HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 11/21/2011 3.B A Items #
j
/858
DATE: November 21, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Larry Zimmer, CIP Division Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting the Recommen ations made by the Sonoma County
Transportation Authority to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regarding the Proposed "One Bay Area Grant."
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution supporting the
recommendations made by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) regarding the proposed "One Bay Area Grant."
BACKGROUND
The last federal Transportation Act was SAFETEA -LU, originally set to expire in 2009, has been
extended yearly . in the absence of a new transportation act. Also in 2009, in anticipation of a new
bill, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Congestion Management Agencies
(CMAs) developed a funding proposal that functioned as a "block grant" providing some
spending flexibility between funding programs. This block grant was referred to as Cycle 1. The
implementation of the block grant did provide some flexibility, but project sponsors and the
CMAs felt that it would be helpful if additional discretion was . given to the CMA's to decide
where the funding was spent. Cycle I is in its final year and MTC is now in the process of
developing a Cycle 2 for Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Management for Air
Quality (STP /CMAQ) funding.
MTC is also about a year into the process of developing a new Regional Transportation Plan.
Since the passage of SB 375, requiring regions to develop transportation and housing growth
plans concurrently in order to reduce green house gas emissions to 1990 levels, MTC has been
working on a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) to meet this requirement. The Cycle 2
STP /CMAQ funding proposal from MTC is aimed at meeting the goals of the SCS. The current
proposal, known as the "One Bay Area Grant" (OBAG) is attached to this staff report.
The OBAG proposal combines a number of programs and eligible project types (i.e., Local
Streets and Roads maintenance, Safe Routes to Schools, Regional Bicycle Program, and
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) into one block grant.
Agenda Review:
City Attorney _ Finance Director City Manger
a
There are four areas of concern identified by City staff, SCTA, MTC Local Streets and Roads
working group, and other area agencies:
1. Expenditure of STP Funds: STP funds are the only funds that can be used for Local Streets
and Roads (LS &R) maintenance. If One Bay Area Grant funds are restricted to Priority
Development Areas (PDAs), it would severely limit agency capacity to maintain local
travel ways. The policy goal of linking transportation funding to PDAs is related to the
SB375 requirements; however, the maintenance component of local roads and transit does
not necessarily need to fall under the PDA rubric.
2. PDA Restrictions: The One Bay Area Grant guidelines propose requiring 70% of the funds
be spent within designated PDAs. This is based upon Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG's) current estimate that 70% of the. Bay Area's 25 -year housing
needs can be accommodated in PDAs. CMAQ money is typically used for capital projects
such as bicycle paths and pedestrian areas, TLC and Climate Initiatives projects. There is
concern that limiting projects to the geographical boundaries of the PDAs would
significantly reduce the ability to deliver projects.
3. Supportive Local Transportation and Land Use Policies: The One Bay Area Grant
guidelines include language that is either unclear or unsupportable. Maintaining the link to
land use policies can be attained but there are opportunities for clarification that will enable
jurisdictions to deliver more projects.
4. Safe Routes to School: As it stands, the Grant proposal includes Safe Routes to School, but
that program is also subject to the requirement that 70% be spent in PDAs. This may
severely limit SRTS projects as schools and PDAs are not necessarily linked.
DISCUSSION
Priority Development Areas are locally - identified infill development opportunity areas. They are
generally areas of at least 100 acres (about a 1/4 mile radius) where there is local commitment to
developing more housing along with amenities and services to meet the day -to -day needs of
residents in a pedestrian- friendly environment served by transit. To be eligible to become a PDA,
an area has to be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served
by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. PDA applications are accepted on a
rolling basis; however, in order to qualify for funding under the One Bay Area Grant, new
applications must be submitted by December 16, 2011, with adoption by MTC /ABAG in March
2011 prior to approval of the One Bay Area Grant in May 2012.
It is expected that PDAs will increasingly become the focus for future capital infrastructure
funds, planning grants, and technical assistance. ABAG recently released revised criteria for the
designation of PDAs and City staff is currently reviewing those criteria to determine if additional
areas within Petaluma may qualify for PDA status.
If the OBAG proposal is approved without modification, it could significantly decrease the
amount of funding available for expenditure on the Federal Aid eligible network of roads and
other projects in the county. This concern appears to be shared by nearly all of the agencies in
the MTC area. Staff believes it is important for the City to clearly state our support of the SCTA
2
letter recommending changes to the OBAG proposal. A copy of the resolution will be sent to
Steve Heminger, Executive Director, of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The recommended action will have no direct financial impacts on the City. The amount of
funding eligible to the City will not be changed; however, the One Bay Area Grant as currently
proposed will severely limit how the City may use those funds, or if they can be used at all. Also
the City may be less successful in competitive grants for these funds if we have a limited
selection of applicable projects within the PDA as opposed to selecting projects city -wide.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Central Petaluma Map, showing PDA
3. One Bay Area Grant Proposal
4. SCTA Letter to MTC
3
A TACr
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE
SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED "ONE BAY
AREA GRANT"
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) proposal; and
WHEREAS, City staff has the following concerns regarding said proposal;
1) Restrictions on federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds,
2) Restricted use of funds in Priority Development Areas (PDAs),
3) Unclear requirements and inequity between rural and urban agencies in Supportive
Local Transportation and Land Use Policies and
4) Restrictions on Safe Routes to School funds; and
WHEREAS, many other local agencies and the Sonoma County Transportation
Authority (SCTA) share the City's concerns; and
WHEREAS, SCTA prepared and sent a letter dated September 20, 2011, to the
Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Committee (MTC) providing comments
on the OBAG proposal; and
WHEREAS, staff fully supports SCTA's comments and recommends that the City
document its support in writing to the MTC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City hereby:
1. Concurs with and supports the SCTA written comments dated September 20,
2011, and submitted to the Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission; and
2. Directs staff to prepare a letter stating the City's support for the SCTA comments,
to be executed by the Mayor and transmitted to the Executive Director of the
MTC with copies to SCTA and the Association of Bay Area Governments.
4
ATTACHMENT 3
BayArea
Val
TO: MTC Planning Committee / DATE: July 8, 2011
ABAG Administrative Committee
FR: Deputy Executive Director, Policy, MTC
Executive Director, ABAG
RE: OneBayArea Grant — Cycle 2 STP /CMAQ Funding
Staff recommends the initial release of the OneBayArea Grant proposal as outlined in this
memorandum for public review and discussion.
Federal Transportation Funding and Program Policies (Attachment A)
Approximately every six years, U.S. Congress enacts a surface.. transportation act.. The current act
(SAFETEA) originally scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009 is still in effect through
several legislative extensions. The funding provided to our area through this legislation includes
Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds.
In December 2009 the Commission adopted an overall framework directing how approximately
$1.4 billion in STP and CMAQ funds were to be allocated over the following six years (2010-
2015). The first three years (Cycle 1) of this period were committed to projects and programs and
the overall framework provided policy direction for the second three years (Cycle 2).
Staff proposes an alternative to the current Cycle 2 framework that better integrates the region's
federal transportation program with land -use and housing policies by providing incentives for the
production of housing with supportive transportation investments. Attachment A summarizes
this framework and proposal for Cycle 2.
OneBayArea Grant Program
As shown in the chart below, over time the county congestion management agencies (CMAs)
have been given increased responsibility for project selection for an increasing share of funding
coming to the region.
loo
6
MTC Planning Committee /ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 2
Program and Project Selection Evolves over Past Two Decades
Past Long Range Plan Discretionary Funding Assignments
2001RTP 12030 T2035
$5.0
$4.0 Wat Lifeline
•
o $3.0
Bike /Ped
$2.0
TLC
$1.0
$-
LS &R
MTC CMAs MTC CMAs MTC CMAs
2001 RTP T 2030 T 2035
For Cycle 2, staff proposes to continue this trend by shifting a larger portion of discretionary
federal funding to local jurisdictions for taking on a larger share of the region's housing
production. Further, additional flexibility is proposed for CMAs to address their respective
transportation needs. Specifically, the proposal would:
Shift more Funding to Locally Managed OneBayArea Grant Program: Dedicate $214
million or roughly 40% of the Cycle 2 funding program to a new OneBayArea Grant. The
funding for the OneBayArea Grant is the result of merging many of the programs in the
Cycle 2 framework into a single flexible grant program and is roughly a 70% increase in
the funding distributed to the counties as compared to the Cycle 2 framework adopted by
the Commission. By comparison, the status quo approach for Cycle 2 would result in
22% going to County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) programs down from
30% in Cycle 1
Add Flexibility by Eliminating Program Categories: The One Bay Grant proposal
provides additional flexibility under Cycle 2 by eliminating required program categories
and combining funding for TLC, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and
Safe Routes to School. See figure illustrating this change on the following page. Project
selection will be limited to a degree by the project eligibility limitations of CMAQ which
will make up approximately half of the funds that each county will receive.
101
7
MTC Planning Committee /ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 3
Original Proposed
Framework OneBayArea
$122M Grant
$214M
Bicycle.
Bike TLC,
ASR,
SR2S
▪ Leverage Outside Funds to Grow Program and Meet .More •Objectives: Additional
opportunities could be sought through other regional programs, other non - federal sources
for affordable housing, and other local funds to augment program objectives. As a start,
the Air District proposes $6 million from its Regional Transportation for Clean Air
(TFCA) Program. TFCA eligibility considerations will be guiding the use of these funds
in the overall program.
▪ Continue Key Regional Programs: The remaining funding is targeted to continue regional
programs such as Regional Operations, Freeway Performance Initiative, and Transit
Capital Rehabilitation. Refer to Attachment A -2 for a description of these regional
programs.
• Establish a Priority Conservation Area Planning Program: This new $2 million program
element will provide financial incentives for counties with populations under 500,000 for
preservation of resource area and farmland, as defined in California Government Code
Section 65080.01.
Distribution Formula for the OneBayArea Grant (Attachments B, C, D)
Staff proposes a distribution formula for OneBayArea Grant funding (Attachment 13) that
includes housing incentives to support the SCS and promote effective transportation investments
that support focused development. In order to ease the transition to this new funding approach,
staff is also recommending a 50% population share factor in the formula:
1. Formula to Counties: The proposed distribution formula to the counties includes three
components: 50% population, 25% Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for
2007 -2014, and 25% actual housing production. This approach provides incentives for
both future housing commitments and actual housing production. The fund distribution
will be refined using the new RHNA to be adopted by ABAG next spring along with the
SCS. The new RHNA being developed, which covers years 2015 -2022, places a greater
emphasis on city centered growth. As a result, refinements are likely to result in modest
102
8
MTC.Planning Committee /ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 4
revisions to the funding distribution consistent with these revised development patterns.
The proposed OneBayArea Grant formula also uses actual housing data from 1999 -2006,
and has been capped such that each jurisdiction receives credit for housing up to its
RHNA allocation. Subsequent funding cycles would rely on housing production from
ABAG's next housing report to be published in 2013.
2. Priority Development Area (PDA) Minimum: Require that at least 70 % of funding be
spent on projects in Priority Development Areas (planned, potential and growth
opportunity areas). Growth opportunity areas are tentatively considered as PDAs until
ABAG completes final PDA designations next fall. See Attachment C for PDA program
minimums for each county and Attachment D for a map and a list of the PDAs.
Proposed Funding Minim to
be Spent in PDAs
a
Anywhere
$64M ' PD ;
$Rericted ! ;
x `70 /�
mar ' *.' ‘' ' *-';V : t t - , - V
y �, � � � 'eye
The OneBayArea Grant supports Priority Developrnent.4reas while
providing flexibility to fund transportation needs in other areas.
Performance and Accountability
As noted at the outset, housing allocation according to RHNA and housing production will be the
primary metric for distributing the OneBayArea. Grant funding. In addition, staff recommends the
following,performance accountability requirements.
I. Supportive Local Transportation and Land -Use Policies: Staff recommends that local
agencies be required to have at least two of the following four policies adopted in order to
be eligible for grant funds:
a) Parking/pricing policies (e.g. cash out, peak pricing, on- street/off street pricing
differentials, °eliminate parking minimums, unbundled parking) and adopted city
and /or countywide. employer trip reduction ordinances
b) Adopted Community Risk Reduction Plans (CRRP) per CEQA guidelines
c) Have affordable housing policies in place or policies that ensure that new
development projects do not displace low income housing
103
9
MTC Planning Committee /ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 201
Page 5
d) Adopted bicycle /pedestrian plan and complete streets policy in general plans
pursuant to Complete Streets Act of 2008
2. Approved Housing: Element:. Also, a HCD- approved housing element consistent with
RHNA /SB375 law is a proposed condition for any jurisdiction receiving Cycle 2
OneBayArea grants. This may be met as follows: 1) adoption of a housing element that
meets the current RHNA before the new RHNA is adopted, or 2) the adoption of a
housing element that meets the new RENA after its approval early in 2012. Jurisdictions
have 18 months after the adoption of the SCS to meet the new RHNA; therefore,
compliance is expected and required by September 2014. Any jurisdiction failing to meet
either one of these deadlines will not be allowed to receive, grant funding. Lastly any
jurisdiction without adopted housing elements addressing the new RHNA by September
2014 will be ineligible to receive any funding after Cycle 2 until they have adopted a
housing .element.
Implementation Issues
Below are issues to be addressed as we further develop the OneBayArea Grant concept:
1. Federal Authorization` Uncertainty: We will need to closely monitor development of the
new federal surface transportation authorization. New federal programs, their eligibility
rules, and how money is distributed could potentially impact the implementation of the
OneBayArea Grant Program as proposed.
2. Revenue Estimates: Staff "assumes a steady but modest nominal revenue growth rate of
4% annually. Given the mood of Congress to downsize federal programs, these estimates
are potentially overly optimistic if there are significant reductions in STP / CMAQ
apportionments over the Cycle 2 time period. Staff recommends continuing to move
forward with the conservative revenue assumptions and make adjustments later if needed.
Preliminary Timeline and Next Steps
Staff recommends the Committees release the OneBayArea• Grant proposal for public review.
Staff will seek feedback from stakeholder and technical working groups over the next several
months. The preliminary timeline for development and approval of the OneBay Area Grant is
shown on the next page.
104
10
•
•
Attachment A
New Act STP / C IAQ Cycle 2 Draft Funding Proposal
June 22, 2011
(amounts in•millions•$)
• Existing Frarnework,r
• Cycle 2 `Cycee,2
Funding Available: Cycle:1•. Statusitluo ,` One�Bay:Area, "
Cycle 1: $466M (after $54M Carryover) i -
Cycle 2: $548M _ One
I Btbck CMA j Bay Area Cycle 2
Air District. $6M M TC y " :Giant , MTC a k Grant, M TC: '' Granter Total
1 Regional " 23 26 °;5 21 26
2 Regional; Operations. 84 0 74 0 74 } 4 74
3 Freeway'P_erformance '.Initiative (FPI ) ° 0 66 0 66 0 . 66
�N
4 Transit Capital; Rehabilitation 0 0 125 0 125 "r; 125
5 Local Streets ' and` Roads Rehabilitation' =7° x,7,,0 - 3 ,' X74 77
6 Climate :Initiatives * ._80 40 =2 5 15 40
s a
7 Regional: Bicycle- Program" : 0 L 20 0 .Q20 �° '0 rtk) X20 20
8 9 Transportation Oriented l Dev opment 102
Fund . '10 m Z0 6 p €30 15 �c $5
Transportation (TLC) �
)" 51
10 Priority- Conservation Area Planning Pilot t .2
11 MTC Res 3814: Transit: Payback Commitment 6 0 25 . . 0 25
Totai' _ 324. , ° 142 426 122 1244 L,
78% ' a° 22% 61%I 3.9%
T C c le 2 7
� � � � �� 1
&Gr n tiTotai s 1 °dBtock Grants _Status Quote r tone eery Areas of
NI s 142 � 30 °I X122...'22,%
J:\ PROJECT\ Funding\T4 - NewAct\T4'- STP- CMAQ \T4'Cycle Programming\T4'. Second Cycle \Cycle2 Policy DevlOnei Bay: Area a GrantMCyde2 Develop tables.xls)Prograrn Funding 8-22-11
Air District funding of $6 million adds capacity to suppport OneBay Area Grant.
1) Regional Planning:
$21 M';($7M per year)'for CMA.Planning "to,be distributed to CMAs through OneBayArea Grant. •
4) Transit Capital `Rehabilitation:
100% Transit Rehab•assigned'as Regional Transit Rehabilitation, as Transit, is network based'and regional
5) Local Streets; and Roads Rehabilitation
$3M'fora scaled back PTAP program
6) Climate Initiative:
$5M for -SEGO in " Regional. Eastern .Solano CMAO to Solano TA part of OneBayArea Grant.
7) Regional Bicycle Program:
$20M as CMAO rather than TE as originally: proposed in Framework
8) Transportation for Livable Communities' (TLC)
TLC program eliminated -:All TLC funds'to'OneBayArea grant
106
12
Attachment A -2: Regional .Programs
Regional Planning to support planning activities in the region carried out by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development.
commission (BCDC), and MTC. CMAs would access their OneBayArea grant to fund planning
activities.
Regional Operations: This program includes Clipper, 511, Incident Management and a scaled -
back Pavement Technical. Assistance Program (PTAP).
Freeway Performance Initiative This program emphasizes the delivery of ramp metering projects
on the State Highway System throughout the Bay Area to gain the most efficiency out of the
existing highway network.
Priority Conservation Area Planning: Staff is recommending a new pilot for the development
priority conservation area (PCA) plans for counties with populations under 500,000 to ameliorate
outward development expansion and maintain their rural character.
Transportation for the Livable Communities (TLC) and the, Affordable Transportation Oriented
Development (TOD) Housing .Fund: The bulk of the TLC Program's funding will shift to the
OneBayArea Grant. The remaining funds under MTC's management are proposed to continue
station area planning and/or CEQA assistance to PDAs and support additional investments in
affordable housing.
Climate Initiatives: The objective of the Climate Initiatives Program launched in Cycle 1 was to
make short-term investments that reduce transportation-related emissions and vehicle miles
traveled, and encourage the use of cleaner fuels. Through the innovative projects selected and
evaluation process, the region is building its knowledge base for the most effective Bay Area
strategies for the Sustainable Communities Strategy and next long -range plan. The proposed
funding for the Cycle 2 Climate Initiative Program would allow some continuation of these
efforts at the regional level and protect a prior commitment to the SFGo project.
Transit Capital Rehabilitation: The Commission deferred transit rehabilitation needs from Cycle
1 to Cycle 2 in order to allow more immediate delivery of some of the other programs. The
program objective, as in the past, is to assist transit operators to fund major fleet replacements,
fixed guideway rehabilitation and other high- scoring capital needs that cannot be accommodated
within the FTA Transit Capital Priorities program.
MTC Resolution 3814 Transit Payback Commitment: Consistent with the Cycle 2 framework,
MTC is proposing : to program $25 million to Lifeline, small operators, and SamTrans right -of-
way settlement to partially address a commitment originally envisioned to be met with state
spillover funds.
107
13
•
Attachment B
PROPOSAL
•
OneBayArea Grant Distribution Formula
Cycle 2 (FYs 2013, 2014, 2015)
5 % - 25% (Pop.
County RHNA - Housing
Prod ction Capp d)
Alameda %43.0 $25.4'
Contra Costa $31.9 • '•`16.6
Marin • 6.4 •.5.0
N a• a $4.2 2.9
San-Francisco 25':0 11.8
San. Mateo . 17.4 .11.1
Santa Clara • $56.1
Solano 14.0 $9.0 .
. Sonoma ;$16.0 $12.3
t BayAreaTotal ,.. , . $2140 $ 122'
Difference , From StatusQuo Grant Program
5 0 %x,25 5% (Pop _
County RHN 2 Housing
Prod ction Capped)
• Alameda
Contra Costa $15.3
Marin 1.5
Na.a `•1.3 -
San Francisco 13.2 -
San Mateo .6.3 -
Santa Clara . .28.0
Solano •5.0 -
Sonoma $3.7 ' .. .
Bay Area'T,otal $91 9
9/0 Change From Status_,QuoGrant Program.
c .
County Ho
R HNA - usi
Production.Capped)
• R .
Alameda 70% ' -
Contra Costa 92%
Marin 29%
Naa 45% -
San. Francisco; 112% -
San Mateo., 57% -
Santa Clara 100%
Solano. 55% -
Sonoma _ 30%
!Bay Area;;Total 1 °!
J:IPROJECTIFundmgiT4 -'New ActlT4 - STP- CMAQVT4 Cycle` ProgrammingtT4 Second CycletCyde 2
Policy DevlBfock'Granilfoistnbutlon Options:xlsJDistdti Overview
Notes:
Status quo program'based on, framework for- ' Cycle 2 adopted by the Commission and
continuation of Cycle 1 county block grant policies.
RHNA is based on current 2007 -20014 targets
Population data from Department of Finance, US Census 2010
Housing production 1999 -2006 is capped at 1999 -2006 RHNA thresholds
•
108
1 4
Attachment
PR OPOSAL
PDA Investments for the OneBayArea Grant
5 50%- 25 % -25 %0 (Pop.- RHNA - Actual Housing Production
Capped) Distribution
Allocation Areas
Apportionments County Grant PDA 70% Anywhere
;Area Amount Minimum in County.
Alameda $43.0 $30.1 $12.9
Contra Costa S31.9 $22.4 $9.6
Marin $6.4 $4.5 $1.9
Napa $4.2 $2.9 $1.3
San Francisco $25.0 $17.5 $7.5
San Mateo $17.4 512.2
$5.2 .
Santa Clara S56.1 $39.3 $16.8
Solano $14.0 $9.8 $4.2
Sonoma '.16.0 11., 2 %4.8
Regional Total $ $1 . $64.2"
109
15
•
.x s - ' '.''''V t ® t via i � ' x —,.
Qtt��9rgl�r� ,
r,®r ty Dee o pe�a ent Ar
Q
? k 1t S Ao ` �"`'c -4'rJ �.:4 " S r
, ti y �� a+ , �� \ •�.!,r� .:,! .. 1 - •�`'.- I.
- t� a� . t)t Il I .
i • � � r Y g `F ,$E j fS ‘4-• , - w
d c`� - i d . ` ti a l 4 _ a FatrA , ,, • a ` PMeWTO �' �.A `°-..s ` ^* n s' a' l'''-' _ .�.. &e ,....„,,,,,,,...„ ,.
a, • r -"� `.. � i � ��'::�..�...
yr t ap p vts�v a L ..., ..,.„,- ::,),,4
' ` 4`} s" .',.„‘,#,;,&,°i4' A. x �� Kam 4 `i 6`:& , 4 ', ` � '+' • f d ;„ ..,.:..Q..''''..'' fid5 - g3 k � „.' *Y £ k + ` i . 'Ifr
6,-26 � :. ^x a r ,T. .. •: �CYe 66'66W>: � at'w °5 C � r �, y 1' 's� 4i e `' a~ - " NA' ..:
• Y.. F a ''',,t,:.\ �;. '. a az'`�"." r,+`d'^ L � m�.°. r t .t� r..c�v"sAq` a '
� � . 7 3 f s `c °�` as� °A "^ � ▪ �4 ; 3 '� � � lrntioc •.
4 V ‘,
07;t4=7,,..4. � x` o � � 4 �^ ▪ + '�' � '
r4 4,,e=„!„--4 � *. '€ .a� , d.a�. nl an �a � f n , t �
r - £ " ' w R ed } .� " ' " ` »•,y $ x ;, '` A :�4 ,,, v+. �3.. t ‘A,.. � 3 . g l''' x K1 ' 7. , , iFrancisco `p$ a
�� , & � .� ,,, 4 � a a � . yes
" � ��, js� � � a . �,� � � .�@• " ' � 8 a � Da ly � �* a p:� d k � ati ,a PI asa lon`r"�' p 4 . gg yy
, p ' � � � '� � ,� r�€ � "�a s Ewa a so m� • � � �x � Ma M� w� t a �- �`�,
` 'c \'o;r?"+;e w ' ` w '` �"€ a� , i `��w'" ,,, 'i`: # ' k . `a \ , y d" } , £ 6 +' ' 'a'`" •
ee -. `$�'` s `,� s +r �.ak, ,,@@> -e ,,' Matao" e' R . �k , J� vas , , ,,I p
n
e "` De v e lopmen t , a � � �� ` ° 4 ;;
i ^' , fi p , 'I . T ssq,w 9 � ^- R aw od - �, . a . . ',v l Y.yv , 1 , f, ,
e & r, ,. . 1;:,# -; m `�� � 3 ,,-; A lto a ` fi t ,, , a
tann ,'., . q ' -561. 4. • s `` .t n: - _ • � : s 9
Area p si r , ; a, � � • Ts i, , .
5'' M t to
ps ' € � • �` r � � � z�' �� � s 7:2,4;4% as • � � � � � ' • � .:s. ;z , vl .�� tee � G x ra ;y � @a . w ;
• P lanned /Potential t ,1 .' F i .4, , - e , ,a ... ' . , . r + t g m, S t t Jese ., r a,.
4 .77,,4.;=7,,,,..-4 - r , _ 1 , ♦ p r s �
Potential dd 4 `f ,'� .� %''# .„ i ' _ � ` „ t 9 • `k7� a y v ' "� ., +
"�� 4 � S ''...V0*.' 3 ,° . ` ', ",- ` ' 'k Do ni o � ' `� \ ' g et 6° R
G row#h'Oppoitunity. ▪ �� a . d
Areas ",, a e a , f • , -1
� . P a �z° ,,,�w *'tic F i "b r R r ' g
Current • 4, , ` .:€ � � , "4. � • 0;7'4' -4: 7 ? r a r n •
.�..k 2 * � a �a i e b u ,, t . 1 "'- p p� �€ r x '� a i
LI so .l.: "?a a n C .g. x€ J - A 1 5., A F e..w "^ n k i Y
m 's y, Y o S A s
a �`i . .A4 °, .,i ".c`' ' , `' :: �".c " - a x, 4 �.ia m`�t � , '�`,'''w , � ' c"`, ? � al �u ,. "t . i ... .� . , r 5 .w..... ,_!a�
� w �
II0
16
Attachment D: Priority Development Areas
Alameda County
Alameda
Naval. Air Station Planned /Potential
Northern Waterfront Growth Opportunity Area
Albany
San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Growth Opportunity. Area
Berkeley
Adeline Street Potential
Downtown Planned
San Pablo Avenue Planned
South Shattuck Planned
Telegraph Avenue Potential
University Avenue Planned
Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan Area Planned
Town Center Planned
Transit Center Planned
Emeryville
Mixed -Use Core
•
Planned
Fremont
Centerville Planned
City Center Planned
Irvington District Planned
Ardenwood Business Park Growth Opportunity Area
Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Growth Opportunity Area.
Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Growth Opportunity Area
South Fremont/Warm Springs Growth Opportunity Area
Hayward
Downtown Planned
South Hayward BART Planned
South Hayward BART Planned
The Cannery Planned
Carlos Bee Quarry Growth OpportunityArea
Mission Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Livermore
Downtown Planned
Vasco Road Station. Planning Area Potential
Newark
Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Potential
Old Town Mixed Use Area Potential
Cedar Boulevard Transit Growth Opportunity Area
Civic Center Re -Use Transit Growth Opportunity Area
MTC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation .tune 6, 2011
111
17
Oakland
Coliseum BART Station Area Planned
Downtown & Jack London Square Planned
Eastmont Town Center Planned,
Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Planned
MacArthur Transit Village Planned
Transit Oriented Development Corridors Potential
West Oakland Planned
Pleasanton
Hacienda Potential
San Leandro
Bay Fair BART Transit Village Potential
Downtown Transit Oriented Development Planned
East 14th Street Planned
Union City
Intermodal Station District Planned
Mission Boulevard Growth Opportunity Area
Old Alvarado Growth Opportunity Area
Alameda County Unincorporated
Castro Valley BART Growth Opportunity Area
East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard ,Mixed Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
MTC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
112
18
Contra Costa County
Jursl o r A rea N ame r` PDA Stat
Antioch
Hillcrest eBART Station Planned
Rivertown Waterfront Potential
Concord
Community. Reuse Area Potential
Community Reuse Area Potential
Downtown BART Station Planning Growth Opportunity Area
North Concord BART Adjacent Growth Opportunity Area
West Downtown Planning Area Growth Opportunity Area
El Cerrito
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Planned
Hercules •
Central Hercules Planned
Waterfront District Planned
Lafayette
Downtown Planned
Martinez
Downtown Planned
Moraga
Moraga Center Potential
Oakley
Downtown Potential
Employment Area Potential
Potential Planning Area Potential
Orinda
Downtown Potential
Pinole
Appian Way Corridor Potential
Old Town .Potential
Pittsburg
Downtown Planned
Pittsburg /Bay Point BART Station Planned
Railroad Avenue eBART Station Planned.
Pleasant Hill
Buskirk Avenue Corridor Potential
Diablo Valley College Potential
Richmond
Central Richmond Planned
South Richmond Planned
23rd Street Growth Opportunity Area
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
San Ramon
City Center Planned
North Camino Ramon Potential
MTC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
19
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek: West, Downtown Planned
Contra Costa County Unincorporated
Contra Costa Centre Planned
Downtown El Sobrante Potential
North Richmond Potential
Pittsburg /Bay Point BART Station Planned
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue
Corridor Planned /Potential
MTCIABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
114
20
Marin County
Jurstd icy on or Area Name
....... Sta�U.�dr `
San Rafael
Civic Center /North Rafael Town Center Planned
Downtown Planned
Marin County Unincorporated
Urbanized 101 Corridor Potential
San Quentin Growth Opportunity Area
Napa. County
Jurstdtctton or`Area Name 4 P A StatusL r
American Canyon
Highway 29 Corridor Potential
San Francisco County
Jursidiction or Area Name" V f , t PDA Status
San Francisco
19th Avenue Potential
Balboa Park Planned
Bayview /Hunters Point Shipyard /Candlestick Point Planned
Downtown -Van Ness -Geary Planned
Eastern Neighborhoods Planned
Market & Octavia Planned
Mission Bay Planned
Mission -San Jose Corridor . . Planned
Port of San Francisco Planned
San Francisco /San Mateo Bi- County Area (with City of Brisbane) Planned
Transbay Terminal Planned
Treasure Island Planned
Citywide Growth Opportunity Area
MTC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
2l
San Mateo:, County
J I'S idictcan or Area Name PDA Status r
? J r
Brisbane
. San Francisco /San Mateo Bi- County 'Area (with San Francisco) Potential
Burlingame
Burlingame Camino Real Planned
Daly City
Baysl or . Potential
Mission Boulevard Potential
Citywide
East Palo'Alto
Ravenswood Potential
Woodland/Willow Neighborhood
Menlo Park
Et Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Planned
Millbrae
Transit Station Area Planned
Redwood City
Downtown Planned
Broadway: Growth Opportunity Area
Middlefield Growth Opportunity Area
Mixed Use Waterfront Growth Opportunity- Area
Veterans Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
San Bruno
Transit Corridors Planned
San Carlos
Railroad Corridor Planned
San, Mateo
Downtown Planned
El Camino Real Planned
Rail Corridor Planned
South San Francisco
Downtown Planned
Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area
CCAG of San Mateo County: El Camino Real Planned /Potential
MTC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
116
22
Santa Clara County
Ju rsid r e #tan or Area N am e , PDA St
Cambell
Central Redevelopment Area Planned
Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Growth Opportunity Area
Gilroy
Downtown Planned
Los Altos
El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Milpitas
Transit Area Planned
Hammond Transit Neighborhood . Growth. Opportunity Area
McCandless Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area
McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area
Midtown Mixed -Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Serra Center Mixed -Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Tasman Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area
Town Center Mixed -Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Yosemite Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area
Morgan Hill . .
Morgan Hill: Downtown Planned
Mountain View
Whisman Station Potential
Downtown Growth Opportunity Area
East Whisman Growth Opportunity Area
El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Moffett Field /NASA Ames Growth Opportunity Area
North Bayshore Growth Opportunity Area
San Antonio Center Growth Opportunity Area
Palo Alto
Palo Alto: California Avenue Planned
Pato Alto: El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Palo Alto: University Avenue /Downtown Growth Opportunity Area
San Jose
Berryessa Station Planned
Communications Hill Planned
Cottle Transit Village Planned
Downtown "Frame Planned
East Santa Clara /Alum; Rock C orridor Planned
Greater Downtown. Planned
North San Jose Planned
West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Planned
Bascom TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Bascom Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Camden Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Growth Opportunity Area
MVITC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
23
Capitol /Tully /King Urban Villages Growth, Opportunity Area
Oaknidge /Almaden Plaza Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Saratoga TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Westgate /Et Paseo Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Santa Clara
Central Expressway Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
El Camino Real Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Great America Parkway Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Lawrence Station Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Santa Clara Station Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Tasman East Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Sunnyvale
Downtown & Caltrain Station Panned
El Camino Real Corridor Planned
Lawrence Station Transit Village Potential
East Sunnyvale 1TR Growth Opportunity Area
Moffett Park Growth Opportunity Area
Peery Park Growth Opportunity Area
Reamwood Light Rail Station Growth Opportunity Area
Tasman Station 1TR Growth Opportunity Area
VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas (estimate) Potential
MTC /ABAG Internal "CommunicationlDeliberation June 6, 2011
118
24
SoIano County
,Jursidiction or Area Name � A S
Benicia
Downtown Planned
Northern Gateway Growth Opportunity Area
Dixon
Fairfield
Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Planned
Fairfield - Vacaville Train Station Potential
North Texas Street Core Potential
West Texas Street Gateway Planned
Rio Vista
Suisun. City
Downtown & Waterfront Planned
Vacaville
Allison Area Planned
Downtown Planned
Vallejo
Waterfront & Downtown Planned
Solano County Unincorporated .
MTC /ABAG Internal Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
119
25
u -
Sonoma .County -
lursldretlon arArea Name PDT ;
ix s. `." ..r . 'krY f t•i: v ;' .. ... r F� .. ..: .. 4 f .. 1. ::
Cloverdale'
Downtown /SMART Transit Area Planned
Cotati
Downtown and Cotati Depot Planned'
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Central, Turning Basin /Lower Reach Planned'
Rohnert Park
Sonoma, Mountain Village Potential
Santa Rosa
Downtown Station Area Planned
Mendocino Avenue /Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Potential
Sebastopol Road Corridor Planned /Potential
North Santa Rosa Station Growth Opportunity Area
Sebastopol
Nexus Area Potential
Sonoma
Windsor
Redevelopment' Area Planned
Sonoma County Unincorporated 8th Street East Industrial Area .' Growth Opportunity Area
AirpoitJLarkfield Urban Service Area Growth Opportunity Area
Penngrove ;Urban Service Area . Growth Opportunity Area
The Springs Grot+vth Opportunity Area
J:\ PROJECT \Funding \T4 - New Act 1T4 - ; CMAQ \T4,Cycfe Programming\T4 Second Cycle \Cy,cle 2 Policy Dev \Block
Grant\(Distribution Options.xlslDistrib Overview
Provided by ABAG 6/6/2011
•
MTC /ABAG Internal .Communication /Deliberation June 6, 2011
120
26
A641 490; MENDOCINO AVENUE, SUITE 206 III 4 SANTA ROSA, CA 9540 ' �110:$
Vh1 �l R "p II
SANTA (707) 565-5373
sonoma county transportation authority regional climate protection authority
iA� �
September 20, 2011 i
Steve Heminger, Executive Director
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: Comments on Proposed One Bay Area Grant Program
Dear Mr. Heminger
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed "One Bay Area Block Grant (OBAG) Program," draft dated
July 8, 2011.
The SCTA recognizes the difficulty in creating a grant program that upholds the intent of the Sustainable
Communities Strategy goals while addressing the transportation needs of a diverse region.
We support the flexibility which was enabled through the creation of the Block Grant approach that was used
for allocation of Cycle 1 funding. This, has allowed the SCTA to identify the mix of transit, bicycle /pedestrian, and
roadway projects that are most appropriate for our communities and ready to deliver. We also appreciate the
flexibility demonstrated in the OBAG proposal as well as the recognition of the needs of rural areas and the
Priority Conservation Area (PCA) designated lands and look forward to implementing the PCA Planning pilot
program.
The SCTA strongly supports the "Fix it First" policy established in the current Regional Transportation Plan, which
recommends that 81% of alVexpenditures be dedicated to maintenance and operations, as a priority over
expansion and enhancement of the transportation system.
The OBAG proposal is an answer to the issues identified in the SCS process and makes important connections
between transportation and land use. We believe that the following changes would tremendously improve the
effectiveness of the program and our ability to deliver much needed projects in' Sonoma County.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Distribution Formula
1. The existing distribution formula developed in cycle 1 for allocation of Surface Transportation Program
(STP) /Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program funding, which is based on population, lane
mileage, shortfall and preventative maintenance performance (25% each) should be retained and
applied to Surface Transportation Program funding. This maintains the commitment to "Fix it First" and
serves as a performance and accountability measure by prioritizing the "use of funds for preventative
maintenance.
2. Apply the newly proposed distribution formula of 50% Population, 25% Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA), and 25% actual housing production to Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
program funding only..
!no e'li!� 0 I�1 "o�ON
F'"' _ 1':e4f4• • � 4 7, tfn i� � .J) C ® g .� ,i ..
27
Priority Development Area'IPDA) Minimum
3. Apply the proposal to require that 70% of all funds be spent on projects in PDAs ,only to CMAQ funds.
This will address the objective =of providing incentive to encourage focusing housing development in
these areas. Enable STP funds to be spent on the entire surface transportation network, as this is the
funding source which •is most applicable to meeting the needs of the "Fix it First" policy.
4. Allow the portion of funds reserved for PDAs to be spent not only inside them, but also' for projects in
their vicinity which support the development of these areas. This will include transit systems, regional
bike networks and connections between PDAs and regional employment centers, schools, recreation
sites and shopping, areas.
5. Allow funds for Safe Routes to School to be spent at any schools in the county, whether or not they are
in PDAs, by separating SRTS funding or making it exempt from the 70% PDA restriction.
Performance and Accountability
6. Modify the proposed Performance and Accountability requirements, on page 4, #1 Supportive Local
Transportation and Land- UseiPolicies, to separate distinct topics into individual items in the list.
(Specifically, items (a) and(d) each contain two distinct topics.)
7. Replace the language in item 1(b) to make reference to a programmatic approach to air
quality /greenhouse gas reduction per CEQA guidelines.
8. Modify the language in item 1(d) to apply to adopted; bicycle /pedestrian plans and to adopted complete
streets policies (separated•as indicated in #4 above) but delete the reference to "general plans pursuant
to Complete Streets Act of 2008."
9. Add additional 'categories of supportive ° locaLtransportation and land -use policies which will be more
applicable in counties and smaller cities and sensitive to differing localities. Examples include: adopted
focal sustainable community strategy, greenbelt policy and urban growth boundaries. Also include a
choice for "other" in which-a local agency could indicate their supportive policies which don't fit the
categories already listed. Choosing "other" and filling; in the associated blank would entail consultation
with CMA and /or °MTC staff' to verify that the local policy inquestion`does address the desired linkage
between transportation and land use.
10. RHNA submit � pp Y p g element consistent with
Require agencies demonstrate their efforts to local) adopt a housin ele
q ubmit -it for HCD approval, rather than requiring achievement of HCD approval
to qualify for funds.
11. Please define how multi - agency transit districts would be able to qualify for funding if the proposed
requirements were in effect.
Attachments
12. Attachment D does not show the City of Cloverdale, which does includea PDA. Please revise
Attachment D to include all of Sonoma County.
We thank youfor opportunity to comment an this proposal.
Sincerely,
do
Jake Mac enzie Chair,
SCTA /RCPA
28