Loading...
11 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_ --~-~ (_ •' TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 17, 2014 EASTVALE G_EORG~ ALVAREZ ~ I Joe .. lndraw .. ~ ; City Engineer ,;72;e .).-'--'·~-···-. I JORGE BIAGIONI 1·:~t0r Monz--· : Engineering Director/City Engineer Principal Engineer H-EMEI' 'a/.~~ ~N~UMA~ ~ -1~~a~~~fil -----~-----------~------------------Public Works Director fff"" Assistant Engineer II INDIAN WELLS --1: __ _ INDIO GRANT EKLUND L-_{_ _ Public Works Director/City Engineer JURUPA VALLEY 1ROY STEPHENSON Public Works Director/City Engineer ) Tom Rafferty Principal Civil _g,ngi -i; LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON I Bryan McKinney Public Works Director/City Engineer Principal Engineer --LAKE ELSINORE ATI ESKANDARI Rita Thompson -------------------------+---------------MENIFEE / I Consultant Project Manager i WAt.:r~ALL1 S<Jl\L ~AK:.IN~f..... H -t'!.. t.JoNATHANSMITH c... '77 ;Rebert deflAson ~.et-.__M_O_R_E-NO-V-AL_L_E_~J~M~r/Cicy Engineer i:::mM::::r ;;::J~~¥~-Public Works Directo Deputy Public Wori<s Director/ I Assistant City Engineer MURRIETA NORCO BOB MOEHLING City Engineer BILL THOMPSON Water and Sewer Manager [Assistant City Manager I I Lori Askew------------1 Director of Public Works 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. • • • [RCTC Letterhead] November 17, 2014 VIA E-MAIL [CEQA.Guidelines@ceres.ca.gov] Christopher Calfee, Senior Counsel Governor's Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ s-- Re: RCTC's Input In Response to "Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines: Preliminary Discussion Draft of Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743," Dated August 6, 2014 Mr. Calfee: The Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Office of Planning and Research's "Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines: Preliminary Discussion Draft of Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743" ("Guidelines Update"), dated August 6, 2014 . As the regional transportation planning agency for Riverside County, RCTC serves as both lead agency and responsible agency for many CEQA documents each year, often in coordination and consultation with the California Department of Transportation, and in partnership with federal transportation agencies for joint CEQAINEPA documents. As a result of the increased demands placed on infrastructure in Riverside County due to population growth and urbanization, RCTC has served as lead or responsible agency for transportation projects involving billions of dollars in investments which will help to alleviate congested traffic conditions and reduce vehicle miles traveled on several of the region's main transportation corridors. In its role as the regional transportation planning agency for a county populated by over 2.3 million people, RCTC has monitored OPR's efforts to comply with the provisions of SB 743 regarding the evaluation of transportation impacts. In fact, in a letter dated January 29, 2014, RCTC submitted comments to OPR on its "Possible Topics to be Addressed in the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Update," in which RCTC raised several concerns about the proposed revisions to the Guidelines. However, a few of the issues raised in RCTC's comment letter do not appear to have been addressed in this Guidelines Update. Additionally, RCTC has other coucems regarding the Guidelines Update and the practical problems that may result from its implementation . 17336.00121\9391574.3 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 • Christopher Calfee, Senior Counsel Governor's Office of Planning and Research November 17, 2014 Page3 To avoid the appearance of any presumed impact, RCTC requests that OPR revise this portion of its Guidelines Update to state only that "increases in roadway capacity should be considered as part of the evaluation of potential transportation impacts under CEQA." Appendix F Mitigation Measures and Alternatives The additions to Appendix F of the Guidelines would require that, for transportation impacts as determined by VMT, agencies consider mitigation measures and project alternatives that would reduce energy consumption. These measures and alternatives primarily focus on transit-oriented and higher density development. However, for rural and low-density areas where there is little or no existing mass transit infrastructure, such as large portions of Riverside County, the majority of the measures and alternatives would be infeasible. For example, it is likely that a relatively small, mixed-use development in a rural community could not feasibly increase access to transit because doing so would require the project applicant to include the construction of major, new transit infrastructure as part of an otherwise small-scale project. RCTC requests that OPR consider, and revise Appendix F to include, measures that may be potentially feasible for rural or low-density communities so that they, too, can work towards mitigating or avoiding potential VMT-related transportation impacts. • Resulting Need for Agencies to Conduct Both VMT and LOS Traffic Analyses • Proposed Section 15064.3 would require agencies to look at VMT rather than LOS to assess transportation impacts. However, the Guidelines Update would not limit an agency's ability to continue the use of LOS to analyze non-traffic impacts (such as land use patterns or circulation issues under an applicable General Plan). (Proposed State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3(c).) In practice, this seems to require that agencies now conduct two entirely separate traffic studies - one that looks at VMT per the Guidelines Update for purposes of analyzing traffic impacts, and a second that analyzes LOS consistent with local land use policies and other state/federal guidance. RCTC is concerned that this will not only result in significant additional delay and expense for important public projects, but may also result in perceived inconsistencies between the analyses contained in a CEQA document. RCTC requests that QPR revise the Proposed Guidelines to make clear that conclusions reached using the VMT methodology for transportation impacts are not per se inconsistent with those reached for other impact areas using the LOS methodology and that a CEQA violation, therefore, does not automatically result. Further, to the extent that OPR's reasoning for mandating the use of VMT relies on the fact that agencies already use VMT to analyze other types of impacts (such as energy consumption or GHG emissions), this weighs in favor of foregoing a duplicative mandate to use VMT in areas outside of TP As. Agency's Deletion of Measures Imposed to Address Automobile Delay 17336.00121\9391574.3 . 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 • • • Christopher Calfee, Senior Counsel Governor's Office of Planning and Research November 17, 2014 Page5 This would be particularly problematic where a project would otherwise be categorically exempt but for its lack of these project characteristics. RCTC requests that the section be revised to explicitly state that the list is not exhaustive and that the absence of these characteristics does not necessarily mean that a project will significantly impact transportation. Additional Comments Threat to Voter-Approved Transportation Tax Measures Voter-approved measures in several jurisdictions provide for a percentage tax increase to fund transportation projects. These measures are premised on the idea that roadways will be expanded to reduce vehicle delay. For instance, Measure A in Riverside County (from which RCTC receives funds) and Measure I in San Bernardino County specifically provide that a portion of the funding will be allocated for certain freeway widening projects to reduce delay. OPR's proposed approach of applying VMT even in non-TPAs seems to conflict with the promises made to voters regarding reducing traffic delay. Exclusive Use of VMT to Promote Infill Development May Actually Limit Housing Opportunities for More Economically Disadvantaged People At public information sessions on the Guidelines Update, OPR representatives suggested that the use of VMT will promote infill development, thus making more housing available at urban center and providing an advantage to economically disadvantaged individuals that may not have access to a personal vehicle. However, such assumptions ignore the fact that housing in densely populated urban centers is among the most expensive on the market. Accordingly, encouraging the development of such additional housing (while presumably resulting in a decrease of more competitively-priced housing elsewhere) will not provide the economically disadvantaged with any kind of benefit. In fact, by limiting the ability of rural communities to developing housing without first enduring an EIR process could actually further limit affordable housing options for the underprivileged. Exemption or Partial Exemption for Transportation Projects that Reduce Regional VMT In its January 29, 2014 letter, RCTC requested that OPR consider updating the Guidelines to add a categorical exemption for transportation projects that would reduce vehicle miles traveled on a regional basis. Alternatively, RCTC suggested that a partial exemption that allows such projects to forego air quality/greenhouse gas analyses would be appropriate. Such an exemption would encourage projects that reduce regional VMT, which is critical for meeting the State's GHG reduction targets under AB 32 and SB 375. RCTC notes that its suggestion has not been incorporated into the Guidelines Update. As such, RCTC would, once again, encourage OPR to consider this exemption as it furthers the same energy-conservation goals set forth in the Guidelines Update, and also promotes reliance on the use of VMT to measure transportation impacts. 17336.00121\9391574.3 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. ✓ On October 29, 2014, a Next Steps workshop was hosted by Caltrans and presented by Teresa McWilliams. The PowerPoint webinar (video) and presentation are available on the Local Assistance webpage. The Q&A segment of the session will also be summarized and made available on their webpage. ✓ For project sponsors under the statewide awarded projects that submitted a state - only fund request, the release of state -only funded projects is anticipated in mid - November according to Caltrans staff in the October 29th Next Steps workshop. As of the writing of this report, this was not available. ✓ For project sponsors under the MPO awarded projects, the state and federal fund breakdown was approved by the CTC on November 12th, however, confirmation of the funds will be determined at the time of funding allocation. ✓ Project sponsors who programmed in fiscal year 2014/2015 must receive allocation by the CTC no later than the June 2015 meeting. Please note an allocation request must be submitted to Caltrans approximately 60 days, or two months prior to the CTC meeting. Refer to the CTC meeting schedule available online at http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/index.htm for the commission meeting dates and allocation submittal dates. ✓ For MPO projects, concurrence by the RTPA, which is RCTC, is required. Please allow ample time for RCTC staff to sign and return the signature form. ✓ SCAG staff is planning to hold a workshop in December 2014 to assist project sponsors in developing projects that are consistent with current and innovative active transportation designs and trends. Cycle 2 of ATP is planned for March 2015 and will include two years of funding and approximately the same amount of available funds. 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