HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 17, 2014 Technical AdvisoryCOMM-TAC-00035
TIME:
DATE:
LOCATION:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda.
10:00 A.M.
November 17, 2014
Beaumont City Hall
Conference Room #2
550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special
assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Riverside County Transportation Commission
at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that
reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting.
1. Call to Order
2. Self -Introductions
3. Approval of August 18, 2014 Minutes
4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments
relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.)
5. SB 743 (Verbal Presentation)
6. Cap and Trade Funding (Verbal Presentation)
7. 2013 FTIP/2015 FTIP Updates (Attachment)
8. 2014 Obligation Authority Final FFY 2013/14 (Attachment)
9. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan Update (Attachment)
10. ATP Update (Attachment)
11. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Changes (Attachment)
12. Local Assistance Update (Verbal Presentation)
13. Other Business
14. Adjournment (The next meeting will be January 2015 in Riverside.)
.' AGENCY TAC MEMBER 1----------BANNING DUANE BURK 1 Director of Public Works eEAuMo~ lcHRISTRACY--TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 17, 2014 ALTERNATE Kahono Oei PRINT NAME +--SIGNATURE OE-1· 1 ~ BLYTHE f1A:so~ate Planner ARMANDO BALDIZZONE . Director of Public Works .:}Yh(f.L --,-----~· / CVAG IMii:HAEL SHOBERG .·· ran~portation ~rogram Manager --T-------'tt«,~{µ-Q 5!v:>-i-[ i /0JJ -CALIMESA i MICHAEL THORNTON I City Engineer CAL TRANS SEAN YEUNG District Local Assistance Engineer I CANYON LAKE -r1HABIB MOTLAGH ·VICE CHAIR , City Engineer ! CATHEDRAL CITY BILL SIMONS Interim City Engineer COACHELLA JONATHAN HOY· CHAIR City Engineer H,~ T~~1 ~IX:; ---t---. ---.---' ------~-y--_ j ___ f-~ .. Bob French Public Works Director I 5 ea,, Lf_!tn/ _ -R}1:'l I Maritza Martinez Interim Public Works Director ~~-:l~ ,.v'l14r I---------------------· -CORONA NELSON NELSON :Acting Public Works Director I ---~·-··-·------··-~------jl~D_A_N_IE_L_P_O_R_RA_S_ DESERT HOT SPRINGS i Contract Assistant City Engineer I Robert Morin Principal Civil Engineer ;}(CC>~ A&.:.rr.V ---·----+-----------------+----Richard Kopecky Contract City Engineer ',,~:,\.I I e,t-PV'2 r;ip... '> l1~4c4_ --~-~ (_
" ' T E C H N I C A L A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 E A S T V A L E G _ E O R G ~ A L V A R E Z ~ I J o e . . l n d r a w . . ~ ; C i t y E n g i n e e r , ; 7 2 ; e . ) . - ' - - ' � ~ - � � � - . I J O R G E B I A G I O N I 1 � : ~ t 0 r M o n z - - � : E n g i n e e r i n g D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r P r i n c i p a l E n g i n e e r H - E M E I ' ' a / . ~ ~ ~ N ~ U M A ~ ~ - 1 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ f i l - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r f f f " " A s s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r I I I N D I A N W E L L S - - 1 : _ _ _ I N D I O G R A N T E K L U N D L - _ { _ _ P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r J U R U P A V A L L E Y 1 R O Y S T E P H E N S O N P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r ) T o m R a f f e r t y P r i n c i p a l C i v i l _ g , n g i - i ; L A Q U I N T A T I M O T H Y J O N A S S O N I B r y a n M c K i n n e y P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r / C i t y E n g i n e e r P r i n c i p a l E n g i n e e r - - L A K E E L S I N O R E A T I E S K A N D A R I R i t a T h o m p s o n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M E N I F E E / I C o n s u l t a n t P r o j e c t M a n a g e r i W A t . : r ~ A L L 1 S < J l \ L ~ A K : . I N ~ f . . . . . H - t ' ! . . t . J o N A T H A N S M I T H c . . . ' 7 7 ; R e b e r t d e f l A s o n ~ . e t - . _ _ M _ O _ R _ E - N O - V - A L _ L _ E _ ~ J ~ M ~ r / C i c y E n g i n e e r i : : : m M : : : : r ; ; : : J ~ ~ � ~ - P u b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o D e p u t y P u b l i c W o r i < s D i r e c t o r / I A s s i s t a n t C i t y E n g i n e e r M U R R I E T A N O R C O B O B M O E H L I N G C i t y E n g i n e e r B I L L T H O M P S O N W a t e r a n d S e w e r M a n a g e r [ A s s i s t a n t C i t y M a n a g e r I I L o r i A s k e w - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s I
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 17, 2014 PALM DESERT Mark Diercks '.' ,,1 Transportation Engineer I ·\'1 { ._. 4,..., _-_1 't U~ A /~ IBOCHEN I .,; o l v.J'./V l Ii(, ~,,,-~ ~LM SPRINGS -+l-DA_V_E_B_A_RA-Kl_A_N-----~11-Sa-v-at-K-ha-m--p-ho_u_ ~ .--, ------'-,/ £ ____ _ Director of Public Works/ , . City Engineer . City Engineer 1 PERRIS j' HABIB MOTLAGH City Engineer ~------------' -~i:£!!?l!a mu& r'\ . -· µ/"""~ RANCHO MIRAGE BRUCE HARRY Director of Public Works 1Bill Enos City Engineer p ~~c~ ,~-=:1-~ ~-JL} RIVERSIDE ;TOM BOYD I Public Works Director Farshid Mohammadi Engineering Manager 1«f5l) ~~°'~~~~-RIVERSIDE COUNTY I PATRICIA ROMO -;~~r-~ '?===-'.) .....-Mojahed Salama ~~12:..\U ~ Assistant Director of Transportation SAN JACINTO I HABIB MOTLAGH i • City Engineer I µ / lt] I ~ SUNLINE lJOE FORGIARINI '---------I ~ Director of Transit Planning . _'I --------TEMECULA TOM GARCIA Greg Butler 1 Public Works Director \ 1 Assistant City Manager , I ' \ I WILDOMAR WR COG ____ J_ --------DAN YORK Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works/City Engineer RUTHANNE TAYLOR BERGER Deputy Executive Director Janet Morales Administrative Assistant L~ __________________ L ___ _ ---------~-------1 I Donna Dean I ~ r-u !Program Manager I c/~ u~ 1)V)vn_--~ --I
.. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 17, 2014 AGENCY I NAME TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL --····-··-·· -----r--· _r~ n~11. cf flf_P~L L--[-c~tf~ ___ ?__ b 0 ~ .. 5 lf 0 -/{ 2 7 ' . --F~~L:Li4-~~;~~~~c:~~~?-~ _f'1~~y~l~j_ Sc{_ lc:u~-~;---_.f~<-·It? ~ ~ )f~ ( ~fl.<6..U~ lfJ D (r:.. £,"lc1 V1~L.L-t·1 Ef:>l 6 i-.£t,L'I S ; t??.!2 413 -~3 t4-? -. .. - ---------"---Rrrc.; : J\ lltCt\\\ Gui zacio q0J)_1~t-'10tz0 ----Ury er-'/UY/ccl,Jlt_/-) ~-------------------A~ /!T//-Jd, ----t/7'5) DPb S"/b2~1er: ,,rffad4..'ilf~w-'1€<u}q,~~ '?'J (J ! ... ' --~----------------!------------------------------------------------------ -----------------~----------·---· -------------· -------·····--··-·-----[ ------·--------------------------------I -------------· ----I ----------------------------------------·---------------------··--· ----
MINUTES
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MINUTES
Monday, August 18, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) was called to order at 10:01 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA.
2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS
Members Present: Dave Barakian, City of Palm Springs
Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert
Grant Ekland, City of Indio
Ati Eskandari, City of Lake Elsinore
Tom Garcia, City of Temecula
Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella
Joe Indrawan, City of Eastvale
Tim Jonasson, City of LaQuinta
Rohan Kuruppu, Riverside Transit Agency
Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta
Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside
Victor Monz, City of Hemet
Nelson Nelson, City of Corona
Kahono Oei, City of Banning
Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs
Patricia Romo, County of Riverside
Michael Thornton, City of Calimesa
Sean Yeung, Caltrans
Dan York, City of Wildomar
Others Present:
Fred Alamolhoda, LAE Associates, Inc.
Grace Alvarez, RCTC
Brad Brophy, Cities of Canyon Lake, Perris, San Jacinto
John Corella, City of Cathedral City
Lisa DaSilva, RCTC
Eric DeHate, RCTC
Richard Dennis, Caltrans
Paul Fagan, Caltrans
Shirley Gooding, RCTC
Jillian Guizado, RCTC
Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley
Tanya Love, RCTC
Rafael Martinez, City of Menifee
Shirley Medina, RCTC
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
August 18, 2014
Page 2
Lorelle Moe -Luna, RCTC
Joshua Palazzo, Riverside Transit Agency
Arturo Vela, City of Banning
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Jonasson/Moehling) to approve the May 19, 2014 minutes as submitted.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
5. 2013 FTIP/2015 FTIP UPDATES
Eric DeHate, RCTC, reported that SCAG processed Formal Amendments and Administrative
Modifications 1 through 20 to the 2013 FTIP. All Amendments and Administrative Modifications to
the 2013 FTIP have been approved. RCTC participated in 19 of 20 Amendments submitted with
changes to 300 projects. Administrative Modification No. 20 was submitted to SCAG on July 8, 2014
and approved on July 24, 2014 with changes to 14 projects.
He further reported that RCTC presented an update to the 2015 FTIP that included 382 projects and
was due to SCAG January 3, 2014. The 2015 FTIP also included Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035
RTP/SCS. Since this was submitted to SCAG, the 30-day public review period was released
July 1, 2014 and ended July 31, 2014.
Mr. DeHate said RCTC also submitted Formal Amendment No. 1 to the 2015 FTIP on
August 12, 2014 encompassing changes to 57 projects. RCTC anticipates approval of the 2015 FTIP
Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and Formal Amendment No. 1 to the 2015 FTIP
towards the end of the calendar year.
He pointed out that attached to his staff report is the Amendment Log to the 2013 FTIP that
identifies each amendment, when it was due to RCTC, when it was submitted to SCAG, the
anticipated approval, and when it was approved. Also attached to the report is the 2013 FTIP
Amendment Log and within the report is a hyperlink to SCAG's website where each agency can
download the latest project listings to the 2013 FTIP. He included a hyperlink for the TAC to review
projects included in the draft 2015 FTIP and the draft Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS.
6. 2014 Obligation Authority Delivery Plan — RFA Monitoring
Grace Alvarez, RCTC, thanked the local agencies for submitting requests for authorizations to
Caltrans Local Assistance for the FFY 2013/14 obligations. She reported the current delivery rate is
low, 18.5%, but with several projects in the pipeline, chances are good to deliver the remaining
obligation authority of approximately $53 million or even over -delivering and qualifying for the
August redistribution. There are currently 14 projects requesting STP and CMAQ obligations
totaling $66.7 million.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
August 18, 2014
Page 3
She stated that RCTC will work closely with Caltrans Local Assistance and Headquarters to make
sure the projects submitted for obligation are approved. She asked that local agencies promptly
respond to Local Assistance inquiries and/or provide additional documentation that may b needed
to finalize the authorization request. The goal is to obligate our share of the federal funds for
Riverside County and that the state does not lose any funding to other states due to under delivery
of obligation authority.
7. Riverside Transit Agency — Multi -Funding Call for Projects Revision to Limited Stop-
Service/RapidLink Between Riverside and Corona
Rohan Kuruppu, Director of Planning, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), offered a PowerPoint
presentation in which he outlined RTA's requested approval to expand service to implement Phase I
and Phase II of the Riverside/Corona corridor concurrently, extending the service from Tyler at
Galleria to Smith and Sixth in the city of Corona. There is no change in the funding.
M/S/C (Romo/Mohammadi) to approve RTA's request
8. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan Update
Grace Alvarez said the 2016 RTP is the long-range planning document that prepares the way for the
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), which is the short-range program
implementing the RTP. The RTP is updated every four years and allows the local agencies to change
the scope of work for capacity enhancing
The 2016 RTP is the long-range planning document that prepares the way for the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), which is the short-range program implementing the
RTP. The RTP is updated every four years and allows the local agencies to change the scope of work
for capacity enhancing/modeled projects and for projects non-exempt from conformity. It also
allows for adjustments to the completion date, adding new projects as well as deleting existing
projects that are not feasible to implement any more.
She said that most of the TAC have collaborated with RCTC in this exercise in the past and are
familiar with the process. Some of the requirements change and for this reason RCTC provided the
agencies with all the required tools to update project information and to add new projects to the
RTP.
The benefit of having a project included in the RTP, and most importantly, correctly modeled, is to
add it to the FTIP without having to wait for an FTIP update or an RTP amendment. It also allows
the local agencies to line up the projects for federal funding and to secure federal environmental
approvals for those projects that are regionally significant and/or require access control approvals.
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
August 18, 2014
Page 4
She emphasized that modeling details vary from project to project; therefore, the local agencies
should look at the modeling detail requirements for the various transportation projects as the data
is updated. The modeling details are the fourth attachment to the staff report for this agenda item.
Another major change in this RTP is the various model years for capacity enhancing projects and for
projects not exempt from conformity. She asked the TAC to look at the completion date and be
more conservative with the completion year. Project delays that cross the model years cannot be
incorporated into the FTIP through an amendment; they require a RTP amendment, which does not
happen often, and when it is allowed, takes from 9 to 12 months to get approved. In cases when
the project delay is within the model years, the project delay can be incorporated into the FTIP
through a formal amendment.
Ms. Alvarez suggested carefully reviewing the individual project data for accuracy and
completeness. The completion date and required modeling details are extremely important in
securing the environmental approvals and obligating the federal funds for those projects eligible for
federal funds.
The project cost should be based on the year of expenditure for the corresponding project phases.
If the project is already included in the FTIP, RCTC can request SCAG to remove the project from the
RTP. In case the project is segmented for implementation, future project phases should be kept in
the RTP with the correct modeling details and completion years (opening to traffic year).
The exercise involves reviewing 600 plus projects; therefore, your collaboration in completing the
2016 RTP submittal to SCAG by the November 2014 deadline is a must. She indicated RCTC would
appreciate receiving reviews/markups and new project information by the established deadline of
September 8.
9. Active Transportation Program — CTC Recommendation for Statewide Competitive Program of
Projects and proposed projects for the Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Program
Shirley Medina, RCTC, provided a staff report that is a draft of her August 25, 2014 Budget and
Implementation Committee meeting item, which is expected to go to the September Commission
meeting. She presented background information and responded to various questions.
10. LOCAL ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Sean Yeung, Caltrans District 8, reported that Cal State Sacramento College of Continuing Education
has available, free of charge on a first come, first serve basis, a book entitled, "Inspectors Job Guide
and Highway Maintenance Tables." Contact Gabriel Hernandez at (916) 278-4805 if anyone is
interested.
In the past, Caltrans would publish inactive projects once per quarter. Recently, FHWA modified the
report to be prepared on a rolling basis - every month and it is posted on Caltrans' Local Assistance
website. The most recent posting was August 12 with about 80 projects from San Bernardino and
Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
August 18, 2014
Page 5
Riverside agencies broken into two categories of due dates. About half have a due date of
November 20. The other half have due dates of Wednesday, August 20. Of about 38 projects due
August 20, about 25 of them were issued in E 76 last year but Caltrans has not received an invoice.
After six months, a project is placed on an inactive list. If no invoice is received six months after
that, the project is deobligated. Mr. Yeung reminded the agencies to invoice every six months to
avoid addition to the inactive list. He said the invoice amount does not have to be the amount
stated on the list and that agencies should invoice as frequently as possible.
He further reported that Federal Highways would like all agencies to submit the 1391 form that is
due to Caltrans Local Assistance on August 29. The 1391 form relates to EEO and civil rights
matters. It is posted on Caltrans website under Civil Rights. Form 1391 replaces Local Assistance
Exhibit 16-0 form.
FHWA modified the 1273 form related to construction contracts. Two months ago, Local Assistance
issued a letter to all agencies statewide informing them that previously the 1273 form was part of
the bid package. Now, the FHWA would like to see the 1273 form in the executed contract as well.
Mr. Yeung said there is a new check list that Local Assistance will use to determine if the invoice
received should go to Sacramento. It is posted on the Local Assistance website. The purpose of the
checklist to have agencies self -certify is to reduce the amount of back-up paperwork.
11. JULY COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Shirley Medina reported that Measure A CIP were approved except Norco, which should be
approved soon.
The Short Range Transit Plans for the transit agencies were approved.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the
meeting adjourned at approximately 11:03 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/17'
iriey wdir
Planning and Programming Director
AGENDA ITEM 5
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 5.
"
"
"
[ R C T C L e t t e r h e a d ]
N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 4
V I A E - M A I L [ C E Q A . G u i d e l i n e s @ c e r e s . c a . g o v ]
C h r i s t o p h e r C a l f e e , S e n i o r C o u n s e l
G o v e r n o r ' s O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g a n d R e s e a r c h
1 4 0 0 T e n t h S t r e e t
S a c r a m e n t o , C A 9 5 8 1 4
~ s - -
R e : R C T C ' s I n p u t I n R e s p o n s e t o " U p d a t i n g T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t s A n a l y s i s i n t h e C E Q A
G u i d e l i n e s : P r e l i m i n a r y D i s c u s s i o n D r a f t o f U p d a t e s t o t h e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s
I m p l e m e n t i n g S e n a t e B i l l 7 4 3 , " D a t e d A u g u s t 6 , 2 0 1 4
M r . C a l f e e :
T h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ( " R C T C " ) a p p r e c i a t e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
c o m m e n t o n t h e O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g a n d R e s e a r c h ' s " U p d a t i n g T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t s A n a l y s i s
i n t h e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s : P r e l i m i n a r y D i s c u s s i o n D r a f t o f U p d a t e s t o t h e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s
I m p l e m e n t i n g S e n a t e B i l l 7 4 3 " ( " G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e " ) , d a t e d A u g u s t 6 , 2 0 1 4 .
A s t h e r e g i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g a g e n c y f o r R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y , R C T C s e r v e s a s b o t h l e a d
a g e n c y a n d r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n c y f o r m a n y C E Q A d o c u m e n t s e a c h y e a r , o f t e n i n c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d
c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a n d i n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h f e d e r a l
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a g e n c i e s f o r j o i n t C E Q A I N E P A d o c u m e n t s . A s a r e s u l t o f t h e i n c r e a s e d d e m a n d s
p l a c e d o n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y d u e t o p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h a n d u r b a n i z a t i o n , R C T C
h a s s e r v e d a s l e a d o r r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n c y f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g b i l l i o n s o f d o l l a r s
i n i n v e s t m e n t s w h i c h w i l l h e l p t o a l l e v i a t e c o n g e s t e d t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s a n d r e d u c e v e h i c l e m i l e s
t r a v e l e d o n s e v e r a l o f t h e r e g i o n ' s m a i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o r r i d o r s .
I n i t s r o l e a s t h e r e g i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g a g e n c y f o r a c o u n t y p o p u l a t e d b y o v e r 2 . 3
m i l l i o n p e o p l e , R C T C h a s m o n i t o r e d O P R ' s e f f o r t s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S B 7 4 3
r e g a r d i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p a c t s . I n f a c t , i n a l e t t e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 ,
R C T C s u b m i t t e d c o m m e n t s t o O P R o n i t s " P o s s i b l e T o p i c s t o b e A d d r e s s e d i n t h e 2 0 1 4 C E Q A
G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e , " i n w h i c h R C T C r a i s e d s e v e r a l c o n c e r n s a b o u t t h e p r o p o s e d r e v i s i o n s t o t h e
G u i d e l i n e s . H o w e v e r , a f e w o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n R C T C ' s c o m m e n t l e t t e r d o n o t a p p e a r t o
h a v e b e e n a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , R C T C h a s o t h e r c o u c e m s
r e g a r d i n g t h e G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e a n d t h e p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m s t h a t m a y r e s u l t f r o m i t s
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .
1 7 3 3 6 . 0 0 1 2 1 \ 9 3 9 1 5 7 4 . 3
Christopher Calfee, Senior Counsel
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
November 17, 2014
Page2
Comments on the Guidelines Update
Application of New Guidelines to Entire State in 2016
RCTC understands that the Guidelines Update would first apply only to Transit Priority Areas
("TPAs") and would not apply to the remainder of the state until January 1, 2016. (Proposed
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3(d).) However, Public Resources Code, § 21099(b)(l) (SB
743) is focused only on adopting an alternative traffic metric for TPAs and the issues unique to
these often dense urban areas. Specifically, that section provides that the new metric "shall
promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses." To promote these goals, OPR is to
"recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not
limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation
rates, or automobile trips generated." Nowhere does SB 743 mandate that OPR adopt VMT, or
any single metric, to be applied across the entire state without regard to the density of, or uses
located in, an area or region. And yet OPR does not explain in any detail why all other metrics
were rejected or why no other metric could accomplish the goals set forth by SB 743.
•
Given the direction contained in SB 743 and the general uncertainty as to the technical feasibility
of the VMT metric and its success in achieving the stated goals of SB 743, RCTC requests that,
if OPR insists on using only VMT, that it revise the proposed Guidelines Update to apply only to
TP As. This would allow OPR to verify whether the new metric is effective and can actually •
achieve the goals set forth by SB 743 before instituting a rulemaking procedure that would
permanently apply the metric to the remainder of the state.
To the extent OPR insists on applying VMT statewide, RCTC proposes that OPR delay
implementation of VMT statewide beyond January 1, 2016, and also include a sunset date for
this provision so that the effectiveness of the measure in evaluating transportation impacts may
be verified under "real-world" conditions.
Language Regarding Increase In Roadway Capacity
Proposed Section 15064.3(b )(2) provides that "[t]o the extent that a transportation project
increases physical roadway capacity for automobiles in a congested area, or adds a new roadway
to the network, the transportation analysis should analyze whether the project will induce
additional automobile travel compared to existing conditions. The addition of general purpose
highway or arterial lanes may indicate a signific<lnt impact .... " This language appears to create
a rebuttable presumption, namely that every project which increases roadway capacity
necessarily has a significant impact. Such a result would depart from CEQA's long-standing
rules that the lead agency is responsible for determining whether an adverse environmental effect
is "significant" or "less than significant," and that an inflexible definition of a significant effect is
not possible and varies based on the project setting. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b).)
Additionally, the language of the Guidelines Update seems to conflict with other provisions of
CEQA which exempt restriping projects (many of which may result in minor increases in •
roadway capacity) from environmental review. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21080.19.)
17336.00121 \9391574.3
"
C h r i s t o p h e r C a l f e e , S e n i o r C o u n s e l
G o v e r n o r ' s O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g a n d R e s e a r c h
N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 4
P a g e 3
T o a v o i d t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f a n y p r e s u m e d i m p a c t , R C T C r e q u e s t s t h a t O P R r e v i s e t h i s p o r t i o n o f
i t s G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e t o s t a t e o n l y t h a t " i n c r e a s e s i n r o a d w a y c a p a c i t y s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a s
p a r t o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f p o t e n t i a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p a c t s u n d e r C E Q A . "
A p p e n d i x F M i t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e s a n d A l t e r n a t i v e s
T h e a d d i t i o n s t o A p p e n d i x F o f t h e G u i d e l i n e s w o u l d r e q u i r e t h a t , f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p a c t s a s
d e t e r m i n e d b y V M T , a g e n c i e s c o n s i d e r m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s a n d p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s t h a t w o u l d
r e d u c e e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e s e m e a s u r e s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e s p r i m a r i l y f o c u s o n t r a n s i t - o r i e n t e d
a n d h i g h e r d e n s i t y d e v e l o p m e n t . H o w e v e r , f o r r u r a l a n d l o w - d e n s i t y a r e a s w h e r e t h e r e i s l i t t l e
o r n o e x i s t i n g m a s s t r a n s i t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , s u c h a s l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y , t h e
m a j o r i t y o f t h e m e a s u r e s a n d a l t e r n a t i v e s w o u l d b e i n f e a s i b l e . F o r e x a m p l e , i t i s l i k e l y t h a t a
r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , m i x e d - u s e d e v e l o p m e n t i n a r u r a l c o m m u n i t y c o u l d n o t f e a s i b l y i n c r e a s e a c c e s s
t o t r a n s i t b e c a u s e d o i n g s o w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t t o i n c l u d e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
m a j o r , n e w t r a n s i t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e a s p a r t o f a n o t h e r w i s e s m a l l - s c a l e p r o j e c t .
R C T C r e q u e s t s t h a t O P R c o n s i d e r , a n d r e v i s e A p p e n d i x F t o i n c l u d e , m e a s u r e s t h a t m a y b e
p o t e n t i a l l y f e a s i b l e f o r r u r a l o r l o w - d e n s i t y c o m m u n i t i e s s o t h a t t h e y , t o o , c a n w o r k t o w a r d s
m i t i g a t i n g o r a v o i d i n g p o t e n t i a l V M T - r e l a t e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p a c t s .
" R e s u l t i n g N e e d f o r A g e n c i e s t o C o n d u c t B o t h V M T a n d L O S T r a f f i c A n a l y s e s
"
P r o p o s e d S e c t i o n 1 5 0 6 4 . 3 w o u l d r e q u i r e a g e n c i e s t o l o o k a t V M T r a t h e r t h a n L O S t o a s s e s s
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p a c t s . H o w e v e r , t h e G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e w o u l d n o t l i m i t a n a g e n c y ' s a b i l i t y t o
c o n t i n u e t h e u s e o f L O S t o a n a l y z e n o n - t r a f f i c i m p a c t s ( s u c h a s l a n d u s e p a t t e r n s o r c i r c u l a t i o n
i s s u e s u n d e r a n a p p l i c a b l e G e n e r a l P l a n ) . ( P r o p o s e d S t a t e C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s , � 1 5 0 6 4 . 3 ( c ) . ) I n
p r a c t i c e , t h i s s e e m s t o r e q u i r e t h a t a g e n c i e s n o w c o n d u c t t w o e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e t r a f f i c s t u d i e s -
o n e t h a t l o o k s a t V M T p e r t h e G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e f o r p u r p o s e s o f a n a l y z i n g t r a f f i c i m p a c t s , a n d a
s e c o n d t h a t a n a l y z e s L O S c o n s i s t e n t w i t h l o c a l l a n d u s e p o l i c i e s a n d o t h e r s t a t e / f e d e r a l g u i d a n c e .
R C T C i s c o n c e r n e d t h a t t h i s w i l l n o t o n l y r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t a d d i t i o n a l d e l a y a n d e x p e n s e f o r
i m p o r t a n t p u b l i c p r o j e c t s , b u t m a y a l s o r e s u l t i n p e r c e i v e d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s b e t w e e n t h e a n a l y s e s
c o n t a i n e d i n a C E Q A d o c u m e n t . R C T C r e q u e s t s t h a t Q P R r e v i s e t h e P r o p o s e d G u i d e l i n e s t o
m a k e c l e a r t h a t c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d u s i n g t h e V M T m e t h o d o l o g y f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p a c t s a r e
n o t p e r s e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e r e a c h e d f o r o t h e r i m p a c t a r e a s u s i n g t h e L O S m e t h o d o l o g y a n d
t h a t a C E Q A v i o l a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t .
F u r t h e r , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t O P R ' s r e a s o n i n g f o r m a n d a t i n g t h e u s e o f V M T r e l i e s o n t h e f a c t t h a t
a g e n c i e s a l r e a d y u s e V M T t o a n a l y z e o t h e r t y p e s o f i m p a c t s ( s u c h a s e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n o r
G H G e m i s s i o n s ) , t h i s w e i g h s i n f a v o r o f f o r e g o i n g a d u p l i c a t i v e m a n d a t e t o u s e V M T i n a r e a s
o u t s i d e o f T P A s .
A g e n c y ' s D e l e t i o n o f M e a s u r e s I m p o s e d t o A d d r e s s A u t o m o b i l e D e l a y
1 7 3 3 6 . 0 0 1 2 1 \ 9 3 9 1 5 7 4 . 3 .
Christopher Calfee, Senior Counsel
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
November 17, 2014
Page4
The statement of reasons supported OPR's proposed Guidelines revisions states that an agency's
removal of mitigation measures tied solely to LOS would not trigger the need for CEQA review
because LOS will no longer be considered a significant impact. (Guidelines Update, page 11.)
RCTC requests that OPR specifically incorporate into the actual Proposed Guidelines a statement
reflecting this conclusion, as the Guidelines themselves do not make this evident. RCTC further
requests that OPR include a categorical exemption to aid agencies in bringing their planning
documents into conformance with the new VMT standard. Such a categorical exemption seems
appropriate given the clear statutory language found in SB 743, which confirms that automobile
delay shall no longer be treated as a significant environmental impact. Absent clear, legal
guidance on this topic, local agencies may be feel compelled by litigation pressure and potential
ambiguity in CEQA to undertake a CEQA process for actions that remove mitigation measures
tied solely to LOS.
Measurement of Regional Average VMT
Proposed Section 15064.3(b)(l) of the Guidelines Update specifies that a project resulting in
VMT greater than the regional average for the land use type may have a significant
transportation impact. However, the section does not specify whether measurements of regional
average are to be conducted as part of, or incorporated into, regional transportation plans and, if
so, by what date.
•
Furthermore, the assessment of averages across an entire metropolitan planning area, particularly •
in Riverside County and similar communities, may skew the average towards urban centers with
shorter commute trips. This will have a disproportionate effect on communities with non-urban
centers, whose projects will be more likely to exceed the "average" and be pushed into an EIR
process -even for small infill projects that would otherwise have insignificant impacts.
RCTC requests that OPR consider the practical difficulties that face rural communities in being
subject to a "regional average," and include clarifying information concerning how the regional
average VMT is to be measured and incorporated into planning documents. Further, RCTC
requests that OPR incorporate a means of measuring these averages that accounts for the
differing development densities across a region so that rural development is not unfairly and
disproportionately affected by a nearly automatic presumption of significant transportation
impacts due to higher than (urban) average VMT.
Projects Considered to Generally Have Less Than Significant Transportation Impacts
Proposed Sections 15064.3(b )(1) and (b )(2) list projects and project characteristics that,
according to the Guidelines Sections, are generally indicative of a less than significant impact to
transportation. These projects and characteristics include (1) location within one-half mile of a
major transit stop or stop along a high quality transit corridor; (2) a resulting decrease in VMT;
(3) consistency with a sustainable communities strategy; or (4) projects intended to improve
roadway safety or operations, or for maintenance or rehabilitation work. RCTC's concern is that
this list may be read to be exhaustive and that, therefore, any projects that do not possess these •
characteristics might be presumed to result in a potentially significant impact to transportation.
17336.00121\9391574.3
"
"
"
C h r i s t o p h e r C a l f e e , S e n i o r C o u n s e l
G o v e r n o r ' s O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g a n d R e s e a r c h
N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 4
P a g e 5
T h i s w o u l d b e p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o b l e m a t i c w h e r e a p r o j e c t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e b e c a t e g o r i c a l l y e x e m p t
b u t f o r i t s l a c k o f t h e s e p r o j e c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
R C T C r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e s e c t i o n b e r e v i s e d t o e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h a t t h e l i s t i s n o t e x h a u s t i v e a n d
t h a t t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m e a n t h a t a p r o j e c t w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y
i m p a c t t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .
A d d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s
T h r e a t t o V o t e r - A p p r o v e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n T a x M e a s u r e s
V o t e r - a p p r o v e d m e a s u r e s i n s e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s p r o v i d e f o r a p e r c e n t a g e t a x i n c r e a s e t o f u n d
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s . T h e s e m e a s u r e s a r e p r e m i s e d o n t h e i d e a t h a t r o a d w a y s w i l l b e
e x p a n d e d t o r e d u c e v e h i c l e d e l a y . F o r i n s t a n c e , M e a s u r e A i n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ( f r o m w h i c h
R C T C r e c e i v e s f u n d s ) a n d M e a s u r e I i n S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e t h a t a
p o r t i o n o f t h e f u n d i n g w i l l b e a l l o c a t e d f o r c e r t a i n f r e e w a y w i d e n i n g p r o j e c t s t o r e d u c e d e l a y .
O P R ' s p r o p o s e d a p p r o a c h o f a p p l y i n g V M T e v e n i n n o n - T P A s s e e m s t o c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e
p r o m i s e s m a d e t o v o t e r s r e g a r d i n g r e d u c i n g t r a f f i c d e l a y .
E x c l u s i v e U s e o f V M T t o P r o m o t e I n f i l l D e v e l o p m e n t M a y A c t u a l l y L i m i t H o u s i n g
O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r M o r e E c o n o m i c a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d P e o p l e
A t p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n s e s s i o n s o n t h e G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e , O P R r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e
u s e o f V M T w i l l p r o m o t e i n f i l l d e v e l o p m e n t , t h u s m a k i n g m o r e h o u s i n g a v a i l a b l e a t u r b a n
c e n t e r a n d p r o v i d i n g a n a d v a n t a g e t o e c o n o m i c a l l y d i s a d v a n t a g e d i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t m a y n o t h a v e
a c c e s s t o a p e r s o n a l v e h i c l e . H o w e v e r , s u c h a s s u m p t i o n s i g n o r e t h e f a c t t h a t h o u s i n g i n d e n s e l y
p o p u l a t e d u r b a n c e n t e r s i s a m o n g t h e m o s t e x p e n s i v e o n t h e m a r k e t . A c c o r d i n g l y , e n c o u r a g i n g
t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s u c h a d d i t i o n a l h o u s i n g ( w h i l e p r e s u m a b l y r e s u l t i n g i n a d e c r e a s e o f m o r e
c o m p e t i t i v e l y - p r i c e d h o u s i n g e l s e w h e r e ) w i l l n o t p r o v i d e t h e e c o n o m i c a l l y d i s a d v a n t a g e d w i t h
a n y k i n d o f b e n e f i t . I n f a c t , b y l i m i t i n g t h e a b i l i t y o f r u r a l c o m m u n i t i e s t o d e v e l o p i n g h o u s i n g
w i t h o u t f i r s t e n d u r i n g a n E I R p r o c e s s c o u l d a c t u a l l y f u r t h e r l i m i t a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g o p t i o n s f o r
t h e u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d .
E x e m p t i o n o r P a r t i a l E x e m p t i o n f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o j e c t s t h a t R e d u c e R e g i o n a l V M T
I n i t s J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 l e t t e r , R C T C r e q u e s t e d t h a t O P R c o n s i d e r u p d a t i n g t h e G u i d e l i n e s t o a d d
a c a t e g o r i c a l e x e m p t i o n f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s t h a t w o u l d r e d u c e v e h i c l e m i l e s t r a v e l e d o n a
r e g i o n a l b a s i s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , R C T C s u g g e s t e d t h a t a p a r t i a l e x e m p t i o n t h a t a l l o w s s u c h p r o j e c t s
t o f o r e g o a i r q u a l i t y / g r e e n h o u s e g a s a n a l y s e s w o u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e . S u c h a n e x e m p t i o n w o u l d
e n c o u r a g e p r o j e c t s t h a t r e d u c e r e g i o n a l V M T , w h i c h i s c r i t i c a l f o r m e e t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s G H G
r e d u c t i o n t a r g e t s u n d e r A B 3 2 a n d S B 3 7 5 . R C T C n o t e s t h a t i t s s u g g e s t i o n h a s n o t b e e n
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e . A s s u c h , R C T C w o u l d , o n c e a g a i n , e n c o u r a g e O P R t o
c o n s i d e r t h i s e x e m p t i o n a s i t f u r t h e r s t h e s a m e e n e r g y - c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s s e t f o r t h i n t h e
G u i d e l i n e s U p d a t e , a n d a l s o p r o m o t e s r e l i a n c e o n t h e u s e o f V M T t o m e a s u r e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
i m p a c t s .
1 7 3 3 6 . 0 0 1 2 1 \ 9 3 9 1 5 7 4 . 3
Christopher Calfee, Senior Counsel
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
November 17, 2014
Page6
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Guidelines Update. RCTC looks
forward to a continued dialogue with the Office of Planning and Research as the 2014 Update to
the State CEQA Guidelines is prepared.
17336.00121\9391574.3
Anne Mayer
Executive Director, Riverside County
Transportation Commission
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 6
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 6.
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORD<\BlE HOU8 NGAND8JSfAINABLECDVJMUN ITl ESFKJGRAM
Affordable Housing and SJstainable
Cnmmunities A"ogram
DRAFT GJIDBJ NEWORKs-IOPS
O:tober 231 Merced, CA. O:tober 271 Los Angeles, CA.
O:tober 24 I Oakland, CA. O:tober 281 S::la"amento , CA.
S:rudure of ~led Cap and Trade
A"oceed Investments
G"eenhouse <?es Reduction Fund Investments
GiG R!ductions •
.l ~-""'e ... :1,. I
Cb-Benefits llsadvaitaged
Communities •
Affordable Housing and
8.Jstainable Communities
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffiABLE HOU8 NG AND 8JSfAJ NABLE CDVJ M UNITlESffiX3RllM
A'"esentation Outline
• A"ogram R.Jrpose
• Bigible Uses
• Bigible A"oject Types and R:!quirements
• R.mding S:rt-Asides
• Bigible Applicants
• Awards. R:mgesand Limits
• A"oposed S:oring Bements
• A"oposed Application and ~iew A"oces.5
• Estimated limeline
\
. California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffiABLE HOUS NGAND8JSfAINABLECDVIMUNITlESffiX3RllM
Affordable Housing and SJstainable
Cnmmunit ies (AH3:;) A"ogram
The romplete D'aft GJidelines for the AfiS: A'ogram can be found here:
http://ooc.c:a .gov/ s ah&;proaram.OOp
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffiA.BlE HOUSNG AND SJSfAINABlE COl'VlM UN!Tl ESffi)GRllM
Purpose oft he AH~ A"ogram
9Jpports projects that will increase accessibility of
housing, employment centersand l<ey Destinations via
low-carbon transportation options (walking, biking and
transit}, resulting in fewer vehide miles travelled (\/Ml).
The A"ogram will provide grants and affordable housing
loans for infill and compact transit-oriented
development and related infra&rudure and program
activities.
Existing C.Onditions
E3efore we get into the details, let's look
at the big picture vision ...
Avenue developed as a mixed-use transit
rorridor
Existing Conditions
Infill buildings (including housing) built to sidewalk;
addition of median with street trees 11
Sidewalks protected from traffic with street trees; addition
of dedicated bike lane and buildings at sidewalk 10
Addition of side median creating dedicated bike
and slow access lanes 12
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffiABlE HOU3 NG AND 3JSfAI NABLE COMM UNITI ffi ffiJGfWV1
Key A'"ogram Thresholds
• R9duce GiG primarily through reduced VMT,
induding mode shift from single occupancy vehides
(fD/)
• Consistent with SJstainable Communities S:rategy,
or similar planning dorument*
• Consistent with the S:ate planning priorities per
65041.1 of the <?overnment Code
• ffi 862: "If a 9.Jstainable Olmmunities Srategy is not required for a region by law, a regional plan that
indudes policies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emission$' will meet this requirement.
13
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFDffiABLEHOU3NGAND3JSfAINABLEffiMMUNITlffiPROGAAM
A"ojects must demonstrate GHG reductions
that focus on VMTredudions.
In addition, projects may also demonstrate
ancillary G-IG reductions through:
• Improved energy efficiency
• Net G-IGsequestration
• Other G-IG reductions or emissions
avoidance
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffiABlE HOU3 NG AND 3JSfAI NABLE COMM UNITI ffiPROGAAM
Sate Aanning A'"iorities*
• A'omote infill development and equity by maintaining and
improving existing infrastructure
• A'oted environmental and agrirultural resources
• Encourage efficient development patterns by ensuring
infrastructure for new development does the following: uses
land efficiently; is built adjacent to existing developed areas;
is in an area appropriately planned for growth; served by
transportation and other essential utilities and services; and
minimizes costs to taxpayers
•Paraphrased from S!ction 65041.1 of the Government Oxfe 14
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffiABLE HOU3 NG AND 3JSfAI NABLE COMM UNITI ffi PROGAAM
Big Adure -VMT Fedudion Per Capita
Travel Mode
D R3il: Heavy/light
D B.Js'BRT
D Bike
D Walk ...
D Alternatives to Sngle-
O::cupancy ~hides
(e.g. car-sharing, ride-
sharing)
Key Destinations
ot-tome
D V\brk
o Slopping -
o S:hools -
o Parks
D 0-itical ~ices
o R3creational
• VMT
• GHG
16
Col!fornio
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOROA.BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAJ NABLE CXJNl M UNITl ES ffiJGRl'IM
Examples of Factors Influencing VMT
• Density-Fesidential
• Diversity of Land Uses
• Design of 3 reet Network
• Destination Accessibility
• Distance to Transit
• Other A"oject Olaracteristics
For additional information, please see Affi's policy briefs related to impacts of transportation
and Land Use-R91ated Fbliciesat: http://arb.ca.oov/o::/sb375/oolicies'policieshtm
17
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOROA.BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAINABLE CXJNl M UNITl ES ffiJGRl'IM
Disadvantaged C'Dmmunities (DAQ G.iidance
• G.Jidance on eligible ~Ccensus tracts will be
available in the next few weeks from the
California 8wironmental A"otection Agency
(Cal~
• G.Jidance indudeseligible ~Ccensustractsas
identified by the Cal8wiroS:;reen 2.0 tool,
which is based on 19 indicators of pollution
burden and population characteristics
19
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOROA.BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE CXJNl M UNITl ES PA:X;Ri\1\1
G-IG Quantification
• Applications must demonstrate the proposed
project(s) would reduce G-iGemissions,
subject to methodologies established by AR3
• Initial first year guidance on approaches to
estimate G-K3 reductions will be provided in
the A"ogram Draft Rnal G.Jidelines, posted on
Dec. 1,2014
Collfornla
Strategic Growth Council
AFFDRDABLE HOUS NGAND SJSfAINABLECXJNIM UNITlESPR'.X;RA.M
R:>le of Metropolitan Aanning
Organizations (M FGs)
18
• Mandated by S3 375 to adopt regional GHG
reduction targets for SJstainable Cbmmunity
Srategiesof Regional Transportation Aans(RTA3)
• A.Jrsuant to S3 862, S?C is to coordinate with
MFOsand other regional agencies to identify and
recommend qualifying projects
• Will participate in A"ogram workshops and
provide technical support.
20
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffill.BLE HOUS NG AND SJsrAJNABLE <XXvlM UNlll E:SPRJGRAJ'v1
8igible Uses
BJGIBLECAPITAL US:S
Housing Development
• New construct ion , substantial rehabilitation , conversion or
preservat ion
• Pt. least 20%oftotal unitsasrestricted units
• Minimum project size
• Metro Areas:?: 100 units
• Non-Metro Areas:?: 50 units
ReS1dent1al Mixed Use
l.a'ge Oty Downtown
Urban~nter
All other Areas
?: 60 units/acre
?: 40 units/acre
?: 20 units/acre
>3.0FAA
>2 .0FAA
>1 .5 FAA
21
23
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOffil\BLEHOUSNGANDSJ5rAINABLE<XXv1MUNITIE:SPRJGRAJ'v1
BJGIBLE O\PITAL Uffi3
• Housing Developments*
• Housing-~lated Infrastructure*
• Transportation or Transit -~lated Infrastructure (indudesActive
Transportation)*
• Qeen Infrastructure*
• Active Transportation
• Transit Rdership
• 0-iteria R:>llutant ~uction
• l nfrastructur&-Rllated O!pital Uses.
22
BJGBLECAPITALUS:S
Housi ng-FEI at ed Inf rast rud u re
• Improvements required as a condition of the
Affordable Housing Development (e.g. f!/dwer
upgrades, streets, utility aa;e5S relocation,
etc.)
• Ste acquisition
•Impact fees(<$200,000)
24
BJ GI BLE CAPITAL Uffi)
Transportation & Transit-FElated
Inf rast rud ure
• To enhance public transit
• To enhance pede&rian or bicyde aa:ess between
transit station , housing and l<ey Destinations
• S:>ft oosts directly related to the oonstrudion or
acquisition (e.g. engineering , planning ,
oonstrudion management , architectural and
design work) are eligible.
BJGIBLECAPITALUffi)
A"e-Development CDsts R31ated to
Aanning Implementation
•Examples:
25
o Improvement or updates to existing plans
or 20ning rodes to allow for the
development of the project
o Parking studies for the proposed A""oject
Area
o A""oject-based infrastructure financing
plans
27
BJGIBLECAPITALUffi)
Q-een Infrastructure
• To enhance environmental sustainability of the
A"oject Area (i.e. heat island mitigation, tree
canopy, stormwater filters)
• S:>ft oosts directly related to the oonstrudion
or acquisition (e.g . engineering , planning ,
oonstrudion management , architectural and
design work) are eligible.
BJGIBLEPRCX?RAM Uffi)
• Active Transportation
• Transit Rdership
• 0-iteria Fbllutant R3dudion
B191ble Costs lnel191ble Costs
• Sart-up oostsassociated • Oigoing operational CX>sts
with prog-cm aeation beyond the term of the
• Bcpansion oosts for existing award
prog-ams to serve new • 9.Jpplanting existing
populations or offer new funding
services
28
California
Strategic Growth Counci l
AFFORYIBLEHOU8NGAND8J5rAJNABLECDVIMUNITlESFKJGPAl\/1
California
Bigible Project Types &
FEqui rements
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORYIBLE HOUS NG AND 8J5rAINABLE CDVIM UNITl ES ffiXRAJV1
Transit-Oriented Developments
S:ale of TODs
29
31
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOPDABLE HOUS NG AND 8J5rAI NABLE CDVI M UNITl ESPAXRAM
Bigible Project Types
• Transit-Oiented Development (TOO)
C.Orridors, Dst:rids & Neighborhoods
• Integrated C.Onnedivity A-ojeds (ICP)
TOO Applications
(at I east 40% of
funds)
r '
*Based upon s::ore and meeting Affordable Hou9ng (AH) and llsadvantaged
Olmmunities (D<\q R3quirements
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORYIBLE HOUSNG AND 8J5rAI NABLE CDVI M UNITl ES FKJGPAIV1
Transit-Oriented Developments
• Must be designed to support low-carbon
transportation options within areas that have
High Quality Transit
• C.Onned High Quality Transit to Key
Destinations
• Must indudeat least one Affordable Housing
Development
32
Colifornlo
Strateolc Growth Council
AFFOfnll.81£ HOU8 NG AND SJsrAI NABl£ CDV1M UNITI E'S FH:x?PAM
Transit Requirements
Transit-Qiented Developments (TODs)
• FEquired Affordable Housing Development must be located
within %mile of a Qualifying Transit Sat ion or within a
Major Transit O>rridor
• Must indude a Major Transit Sop
• ~by Hg, Quality Transit -1-ffi, Heavy/U!Jlt ~I. BRr;
B<press a.is (i.e. 15 min . peak headway)
• Traisit Sat ion must be located within existing traisit
oorridor or within a new transit oorridor for whidl funding
has been oommitted aid progammed with oonstruction of
traisit line underway
TOD A"oject: Examples
33
Sdewalks and dedicated bicyde paths
providing oonnectivity between housing
and a transit station
OR
Sation area improvements, induding bus + stop bendles or shelters
OR
( Transit signal priority tedlnology systems J
OR
Transit-related roadway acx::ess
im rovements
35
Colifornio
Strateolc Growth Council
AffOffiA,BLEHOU8NGANDSJ5rAINABl£CDV1MUNITIE'SffiXPAM
Transit-Oriented Developments
• Located within a Yzmile of Qualifying High Quality
Transit (defined by 15 min. peak headways)
FEquired
Affordable
Housing
(AH~funded
or other)
Colifornio
+
FEquired
At least one
c.ap1tal Use
Strateoic Growth Council
AFFOffiABl£HOU8NGANDSJ5rAINABl£CDV1MUNITIE'SffiXRA.M
Optional
htditional
Olpital or
R"oSJllll Uses
Integrated O>nnectivity Projects
• Must be designed to achieve G-iG reduction
by increasing oonnectivity between Key
Destinations through new or significantly
increased transit ridership
• For Non-Metropolitan areas and portions of
Metropolitan Areas lacking High Quality
Transit requirements of a 1DD
34
36
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOR:\l\BlEHOUSNGANDSUSfAINABLECUVlMUNITIESFRJGRAM
/
'
Transit R3quirements
Integrated Connectivity R-ojeds (10:::,
• A"oject Area must indude ci least one Qualifying Transit
Sation with service by High ~eed R:lil, Heavy/Light R:iil , 8.Js
R:lpid Transit, 8.Jsor Vanpool/Sluttle
• No specified distance requirements between Key
Destinations
37
ICP A"oject Examples
Capital Use + Capital or R-ogram Use
Bicyde/ pedestrian Improvements to one or oonnect ions from housing + more transit stations or employment to transit
Cbmplete street
Affordable Housing + improvements to increase
Development walking and biking to
Transit Sation or Sop
Inter-reg ional oommuter + Transit ~dership A"ogram transit or vanpoo l service
39
""
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFOR:\l\BlEHOUSNGANDSUSfAINABlECUVlMUNITIESA-OGRtlM
Integrated C.Onned:ivity A'"ojed:s
• R-ojed Area must indude at least one Transit
Sat ion or aop and be served by at least one mode
of transit (can indude vanpool/shuttle)
• May indude affordable housing , but not required
Required
At least one
Capital Use +
Required
Ole
Additional
Capital or
A"o ram Use
Optional
A:ldit ional
Qipital or
A'oga11 Uses
TOO & ICP A"oject Type SJmmaries
TOD Project Categories
(Corridor, District or
Neighborhood)
Integrated Connectivity
Projects (ICP)
38
Areas with Qualifying Areas with Potential to Improve
Transit
Requirements
Eligible
Projects
High Quality Transit
Project Area must include a Major
Transit Stop within a % mile
catchment area with service by at
least one of the following :
DHigh Speed Rail
o Heavy/Light Rail
DBus Rapid Transit (BRT)
o Express Bus
Projects MUST Include at least
IWQ Elig ible Uses.
Must include (1) an affordable
housing development (residential
or mixed-use) and (2 ) one
Infrastructure-Related Capital
Use.
Transit
Project Area must include at least
ONE Transit Station or Stop with
service by at least one of the
following :
DHigh Speed Rail
o Heavy/Light Rail
o Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
o Express Bus
o Bus
o vanpool/Shuttle
Projects MUST include at least
IWQ Eligible Uses.
At least one of the Eligible Uses
must include an Infrastructure-
Related Capital Use .
California
Strateoic Growth Counci l
AFFOFO\BLE HOUSNGAND SJSfAINABLE CCMM UNITIESFRXFAJ'v1
Funding ~t-Asides
41
California
Strateoic Growth Council
AFFOFO\BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE CCM M UNITIES FfflGPAM
BigibleApplicants
43
California
Strateoic Growth Council
AfF()A)<\BlE HOUSNG AND SJSfAINABLECOM M UNITIESPRXRAM
• M.. least 50%of annual
proceeds appropriated
for affordable housing*
• M.. least 50% offunding
to benefit Clsadvantaged
Communities*
50%
Affordable
Housi ng
(AH)
Requirement
AH
&
DAC
50%
Disadvantaged
Community
(DAC)
Requirement
• These two requirements may ocrur in one project (e.g .
conS:rudion of affordable housing in a disadvantaged
community)
*ffi862
California
Strateoic GrOwth Council
AFFOFO\BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE COMMUNITIES FRXFMv1
A A.Jblic~cy* that hasjuris:.lidion over the R"oject
Area is a required applicant either alone or jointly with
any of the following:
• ..bint FbwersAuthorities • Transit Agencies' Operators
• F\Jblic Housing Authorities • S::hool District
• Developers (profit or non-
profit)
• Facilities or other special
district
In add it ion , a Non -A'ofit Ogan ization • O:>mmunity Dellelopment Rnancial
Inst it ut ions (CDRs) or O:>mmun ity Development O:>rporations((IX);) may be a co -
appl icant with an elis:j ble F\Jbli c Agency.
*In most cases will be a aty or O:>unty
42
44
California
Strategic Growth Counci l
AFFORO<\BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE CDM M UNITIES FR)GRAJv1
Awards: Ranges& Limits
45
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORO<\BLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE CDMM UNITI ESPffiGPAl\/1
Proposed Sx>ring Bements
47
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORDABLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE CDM M UNITIES PFDGRA.M
$500,000-$8 million
• Maximum award of $15 million per funding cyde
per city, city/ county, or unincorporated county
• Olly one award per A"ojed Area
• A single developer may rereive no more than
$15 million per funding cyde
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORDABLE HOUS NG AND SJSfAI NABLE CDM M UNITIES PFDGRA.M
Feasibility
&
FeOOiness
3540%
of Sx>re
Cbnnedivity
&
Improved
lv:r£SS
~%
of S:x>re
46
48
Californto
Strategic Growth Council
AFFDRJABLEHOUSNGANDSJSTAINABLECDMMUNlllESPRJGRAM
Feasibility & Raadine$ (35-40%)
0-iteria will be used to assescs "shovel-readines5'
induding entitlements, other funding s::>urces and
implementation of planning efforts supporting G-IG
reduction.
• ~diness of the Affordable Housing Development
• Readinessof Non-Housing Infrastructure A'ojed(s)
• A'ogram Readine$, Capacity, Need and Leverage
• Leverage of O:her <32.R= Funds and A'ior Ranning B'forts
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFDRJABLE HOUSNG AND SJSTAI NABLE CDM M UNlll ES PRJGRll.M
Community Orientation (15-20o/o)
0-iteriawill ~context sensitivity and extent to
which proposed project addresses the needs of the
community.
• Bd:ent to whid1 Housing Development serves lower-and
moderate-income households
• Location Affordability Index
• Anti-Displacement 3rategies
• Bd:ent to whid1 the A'ojed addresses Co-Benefits
• Community Eilgagement
49
51
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFDRDABLE HOUS NG AND SJSTAI NABLECDMM UNlllES PRJGRAM
Connectivity & Improved A<rl3ss (40-45°/o)
O'iteria assesses how dlanges in the built environment improve
connectivity between housing, transit, employment centers and
l<ey Destinations.
• Access to Qualified 8nployment Areas
• A'oximity to Transit SJpportive Land Uses
• lnaease in public transit ridership
• Parking/Transit Passes/Car sharing/eledricvehide infrastructure
• Walkable corridors
• Bicydefeatures
• Community Qeening and Natural Resource Conservation
California
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORDABLEHOUSNGANDSJSTAINABLECDMMUNlllESPR:lGRAM
Proposed Application
&
Raview Proce$
50
52
Colifornlo
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORlABLEHOUSNGANDSJSfAINABLECOMMUNITlESPR)GRAM
Full Application SJbmittal and ~iew • Funding ~mmendationsto ~
R3view A"ocessand S::oring
Minimum R.mds Fer A"ojec:t
Type (TOO& I~ -funding
R9oommendations
to~
53
56
~view A"ocess& S::oring
'TOO-specific
Sx>ring Oiteria •
TOD& ICP
Applications
~iewed&
SDred S9parately
Total Sx>re
ICF-spedfic
Sx>ring Oiteria •
(%of max. applicable points based on applicaion type)
+
GHG-based Score*
QJM ULATIVESXH
•Fending Am GJ idance
~view A"ocessand S::oring
Total Availal:>le Ftmds
..,.,.
Affordable
Housing
(AH)
Requirement
AH
&
DAC
..,.,.
Disadvantaged
Community
(DAC)
Requirement
54
56
R3view A"ocessand Snring
QJM ULATIVE 3))RES
$48Million $36Million
R.mding R:lcommendationsto S::C
Colirornlo
Strategic Growth Council
AFfOFUA.BlE HOUSNG AND SJSfAI NABLE <D'v1M UNlll ESPR:XJRCIM
Estimated Tlmeline
J
J
AUGUSf2014 Three Publ1cWorkshopson G.J1dellne Development
s::F'TBvlBER2014 ~lease Draft G.Jidelines
OCIOBER2014 Four Public Workshops on Draft GJidelines
IJEC 1, 2014 ~lease Draft Rnal GJidelines
IJEC 11, 2014 Rnal GJidelines to C.Ouncil for Approval
J\NUARY2015 ' Funding SJllatat1on ~leased
FEBRUARY2015 'C.Oncepts Due
APRIL2015 R.111 Applications Due
JJNE2015 Awards Announced
59
AH~A"ogram R.mding-FY2014/15
Approx. $120 million*
+-30%-..
$36M
(if even split between
100& 10:,
Approximately 13-23 Awards 3atewide
• BcludesS<\LCA-ogram oomponent
•• R;onge cl potential awards based upon all awards at max Oow end) llS. all awards at mid-
rmge, i.e. 50% cl maxirrum award (high end) 58
Existing Conditions
60
BRT lane and station; dedicated bike lane
wider sidewalks, street lamps, and shade treE!s
Californta
Strategic Growth Council
AFFORJABLE HOUS NG AND SJSTAI NABLE OJIV1 M UNl11 ES PffiGRAM
Additional comments can be
submitted to the following link:
http://'§!F.ca.oov/s ahSONeboommentform.php
63
Dense corridor development connecting transit,
housing, jobs and key destinations 62
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
_ /
DATE:
November 17, 2014
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
LoreIle Moe -Luna, Senior Staff Analyst
Eric DeHate, Staff Analyst
SUBJECT:
2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program; and
2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
2013 FTIP
On August 18, 2014, RCTC staff presented updates to the 2013 FTIP and reported the
approval of Formal Amendments and Administrative Modifications 1-20 totaling changes to
300 projects (RCTC participated in 19 of 20 Amendments).
Since then, Administrative Modification No. 21 was submitted to SCAG encompassing
changes to 9 projects, which was submitted to SCAG on September 30, 2014 and approved
on October 16, 2014. Please know there are no additional Amendments/Modifications to the
2013 FTIP. The 2013 FTIP is anticipated to expire mid -December; the 2013 FTIP will be
superseded by the 2015 FTIP. The attached Amendment Log identifies the number of
projects in each Amendment/Administrative Modification and the approval dates
To view and/or print the most current 2013 FTIP approved listings, please visit SCAG's
website at http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2013/approved.aspx.
2015 FTIP
On August 18, 2014, RCTC staff presented an update to the Draft 2015 FTIP and Draft
Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and reported the release of the 30-day public
review period on July 1, 2014. As you may recall, two public meetings were held on July 10,
2014 and July 24, 2014 to receive public comments to the Draft 2015 FTIP and Draft
Amendment No. 2 to the 2012 RTP/SCS. The public review comment ended on
July 31, 2014.
Subsequent to the end of the public review comment period and after SCAG staff responded
to the comments received on the draft document, the SCAG's Transportation Committee and
Regional Council at their meeting of September 11 approved Amendment No. 2 to the
2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2012
RTP/SCS) and the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). This gave
staff authorization to forward the documents to the appropriate state and federal reviewing
agencies for final approval.
Also, to incorporate the project changes to the 2015 FTIP since its submittal to SCAG, SCAG
opened up the opportunity for Formal Amendment No. 1 to the 2015 FTIP. Amendment No. 1
to the 2015 FTIP (2015 FTIP A-1), which originally included 57 projects, was submitted to
SCAG on August 12, 2014.
Subsequent to the 2015 FTIP A-1 submittal, the CTC approved the ATP Statewide funded
projects at its August 20, 2014 meeting. RCTC, anticipating SCAG's Regional Council
approval of the ATP-MPO funded projects, revised 2015 FTIP A-1 to include the ATP
Statewide funded projects and ATP-MPO funded projects. The revised submittal of 2015
FTIP A-1 changed from 57 projects to 81 projects. SCAG's Regional Council then approved
the ATP-MPO funded projects at its meeting on October 2, 2014; the CTC approval of the
ATP-MPO funded projects was November 12, 2014.
SCAG also moved forward with Administrative Modification No. 2 (2015 FTIP A-2), due to
SCAG on November 4, 2014. RCTC submitted 2015 FTIP A-2 to SCAG with changes to 13
projects. This Administrative Modification is anticipated to be approved shortly after the 2015
FTIP and Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS and 2015 FTIP A-1 are approved.
The anticipated approval of the 2015 FTIP and Amendment No. 2 to the 2012-2035
RTP/SCS and 2015 FTIP A-1 is mid -December. The anticipated approval of the 2015
FTIP A-2 is the end of the calendar year.
To review the Draft 2015 FTIP project listings, please visit SCAG's website below:
http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Pages/2015/draft.aspx
The following table is SCAG's current 2015 FTIP amendment schedule up to August 2015.
2015 FTIP Amendment/Administrative Modification Schedule
Due to RCTC
Due to SCAG
Amendment/Administrative
Modification No.
Formal or Administrative
11/21/2014
12/9/2014
15-99
RTP Consistency Amendment
12/16/2014
12/23/2014
15-03
Formal
2/10/2015
2/17/2015
15-04
Administrative
3/24/2015
3/31/2015
15-05
Formal
5/5/2015
5/12/2015
15-06
Administrative
6/16/2015
6/23/2015
15-07
Formal
7/27/2015
8/4/2015
15-08
Administrative
Attachments: 2013 FTIP Amendment Log
2015 FTIP Amendment Log
2013 Federal Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Submittals and Approval Dates
2013 FTIP
Purpose
No. of Projects
Due to RCTC
Due to SCAG
Anticipated Approval
Final Approval
Final
12/13/2012
Amendment 1
Formal Amendment
53
10/8/2012
10/22/2012
1 /31 /2013
Amendment 2
Amendment 3
Administrative Modification
Formal Amendment
23
14
11/19/2012
12/17/2012
11 /27/2012
1 /8/2013
12/15/2013
3/15/2013
RTP Consistency
Amendment/Amendment 4
Formal Amendment
1
1/9/2013
1 /14/2013
6/30/2013
1/24/2013
12/19/2012
3/13/2013
Amendment 5
Amendment 6
Amendment 7*
Administrative Modification
Formal Amendment
Formal Amendment
15
8
1/24/2013
2/25/2013
2/5/2013
3/5/2013
2/27/2013
2/28/2013
4/30/2013
4/30/2013
2/21/2013
4/18/2013
3/22/2013
Amendment
Administrative Modification
15
4/1/2013
4/9/2013
4/30/2013
4/25/2013
Amendment 9
Formal Amendment
15
4/29/2013
5/7/2013
6/21/2013
6/27/2013
Amendment 10
Administrative Modification
4
5/28/2013
6/4/2013
6/28/2013
6/25/2013
Amendment 11
Formal Amendment
1C
6/27/2013
7/2/2013
8/23/2013
9/5/2013
Amendment 12
Administrative Modification
6
7/24/2013
7/31/2013
8/30/2013
8/22/2013
Amendment 13
Formal Amendment
28
8/23/2013
9/3/2013
10/25/2013
11/5/2013
Amendment 14
Administrative Modification
2
9/24/2013
10/1/2013
10/25/2013
10/23/2013
Amendment 15
Formal Amendment
5
10/22/2013
10/29/2013
12/18/2013
12/18/2013
Amendment 16
Administrative Modification
19
11/25/2013
12/3/2013
12/26/2013
12/30/2013
Amendment 17
Formal Amendment
30
2/14/2014
2/25/2014
4/25/2014
4/30/2014
Amendment 18
Administrative Modification
11
3/25/2014
4/1/2014
4/25/2014
4/30/2014
Amendment 19
Formal Amendment
27
4/29/2014
5/6/2014
6/25/2014
7/17/2014
Amendment20
Administrative Modification
14
7/1/2014
7/8/2014
7/25/2014
7/24/2014
Amendment 21
Administrative Modification
9
9/23/2014
9/30/2014
10/25/2014
10/16/2014
Total Number of Projects
309
*RCTC did not participate in this Amendment
2013 FTIP Amendment log.xlsx
As of November 10, 2014
11/10/2014 - 9:28 AM Page 1 of 1
2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program - Amendment Submittals and Approval Dates
2015 FTIP
Purpose
No. of Projects
Due to RCTC
Due to SCAG
Anticipated Approval
Final Approval
Final
Update
381
10/7/2013
1 /3/2014
12/17/2014
Amendment 1
Formal Amendment
81
8/5/2014
8/12/2014
12/17/2014
Amendment
Administrative Modification
13
10/27/2014
11/4/2014
12/29/2014
I
Total Number of Projects
475
2015 FTIP Amendment log.xlsx
As of November 10, 2014
11/10/2014 - 10:08 AM Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 17, 2014
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT:
Final Obligation Delivery Report — FFY 2013/14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
RCTC is proud to provide you with the final federal obligation utilization report for FFY
2013/14. The combined CMAQ and RSTP obligation as of September 30, 2014 was
$74,685,712 ($36,448,899 are CMAQ funds and $38,236,813 are RSTP funds). As a region,
we exceeded the adjusted obligation authority of $64,549,787 by approximately $10 million.
More importantly, RCTC is happy to see that federal funds are being utilized to leverage local
funds and that the region is aggressively investing in transportation infrastructure. The
following are major projects funded in FFY 2013/14:
CMAQ FUNDED
• Palm Springs - Farrell Dr. at Vista Chino turning lanes
• Palm Springs - Traffic Management Center
• RCTC/Caltrans - SR91 HOV (supplemental funding)
• Moreno Valley's Aqueduct Tr — Class I Bike Trail*
• Caltrans - SR60 Truck Climbing / Truck Descending Lane*
• RTA - ITS *
• RTA - Limited Stop Service from UCR to Corona*
RSTP FUNDED
• Riverside - Quiet Zone
• Riverside - Iowa Avenue Grade Separation (supplemental funding)
• Moreno Valley - SR60/Theodore St. IC*
• Riverside County - Rancho California Rd. Pavement Rehab**
• Riverside County - 62nd St. Pavement Rehab**
• Riverside County - I-215/Newport Rd IC improvements*
• Riverside County - 1-10/Jefferson St. IC improvements*
Thank you all for helping the region and Caltrans over -deliver our obligation authority in
Fiscal Year 2013/14.
* Denotes Multi -Funding Call for Projects Awards
** Denotes STP Pavement Rehabilitation Call for Projects
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 17, 2014
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
SUBJECT:
2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
RCTC is finalizing the project changes received from our member agencies for the long-
range transportation plan (2016-2040) also known as the 2016 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The submittal date to the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) is November 28, 2014. We want to thank all
of you who provided us with the project information updates to compile the information on
behalf of our region to SCAG.
The next steps in the process will be:
• SCAG reviews required modeling updates by December 2014
• Public Review Period — October 2015
• SCAG's Regional Council approval — April 2016
• Federal agencies conformity approval — June 2016
As in previous RTP/SCS updates, SCAG and the Commissions attempt to clean up project
listings by eliminating project duplications and deleting projects that have proceeded to the
project implementation through the Federal Transportation Improvement Program. Through
a combined effort between the local agencies, SCAG, and RCTC staff, a few duplicates were
eliminated.
SCAG has also opened the opportunity to update existing modeled projects in the 2015 FTIP,
such as scope of work changes and/or completion year delays that cross modeled years.
This 2015 FTIP amendment will be called a consistency amendment as the project changes
will align with the 2016 RTP/SCS. The anticipated approval date for the 2015 FTIP
consistency amendment and the 2016 RTP/SCS will be in the spring/summer 2016.
A few state highway projects have been identified for this consistency amendment and the
sponsor agencies have been notified of the opportunity to incorporate the changes in the
2015 FTIP. The benefit of this combined effort is that the changes can occur concurrently
instead of an amendment approval to the RTP/SCS and then processing an amendment to
the 2015 FTIP. The only downside to the combined effort is that the projects will be locked
for changes from mid -August 2015 through June 2016 when the 2016 RTP/SCS is approved.
The listing of projects that will have modeling changes as part of the consistency amendment
is due to SCAG on December 11, 2014; programming and other minor changes to the
modeling will be due on August 18, 2015. If there are capacity -enhancing local highway
projects that require a similar combined effort (FTIP amendment/RTP amendment), please
notify Eric DeHate by Friday, November 21.
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 17, 2014
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Shirley Media, Planning and Programming Director
LoreIle Moe -Luna, Senior Staff Analyst
SUBJECT:
Active Transportation Program (ATP) — Cycle 1 Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SB 99 consolidated various state and federal transportation programs and associated funds
and accounts, including the Transportation Alternatives Program, Bicycle Transportation
Account, the Bikeway Account, and Safe Routes to School Program to create the Active
Transportation Program (ATP). A Call for Projects for Cycle 1 of ATP was released on
March 20, 2014 and closed on May 21, 2014. The program includes $368.1 million for active
transportation projects, with 50% allotted to a statewide competition, another 40% for large
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), and the remaining 10% for small urban and
rural.
Applications were evaluated and scored by various agencies such as Caltrans, Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA), MPOs, councils of governments, and county
public health departments. On August 20, 2014, the California Transportation Commission
(CTC) approved the recommended list of statewide projects, including 12 from Riverside
County. On October 2, 2014, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Regional Council approved the recommended list of MPO projects, including nine projects
from Riverside County, and subsequently submitted to the CTC for approval. The CTC
approved the recommended MPO Cycle 1 list at the November 12, 2014 meeting.
In total, Riverside County was awarded 21 projects totaling $32.2 million, about 9% of the
total funds available. Attachment A includes a summary of the selected statewide and MPO
projects including two planning studies.
The first cycle of any new funding program is a learning curve for all parties, and RCTC staff
is committed to assisting its agencies through the process. Project sponsors are encouraged
to work closely with RCTC staff and Caltrans Local Assistance to ensure projects are
allocated timely.
Following are updates that project sponsors in Cycle 1 should be aware of.
✓ Project sponsors should contact their Local Assistance Engineer to request a
Federal Project Number if you haven't already done so.
' O n O c t o b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 , a N e x t S t e p s w o r k s h o p w a s h o s t e d b y C a l t r a n s a n d p r e s e n t e d
b y T e r e s a M c W i l l i a m s . T h e P o w e r P o i n t w e b i n a r ( v i d e o ) a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e
a v a i l a b l e o n t h e L o c a l A s s i s t a n c e w e b p a g e . T h e Q & A s e g m e n t o f t h e s e s s i o n w i l l
a l s o b e s u m m a r i z e d a n d m a d e a v a i l a b l e o n t h e i r w e b p a g e .
' F o r p r o j e c t s p o n s o r s u n d e r t h e s t a t e w i d e a w a r d e d p r o j e c t s t h a t s u b m i t t e d a s t a t e -
o n l y f u n d r e q u e s t , t h e r e l e a s e o f s t a t e - o n l y f u n d e d p r o j e c t s i s a n t i c i p a t e d i n m i d -
N o v e m b e r a c c o r d i n g t o C a l t r a n s s t a f f i n t h e O c t o b e r 2 9 t h N e x t S t e p s w o r k s h o p . A s
o f t h e w r i t i n g o f t h i s r e p o r t , t h i s w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e .
' F o r p r o j e c t s p o n s o r s u n d e r t h e M P O a w a r d e d p r o j e c t s , t h e s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l f u n d
b r e a k d o w n w a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e C T C o n N o v e m b e r 1 2 t h , h o w e v e r , c o n f i r m a t i o n o f
t h e f u n d s w i l l b e d e t e r m i n e d a t t h e t i m e o f f u n d i n g a l l o c a t i o n .
' P r o j e c t s p o n s o r s w h o p r o g r a m m e d i n f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 1 4 / 2 0 1 5 m u s t r e c e i v e a l l o c a t i o n
b y t h e C T C n o l a t e r t h a n t h e J u n e 2 0 1 5 m e e t i n g . P l e a s e n o t e a n a l l o c a t i o n r e q u e s t
m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d t o C a l t r a n s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 0 d a y s , o r t w o m o n t h s p r i o r t o t h e
C T C m e e t i n g . R e f e r t o t h e C T C m e e t i n g s c h e d u l e a v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t
h t t p : / / w w w . c a t c . c a . g o v / m e e t i n g s / i n d e x . h t m f o r t h e c o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g d a t e s a n d
a l l o c a t i o n s u b m i t t a l d a t e s .
' F o r M P O p r o j e c t s , c o n c u r r e n c e b y t h e R T P A , w h i c h i s R C T C , i s r e q u i r e d . P l e a s e
a l l o w a m p l e t i m e f o r R C T C s t a f f t o s i g n a n d r e t u r n t h e s i g n a t u r e f o r m .
' S C A G s t a f f i s p l a n n i n g t o h o l d a w o r k s h o p i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4 t o a s s i s t p r o j e c t
s p o n s o r s i n d e v e l o p i n g p r o j e c t s t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h c u r r e n t a n d i n n o v a t i v e a c t i v e
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n d e s i g n s a n d t r e n d s .
C y c l e 2 o f A T P i s p l a n n e d f o r M a r c h 2 0 1 5 a n d w i l l i n c l u d e t w o y e a r s o f f u n d i n g a n d
a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f a v a i l a b l e f u n d s .
ATTACHMENT A:
ATP STATEWIDE AND MPO
LIST OF PROJECTS FOR
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM - MPO CYCLE 1 ($1,000s)
State Funding
PA&ED
DESIGN
=01±.'1S
R/W
CONS
Total 14/15
PA&ED
DESIGN
2C'.= 1E
R/W
CONS
Total 15/16
Combined
Funding
Total
Federal
::7oXd1�=_
• ::Tyitk::
Cumm.
Funding
ID
Agency
Project Title
SCORE
TCM
YES/NO
YES/NO
FTIP
Total
Project
Total Fund
Request
0527
Riverside Co
Clark St Sidewalk and Intersection
Safety Improvements
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
895
YES
RIV140838
721
721
•
:.2• 01• ):
31/41 k4::
:l%2ii 6I'l5::
200
:34a
:6(1(2a15
S/.10015
;' ;: 1:77
;07006:
0020:15
521
721
:;
i?I
721
0525
Riverside Co
Avenida Rambla Sidewalk Safety
Improvements
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
89.3
NO
RIV140839
356
356
: al(4(20i4:
t:2/21(2625:
-:::50
:::444(45
:6724/2015: •
SS
:: 5%1/2016
:: On*
;:27i
271
356
:::3,$6,
1,077
0530
Riverside Co
Grapefruit Blvd/4th St Ped and
Roadway Safety Improvements
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
89.0
NO
RIV140840
2,300
2,300
:..149
::lf/440.14:
1%21/ii1.15:
143
287
7/1/2015
9/26/2015
10
1,860
4/1/2016
6/1/2016
2,157
2,300
2,157
•
:::: ;1A3
3,377
0517
Riverside
Iowa Ave and Martin Luther King Blvd
Bike Improvements
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
85.0
YES
RIV140841
332
267
-
:267
5M016
6/5%101g
267
267
;::267
3,644
0571
Coachella
ATP Improvements
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
84.3
NO
RIV140842
1,764
1,764
.'100:
:::4%1%?0:15 :
:: 6/2$f 2015::
100
1,664
4/1/2016
6/1/2016
1,664
1,764
1,664
:.:;
1110
,
5,408
0521
Riverside
Wells/Arlanza Sidewalk Improvement
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
81.3
YES
RIV140843
1,961
1,782
-
1,782
4/1/2016
6/1/2016
1,782
1,782
1,782
,-
-
7,190
0522
Riverside
Norte Vista Sidewalk Imrpovement
CTC Submittal
CTC Allocation
79.0
YES
RIV140844
2,833
1,822
1,822
4/1/2016
6/1/2016
1,822
1,822
1,822
9,012
0534
WRCOG
Western Riverside County
Subregional Active Transportation
Plan
80.0
NO
SCAGATP_RP1
333
333
_
..
333
333
3. .
9,345
0570
State Coastal
Conservancy
Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway
NO
SCAGATP_RPl
218
197
: •:197; ;
_ . . .
197
197
• : ;1?3t7
9,542
861
8,681
9,542 7,425 2,117
9,542
'OT
8£L'ZZ
bLL'ZT
V96'6
8EL'ZZ
1�9Z/6Z/6::
'
1!!a.?LSa?6:.
OSE
LL"
-
OSE
STOZ/4Z/9
STOZ/T/b
OSE
OSE
05E
£S804TAILI
ON
COL
uopeame DID
impugns DID
spud W/80 weJ80.,d
uo!leyodsue� an!lay S185
y
Hd0
a pnA!
00 p. 8
89L0
:
88E'ZZ
002446:
1pa¢1s404al{
96L'T
LO8 ,
9I0Z/T/T
STOZ/T/OT
L08
686
STOZ/4Z/9
STOMA>
L08
STOZ/SZ/£
STOZ/T/T
9ZT
STOZ/SZ/£
STOZ/T/T
9S
686
686
9580VTAIH
53A
078
uo!le.011V lll
lell!w9nS DID
SINS olupet ue5 aaIPV+8 alas
o3upef ue5
Z£SO
Z65`OZ
Ob9'I
0841 a
9TOZ/T/9
9TOZ/T/4
08P1
09T
STOZ/T/tr
STOZ/T/Z
TL
STOZ/T/b
STOZ/T/Z
68
MI
049'T
648OVIA18
ON
£'b8
uo!leaollV DO
IeA!wgnS DID
5luawa7dwi
A7IIPei Pad 5185 ap!nW9
Aa a oua�o
!I A W
ZTSO
Z56'81
1i.TOZZ62/0
1uds.14.0i. !t
T8S'Z
4L£7
9TOZ/T/9
9TOZ/T/b
4LE'Z
LOZ
STOZ/4Z/9
STOZ/T/4
981
4TOZ/OT/ZT
bT/6/0T was
TZ
TI3S'Z
T85'Z
84804TAI8
ON
L'48
uopeaolry DI7
lell!w9nS DID
sluawamudw!
Pad Aleluawall uos3aef..puV
o!Pul
6050
TLE'9T
0Z/4£/6; :
hpas:0 4al1
ZOZ'T
ZOZ'T
9TOZ/1/9
9TOZ/T/4
ZOZ'I
-
ZOVI
8Z8`E
TSBOKA18
ON
£'98
.04.011V Jill
www9n5 ao
pea lauuey0
we..0 uuolS AalleA spud
su.,ad
9I50
69T'ST
.
006'0i
006'01
006%
STOZ/ST/OT
STOZ/T/8
006'£
000'L
bTOZ/8/0T
PaleaolIV
000'L
006'0T
65£'66
SOOT£TAIN
53A
O'L8
u°woolly ao
Iewuzgn53l0
lut1 A7
9V/0
LOSO
69Z'4
DTQZr6L/6:
anDa
W..�3? k
LL8
Lit
STOZ/TE/5
STOZ/T/E
LL8
LL8
L66
ZS804TAIH
S3A
0'88
uopewip/DID
!ell!wgn5 DID
sluawanoldwi pad pue apAa!8
sewy 8wu!Ofpy pue wnolumo0
ap!vaA!8
6T50
Z6E'E
•
4TOZ/OT/.OT
U??15a0,4. k
599
ZES
STOZ/ST/OT
STOUT/8
ZES
££T
STOZ/SZ/£
STOZ/I/T
££T
599
ZEL
8580KA01
ON
0'68
uogeaollV DID
1e11!w4n5 DO
laatoud SINS 1S a3uAd
AalleA edn.int
TTSO
LZL'Z
' bT0?/SZ(6::
uas Safi '
3. 1 bat{
00n
0071
STOZ/9Z/8
STOZ/T/9
OOT'T
00T1
OOT'T
05804TA18
S3A
L"68
uo!leaollV 011
Ieww9n5 ao
swawanoldwl
Pad peoy ela!ynW
sula d
ST50
LZ9'T
06Z162'%6
1}C?sasaof s
00S
-
00S
STOZ/4Z/9
STOZ/T/b
00S
005
00S
£S8OVIAN
ON
E"06
uo!leaollV ao
lell!wgns DID
O!pul W/PO SINS
Hd0
op appwA!8
OLLO
LZT'T
' - -
4T07JOt/OT
11- isanDalt
LZ9
;
ZOS
STOZ/ST/OT
STOZ/T/8
ZOS
SZT
STOZ/SZ/E
STOZ/T/T
SIT
LZ9
689
L5804TAIN
ON
5"16
uoumallV DID
leliv.uq%DO
IS 4104-SINS
AalleA ednunf
OTSO
005
:.910Z/6Z/6:
yliaSl�ad4?a
005
-
005
SIOZ/4Z/9
STOZ/T/b
005
005
005
E580bTAI8
ON
L'176
uo!leaollV DID
Ieu!w9nS 9ll
AalleA edrunf to Ain SINS
Hd0
oD appmA!8
69L0
8u!pund
w 'wn7
• '• '• '• '• '•
.1146:1£1�1
. - -
moped
le3ol
8u!puni
paumuo3
9T/ST 1e101
SHOD
MAI
9T,r5Taz
NOIS30
03'8Vd
ST/VT MO/
SHOD
MAI
STr7TOZ
N91S30
03'8Vd
wanba8
Puni
!e101
150D
laai0id
mot
dlu
ON/S3A
KU
3UOOS
awllaatold
LouaSy
OI
8ulpuni al.0
(5000'T$) T 310A3 3CIIM31tl1S - Wtl21902id NOIl`d1210d5NV2113AI1Jt/
AGENDA ITEM iZ
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 17, 2014
TO:
Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:
Jillian Guizado, Staff Analyst
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director
SUBJECT:
SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Changes
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the SB 821 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) subcommittee's
(subcommittee) and staff's recommendations to adopt the revised SB 821 evaluation
criteria and policies; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Each year, 2 percent of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenue is made available for
use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects through the Commission's SB 821 program.
This is a discretionary program administered by the Commission.
At its June 2013 meeting, the Budget and Implementation Committee reviewed and
forwarded to the Commission the Fiscal Year 2013/14 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Facilities Program funding recommendations. Several committee members took issue with
the existing SB 821 evaluation criteria, last revised in 1995. As such, a subcommittee was
created to accomplish the task of reviewing and updating the SB 821 program.
In September 2013, the subcommittee was formed. Sixteen members of the TAC
volunteered to participate on the subcommittee with 38% of them representing the Coachella
Valley. The subcommittee met a total of five times over the course of 10 months.
At its March 2014 meeting, the Commission approved the subcommittee's recommendation
to extend the SB 821 Call for Projects (SB 821 Call) from an annual basis to a biennial basis.
It also set the SB 821 Call release date for the first Monday of every other February and the
close date for the last Thursday of every other April, beginning February 2015.
DISCUSSION:
Following the March 2014 Commission meeting, the subcommittee continued to meet to
review and discuss additional SB 821 policy and procedural practices, including: evaluation
criteria, evaluation committee composition, and allowable expenses.
Evaluation Criteria
The last revision to the evaluation criteria was in 1995. Due to the evolving bicycle and
pedestrian culture in Riverside County, it was necessary to review the evaluation criteria.
Two key aspects of the criteria that were examined closely were the inequity toward bicycle
projects and the possibility of incorporating environmental justice. With these topics in mind,
the subcommittee set out to revise the evaluation criteria with a focus on quantitative
measurement. Attachment 1 is a side -by -side comparison of the existing evaluation criteria
to the proposed evaluation criteria. Key proposed changes are as follows:
• Replace "Use" with "Destinations Served;" reduce points from 25 to 15.
• Reduce "Safety" points from 20 to 10.
• "Missing Link" and Bonus "Physical Accessibility Enhancement" replaced by "Project
Enhancement;" reduce points from 15 to 5.
• "Matching Funds" remains the same except adding a requirement to include
supporting documentation with application.
• "Population Equity" changes to an all -or -nothing basis and reduce points from 10 to 5.
• "Importance as a Transportation Alternative" is replaced by "Multimodal Access;"
reduce points from 20 to 5.
• Total points possible are 110; proposed points possible are 50.
The revisions to the evaluation criteria add language and categories that apply to both
pedestrian and bicycle projects. Subcommittee members were careful to not craft language
that would apply to only one of the modes.
The subcommittee members had a lengthy discussion with regard to how to address
environmental justice within the SB 821 program. Ultimately, it was determined that the
proposed evaluation criteria are the most equitable way to allocate money to the cities and
county interested in applying for SB 821 funds. Because the Transportation Development
Act (TDA) Article 3 guidelines do not specifically call out environmental justice requirements,
the subcommittee did not feel the SB 821 program should preclude any one agency from
competing for funds if their proposed project does not have an environmental justice
component. A concession for not including an environmental justice aspect in the evaluation
criteria is to include a question in the application asking if the projects being submitted are
within a disadvantaged community. Staff will collect this information to ensure the evaluation
criteria do not have a natural bias toward projects not in disadvantaged communities.
Evaluation Committee
In June 1977, the Commission adopted a policy to have the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) review and prioritize the project list. The
CAC chairperson was to appoint 3 members and the TAC chairperson was to appoint 3
members. In recent years, staff has had a hard time securing committee members within the
policy criteria. The chart below highlights this struggle:
2010
2011
2012
2013
3 CAC
2 CAC
2 CAC
0 CAC
3 TAC
3 TAC
3 TAC
3 TAC
Furthermore, there is a recurring concern that evaluation committee members need to
represent jurisdictions throughout the county to ensure unbiased scoring of project
applications.
The subcommittee's recommendation is to adopt a more flexible policy to ensure there is
adequate participation and diverse representation for scoring. As such, the recommended
evaluation committee policy composition recommendation is:
"The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum
of five evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as:
accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the
region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies
submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the
evaluation committee that year."
Allowable Expenses and SB 821 Policies
TDA guidelines provide a broad list of allowed activities and guidelines for program
administration, but give the remaining authority to the individual County Transportation
Commission (CTC) administering each program. The Commission's adopted SB 821 policies
have historically been incomplete as they do not re -state the TDA Article 3 policies for local
agencies to follow, nor did they state policies that have historically been applied to the
program. Knowledge passed down by former long-time staff members has served as the
Commission's only reference for allowable expenses. Staff is recommending the adoption of
a revised adopted policy to be used as a guide for agencies submitting applications as well
as claim forms.
A great deal of discussion ensued over whether particular expenses should be allowable,
namely curb and gutter. Staff provided the subcommittee with a list of allowable expenses as
adopted by other CTCs in Southern California for its reference. Ultimately, the subcommittee
was divided in their opinion on whether or not to make curb and gutter eligible and did not
make a unanimous recommendation. Therefore, staff analyzed the question and is making
the recommendation to adopt a similar policy as the other CTCs to make curb and gutter an
eligible expense. Attachment 2 is a suggested replacement to the Commission's current
"Adopted Policies" document (Attachment 3). The replacement document lists existing TDA
policies and suggests RCTC policies which encompass existing Commission -adopted
SB 821 policies and new staff -proposed policies. Attachment 4 is a matrix indicating the
relationship of the suggested policies to the current policies.
Attachment 1
RCTC SB 821 Evaluation Criteria
Existing Criteria
Proposed Criteria
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
FACTOR
FACTOR
P sC
POINTS
DESTINATIONS SERVED —Three points will be
awarded for each destination served by the proposed
project (e.g. employment center, school/college,
retail center, downtown area, park or recreation
facility, library, museum, government office, medical
facility) up to a maximum of 15 points. *Map with
numbered destinations served must be included.
-For pedestrian projects, destinations served must be
within a 3/4-mile or less radius of the proposed project.
-For bicycle projects, destinations served must be
within a two-mile or less radius of the proposed
project.
15
USE —The extent of potential use of a bicycle or
pedestrian facility is the most important factor.
Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest
benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB
821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from I
analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to '
the project.
25
SAFETY— Points are awarded on the basis of a
project's potential to correct current safety problems. !
20
$ SAFETY— The extent to which the proposed project
will increase safety for the non -motorized public.
Points will be given for any combination of the
following project characteristics: no existing shoulder
within project limits, no existing/planned sidewalk or
bike route/lane/path adjacent to the project; and or
by providing: documented pedestrian/bicycle
collision history, most current and valid 859'
percentile speed of motorized traffic in project limits,
photos of existing safety hazards project will address,
existing pedestrian/bicycle traffic counts, student
attendance figures for school served by project.
10
IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE
— Points are awarded on the basis of a project's
potential to attract users who would otherwise use
an automobile.
20
PROJECT ENHANCEMENT— Up to five points will be
awarded based on the extent that the proposed
project will encourage people to use the proposed
facility; for example, ADA ramps, bicycle lockers or
other bicycle amenities, or completing a missing link.
Enhancements must exist or be part of the project
proposal.
5
MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY—
Points are awarded to projects that link, are
extensions of, or potentially connect to existing
facilities.
15
MULTIMODAL ACCESS —One point will be awarded
for each bus stop or park and ride facility served by
the proposed project up to a maximum of five points.
*Map with numbered bus stops or park and rides
served must be included.
-For pedestrian projects, bus stops served must be
within a 3/4-mile or less radius of the proposed project.
-For bicycle projects, bus stops served must be within
a two-mile or less radius of the proposed project.
5
MATCHING FUNDS — This factor is used to help
ensure that there is local funding participation in the
project — not just an application for "free" money.
One point would be awarded for each 5% of total
project cost that is financed by the local agency.
10
MATCHING FUNDS — One point is awarded for each
5% of match provided by the local agency, for a
maximum of 10 points at a 50% match. *Supporting
documentation of proposed match must be included.
10
POPULATION EQUITY —The purpose of this factor is
to help ensure that one agency does not receive all
the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10
points if the amount of funds requested does not
exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds
were allocated by population. Year to year totals are 10
recorded so that an applicant could build up a
"credit" (calculated by RCTC).
POPULATION EQUITY— Calculated by multiplying the
local agency's cumulative total allocation by the local
agency's population percentage (population
percentage calculated by dividing the local agency's
population by the total population of Riverside
County). An applicant receives five points if the
cumulative amount of funds received does not
exceed the total of what the applicant would receive
if the funds were allocated by population (calculated
by RCTC).
S
PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT —The
purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical
accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant
to BONUS
agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for
their project proposals which improve the physical
access to exng facilities.
110
I 50
Attachment 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM
RECOMMENDED ADOPTED POLICIES
Transportation Development Act Policies
1. Up to 5% of Article 3 apportionment can be used to supplement other funding
sources used for bicycle and safety education programs; the allocation cannot be
used to fully fund the salary of a person working on these programs.
2. Article 3 money shall be allocated for the construction, including related
engineering expenses, of the facilities, or for bicycle safety education programs.
3. Money may be allocated for the maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed
to motorized traffic.
4. Facilities provided for the use of bicycles may include projects that serve the
needs of commuting bicyclists, including, but not limited to, new trails serving
major transportation corridors, secure bicycle parking at employment centers,
park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available.
5. Within 30 days after receiving a request for a review from any city or county, the
transportation -planning agency shall review its allocations.
6. Up to 20 percent of the amount available each year to a city or county may be
allocated to restripe class II bicycle lanes.
7. A portion of each city's allocation may also be used to develop comprehensive
bicycle and pedestrian plans. Plans must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities
that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel rather than solely recreational
activities; a maximum of one entire allocation per five years may be used for plan
development.
8. Allowable maintenance activities for the local funds are limited to maintenance
and repairs of Class I off-street bicycle facilities only.
Suggested RCTC Policies
9. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for
award
10. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns.
11. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon
submitting adequate proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not
limited to the claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded,
copies of paid invoices, photographs of the completed project.
12. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for
reimbursement. For projects completed under the allocated amount, the agency
will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection
and approval.
Attachment 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ARTICLE 3 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM
RECOMMENDED ADOPTED POLICIES
13. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to
complete the project. There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason
for the delay can be demonstrated. Where substantial progress or a compelling
reason for delay can be shown, the agency may be granted administrative
extensions in twelve-month increments at the discretion of the Executive
Director.
14. Any unused and programmed Article 3 Program funds must be returned to the
Commission unless that agency can a) utilize the unused funds to complete
projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the
approved project or b) apply the funds to a project previously submitted under an
Article 3 call for projects and approved by the Commission, subject to Executive
Director approval.
15. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria
for non -motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
16. Temporary facilities, projects ready to go to bid, or projects that are under
construction will not be funded.
17. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five
evaluators representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility,
bicycling, Coachella Valley, public transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and
other representatives from agencies submitting project proposals will not be
eligible to participate on the evaluation committee that year.
18. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley
versus Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the
Coachella Valley's share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the
percentage of funds applied for should also be taken into consideration). If the
allocation is often found to be inequitable to the Coachella Valley, staff will
recommend adoption of a new policy to correct the imbalance.
Attachment 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM
ADOPTED POLICIES
1. Agencies receiving an award shall be reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project completion,
including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, the
RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project. (O1/12/11)
2. If an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget, the
agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval.
(Example: If an agency commits to a 25% local match for a project estimated to cost $100,000, the amount of
Article 3 funding awarded is $75,000. However, if the completed project costs only $80,000 instead of the
estimated $100,000, the local agency will still contribute 25% of the project costs and will receive Article 3
funds totaling only $60,000). (O1/12/11)
3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. (O1/12/11)
4. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local
forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a
larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects that have
been delayed beyond the agency's control, where substantial progress can be demonstrated, may receive one
twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be
deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program.
(3/12/03)
5. Any unused and programmed SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency
can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to
complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project, subject to
Executive Director approval. (12/11/91)
6. No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously approved by the Commission
based on an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration, subject to
Executive Director approval. (12/11/91)
7. The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e.
California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95)
ROTC: 01/12/11
Attachment 4
RCTC SB 821 Adopted Policies Matrix
Existing Adopted Policies
Recommended Adopted Policies
Suggested RCTC Policies
1. Agencies receiving an award shall be reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project
completion, including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was
awarded, the RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project.
•
NEW! 1. If a project cannot be fully funded, RCTC may recommend partial funding for award.
2. If an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget,
the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval.
(Example: If an agency commits to a 25% local match for a project estimated to cost $100,000, the amount
of Article 3 funding awarded is $75,000. However, if the completed project costs only $80,000 instead of
the estimated $100,000, the local agency will still contribute 25% of the project costs and will receive
Article 3 funds totaling only $60,000).
OLD #3 2. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns.
3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns.
OLD #1 3. Agencies being awarded an allocation will be reimbursed in arrears only upon submitting
adequate proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the claim form
for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, copies of paid invoices, photographs of
the completed project.
4. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using
local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project
is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also,
projects that have been delayed beyond the agency's control, where substantial progress can be
demonstrated, may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded
within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in
the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program.
OLD #2 4. The allocated amount represents the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. For
projects completed under the allocated amount, the agency will be reimbursed at the
matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval.
5. Any unused and programmed SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that
agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the
'i unused funds to complete projects that are the same or similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the
approved project, subject to Executive Director approval.
OLD #4 5. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the
project. There will be no time extensions granted unless the reason for the delay can be
, demonstrated. Where substantial progress or a compelling reason for delay can be shown,
the agency may be granted administrative extensions in twelve-month increments at the
discretion of the Executive Director.
6. No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously approved by the
Commission based on an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for
consideration, subject to Executive Director approval.
OLD #5, #6 6. Any unused and programmed Article 3 Program funds must be returned to the Commission
unless that agency can a) utilize the unused funds to complete projects that are the same or
similar in scope and/or are contiguous to the approved project or b) apply the funds to a
project previously submitted under an Article 3 call for projects and approved by the
Commission, subject to Executive Director approval.
7. The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e.
California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990).
OLD #7 7. Design and construction of facilities must conform to the general design criteria for non -
motorized facilities as outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
NEW! 8. Temporary facilities, projects ready to go to bid, or projects that are under construction will
not be funded.
NEW! 9. The SB 821 evaluation committee will be comprised of a minimum of five evaluators
representing a wide range of interests; such as: accessibility, bicycling, Coachella Valley, public
transit, and the region. Staff, consultants, and other representatives from agencies
submitting project proposals will not be eligible to participate on the evaluation committee
that year.
NEW! 10. Following each call, staff will monitor the equity of allocations to Coachella Valley versus
Western Riverside County; the allocation should be relative to what the Coachella Valleys
share would have been if distributed on a per capita basis (the percentage of funds applied for
should also be taken into consideration). If the allocation is often found to be inequitable to
the Coachella Valley, staff will recommend adoption of a new polity to correct the imbalance.
AGENDA ITEM 12
A presentation will be made but
there is no attachment to the
agenda for item 12.
PROTECTED
BIKE LANE
TRAINING
i
Mir TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 2, 2014
TIML 9 AM -12 NOON
100 S. MAIN ST,
LOS ANGELES
•
RUM 01.040B
Recent years have seen many American cities borrow European protected bike
lane (cycle tracks) designs as a means to attract a broader cross section of people
to cycling. This has caused rapid changes in design standards and guidelines, new
state law in California, as well as a growing body of research. This sassion will bring
attendees up to date with designs, design guidelines/standards, state law and research.
r WALL CODER:
• WHY THIS TRAINING?
• NEW CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION - AB 1193
• PERMISSION FROM CALTRANS TO USE THE
NACTO GUIDE: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
• DRAFT MUTCD GUIDELINES
• CALIFORNIA DESIGN GUIDELINES
• FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING
AND DESIGN GUIDE
• LESSONS FROM THE GREEN LANES
PRESENTERS:
RYAN SNYDER is a local transportation planning consul-
tant who specializes in bicycle planning, pedestrian planning
and conceptual street design. Ryan frequently advises com-
munities on active transportation and develops conceptual
level improvements for walking and bicycling.
ROCK MILLER is a member of the Bicycle Technical Com-
mittee and a voting member of the National Committee
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that writes the Federal
MUTCD. He is also an alternate member of the California
Traffic Control Device Committee and is a transportation en-
gineering consultant for Stantec that designs a wide variety
of bikeway and active transportation street schemes.
MORGAN WHITCOMB is a transportation engineering and
planning consultant at Sam Schwartz Engineering's LA Office.
She has designed many miles of protected bike lanes and oth-
er bicycle facilities in Chicago as well as other cities, and as-
sisted in preparing the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning
and Design Guide. She has also consulted on the design and
implementation of bike share systems in several US cities.
Grace Alvarez
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Lee , David@DOT [david .lee@dot.ca .gov]
Monday , November 17, 2014 8:03 AM
Yeung, Sean@DOT
Subject:
Attachments:
Protected Bike Lanes Training on Tuesday, December 2 , 2014, 9 :00 am -12 :00 noon
Protected Bike Lanes Training .pdf
Dear Local Agency:
You are invited to attend a free Protected Bicycle Lanes training class hosted by Caltrans, District 7, taking place on
Tuesday, December 2, 2014, from 9:00 am -12:00 noon.
Please RSVP to Joann.Eustache@dot.ca.gov or (213) 897-2958.
If you have any questions, please contact :
Dale Benson
District 7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator
ATP, SRTS, SR2S, HSIP, EEM, BTA Coordinator
Senior Transportation Engineer
Office of Local Assistance
California Department of Transportation
100 S. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
dale benson@dot.ca.gov
(213) 897-2934
Thank you,
DAVID LEE
Associate Transportation Planner
CALTRANS District 8 Loca l Assistance -464 West 4th Street.6th Floor.MS 760 .San Bernardino .CA 92401
909 .806.4759 david .lee@dot.ca .gov
1