bike/Ped $0 $20,000 $20,000 7/9/2018 $20,000 Will request extension ASAP; contract claim Sonoma Co Reg Parks Bodega Bay Trail Bike/Ped $0 $350,000 Will approp $350 in 19/20Sonoma Co Reg Parks Sonoma Schellville Trail Bike/Ped $0 $100,000 Will approp $200 in 19/20Healdsburg Foss Creek Trail Bike/Ped $0 $1,062,000 Will approp $1,840 in 19/20SCBC SRTS (SCBC) Bike/Ped $35,981 $0 $0 7/10/17 12/14/18 $27SCBC BTW (SCBC) Bike/Ped $0 $10,000 $10,000 3/11/19 $10,000 Coop Amend apprvd same mtgSMART NWPRR Bike/Ped $414,896 $0 $0 5/23/18 $227,844 All PS&E; 6 Month Ext granted

$1,954,000 $332,000 $2,904,455 total remaining

projects that are approaching or past 6 months for invoicing or appropriation $550,497 Bike Ped Remaining

or projects that are programmed for 18/19 that have not been

appropriated. $2,353,958 LSP Remaining

03B_PMP_Certification_Status_Listing.xlsx LSRPDWG Item 3B

Page 3 of 3

PMP Certification ExpiredJune 10, 2019 Expiring within 60 days

Certified

County JurisdictionLast Major Inspectionᵜ Certified

P-TAP Cycle

Certification Expiration Date

ᵜ "Last Major Inspection" is the basis for certification and is indicative of the date the field inspection was completed.

Santa Clara Mountain View* 8/5/2018 Yes 19 9/1/2020Santa Clara Palo Alto 12/31/2017 Yes 15 1/1/2020Santa Clara San Jose 11/30/2017 Yes 20 12/1/2019Santa Clara Santa Clara 9/8/2017 Yes 18 10/1/2019Santa Clara Santa Clara County 2/28/2018 Yes 20 3/1/2020Santa Clara Saratoga 9/30/2016 Pending 20 4/30/2020Santa Clara Sunnyvale* 1/31/2017 Yes 17 2/1/2020

Solano Benicia 8/31/2014 Yes 18 10/31/2019Solano Dixon 12/30/2017 Yes 18 1/1/2020Solano Fairfield 9/30/2018 Yes 19 10/1/2020Solano Rio Vista 10/31/2017 Yes 18 11/1/2019Solano Solano County^ 3/31/2017 No 19 4/30/2019Solano Suisun City^ 6/30/2016 No 19 4/30/2019Solano Vacaville* 12/31/2015 Pending 19 6/30/2019Solano Vallejo 11/19/2018 Yes 19 12/1/2020

Sonoma Cloverdale 7/12/2018 Yes 19 8/1/2020Sonoma Cotati 8/31/2017 Yes 20 9/1/2019Sonoma Healdsburg 11/5/2018 Yes 19 12/1/2020Sonoma Petaluma 11/30/2017 Yes 20 12/1/2019Sonoma Rohnert Park 10/31/2017 Yes 20 11/1/2019Sonoma Santa Rosa 4/30/2018 Yes 16 5/1/2020Sonoma Sebastopol^ 8/31/2014 No 19 4/30/2019Sonoma Sonoma 10/30/2017 Yes 20 11/1/2019Sonoma Sonoma County 11/30/2017 Yes 18 12/1/2019Sonoma Windsor 9/30/2017 Yes 20 10/1/2019

Note: Updated report is posted monthly to:http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/PMP_Certification_Status_Listing.xlsx

(*) Indicates One-Year Extension. Note: PTAP awardees are ineligible for a one-year extension during the cycle awarded.

(^) Indicates previous P-TAP awardee, but hasn't fulfilled requirement; must submit certification prior to updating to current P-TAP award status.

http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/PMP_Certification_Status_Listing.xlsx

03C_SPOC Certification Status Listing 5.29.19.xlsx LSRPDWG Item 3C

Page 3 of 3

SPOC Certification Not CertifiedMay 29, 2019 No Federal FHWA funds

Certified

County Jurisdiction Effective Certified SPOC First SPOC Last SPOC EmailSanta Clara San Jose 3/14/2019 Yes Adam Paranial [email protected] Clara Santa Clara 3/9/2017 Yes Dennis Ng [email protected] Clara Santa Clara County 10/4/2017 Yes Ellen Talbo [email protected]

Santa ClaraSanta Clara County Roads &

Airports 3/9/2018 Yes Ellen Talbo [email protected] Clara Santa Clara VTA 9/27/2018 Yes Amin Surani [email protected] Clara Saratoga 9/20/2017 Yes Macedonio Nunez [email protected] Clara Sunnyvale 9/20/2017 Yes Shahid Abbas [email protected]

Solano Benicia 9/21/2017 Yes Nouae Vue [email protected] Dixon 7/19/2018 Yes Joe Leach [email protected] Fairfield 9/25/2017 Yes Diane Feinstein [email protected] Rio Vista 4/10/2019 Yes Robin Borre [email protected] Solano County 5/29/2018 Yes Matthew Tuggle [email protected] STA 9/20/2017 Yes Anthony Adams [email protected] Suisun City 2/22/2018 Yes Nick Lozano [email protected] Vacaville 9/21/2017 Yes Tracy Rideout [email protected] Vallejo 3/27/2018 Yes Carmen Cole [email protected]

Sonoma Cloverdale 9/21/2017 Yes Eric Janzen [email protected] Cotati 10/5/2017 Yes Craig Scott [email protected] Healdsburg 6/3/2018 Yes Clay Thistle [email protected] Petaluma 2/5/2018 Yes Jeff Stutsman [email protected] Rohnert Park 9/29/2017 Yes Eydie Tacata [email protected] Santa Rosa 9/26/2017 Yes Nancy Adams [email protected] Santa Rosa City Bus 9/6/2017 Rachel Ede [email protected] SCTA 7/13/2017 Yes Seana Gause [email protected] Sebastopol 7/11/2017 Yes Henry Mikus [email protected] Sonoma 9/29/2017 Yes Katherine Wall [email protected] Sonoma County 4/13/2018 Yes Janice Thompson [email protected] Windsor 9/28/2017 Yes Alejandro Perez [email protected]

J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership PDWG\Federal Efficiencies Subcommittee\FES\SPOC\_SPOC Certification Status Listing.xlsx

Note: Updated report is posted monthly to:https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/project-delivery

(*) Indicates a change

mailto:[email protected]




























https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/project-delivery

MTC FFY 2018-19 Obligation Status LSRPDWG Item 3G.i

MTC FFY 2018-19 Obligation StatusProject List Total Total Remaining

Obligations Programmed BalanceCounty Local Agency TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Latest Action 35% 100% 65%

Status Date $147,975,802 $421,915,911 $273,940,110County Sponsor TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Action Date Oblig Amount Total Balance

June 10, 2019 Obligation

Solano Suisun City VAR170002 6997 HSIP9-04-033 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5032() PE Suisun City Pedestrian Crossing Imps $0 $47,000 $47,000Solano Vacaville SOL170012 6684 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG 2 STP STPL-5094(068) CON Vacaville Pavement Preservation AC Authorized 3-May-2019 $0 $1,193,000 $1,193,000Solano Vacaville VAR170002 6986 HSIP9-04-035 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5094() PE H9-04-035 Signal Improvements $0 $450,000 $450,000Solano Vacaville VAR170002 6984 HSIP9-04-036 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5094() PE H9-04-036 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements $0 $41,400 $41,400Solano Vallejo VAR170012 6398 23C0152 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5030(056) CON Sacramento Street over US Navy RR FY 19 $0 $5,994,366 $5,994,366Solano Vallejo SOL150004 6270 2230B ATP-REG ATP-FED ATPL-5030(062) CON SR2S Infrastructure & Non-infrastructure Obligated 17-Apr-2019 $2,542,000 $2,542,000 $0Solano Vallejo VAR170002 7004 HSIP9-04-037 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5030() PE H9-04-037 Vallejo: HSIP 9 HAWK Installation $0 $150,000 $150,000Solano Vallejo VAR170002 7003 HSIP9-04-038 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5030() PE H9-04-038 Vallejo HSIP 9 Pedestrian Crossings $0 $25,000 $25,000Sonoma Caltrans SON070004 3372 STP-T5-OBAG2-REG-AOM OBAG 2 STP FERPL16-6204(127) CON US 101 Marin/Sonoma Narrows (Sonoma) Obligated 23-Jan-2019 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $0Sonoma Cloverdale SON130016 5839 STP-T4-2-OBAG OBAG 1 STP STPL-5039(023) CON Sidewalks and add Class II bike lanes RFA at CT-HQ 31-May-2019 $0 $100,000 $100,000Sonoma Cotati SON170015 6602 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG 2 STP STPL-5383(012) CON E. Cotati Avenue Street Rehabilitation Obligated 9-May-2019 $675,000 $675,000 $0Sonoma Petaluma SON170011 6615 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG 2 STP STPL-5022(060) PE Petaluma Blvd. South Road Diet at E Street Obligated 20-Feb-2019 $286,000 $286,000 $0Sonoma Petaluma VAR170002 6971 H9-04-023-024 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5022() PE Various Intersection Safety Imps $0 $38,000 $38,000Sonoma SMART SON090002 4264 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG 2 CMAQ ATPSB1L-6411(010) CON SMART - Petaluma SMART Pathway Obligated 21-Feb-2019 $400,000 $400,000 $0Sonoma Santa Rosa SON170007 6502 H8-04-026 HSIP 8 HSIP HSIPL-5028(078) CON Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Conversion H8- Obligated 8-May-2019 $884,000 $884,000 $0Sonoma Sonoma County SON170013 6621 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG 2 STP STPL-5920(164) PE Rehabilitation of Various Roads RFA at CT-HQ 15-May-2019 $0 $260,000 $260,000Sonoma Sonoma County SON170008 6517 H8-04-029 HSIP 8 HSIP HSIPL-5920(156) CON Lakeville Road Rumble Strip and Enhanced Obligated 16-Nov-2018 $806,900 $806,900 $0Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5253 20C0262 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(059) CON Boyes Blvd over Sonoma Creek AC Authorized 19-Apr-2019 $0 $4,488,471 $4,488,471

$147,975,802 $421,915,911 $273,940,110J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership Joint LSRPDWG\2019 Joint LSRPDWG\2019_Memos\03_Jun 13 2019 Packet\[03G.i_MTC FFY18-19 Obligation Status.xlsx] FFY 2018-19 Status Jun 30

HSIP Projects with Approaching Delivery Deadlines LSRPDWG Item 3G.iiiMTC FY 2018-19 HSIP Projects with Approaching DeadlinesProject List Remaining

BalanceCounty Local Agency TIP ID Unique ID Program FPN Phase Project Title Oblig/Alloc 46%

Deadline $9,721,612County Sponsor TIP ID Unique ID Program FPN Phase Project Title Deadline Balance

FY 2018-19 HSIP Cycle 7 & 9 Delivery Deadlines:Alameda Alameda County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-001 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5933() PE Unsignalized Intersection Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $192,400Alameda Alameda County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-002 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5933() PE Signalized Intersection Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $200,000Alameda Alameda County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-003 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5933() PE Rural Roads Safety project 30-Sep-2019 $301,430Alameda Alameda County VAR170002 HSIP9-07-004 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5933() PE Tesla Road Safety Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $87,000Alameda Oakland ALA150043 HSIP7-04-016 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5012(140) CON Oakland: Shattuck and Claremont Bike/Ped Imps. 30-Jun-2019 $1,223,190Alameda Oakland VAR070002 HSIP7-04-015 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5012(141) CON HSIP7-04-015 Market Street 30-Jun-2019 $1,242,270Alameda Oakland ALA150042 HSIP7-04-014 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5012(142) CON Oakland: Telegraph Ave Bike/Ped Imps and Road Diet 30-Jun-2019 $1,145,250Alameda Oakland VAR170002 HSIP9-04-021 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5012() PE Foothill Blvd & MacArthur Blvd Pedestrian Safety 30-Sep-2019 $189,000Alameda Oakland VAR170002 HSIP9-04-022 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5012() PE Oakland Various Intersections Imps 30-Sep-2019 $1,300Alameda San Leandro VAR170002 HSIP7-04-003 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5041(045) CON Davis St/Carpentier St Intersection Imps 30-Jun-2019 $216,750Alameda San Leandro VAR170002 HSIP9-04-028 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5041() PE Wicks Blvd/Manor Blvd Intersection Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $37,350Contra Costa Concord VAR170002 HSIP9-04-008 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5135(056) PE Citywide Traffic System Update (H9-04-008) 30-Sep-2019 $407,400Contra Costa Contra Costa County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-009 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5928() PE Kirker Pass Road Safety Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $229,000Contra Costa Pittsburg VAR170002 HSIP7-04-018 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5127(031) CON HSIP7-04-018, West Leland Rd. Signage 30-Jun-2019 $309,800Contra Costa Pittsburg VAR170002 HSIP7-04-019 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5127(031) CON HSIP7-04-019, Improvements at 11 30-Jun-2019 $218,900Contra Costa Pittsburg VAR170002 HSIP7-04-020 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5127(031) CON HSIP7-04-020, W Leland Rd High Friction 30-Jun-2019 $453,420Contra Costa Pittsburg VAR170002 HSIP9-04-025 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5127() PE HSIP9-04-025, Traffic Signal Imp. 30-Sep-2019 $187,200Contra Costa San Pablo VAR170002 HSIP9-04-029 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5303() PE Intersection Church/Willow, El Portal/Mission Bell 30-Sep-2019 $163,170Marin Marin County VAR170002 HSIP7-04-011 HSIP 7 HSIPL-5927(115) CON HSIP7-04-011 Arterials & Collector Sign 30-Jun-2019 $445,500Marin Marin County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-017 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5927(123) PE Upgrade Non-Standard Guardrails (HSIP9-04-017) 30-Sep-2019 $100,000Napa Napa County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-018 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5921() PE Silverado Trail Guardrail MM0.00-MM11.00 30-Sep-2019 $105,300Napa Napa County VAR170002 HSIP9-04-019 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5921() PE Silverado Trail Striping 30-Sep-2019 $117,300Napa St. Helena VAR170002 HSIP9-04-032 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5051() PE Silverado Trail Guardrail Repalcement Project 30-Sep-2019 $80,000San Mateo South San Francisco VAR170002 HSIP9-04-031 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5177() PE Pedestrian Improvements on W Orange and Hillsdale 30-Sep-2019 $32,000Santa Clara Cupertino VAR170002 HSIP9-04-011 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5318() PE Homestead/De Anzo TS Safety Improvement Project 30-Sep-2019 $31,000Santa Clara Los Gatos VAR170002 HSIP9-04-015 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5067() PE H9-04-015 Los Gatos Guardrail Upgrades 30-Sep-2019 $145,200Solano Benicia VAR170002 HSIP9-04-005 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5003(032) PE Benicia: H9-04-005 Guardrail Project 30-Sep-2019 $135,000Solano Benicia VAR170002 HSIP9-04-006 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5003() PE Benicia: H9-04-006 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 30-Sep-2019 $18,900Solano Fairfield VAR170002 HSIP9-04-013 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5132() PE Fairfield: H9-04-013 Guardrail Project 30-Sep-2019 $30,000Solano Fairfiled VAR170002 HSIP9-04-014 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5132() PE Fairfield: HSIP 9 HAWK Installation Project 30-Sep-2019 $98,671Solano Rio Vista VAR170002 HSIP9-04-026 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5099() PE Rio Vista: H9-04-026 Pedestrian Crossings 30-Sep-2019 $44,500Solano Suisun City VAR170002 HSIP9-04-033 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5032() PE Suisun City Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $47,000Solano Vacaville VAR170002 HSIP9-04-035 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5094() PE H9-04-035 Signal Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $450,000Solano Vacaville VAR170002 HSIP9-04-036 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5094() PE H9-04-036 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 30-Sep-2019 $41,400Solano Vallejo VAR170002 HSIP9-04-037 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5030() PE H9-04-037 Vallejo: HSIP 9 HAWK Installation 30-Sep-2019 $150,000Solano Vallejo VAR170002 HSIP9-04-038 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5030() PE H9-04-038 Vallejo HSIP 9 Pedestrian Crossings 30-Sep-2019 $25,000Sonoma Petaluma VAR170002 HSIP9-04-023-024 HSIP 9 HSIPL-5022() PE H9-04-023 & 024 - Various Intersection Safety Imps 30-Sep-2019 $38,000

$9,721,612J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership Joint LSRPDWG\2019 Joint LSRPDWG\2019_Memos\03_Jun 13 2019 Packet\[03G.iii_HSIP Approaching Delivery Deadlines 6.10.19.xlsx]FY 2018-19 Jun 30

June 10, 2019

HBP Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program Delivery Status LSRPDWG Item 3G.v

MTC FY 2018-19 HBP Local Seismic Retrofit Delivery StatusProject List Remaining Obligation Programming Remaining

Balance HBP HBP BalanceCounty Local Agency TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Latest Action Construction Oblig/Alloc 87% 100% 100% 87%

Status Date Begin Deadline $83,090,123 $12,265,258 $95,355,381 $83,090,123County Sponsor TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Action Date Planned Con Deadline Balance Seismic Seismic Balance

Alameda Oakland VAR170012 5221 33C0215 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5012(124) ROW Leimert Blvd over Sausal Creek Oblig due in FY 19 30-Jun-2021 1-Sep-2019 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000Alameda Oakland VAR170012 5221 33C0215 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5012(124) CON Leimert Blvd over Sausal Creek Oblig due in FY 21 30-Jun-2021 1-Dec-2020 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000Contra Costa Contra Costa County VAR170012 -None- 28C0442 HBP-Seismic Bridge BRLS-5928(128) ROW Marsh Drive over Walnut Creek Channel Oblig due in FY 20 31-Aug-2021 1-Feb-2020 $212,472 $212,472 $212,472Contra Costa Contra Costa County VAR170012 -None- 28C0442 HBP-Seismic Bridge BRLS-5928(128) CON Marsh Drive over Walnut Creek Channel Oblig due in FY 21 31-Aug-2021 1-Feb-2021 $5,850,062 $5,850,062 $5,850,062Contra Costa Orinda VAR170012 5336 28C0331 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5444(007) ROW Bear Creek Road over San Pablo Creek Oblig due in FY 20 31-Jan-2021 1-Mar-2020 $132,795 $132,795 $132,795Contra Costa Orinda VAR170012 5336 28C0331 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5444(007) CON Bear Creek Road over San Pablo Creek Oblig due in FY 20 31-Jan-2021 1-Aug-2020 $132,795 $132,795 $132,795Contra Costa Orinda VAR170012 5335 28C0330 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5444(010) ROW Miner Road over San Pablo Creek Oblig due in FY 20 30-Jun-2021 1-Apr-2020 $1,046,074 $1,046,074 $1,046,074Contra Costa Orinda VAR170012 5335 28C0330 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5444(010) CON Miner Road over San Pablo Creek Oblig due in FY 21 30-Jun-2021 1-Jan-2021 $1,046,074 $1,046,074 $1,046,074San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 Multiple HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(046) PE PE for SFOBB Ramp Structures Obligated 29-Nov-2018 31-Mar-2020 30-Nov-2018 $0 $7,088,597 $7,088,597 $0San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0006 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(029) CON Hillcrest Road West of Yerba Buena Island PAST DUE PAST DUE 1-Jan-2018 30-Jun-2017 $2,042,843 $2,042,843 $2,042,843San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0002 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(026) ROW WB I-80 on ramp West of Yerba Buena Island Oblig due in FY 19 Past Due 31-Mar-2020 31-Mar-2019 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0002 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(026) CON WB I-80 on ramp West of Yerba Buena Island Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $19,077,011 $19,077,011 $19,077,011San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0003 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(027) ROW EB I-80 off ramp to TI Road (2 Bridges) Oblig due in FY 19 Past Due 31-Mar-2020 31-Mar-2019 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0003 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(027) CON EB I-80 off ramp to TI Road (2 Bridges) Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $8,460,249 $8,460,249 $8,460,249San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0004 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(028) CON Treasure Island Road West of SFOBB Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $1,724,961 $1,724,961 $1,724,961San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0008 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(032) CON Treasure Island road West of SFOBB Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $505,169 $505,169 $505,169San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA007A HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(030) CON Treasure Island Road West of SFOBB Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $271,062 $271,062 $271,062San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA007B HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(031) CON Treasure Isand Road west of SFOBB Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $357,315 $357,315 $357,315San Francisco SFCTA SF-070027 3741 01CA0001 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-6272(024) CON WB SFOBB on ramp West of YBI Oblig due in FY 20 31-Mar-2020 1-Oct-2019 $369,634 $369,634 $369,634Solano Vallejo VAR170012 6398 23C0152 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5030(056) ROW Sacramento Street over US Navy RR Obligated 3-Apr-2019 1-May-2019 1-May-2018 $0 $154,927 $154,927 $0Solano Vallejo VAR170012 6398 23C0152 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5030(056) CON Sacramento Street over US Navy RR Oblig due in FY 19 Past Due 1-May-2019 31-Oct-2018 $5,994,366 $5,994,366 $5,994,366Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5253 20C0262 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(059) CON Boyes Blvd over Sonoma Creek AC Authorized 19-Apr-2019 30-Apr-2019 1-Nov-2018 $0 $5,021,734 $5,021,734 $0Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 -None- 20C0017 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(092) ROW Watmaugh Road over Sonoma Creek Oblig due in FY 21 30-Sep-2021 1-Aug-2019 $4,559,295 $4,559,295 $4,559,295Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 -None- 20C0017 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(092) CON Watmaugh Road over Sonoma Creek Oblig due in FY 21 30-Sep-2021 1-Apr-2021 $4,559,295 $4,559,295 $4,559,295Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5251 20C0018 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(135) ROW Monte Rio - Bohemian Hwy over Russian Oblig due in FY 22 31-May-2024 1-Jul-2022 $265,590 $265,590 $265,590Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5251 20C0018 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(135) CON Monte Rio - Bohemian Hwy over Russian Oblig due in FY 24 31-May-2024 1-Dec-2023 $14,164,800 $14,164,800 $14,164,800Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5242 20C0155 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(137) CON Big Wohler Road over Russian River Oblig due in FY 20 30-Apr-2020 1-Nov-2019 $3,718,260 $3,718,260 $3,718,260

$83,090,123 $12,265,258 $95,355,381 $83,090,123

May 31, 2019

LSRPDWG Item 4A

TO: Local Streets & Roads Working Group DATE: June 13, 2019

FR: Sui Tan

RE: 2018 Regional Pavement Condition Summary Report – Draft

MTC’s Regional Streets & Roads Program staff has completed the 2018 regional pavement condition summary report. The PCI numbers presented in the 2018 regional pavement condition summary report reflect the information contained in each jurisdiction’s StreetSaver® database. The 2018 PCI scores are weighted by pavement section area. Please be aware that the PCI scores are based on pavement conditions as of 12/31/2018. Reports generated for a different date may vary from what is shown in this report. 2018 Regional Pavement Condition Summary In 2018, there were 43,504 lane-miles of local streets and roads reported in the San Francisco Bay Area, an overall network increase of 197 lane-miles as compared to 2017. This increase was driven primarily by new sections being added to the StreetSaver® database. The Bay Area’s average network pavement condition index (PCI) in 2018 was 67, out of a maximum possible of 100, while the three-year moving average PCI has also maintained at 67. As shown in the following chart, Bay Area roads in the Excellent or Very Good category is stable at 37 percent for 2017 and 2018. This indicates that major efforts are being made around the Bay Area to preserve and improve roadways using best pavement management practices. Countywide, Napa County has shown a decrease by seven PCI points due to extensive damage during and after the 2017 Fire Complex, including subsequent and ongoing reconstruction, and debris removal. This report does reflect some of the Senate Bill 1(SB1) funding augmentation for local roads that was approved in April 2017, however, the full impact was not measured as most SB1 road maintenance work was still ongoing during the reporting period. MTC’s goal is to provide information that accurately reflects current pavement conditions in the region. Any condition assessments or road repair and maintenance completed after 12/31/2018 are not included in this report and will be included in the 2019 PCI scores next year. You will also find more information in the attachments for the break-down of the Bay Area roadways by condition category, functional class, year-over-year comparisons of pavement conditions, countywide comparisons, and the jurisdiction ranking summary.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission June 13, 2019 Page 2

Regional Weighted Network PCI (Year over Year) Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Weighted PCI 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67

34%

35%

33%

32%

31%

31%

32%

31%

34%

34%

37%

37%

31%

32%

34%

34%

35%

35%

34%

35%

34%

34%

32%

31%

10%

10%

11%

11%

11%

11%

10%

10%

10%

10%

9%

9%

25%

22%

21%

23%

23%

23%

23%

23%

22%

23%

22%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2006

2007

2008/09

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Pavement Conditions for Local Roadways, 2006-2018 (Lane Miles)

Excellent or Very Good Good or Fair At Risk Poor or Failed No Data

Metropolitan Transportation Commission June 13, 2019 Page 3 For more information, please contact Sui Tan at [email protected] , 415-778-5844. Attachment 1: 2018 Jurisdiction Ranking Summary

Lists jurisdictions with PCI scores in the Top and Bottom 10, Greatest Increase/Decrease, and Three-year moving averages.

Attachment 2: Bay Area 2018 PCI Scores Provides detailed information on individual jurisdiction PCI scores.

Attachment 3: Bay Area Countywide 2018 PCI Scores Provides regional and county by county comparison


Attachment 1: Draft2018 Jurisdiction Ranking Summary

Year-over-Year RankingBest 2018 Worst 2018Cupertino 85 Napa County 37Dublin 85 Petaluma 44Palo Alto 85 Pacifica 45Woodside 83 Sebastopol 50Clayton 82 Sonoma County 50Daly City 82 Larkspur 52El Cerrito 82 Vallejo 52Brentwood 81 Benicia 53Foster City 81 Millbrae 53Solano County 81 Albany 54

Greatest Increase 2018 Greatest Decrease 2018Calistoga 13 Napa County -13Mill Valley 13 Mountain View -9Larkspur 8 East Palo Alto -8Menlo Park 8 Pacifica -6Orinda 8 Pinole -4Burlingame 7 Sebastopol -4Woodside 7 Albany -3Campbell 6 Belmont -3Moraga 5 Half Moon Bay -3Vacaville 5 Martinez -3

Richmond -3Rio Vista -3Rohnert Park -3San Leandro -3

3-Year Moving Average RankingBest 2018 Worst 2018Dublin 86 Petaluma 45Palo Alto 84 Larkspur 46Clayton 84 Napa County 46El Cerrito 83 Pacifica 50Daly City 83 Sonoma County 50Brentwood 82 Vallejo 52Cupertino 81 Millbrae 53Foster City 81 Benicia 54Solano County 81 Sebastopol 54Colma 80 Oakland 54Union City 80 Cotati 54

Updated 2019-05-31

LSRPDWG Item 4A - Attachment 1

Bay Area 2018 PCI Scores - DRAFTCurrent Level of Service by County and Jurisdiction

2018 Annual PCI Score 3 YR Moving Average

Total Lane Miles

Total Centerline

Miles

% Poor or Failed

% Excellent or Very Good

Arterial Collector Residential Network2017

Network PCI

Change, 2017 to

20182016 2017 2018

Change

Los Gatos 230.0 108.7 21% 34% 70 70 68 69 66 3 67 66 67Milpitas 298.8 128.6 11% 52% 74 74 75 75 77 -2 73 74 74Monte Sereno 26.8 13.3 21% 21% 68 56 65 65 61 4 62 62 63Morgan Hill 286.6 131.5 15% 37% 77 66 69 71 70 1 69 69 71Mountain View 332.3 140.1 22% 18% 60 61 67 64 73 -9 71 72 71Palo Alto 414.3 198.3 6% 76% 81 83 86 85 85 0 81 83 84San Jose 4,317.3 1,957.9 23% 33% 77 73 61 66 67 -1 62 64 65Santa Clara 606.1 249.4 4% 38% 77 71 75 75 76 -1 73 74 75Santa Clara County 1,425.9 619.3 12% 16% 69 66 64 67 66 1 69 67 67Saratoga 283.4 141.8 20% 42% 78 66 66 68 69 -1 68 69 70Sunnyvale 638.1 260.9 2% 42% 78 72 75 76 76 0 76 76 76Solano 3,599 1,670 22% 43% 72 69 66 68 67 1 66 67 67Benicia 198.0 95.2 49% 22% 63 69 45 53 54 -1 56 55 54Dixon 138.9 64.8 24% 30% 69 64 64 65 65 0 69 67 66Fairfield 767.9 356.0 12% 42% 73 69 72 72 71 1 72 71 71Rio Vista 45.6 23.0 34% 49% 73 69 56 62 65 -3 56 60 61Solano County 925.6 460.1 3% 64% 80 82 80 81 81 0 80 81 81Suisun City 153.5 76.7 29% 22% 66 62 55 60 62 -2 58 60 62Vacaville 658.2 305.5 21% 28% 72 67 73 71 66 5 69 68 68Vallejo 710.9 318.4 48% 25% 66 57 45 52 51 1 51 53 52Sonoma 4,911 2,368 46% 25% 72 64 46 54 53 1 55 55 54Cloverdale 64.7 32.0 38% 39% 57 57 60 59 57 2 61 59 58Cotati 47.9 23.1 39% 26% 69 52 52 56 55 1 52 53 54Healdsburg 94.1 45.3 27% 22% 57 66 63 62 60 2 61 62 61Petaluma 395.8 177.5 55% 27% 58 37 40 44 46 -2 46 46 45Rohnert Park 210.6 92.1 23% 41% 82 71 57 66 69 -3 71 71 69Santa Rosa 1,125.9 508.6 32% 24% 66 63 59 61 59 2 60 60 60Sebastopol 47.5 23.8 47% 17% 25 55 51 50 54 -4 58 56 54Sonoma 68.2 33.8 12% 37% 74 76 69 72 74 -2 73 74 73

Page 4 of 5

Bay Area 2018 PCI Scores - DRAFTCurrent Level of Service by County and Jurisdiction

2018 Annual PCI Score 3 YR Moving Average

Total Lane Miles

Total Centerline

Miles

% Poor or Failed



Network PCI

Change, 2017 to

20182016 2017 2018

Change

Sonoma County 2,685.4 1,346.6 58% 21% 77 67 36 50 48 2 49 49 50Windsor 170.7 85.2 5% 51% 71 71 79 76 78 -2 75 78 77Bay Area 43,504 20,183 23% 37% 73 68 64 67 67 0 67 67 67

Updated 2019-05-30

Page 5 of 5

Bay Area Countywide 2018 PCI Scores - DraftCurrent Level of Service by County and Jurisdiction

2018 Annual PCI Score Change 3YR Moving Average

Total Lane Miles

Total Centerline

Miles

% Poor or Failed



Network PCI

Change, 2017 to

20182016 2017 2018

Alameda 8,191 3,645 23% 39% 75 67 64 68 67 1 68 68 68Contra Costa 7,161 3,425 15% 39% 74 70 68 70 71 -1 70 70 70Marin 2,054 1,035 25% 34% 70 65 65 66 66 0 65 66 66Napa 1,526 749 54% 22% 62 53 47 51 58 -7 59 59 56San Francisco 2,143 944 11% 52% 72 71 75 74 74 0 68 70 72San Mateo 3,912 1,866 15% 42% 74 73 70 72 72 0 71 72 72Santa Clara 10,007 4,481 16% 35% 75 71 67 70 70 0 68 68 69Solano 3,599 1,670 22% 43% 72 69 66 68 67 1 66 67 67Sonoma 4,911 2,368 46% 25% 72 64 46 54 53 1 55 55 54Regional 43,504 20,183 23% 37% 73 68 64 67 67 0 66 67 67

Updated 2019-05-31

LSRPDWG Item 4A - Attachment 3

DRAFT FY 2019-20 Annual Obligation Plan LSRPDWG Item 4C

Draft MTC FFY 2019-20 Annual Obligation PlanProject List Total Total Remaining

Obligations Programmed BalanceCounty Local Agency TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Latest Action Oblig/Alloc 0% 100% 100%

Status Date Deadline $0 $352,890,358 $352,890,358County Sponsor TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Action Date Deadline Oblig Amount Total Balance


San Mateo San Carlos SM-170034 6633 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 CMAQ -5267() CON Ped Enhancements Arroyo/Cedar & Hemlock/Orange 31-Jan-2020 $0 $500,000 $500,000San Mateo San Carlos SM-170035 6654 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5267() CON Cedar and Brittan Ave Pavement Rehab 31-Jan-2020 $0 $575,000 $575,000San Mateo SM C/CAG SM-150017 6205 0658D RTIP RTIP-ST -() ROW US 101 Managed Lanes 31-Jan-2019 $0 $16,000,000 $16,000,000San Mateo South San Francisco SM-170036 6666 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5177() CON SSF Pavement Rehabilitation 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,027,000 $1,027,000San Mateo South San Francisco VAR170002 6465 HSIP-T5-8 HSIP8 HSIP HSIPL-5177(041) CON Spruce/Commercial Aves Traffic Signal Project PES Signed 10-Dec-2018 31-Dec-2019 $0 $444,000 $444,000San Mateo South San Francisco VAR170002 6991 HSIP9-04-031 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5177() PE Pedestrian Improvements on W Orange and Hillsdale 30-Sep-2019 $0 $32,000 $32,000San Mateo Woodside SM-170037 6641 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5333() CON Road Rehabilitation - Town of Woodside 31-Jan-2020 $0 $242,000 $242,000Santa Clara Campbell SCL170035 6590 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5306() CON Campbell - Winchester Blvd Overlay 31-Jan-2020 $0 $554,000 $554,000Santa Clara Cupertino VAR170002 6970 HSIP9-04-011 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5318() PE Homestead/De Anzo TS Safety Improvement Project 30-Sep-2019 $0 $31,000 $31,000Santa Clara Cupertino SCL170037 6605 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5318() CON Cupertino Pvement Maintenance Phase 2 31-Jan-2020 $0 $769,000 $769,000Santa Clara Los Gatos VAR170002 7000 HSIP9-04-015 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5067() PE H9-04-015 Los Gatos Guardrail Upgrades 30-Sep-2019 $0 $145,200 $145,200Santa Clara Milpitas SCL170039 6672 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5314() CON Milpitas Street Resurfacing 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,609,000 $1,609,000Santa Clara Mountain View SCL170040 6690 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5124() CON West Middlefield Road Improvements 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,136,000 $1,136,000Santa Clara Mountain View VAR170002 6521 HSIP-T5-8 HSIP8 HSIP HSIPL-5124(024) CON Intersection improvements to Shoreline and Villa PES Signed 31-Jul-2017 31-Dec-2019 $0 $400,725 $400,725Santa Clara Palo Alto SCL170041 6636 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5100() CON Palo Alto Street Resurfacing 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,009,000 $1,009,000Santa Clara Palo Alto SCL130041 5867 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG 2 CMAQ -5100() CON Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge Delayed Carryover Delayed from FY 19 31-Jan-2019 $0 $4,350,000 $4,350,000Santa Clara San Jose SCL050083 1949 ATP-REG-T4-1-FED ATP-REG ATP-FED ATPL-5005(146) CON Coyote Creek Trail: Mabury to Empire 31-Jan-2019 $0 $4,046,000 $4,046,000Santa Clara San Jose SCL130004 5772 CMAQ-T4-2-OBAG1-CO OBAG 1 CMAQ -5005() CON San Jose - Meridian Bike/Ped Better Bikeways Delayed Carryover Delayed from FY 18 31-Jan-2019 $0 $1,150,000 $1,150,000Santa Clara San Jose SCL170031 6657 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO-SRTS OBAG2 CMAQ -5005() CON Mt Pleasant Ped & Bike Traffic Safety Improvements 31-Jan-2020 $0 $831,793 $831,793Santa Clara San Jose VAR170002 6509 HSIP-T5-8 HSIP8 HSIP HSIPL-5005(149) CON Senter Road Safety Elements PES Signed 20-Jul-2017 31-Dec-2019 $0 $2,959,110 $2,959,110Santa Clara San Jose VAR170002 6513 HSIP-T5-8 HSIP8 HSIP HSIPL-5005(150) CON White Road Safety Elements H8-04-022 PES Signed 19-Jul-2017 31-Dec-2019 $0 $1,005,030 $1,005,030Santa Clara San Jose VAR170002 6261 HSIP7-04-022 HSIP7 HSIP HSIPL-5005(144) CON McLaughlin Ave Safety Elements HSIP7-04-022 PES Signed 14-Sep-2018 31-Dec-2019 $0 $2,513,970 $2,513,970Santa Clara Santa Clara SCL170042 6670 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5019() CON Santa Clara Streets and Roads Preservation 31-Jan-2020 $0 $2,356,000 $2,356,000Santa Clara Santa Clara SCL170045 6635 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 CMAQ -5019() CON Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 31-Jan-2020 $0 $3,396,000 $3,396,000Santa Clara Santa Clara SCL170045 6635 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO-SRTS OBAG2 CMAQ -5019() CON Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 31-Jan-2020 $0 $339,000 $339,000Santa Clara Santa Clara Co SCL170019 6749 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO-FAS OBAG2 STP -5937() CON Uvas Road Pavement Rehabilitation 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,561,000 $1,561,000Santa Clara Santa Clara Co SCL170032 6747 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5937() CON McKean Rd Pavement Rehabilitation 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,056,446 $1,056,446Santa Clara Saratoga SCL130026 6627 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 CMAQ -5332() CON Lawrence Station Area Sidewalks & Bike Facilities 31-Jan-2020 $0 $286,000 $286,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170059 6829 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5213() ENV Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Imps 31-Jan-2019 $0 $56,000 $56,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170059 6829 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5213() PSE Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Imps 31-Jan-2019 $0 $318,000 $318,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170059 6829 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5213() CON Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Imps 31-Jan-2019 $0 $6,000 $6,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170059 6829 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5213() CON Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Imps 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,509,000 $1,509,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170017 6555 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5213(068) CON-CE Sunnyvale SNAIL Neighborhood Improvements 31-Jan-2020 $0 $13,000 $13,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170017 6555 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5213(068) PSE Sunnyvale SNAIL Neighborhood Improvements 31-Jan-2020 $0 $780,000 $780,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale VAR170002 6469 HSIP-T5-8 HSIP8 HSIP HSIPL-5213(058) CON Advance Dilemma Zone Detection Various Locations PES Signed 1-Nov-2018 31-Dec-2019 $0 $715,800 $715,800Santa Clara Sunnyvale VAR170002 7002 HSIP9-04-037 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5213() PE H9-04-034 Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection Phase 2 30-Sep-2019 $0 $186,000 $186,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170022 6566 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 CMAQ -5213() CON Java Dr Road Diet and Bike Lanes 31-Jan-2020 $0 $286,000 $286,000Santa Clara VTA SCL090030 4197 RIP-T5-18-ST-SCL RTIP RTIP-FED -6264() ROW US 101 Express Lanes - Phase 4 - Civil 31-Jan-2019 $0 $600,000 $600,000Santa Clara VTA SCL110002 4198 RIP-T5-18-ST-SCL RTIP RTIP-FED -6264() PSE US 101 Express Lanes - Phase 5 - Civil (APDE) 31-Jan-2019 $0 $10,589,000 $10,589,000Solano Benicia VAR170002 7005 HSIP9-04-005 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5003() PE Benicia: H9-04-005 Guardrail Project 30-Sep-2019 $0 $135,000 $135,000Solano Benicia VAR170002 7006 HSIP9-04-006 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5003() PE Benicia: H9-04-006 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 30-Sep-2019 $0 $18,900 $18,900Solano Fairfield VAR170002 7007 HSIP9-04-013 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5132() PE Fairfield: H9-04-013 Guardrail 30-Sep-2019 $0 $30,000 $30,000Solano Fairfield VAR170002 7011 HSIP9-04-014 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5132() PE Fairfield: HSIP 9 HAWK Installation 30-Sep-2019 $0 $98,671 $98,671Solano Fairfield SOL170006 6536 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5132() PSE East Tabor Tolenas SR2S Sidewalk Closure Gap 31-Jan-2020 $0 $122,000 $122,000Solano Fairfield SOL170006 6536 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5132() ROW East Tabor Tolenas SR2S Sidewalk Closure Gap 31-Jan-2020 $0 $138,000 $138,000Solano Fairfield SOL170006 6536 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED ATPL-5132() CON East Tabor Tolenas SR2S Sidewalk Closure Gap 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,440,000 $1,440,000Solano Rio Vista VAR170002 7008 HSIP9-04-026 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5099() PE Rio Vista: H9-04-026 Pedestrian Crossings 30-Sep-2019 $0 $44,500 $44,500Solano Solano County SOL090015 4582 CMAQ-T4-2-OBAG OBAG 1 CMAQ HPLUL-5923(122) PE Redwood-Fairgrounds Dr Interchange Imps 31-Jan-2019 $0 $94,000 $94,000Solano Solano County SOL170016 6706 STP-T5-OBAG2-REG-PCA OBAG 2 STP -5923() PE Solano County Farm to Market Phase 3 31-Jan-2019 $0 $132,000 $132,000Solano Solano County SOL170015 6719 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO-FAS OBAG2 STP -5923() CON Solano County Roadway Preservation 31-Jan-2020 $0 $506,000 $506,000Solano Solano County VAR170002 6497 HSIP-T5-8 HSIP8 HSIP HSIPL-5923(118) CON Guardrail Repair and Installation HSIP8-04-028 31-Dec-2019 $0 $435,900 $435,900Solano STA SOL110019 4992 CMAQ+T5-OBAG2-CO-SRTS OBAG2 CMAQ -6249() CON Solano Safe Routes to School Program 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,209,000 $1,209,000Solano Suisun City VAR170002 6997 HSIP9-04-033 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5032() PE Suisun City Pedestrian Crossing Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $0 $47,000 $47,000Solano Vacaville VAR170002 6986 HSIP9-04-035 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5094() PE H9-04-035 Signal Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $0 $450,000 $450,000Solano Vacaville VAR170002 6984 HSIP9-04-036 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5094() PE H9-04-036 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 30-Sep-2019 $0 $41,400 $41,400Solano Vallejo VAR170012 6398 23C0152 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5030(056) CON Sacramento Street over US Navy RR PAST DUE PAST DUE 31-Oct-2018 $0 $5,994,366 $5,994,366Solano Vallejo SOL190004 6916 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5030() CON Vallejo - Sacramento St Streetscape 31-Jan-2020 $0 $681,000 $681,000Solano Vallejo VAR170002 7004 HSIP9-04-037 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5030() PE H9-04-037 Vallejo: HSIP 9 HAWK Installation 30-Sep-2019 $0 $150,000 $150,000Solano Vallejo VAR170002 7003 HSIP9-04-038 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5030() PE H9-04-038 Vallejo HSIP 9 Pedestrian Crossings 30-Sep-2019 $0 $25,000 $25,000Sonoma Petaluma VAR170002 6971 H9-04-023-024 HSIP 9 HSIP HSIPL-5022() PE Various Intersection Safety Improvements 30-Sep-2019 $0 $38,000 $38,000Sonoma Rohnert Park SON170016 6610 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5379() CON Rohnert Park Various Streets Rehabilitation 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,035,000 $1,035,000

DRAFT FY 2019-20 Annual Obligation Plan LSRPDWG Item 4C

Draft MTC FFY 2019-20 Annual Obligation PlanProject List Total Total Remaining

Obligations Programmed BalanceCounty Local Agency TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Latest Action Oblig/Alloc 0% 100% 100%

Status Date Deadline $0 $352,890,358 $352,890,358County Sponsor TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action Action Date Deadline Oblig Amount Total Balance


Sonoma Son Co Reg SON170025 6600 STP-T5-OBAG2-REG-PCA OBAG2 STP -() PE Joe Rodota Trail Bridge Replacement 31-Jan-2020 $0 $241,000 $241,000Sonoma Sonoma County SON170010 6625 STP-T5-OBAG2-CA-FAS OBAG2 STP -5920() PE Sonoma County - River Road Pavement Rehab 31-Jan-2020 $0 $100,000 $100,000Sonoma Sonoma County SON170013 6621 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5920() PE Rehabilitation of Various Roads in Sonoma County 31-Jan-2020 $0 $260,000 $260,000Sonoma Sonoma County SON170014 6624 CMAQ-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 CMAQ -5920() PE Crocker Bridge Bike and Pedestrain Passage 31-Jan-2020 $0 $664,000 $664,000Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5253 20C0262 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(059) CON Boyes Blvd over Sonoma Creek AC at CT-HQ 16-Apr-2019 1-Nov-2018 $0 $4,488,471 $4,488,471Sonoma Sonoma County VAR170012 5242 20C0155 HBP-Seismic Bridge STPLZ-5920(137) CON Big Wohler Road over Russian River 1-Nov-2019 $0 $3,718,260 $3,718,260Sonoma Windsor SON170001 6313 STP-T5-OBAG2-CO OBAG2 STP -5472() CON Windsor River Road/Windsor Road Intersection Imps 31-Jan-2020 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000Various MTC VAR170023 6730 STP-T5-OBAG2-REG-AOM OBAG2 STP -6084() CON Freeway Performance Program: I-580 31-Jan-2020 $0 $1,625,000 $1,625,000

$0 $352,890,358 $352,890,358J:\COMMITTE\Partnership\Partnership Joint LSRPDWG\2019 Joint LSRPDWG\2019_Memos\03_Jun 13 2019 Packet\[4C_MTC DRAFT FY 2019-20 Annual Obligation Plan 5.31.19.xlsx]Draft FFY 2019-20June 10

DRAFT

Annual Obligation Plan Requirements FY 2019-20

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 1 June 13, 2019

Background The regional project delivery policy (MTC Resolution 3606) establishes certain deadlines and requirements for agencies accepting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding and including these funds in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The intent of the regional funding delivery policy is to ensure implementing agencies do not lose any funds due to missing a federal or state funding deadline, while providing maximum flexibility in delivering transportation projects. It is also intended to assist the region in managing Obligation Authority (OA) and meeting federal financial constraint requirements. MTC has purposefully established regional deadlines in advance of state and federal funding deadlines to provide the opportunity for implementing agencies, Bay Area County Transportation Agencies (BACTAs), Caltrans, and MTC to solve potential project delivery issues and bring projects back in-line in advance of losing funds due to a missed funding deadline. The policy is also intended to assist in project delivery, and ensure funds are used in a timely manner.

As the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the agency serving as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the nine-counties of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is responsible for various funding and programming requirements, including, but not limited to: development and submittal of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); managing and administering the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and project selection for designated federal funds (referred collectively as ‘Regional Discretionary Funding’); As a result of the responsibility to administer these funding programs, the region has established various deadlines for the delivery of regional discretionary funds including the regional SurfaceTransportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, regional Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to ensure timely project delivery against state and federal funding deadlines. MTC Resolution 3606 establishes standard guidance and policy for enforcing project funding deadlines for these and other FHWA-administered federal funds

One of the most important features of the delivery policy, and a key to the success of on-time delivery, is the obligation deadline. Regional discretionary funding, as well as other FHWA funds in the TIP, must meet the Obligation/E-76/Authorization deadline established in the Policy. This ensures federal funds are being used in a timely manner, and funds are not lost to the region.

FY 2015-16 STP/CMAQ Delivery Status In 2014, the regional obligation deadline was changed from March 31 to January 31 for projects listed in the FY 2015-16 annual obligation plan. Although FY 2015-16 was a transition year (meaning unobligated funds will not be redirected to other projects until after March 31) it was still expected that project sponsors would meet the new obligation deadline. However, the delivery rate was not as good as hoped. As of January 31 less than 30% of the targeted STP/CMAQ OA had been obligated. In examining the low delivery rate, MTC staff noticed many projects were not ready to proceed when placed in the FY 2015-16 Annual Obligation Plan, and therefore many project sponsors were unable to meet the November 1 Request for Authorization (RFA) deadline, even though the annual obligation plan was made final only a month earlier.

LSRPDWG Item 4D

DRAFT



FY 2016-17 STP/CMAQ Delivery Status The delivery rate for FY 2016-17 improved over FY 2015-16. As of January 31, 2017 45% of the targeted STP/CMAQ OA had been obligated, compared with 30% in 2016. By March 31, 2017 115% of the STP/CMAQ OA had been delivered. However, the goal is still to have 100% OA delivery by January 31, so that projects may capture favorable bids and proceed to construction over the summer construction season.

FY 2017-18 STP/CMAQ Delivery Status The delivery rate for FY 2017-18 improved over FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17. As of January 31, 2018, 75% of the targeted STP/CMAQ OA had been obligated, compared with 30% in 2016 and 45% in 2017. By March 31, 2018 112% of the STP/CMAQ OA had been delivered. However, the goal is still to have 100% OA delivery by January 31 so that projects may capture favorable bids and proceed to construction over the summer construction season.

FY 2018-19 STP/CMAQ Delivery Status The delivery rate for FY 2018-19 slipped a little from FY 2017-18. As of January 31, 2019, 63% of the targeted STP/CMAQ OA had been obligated, compared with 30% in 2016, 45% in 2017 and 75% in 2018. By March 31, 2019, 74% of the STP/CMAQ OA had been delivered. The goal is still to have 100% OA delivery by January 31 so that projects may capture favorable bids and proceed to construction over the summer construction season.

Increased Importance of Annual Obligation Plan In recent years other regions and the state-managed local programs have improved upon their own annual delivery rate, and the region is once again hitting apportionment limits prior to the end of the fiscal year. These factors are reducing the flexibility the region has in advancing funds and allowing projects to move forward when ready. As a result, the annual obligation plan is becoming increasingly important to prioritize the funding available for projects to be delivered in a given year. It is anticipated that moving forward, the obligation plan will become a more vital tool in managing the delivery of FHWA-funded projects each year

Proposed Annual Obligation Plan Conditions and Requirements To address the issues of projects being included in the annual obligation plan that are not yet ready to proceed, and to better manage the availability of funds (primarily STP/CMAQ) for projects that are ready for delivery, and to facilitate timely project delivery within the region, MTC staff is proposing certain conditions and requirements for projects to be included the Annual Obligation Plan as outlined in Attachment 1. The obligation plan will serve to prioritize delivery of FHWA-funded projects, and assist Caltrans Local Assistance in managing its workload for the federal fiscal year.

FY 2019-20 Annual Obligation Plan Schedule The schedule for development and implementation of the FY 2019-20 Annual Obligation Plan is as follows:

DRAFT



May/June 2019 Projects with known delivery deadlines in next fiscal year released for review June/July 2019 Draft Plan reviewed by partnership working groups June/July/Aug 2019 SPOCs submit requests to include STP/CMAQ projects in Obligation Plan September 2019 Proposed Final Plan reviewed by partnership working groups October 1, 2019 Obligation Plan finalized and submitted to Caltrans November 1, 2019 Request for Authorization (RFA) submitted to Caltrans January 31, 2020 Obligation deadline for funds in Annual Obligation Plan January 31, 2020 CTC Allocation request deadline February 1, 2020 Unused Obligation Authority available first-come first-served March 31, 2020 CTC Allocation deadline for CTC-administered state and federally-

funded projects

Annual Obligation Plan Conditions and Requirements To facilitate timely project delivery within the region, the following proposed conditions and requirements must be met for projects to be included in the Annual Obligation. The obligation plan will serve to prioritize delivery of FHWA-funded projects for the federal fiscal year.

Projects automatically included in Obligation PlanTo the extent known, projects with required federal funding delivery deadlines within thefiscal year will be added to the annual obligation plan. These include but are not limitedto STIP, ATP, HSIP and Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program (LBSRP) projects. Inaddition to the annual obligation plan, a “CTC Allocation Plan” will be developedspecifically for CTC-allocated state and federally-funded projects, It is theresponsibility of the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to ensure the Plans include allprojects from their agency that have delivery deadlines within the applicable fiscal year.

SPOC InvolvementRequests for OBAG STP/CMAQ projects to be included in the annual obligation plan mustcome from the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for that agency. This ensures the SPOC isaware of the federal-aid projects to be delivered that year, and to be available to assist theProject Manager(s) through the federal-aid delivery process. In addition, subsequentcommunication to MTC or applicable BACTA regarding potential delays or missed deadlinesof any project in the annual obligation plan must include the SPOC. To add a project to theplan, email the request to the applicable Bay Area County Transportation Agency staff and toJohn Saelee of MTC at [email protected]

Missed Past Delivery DeadlinesFor project sponsors that have missed delivery deadlines within the past year, includingCTC-administered program deadlines, the agency must prepare and submit a deliverystatus report on major delivery milestones for all federally active projects with FHWA-administered funds, and all projects with FHWA-administered funds programmed in thecurrent TIP, before their OBAG 2 project(s) are added to the annual obligation plan.Furthermore, once projects for such agencies are accepted in the final obligation Plan, theSingle Point of Contact (SPOC) for the agency must report monthly to the applicableBACTA and MTC staff on the status of all agency project(s) in the annual obligation plan,

DRAFT



until the funds are obligated/authorized. The FHWA-Funded Projects Status report template is located at: http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Template_FHWA_Funded_Projects_Status.xlsx

Field Review For the PE phase of a STP/CMAQ project to be included in the draft plan, a field review must be scheduled to occur by June 30. To remain in the final plan the field review and related/required documentation, including the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) if applicable, must be completed and accepted/signed off by Caltrans by September 30. For the Right Of Way or Construction phase of a project to be included in the draft Annual Obligation Plan, the project must have undergone a field review with Caltrans AND all field review related/required documentation, including the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) if applicable, submitted, signed and accepted by Caltrans by June 30. This does not apply to projects for which Caltrans does not conduct a field review, such as FTA transfers, planning activities and most non-infrastructure projects.

HSIP Delivery Requirements

Because of the importance of timely delivery of safety projects, the following applies to agencies with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) projects programmed in the federal TIP.

For project sponsors with HSIP funds in the PE phase of a project: A complete and accurate Request for Authorization (RFA) must be submitted to Caltrans for the PE phase of all of the agency’s HSIP project(s) prior to any OBAG 2 STP/CMAQ project being added to the Annual Obligation Plan for that agency. The Caltrans-managed HSIP program has an obligation deadline for the PE phase of September 30. To meet this deadline, sponsors must have a field review (with all required documentation including the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) if applicable, accepted by Caltrans) and submit the RFA for PE by June 30. For project sponsors with HSIP funds in the CON phase of a project: A complete and accurate Request for Authorization (RFA) must be submitted to Caltrans for the CON phase of all of the agency’s HSIP project(s) subject to the delivery deadlines noted below, prior to any OBAG 2 STP/CMAQ project for that agency being included in the Annual Obligation Plan. HSIP Deadlines for purposes of the Annual Obligation plan are outlined below: Unless a later date is identified in the Caltrans HSIP Project Listing at the following link: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/delivery_status.htm)

Cycle 7 HSIP program: PE Authorization: All PE phases have been submitted and authorized CON Authorization: June 30, 2019 (RFA due April 30, 2019)

DRAFT



Cycle 8 HSIP program: PE Authorization: All PE phases have been submitted and authorized CON Authorization: December 31, 2019 (RFA due November 1, 2019) Cycle 9 HSIP program: PE Authorization: September 30, 2019 (RFA due May 31, 2019) CON Authorization: December 31, 2021 (RFA due October 31, 2021)

Waiver request for unforeseen project delays: A jurisdiction that has been proceeding with a project in good faith and has encountered unforeseen delays may request special consideration. A sponsor may be allowed to add projects into the annual obligation plan even if it has an outstanding project delay if Caltrans Local Assistance, MTC and the applicable BACTA reach consensus that the delay was unforeseen, beyond the control of the project sponsor, and not a repeated occurrence for the agency. NOTE: Poor project management is not considered an unforeseen delay.

OBAG 2 Requirements Projects funded in the One Bay Area Grant 2 Program (OBAG 2) will not be included in the annual obligation plan until the project sponsor has met applicable OBAG 2 requirements, such as submittal of the annual housing element reports to HCD by April 1 of each year or fully participating in the statewide local streets and roads needs assessment survey or providing updated information to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).

Request for Authorization Review Period For purposes of delivery of projects within the annual obligation plan, it is expected that sponsors schedule at least sixty to ninety days for Caltrans/FHWA review and approval of the Request for Authorization (RFA). This is to ensure delivery schedules adequately account for federal-aid process review.

SPOC Checklist Starting in 2017, jurisdictions must have the SPOC checklist filled out and on file prior to projects being included in the annual obligation plan. A new checklist must be filled out whenever a new SPOC is assigned for that agency.

Inactive Obligations FHWA has expressed significant concern regarding inactive project obligations. At no time are more than 2% of obligated funds to be inactive. The state, and bay area, are consistently over this maximum threshold. Under federal regulations, FHWA-administered projects must receive an invoice and reimbursement against federal funds at least once every 12 months following obligation. Projects that have not received a reimbursement of federal funds in the previous 12 months are considered inactive with

DRAFT



the remaining un-reimbursed funds subject to de-obligation by FHWA with no guarantee the funds are available to the project sponsor. Caltrans requires project sponsors to submit invoices at least once every 6 months from the time of obligation (E-76 authorization) to ensure the invoice may be processed and the funds reimbursed in time to meet the federal deadline. To ensure funds are not lost in the region, regional deadlines have been established in advance of state and federal deadlines. Under the regional project-funding delivery Policy (MTC Resolution 3606) project sponsors must submit a valid invoice to Caltrans Local Assistance at least once every 6 months and receive a reimbursement at least once every 9 months. Agencies with projects that have not been invoiced against at least once in the previous 6 months or have not received a reimbursement within the previous 9 months have missed the invoicing/reimbursement deadlines and are subject to restrictions placed on future regional discretionary funds and the programming of additional federal funds in the federal TIP until the agency can demonstrate the ability to meet regional, state and federal requirements. Specifically, project sponsors with continued history of missing the Caltrans and regional 6-month invoice submittal deadline and the region’s 9-month reimbursement deadline are subject to OBAG projects being removed from the Annual Obligation plan and reprogrammed to a later year in the federal TIP, and will have low-priority for including their OBAG 2 projects in the next Annual Obligation plan. OBAG 2 funds will only be included if capacity is available after all other requests have been considered, and the agency has demonstrated the ability to meet regional and state delivery deadlines. Caltrans updates the inactive project obligation status reports weekly on the Local Assistance Inactive Project Information web page.

FAST Act Rescission There is a nationwide rescission of $7.6 billion based on unobligated apportionment balances at the end of the FFY 2018-19. To ensure funds are not rescinded within the region, MTC will seek to advance projects from future years to capture any unused apportionment after the January 31 obligation deadline. Sponsors with projects scheduled for delivery in FY 2018-19 should note that unused funds after January 31 may be used up more quickly than prior years. Also, sponsors that commit to delivery in FFY 2018-19, but have not received an obligation, may possibly see their funds rescinded if other projects cannot be advanced to obligate all the remaining apportionment.

CTC-allocated state and federal funds In response to CTC concerns regarding delivery of CTC-administered projects, starting in 2018 many of the regional delivery requirements for federal funds will also apply to CTC allocated state and federally-funded projects.

DRAFT



CTC Allocation Plan Expanding on the success of the development and implementation of the regional annual obligation plan, MTC, working with the County Transportation Authorities (CTA’s) and project sponsors, will develop and maintain a regional “CTC Allocation Plan” identifying the CTC-administered programs and projects, such as STIP, ATP and RRRA (SB1) with CTC-allocation deadlines within the state fiscal year. It is the responsibility of the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to ensure the Plan includes all projects from their agency that have applicable delivery deadlines within the fiscal year.

ATP and SB1 Reporting and Accountability

Agencies receiving RRRA (SB1) and ATP funds are required to report on the status of the projects on a regular basis. To ensure agencies meet the deadline, MTC expects reports to be submitted at least 15 days in advance of the CTC deadline. This helps ensure any errors or omissions can be corrected before the reports are due to the CTC/Caltrans. Agencies that miss the reporting/accountability deadline(s) will have OBAG funds subject to re-programming.

CTC Allocations Projects with funds requiring a CTC allocation, including STIP, ATP and RRRA (SB1) must receive submit the CTC allocation request by January 31 and receive the CTC allocation by March 31 of the year programmed unless there is a special circumstance (such as coordinating the delivery timeline with other fund sources or project schedules) agreed to by the respective Bay Area County Transportation Agency and MTC staff. Sponsors missing the regional CTC allocation deadline are subject to OBAG projects being removed from the Annual Obligation plan and reprogrammed to a later year in the federal TIP, and will have low-priority for including their OBAG 2 projects in the following annual obligation plan, until the sponsor can demonstrate the ability to meet regional and state delivery deadlines.

CTC Extensions Sponsors with projects requiring a CTC extension are subject to OBAG projects being removed from the Annual Obligation plan and reprogrammed to a later year in the federal TIP, and will have low-priority for including their OBAG 2 projects in the following annual obligation plan, until the sponsor can demonstrate the ability to meet regional and state delivery deadlines.

Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program (LBSRP) Delivery Requirements The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Prop 1B) includes $125 million of state matching funds to complete LBSRP. These funds provide the required local match for right of way and construction phases of the remaining seismic retrofit work on local bridges. Several projects within the program have not yet proceeded to construction – 12 years after voters approved

DRAFT



funding for the program and 24 years after the Northridge Earthquake and 29 years after the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Each project in the LBSRP is monitored by Caltrans at the component level for potential scope, cost, and schedule changes to ensure timely delivery of the full scope as approved and adopted. Projects are “locked” by Caltrans for delivery at the beginning of each federal fiscal year (FFY) and Project delivery milestones are determined by agreement between Caltrans and the local agency. Local agencies are not allowed to change the schedules once the agreements are signed. Projects programmed in the current FFY, for which federal funds are not obligated by the end of the FFY, may be removed from the fundable element of the TIP at the discretion of the Caltrans. Because of the interest of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) with delivery of the remaining projects in the Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program, project sponsors with remaining seismic bridge projects will need to provide MTC and the respective Bay Area County Transportation Agency with updated status reports at least twice a year. Sponsors with seismic retrofit bridge projects in the current FFY that do not deliver by the end of the FFY agreement date, will have low-priority for including their OBAG 2 projects in the next Annual Obligation plan. OBAG 2 funds will only be included if capacity is available after all other requests have been considered, and the agency has demonstrated the ability to meet regional and state delivery deadlines. NOTE: Per CTC proposed guidelines, project sponsors of LBSRP projects that miss the milestone delivery deadline identified in the LBRP bridge agreement are ineligible to receive future Highway Bridge Program (HBP) and RRRA (SB1) competitive program funding from the CTC until the offending delivery milestone is met.

Preliminary DRAFT - For Discussion Only - FY 2019-20 CTC Allocation Plan LSRPDWG Item 4E

Preliminary Draft MTC FY 2019-20 CTC Allocation Plan - For Discussion OnlyProject List Remaining Total Total Remaining

Balance Allocations Programmed BalanceCounty Local Agency TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source PPNO FPN Phase Project Title Latest Action CTC Allocation Planned Alloc Allocation 100% 0% 100% 100%

Status Date Deadline $488,719,000 $0 $488,719,000 $488,719,000

County Sponsor TIP ID FMS ID Unique ID Program Fund Source PPNO FPN Phase Project TitleLatest Action CTC Allocation Planned Alloc Deadline

Balance Alloc Amount Total Balance

Alameda AC Transit LPP-C LPP-ST 2320B -() CON Purchase Zero Emission Buses Delivery Failure Amend & CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 6/30/2019 $15,000,000 $0 $15,000,000 $15,000,000

Alameda ACPW ATP-REG ATP-ST 2332 -() CON-NI Active and Safe Oakland 1/31/2020 $999,000 $0 $999,000 $999,000

Alameda ACTC ATP-REG ATP-ST 2333 -() CON-NI Alameda County School Travel Opportunities Program 1/31/2020 $3,761,000 $0 $3,761,000 $3,761,000

Alameda ACTC ALA150001 5985 RIP-T5-18-ST-ALA RTIP RTIP-ST 0080D -() CON Rte 84 Widening, south of Ruby Hill Dr to I-680 1/31/2020 $11,114,000 $0 $11,114,000 $11,114,000

Alameda ACTC TCEP TCEP-ST 2103D -() CON 7th St. Grade Separation (East) 6/30/2020 $175,000,000 $0 $175,000,000 $175,000,000

Alameda Alameda ALA170049 6539 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2300 -5014() CON Central Avenue Safety Improvements 1/31/2020 $7,326,000 $0 $7,326,000 $7,326,000

Alameda Albany ATP-REG ATP-ST 2334 -() CON Ohlone Greenway Trail Safety Improvements 1/31/2020 $410,000 $0 $410,000 $410,000

Alameda Berkeley ALA170094 6936 ATP-ST-T5-3ST ATP-ST ATP-ST 2322 ATPL-5057() CON Berkeley - Sacramento St Complete Streets Imps 1/31/2020 $1,357,000 $0 $1,357,000 $1,357,000

Alameda Emeryville TCEP TCEP-ST T0004 -() CON Quiet Zone Safety Engineering Measures Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 6/30/2019 $4,200,000 $0 $4,200,000 $4,200,000

Alameda Oakland ALA170043 6531 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2307 ATPL-5012(154) PSE 14th Street: Safe Routes in the City Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 8/14/2019 1/31/2020 $1,235,000 $0 $1,235,000 $1,235,000

Alameda Oakland ALA170043 6531 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2307 ATPL-5012() CON 14th Street: Safe Routes in the City Delivery Failure Will need award extension 1/31/2020 $9,343,000 $0 $9,343,000 $9,343,000

Alameda Oakland ALA150044 6277 ATP-ST-T4-2-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2190R ATPL-5012(144) CON 19th St BART to Lake Merritt Urban Greenway Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $3,883,000 $0 $3,883,000 $3,883,000

Alameda Oakland ALA170078 6783 ATP-ST-T5-3-ST ATP-ST ATP-ST 2324 ATPL-5012() CON Oakland Crossing to Safety 1/31/2020 $1,564,000 $0 $1,564,000 $1,564,000

Contra Costa BART CC-110082 5421 2010B RTIP RTIP-ST 2010B TARPSTPL-6000() CON Walnut Creek BART TOD Access Improvements 1/31/2020 $5,300,000 $0 $5,300,000 $5,300,000

Contra Costa CCTA 2321E LPP-F LPP-ST 2321E -() CON Central Avenue and Carlson Blvd. Pavement Rehabilitation 6/30/2020 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $100,000

Contra Costa CCTA 2321B LPP-F LPP-ST 2321B -() CON Innovate 680: I-680 NB HOT/HOV 6/30/2020 $2,286,000 $0 $2,286,000 $2,286,000

Contra Costa Concord ATP-ST-T5-3-ST ATP-REG ATP-ST 2325 PSE Downtown Corridors Bike/Ped Improvement Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $404,000 $0 $404,000 $404,000

Contra Costa Concord ATP-ST-T5-3-ST ATP-REG ATP-ST 2325 ROW Downtown Corridors Bike/Ped Improvement Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $85,000 $0 $85,000 $85,000

Contra Costa Contra Costa County CC-170020 6507 ATP-REG-T5-3-FED ATP-REG ATP-FED 2309 ATPL-5928() PSE Fred Jackson Way First Mile/Last Mile Connection 8/14/2019 1/31/2020 $161,000 $0 $161,000 $161,000

Contra Costa Contra Costa County CC170020 6507 ATP-REG-T5-3-FED ATP-REG ATP-FED 2309 ATPL-5928() ROW Fred Jackson Way First Mile/Last Mile Connection 1/31/2020 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000

Contra Costa Contra Costa County CC-130001 5670 ATP-ST-T4-2-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2123A ATPL-5928(136) CON Bailey Road-State Route 4 Interchange Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $3,380,000 $0 $3,380,000 $3,380,000

Contra Costa Martinez 2321F LPP-F LPP-ST 2321F -() CON Arnold Drive Sidewalk Gap Closure 6/30/2020 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $100,000

Contra Costa Martinez 2321D LPP-F LPP-ST 2321D -() CON Martinez Pavement Project Delivery Failure Will need award extension 6/30/2019 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000

Contra Costa Richmond CC-150016 6278 ATP-ST-T4-2-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2122G ATPL-5137() CON The Yellow Brick Road in Richmond's Iron Triangle 1/31/2020 $5,277,000 $0 $5,277,000 $5,277,000

Contra Costa San Pablo LPP-C LPP-ST 2122H -() CON Rumrill Boulevard Complete Streets 6/30/2020 $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000

Marin Corte Madera MRN170023 6814 ATP-REG ATP-ST 2326 -() PS&E Central Marin Regional Pathways Gap Closure Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $345,000 $0 $345,000 $345,000

Marin San Rafael MRN170012 6575 ATP-REG-T5-3-FED ATP-REG ATP-FED 2311 ATPL-5043() CON Francisco Boulevard East Sidewalk Widening 1/31/2020 $4,025,000 $0 $4,025,000 $4,025,000

Marin TAM 2128G LPP-F LPP-ST 2128G -() CON Downtown SMART Station Phase 2 6/30/2020 $483,000 $0 $483,000 $483,000

Napa Calistoga NAP150001 6013 2130M RTIP RTIP-FED 2130M -() CON SR 128 and Petrified Forest Intersection Imp 1/31/2020 $475,000 $0 $475,000 $475,000

Napa Caltrans 0376 RTIP RTIP-FED 0376 -() PSE Rt 12/29/221 Soscol Intersection separation 1/31/2020 $3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000

Napa Caltrans 0376 RTIP RTIP-FED 0376 -() ROW Rt 12/29/221 Soscol Intersection separation 1/31/2020 $600,000 $0 $600,000 $600,000

Napa Napa (City) NAP130004 5955 ATP-REG-T5-3-ST ATP-REG ATP-ST 2312 ATPL-6204() CON State Route 29 Bicycle & Pedestrian Undercrossing 1/31/2020 $531,000 $0 $531,000 $531,000

Napa Yountville NAP130009 5942 2130N RTIP RTIP-FED 2130N RPSTPL-5395() CON Hopper Creek Pedestrian Bridge and Path Project 1/31/2020 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000

Regional BATA 0125 LPP-F LPP-ST 125 -() CON Richmond San Rafael Structural Steel Paint - lower deck and towers 6/30/2020 $19,885,000 $0 $19,885,000 $19,885,000

Regional SMART 2318C LPP-F LPP-ST 2318C -() CON SMART Rail Maintenance Equipment Expansion Phase 2 6/30/2020 $743,000 $0 $743,000 $743,000

San Francisco SFDPW 2319E LPP-F LPP-ST 2319E -() CON Sunset and Parkside Streets Pavement Renovation 6/30/2020 $2,104,000 $0 $2,104,000 $2,104,000

San Francisco SFMTA ATP-REG ATP-ST 2335 -() CON 6th Street Pedestrian Safety Project 1/31/2020 $6,000,000 $0 $6,000,000 $6,000,000

San Francisco SFMTA ATP-ST ATP-ST 2319 -() CON Geneva Ave Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Improvement 1/31/2020 $2,350,000 $0 $2,350,000 $2,350,000San Mateo Caltrans LPP-C LPP-ST 0658D -() CON US 101 Managed Lane Project - Northern Segment 6/30/2020 $20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 $20,000,000San Mateo Caltrans SCCP SCCP-ST 0658D -() CON US 101 Managed Lane Project - Northern Segment 6/30/2020 $125,190,000 $0 $125,190,000 $125,190,000San Mateo Daly City SM-150012 6242 ATP-ST-T4-2-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2140W ATPL-5196(040) CON Central Corridor Bicycle/Ped Safety Imps Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $1,719,000 $0 $1,719,000 $1,719,000

San Mateo SM C/CAG SM-070002 2561 RIP-T4-12-FED-SM RTIP RTIP-FED 2140E RPSTPL-6419() PSE Countywide ITS RFA at CT-HQ 28-Nov-2018 1/31/2019 $240,000 $0 $240,000 $240,000San Mateo SM C/CAG SM-070002 2561 2140E RTIP RTIP-FED 2140E RPSTPL-() CON Countywide ITS 1/31/2020 $4,058,000 $0 $4,058,000 $4,058,000San Mateo SM C/CAG SM-090014 4253 0668D RTIP RTIP-FED 0668D RPSTPL-() ENV Improve US 101 operations near Rte 92 1/31/2020 $2,411,000 $0 $2,411,000 $2,411,000San Mateo SM C/CAG SM-150017 6205 0658D RTIP RTIP-ST 0658D -() ROW US 101 Managed Lanes 1/31/2019 $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000 $16,000,000

San Mateo SM C/CAG SM-150017 6205 0658D RTIP RTIP-FED 0658D ACNHP-Q101(351) PSE US 101 Managed Lanes AC at FHWA 17-Dec-2018 1/31/2019 $18,000,000 $0 $18,000,000 $18,000,000San Mateo South San Francisco SM-130030 6009 0648F RTIP RTIP-FED 0648F ACNH-P082(028) CON SSF Grand Blvd Initiative: Kaiser Way to McLellan AC Authorized 16-Mar-2018 1/31/2018 $1,991,000 $0 $1,991,000 $1,991,000Santa Clara San Jose ATP-ST ATP-FED -() ENV Better BikewaySJ - San Fernando Corridor 8/14/2019 1/31/2020 $357,000 $0 $357,000 $357,000Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170059 6829 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2147A ATPL-5213() PSE Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Imps Delivery Failure CTC Ext. to 6/30/20 1/31/2020 $318,000 $0 $318,000 $318,000

Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170059 6829 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2147A ATPL-5213() CON Sunnyvale Safe Routes to School Imps 1/31/2020 $1,509,000 $0 $1,509,000 $1,509,000

Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170017 6555 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2146B ATPL-5213(068) CON-NI Sunnyvale SNAIL Neighborhood Improvements 1/31/2020 $13,000 $0 $13,000 $13,000

Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170017 6555 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2146A ATPL-5213(068) PSE Sunnyvale SNAIL Neighborhood Improvements 1/31/2020 $780,000 $0 $780,000 $780,000

Santa Clara Sunnyvale SCL170017 6555 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2146A ATPL-5213(068) ENV Sunnyvale SNAIL Neighborhood Improvements 1/31/2020 $72,000 $0 $72,000 $72,000

Santa Clara VTA SCL170064 6860 0503J RTIP RTIP-FED 0503J -6264() ENV I-280 Soundwalls - SR-87 to Los Gatos Creek Bridge 8/14/2019 1/31/2020 $833,000 $0 $833,000 $833,000

Santa Clara VTA SCL150001 6054 0521C RTIP RTIP-FED 0521C RPSTPL-6264() ROW I-680 Soundwalls - Capitol Expwy to Mueller Ave 1/31/2020 $355,000 $0 $355,000 $355,000

Santa Clara VTA 2015F RTIP RTIP-FED 2015F -6264() CON US 101 Express Lanes - Phase 4 - Civil 1/31/2020 $2,300,000 $0 $2,300,000 $2,300,000

Santa Clara VTA SCL110002 4198 2015J RTIP RTIP-FED 2015J -6264() PSE US 101 Express Lanes - Phase 5 - ETS 1/31/2020 $10,188,000 $0 $10,188,000 $10,188,000

Solano Caltrans TCEP TCEP-ST 5301X -() CON I-80/680/12 Interchange Package 2A 6/30/2020 $53,200,000 $0 $53,200,000 $53,200,000

Solano Fairfield SOL170006 6536 ATP-ST-T5-3-FED ATP-ST ATP-FED 2315 ATPL-5132() ENV East Tabor Tolenas SR2S Sidewalk Closure Gap 8/14/2019 1/31/2020 $88,000 $0 $88,000 $88,000

Solano Suisun City SOL170007 6546 ATP-REG-T5-3-ST ATP-REG ATP-ST 2316 ATPL-5032() PSE McCoy Creek Trail - Phase 2 1/31/2020 $650,000 $0 $650,000 $650,000

Sonoma SMART ATP-REG ATP-FED 2337 -() ROW SMART Pathway Project - Petaluma to Santa Rosa Segment 1/31/2020 $1,817,000 $0 $1,817,000 $1,817,000

Sonoma Sonoma County 2318D LPP-F LPP-ST 2318D -() CON 2019 Pedestrian and Surfacing Improvements 6/30/2020 $551,000 $0 $551,000 $551,000

$543,567,000 $0 $543,567,000 $543,567,000

June 11, 2019 CTC Allocation


Staff Report To: Sonoma County Transportation Authority - Technical Advisory Committee

From: Seana L. S. Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects

Item: SB-1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program, 20/21 Call for Projects – Results

Date: June 27, 2019

Issue:

What are the results of the recent call for projects? Shall the TAC make a recommendation for action to the Board of Directors?

Background:

On March 29, 2019 a call for projects was issued by SCTA for the Road Repair and Accountability Act (aka SB-1) in the Local Partnership (Formulaic) Program (LPP(f)). The call is attached to this staff report for reference. The fund source is available for transportation projects to those government entities that have successfully passed a tax measure or fee specifically for transportation. As the taxing authority of Measure M, Sonoma County’s ¼ cent transportation sales tax measure, SCTA has discretion over the LPP(f) fund source.

The SCTA received two projects in response to the call, one from Sonoma County Transit for a new electric bus purchase and installation of two in-route charging stations for two additional electric buses. The project would serve three different areas in the county: Cloverdale, Healdsburg and Sonoma/Sonoma Springs. The second project proposed is in Petaluma along the McDowell Boulevard Corridor and would provide signal coordination, reconstruction and striping of a section between E. Washington and Caulfield, construction of 38 curb ramps, sidewalk gap closures and widening of an existing sidewalk to create connectivity for a class I bike path. The first project (Sonoma County Transit) is proposed for the funding year in the call for projects (FY20/21). The second project (Petaluma McDowell Blvd Corridor) was submitted to indicate interest in the following funding year of FY21/22, but not to compete with the Sonoma County Transit proposal. Both applications are attached to this staff report for reference.

The California Transportation Commission is in the process of updating the guidelines for the LPP(f), and as part of that process, it is newly anticipated that the funding cycles will change from the existing single year, to two year cycles. This is expected to take effect in October when the final guidelines are adopted by the Commission, and prior to any submittal the SCTA would make for the program. The call that the SCTA issued prior to being made aware of this change was for a single year.

SCTA staff proposes the TAC recommend one of two actions detailed below:

Option 1: Program the Sonoma County Transit Project and issue a new call for projects for the second year, applications due by July 17, 2019 in order to meet the current timeline for review and approval. Applications will be presented to the Technical, Transit-Technical, and Citizens Advisory Committees for review in July and August prior to seeking approval on September 10, 2019 at the SCTA Board meeting. This option would allow

tel:707.565.5373

http://scta.ca.gov/

http://rcpa.ca.gov/

additional jurisdictions who did not consider applying for the funding year (21/22), which is outside the current call for projects to submit an application.

Option 2: Program the two projects received for the anticipated two-year funding cycle (20/21 and 21/22). Each project would receive $551K in programming. SCTA would issue a call for projects that covered the subsequent two years when the next cycle is available for programming, and for each subsequent cycle thereafter.

Policy Impacts:

None, it is within policy for the TAC to make programming recommendations to the Board. If option 1 is chosen, the SCTA staff will reissue a call for projects, applications due by July 17 and then bring all projects forward for consideration and recommendations during the July and August Advisory Committee meetings. If Option 2 is recommended, SCTA staff will present the same options and the TAC recommendation to the remaining Advisory Committee meetings in July and August.

Fiscal Impacts:

Two years of formulaic programming represents about $1.102M total.


Staff recommends that the TAC consider the above options and make a recommendation.


March 29, 2019 To: Stakeholders RE: Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB-1), Local Partnership Formulaic Program (LPP) Call for Projects The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) intends to program Sonoma County’s formulaic share of funds from the SB-1 Local Partnership Program 2020 cycle (Approximately $551,000 available in 20/21). The funds require a minimum 1:1 match of funding (federal, local or state other than funds allocated by the California Transportation Commission). SCTA staff has been made aware of an eligible Sonoma County Transit project (EV buses and Charging Stations) that will be proposed to the SCTA Board for consideration. Should any eligible project sponsors wish to submit a project for consideration in addition to the above mentioned project, the required information should be submitted to SCTA staff for review. The required information, as stated in the Local Partnership Program guidelines is as follows: Each project application should be limited to 25 pages (excluding the Project Programming Request form) and must include:

A. A cover letter, with signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the taxing authority’s governing board, authorizing and approving the application [SCTA will provide this upon approval of the project by the SCTA Board]. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the taxing authority, documentation of the agreement between the taxing authority and the implementing agency must be submitted with the application and include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized office of the implementing agency.

B. A confirmation that any capacity-increasing project or a major street or highway lane realignment project was considered for reversible lanes pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 100.15.

C. An explanation of the project and its proposed benefits, including the following: i. Project title, which should be a brief, non-technical description of the project type, scope,

and location, and a map (or maps) of the project location denoting the project site. ii. The amount of Local Partnership Program funds requested.

iii. The amount and source of matching funds. Each nomination must list each federal, state, local and private funding source by project component and fiscal year.

iv. Project background and a purpose and need statement. v. A concise description of the project scope and anticipated benefits (outcomes and

outputs) proposed for funding. vi. A description of the project’s current status, including the current phase of delivery, and

the schedule for the completion of the project. vii. A project cost estimate which includes the amount and source of all funds committed to

the project and the basis for concluding that the funding is expected to be available. If uncommitted funding is identified, the requirements as outlined in Section 16 must be included. Cost estimates should be escalated to the year of proposed implementation

and be approved by the Chief Executive Officer or other authorized officer of the implementing agency.

viii. Each taxing authority should provide documentation that the expected benefits of the proposed project justify its costs, recognizing that some costs and benefits can be difficult to quantify. Each application should include analysis utilizing the appropriate module or modules of Caltrans’ Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0. This model can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/LCBC_Analysis_Model.html If anther model is more applicable the application should describe why and also provide the analysis based on the alternate model.

ix. A description of how the project is consistent with transportation, land use and housing planning goals within the region. For projects within a region with a currently adopted California Air Resources Board approved Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the eligible taxing authority will discuss how the project is 0ocnsistent with the SCS. This will include a quantitative and/or qualitative assessment of how the project will facilitate implementation of the SCS and support achieving the region’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

x. A description of the greenhouse gas impacts and the community impacts of the project and how those impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. This should include a quantification of the effects of the project on diesel particulate (PM 10 and PM 2.5), nitrogen oxides, greenhouse gases and other pollutant emissions using the Caltrans’ Life-cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0. (Cal B/C), the SB 1 Intermodal Tool, or the SB 1 Other Projects Tool. Report emissions saved in both tons and dollars. The SB 1 Intermodal Tool and the SB 1 Other Projects Tool are currently under development. These tools will be projected by December 15th by Caltrans at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/LCBC_Analysis_Model.html

D. Each application must include a Project Programming Request Form. Each Project Programming Request Form must list federal, state, local, and private funding categories by project component and fiscal year. An excel template of this form may be found at http://dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/htm Caltrans is working to develop a web-based PPR form. The Commission will notify potential applicants through its website and through the RTPA Group when the web-based form is available.

Please submit the required information to SCTA staff for consideration by close of business (COB) May 31, 2019. All project information and submittals should be sent to Seana L. S. Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects, either by email at [email protected] or by U.S. Post at 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Questions and comments can be directed to Seana Gause at (707) 565-5372.

Request for SB-1 Local Partnership Program Funding

Project Title: Zero-Emission Bus & En-Route Charging Stations

With the goal of transitioning Sonoma County Transit’s heavy-duty fleet to zero-emission buses, this project requests $551,000 in SB-1 Local Partnership Program cycle 2020 funding to assist with the purchase of one 35-foot electric-powered bus and two en-route electric charging stations. The zero-emission bus will be deployed on Sonoma County Transit’s (SCT) local route operated within the City of Sonoma and the Sonoma-Springs area. The two electric charging stations will be installed at locations within the cities of Healdsburg and Cloverdale, respectively, to provide en-route electric charging for the electric-powered buses to be deployed on those local routes. Maps of the local routes in the cities of Sonoma, Healdsburg and Cloverdale are attached. The anticipated locations of the en-route charging stations to be installed in Healdsburg and Cloverdale are also included on the attached maps.

Costs & Requested Funding: The total cost for a 35-foot zero-emission bus is estimated to be $855,000. After a discount of $135,000 from the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) through the California Air Resources Board, the cost is reduced to $720,000. Sonoma County Transit is requesting $360,000 from the SB-1 Local Partnership Program to assist with this bus purchase. Local matching funding of $360,000 will be provided from the Low-Carbon Transit Operation Program (LCTOP) through Caltrans, the Transportation Fund for Clean Air through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Transportation Development Act funding allocated to SCT through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

The total cost for installation of the two en-route electric charging stations in the cities of Healdsburg and Cloverdale is estimated to be $400,000. For this component of the project, SCT is requesting $191,000 from the SB-1 Local Partnership Program. The local match of $209,000 will be provided from LCTOP funding through Caltrans and local TDA funding allocated to SCT through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Please see the ‘Funding Info’ tab on the Project Programming Request form, which lists each funding source by project component and fiscal year.

Background & Project Need: The County of Sonoma is located approximately 50 miles north of San Francisco along the Highway 101 corridor and has a population of just over 500,000. A division of the Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works Department, Sonoma County Transit is publicly- financed and governed by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. SCT provides countywide fixed-route transit and paratransit services in the rural unincorporated areas of Sonoma County connecting all nine incorporated cities within Sonoma County. SCT also serves as the local transit provider for the cities of Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Sebastopol, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Sonoma.

Due to major growth in terms of development and population over the past 39 years, Sonoma County Transit’s fixed-route services have expanded to a total of 29 local and intercity routes. SCT provided a total of 916,541 passenger trips during Fiscal Year 2018 and currently provides approximately 100,000 annual vehicle revenue hours, operating 7-days per week and 358 days per year. SCT also provides American’s with Disabilities (ADA) paratransit service within its countywide service area. A systemwide service map and summary of SCT’s routes and ADA paratransit services can be found on its website www.sctransit.com.

http://www.sctransit.com/

Sonoma County Transit's fixed-route fleet currently consists of fifty-one (51) active revenue vehicles. The fixed-route fleet includes thirty-eight (38) 40-foot compressed natural gas (CNG)-fueled buses, six (6) 30-foot CNG-fueled buses, one (1) 30-foot battery-electric bus, and six (6) small gasoline-fueled cut-away mini-buses. SCT’s paratransit fleet currently consists of twenty-nine (29) gasoline-fueled paratransit vehicles including a mix of cut-away vehicles, mini-vans and sedans. These fixed-route and paratransit revenue vehicles as well as thirteen (13) support vehicle are operated out of SCT’s administration and maintenance facility located in Santa Rosa.

All vehicle maintenance and fueling operations are also performed at Sonoma County Transit’s maintenance facility in Santa Rosa, which includes five maintenance bays and fueling/charging facilities for its compressed natural gas, gasoline and electric-powered fleets. Utilizing other secured local funding, it is anticipated that the construction of an expanded electric bus charging facility will be completed at SCT’s maintenance and fueling facility by the summer of 2020. The new electric bus charging stations will have the capacity to charge ten electric-powered buses at a time or twenty buses overnight.

This project will enable Sonoma County Transit to reach a significant milestone in transitioning its heavy-duty fixed-route bus fleet from CNG-fueled to zero-emission in accordance with the Innovative Clean Transit requirements set forth by the California Air Resources Board. Ultimately, this funding request will assist SCT toward replacing approximately 15 percent of its heavy-duty fixed-route fleet with zero-emission buses by 2021. The combination of SCT’s first electric-powered bus already in-service, four additional electric-powered buses either currently being manufactured by BYD Motors or with funding secured, and the additional zero-emission bus included in this funding request will enable SCT to operate all its local routes located in incorporated cities with zero-emission buses.

In anticipation of expanded use of zero-emission buses on its local routes, Sonoma County Transit has begun working with various local jurisdictions to establish en-route electric charging stations. Due to the current range limitations of electric-powered buses, en-route electric charging stations will be necessary on local routes that are operated relatively long distances from SCT’s electric charging facility in Santa Rosa. Funding has already been secured and designs are currently underway for en-route electric charging stations to be installed in the cities of Windsor and Sonoma. This project will provide additional funding for en-route electric charging stations that are needed on local routes operated within the cities of Cloverdale and Healdsburg.

Project Benefits: Over the past four years, Sonoma County Transit has introduced several innovative programs that have resulted in reaching new markets of transit users. Since 2015, all veterans and college students can ride anywhere on SCT free of charge. In July 2018, SCT introduced the ‘Fare-Free’ program, which now includes local routes operated in the cities of Sebastopol, Windsor, Healdsburg, Sonoma and the Lower Russian River communities of Guerneville and Monte Rio. Under this program, participating local jurisdictions have agreed to reimburse SCT the uncollected fares for all rides taken on their respective local routes. Since the Fare-Free program began, the total collective ridership on SCT’s local routes has increased by approximately 50%.

In conjunction with the Fare-Free program, Sonoma County Transit’s deployment of zero-emission buses will help further promote increased ridership on its local routes. SCT’s first electric-powered bus was placed into service in December 2018 on the local ‘Sebastopol Shuttle’ route operated in the City of Sebastopol. Two additional electric-powered buses are currently being manufactured by BYD Motors and will be ready for deployment in summer 2020 on SCT’s local routes operated within the cities of Rohnert Park and Cotati, and on the local Windsor Shuttle route. Funding has been secured for two additional electric-powered buses in Fiscal Year 2021, which will be deployed on the local Healdsburg

Shuttle and the local Cloverdale Shuttle routes. The zero-emission bus for which this funding is requested will be deployed on the local Sonoma Shuttle route operated within the City of Sonoma and the Sonoma-Springs area.

The deployment of zero-emission buses on all of Sonoma County Transit’s local routes will help to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with its current fixed-route bus fleet. Electric-powered buses consume less energy per mile driven than buses that use other common propulsion technologies, such as compressed natural gas (CNG)-fueled engines. The Altoona Bus Research and Testing Center reports that the overall average fuel economy of the electric-powered buses that SCT has purchased from BYD Motors is 27.71 MPG equivalent, which is seven times more efficient than conventional CNG-fueled buses. The Iron-Phosphate batteries that are equipped in BYD Motors’ electric-powered buses are considered ‘life’ batteries that come with a 12-year warranty and no required mid-life battery replacement. It is also anticipated that over the life of an electric-powered bus, maintenance costs will be lower than that of a comparable CNG-fueled bus.

Project Schedule: With the understanding that SB-1 Local Partnership Program funding for this project will not be available until Fiscal Year 2021, during the upcoming fiscal year Sonoma County Transit will be utilizing other state and local funding sources to purchase zero-emission buses and install en-route electric charging stations for local routes in the cities of Windsor and Sonoma. Sonoma County Transit already has one electric-powered bus in-service on the local Sebastopol Shuttle route operated in the City of Sebastopol. Two additional electric-powered buses are anticipated to be delivered during summer 2020 and another two buses by summer 2021. If this funding request is approved for Fiscal Year 2021, then a sixth zero-emission bus would be delivered to Sonoma County Transit by summer/fall 2021.

Funding requested for this project would also support Sonoma County Transit’s installation of two en-route electric charging stations for local routes operated in the cities of Healdsburg and Cloverdale, respectively. During the first half of Fiscal Year 2020, SCT will be working with local jurisdictions on securing locations, including right-of-way if necessary, for the charging stations. After the completing the environmental phase for the project for which Categorical Exemptions are anticipated, design work would then commence at the beginning of 2020. Installation of the charging stations would take place during spring/summer 2021. Utilizing other local funding, en-route electric charging stations are currently being designed for local routes in the cities of Windsor and Sonoma, respectively, with installation anticipated by summer 2020.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Sonoma County Transit analyzed the expected benefits of this project utilizing

the Quantification Methodology (QM) model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

for the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program that is administered by Caltrans. The QM model was

developed specifically for LCTOP projects, which are required to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

and support transit agencies in their efforts to increase mode share. The use of CARB’s QM model was

determined to be more appropriate to quantify the benefits of this transit-focused project.

Based on the deployment of zero-emission electric-powered buses on three local routes providing service in the cities of Sonoma, Healdsburg and Cloverdale over 12 years, the QM model estimates a reduction of 16,726 gallons of fossil fuels and an energy and fuel cost savings of $459,636. Ridership on the three local routes is estimated to increase by 5,520 passenger trips, which will result in an estimated reduction of 22,991 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) according to the model. The QM model also estimates that the total budget for this project would support 7.1 full-time equivalent jobs. The full results of CARB’s model for this project are attached.

Regional Planning Goals: Sonoma County Transit’s purchase of zero-emission buses and supporting electric charging infrastructure is consistent with the transportation, land-use and housing goals and strategies included in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2040. MTC’s Plan Bay Area is the state-mandated long-range transportation, land-use and housing plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. One of the goals in Plan Bay Area is to modernize the region’s transportation system, which includes funding bus replacement projects. The purchase of zero-emission buses and supporting infrastructure als0 supports the goal in Plan Bay Area to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, this project will help advance equity in the region by promoting access to public transportation for low-income and minority populations through SCT’s ‘Fare Free’ local transit services provided with zero-emission buses.

Greenhouse Gas Impacts: Sonoma County Transit analyzed the expected greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of this project utilizing the Quantification Methodology (QM) model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program that is administered by Caltrans. The QM model was developed specifically for LCTOP projects, which are required to reduce GHG emissions and support transit agencies in their efforts to increase mode share. The use of CARB’s QM model was determined to be more appropriate to quantify the GHG emission reductions of this transit-focused project.

Based on the deployment of zero-emission electric-powered buses on three local routes providing service in the cities of Sonoma, Healdsburg and Cloverdale over 12 years, the QM model estimates total GHG emission reductions of 1,931 metric tons of carbon dioxide (MTCO2). The model also estimates this project would result in 11 pounds of PM2.5 emission reductions, 48 pounds of ROG emission reductions and 2,496 pounds of NOx emission reductions. In addition, the model estimates 3,504 MTCO2 in GHG emission reductions per total SB1 Local Partnership Program funding to be provided for this project. The full results of CARB’s model for this project are attached.

Contact Information: Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this funding request, please contact Bryan Albee or Steven Schmitz at 585-7516.

Route 68 – Cloverdale Shuttle

= Potential En-Route Electric Bus Charging Locations.

Route 67 – Healdsburg Shuttle

= Potential En-Route Electric Bus Charging Locations.

Route 32 – Sonoma Shuttle

FY 2018-2019 LCTOPAllocation Request

10 4 23 25 2

*if you have more Districts please provide an attachment

0 0

$551,000Approved LONP: No LONP Approval date:Funding: 99313: $551,000 99314: Total:

Specific Area (Lat-Long of the project in decimal degrees separated by a comma "," (e.g., 34.413775, -119.848624 ). For multiple locations, list each separated by a semicolon ";"

Project Life - For capital projects, state the "Useful Life" of the project. For operation projects state the number of months service will be funded.

Capital: 12 Years Operations:

Start date (anticipated) : 8/1/2019 End date (anticipated) : 12/31/2021

General Area (City/County) :County of Sonoma

Sub-TypePurchase replacement zero-emission vehicle(s) (may include equipment/infrastructure)

Total Years of Rollover: Remaining years of Rollover:

Name: No more than 180 characters.

Electric Bus Purchase & En-Route Charging Stations

Description (Short): No more than 370 characters.

Purchase of one 35-foot electric-powered bus to be deployed on the local route serving the City of Sonoma and the Sonoma Springs area. Installation of two en-route electric charging stations on the local routes serving the cities of Healdsburg and Cloverdale, respectively.

Type: Capital

Phone #: Congressional*:E-mail

Project Summary

Authorized Agent Legislative District NumbersName: Assembly*:Title: Senate*:

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Steven Schmitz Name: Bryan AlbeeTitle: Transit Specialist II Title: Transit Systems Manager

Approved Title VI (Date)*:

Link to Agency's Approved Title VI Plan: *Please provide a copy of your FTA/Caltrans Approval Letter as an attachment to your FY18-19 LCTOP Allocation Request.

Allocation Request Prepared by Contact (if different then "Prepared by")

County: Sonoma Regional Entity: MTCAgency Website: www.sctransit.com

Lead Agency Information

Name: Sonoma County TransitAddress: 355 West Robles AvenueCity, State Zip Code: Santa Rosa, CA 95407

Phone #: 707-585-7516 Phone #: 707-585-7516

Division of Rail and Mass TransportationLow Carbon Transit Operations Program Page 1 of 16

Sheet Name: Allocation RequestRev. 12/18


Total FY 18-19 LCTOP Funding $551,000

Supplanting Funds - Describe how the LCTOP funds will not supplant other funding sources.

Fully Funded Project - Provide a description of the status of all the funds to be used to completely fund this project. The budget for this project includes $551,000 in SB-1 Local Partnership Program funding and $569,000 from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding allocated to Sonoma County Transit, Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funding through Caltrans, and Transportaton Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) funding through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Contact Phone #: 99314Contact E-mails:

Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:Contact Person: 99313

Contact E-mails:

Contact Person: 99313Contact Phone #: 99314

Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:



Contact E-mails:

Contact Person: 99313Contact Phone #: 99314

Contributing Sponsor: Amount: PUC Funds Type:



Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Contact Person: Bryan Albee $551,000 99313Contact Phone #: 707-585-7516 99314

$0 $1,120,000

Lead Agency: Sonoma County Transit Amount: PUC Funds Type:

Total Project Cost: $0 $1,120,000 $0 $0 $0

$0Other Funds: $569,000 $569,000Other GGR Funds:

$0

Total LCTOP Funds: $0 $551,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $551,000

PUC 99314 Amount: $0

FY 22-23 Total

PUC 99313 Amount: $551,000 $551,000

LCTOP Allocation Year Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22

Funding Information




$0

$0

Operations/OtherVeh/Equip Purchase

$0

CON $0

$0

R/W

$0

PS&E

FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

$0 $0 $569,000

Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $569,000 $0

$569,000

Operations/Other $0

$0

Veh/Equip Purchase $569,000

$0

CONR/W

$0

PS&E $0

FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

$551,000

Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23

$0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $551,000 $0 $0 $0

$551,000

Operations/OtherVeh/Equip Purchase $551,000

FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

$0

CON $0

$0

R/W

$0 $0 $0

Funding Source:

Transportation Development Act (TDA), LCTOP and TFCA

Component Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0

Operations/Other $0

SB-1 Local Partnership Program

$0

PS&E

$0

Veh/Equip Purchase

$0

CONR/W

$0

PS&E $0

FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

$0 $1,120,000

Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

Component Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23

$0 $0 $0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $1,120,000 $0 $0

Operations/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0

Veh/Equip Purchase $0 $0 $0 $1,120,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,120,000

$0 $0

CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

R/W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PS&E $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total

PA&ED $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Funding PlanProposed Total Project Cost

Component Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24




$0

$0

Operations/Other

$0

Veh/Equip PurchaseCON

$0

R/W $0

$0

PS&E

FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

$0 $0

Funding Source:

Component Prior FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22

$0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Operations/Other

$0

Veh/Equip Purchase $0

$0

CON

$0

R/WPS&E

Total

PA&ED $0

Funding Source:


$0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0

Operations/Other

$0


$0

R/W $0

$0

PS&E

FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

$0 $0

Funding Source:


$0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Operations/Other

$0

Veh/Equip Purchase $0

$0

CON

$0

R/WPS&E

Total

PA&ED $0

Funding Source:


$0

TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0

Operations/Other

$0


$0

R/W $0

$0

PS&E

FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Total

PA&ED

Funding PlanFunding Source:





Estimated Total Project GHG (mtco2) Reduction:

1930.56This number is calculated based on the values from above and the QM-Tool tab.

LCTOP Emission Reductions/Total LCTOP Funds Requested

3503.73655This number is calculated based on the values from above and the QM-Tool tab.

Total Project Ridership Increased 5,520 This is calculated based on the values above.Total Project VMTs Reduced

22,991This number is calculated based on the values above.

Trip Length (L) - Length (miles) of average auto trip reduced or average passenger trip length (miles). 8.33

Systemwide average weekeday passeger trip length as reported in the FY 17-18 Natrional Transit Database (NTD).

Project Useful Life 12 This is calculated based on the values above.

Project F Yr. Ridership - Estimated annual ridership contributed by the new service or capital improvement in YrF. 460

Total combined ridership on local routes 32, 67 and 68 of approximately 46,000 in FY 17-18 is anticipated to increase an estimated 1% due to the novelty of the new electric-powered buses.

Adjustment (A) - Adjustment factor to account for transit dependency. Default: 0.5 for local bus service and 0.83 for long distance commute service.

0.50

Using the default for local bus service.

Year F (YrF) - Final year that the service is funded or the final year of the capital improvements useful life. 2033

The end of the useful life of the bus is anticipated to be in late FY 2033.

Project Yr1 Ridership - Estimated annual ridership contributed by the new service or capital improvement in Yr1. 460

Total combine ridership on local routes 32, 67 and 68 of approximately 46,000 in FY 17-18 is anticipated to increase an estimated 1% due to novelty of the new electric-powered buses.

On the local route operated in the City of Sonoma and the Sonoma - Springs area, Sonoma County Transit deploys buses that are fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG). This project will replace one CNG-fueled bus with one zero-emission electric-powered bus. The two en-route electric charging stations to be installed with this project will also allow for the replacement of CNG-buses with zero emission electric-powered buses on local routes providing service with the cities of Healdsburg and Cloverdale. The deployment of the zero-emission electric-powered buses will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Reductions - Please provide quantitative information requested below and explanation/support for the data provided.

Value ExplanationYear 1 (Yr1) - First year of service, or year that capital improvements will be completed.

2021

The zero-emission electric-powered bus is expected to be deployed into service by late 2021.

Project GHG BenefitsGreenhouse Gas Reductions - Describe qualitatively how this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, expanded/enhanced transit service will improve headways thus making transit a more convenient option of transportation thus increasing ridership, reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and reducing GHG.




Job Support Benefits (Refer to Read Me for more information)

Travel Cost Savings Benefits

Reduced Operating/Maintenance Costs Promotes Active Transportation

Increase System Reliability Promotes Integration w/ other modes

Other Benefits

Co-Benefits - Describe benefits indicated above and other benefits not listed.

Transit Mode Share (increase mobility): Describe how this project will increase transit mode share (increase mobility).

Co-Benefits - Check all additional Benefits/Outcomes.

Improved Safety Coordination with Educational Institution

Improved Public Health College Grades K-12

Avoided Parking Cost ($/Trip) $0.00 Project will not provide service.

Avoided Toll Cost ($/Trip) $0.00 Project will not provide service.

Reduced Fare Cost ($/Trip) $0.00 Project will not reduce fares.

Transit Facility Parking Cost ($/Trip) $0.00 Project will not provide service.

% of Project Budget Associate with Tertiary Activity

Value Explanation

Standard Fare Cost for Project ($/Trip) $0.00 Project will not provide service.

Secondary Project Activity (select from drop down) Procurement of electric vehicle supporting infrastructure

% of Project Budget Associate with Tertiary Activity 33%

Secondary Project Activity (select from drop down)

Project Benefits

Primary Project Activity (select from drop down) Procurement of Buses

% of Project Budget Associate with Primary Activity 67%




####

Identify the Specific Priority Population Benefit:

Identify an important community or household need and evaluate whether the project provides a benefit that meaningfully addresses that need.(For more information please review Read Me) :

Identify Specific Common Needs of Priority Populations (if you select letter D. in question above):

Priority Populations Community Need: Describe, in detail the identified community need(s) and how the project meets the need(s), including the levels of community engagement.

Is the project a transit fare subsidies or network and fare integration technology improvements, including, but not limited to, discounted or free student transit passes

Is the project a purchase of zero-emission transit buses and/or supporting infrastructure?

Identify the Project Census Tract(s) (please use the 10-digit identification code) :

Is the project located within the boundaries of a low-income community census tract?

Is the project located outside of a disadvantaged community, but within 1/2 mile of a disadvantage community and within a low-income census tract?

Is the project a new or expanded transit service that connects with transit service serving a disadvantaged communities?

Priority Populations Benefits

Does your Service Area have a Disadvantaged Community? (as defined by SB 535)Is the project located within the boundaries of a disadvantaged community census tract?




Amount funds to benefit Low-Income Households or Resident within 1/2 mile of a DAC: $ 0

Low-Income Community or Low-Income Household within 1/2 a mile of a Disadvantaged Community Benefit - Explain, in your own words, how the project will benefit Low-Income Community(ies) or Low-Income Households within the project area.

Amount funds to benefit a DAC: $ 0Amount funds to benefit Low-Income Households & Residents: $ 0

DAC Benefit - Explain, in your own words, how the project will benefit Disadvantaged Community(ies) within your service area.

Low-Income Community or Low-Income Household Benefit - Explain, in your own words, how the project will benefit Low-Income Community(ies) or Low-Income Households within the project area.



Note:

Total Full-time Equivalent Jobs Supported by Project Budget 7.1

California Air Resources Board

Benefits Calculator Tool for theLow Carbon Transit Operations Program

California Climate Investments

Full-time Equivalent Induced Jobs Supported by Project GGRF Funds 1.3

It is not appropriate to directly compare the job estimates from this Job Co-benefit Modeling Tool to the GGRF project dollars. California Climate Investments facilitate greenhouse gas emission reductions and deliver a suite of economic, environmental, and public health co-benefits, including job co-benefits. A different mix of spending on materials, equipment, and labor is expected across various California Climate Investments project types and match funding arrangements. As such, some project types will support more jobs than others.

Total Full-time Equivalent Jobs Supported by Project GGRF Funds 3.5Full-time Equivalent Jobs Directly Supported by Project GGRF Funds 1.2Full-time Equivalent Jobs Indirectly Supported by Project GGRF Funds 1.0

DRAFT December 5, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Jobs Summary

NOx emission reductions (lbs)

N/A

N/APM2.5 emission reductions (lbs) N/A

ROG emission reductions (lbs)

2,496PM2.5 emission reductions (lbs) 11

48

Fossil fuel energy use reductions (kWh) N/A

Renewable energy generated (kWh) N/AFossil fuel energy use reductions (kWh) N/A

Passenger VMT reductions (miles)

Energy and fuel cost savings ($) $459,636

Travel cost savings ($) N/AEnergy and fuel cost savings ($) N/A

Passenger VMT reductions (miles) N/AFossil fuel use reductions (gallons)

Renewable energy generated (kWh) N/A

ROG emission reductions (lbs)

Diesel PM Emission Reductions (lbs) 0NOx emission reductions (lbs)

Travel cost savings ($)

Diesel PM emission reductions (lbs) 0LCTOP GGRF Funds

Fossil fuel use reductions (gallons)

Renewable energy generated (kWh) N/A

ROG emission reductions (lbs) 48

Fossil fuel energy use reductions (kWh) N/A

NOx emission reductions (lbs) 2,496PM2.5 emission reductions (lbs) 11

Passenger VMT reductions (miles) N/A




Project Name Electric Bus Purchase & En-Route Charging Stations

Co-benefits and Key Variables Summary

16,726

0

16,726

Total California Climate Investments

Travel cost savings ($) N/AEnergy and fuel cost savings ($) $459,636

N/A

Additional California Climate Investments Program(s)

N/AFossil fuel use reductions (gallons)

Diesel PM emission reductions (lbs) N/A

DRAFT December 5, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Co-benefits Summary

Total GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 1,931Total GHG Emission Reductions per Total LCTOP GGRF Funds (MTCO2e/$million) 3,504

Total GHG Emission Reductions per Total GGRF Funds (MTCO2e/$million) 3,504

Total LCTOP GHG Emission Reductions (MTCO2e) 1,931

Project InformationProject Name Electric Bus Purchase & En-Route Charging Stations

Total LCTOP GGRF Funds ($) 551,000$ Total GGRF Funds ($) 551,000$

Non-GGRF Leveraged Funds ($) 569,000$ Total Funds ($) 1,120,000$

GHG Summary

FY 2018-19 LCTOP GGRF Funds Requested ($) 551,000$




DRAFT December 5, 2018 Page 1 of 1 GHG Summary

Required

Project Type

Quantification Method Technology Conversion Automated

Type of Region County Yes

Region Sonoma Yes

Year 1 (Yr1) 2021 Yes

Year F (YrF) 2033 Yes

Quantification Period 12 Calculated

Service Type Local/ Intercity Bus (Short Distances) No

Yr1 Ridership 460 No

YrF Ridership 460 No

Adjustment Factor (A) 0.50 No

Length of Average Trip (L)

8.33 No

Passenger VMT Reductions

Not Applicable Calculated

GHG Emission Reductions


Vehicle Type Transit Bus Yes

Engine Tier No

Hybrid Vehicle No Yes

Fuel/Energy Type Electric Yes

Project Specific Emission Factor

Optional

Model Year 2021 Yes

Annual VMT 79,461 Yes

Annual Fuel/Energy (kWh)

No

GHG Emissions 445 Calculated

The county where the majority of the service occurs.

The useful life of the rolling stock.

Not applicable for this project type.


The first year of the rolling stock's useful life.

The estimated GHG emissions (MTCO2e) of the vehicle to be acquired.

The vehicle type (e.g., Transit Bus, Streetcar, Ferry, etc.) of the rolling stock to be acquired.

Applicant must be able to demonstrate an approved carbon intensity value under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; must submit additional documentation.

The final year of the rolling stock's useful life.

SECTION 3: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from new service or from the purchase of new zero-emission/hybrid vehicle(s).



SECTION 2: This section is used to estimate the emission and cost reductions from displaced auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT).






SECTION 1: This section is used to determine the quantification method and emission factors to use to estimate emissions.Inputs

The region that best encompasses the geographic location for the proposed project type.

Description

Purchase replacement zero-emission vehicle(s) (may include equipment/infrastructure)

Emission Estimates = Emissions from Baseline Vehicle – Emissions from New Vehicle


Is the vehicle to be acquired a hybrid?

Not applicable for this vehicle type.

The fuel type (e.g. Electric, Diesel, etc.) of the vehicle to be acquired.

The engine model year of the vehicle to be acquired.

The estimated annual VMT of the vehicle to be acquired (e.g., 72,000).


Additional GHG Reductions

Vehicle Replacement Yes


Engine Tier No

Fuel/Energy Type CNG Yes

Model Year 2009 Yes


Annual Fuel/Energy (cubic feet)

No

GHG Reductions 2,376 Calculated


No

Vehicle Type No

Engine Tier No

Fuel/Energy Type No

Model Year No

Annual Fuel/Energy No

GHG Reductions Not Applicable Calculated

Total Project GHG Reductions

1,931 Calculated

LCTOP Project GHG Reductions

1,931 Calculated

The vehicle type expected to replaced as a result of the project (e.g., Transit Bus).

The portion of GHG emission reductions attributable to funding from LCTOP; GHG emission reductions are prorated according to the level of program funding contributed from LCTOP and other CCI programs, as applicable.

Total GHG emission reductions (MTCO2e) from the project during the useful life.

SECTION 6: This section calculates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions achieved by the proposed project.

The estimated GHG emission reductions (MTCO2e) from vehicle replacement.




SECTION 4: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from vehicle replacement as a result of the proposed project.An existing vehicle will be replaced by the acquisition of a new zero-emission or near zero-emission vehicle.

SECTION 5: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from fuel/energy reductions as a result of the proposed project.





The estimated annual VMT of the vehicle to be acquired.

The fuel type of the vehicle expected to replaced as a result of the project (e.g., Diesel).

Engine model year of the vehicle to be replaced.



DRAFT December 5, 2018 Page 2 of 2 QM-Tool

Required

Project Type

Quantification Method Technology Conversion Automated

Type of Region County Yes

Region Sonoma Yes

Year 1 (Yr1) 2021 Yes

Year F (YrF) 2033 Yes

Quantification Period 12 Calculated

Service Type Local/ Intercity Bus (Short Distances) No

Yr1 Ridership 460 No

YrF Ridership 460 No

Adjustment Factor (A) 0.50 No

Length of Average Trip (L)

8.33 No

Passenger VMT Reductions


GHG Emission Reductions



Engine Tier No

Hybrid Vehicle No Yes

Fuel/Energy Type Electric Yes

Project Specific Emission Factor

Optional

Model Year 2021 Yes


Annual Fuel/Energy (kWh)

No

GHG Emissions 445 Calculated

The county where the majority of the service occurs.

The useful life of the rolling stock.



The first year of the rolling stock's useful life.

The estimated GHG emissions (MTCO2e) of the vehicle to be acquired.

The vehicle type (e.g., Transit Bus, Streetcar, Ferry, etc.) of the rolling stock to be acquired.

Applicant must be able to demonstrate an approved carbon intensity value under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; must submit additional documentation.

The final year of the rolling stock's useful life.

SECTION 3: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from new service or from the purchase of new zero-emission/hybrid vehicle(s).



SECTION 2: This section is used to estimate the emission and cost reductions from displaced auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT).






SECTION 1: This section is used to determine the quantification method and emission factors to use to estimate emissions.Inputs

The region that best encompasses the geographic location for the proposed project type.

Description

Purchase replacement zero-emission vehicle(s) (may include equipment/infrastructure)

Emission Estimates = Emissions from Baseline Vehicle – Emissions from New Vehicle


Is the vehicle to be acquired a hybrid?


The fuel type (e.g. Electric, Diesel, etc.) of the vehicle to be acquired.

The engine model year of the vehicle to be acquired.

The estimated annual VMT of the vehicle to be acquired (e.g., 72,000).



Vehicle Replacement Yes


Engine Tier No

Fuel/Energy Type CNG Yes

Model Year 2009 Yes


Annual Fuel/Energy (cubic feet)

No

GHG Reductions 2,376 Calculated


No

Vehicle Type No

Engine Tier No

Fuel/Energy Type No

Model Year No

Annual Fuel/Energy No

GHG Reductions Not Applicable Calculated

Total Project GHG Reductions

1,931 Calculated

LCTOP Project GHG Reductions

1,931 Calculated

The vehicle type expected to replaced as a result of the project (e.g., Transit Bus).

The portion of GHG emission reductions attributable to funding from LCTOP; GHG emission reductions are prorated according to the level of program funding contributed from LCTOP and other CCI programs, as applicable.

Total GHG emission reductions (MTCO2e) from the project during the useful life.

SECTION 6: This section calculates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions achieved by the proposed project.

The estimated GHG emission reductions (MTCO2e) from vehicle replacement.




SECTION 4: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from vehicle replacement as a result of the proposed project.An existing vehicle will be replaced by the acquisition of a new zero-emission or near zero-emission vehicle.

SECTION 5: This section is used to estimate the net emission reductions from fuel/energy reductions as a result of the proposed project.





The estimated annual VMT of the vehicle to be acquired.

The fuel type of the vehicle expected to replaced as a result of the project (e.g., Diesel).

Engine model year of the vehicle to be replaced.



DRAFT December 5, 2018 Page 2 of 21 QM-Tool

DTP-0001 (Revised June, 7 2018 v7.09)

Assembly: Senate: Congressional:

Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST

General Instructions

Amendment (Existing Project) No Date: 6/19/19District EA Project ID PPNO MPO ID Alt Proj. ID / prg.

04County Route/Corridor PM Bk PM Ahd Project Sponsor/Lead Agency

SON Sonoma County TransitMPO Element

MTC Mass TransitProject Manager/Contact Phone E-mail Address

Bryan Albee (707) 585-7516 [email protected] Title

Zero-Emission Bus & En-Route Charging Stations

Location (Project Limits), Description ( Scope of Work)

Sonoma County Transit requests $551,000 in SB-1 Local Partnership Program cycle 2020 funding to assist with the purchase of one 35-foot zero-emission bus and the installation of two en-route electric charging stations.

Component Implementing Agency

PA&ED

PS&E

Right of Way

Construction Sonoma County TransitLegislative Districts

2, 4 & 10 2 2 & 5Project BenefitsPlease see attached.

Purpose and NeedPlease see attached.

Category Outputs/Outcomes Unit Total

Intercity Rail/Mass Trans Rail cars/ transit vehicles

Yes No NoYes Yes

Project Milestone Existing Proposed

Bike/Ped Improvements Reversible Lane analysis

Project Study Report ApprovedBegin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase 11/01/19Circulate Draft Environmental Document Document Type CE 11/15/19Draft Project ReportEnd Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone) 12/31/19Begin Design (PS&E) Phase 01/01/20End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone) 06/30/20Begin Right of Way Phase 08/01/19

Begin Closeout Phase 11/01/21

End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone) 10/31/19Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone) 07/01/20

ADA ImprovementsInc. Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals

End Closeout Phase (Closeout Report) 12/31/21

ADA NoticeFor individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento,

End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone) 10/01/21

DTP-0001 (Revised June, 7 2018 v7.09) Date: 6/19/19District EA

04Project Title:

Component Prior 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24+ TotalE&P (PA&ED)PS&ER/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCONTOTAL

E&P (PA&ED)PS&ER/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCON 1,120,000 1,120,000TOTAL 1,120,000 1,120,000

Fund No. 1:


E&P (PA&ED)PS&ER/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCON 551,000 551,000TOTAL 551,000 551,000

Fund No. 2:



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST

County Route Project ID PPNO Alt. IDSON , ,

Zero-Emission Bus & En-Route Charging Stations

Existing Total Project Cost ($1,000s)

Implementing Agency

Sonoma County Transit

Sonoma County Transit

Proposed Total Project Cost ($1,000s) Notes$551,000 requested in SB-1 LPP funding and $569,000 provided as matching funding from various sources (see below).

SB-1 Local Partnership Program (LPP) Program Code

Existing Funding ($1,000s)

Funding Agency

CTC

Proposed Funding ($1,000s) Notes

$360,000 for zero-emission bus purchase and $191,000 for en-route electric charging stations.

Program Code


Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP)

Funding Agency

Caltrans


$220,000 for zero-emission bus purchase and $100,000 for en-route electric charging stations.

Fund No. 3:



Fund No. 4: rogram Code



Fund No. 5:


E&P (PA&ED)PS&ER/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCONTOTAL


Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Code


Funding Agency

BAAQMD

Transportation Development Act (TDA)


Zero-emission bus purchase.

Funding Agency

MTC



En-route electric charging stations.

Program Code


Funding Agency

S:\CIP\Grants\SB1 Formulaic\2019\SB-1 LPP Call for Projects.doc

is at McDowell Boulevard at Corona Road and SMART’s proposed multi use path will have aconnection to McDowell at Southpoint Blvd. McDowell Boulevard has also become the home ofLagunitas Brewing, Henhouse Brewing and SonomaCoast Spirits. As the north east side of Petaluma develops and becomes more of a destination, thevehicles, transit, pedestrian and bicycle trips grow.

Currently McDowell Boulevard is a 40 mph arterial and there has been limited work along thecorridor to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety. The roadway has fallen beyondrepair, the City is unable to maintain the existing striping for bike lanes and travel lanes as paintwill only last a year. There are two existing uncontrolled crosswalks along corridor and oneadditional being proposed to connect the breweries along either side of the corridor. The existinguncontrolled crosswalks lack safety treatments that are suitable for the speed and number of travellanes. The bike facilities vary from class I bike path to class II bike lane along the corridor; there iscurrently no consistency or adequate signage along the route. Between Corona Road and OldRedwood Highway some of the sidewalks have been constructed with new developments but thesidewalk gaps prevent users from using the full corridor.

Project Scope: The project includes signal coordination along McDowell Boulevard North fromEast Washington St to Caulfield Lane which includes 13 traffic signals, reconstructing andstriping from Old Redwood Highway to Sunrise Parkway, construction of 38 new curb ramps,sidewalk gap closures from Old Redwood Highway to Corona Road, as well as at the railroadcrossing and widening of an existing sidewalk to create connectivity for class I bike path.

The signal coordination would include developing a traffic signal timing plan for the morning,midday and afternoon peak periods for McDowell Boulevard to reduce traffic congestion andtraffic delays which in turns will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. With the newdevelopments, breweries, distilleries, proposed SMART station and multi use path will benefitfrom new sidewalks and more well defined bike lanes to encourage more non-motorized travel.

Current Status: Project is in the preliminary scoping phase. Expected Completion Fall 2022

Cost Estimate: See Attachment B- Cost Estimate

Caltrans Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0: See Attachment C- LCBC Analysis. Bothan active transportation analysis and corridor analysis was completed for this project to properlyportray the benefits and costs associated with each aspect of the project.

Transportation, Land use and Housing Element: McDowell Complete Street project is consistentwith the key aspects of the Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) by constructing biking andwalking infrastructure to improve active transportation options. The project improves theconnectivity of bicycle and pedestrians infrastructure, improves access to local and regional busroutes, regional connectivity with SMART train and connectivity to the west side of Petaluma via


future SMART multi use pathway and the City’s existing Lynch Creek Trail. The improvement ofthe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The project will also include signal coordination of 13intersection to achieve speeds that are suitable to the corridor and improve efficiencies tominimize emissions and energy consumption and make optimal use of the street capacity.

Greenhouse Gas Impacts: The SB-1 Emission Calculator and the Arterial Management Projectswork sheet typically used for TFCA projects were utilized to analyze the greenhouse house gasreduction of the project. Both worksheets analyzed the greenhouse gas reduction for the signalcoordination of 13 intersections / 3.71 miles along McDowell Boulevard. Greenhouse gasreduction was quantified for pedestrian and bicycle improvement as part of the cost benefitanalysis of active transportation. See attachment C for greenhouse gas reduction for bicycle andpedestrian improvements and attachment D for the SB-1 Emissions Calculator and

SB-1 Emissions Calculator

Arterial Management

Attachments:

Attachment A: Project Limits MapAttachment B : Cost EstimateAttachment C: Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model 6.0Attachment D: SB-1 Emission Calculator and the Arterial Management


Attachment AProject Location Map

jstutsman

Polygon Line

jstutsman

Text Box

Attachment A- Project Location Map

jstutsman

Text Box

Old Redwood Highway

jstutsman

Text Box

Old Redwood Highway

jstutsman

Text Box

Old Redwood Highway

jstutsman

Text Box

Old Redwood Highway

jstutsman

Text Box

McDowell Boulevard

jstutsman

Text Box

East Washington St

jstutsman

Callout

McDowell Boulevard Complete Streets Project Limits


Attachment BCost Estimate

ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEMNO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $

Signal Coordination- Consultant 1 LS $50,000 $50,0001 Mobilization / Demobilization 1 LS $125,000 $125,0002 Temporary Traffic Control 1 LS $100,000 $100,000

3Storm Water management and Erosioncontrol 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

4 Minor Concrete - Curb and Gutter 304 LF $70.00 $21,280.005 Minor Concrete - Sidewalk curb ramps 2,432 SF $30 $72,960.006 Curb Ramps 38 EA $7,500 $285,000.007 Video Detection Cameras 16 EA $8,000 $128,000.00

8 8" Full Depth Reclamation-foamed Asphalt 45000 SY $6 $270,000.00

9asphalt binder (full depth reclamationfoamed asphalt) 480 Ton $835 $400,800.00

10 Grading Support 45000 SY $2 $99,000.0011 3" HMA Overlay 7843 Ton $120 $941,143.7312 Uncontrolled Xwalk Upgrade 2 EA $100,000 $200,000.0014 Sidewalk - Gap Closure 16,000 SF $23 $368,000.0016 Pothole 150 EA $800 $120,000.0017 Adjust Utilities 120 EA $800 $96,000.0018 Water Service Replacements 1 LS $100,000 $100,000.0019 Striping 1 LS $150,000 $150,000.00

$3,552,184

$1,000$0

$124,326$1,000$1,000

$3,552,184$106,566$183,924

$3,000$3,973,000

$860,000$2,462,000

$551,000$100,000

$3,973,000Water

Total Funds

AdministrationLegal ServicesDesign (3.5%)

Street MaintenanceRMRA

Total usesCIP Overheads

Contingency (5%)Construction Mgmt (3%)

Construction Contracts

SB1 Formulaic

Planning/EnvironmentalLand & Easements

Attachment B - Cost EstimateMcDowell Boulevard Complete Streets Project Engineer's

Estimate

Total Construction

Project Title: Pavement Restoration – Future Projects PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION

This annual project will reduce the continued degradation of the City’s street system by implementing pavement maintenance measures as much as funding allows. Projects will consist primarily of seal coats and overlays with associated dig-outs of failed areas and crack sealing. The Americans with Disabilities Act improvements to sidewalks and curb ramps will be included either as part of the paving project or as a separate project whenever possible. It is anticipated that there will be one project per year. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

Expenses and Funds Received BUDGET

USES (dollars in $000) FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24Planning/Environmental - 1 1 1 1 4 Land & Easements - - Design - 53 88 64 60 265 Legal Services - 1 1 1 1 4 Administration - 2 2 2 2 8 Construction Contracts - 1,762 2,933 2,134 2,886 9,715 Construction Mgmt - 88 147 107 150 492 Contingency - 88 147 107 150 492 CIP Overheads - 3 3 3 3 12

TOTAL USES -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,998$ 3,322$ 2,419$ 3,253$ 10,992$

SOURCES (dollars in $000)

Street Maintenance - 831 860 890 921 3,502 Road Maint & Rehab Acct (RMRA) - 1,733 1,836 1,918 2,003 7,490

TOTAL FUNDS -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,564$ 2,696$ 2,808$ 2,924$ 10,992$

Actual Life to Date

thru FY 18EstimateFY 18-19

Estimate Life to Date thru FY 19

Adopted Budget

FY 19-20

PROJECTED Total Project Estimate

CIP-65

jstutsman

Cloud

jstutsman

Cloud

jstutsman

Callout

McDowell Blvd North


Attachment CLife-Cycle Cost Analysis Model 6.0

District: 4EA:

PROJECT: McDowell Complete Streets PPNO:

3 INVESTMENT ANALYSISSUMMARY RESULTS

Total Over AverageLife-Cycle Costs (mil. $) $0.4 ITEMIZED BENEFITS (mil. $) 20 Years AnnualLife-Cycle Benefits (mil. $) $0.7 Journey Quality $0.2 $0.0Net Present Value (mil. $) $0.3 Additional Delay Savings $0.2 $0.0

Additional Safety Benefits $4.6 $0.2Benefit / Cost Ratio: 1.7 Health Benefits -$4.3 -$0.2

Emission Cost Savings -$0.0 -$0.0Rate of Return on Investment: 36.9% TOTAL BENEFITS $0.7 $0.0

Payback Period: 3 years SRTS-SPECIFIC BENEFITS (mil. $) Journey Quality $0.0 $0.0

NON-INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION COST Additional Delay Savings $0.0 $0.0 Per Bike Program Impact Score N/A Additional Safety Benefits $0.0 $0.0 Per Ped Program Impact Score N/A TOTAL SRTS BENEFITS $0.0 $0.0

Tons Value (mil. $)Factors that Differentiate Benefits Total Over Average Total Over Average

and Performance Measures EMISSIONS REDUCTION 20 Years Annual 20 Years Annual CO Emissions Saved -1 0 -$0.0 -$0.0

Safe Route to School Yes CO2 Emissions Saved -296 -15 -$0.0 -$0.0Intersection Improvements on SRTS No NOX Emissions Saved 0 0 -$0.0 -$0.0Programmatic Initiatives No PM10 Emissions Saved 0 0 -$0.0 -$0.0Recreational Benefits 1 PM2.5 Emissions Saved 0 0(enter 1 for Yes, 0 for No) SOX Emissions Saved 0 0 -$0.0 -$0.0

VOC Emissions Saved 0 0 -$0.0 -$0.0

Transportation EconomicsCaltrans DOTP

Cal-B/C AT - 3) ResultsCal-BC62AT

Page 15/22/2019


Attachment DSB-1 Emission Calculator and the

Arterial Management

District: 4EA:

PROJECT: PPNO:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

1A PROJECT DATA 1C SYSTEM USAGE BY MODE 1D AVERAGE SPEED/FUEL CONSUMPTION

Vehicle-Miles Traveled (Passenger Vehicles) Average Speed (Passenger Vehicles)Project Location (enter 1 for So. Cal., 2 for No. Cal., or 3 for rural) 2

No Build Build No Build BuildLength of Construction Period (years) 1 Base (Year 1) 37137 37137 Base (Year 1) 26 30

Forecast (Year 20) 40513 4051 Forecast (Year 20) 24 29

Vehicle-Miles Traveled (Trucks) Average Speed (Trucks)

1B HIGHWAY DATA No Build Build No Build BuildBase (Year 1) 3673 3673 Base (Year 1) 26 30Forecast (Year 20) 4007 401 Forecast (Year 20) 24 29

Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT)No Build Build

Base (Year 1) 40,810 40,810 Service-Miles (Buses) Average Speed (Buses)Forecast (Year 20) 44,520 4,452

No Build Build No Build BuildPercent of VMT No Build Build Base (Year 1) 0 0 Base (Year 1) 26 30

Default User Override Default User Override Forecast (Year 20) 0 0 Forecast (Year 20) 24 29Percent Truck 9% 9%Percent Bus 0% 0%

Ton-Miles (Freight Locomotives) Average Ton-Miles/Gallon (Freight Locomotive)

Trip or Route Length (miles) No Build Build No Build BuildNo Build Build Base (Year 1) Base (Year 1) 468 468

Average Trip Length for Passenger Vehicles 4 4 Forecast (Year 20) Forecast (Year 20) 468 468Average Trip Length for Trucks 4 4Average Route Length for Buses 4 4

Signal Coordination along McDowell Boulevard

McDowell Boulevard Complete Streets

CFIP Emissions - 1) Project InformationSB1EmissionsCalculatorv12r

Page 15/22/2019

District: 4EA:

PROJECT: McDowell Boulevard Complete Streets PPNO:

2 INVESTMENT ANALYSISSUMMARY RESULTS

Short Tons Value (mil. $)Total Over Average Total Over Average

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 20 Years Annual 20 Years Annual CO Emissions Saved 195 10 0.0$ 0.0$ CO2 Emissions Saved 72,183 3,609 2.1$ 0.1$ NOX Emissions Saved 57 3 0.7$ 0.0$ PM10 Emissions Saved 1 0 0.1$ 0.0$ PM2.5 Emissions Saved 1 0 SOX Emissions Saved 1 0 0.0$ 0.0$ VOC Emissions Saved 12 1 0.0$ 0.0$

CFIP Emissions - 2) ResultsSB1EmissionsCalculatorv12r

Page 25/22/2019

ARTERIAL MANAGEMENT PROJECTSFYE 2014 TFCA Progam Manager Fund WorksheetVersion 1.0, updated 11/26/12

Calculations Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow.

Cost Effectiveness Inputs# Years Effectiveness: 2Total Project Cost: $50,000TFCA Cost 40%: $20,000TFCA Cost 60%: $30,000 TFCA Regional Fund Proj. #: 11-SON-04 (If applicable)Total TFCA Cost: $50,000

Emission Reduction CalculationsA B C D E F G H I J K L

Name of Arterial, DirectionSegmentLength(miles)

Days/Yr. Time PeriodTraffic VolumeDuring Time

Period

Travel Speedw/o Project

Travel Speedw/ Project

PercentSpeed

Increase

ROGEmission

Reductions(lbs/yr)

NOx EmissionReductions

(lbs/yr)

PM EmissionReductions

(lbs/yr)

CO2 EmissionReductions

(lbs/yr)

SAMPLE--San Pablo, Northbound 4.5 250 7AM - 9AM 7,000 21.5 25.0 16.3% 338.24 375.10 71.55 546393N. McDowell Boulevard, Northbound 3.71 250 6:30AM - 10:00AM 3,786 26.0 29.0 11.5% 87.01 98.23 17.79 139223N. McDowell Boulevard, Northbound 3.71 250 11:45AM - 13:00PM 3,786 26.0 30.0 15.4% 116.02 130.71 23.98 185631N. McDowell Boulevard, Northbound 3.71 250 15:00PM - 19:00PM 3,786 31.0 38.0 22.6% 131.88 137.29 28.62 211155N. McDowell Boulevard, Southbound 3.71 250 6:30AM - 10:00AM 3,786 26.0 32.0 23.1% 174.03 196.46 35.58 278446N. McDowell Boulevard, Southbound 3.71 250 11:45AM - 13:00PM 3,786 23.0 30.0 30.4% 259.50 288.89 54.53 417669N. McDowell Boulevard, Southbound 3.71 250 15:00PM - 19:00PM 3,786 22.0 31.0 40.9% 345.35 384.80 73.09 556892

Total Emission Reductions 1113.78 1236.38 233.59 1789016

Cost Effectiveness Results Annual Lifetime1. ROG Emissions 0.56 1.11 Tons2. NOx Emissions 0.62 1.24 Tons3. PM Emissions 0.12 0.23 Tons4. Weighted PM Emissions 2.34 4.67 Tons5. CO2 Emissions Reduced 894.51 1789.02 Tons6. Emission Reductions (ROG, NOx & PM) 1.29 2.58 Tons7. TFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, NOx & PM) $19,352 /Ton

$7,121 /Ton8. TFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, NOx & Weighted PM). THIS VALUEMUST MEET POLICY REQUIREMENTS.

Existing Vehicles

Clean Fuel Vehicles Clean Fuel Clean Fuel Clean FuelClean Fuel Clean Fuel

Arterial Management FYE 142_McD 5/22/2019 6:51 AM

DTP-0001 (Revised June, 7 2018 v7.09)

Assembly: Senate: Congressional:

Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ● DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST

General Instructions

Amendment (Existing Project) Y/N Date: 6/4/19District EA Project ID PPNO MPO ID Alt Proj. ID / prg.

04County Route/Corridor PM Bk PM Ahd Project Sponsor/Lead Agency

Son City of PetalumaMPO Element

Capital OutlayProject Manager/Contact Phone E-mail Address

Jeff Stutsman 707-776-3673 [email protected] TitleMcDowell Boulevard Complete Streets

Location (Project Limits), Description ( Scope of Work)The Project Limits are McDowell Boulevard North from Old Redwood Highway to Caulfield Lane. he project is a complete streets projectthat is designed to increase safe access for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorist and transit riders along the corridor. Thescope of the work includes signal coordination along the corridor, pavement rehabilitation, striping, curb ramps, uncontrolled crosswalkimprovements including refuge areas and flashing beacons, and improves pedestrian and bicycle access by closing the gaps andincreasing the connectivity along the route

Component Implementing AgencyPA&EDPS&E City of PetalumaRight of WayConstruction City of PEtalumaLegislative Districts

10 3 2Project BenefitsSee Page #2

Purpose and NeedSee Page #2

Category Outputs/Outcomes Unit TotalLocal streets and roads Operational improvements Miles 3.71Local streets and roads Pedestrian/Bicycle facilities miles constructed Miles 0.5

Yes Yes NoYes Yes

Project Milestone Existing Proposed

Bike/Ped Improvements Reversible Lane analysis

Project Study Report Approved NABegin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase NACirculate Draft Environmental Document Document Type NADraft Project Report NAEnd Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone) NABegin Design (PS&E) Phase 01/01/20End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone) 11/01/21Begin Right of Way Phase 08/01/21

Begin Closeout Phase 09/01/22

End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone) 02/01/22Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone) 09/01/22

ADA ImprovementsInc. Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals

End Closeout Phase (Closeout Report) 02/01/23

ADA Notice For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916)654-6410 or TDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento,

End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone) 09/01/22

DTP-0001 (Revised June, 7 2018 v7.09) Date: 6/4/19

ADA Notice



Additional InformationProject Purpose: McDowell Boulevard North is one of the main arterials in town connecting north and southwith an average daily traffic of approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. Petaluma Transit, Sonoma CountyTransit, and Golden Gate Transit utilize the 23 transit stops along this route. Many new developments alongthe corridor are in construction or pending development application such as Brody Ranch, Deer Creek andCorona Station Developments. SMART’s proposed station is at McDowell Boulevard at Corona Road andSMART’s proposed multi use path will have a connection to McDowell at Southpoint Blvd. McDowellBoulevard has also become the home of Lagunitas Brewing, Henhouse Brewing and SonomaCoast Spirits. As the north east side of Petaluma develops and becomes more of a destination, the vehicles,transit, pedestrian and bicycle trips grow.

Currently McDowell Boulevard is a 40 mph arterial and there has been limited work along the corridor toimprove bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety. The roadway has fallen beyond repair, the City isunable to maintain the existing striping for bike lanes and travel lanes as paint will only last a year. There aretwo existing uncontrolled crosswalks along corridor and one additional being proposed to connect thebreweries along either side of the corridor. The existing uncontrolled crosswalks lack safety treatments thatare suitable for the speed and number of travel lanes. The bike facilities vary from class I bike path to class IIbike lane along the corridor; there is currently no consistency or adequate signage along the route. BetweenCorona Road and Old Redwood Highway some of the sidewalks have been constructed with newdevelopments but the sidewalk gaps prevent users from using the full corridor.

Project Scope: The project includes signal coordination along McDowell Boulevard North from EastWashington St to Caulfield Lane which includes 13 traffic signals, reconstructing and striping from OldRedwood Highway to Sunrise Parkway, construction of 38 new curb ramps, sidewalk gap closures from OldRedwood Highway to Corona Road, as well as at the railroad crossing and widening of an existing sidewalk tocreate connectivity for class I bike path.

The signal coordination would include developing a traffic signal timing plan for the morning, midday andafternoon peak periods for McDowell Boulevard to reduce traffic congestion and traffic delays which in turnswill reduce the greenhouse gas emissions. With the new developments, breweries, distilleries, proposedSMART station and multi use path will benefit from new sidewalks and more well defined bike lanes toencourage more non-motorized travel

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate formats. For information call (916) 654-6410 orTDD (916) 654-3880 or write Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814.

DTP-0001 (Revised June, 7 2018 v7.09) Date: 6/13/19District EA

04Project Title:


E&P (PA&ED) 1 1PS&E 129 129R/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCON 3,843 3,843TOTAL 130 3,843 3,973

Fund No. 1:


E&P (PA&ED) 1 1PS&E 129 129R/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCON 3,292 3,292TOTAL 130 3,292 3,422

Fund No. 2:


E&P (PA&ED)PS&ER/W SUP (CT)CON SUP (CT)R/WCON 551 551TOTAL 551 551



County Route Project ID PPNO Alt. IDSon , ,

McDowell Boulevard Complete Streets

Existing Total Project Cost ($1,000s)Implementing Agency

City of Petaluma

City of PEtaluma

City of PEtaluma

Proposed Total Project Cost ($1,000s) Notes

Local Funds (Street Maintenace, RMRA, Water) Program CodeExisting Funding ($1,000s)

Funding AgencyCity of Petaluma

Proposed Funding ($1,000s) NotesLocal Funds

SB-1 Formulaic Program CodeExisting Funding ($1,000s)

Funding AgencyState of California

Proposed Funding ($1,000s) NotesSB-1 Formulaic

Documents

Technical Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA SCTA ... · you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation