We're going to call to order now please take your seats.
All right Justin let's do the roll call and instructions.
thank you chair mr. Bradshaw commissioner Cruz commissioner eager here
commissioner Elliott here vice chair Falcone here
commissioner Gardino mr. Gardino present all right mr. Lugo commissioner man here
commissioner Tiffany here chair crispy senator Cortez II
Assemblymember Wilson? Chair, we have Quorum. I'll jump into the logistics for the
meeting. Welcome everyone to day 2 of the June 2025 CTC meeting in Sacramento.
The meeting agenda is located on our website at www.catc.ca.gov. All the
meeting presentations for today's meeting are also available on the
Commission meetings page. For our website under the view download meeting
materials tab. Any document the CTC creates can be translated into any
language you need. Simply email us at ctc at catc.ca.gov and we will have them
returned to you as quickly as possible. American Sign Language Translation is
being provided on the webinar. You should see the translators on your screen. Live
closed captioning is also available. Please like the show captions tab at the
bottom of your screen. There are a number of language options available there to
choose from. Presenters, if you're on the agenda to make a presentation please do
your best to be succinct. Please remember to speak at a steady pace to allow our
translating services adequate time for accurate translations. If you're
presenting remotely we hope to return on your camera during your presentation if
you have one. Members of the public we welcome comments from the public as a
part of each item at this meeting. For those attending in person please remember
to submit a speaker set to the clerk, that's me, here at the front of the room, to let us know you
want to comment on an item. For those attending via Zoom, you should see the webinar control panel,
likely located on the bottom of your screen. There you'll find the raise hand and Q&A tabs.
We encourage you to use the raise hand feature as early into the item as you can to give the system
time to acknowledge it. Christian staff will let you know when it's your turn to make your comment.
Ultimately, you may use the Q&A tab to submit your comment. Please be sure to include the agenda
item number you are commenting on.
Commission staff will read the comment on your behalf.
As a reminder, each registered attendee is provided a unique link and phone number to
access the webinar.
These should not be shared with other participants, as they are registered to a specific attendee
and can create confusion for staff when making comments.
For all meeting attendees, please do your best to be concise.
Be sure that your comments add new information.
If you agree with the comments of a previous speaker, simply make that statement.
please remember to speak at a steady pace to allow our translating services adequate
time for accurate translation. Since we often have many speakers, we ask that you have make
your point in two minutes or less. If for some reason we have many speakers on a single
topic, we reserve the right to limit comments to one minute if needed. Thank you all for
joining us today.
All right. Thank you, Justin. We'll start with tab 22.
Good morning commissioners. Tab 22 is an action item to adopt the program of projects
for the 2024 Local Partnership Competitive Program.
The Commission established the 2024 Local Partnership Competitive Program
as a $195,670,000 two-year program.
The Local Partnership Program was created to reward agencies with local and regional
voter-approved taxes, tolls, or fees, or imposed fees where those revenues collected
are dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
The 2024 local partnership competitive program guidelines were adopted by the commission at its
August 2024 meeting and initiated the call for project nominations which were due by November
20th, 2024. The commission received a total of 41 project nominations this cycle seeking almost 576
million dollars in program funds which is over double the available program funding capacity.
The recommended program of projects includes 201 million six hundred and fifty five thousand
dollars for 11 projects across the state and these build on local and regional partnerships
by leveraging roughly 14 billion dollars in additional federal state and local funds
which will create a hundred and eighty thousand jobs and promote a vibrant economy while promoting
a sustainable equitable and innovative transportation system for all californians
the total proposed programming exceeds the identified funding capacity by five million
nine hundred and eighty five thousand dollars and will be supported by future redistribution
of local partnership incentive program funding consistent with program guidelines adoption of
of the 2024 Local Partnership Competitive Program of Projects supports innovative public
transit systems that reduce greenhouse gases with zero emission buses and expansions to
existing services and rapid buses, and will rehabilitate a historic freight railroad originally
built to haul redwood out of the north coast. These projects will also promote safer transportation
options for all travelers with complete streets improvements that separate bicyclists and
pedestrians from vehicular traffic while enhancing signage and street lighting, creating a healthier
environment for roadway users, active travelers and neighboring residents alike.
The recommended projects also include local roadway improvements that reduce congestion,
improve operations on and off state highways, and provide much needed travel connections
between jobs and homes.
Community engagement played an important role
in the evaluation of the recommended projects
with each demonstrated,
which each demonstrated robust public outreach efforts
that were conducted in person in multiple languages
and various formats.
The projects recommended in this program
demonstrated how project designers responded to feedback
and elevated community voices
by incorporating their input into the projects
that we evaluated and are recommending for funding.
The Interagency Equity Advisory Committee
supported project selection
by evaluating the community engagement criterion
of project applications,
ultimately influencing staff recommended projects.
The projects recommended for funding met or excelled
in the evaluation criteria
for effective community involvement
according to their evaluations.
Likewise, the Department of Housing
and Community Development, or commonly known as HCD,
evaluated the land use and housing evaluation criteria
of each project application,
which further influenced project selection.
I would like to note here that 10 of the projects
are located in jurisdictions, 10 of the 11,
that have pro-housing designation from HCD
already established, and the 11th project
has committed to pursuing their designation.
Project nominations were evaluated by a diverse team
of both commission and Caltrans transportation experts,
as well as our partners at HCD and within the EAC.
These evaluations led to the projects recommended
for commission approval.
At this time, I'd like to share my appreciation
for all who participated in this program cycle,
beginning with the project sponsors and their staff.
Local agencies must go through an extensive process
on their own before being eligible to apply
to the local partnership program.
They must meet minimum local match requirements
and provide data-driven evidence to support their narratives.
These project nominations are works of art
and take a concerted effort to prepare.
I'd like to acknowledge that although available funding
does not fully cover the need,
each of these projects is valuable to its region
and we appreciate the opportunity to consider them
for the local partnership competitive program.
I invite agencies who applied and were unsuccessful
to schedule a debrief so that we can discuss
their project's evaluation and assist them
in reapplying in a future cycle.
I'd also like to personally thank each individual commission
and Caltrans staff member that assisted
with the evaluation process,
including commission staff members Gina Horton,
Dylan Jimenez, Brandi Fleming, Vincent Ma, Ahmed Ghonim,
and Benjamin Williams.
Caltrans staff members, Valenci Fitzgerald,
Lindsay Leichfuss, and Mitchell McNutt.
And a special thank you to my team leaders, Kayla Gisi,
who manages the local partnership formulaic program
here at the commission,
and is my faithful backup on the competitive program.
and Sharon Bertosi, who manages the local partnership program
for Caltrans.
Together we led the evaluation teams,
ensuring that our evaluations were fair,
consistent, transparent, and consensus-driven.
From the Interagency Equity Advisory Committee,
I'd like to thank evaluators Michelle Rousey
and Randy Torres Van Bleck,
who were instrumental in evaluating community engagement.
From the Department of Housing and Community Development,
I want to thank Westin starboard for meticulously evaluating and commenting on the transportation
land use and housing section of each of our project nominations.
I'd also like to take a moment to recognize the support and guidance of our commission
management team, including our executives to Nisha Taylor and Paul goal as Oski, who
have pushed all three SP one program managers this cycle to ensure our recommendations are
solid and supported with lots and lots of data. Finally, if you haven't already
heard about how awesome our leader is, let me tell you now, Matthew Yasgott
works hard to ensure the process from guidelines development to evaluations
and finally to staff recommendations is consistent, transparent and equitable
among our three programs. He is what we call a working manager and can be found
right alongside us calculating statistics or reaching out to stakeholders. He is quick with
his compliments and he keeps us laughing throughout what some might call an otherwise arduous process.
Staff recommendations were published on June 6, 2025 and are included in Attachment B. Since posting
the staff recommendations on June 6, we have received several comment letters included in
attachment C of this item and is subsequently uh subsequently posted updates to this item.
Staff recommends your approval of projects in the 2024 local partnership competitive program
as presented in attachment B. This concludes my remarks and I'm happy to take any questions you
may have. All right thanks a lot we're going to go to online comment first a public comment
and let's start with Assemblymember Curie. Good morning esteemed members of the California
Transportation Commission. My name is Sabria Terry and I am a field representative with majority
leader is Cecilia Aguilar Currie's office. I am here today on behalf of the majority leader in
support of the City of Sacramento's request for funding for the I Street Bridge replacement project
through the 2024 local partnership program competitive grant. The majority leader has long
supported this project and has provided letters to the CTC expressing her support. As a key regional
priority for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. This transformational project will
build a new iconic bridge over the Sacramento River and will provide a crossing that can serve
all modes of travel including options that lack within the current and existing 113 year old I
Street bridge. This project will provide a critical infrastructure to serve new and field development,
improve access for disadvantaged and low-income communities, and support sustainable transportation
options that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the bridge will serve as an
essential route for safe evacuations strengthening public safety. The cities of Sacramento and West
Sacramento have been working on this project for several years. Caltrans has pledged $250 million
in Federal Highway Bridge Program funding towards the bridge's construction. With the LPP funding
that is being requested the project will have sufficient funding. This will result in long
significant long-term economic benefits to the region and hundreds of construction jobs over the
next several years. On behalf of Majority Leader Aguiar Curry, thank you for your time and for your
consideration. Thank you. We'll proceed with the rest of the online comment. Thanks. Thank you.
Next I'd like to call on Paul Heierling. Please unmute yourself to begin your comment.
Good morning Chair and Commissioners. I'm Paul Hyerling with the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments. Anbag would like to voice our support for the staff recommendation for the LPP.
These projects reflect a prudent set on multimodal transportation investments
which enhance safety while advancing the state's climate resiliency and equity goals. I want to
speak on the Watsonville Santa Cruz multimodal corridor project specifically. This corridor is
a key route between the most disadvantaged areas in Santa Cruz County to jobs in the highest income
city in the county. We have to continue supporting multimodal access to jobs for these underserved
communities. The bus auxiliary lanes that are key to this project will exclusively support buses,
including two new 15-minute headway hydrogen bus routes funded by a recent TERSIP grant.
These buses will be used by new residents at approximately 40 new affordable housing units
above the Watsonville Transit Center, a project partially funded by HCD. The Metro project is also
implementing CARB regulations for zero-emission fleets. So the Watsonville Santa Cruz multimodal
project is not only key for the community, it's a case study and state agency coordination
on transitioning a high-traffic corridor to a more sustainable multimodal model. We commend
the Commission and its staff for their commitment to a data-driven process that aligns with
California's broader imperatives for a cleaner resilient and more sustainable transportation
future. That concludes my comments. Thank you. Next I'd like to call on David Tran.
Please unmute yourself to begin your comment. Good morning commissioners. David Tran speaking
on behalf of San Jose mayor Matt Mahan. I am here to reiterate the Mayor Mahan's strong support
yesterday for item 22 which will allocate critical funding for BART to Silicon Valley phase two.
Thank you, Chair, commissioners, and staff for your partnership. We would also like to give
special thanks to Commissioner Carl Guardino for his leadership as well as Senator Dave Cortese.
San Jose is preparing for significant population and economic growth in the decades to come.
This funding will advance a transformative GHG-reducing project that will unlock 45 million
square feet of transit-oriented development in San Jose, which means housing, jobs, and
and vibrant public spaces.
Bar to Silicon Valley will be a key catalyst
in meeting our regions and states,
economic and climate goals.
Thank you and we ask for your support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next, I'd like to call on Brittany Bailey.
Please unmute yourself to begin your comment.
Hello and good morning commissioners.
My name is Brittany Bailey
with the Office of Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego.
On behalf of the City of San Diego,
we wanna thank you for your consideration
and staff's recommendation
of our stream view drive revitalization project phase two.
This corridor currently faces a high frequency of crashes
attributable to both its road geometry
and the deteriorating state of the current infrastructure.
And this project was developed
to tackle traffic related injuries, enhance roadway safety
and deliver mobility benefits
for residents of a historically underserved community.
If awarded today, this will bring much needed funding
to this vital corridor project,
which will provide safer multimodal transportation,
access to San Diegans through new roundabouts,
bulbouts, bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit infrastructure,
as well as support the city of San Diego's climate action,
resiliency, and vision zero goals.
We urge your support today and we thank you for your time.
That concludes my comments, thank you.
Thank you.
Next, I'd like to call on Michael Villa.
Please unmute yourself to begin her comment.
Morning, commissioners.
My name is Michael Villa
and I'm here representing the Minasino Council of Governments.
I'm here to express strong support
for the staff recommendations,
which include the Central Ukiah
Circulation Improvement Project.
This project will deliver critical improvements
for various streets within city limits
that survey dense diverse area
that includes River Oak Charter School,
the Ukiah Senior Center,
low income and senior housing,
medical offices, hospitals, grocery stores,
and soon a new county courthouse.
This project addresses long standing gaps in accessibility,
safety and connectivity by reconstructing and filling sidewalks, adding new ADA compliant
curb ramps and crosswalks including a raised crossing with flashing beacons near a K through
8 school, and installing over a mile of bike lanes. It also features drainage upgrades,
lighting enhancements, a street median with trees, and improved access to the Great Redwood Trail.
We believe that this project reflects the kind of thoughtful and community driven investment the
local partnership program was designed to support. And lastly, I'd like to thank CTC staff for the
continued support and dedication in guiding and advancing impactful projects like this one through
the local partnership program. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I'd like to call on David Lehman. Please
unmute yourself to begin your comment. Good morning, commission and staff. This is David Lehman,
Stanislaus County Public Works Director and 2025 President of the County Engineers Association
of California. I'd like to thank staff and commission for nominating this 7th Street Bridge
project on behalf of our partner the City of Modesto and the county. 7th Street Bridge was built
in 1916, it has a sufficiency rating of 5, and arguably the worst bridge in California with
16,000 cars a day on it. There's been no transit over this bridge and it's a high demand transit
route if it was in good enough shape to carry buses. It has a four-ton weight restriction
for 30 plus years. We're adding 10 and 5 foot sidewalks in both sides of the bridge with bike
lanes, serves an economically disadvantaged community. This 15 million dollars of LPP
will match 80 million dollars of HBP funds, Highway Bridge Program funds, and local match
about 16 million dollars between Modesto and Stanislaus County. We wanted to thank you.
Thank you. Next I'd like to call on Emiliano Rosas. Please unmute yourself to begin your
comment. Good morning commissioners and staff. My name is Emiliano Rosas and I'm speaking today
on behalf of State Senator Christopher Cabaldon. Senator Cabaldon is a strong supporter of the
Ice Street Bridge Project. As the longest serving mayor of West Sacramento, he has seen this project
evolve through many stages and understands its importance to our region. The current Ice Street
bridge is over 113 years old, its narrow lanes cannot accommodate buses, it lacks dedicated bike
lanes, and the sidewalks do not meet current ADA standards. This project will address those issues
and improve mobility and safety for all users, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians by creating
a stronger and safer connection between Sacramento and West Sacramento. We urge your continued support
to move this project forward. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next I'd like to call on
Doug Drozd. Please unmute yourself to begin your comment. Good morning Chair and Commissioners. I'm
Doug Drozd, Deputy City Manager for the City of West Sacramento here in support of staff's
recommendations including the award of 25 million dollars to the Ice Street Bridge replacement
project. You've heard about the many benefits and great need for this project. It's been a great
partnership with the city of Sacramento over the course of the last decade and this award will
put us on track to begin construction next year. Thank you to the staff for this recommendation
and we urge your approval. Thank you. Thank you. Next I'd like to call on Daniel Washington.
Please unmute yourself to begin your comment. Good morning board chair commissioners and staff. My
name is Daniel Washington, District Director for State Senator Angelique Ashby and I'm speaking
on behalf of the senator in strong support of the $25 million in SB1 local partnership program
program funding for the I Street bridge replacement project. This project delivers regional benefits
that go far beyond Sacramento and West Sacramento supporting mobility, public safety, and economic
connectivity across senate district 8 and the region. Replacing the aging infrastructure will
improve traffic flow enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and better serve the growing
needs of our communities on both sides of the river. Senator Aspy is proud to support
a project that reflects true interagency collaboration and aligns with the state's priorities for
sustainable, equitable infrastructure investment. We respectfully urge the Commission's approval
of this funding to help this critical project to completion. Thank you for your time and
Thank you. That concludes
online public comment. Thank
you so much. We will now turn
to, uh, in room commenters.
First up is Shelly Quan,
followed by Alexander Hamilton.
Excuse me. This is the A. S.
interpreter. If I could ask
you all to please slow down.
Thank you. Okay Good morning.
the state of Michigan. They're
that. This is actually Metro's second attempt at seeking LPP competitive funds to support
our transition to 100% zero-emission fleet. Last cycle we weren't successful, but commission
staff offered application feedback. So we took them up on it. We met with Leshar Ward
and Anya Allenbacher and Benjamin Williams and they gave us the good, the bad and the
ugly. It was fortunately mostly good, but they did give us four specific areas for improvement,
which we worked on this cycle and are really pleased with the positive result.
So the staff recommendations before you today reflect not only the state's priorities and
local priorities, but also your staff's excellent work. So we really encourage your approval today.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Next up is Alexander Hampton followed by Jose Luis
Caceres. I'm not seeing Alexander Hamilton I guess. So next up would be Jose Cosi Das.
Good morning Chair Grisby, commissioners, and especially CTC staff. I'm here to
thank the commission and also speak on behalf of our project. Before I get too far into it,
LeShara Ward has been nothing but helpful. She is an excellent staff member and sometimes I call
just to see how she's doing. We support the recommendation for the competitive local
partnership program. I should probably introduce myself. I'm Jose Luis Casas. I'm the director of
programming and program delivery for the Stanislaus Council of Governments. Local partnership program
is an important program for Stancog. It rewards and incentivizes self-help counties such as ours.
Stanislaus County voters in 2016 passed Measure L, a half cent sales tax dedicated to transportation.
We are proof that even a conservative area is interested in taxing itself to get transportation
projects done. And one of the projects that we really want done is this item. Stancog,
We are the nominating agency for the 7th Street Bridge replacement project. You heard Dave Lehman,
the director of public works from Stanislaus County, speak in favor. They are the lead agency.
They're also building in cooperation with the city of Modesto. This is one of those
bridges like I Street Bridge that crosses into multiple jurisdictions. I want to share just a
little bit more about the project that Dave already touched on. This bridge is 109 years old.
He mentioned it is load restricted. It's been load restricted since 1979. I was
one year old in 1979. That means you can't drive an ambulance over this bridge. So if someone needs
help over there, you got to go take the long way around to go help them and then the long way back
around to take them to the hospital. It has a rating of 5.1 out of 100. I want to say this is
is the worst bridge in the state. I don't know but it's really bad. It has no ADA compliant sidewalks,
no shoulders, no bike lanes and this project will build. Oh I'm sorry I was so excited by my bridge.
Well thank you so much and we thank you. That's partially my fault. Martha Armas Kelly followed
by Patrick Bulliam. Not seeing Martha so is Patrick with the operating engineers here now.
Next up is Jeremy Steinmann, Erica Roeks, Santa Clara Transportation Authority, followed
by Sarka Sarka's Kashuk. Erica, yes.
Good morning, commissioners. I'm Erica Roeks, the Interim Director of External Affairs
for VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II project. The Phase II project will bring BART further
into Santa Clara County, and complete the BART Silicon Valley program that has been
planned for and envisioned for more than two decades. With BART connections at Deirdon and
Santa Clara stations, in addition to the current Caltrain and Altamont commuter express connections
there, the ring, we will ring the bay with fast electric rail, as well as connect to the long
long awaited rail service to the Monterey Salinas area to open up transit connections
farther south to the central coast. When VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase One project was
realized, the city of Milpitas began implementing their transit oriented development plan in
the station area. And by the time the station was opened, the surrounded area was fully
developed with mixed use transit oriented development. VTA has secured FTA TOD mobility
hub grants to ensure development and land use priorities are in place for the future
stations surrounding on the BART phase two alignment and that they're ready for the
development to be spurred in the area. Completing the ring of the bay provides many benefits to
our region, increased access to transit, many additional connections to jobs around the Bay
Area and will spur more development in jobs for those in the South Bay. We thank you and ask for
your support. Thank you so much. Sarcas-Kac- I'll eventually get your name right. I apologize.
I butchered it yesterday too. It's okay, Cherkers. But you're not the first. Sarcas-Kacak with the
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. I'm also sorry that you have to see me today, but
we're here today to support the staff recommendation again to express our thanks. The local
partnership competitive award that's being recommended today is being matched by our
Measure A program. So our voters in 2008 extended our prior measure by almost 80 percent and with
With that 80% approval, we had the flagship project
being the Santa Barbara US 101 Multimodal Corridor.
So that just shows you the significance
of this award for our region.
So we're thankful for the recommendation.
We'd like to thank LaShire Award for all of her help
and support with the development
of our application submittal.
And that concludes my remarks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Kenneth Kow, followed by Eduardo Montesu.
Good morning, commissioners. Kenneth Cow with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
I'm very happy to see you again today. It's a great day. It's Friday. I also wanted to
lend our support for the staff recommendations. We have three projects on the list, including
the two transit projects that you improved under solutions for congested corridor. That
would be the Bart Silicon Valley phase two extension. And I realize I need to slow down
as well as the smart extension to Healdsburg.
We also have a third project in San Francisco,
which is a pedestrian bicycle enhancement in San Francisco.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to thank staff
for all of their work, again, LaShara and her team,
as well as Matthew and the rest of the volunteers,
really thankful for all the work that they put in.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Eduardo, I can't quite read the last name.
It's okay, Montezina, so good morning.
My name is Eduardo Montezina,
representing the city of Watsawa,
and I'm also the chair
of the Regional Transportation Commission in our community.
I wanna thank the commission and staff
for their continued partnership,
providing funding for much-needed projects
in Santa Cruz County.
All these projects are vital to our,
and continue to provide mobility options for our community.
I'm here in support of staff recommendation
that I represent an underserved community that is helping achieve some of these goals,
specifically some transit projects that are greatly needed in our community
and it moves our community forward on all these options. So thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. And lastly, we have Rich Murray.
That's a tough act. Oh, wow, please.
Good morning, commissioners, Richard Murphy on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments.
Just here to congratulate our partners in the Central Coast region.
We have the Central Coast Coalition, as you all know.
SARCUS, I want to just acknowledge your leadership at the Central Coast Coalition and all that
you've accomplished.
It's phenomenal and remarkable, and I do hope that there's a groundbreaking party of some
sort that you'd invite all your partners, agencies on the Central Coast too.
And of course, Santa Cruz as well.
We're an aspiring self-help county.
We do not have a sales tax.
So we do not have a fight in this particular program,
no applications submitted.
We are committed to daylighting to our board in February,
our proposed expenditure plan
for a November, 2026 consideration.
10 years ago, we made an effort
and missed our 66.7 by 464 votes.
So we see the value of this program,
this competitive program.
We have some lessons that we learned
from the prior actions that you took yesterday.
We did have a couple of projects with District 5
and the City of Paso Robles,
but we know that competitive funding
coming out of the local partnership program
is key to have success.
We look to debrief with your staff on our applications
and come back in cycle five,
hopefully with both a sales tax initiative past
and with better applications to have some greater success.
But thank you for all that you've done
for San Luis Obispo in the past under cycle three
and we're back in two years.
See you then.
Thank you.
I understand we have people online again.
So let's go back to online commenters.
Thank you.
I'd like to call on Eric Henschel.
Please unmute yourself to begin your comment.
Thank you.
My name is Eric Henshall.
I'm the Deputy Chief of Staff for Congressman Sam Locardo.
And I'm here on his behalf
in support of the staff recommendation,
particularly for the VTA's BART Silicon Valley
phase two extension project.
This is more than a local project.
It's a generational investment
in a more equitable and connected California.
This project directly addresses
systemic transportation inequities
by connecting underserved neighborhoods
to high value destinations like job centers,
educational institutions, and medical facilities
across the entire Bay Area.
California has already invested nearly $7 billion
in state and local funds,
and these commitments unlocked more than 5.1 billion
in federal funding.
This project represents one of the most powerful state,
federal, local partnerships in the country,
and it will support 75,000 jobs,
contribute more than 6.3 billion
to California's gross state product,
and boost statewide economic resilience for decades.
It's the kind of large-scale investment
that fulfills our climate equity
and infrastructure goals simultaneously.
So on behalf of Congressman Liccardo,
thank you for the inclusion of this funding
and the staff recommendation.
Thank you.
Our next online comment is coming from EAC chair,
Martha Armis Kelly, who is a resident of Merced County
and works in Stanislaus County.
She is in support of this project
as it will alleviate congestion
and hopes that there will be a transmodal consideration.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Now we will return to as you come back to the dais
What any commissioners like to speak or ask a question?
Thank you chair, Grisby
Well, first of all, I was glad to hear the folks from Paso Robles
Talk about the importance of the process and how they're going to come back next time
Because we certainly heard from folks here in this room that they didn't get funded last time and they came back
talk to the staff and now they were on the the good list so again I encourage
you all to keep trying keep working with the staff and I think we have heard
over and over and over again what an amazing staff we have in all these SB1
programs so I would just like to get it over with could we just all clap for
Matthew one last time to thank you thank you thank you all right thank you very
much now on to Commissioner Gordina thank you chairman grisby past chair
eager said many of the same things I will say so I won't repeat too much but
the team that Tanisha has built that Matthew has built and leads have just
done a phenomenal job for our state and the theme that I continue to hear is
that we are so thoughtful about partnerships for progress, the fact that folks have come
back, iterated with our team, engaged in the guideline process, learned from potential
shortcomings in how they have presented their projects or to fine tune their projects in
the future and then come back with those in a place to successfully compete for this very,
very competitive program so kudos to our team and to all of our stakeholder partners public
private and non-profit and if it pleases the chair I would be honored to make a motion that we
adopt and support wholeheartedly staff's recommendation. All right I'm going to turn
into director Taylor. Thank you I just wanted to take a minute to thank the commission
and our stakeholders for the kind words that you've said about our team it really is a testament
not to my work but to their work and how dedicated they are to the state of California
and I just want to thank them myself as well and we have another program adoption with Laurie and
and Anya coming up as well and they've done equally amazing work and so I want to recognize them as
well. Excellent thank you to our staff. So we have a motion by Carl Gardeno is there a second?
Oh quick. Okay. Sorry. I want to yeah
First of all just want to uh send kudos to the city of san diego for bringing forth the stream view drive
Revitalization project. I have actually traveled that um that
Corridor and it i've always thought it was a hazard
uh, this is going to provide not only
Safety for the travelers on that drive, but also for the residents that live along that that
that drive and so
kudos to the city for bringing forth it a good project that
that
Aligned with our guidelines with LPP
Also, you know, I'm again like
I'm in awe of the staff each and every time
we work together we have these hearings and
and and just the partnership that that they
are able to forge with
external
stakeholders and applicants and
That's so important and you know Matthew
You take your job so seriously. I've been trying to get him to smile this whole hearing and he is just he won't do it because he
You got him to smile and react because you care you care about about this program and even more importantly your staff
And kudos to Tula Shara and Kayla and Bev
and
Naveen who's somewhere
And all your team that that support you in your colleagues, you know, you all come together
You know really help each other and each other's programs and that's so important
And so, you know, I am happy to support
All the work that you've all done
On this SP one its project selection has been very difficult. I get it
There's been so many good projects and projects that will probably come back
to Commissioner eaters point that you know, don't give up because we have a
the commission here was staff that want projects to succeed and to return and to hopefully fun if we have the funding to do it so.
Thank you for allowing me to speak chair.
All right, it's their second to the motion made by Commissioner Corky now.
Do you want to speak as well. Good. So you're second. I was seconding. All right, seconded by Commissioner eager. All those in favor.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi.
Most.
Abstentions.
Motion passes.
Now we're on to item 23.
Good morning commissioners.
Tab 23 is an action item to adopt the 2025 active transportation
program, metropolitan planning organization component.
$40,000 program of which 40% of funding is distributed to projects selected through a
regional competitive process. The Budget Act of 2024 cut $400 million from the active transportation
program and this reduced the funding for the MPO component by over 70%. Commissioned staff
prepared the recommended 20, 25 active transportation program and MPO component program of projects
and posted it on the commission's website on June 2nd, 2025. Commissioned staff recommends
funding 34 projects for a total of $61,344,000 for seven metropolitan planning organizations.
Combined, the total project costs are over $476 million.
32 projects comprising 90% of the funding benefit disadvantaged communities and 19 projects
will create safe routes to schools.
I would like to thank MPO staff for their continued partnership with the ATP and I'd
like to express my gratitude for my team who were integral and putting this recommendation together,
Alika Chingizi and Jaden Gales. I'd also like to recognize Emma Malony from Caltrans Local
Assistance for her assistance with the MPO component. The MPO's proposed program of projects
are consistent with the 2025 Active Transportation Program guidelines as well as the applicable
2025 Active Transportation Program regional guidelines. Staff recommends approval of tab
23. Thank you. We can now turn to public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? I'm not
seeing any at this time. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. We can now turn to the dais.
Any questions, comments from commissioners?
Is there a motion? Moved by Commissioner Tiffany, is there a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Eger. All those in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes.
Thank you. Next up, we're going to do the information calendar, items 24 through 41.
John?
Yeah, hi, commissioners. Tabs, did you say 24 through 41?
Yeah, that's what I was saying. I thought I heard 22.
So it is 24 through 41 are information items
that have been reviewed by staff
and have no issues raised by commission staff.
Therefore individual items will not be presented
unless specifically requested by a commissioner.
Please make note of the changelists for tabs 25 and 41.
And if there are no questions or comments
that will conclude the presentation
of the information calendar.
Thank you, any public comment on this item?
There's no public comment.
Thank you very much.
We've already covered the consent calendar from yesterday,
but we can skip to item 70.
And that's Lori.
Hi.
Good morning.
Commissioners, tab 70 is an action item
to consider adoption of the interim timely use
of funds policy for the 2024 and 2025
Southern California fires.
As we all know, the devastating wildfires
that impacted Southern California late last year
and early this year,
including the line, bridge, airport, palisades, Eaton,
Hearst, Lydia, Sunset, Woodley, and Hughes fires
have caused project delays,
some of which are still unknown.
This policy, which is included with the book item,
as attachment A will provide additional time
to the commission's timely use of funds
for project delivery.
The policy applies to the counties of San Bernardino,
Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties.
These are the counties
for which various states of emergencies were issued.
The programs that the policy applies to
are the Active Transportation Program,
the Local Partnership Program,
the Solutions for Congestive Corridors Program,
and the Trade Corridors Enhancement Program.
The policies provisions will remain in effect
through completion for all projects
that have received approved extensions
under the interim policy.
However, commission staff will evaluate
the continued need for this policy on a quarterly basis.
Attachment 8 details the provisions
of the interim time lease of funds policy,
but in summary, effective immediately,
the deadline to request an allocation for projects
impacted by the fires and programmed in fiscal year 2425
is extended to the December 2025 commission meeting.
This deadline for allocation is automatically extended.
Number two, the period to award a construction contract
is extended from six months to 12 months.
This extension is retroactive and includes allocations
approved at the January, March, May,
and June 2025 commission meetings.
Number three, the maximum allowable time extension
for projects programmed in the local partnership program,
the solutions for congested corridors program,
and the trade corridors enhancement program
is increased to 20 months for allocation,
project expenditures for preconstruction,
contract award construction, and project completion.
Number four, the maximum allowable time extension
for projects programmed in the active transportation program
is increased to 24 months for allocation,
project expenditure, contract award,
and project completion.
A one-time extension amendment will be considered
for projects with previously approved time extensions
for projects programmed in the local partnership program,
the solutions for congested corridors program
and the trade corridor enhancement program,
allowing the total extension period
to be increased up to 20 months.
And for the active transportation program,
the period will be increased to 24 months.
The two reasons why the increase in time
is more for the active transportation program
than the other programs.
First, the ATP already allows 20-month time extensions
for allocation, so we needed to extend it to 24 months
for it to be of any use.
And second, the ATP funds pre-construction activities
for many of the program's projects,
so the cascading effects from pre-construction delays
need to be accounted for.
In addition to those provisions, the commission staff
will consider case-by-case issues that come up
on projects that may need more time outside
of what we're allowing for in this policy.
Commission staff has worked closely
with the affected stakeholders to develop this policy.
We held a meeting on May 22nd with attendees
from San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside,
Los Angeles, and Ventura counties to get their input.
Staff continued to work with these stakeholders
after the meeting, particularly with the city of Los Angeles
to develop the appropriate provisions
because the city of Los Angeles
has been hit particularly hard.
To qualify under this policy,
implementers must demonstrate that the project delays
are directly attributable to challenges
from the fires mentioned earlier.
We recognize that implementing an interim policy
be challenging for the Caltrans district and the headquarters staff to process the time extension
requests. Therefore, commissioned staff will continue to work with Caltrans to ensure that
this policy is implemented correctly and uniformly for the applicable counties and that there is
case-by-case consideration for projects that may need additional timely use of funds relief not
covered by this policy. This is an action item to adopt this policy but I'm happy
to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Let's go to public comment. Is there
any public comment? There's no public comment for this item. Thank you. Thank
you. Anyone from the dais has a question or comment? Commissioner Eager followed
by Commissioner Faucon. Followed by, yes. Thank you. I was glad to hear you say that
there might be other areas around the state that are not going to be covered by this particular
program. So as we move forward, I would certainly encourage us to ensure that if there is some
emergency in other parts of the state that this would also apply to them as we move forward
putting a more permanent decision in place of what we want to do as we certainly understand
in the state of California, we weren't never expecting these fires as they were this year
or the torrential rains that we have or the hurricane that we had in San Diego.
And I know these interim programs are like, Oh, but this is a one time thing you learned.
It's not anymore.
So as we move forward, put a more permanent project in place to make sure that it's all
inclusive for the state of California.
Appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thank you, commissioner.
Next is commissioner Falcone.
I have him, I bet you raised her.
Thanks very much.
Just a question and a comment.
The question and I'm sorry, I was out for the first couple of minutes of the presentation.
So if you address this, I apologize.
I saw in the memo that I was reading before
that STIP is statutorily defined.
So we can't do, is there anything that we want
to recommend to the legislature they do on STIP projects
or is there just not an issue there?
And then I have a comment after that question.
There could be an issue, but I don't know.
Tanisha might have to, we'd want to do that.
I think this goes to Laurie's point of on the case-by-case basis, and so if we are finding
that there are STIP issues, we certainly would recommend a legislative fix, whether it be
through trailer bill language or something else, to try to solve the same problem that
we're solving for the TSEP and LPP and FCCP programs and ACP, we would try to have that
same kind of solution for the STIP as well.
That's all fine and good, and I don't need to go down a rabbit hole here, but I saw that
you have to do that change in the fiscal, and so that ends in three days.
So yeah, so anyway, that was the only reason I just it would be worth I know there's a
lot of legislative enthusiasm for helping Los Angeles recover and to the extent that
this is something that just has been overlooked at the moment if we could just take a look
at that.
I think we find partners in the legislature on on that.
Yeah, we did try to assess the issues beforehand.
And the biggest impact was to the active transportation program, to be honest, we didn't see a lot
the state, but I think it's
that a lot of steep impacts,
but, um, but, yeah, we can, uh,
that's something my team is
amazing and they text me in
real time. So, uh, our
legislative team has been
working on that language.
Should it be needed as well?
Okay. Um, thanks. That
actually is the balance of
what I was hoping to ask. So
thank you very much. Thank
you, Commissioner man. Thank
you so much. Um well, first,
yet to come. I know it was a lot putting together this particular book. So just really appreciate
all of the thoughtfulness that went into all of these items. And then also for this one,
you know, thank you for the thoughtfulness and coming up with a policy to be able to address
these concerns. So that as the city of LA or city of Pasadena and others are moving forward,
they know that at least they have some breathing room in terms of these particular pieces of work.
I also just wanted to kind of I guess say ditto to Commissioner Eager's point in terms of how we
address this in the future and taking these lessons learned with the Ian and Palisades fire
in particular learning from paradise has been really really helpful and so as we now learn
from these new fires and other new things that are going to come into the future I'm sure and
That the team is already thinking about like, what does that book of policies look like moving forward as we look at these kind of like climate disasters in our, in our state's future but I do want to thank everyone for kind of starting this process as we're looking at these policies,
because it is helpful to have, I'm sure for so many entities have a little bit of breathing room as they're working on these other big issues of how to rebuild communities.
you. Um. Thank you,
commissioner. Any other
commissioner? Question or
comment. Commissioner
Welcome. Thank you, Mr
chair. Um. Actually also
what I was going to say was
already said by Commissioner
Eager and Commissioner man,
so thank you. I think it's
really important that we
look at, you know, maybe
unfortunately, you know, I
happen. And so how do we create a consistent policy that allows nimbleness, that allows
that these projects will continue without, you know, that anxiety of we have to deal
with with what is in front of us and how do we continue, you know, to move progressively
on with projects. And so thank you for for putting these workshops together and inviting
affected stakeholders. I think it is important to expand that, expand whatever it is, a policy
legislation what have you to incorporate other areas that tend to be affected by wildfires.
But this could be a baseline, right? The work that you're doing right now can be a baseline
for policy. And so thank you for the work that you've done and for your your your support
staff in bringing this forward. So thanks, Lori. Thank you. Any other comment from the dice?
Is there a motion? So moved by Commissioner Eager. Is there a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?
extensions. Motion passes. Now on to item 71 Sheila. Thank you. Good morning
commissioners. I'll be presenting tab 71 which is an information item. Today's
presentation will provide an overview of Assembly Bill 744 highlighting its key
objectives, the engagement efforts to date, and the insights derived from those
activities. Additionally I'll present a summary of the three proposed options
that the Commission has identified based on feedback received. Next slide, please.
Assembly Bill 744, further referred to as AB 744, was enacted in 2023 and it
directs the Commission to develop a proposal to procure and implement
advanced data modeling and analytic software tools that will support
California's sustainable transportation and climate objectives. The key objectives
for AB 744 are outlined in this slide, and they are to assist existing data modeling
and analytic software tools to identify data needs of local, regional, and state agencies
to propose a path forward through the development of a process that is intended to bridge existing
gaps. Next slide, please. Commissioned staff conducted a multi-method approach to stakeholder
engagement, which included virtual meetings, multiple surveys, and three workshops with
the fourth workshop tentatively planned for July. Our stakeholders included metropolitan
planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies, members of the rural county
task force, vendors and other state DOTs and subject matter experts from a diverse group
of agencies specializing in transportation planning, housing policy, environmental justice
and data analysis, each bringing critical perspectives to help shape our understanding
of the bill's implications and the needs associated with its requirements.
The timeline on the slide shows our activities over the past 20 months, and just a reminder,
our engagement efforts will continue into July when we host a fourth stakeholder workshop.
Next slide, please.
As mentioned earlier, a key objective of AB 744 is to evaluate the current landscape of
of tools being utilized, as well as agency needs
specific to implementation of data tools.
Engagement insights for data outputs,
where the top three reported transportation data outputs
are currently travel time, vehicle miles traveled,
and safety for data tools.
GIS tools such as Esri, ArcGIS, and QGIS
were most widely used.
Replica, NREX, and Streetlight were popular
among metropolitan planning organizations
for mobility analytics.
And for specialized tools and analytic platforms,
metropolitan planning organizations
rely more on travel demand modeling tools
like Bentley Cube or TransCAD.
And state agencies use tools such as Google Earth Engine
and RStudio for environmental analysis and spatial data
integration.
It's important to note that the tools reference were identified
through stakeholder engagement,
and represent only a small sample of existing tools.
For additional examples mentioned during this process,
please refer to Appendix B within the draft proposal.
Several common barriers to the adoption of data
and modeling tools emerged across agencies.
These challenges generally fell into a few categories.
Lack of technical expertise, limited staff resources,
budget constraints as well as the concern
about data redundancy.
In addition to technical challenges,
agencies emphasize financial constraints
and procurement challenges,
particularly among smaller organizations.
Next slide, please.
Now to the fun stuff.
So informed by input gathered
through our engagement efforts,
we'll review the draft implementation options.
So implementation option number one
is an agency-led procurement option
where competitive funding is administered
to allow individual access.
A state agency could administer a competitive grant program
awarding funds to agencies for the procurement of data
and modeling tools independently.
The agency could also explore creating a mechanism
that allows multiple agencies to apply as a consortium,
which would foster cost sharing
and more equitable access to advanced tools.
This option offers the benefit of flexibility,
allowing agencies to select tools
that best align with their specific needs and priorities.
Please refer to the proposal posted
on the commission's website as it outlines various benefits
and challenges for each option.
We encourage stakeholders to view the options
and share which alternatives they prefer.
Next slide, please.
Implementation option number two
provides a centralized access model
in which a state agency could purchase software licenses
in coordination with the Department of General Services,
and then allocate access to state, regional,
and local agencies.
And this option provides greater efficiency
and purchasing power through centralized procurement,
reducing administrative burden on individual agencies.
Next slide, please.
Implementation option three is a hybrid option
that combines the benefits of a competitive funding program
with the efficiency of centralized procurement.
Though under this option,
the state agency would allocate funds to eligible agencies
through a competitive process,
allowing agencies the flexibility to procure data
and modeling tools that best meet their specific needs.
And this hybrid approach also balances local autonomy
with state level coordination and purchasing power,
which makes tools more accessible.
The designated state agency could also explore
establishing a mechanism that allows multiple agencies
to apply jointly as a consortium.
Next slide, please.
So in conclusion, the findings from stakeholder engagement
revealed persistent gaps in data accessibility,
funding support, and the standardization of tools
and practices across the state.
To address these challenges in alignment
with the goals of AB 744, the commission recommends
supporting the hybrid of option one and two,
the competitive funding program and centralized procurement.
Our next steps will be the draft proposal was published
on the commission's website on June 13th,
initiating a 30-day public comment period.
We encourage stakeholders to review the options
and share which alternatives they prefer.
And comments may be submitted through July 13th
and should be sent to me.
My contact information will be on the next slide.
and commission staff plan to host an additional workshop
in July were considered revisions based on commissioner
and stakeholder feedback will be presented.
And lastly, the final proposal will be presented
for approval at the commission's August meeting.
Next slide, please.
So this concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thanks so much.
Is there any public comment on this item?
There's no public comment on this item.
Thank you.
Thank you.
questions or comments from the dais.
Thank you chair and thank you for the overview. I really appreciate it. I was wondering has
there been engagement with the Interagency Equity Advisory Council or is there a plan
for that as part of the the background here or just taking taking this forward to to bring
to them once it's approved or just wondering about that?
question. There is a plan after the proposal is approved. We have not as of
yet. I guess I'll just add I do think there might be value in in getting some
feedback from them because in the in the area of data and you know what are the
gaps oftentimes community-based organizations on the ground have such a
rich understanding of that right and so this is an opportunity I think to draw
on what agencies might not know that they don't know, so I just want to highlight that as a good
set of interlocutors that we've got in the process, too.
Thank you. Yeah, we can certainly do that.
Thanks. Question. Is there a tool to kind of screen for
modal bias with some of the tools? Because some might say that some of those tools mentioned
might have a modal bias. That I'm not sure of. Do you go ahead? Yeah, thank you Chair Grisby. I
I just want to take this moment to remind the commissioners that this is just a proposal for
a potential program. So the in terms of actually determining the data vendors that we might be
utilizing that that is not the part of the process that we're under yet. So that type of feedback
would be a perfect feedback for us when we get to that point. This proposal isn't going to list
out particular products or vendors of products and to Commissioner Lugo's question about involving
the EAC because this proposal is primarily around understanding what the local jurisdictions
currently have access to. Involvement with the EAC was also planned at a later stage.
Thank you. That's very helpful. Commissioner of Oakland.
Thank you. I did want to reinforce actually what Commissioner Lugo expressed. And so thank
you, Matthew, for addressing that. You know, I think I was having a conversation with Aaron
Hoyt yesterday, given his comments during his, you know, rural task force update, and
the importance not only for the rules,
but even the smaller jurisdictions.
I'm very fascinated with the consortium concept.
And Sheila, can you kind of explain a little bit more
how that could work to the best that you can?
I know that you're still gathering feedback,
but I'd like to hear a little bit more
about how that would work, specifically the consortium.
Consortium, especially when you're dealing with, you know,
shared data and and some of the proprietary nature of of data sometimes right. That's a great question.
We have to figure all that out, I think, especially with the shared data. And Matthew if you have
anything to add to that. I can add something, Shira. From my experience in the San Joaquin Valley,
one of the things that often happens when you have a kind of consortium approach, it's in the
contracting and so the the answer comes into how you contract with a data
provider and so that you can remove some of those proprietary now you pay for
that but you can remove some of those proprietary limitations so that you can
share across the consortium. And Tanisha if I might add we we've actually
received some examples from some of our smaller jurisdictions who have utilized
a consortium approach so we want to take those examples and as I mentioned go
and then we went through the
process and now we go from
proposal to potential program
flesh that out in that process
so that it's understood that if
that approach was a successfully
chosen approach, if they were to,
as Tanisha mentioned, contract,
it's built right in.
Any other comment from
commissioners' questions?
All right.
Thanks so much.
Moving on to item 72, Kayla.
I'm a new staff member with CTC. I did join you at your May Commission meeting.
My name is Kayla McDonnell, also known as Kayla number two. I hope I live up to
the name. But anyways, this is an informational item providing an update
on the Vehicle Weight Safety Study Task Force. The first meeting of the Vehicle
Weight Safety Study Task Force took place on June 13th and my presentation
today we'll talk about what we presented at that meeting and some of the
feedback that we received based on three questions that we asked task force
members in the public. Next slide please. As a reminder Assembly Bill 251 directed
the Commission to convene a task force to study the relationship between
vehicle weight and injuries and fatalities to vulnerable road users,
degradation to roads, a cost benefit analysis of imposing a vehicle weight
based fee, and also address equity considerations. Next slide please. We
also presented task force members with an updated timeline to develop the study.
Now through October 2025 we were going to be holding monthly task force meetings.
in late 2025 CTC staff will present task force findings to the EAC and the
Commission hold a public workshop on the Commission staff's draft report and
begin preparation of the staff draft report based on the task force findings
as well as the UC Berkeley academic study which is occurring concurrently with the
task force meeting process. Next slide please.
Early 2026 we will have a public review of the draft CTC staff report
and we will also be presenting the staff or the draft report
to the EAC and the commission. And in spring 2026 we will have our final
staff report that will be presented to the commission for final approval and
submitted to the California state legislature.
Next slide please. So as I mentioned we're having monthly meetings the first of which already took
place in June this year. Our next meeting is July 16th where we'll be providing an overview
of the data and the research process to date that includes trends in vehicle fleet and road user
injuries and fatalities. Followed by the meeting in October 20th we'll be discussing impacts to
vehicle weight or excuse me impacts on vehicle weight to road degradation.
September 9th we'll be discussing consumer behavior and potential policy
responses finally concluding the task force on October 29th. Please note that
these are all tentative dates and topics subject to minor tweaks and changes.
Next slide please. So after familiarizing task force members with the project we
We asked them three questions.
We also did open these questions up
to the public for responses.
We received a robust response,
primarily from task force members
and some from the public.
So these questions include,
what are key factors the state should consider
when evaluating potential policy solutions
to improve safety for vulnerable road users?
What should the commission and the state consider
to ensure that equity is addressed in the study?
And what perspective do you hope we take away
at the conclusion of these task force meetings?
To the first question, and I'm gonna provide a summary
of the responses that we did receive,
we were asked to identify and address the greatest needs
as defined by legislation,
as this can be a very broad topic.
And we wanna make sure that of course,
the academic study and the task force process
primarily discuss the requirements of the legislation.
Recommendations should consider safety improvements
to vehicles, the built environment,
and components including education and training.
For any recommendations, assess and minimize
the financial and administrative burdens
to those potentially impacted,
and identify improvements to state policies and functions.
For our second question, what should the Commission
and the state consider to ensure
that equity is addressed in the study.
We heard equity should be central to academic research,
the task force meetings and recommendations
to the commission staff report.
Equity should also include those who stand
to be disproportionately impacted by a vehicle weight fee
who you would not typically consider,
such as contractors, large families and others.
And the study should evaluate all types of vehicles,
such as but not limited to electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. And for
the final question, what perspectives do you hope we take away the conclusion of
this task force process? Acknowledgement that the causes of collisions are
complex more than just vehicle weight. Make the built environment safer for
vulnerable road users and not just the efficient use of automobiles. Roadway
degradation is costly and largely falls on cities and counties to maintain them
and also to hold drivers to greater level of responsibility especially those
who are driving a larger vehicle and I believe I might have skipped a few slides
but we can go to the end of the presentation slides but that concludes my
presentation thank you thank you and welcome any public comment there's no
public comment for this item. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Eager. Yes, thank
you chair. Welcome aboard Kayla. Kayla number two. So can you remind me about the
makeup of the task force? Who's on it? What organizations or industry do they
represent and how were they selected for the task force? Thank you. So and
December 20 24 the Commission approved the task force membership list and that
was before my time we might have members of the audience who could possibly speak
to how exactly they were selected but I will just quickly read the list we have
organizations which we do allow to swap out members so it's specifically an
organization based task force list so it's the California Office of Traffic
Safety, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Highway Patrol, California
City Transportation Initiative, California State Association of Counties, Alliance for
Automotive Innovation, California New Car Dealers Association, AAA, Streets for All,
AARP or American Association of Retired Persons,
Active San Gabriel Valley,
National Federation of the Blind of California,
Safe Streets Research,
California Farm Bureau and United Contractors.
And I also note that a number of those
are also mandated legislation
that they be included in the task force.
Thank you.
Commissioner Tiffany.
Thank you, Chair, and welcome, Kayla.
Thank you for your presentation.
And you do have quite a good list of people to give input.
I think this is a very important study.
As we transition to electric vehicles, which is certainly
a very positive thing, one of the potential downsides
is that we know electric vehicles are much heavier
with batteries.
And in particularly, I think concerning is how it impacts,
as you point out, their lower income areas.
Most of, many of those people are not gonna be transitioning
to electric vehicles anytime soon, frankly,
because of costs.
And we have to take into account that many of them
are going to continue to drive used vehicles for many years.
And so they will be at a disadvantage in terms of weight.
And so I think this is a very important study,
not only in terms of how it impacts our roads,
but I also wanted to specifically ask,
and it may be in there, but it's not spelled out.
It talks about how these heavier vehicles impact bicycle
and walkers and other people that are using the roadways.
But I see no mention of how they impact other vehicle
collisions.
So when you have a heavier vehicle that
is in a collision with a lighter vehicle, a used vehicle,
probably in many cases, there's gonna be a significant impact
in that area too.
And anyway, I don't see mention of that,
but I do think that's, it's being analyzed,
that is something that needs to be looked at.
We've seen that even before electric vehicles
in the industry, we've seen that with,
as we move to more and more heavier trucks and SUVs,
which has been a transition that we've seen
in the auto industry over the years,
we've certainly seen smaller vehicles,
lighter vehicles have a,
obviously are at a big disadvantage,
and we're gonna, you know, that's also the case
now that we transition electric vehicles.
So I just wanna be sure that that is factored in
and considered as well,
although like you say, it's very complicated
as you look at this data.
Anyway, I don't know if that,
is that going to be addressed
or is that has been considered?
Yeah, so this particular study is
to look at the impact of vehicle weight and other factors
on vulnerable road users.
I know that, at least so far in the data,
that vehicle-to-vehicle collisions
is something that has been extensively researched.
And I believe it is part of the background that
is included in this research, but it's not
a prominent part of this research,
but that's definitely something we can look into.
Yeah, just something to consider.
Thank you for your presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Mann.
Thank you, and thank you, Kayla.
It's nice to see you again.
Welcome again.
And thank you for all of your work.
So I do recall, I think it was Lori
who was working on this previously
in terms of this work in terms of vehicle weight.
And, you know, we talked a bit about who's on that task force and you have a great mix.
But I did want to just highlight and point out, because one of the pieces that I think are is also a concern here kind of getting to commissioners Tiffany point is that when we talk about some of these communities that are maybe smaller communities where they're more
low income. So if I think about a community like South LA, where
they have heavily trafficked streets, and people are
constantly going through those streets at very high speeds,
even if they're not necessarily from the community, and there
are schools adjacent to those streets. Schools often don't
participate in issues related to transportation, but their
students and their families are heavily impacted based on what
that level of traffic looks like. So I hope that as this kind
moves forward, there's some consideration of what's happening around schools and the impact
of children in particular. When we think about these these vehicles that are a heavier weight,
so but thank you so much for all of your work and I just look forward to continuing to hear more
about this as it progresses. Thank you and I'm a plus one on Commissioner Mann's comments. Any
additional Commissioner Lugo. Yeah just a clarifying question, so the the vehicle weight study it's
looking at both the increased weight of EVs relative if we're talking about sedans right
the the heavier weight of EVs but then also larger vehicles like pickup trucks and right
okay so just wanted to check on that it's both aspects of weight. For the record yes.
Any other commissioner comments?
Sorry, Commissioner
Cruz. Thank you. Just to follow up to maybe
Mr. Tiffany's question, as we look at weight and vehicles, especially as more EVs
begin to transition to more EVs, zero emissions, and also trucks for that matter, is there gonna be an assessment on
Maybe the the weight fee as far as looking at possible weight fees to sort of fill the gap on
The gas tax the ministry source of revenue there. Do you know the part of this study?
We will be
Including like I mentioned
zero mission vehicles and and looking at that weight and presenting that information at
Probably the the next or if not the subsequent task force meeting
But as it relates to the the gas tax and addressing any funding shortfalls
Yeah, we're looking at policy recommendations and funding recommendations at the conclusion of the study next year
So we'll see how the task force process and the research plays out and see what they point to that
We should include in our final recommendations
Any other commissioner comments?
Okay, Commissioner Tiffany just a follow-up to that last question in your response
Will you be
Interacting with the there's also a task force looking at
As we transition as fuel bright, you know fuel
Consumption goes down with electric vehicles
There's a there's a committee that's looking at that that in doing a study as far as how we address that
that it seems to me that your findings should be a part of the input that they're looking
at because it certainly doesn't make sense to do that separately.
Anyway, just a thought.
Yeah, we can look further into that.
Thank you.
I'll just add to Kayla.
One of the things we do here at the Commission with every study we do, every process we do
we share that information with all relevant stakeholders and in this case
the legislature as well to inform those processes because when we look at how
the gas taxes are placed, it's going to be, it's likely going to be several
mechanisms like SB1 and so as that conversation continues to move through
the legislature and solutions are identified by the legislature, we'll
definitely provide technical assistance on the things that we've learned from
our study so that that information is not lost in that process.
All right, thank you.
Any other commissioner comment?
Hearing none.
We're gonna take a 15 minute break at this time.
Thank you.
Commissioners please come back to the dais.
All right, we will start with item 73.
Tim.
Give me one second.
Commissioners, tab 73 is an information item
related to the transportation asset management plan,
annual performance benchmark report.
The California transportation asset management plan
and Senate bill one,
each established 10 year performance targets
for the state highway operations and protection program,
primary asset classes, pavement bridges,
culverts, transportation management systems.
To measure progress towards meeting
the defined performance targets,
the commission adopted an addendum to the shop guidelines
calling on Caltrans to develop annual benchmarks
with future condition projections
and to report annually to measure progress made
for each of the four primary asset classes
towards achieving the targets.
Mike Johnson, the state asset management engineer
for Caltrans is here to provide a presentation
on the 2024-25 annual performance benchmark report.
Morning.
Good morning, Chair Grisby, commissioners.
Today I'll be presenting an informational item
on the performance benchmark report.
This is essentially like a midterm report card
if you were in school.
and our final report card comes in 2027.
And so we've been monitoring on an annual basis,
our progress towards meeting the Senate Bill 1 commitments
that were established back in 2017,
as well as the performance targets that were established
and adopted by this commission.
Next slide, please.
So what does the report card do?
We look at where we are in terms of our current condition,
we look at ongoing deterioration of all of our assets,
and we look at the planned work of all of our projects
that are in flight, out in construction, in design,
and we look at the net of all of that
to come up with projections going forward.
Next slide.
We present summary tables, and as I mentioned,
there's really two different measurement sticks,
if you will, that we're reporting on.
The first is the Senate Bill 1 target.
And in summary, we're reporting everything is green.
Green is good, we're on track.
In fact, even for the bridge metric here,
which was to fix an additional 500 bridges,
we've surpassed that by a significant amount at this point.
So I think we can put a check mark by that
and say, you know, promise kept on that one.
So everything looks good for Senate Bill 1 in summary.
Next slide, please.
Within the report by asset class,
we present a table that shows the targets.
This is just one example
for our transportation management system elements.
It shows the established targets,
shows where we are currently,
and then in the far right shows our change from last year.
Sometimes down is good, sometimes up is good.
It depends on whether you're looking at good, fair, or poor.
But green is always good, and red is always bad.
So that's why we color-code them.
So here for our TMS, we did make progress.
But as you can see, we're sitting at 21.2% poor.
Our target is 10.
So we have still 11% to move in two years.
So there's work to be done.
Next slide.
We also present for all of the asset classes
graph that looks like this. And there's a bit going on here, but if you focus on the
red colored line, these are our actual measured performance. Those that have any solid dot there,
those represent the years that we are showing what the measured condition of the system is.
And where there's a hollow data point, those are projections going forward. So at this point,
we have three remaining projections before the final report for SB1. Behind that is a gray line.
That was our original projection back in 2016 where we thought we would be to get from the
start of SB1 to 2027. And then the shaded gray area is our uncertainty band. So we do a Monte
carlo analysis and we developed uncertainty ban. So in this particular example you can see that we
you know we've been sort of bopping around within our uncertainty ban but we feel confident with
our project pipeline that this will come in and be achieved by 2027. Next slide. This is showing
our drainage assets and you could see again our target is 10% at the at the year end 2024 we're
sitting at 9.9% so we're better than where we said we would be in 2027 but then you can also see that
we we lost a little bit of ground where we were last year and that's okay because part of our
asset management approach is as we achieve a target level and drop below it we are going
to start metering funding into other areas that are not meeting the target. So we're literally
tailoring our investments to achieve these targets, and when we surpass it, that allows us to dial
back a bit and reinvest in other areas. Next slide. So it's been pretty flat for our drainage,
and I show this. It's very an interesting graph, for the most part, but it does show that even
even though we're sitting at 9.9% and our target is 10,
we don't have any concern about meeting this by 2027.
Next slide.
Okay, so shifting to the fixed bridge,
and this was the one performance measure
in Senate Bill 1 that didn't come
from our State Highway System Management Plan.
And the concern at the time was that it was too confusing
because it was based on square footage
it looks at the network as a whole as opposed to accomplishment on specific
bridges. So the legislation was altered before it was passed to say we want you
to fix an additional 500 bridges. To date we have fixed an additional 1250
bridges. By the time we reach the end of the 10-year period for Senate Bill 1 we
will probably come close to tripling what was required under the bill. I'm
focusing on this because when we get to the commission adopted targets there's
gonna be a stark contrast and it's important that you understand that this
fixed bridge is not is the function of what we did but not a function of what
the system net is out there. Next slide. So going through our pavement classes
just far right, green is good. We've surpassed targets for our class one
pavement. This is half the pavement in California and this is all of the
interstates and our busiest highways in California. And again, change from last
year, everything was positive. Next slide. Next slide will move into class two
pavements. Sorry, yeah, there we go. Thank you. The class two pavements are largely
are numbered state highways. These are typically four-lane state highways. Again, everything
is good. We're quite a bit better than Target at this point. Next slide. Yeah, thank you.
So class three, these are typically our two lane rural state highways. Again, we're quite
a bit better than where we're required to be under Senate Bill 1. And we had positive
progress in all areas for this, so across the board pavement all got better from last year.
Next slide. Okay, so now I'm going to shift gears completely, and I want to not confuse you. Now
we're not talking about SB1 targets, now we're talking about the asset management targets. These
are the targets that the Commission adopted back in 2016, I believe. The main differences here
is that for class one pavement, the target is more aggressive than SB1.
SB1 is a 2% poor. You have a 1% poor. And for bridges, now we're looking at the network
condition of bridges, not how many bridges we fixed since 2017. So, in this case, we're
showing monitor for bridges, and I'll explain why we're saying that. But everything else is on track.
Next slide. So kind of focusing in on the on the bridges for a minute. We did make progress from
last year. We had almost a almost a one percent improvement or reduction in poor bridge condition.
That is the first improvement in poor bridge condition we've had in I think three years.
Okay so we have kind of turned the corner if you will and I'll talk about why I say we
we've turned the corner because it's taken a long time and this has to do with
the complexities of bridge delivery. But we do see that we've turned the corner and we will see
and anticipate that that condition will continue to improve gliding into 2027. Next slide.
Okay so because bridge is the one area we're saying well we need to monitor we do kind of
a deep dive and this is showing on the left the pie chart is showing the total of all
poor bridges in the state of California and where those bridges are with respect to the
project development process and you can see that the vast majority of them are already
programmed they're in design so you know we've brought them forward and they're being worked
on. The the challenge with bridges is the time duration that it takes to to do a bridge project.
The average bridge project can easily take a decade. So from the day that SB1 passed and there
was a requirement in 10 years to hit a target, it was a challenge right from the get-go because we
we had to affect a lot of bridges in a window of time
that is essentially the average for a typical bridge.
And we certainly have many bridges that take 15 or 20 years
to get significant work done like replacements.
And those longer duration bridge projects
generally are associated with coastal environments,
environments involving railroads
and environments involving threatened and endangered species,
those three things lead to challenging permits
that really draw out the process of bridge replacements.
The pie chart on the right is really showing
of all the bridges that are poor,
there's only a couple percent that aren't already
in projects and of those, the vast majority
were just identified in the first six months of this year.
It's important to understand that, you know,
Bridges are being identified as being poor
through ongoing inspections all the time.
I mean, we do about 2000 inspections a month in Caltrans.
And so this is not a static number.
It's very dynamic in terms of its change.
So as they get identified,
we can, you know, we have to develop planning documents
and then we'll bring them in
and we'll get them over onto the project side.
So there is a normal flow of work coming in.
At the same time, we're doing projects
that are improving bridge conditions
to move them out of a fair or poor condition
and up into good conditions.
Next slide.
So this is showing this graphically.
And this is going back to 2018.
And it's showing what became poor on an annual basis
versus what our projects accomplished
and removed from being poor.
And so wherever the red column is bigger
than the green column, red's bad, green's good.
So if the red column's bigger than the green one,
that means we lost ground.
And if the green column is bigger than the red,
we've made progress.
But you'll notice in the first four years
going from left to right,
the project level accomplishments were less
every single year.
And now we've kind of turned that corner.
We're starting to see that influx of money
coming through the planning process,
getting through design out in construction and being built.
And so we're starting to see the accomplishments ramp up.
And because of that, over the last two calendar years,
we have had more project level accomplishments
than we had deterioration, meaning we are making ground,
which is why we see the condition improving.
Next slide.
The report also includes a summary
of all of the supplementary assets.
These were established by the department
and adopted by the commission.
And these include things like pump plants
and our facilities, roadside rest, overhead signs.
There's a whole series of supplementary assets.
And so for those, we do a little bit less rigorous
of an analysis, but we do track the ongoing condition.
And here, you know, we can see for pump plants,
we are seeing an improvement.
And as we look out at our investment in pump plants
in the current shop and even going into the next shop,
there's quite a bit of pump plant work coming.
And so we anticipate these numbers
to even improve further.
Next slide.
So this is similarly for overhead sign structures.
Again, just another example of a supplementary asset class.
Here, we're better than targets currently.
So our goal here is just to keep an investment
to sustain these levels as we go forward.
Next slide.
So in summary, we're on track to meet the SB1 performance
targets.
We still have a few reports left.
But I can pretty confidently say that when we come to the end of the period for SB 1,
we will be able to say we made the promises and we met them.
Okay, we will be able to say that.
That is, of course, subject to our project delivery from now until then.
So we need to continue to deliver these projects, and that becomes an important component.
because as we get closer to the deadline,
the end of the window, if you will,
project delays will push accomplishments
outside of the time period.
Those will be lost, if you will, for that final report.
So we really need to be vigilant on our delivery,
particularly with some of these asset classes
that are really close to meeting these goals
or not meeting the goals.
And then I'll just say, you know,
when we talk about the bridge piece,
this is one, you know, we obviously do a lot of work here
because it's a little harder to turn that ship.
It's a bigger ship, the projects take longer.
You know, we look at the target that we have
one and a half percent poor for the network.
You know, across the nation,
that's a fairly aggressive target.
And we're in the middle of developing
our transportation asset management plan
that we'll bring to you in 2026.
This is the area where we look at that target and say,
okay, are we asking for too much?
Are we okay where we are?
And so, where we say we're falling a little bit short,
one of the questions is, are we too aggressive
at what we said?
And we have to consider that as well.
But at this point, it's full steam ahead
what's been adopted to date and and that's what we're striving for for 2027.
So that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks so much.
Let's go to public comment first. Any public comment? Yes there is. I'd like to
call on Joey Edel's Yanez. Please unmute yourself to begin your comment. I'd like
to call on Joey Edel's Yanez. Please unmute yourself to begin your comment.
there's no other public comment thank you thank you so much let's go to the
dais any commissioners questions comments commissioner Tiffany thank you
chair um specifically on bridges how do you define poor and where does it does
it this poor overlap into what would we would consider to be unsafe and if you
get into situations where you discover there's you are concerned about safety
the immediacy of it, then how do you is there a mechanism for prioritizing
dealing with those bridges? That's a great question, Commissioner, thank you.
Poor is a federal classification, it does not mean the bridge is unsafe, okay, so
let me just make that clear. If for some reason our inspectors were to encounter
something that they felt was unsafe we have mechanisms to immediately close a
bridge down to traffic if we need to do that we have that authority and we have
avenues through our emergency work to immediately affect a repair so I don't
want you know this classification of poor should not be equated with unsafe
that that is not the case. If there are any unsafe bridge we would address it immediately.
These are classifications that are established for all DOTs nationwide and in California 90 percent
or roughly 90 percent of all bridges that are considered poor have minor cracks in the riding
surface of the bridge deck. That's all that means. A separate question. Much of the the funding for
dealing with bridges comes from federal government, correct? Is there any concern with
some of the those monies being reduced here or is that a not a concern?
Well we we like to think that we look at different possible scenarios that could come and
When IIJA was passed, they created a bridge program, a bridge formula program that is funded
from federal general funds. So it is outside of federal highway trust fund programs that we have
traditionally used for bridge work. So you know today we have we have our normal federal highway
trust fund available bridge money and we also have this extra bridge program that's funded
out of the general fund. We look at scenarios of what happens if the general fund money
were to go away and we revert back to where we were prior to IIJA. But at this point,
I think our bigger concern is the delivery than the funding.
Maybe I'll be a little more direct than Mike was there. Bridges are a bipartisan issue
across the federal government.
We've seen what happens when bridges fail.
And that's not something that any of us want to happen.
So we continue to invest in bridges.
And I presume that the federal government
will continue to invest in bridges
in the same way that they have previously.
Thank you.
And last question.
The target for 2027 for final report.
Could you dig down a little bit more into then what?
I know you mentioned this,
But I guess my only concern I'm raising is if we're not tracking it quite in as much detail,
are we going to in any way, you know, lose some progress in terms of, you know,
we've made a lot of progress over the last number of years.
So I'm just curious, how do we address that?
Yeah, it's a great point.
We just had an article on the second beat a couple of weeks
ago that was unsolicited and was acknowledging
the progress we made in improving bridge
conditions in California.
And so I was happy to see that.
But beyond 2027, what you see with bridges
is that when you look at the inventory,
it wasn't built consistently over time.
It was largely built in the late 60s, early 70s.
So here we're sitting at 55, 60, 65 years since these bridges were built.
We are literally at peak rehabilitation time in the, you know, sort of the comprehensive bridge
inventory in California. Once we get past that peak, then the new construction in the late 70s
and early 80s dropped off quite a bit from what it was in the heyday of the interstate development.
, and so we're kind of climbing a hill. We've crested the hill. Our project delivery is up and we're coming down to a point where we would expect less need for rehabilitation and replacement going forward. So I think beyond 2027 looks promising from where I sit.
Okay, thank you for presentation.
Thank you. Any other Commissioner questions or comments.
It's actually mainly just one first kudos
on all the progress you've made.
It's very clear.
And I'm kind of curious about bridge delivery
and you mentioned that coastal issues,
railroads, endangered species.
I think two of those three I kind of get.
Could you explore a little bit more about coastal issues
that might delay projects?
Yeah, I mean, in order for us to move forward
the project we need to secure a number of permits. And to do that we work with the permitting
agencies and some of those permitting agencies take longer to reach agreement with. And the
ones that we typically see are coastal development permits, whenever we get in the area of threatened
endangered species, when we're talking about bridges, if we're working with historic bridges
And we have this historic preservation office involved
and railroads.
All of those things can complicate
and therefore extend the time it takes
to reach a negotiated solution
for what this replacement's gonna look like.
And not just what it's gonna look like,
but how the construction takes place
and what the impact might be on the communities
that need to use that bridge while it's under construction
as well as what the impacts might be on the environment
that we're working in.
So for all of those reasons,
we see that coastal bridges over waterways
tend to be the ones that are taking longer.
If we're talking about a bridge built over another highway,
those generally are much, much quicker.
Great, thank you for that explanation.
Any questions, comments?
Thanks so much for your presentation.
Next up is item 74, Rebecca.
Commissioners, tab 74 is an action item
to adopt the 2025 State Route 710 Local Alternative
Transportation Improvement Program,
referred to as the SR-710 lay tip.
In October 2024, the commission adopted the SR-710 lay tip
guidelines, which established the programming and allocation process from the resulting
sale of surplus properties along the 710 stub in Los Angeles County, following the suspension
of the State Route 710 freeway project.
State statute requires the California Department of Transportation to deposit the proceeds
from the sale of the State Route 710 Surplus Properties into the SR-710 Rehabilitation
Account. Once the funds exceed $1.2 million, less reimbursements due to the federal government,
the remaining funds are transferred to the State Highway Account for allocation by the
Commission through the SR-710 program. This funding is dedicated to five eligible jurisdictions,
Pasadena, South Pasadena, Alhambra, La Canada Flint Ridge,
and the zip code 90032 in Los Angeles.
Eligible projects may include, but are not limited to,
the construction of sound walls,
transit and rail capital improvements,
signal synchronizations, and major street resurfacing,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
Before and after the adoption
the SR 710 late tip guidelines in October. The eligible jurisdictions consulted with the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority or LA Metro to determine the best funding
distribution method. Upon agreement on December 3rd, 2024, the funding share was determined based
on six factors. Population, area, road miles, distance from the 710 stub, and the number and
value of housing property sold. The resulting distribution method will yield the following
amounts to each jurisdiction. 556,000 to Pasadena, 323,000 to South Pasadena, 283,000 to zip code
9, 0, 0, 3, 2 in the city of Los Angeles, 221,000 Tel-Ahambra, and 117,000 to La
Conietta Flint Ridge. Each jurisdiction, except for the city of Los Angeles, has
nominated projects per the agreed-upon funding distribution rounded to the
nearest thousand dollars. This rounding resulted in an excess of $1,000 which
which was allocated to La Canada Flintridge as it had the smallest distribution.
However, the City of Los Angeles has requested that its funding distribution be programmed
in a future SR-710 program adoption to allow them more time to conduct public outreach
on project selection.
The large and devastating wildfires that swept through the county in early winter 2025 significantly
reduced the time available for conducting public engagement activities.
The investments made by this program will benefit the communities by enhancing the safety
of bicyclists, pedestrians, and people with disabilities through the improvement or construction
of infrastructure.
Improvements include, but are not limited to, they're quite extensive and for a full
description it is included in the book item.
Americans with Disabilities Act compliant curbs and curb ramps, new street lighting,
rehabilitation, pedestrian hybrid beacons, storm drain installation and repair, and
electrical work related to traffic signalization and pedestrian push buttons.
Commissioned staff have reviewed these projects and found them consistent with the SR 710
lay tip guidelines. Commissioned staff recommends your approval for programming to the four
projects which total one million two hundred and seventeen thousand dollars
in SR 710 lay tip funding. I'm happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you
Rebecca. Is there any public comment? Great. We do not have any public comment. Thank
you. Thank you. Anyone from the dais has a question or comment? Commissioner Eager?
Just to be sure so that amount excludes the Los Angeles money but that is set
the city of Los Angeles. Which
this is a nice, nice way that they're investing in the funds. So thank you.
Indeed. Um, is there a motion? So moved by commissioner, eager. Is there a second?
Commissioner Lugo. All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Now on to item 75. Alika.
Commissioners, tab 75 is an action item to approve an amendment to the active transportation program
to deprogram 20 projects from Cycles 3, 3a, 4, 5, and 6 that have requested cancellation.
The project sponsors formally requested withdrawal from the program due to a variety of unforeseen
challenges.
As a result, a total of 46,069,000 in funds will be returned to the program.
The active transportation program maintains a portfolio
of over 1,000 programmed projects,
funded with approximately 4.996 billion,
encompassing seven program cycles.
The number of projects requesting cancellation
represents less than 2% of all programmed projects
and less than 1% of all programmed funding.
Before presenting my recommendation to you all,
I would like to take this time to thank Kaltrian staff who worked tirelessly to assist with
this de-programming effort.
From the Division of Local Assistance, I want to thank Afrid Sarker and Shalini Chandra.
From Division of Budgets, Keith Duncan and Garrett Franklin, and from CTC Liaison's
Office, Christina Mendoza and Nicole Jepsen.
Commissioner's staff recommends approval of Tab 75.
Thank you.
questions. But we do not have
any public comment. We do not
have any public comment on the
side. Thank you. Thank you.
Any commissioner comments.
Commissioner Lugo followed by
Commissioner. You're Thanks,
Alika. Um yes, I had mentioned
over email. I was wondering if
you could just provide, uh, an
example of kind of what
characterizes these projects
that that need to be withdrawn.
And then another question is,
in the original funding cycle or where do those funds go?
Thank you, Commissioner Lugo.
Yes, so the ATP funds pre-construction phases,
as well as construction and non-infrastructure.
And so most of the challenges that we see with these projects
are taking place during the pre-construction phases.
So looking specifically at these 20 projects,
the majority that we saw were either right-of-way conflicts
taking place either with utilities
or working with the Union Pacific Railroad.
Another main reason that we've seen
is the ATP scope that was originally proposed
is being encompassed through a larger corridor project.
And that could be for one of two reasons.
Either there were conflicts with that other project
and so they ended up combining the two
under that other project,
or there were design engagement activities
that took place with community members.
And community members ultimately supported
other or expanded improvements
that sought out other funds.
In regards to the second part of your question,
per the 2025 ATP guidelines,
We do have a section that references a contingency list,
so we can utilize that list
as a result of savings or project cancellation.
However, the contingency list is only in effect
until the adoption of the next programming cycle.
And so, because these projects fall within cycles one
through six, we are unable to utilize those funds.
They will be utilized towards future ATP.
Great. Thank you for that. I just wanted to really highlight, you know,
we're always so impressed by the above and beyond work that the team puts into
ATP. And, um, so when I first saw these funds going back in,
I thought that doesn't sound right because you guys do so much technical
assistance and work to make sure that the projects are ready.
So thank you for providing some of the background on just the realities of, uh,
project planning mean that even once, uh, you've done all that work,
they run into unforeseen changes.
Thank you, commissioner.
Thank you, commissioner Eager.
Part of that was my question, so thank you.
The other is historically, is this amount
of projects the norm or up or down?
So I will say, for the ATP, this is really,
this cancellation process, we adopted this
in the 2023 ATP guidelines, so that's cycle six.
And so for this reason, there's been a backlog of projects
that have been canceled,
but we haven't formally deprogrammed.
And so this book book item captures all of those projects
from cycles one through six.
And we're hoping in the event,
if there are project cancellations in the future,
they'll be coming forward to you
sooner rather than a backlog for me.
Commissioner Cardinan.
Thank you, Chair Grisby.
Between Commissioner Eager and Commissioner Lugo,
You're welcome. Thank you.
All right. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Lugo moves. Is there a second commissioner? Eager.
Seconds. All those in favor.
Opposed.
Abstentions.
Motion passes.
On to item 76.
The next item is the state-wide and rural components.
And the next item is the state-wide and rural components.
And the next item is the state-wide and rural components.
And the next item is the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
And the state-wide and rural components.
the adoption savings from canceled and lapsed projects have been identified and.
You just approved the deprogramming in the last item, um, because there is now
sufficient programming capacity available to fully fund both projects staff
recommends amending the program to add an additional 31 million, $972,000 to the
project is on the ground.
This is the Goshen Visalia
corridor connection project in
the small urban and rural
component.
And an additional $3,258,000
to the church Street mobility
enhancement project in the
statewide component.
Staff recommends approval of
tab 76.
Thank you.
Any public comment?
hearing none is there a motion so moved by Commissioner Fruz or Tiffany
Commissioner Tiffany seconded by Vice Chair Phil Collins all those in favor
opposed abstentions motion passes we're now on to item 77 Cherry tab 77 is an
action item to accept the environmental document and approve future
consideration of funding for the Bridgeport Rehab Project in Mono County. The lead agency, Caltrans,
adopted an environmental impact report and statement of overriding considerations
for this project, finding benefits outweigh the impacts staff has reviewed. This request and
recommends approval. Thank you, Chair. Any public comment? There is no public comment. Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the DICE?
Hearing none, is there a motion?
So moved by Commissioner Eager, is it, all right.
Oh, Falcon and Eager, okay.
Moved by Falcon, seconded by Eager, all those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we're on to item 78, Tim.
Commissioners, tab 78 is an action item for a shop,
construction manager, general contractor,
roadway rehabilitation project on us highway 101
in san francisco county requesting an initial allocation that exceeds the programmed amount
by more than 20 percent for both construction capital and support
construction capital was programmed for 69 million 27 000 and is requesting 107 million dollars
construction support was programmed for six million eight hundred and thirty three thousand
and is requesting 11 million dollars.
With this large allocation amount
and the reduced construction risk
provided through the CMGC delivery method,
commission staff would like to provide oversight
on any allocation increases during construction.
As such, CTC staff recommends the commission's G12 resolution
delegating the authority to adjust commission allocations
not applied to the construction capital
or construction support phases on this project.
staff has reviewed the project and the book item
for tab 78 and recommends approval of the allocation
with the added stipulation
that the commission's G-12 resolution
not apply to these project phases.
Thank you, Tim.
Is there any public comment?
We do not have any public comment.
Thank you. Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the dais?
Is there a motion?
So moved by commissioner Eager, is there a second?
Seconded by commissioner Tiffany, all those in favor?
opposed extensions motion passes on to item 79 Jaden thank you commissioners
tap 79 is an action item to consider approval of the initial allocation of
14 million for the PA and ED phase for the locally administered Stipp central
bikeway project in Santa Clara County which will construct approximately 11
miles of class four bikeways. Please note that this initial allocation exceeds
the programmed amount by about 64%. Staff has reviewed tab 79 and recommend
your approval. Thank you very much, Jaden. Any public comment? We do not have any
public comment. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move on to Commissioner
comments, Carl Guardino. I'll be happy to make the motion in support and it's nice to see
class four and it's protected bikeways. Alright, any other public, any other
We have a motion by past Chair
Gordino. Is there a second?
Seconded by Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we're going to take
items 80 through 84 together.
Tim?
Thank you. Yes I'll be taking tabs
80 through 84 together with a recommendation at the end.
All of these are action items for
shop projects with at least one
one phase requesting an initial allocation that exceeds the programmed amount by more than 20%.
Tab 80 is initial allocation of $2,835,000 in construction capital and $838,000 in construction
support for a major damage permit restoration project on State Route 1 in Monterey County.
Tab 81 is an initial allocation of $5,150,000 for the planned specifications and estimate phase
and $2,520,000 for the right-of-way support phase for pavement preservation project on State Route 1
in LA County. Tab 82 is an initial allocation of $19,318,000 in construction capital
and $2,140,000 in construction support for a roadway rehabilitation project on Interstate 5
in LA County. Tab 83 is an initial allocation of $33,863,000 in construction capital and $4,770,000
in construction support for a maintenance facilities project on State Route 88 in Alpine
County. And Tab 84 is an initial allocation of $2,600,000 in construction capital and $724,000
and construction support for a transportation management systems project on various states
and routes and counties. The total increases beyond the program amount for the phases for
these four SHOP projects is approximately 21 million. Staff has reviewed the projects
and the book items for tabs 80 through 84 and recommends approval.
Thanks again, Tim. Is there any public comment?
There's no public comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from the dice? Is there a motion? So moved by Commissioner
Tiffany, is there a second? Commissioner Eager seconds? All those in favor?
Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. On now to items 85 through 94, Tim again.
Thank you. Yes I'll be taking 85 through 94 with a recommendation at the end. All of these
These are action items for shop projects requesting supplemental funds for pre-construction
phases to award construction or to complete construction.
Tab 85 is a supplemental fund's request of $1,600,000 for the plan specification estimate
phase for a pavement preservation project on US-101 in Santa Barbara County.
Tab 86 is a request for supplemental funds of $620,000 for the plan specification estimate
phase for a major damage permit restoration project on State Route One in Monterey County.
Tab 87 is a supplemental fund request for 300,000 for the plan specification and estimate phase
for a pavement preservation project on Interstate 405 in LA County. Tab 88 is a request for
supplemental funds of $2,095,000 for the plan specification estimate phase for a roadway
Rehabilitation Project on US 395 in Mono County. Tab 89 is a supplemental fund's request of
158,000 for the plan's specification estimate phase for a pavement preservation project
on state routes 4 and 89 in Alpen County. Tab 90 is a request of supplemental funds of 250,000
for the plan specification estimate phase for a pavement preservation project on state route 59
in Merced County. Tab 91 is a request for supplemental funds of 14,800,000
for the planned specification estimate phase for a shop bridge rehabilitation
and replacement project on State Route 75 and Interstate 5 in San Diego County.
Tab 92 is a request for supplemental funds of 3,104,000 in
construction capital for promoting for the protect program project on
on Interstate 80 in Placer and Nevada counties.
Tab 93 is a request of supplemental funds
for 1 million in construction support
for an operational improvement project
on State Route 99 in Sacramento County.
And tab 94 is a request for supplemental funds
of 1,700,000 in construction support
for pavement preservation project
on US 101 in Santa Barbara County.
Total increases for the supplemental funds
these 10 shop projects is approximately 25.6 million. Staff has reviewed the
projects and the book items for tab is 85 through 94 and recommends approval.
Thank you Tim. Any public comment? There is no public comment. Thank you. Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the dice? Motion to approve by Commissioner
Cruz. Is there a second? Seconded by Vice-chair Falcón. All those in favor?
favor. Opposed. Abstentions. Motion passes on to item 95. Thank you. Commissioners tab
95 is an action item to consider approval of a supplemental allocation of $7,200,000
for the construction support phase of the STIP State Route 46 corridor improvement project
in San Luis Obispo County. Please note the supplemental allocation is an increase of
of about 46% over the allocated amount.
Staff has reviewed tab 95 and recommend your approval.
Thank you, Jayden.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the dais?
Is there a motion?
Vice Chair Phalcon moves.
Seconded by Vice Chair, I mean, by Commissioner Lugo.
All those in favor?
Me.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
On to item 96.
Tim.
Thank you.
Commissioner's tab 96 is an action item
requesting supplemental funds
in the amount of 1,269,000 in construction support
to complete a shop roadway rehabilitation project
on state route 41 in Madera County.
Before giving my recommendation,
I'd like to summarize the total shop increases for today.
The total increases related to initial allocations
that exceed the program amount by more than 20%
and supplemental fund requests from the shop
at the June meeting is approximately $90 million.
Cumulatively for the 24-25 fiscal year,
total increases from the shop through projects
with initial allocations that exceed the program amount
by 20% and supplemental fund requests
is approximately, is just over $600 million
for this fiscal year.
action. That said, staff has
reviewed the project and the
book item for tab 96 and
recommends approval. Thank you,
Tim. Any public comment? There
is no public comment. Thank
you. Thank you. Any questions
or comments from the dice? Is
there a motion? So moved by
Commissioner Lugo. Is there a
second? Seconded by Commissioner
Cruz. All those in favor?
Opposed? Abstention. Motion
the city of Toronto. And the
that. Thank you, Kat. Any public comment? We do not have any public comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from the dice? Commissioner Gordino. Thank you,
Chair Grisby. I move approval of tabs 97 and 98. So moved by Gordino. Is there a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes.
Now we're on to items 99 through 100.
John.
Yes, we'll take 99 and 100 together.
These are both action items to amend the 2024 shop.
Tab 99 has the bulk of the amendments.
It has a couple of changes on the change list.
And with that noted, these amendments
will add 36 new projects to the 2024 shop
and will revise 97 projects that are currently programmed.
Of the 36 new projects, 33 are coming from the major damage
and safety reservations, which leaves just three
that are not coming from a reservation.
And we always take a little closer look at ones
that are not coming from a reservation
because it means they didn't go through
the formal shop adoption process and engagement
and oversight that comes with that process.
It doesn't mean they did not do any engagement on these.
For these three specifically that did not come
from the reservations, they are all reprograms
of previous projects that had lapsed
for one reason or another,
because of just delivery challenges.
So we're recommending approval of all of those,
and then the 97 projects that are being revised,
this is a higher than average number,
but it's always a higher than average number
at our June meeting,
because it's the last meeting of the fiscal year,
and Caltrans uses this opportunity
to make proactive changes to right size schedules
and budgets before the projects enter their year
of delivery when we no longer allow amendments.
So that's for those 97 projects.
And then tab 100 is another action item
to amend the 2024 shop.
This is for one project only.
There was a revised book item posted
as noted on the change list.
And with that change, this item will program,
what this one is doing is programming
previously unprogrammed construction funds
for the State Route 140 Ferguson Slide CMGC project.
This is a pretty unique project
that will construct a rock shed
to protect this segment of highway,
which has been the subject of decades
of recurrent rock slides.
And this rock shed will help restore full access
to State Route 140, which feeds the rural community
of El Portal and Yosemite National Park.
And then tab six, just to note, tab 116 later in the agenda
will allocate these funds that this amendment
is proposing to program for construction.
So with that, staff recommends approval
of both tabs 99 and 100.
Thank you, John.
Is there any public comment?
there's no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the dais or a motion?
So moved by Commissioner Eger.
Is there a second?
Commissioner Tippity seconds.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we're on to items 101 through 103.
Beverly.
Commissioners, I will present tabs 101 through 103 together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tabs 101 and 102 are scope amendment requests
for each of the five components
of the EVOASIS South project in San Bernardino
and Kern counties.
At each site, Caltrans and its private entity partner,
BP Products North America, are requesting to
upgrade six 400-kilowatt chargers to 1,000-kilowatt chargers,
remove 650-kilowatt overnight chargers
due to unanticipated design and operational safety issues
with back-end charging stalls associated
with the overnight chargers,
and add a megawatt charging system,
which is designed for heavy-duty vehicles
and provides a higher charging power capacity.
Although the number of charging ports will be reduced
due to the removal of the overnight chargers,
the charging capacity of each site will increase
and zero emission truck throughput at each site will also increase due to faster charging
speeds.
So that's the scope amendments under tabs 101 and 102.
And tab 103 is an action item to amend the 2022 trade corridor enhancement program for
the Otay Mesa East port of entry project in San Diego County.
The project is currently programed with $191,657,000 for three components, Caltrans and the San
Diego Association of Governments are requesting to split the Otay Mesa East land port of entry
construction component into three separate components, bringing the total number of components
that are programed to five.
This change will allow distinct project elements to be delivered through separate work packages,
enabling better schedule management, alignment with federal funding sources, and streamlined
procurement of specialized features.
If approved, this amendment will not impact the project's approved scope, which remains
intact, nor will it impact the approved programming amount.
Staff has reviewed the requests presented under tabs 101, 102, and 103, and recommends
approval.
Beverly, thank you. Our chair had to just step down the hall for a moment and ask me
to fill in. Are there any public? I'm sorry. Oh, oh, good. No, I'm just, I'm just responding
to what was requested of me. Vice chair, glad you're back.
Thank you, past chair. Yeah. Appreciate it. I like the switchback. Any public comment?
There's no public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments from commissioners. I would
like to make one. I'd be happy to make the motion to support. Do I have a second. Okay,
second by Commissioner eager on favor. He knows any abstentions. Okay. That item passes. Thank
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair and past chair.
Now we're on to items 104 through 105.
Kayla.
Good, almost afternoon commissioners.
Tab 104 and 105 will be presented together with a vote at the end.
Tab 104 is an action item to amend the local partnership formulaic program.
This amendment will make the following updates to the current formulaic program of projects.
program a total of 79,000 from the construction phase of three projects in
Alameda County. The 79,000 was identified as eligible cost savings at contract
acceptance and deprogramming these funds makes them available for future
programming by the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District. These funds were
deallocated at the May Commission meeting and a portion of them will be
reprogrammed to a new project in this agenda item. Next, deprogram 3 million
1,47,000 from the right-of-way phase of the State Route 94, State Route 125 South to East
Connector Project in San Diego County. These funds have lapsed and will be returned to
the Formulate Program.
Amend the roadway rehabilitation, streetlight and street sign replacement project in Sacramento
County to update the project title to Mariposa Avenue Safe Routes to School Project.
and the city of Santa Barbara.
program funding available for programming through June thirtieth twenty twenty eight.
Tab one oh five is an action item to amend the twenty twenty four local partnership formulaic
funding distribution to add three excuse me three hundred ninety two thousand of incentive
funding for the city of Albany and five million of incentive funding for the Napa Valley transportation
authority in fiscal year twenty twenty five twenty six. This incentive funding is available
for programming and allocation for both agencies through June 30th, 2028. The City of Albany
recently passed a renewal of the safe and accessible sidewalks and pathways special
parcel tags. This renewed tax makes the City of Albany eligible to receive one-time incentive
funding and for inclusion into the local partnership formulate program. We'd like to congratulate
and welcome them to the local partnership program. Voters in Napa County also recently
the county's first and only the
awarded. Staff has reviewed these requests and has found them to be
consistent with the local partnership formulate program guidelines and
policies and staff recommends approval of tabs 104 and 105. Thanks Kayla is
there any public comment? We do not have any public comment thank you. Thank you.
I see Commissioner Evers. Yeah if you could just go back to the 3 million in
the state route 94 125 that's a lot of money to go back in the pot. Can you tell
little bit about what happened with that one. Yes, so those funds did not meet our
timely use of funds policy for expenditure, so they will go back into
the formulaic program and be redistributed to all eligible agencies
in the next redistribution. I don't know if there, I think there was someone from
Sandag in the room yesterday. I'm not sure if he's here. Reluctantly, we have
someone here, yes. And he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the work is
is being done under another project.
Good afternoon, commissioner.
My name's Clint Pace.
I'm the director of program project management at SANDAC
and partners at California under this project.
Can you repeat the question
and make sure you understood it?
I was just asking about the $3.1 million
that's being deprogrammed
because you didn't meet the tiny requirements.
Can you explain that a little bit?
Yeah, so this is for the SR 94125 Connector project.
It's funded by multiple source of funds.
project is split into two phases and the funds uh and to session today was for the right away
and because that project split into two phases phase two is where most of that right away impacts
are and those have been put on a whole we don't want to go into the easements and the TCEs and all
the utility relocations of the phase two project so the LPP funds on that phase have have expired
and so we're working with Caltrans commission and we're funding that phase two at a later date.
so the project will continue you just didn't want to displace people early right right we don't want
to tie up the right away funds early and then have to do extensions for that phase two so phase one
is going to construction now okay thank you any other questions or comments from from commissioner
is there a motion so moved by commissioner eager is there a second uh commissioner lugo all those
in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Now we're on to items 106 through 108, a Lika.
Commissioners, I will present tabs 106 through 108 together with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 106 is an action item for the active transportation program requesting approval
of a major scope change for the Mitchell Avenue side path gap closure project in Riverside County.
the project scope as submitted in the application proposes to construct a new side path with
sidewalks to close gaps between existing class one facilities during preliminary design the city of
riverside determined that the approved scope would eliminate access to property driveways
and adjacent properties the city requests a scope change to shift the sidewalk improvements from
from the west side of Mitchell Avenue to the east side
and remove the proposed class one side path trail.
With this change, the sidewalk improvements
will connect to another ATP project
and eliminate the need for the class one trail.
The recommended project scope amendment
will close a sidewalk gap and improve project benefits
by providing a continuous path along Mitchell Avenue
across both ATP projects
and connect to an existing class one path.
It will ensure safer walking conditions for residents
and specifically young students walking or biking
to two nearby elementary schools.
Caltrans's analysis of the project scope amendment
found that the proposed scope will not change
the overall active transportation benefits of the project
as compared to the original application.
Tab 107 is an action item
for the Active Transportation Program
requesting approval of a major scope change
and segmenting amendment
to the Delaware Street Safe Routes to School
corridor project located in San Mateo County.
The project scope as submitted in the application
proposes to replace existing underutilized
class two bike lanes
with class four separated bikeways,
bicycle boulevards crossing treatments
at intersections and upgrading pedestrian facilities.
The project will connect to the city of San Mateo's
existing and planned bicycle facilities
for a fully connected portion
of the citywide bicycle network.
Once completed, this project will serve
nearly 1,000 elementary school students
who otherwise do not have low stress bicycle options
to access their schools.
The city is requesting to segment this project into two phases where phase one will be implemented
by the city and phase two will be constructed by Caltrans as the work falls in their right-of-way.
In addition to the segmenting, the city is requesting a scope change to add timing improvements
at signalized intersections, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, and crosswalk improvements
under phase one.
Phase two will include a fully protected intersection and tie in future class four
facilities to the facilities constructed under phase one.
Caltrans analysis to these requested amendments found that the proposed segmenting will increase
the active transportation benefits to the project once the scope is completed.
HAB 108 is an action item for the Active Transportation Program requesting a major
scope change for the Four Ord Regional Trail and Greenway California Avenue segment project
located in Monterey County.
This 1.8-mile segment aims to close a gap in the Regional Multi-Use Path Network.
The project scope submitted in the application proposes to construct a bicycle and pedestrian
bridge overcrossing and protected intersections. The transportation agency for Monterey County
conducted studies and surveys during the design phase, which exposed challenges with the bridge
overcrossing. Additionally, the City of Marina has moved forward with a separate roadway project,
roadway improvements project, which was not known at the time of application. The agency is
requesting to replace the over crossing with an at grade crossing, which includes a high intensity active.
Activated crosswalk or HAWQ system and crossing improvement measures at two intersections.
Caltrans's analysis of the project scope amendment determined that there is potential to increase overall active transportation users and shift from a separated bicycle and pedestrian facility to an at grade crossing.
let's see sorry however the use of the roundabout and hawk system will make
transit access easier to provide safety benefits staff has reviewed these
requests and concurs with Caltrans analysis the requests are consistent
with the active transportation program guidelines therefore staff recommends
approval of tabs 106 107 and 108 thank you Lica is there any public comment we
do not have any public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments from
the dice? Is there a motion? So moved by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by
Commissioner Cruz. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Now
we're on to item 109, Jaden. Thank you, commissioners. Commissioners, tab 109 is
action item to consider approval to allocate two hundred and twenty eight
million nine hundred and eight thousand dollars to administer the department's
division of local assistance fiscal year 2025-2026 state annual allocations
of subvention budget under the authority of the Commission staff has reviewed tab
109 and recommends your approval thank you any public comment we do not have
Thank you. Any questions or comments Mr. Dyess? Is there a motion? So moved by
Commissioner Tiffany. Is there a second? Vice Chair Falcone seconds. All those in
favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. On to item 110. Tim. Thank you.
Commissioners tab 110 is an action item to allocate 125 million dollars for
Caltrans right-of-way annual allocation for fiscal year 25-26.
Each year, Caltrans requests a right-of-way capital annual allocation from the
Commission to deliver the right-of-way needs for program projects in their
project delivery plan. The right-of-way capital annual allocation is used for
shop projects as well as STIP projects or right-of-way capital
programming of 10 million or less. Any project needing a right-of-way capital
of greater than 10 million requires an individual allocation by the Commission.
Caltrans meets with Commission staff and provides quarterly reports to show
how they're managing the annual allocation. It should be noted the third
quarter report is tab 31 on the agenda under the information calendar. Staff has
reviewed the allocation request and recommends approval. Thank you Tim. Any
public comment? We do not have any public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions
or comments from the dais or a motion? So moved by Commissioner Eger. Seconded by
Commissioner Belkone. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. On to
item 111. John. Tab 111 is an action item to make an annual allocation for the
shop minor program. The shop minor program is a sub program within the 2024 shop to implement
relatively low cost shop eligible capital projects. The program enables Caltrans to quickly address
small scale needs beyond the scope of what can be managed by the Caltrans maintenance program.
Approval of this item will allocate two hundred and fifty million dollars for the fiscal year
2526 minor program so that Caltrans can utilize their delegated authority to allocate these funds to minor projects
throughout the year in accordance with Commission Resolution
G1905 a staff recommends approval of tab 111
Thank you, John any public comment. We do not have any public comment. Thank you
Thank you. Any questions or comments from the dais or a motion.
So move by Commissioner Tiffany is there a second, seconded by Vice Chair full calm. All those in favor.
Opposed.
Stensions.
Motion passes on to item 112 a leak of commissioners tab 112 is an action item to approve the aeronautics resolution F DOA dash 2025 dash CR one.
CR1 to allocate 2.5 million for fiscal year 2025-26 to match the federal airport improvement
program grant. Each fiscal year the commission approves an annual allocation to match federal
airport improvement program grants. This allocation provides the authority to the
Department of Aeronautics to sub-allocate matching funds to individual projects as requested by
airport sponsors. Commissioner's staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval
of tab 112. Thank you Lika. Any questions or comments? I mean is there any public comment?
There is no public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the dais?
None. Is there a motion? So moved by Commissioner Eager. Is there a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany. All those in favor?
opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Now we're moving to items 113 through 117. John.
113 through 117 are all action items for shop allocations and we will take them together.
Tab 113 is an action item to allocate construction funds for a shop minor program project in Fresno
County. This project is a financial contribution to the city of Fresno to contribute funds to a
locally implemented bicycle and pedestrian improvement project on State Route 41 at the
Shields Avenue interchange. Minor A project allocations are typically delegated to Caltrans.
However, this project was not on the delegated minor A project list that the commission approved
last June, and therefore the project is required to come to the commission for an individual
Allocation. And then tab 114 is an action item for shop construction allocations. This
item will allocate $367,528,000 for 25 shop projects. Actually, eight of these 25 projects
are for environmental mitigation and monitoring projects. And the remaining 17 will include
improvements to three bridges, 284 lane miles of pavement, 33 culverts, 21 field
elements, and many other improvements to help preserve and protect the state highway
system. So that's 114-115 is an action item for shop pre-construction support
allocations. Please note there is one minor change on the change list and with
If that change, this item will allocate $57,507,000 for 43 shop pre-construction phases for environmental,
design, and right-of-way.
And tab 116 is an action item to allocate $387,560,000 in shop construction funds for
the Ferguson slide rock shed CMGC project on State Route 140 in Mariposa County.
As mentioned before under tab 100, construction of this rock shed will help
restore full access to State Route 140 which feeds the rural community of El
Portal and Yosemite National Park. With this large allocation amount for this
specific project and the reduced construction risk provided through the
CMGC delivery method.
Commission staff will be recommending
that the G12 resolution that delegates authority
to Caltrans to adjust commission allocations
not applied to this project
so that we can provide additional oversight
on any allocation increases.
And then tab 117 is an action item to allocate
11,276,000 dollars for the right away capital phase
for the Devil's Slide Shop project.
However, after the agenda was posted,
staff worked with Caltrans and together we discovered
that there was an addendum to this project's
environmental document and the commission has not yet
approved an updated future consideration of funding.
So what staff's recommending for tab 117
is that we defer this allocation request
to the August meeting when the allocation can be brought
forward with a concurrent future consideration of funding
to consider the addendum.
And we've worked with Caltrans
and they concur with this approach
and that works for them on this project.
So with that, staff recommends deferral of tab 117
and approval of tabs 113 through 116
with the added stipulation on tab 116
that the commission's G12 resolution
does not apply to these project phases.
Thank you, John any public comment. We do not have any public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions comments or a motion from the dice.
Question Commissioner Elliott.
Thanks, John on tab one 16 one project for $387 million I think maybe that just warrants a pause. Could you just explain what that project is.
Yeah, and if you have larger questions, Caltrans is here.
But this is an area on State Route 140
that has had recurrent rock slides.
And it's a specific geologic area
where they continue to have rock slides.
And there's currently a one-way detour
that goes across the river, down and across the river back.
And it's been that way for a long, long time.
I'm taking it, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
It's very inconvenient.
This will construct, instead of just like pushing back
the rock slide and digging out dirt like we usually do,
this will construct a rock shed, essentially a tunnel
so that the slide material can continue
to slide over the road and we can just cruise along
happily as it slides over top this tunnel.
I mean, honestly, I'm glad I asked
because that sounds very-
It's pretty unique.
It's a $255 million tunnel.
I figured it would be worth at least a question.
Yeah.
Yeah, if you want further detailed Caltrans is here, but...
Yeah, I mean I don't need it now I would just be curious because it's a 365 million that's very exact so I think.
See a picture.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, thanks. That was all.
Right. Is there a motion.
I was on.
Commissioner.
Commissioner Elliott makes the motion seconded by Commissioner Gardeno all those in favor.
Opposed.
Abstentions.
It passes.
on to item 118 through 119 together, Jayden.
Thank you.
Commissioners tabs 118 and 119 are action items
to consider approval to allocate $8,297,000
for seven locally administered STIP projects
and two locally administered STIP planning, programming
and monitoring projects, as well as an advanced allocation
of $4,192,000 for 10 locally administered STIP,
planning, programming, and monitoring projects
programmed in fiscal year 2526.
Staff has reviewed tabs 118 and 119
and recommend your approval.
Thank you, Jayden.
See any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Commissioner Tiffany, is there a second?
Seconded by uh vice chair falcone all those in favor
opposed
abstentions
motion passes
Onto items tab tabs 120 through 121 kayla
commissioners tabs 120 and 121 will be presented together with a recommendation at the end
Tab 120 is an advanced allocation action item for 311 000 in local partnership formulaic program funds
for the Bowker Road Rehabilitation Project in Imperial County.
Tab 121 is an action item to allocate 727,267,000 in local partnership formulate program, STIP,
and transit and inner city rail capital program funds for the East San Fernando Valley Transit
Corridor Project in Los Angeles County.
Please note that this item is on the change list for a minor correction to the vote box.
staff has reviewed these requests and found them to be consistent with program guidelines.
Staff recommends your approval of tabs 120 and 121.
Thanks so much. Any public comment?
We do not have any public comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments or a motion from the Dias?
So moved by Vice Chair Falcone. Is there a second?
Second.
Seconded by past chair Eager. All those in favor?
Aye.
abstentions. Motion passes we're on to item 122. Commissioners tab 122 is an
action item to allocate three million dollars in local partnership
competitive program funds for the Southeast Los Angeles transit
improvements project for bus shelters in Los Angeles County. This project will
provide new bus shelters with real-time displays and security lighting in
in corridors throughout Interstate 710 South communities.
Staff has reviewed this request
and found it to be consistent
with local partnership competitive program guidelines.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 122.
Thank you.
Any public comment?
We do not have any public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments or a motion from the dais?
Motion to approve by commissioner Cruz.
second. I second it by who? Is
there seconded? Commissioner
Eager seconds. All those in
favor? Uh huh. Opposed?
Abstentions? Motion passes.
Never taking item 123 through
127 together. Sheila. Thank
you, commissioners. I will
present tabs 123 through 127
local partnership program formulaic and trade corridor enhancement program
advanced allocation request for eighty seven million seven hundred and thirty
one thousand dollars for the locally administered interstate 10 corridor
freight and managed lane project from interstate 15 to Sierra Avenue on the
state highway system in San Bernardino County tab 124 is a request for 38
million seven hundred and thirteen thousand dollars for two locally
administered trade corridor enhancement program projects off the state highway
system in Alameda County. Tab 125 is a request for $33 million, $33 million
$500,000 for the locally administered trade corridor enhancement program state
route Patero Boulevard interchange phase two project on the state highway system
Riverside County. Tab 126 is a request for thirty million five hundred and
twenty eight thousand dollars for the locally administered trade corridors
enhancement program San De Guido track phase one rail project in San Diego
County and tab 127 is a multi-funded trade quarter enhancement program and
coordinated border infrastructure program allocation request for fifty six
million four hundred thousand for the Otay Mesa east port of entry technology package project
on the state highway system in San Diego County. Staff recommends approval of tabs 123 through 127.
Thank you Sheila. Any public comment? There is no public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a
motion? So moved by Vice Chair Falcone, seconded by past Chair Eger. All those in favor? Opposed?
So, the motion passes.
Next.
Abstentions.
Motion passes.
Never taking item one 28 through one 30 together.
Matthew.
Yes, I think we were officially a past noon.
So good afternoon commissioners.
Tabs one 28, one 29 and one 30 are all action items that will be
voted together.
funded allocation request with the local partnership formula program which is
under that particular one is under tab 130. These allocation requests under
these three tabs total 112 million nine hundred and thirty two thousand dollars
for six locally administered projects in Santa Barbara Los Angeles and Riverside
counties. Please note updated right-of-way certification dates noted on
the change list for projects under tabs 128 and 130. These requests are
consistent with the solutions for congested corridors program and the
local partnership formula program guidelines therefore staff recommends
your approval of tabs 128 129 and 130. Thank you Matthew. Any public comment?
There is no public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Any question comment or a
motion from the dais. So moved by vice chair Falcone. Is there a second? Seconded by commissioner
Eager. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Thank you. So now we're under
items 131 through 133, Elica.
Commissioners, I will present tabs 131 through 133 together with a recommendation at the
TAB 131 is an action item to approve allocations of 64,166,000 for 28 locally administered
active transportation program projects.
TAB 132 is an action item to approve an advance allocation of 1,044,000 programed in fiscal
to your, excuse me, 2025-26 for the PSNE phase
of the state administered Los Alamos
connected community project located in Santa Barbara County.
Tab 133 is an action item to approve advance allocations
of 1,319,000 for five locally administered projects
programmed in fiscal year 2025-26.
please note the updated PPN or PPN hose, excuse me,
for the two city of Los Angeles projects
as reflected on the change list.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and finds them consistent with program guidelines
and adopted programs.
Therefore staff recommends approval of tabs 131, 132, and 133.
Thank you, Alinka.
Is there any public comment?
We do not have any public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Any question comment or a motion from the dais.
Make a motion.
So moved by Commissioner Tiffany.
Is there a second?
Don't leave me now guys.
Is there a second by Vice Chair, Phil Cohen.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
We're on to item 134.
Ken.
Good afternoon, commissioners.
We also have 134 is an action item requesting allocation of 453,763,000 to 16 transit and
intercity rail capital program projects.
Please note that project 2 was withdrawn prior to the meeting and projects 6, 7, and 12 had
corrections to their project titles as reflected on the change list.
SAS has reviewed these requests and finds them consistent with the agenda's change list,
the program's allocation policy, and program updates.
staff recommends approval of tab 134. Thank you, Kat. Any public comment? There is no
public comment. Thank you. Question, comment, or a motion from the dais. Thank you. So moved
by Vice Chair Falcone. Is there a second? Thank you. Commissioner Eager seconds. All
those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Thank you. Now we're on to
items 135 through 171. John. Yes 135 through 171 will be taken together these are all action items
for standard time extension requests for the following programs. I'm going to read every
program. The state highway operation and protection program. The state transportation improvement
Program, the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, the Proposition 1B
Intercity Rail Improvement Program, the Local Partnership Program, the Solutions
for Congested Corridors Program, the Active Transportation Program, the Trade
Corridor Enhancement Program, and the Local Transportation Climate Adaptation
program. Please note the change list which shows that tab 153 has been
withdrawn and there are changes to tabs 138, 158, 162, and 163 and in
addition to those changes for tab 163 Commission staff recommends
withdrawing projects 28, 29, and 34 in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, as they have
been impacted by the 2025 Southern California fires, and through the adoption of the Interim
Timely Use of Funds policy for the 2024 and 2025 Southern California fires, which was
approved that policy was approved earlier today under tab 70. That policy
extended the deadline to request an allocation for projects programmed in the
2024-25 fiscal year to December 2025 commission meeting. Therefore an
allocation time extension is not needed at this time for those three projects. So
with that, staff has reviewed all of these requests, determined they are in
in line with commission policies
and recommends approval of tabs 135 to 152
and 154 to 171 with the stipulation that projects 29
and 34 are withdrawn from tab 163.
Thank you, John.
We're move on to public comment.
We know there is someone in the room who like to speak,
Edgar Medina in the city of Rancho Cordova.
you can cover both your items at this end.
Good afternoon, Commissioner, staff members.
Edgar Medina, on behalf of the city of Ranch Cordova,
you're absolutely correct.
We have two projects on tab 140 and 163.
And really, I'm just up here to show support for CTC,
SACOGs, and District 3's support
on extension of these two projects.
One is for our Symfidel Bicycle and Pedestrian
Overcrossing Project, that's under the ATP program.
and another project is our White Rock Road Phase 3 project,
which is under the STIP program.
Both of which were slightly delayed,
but were on pace to deliver the project within the extension.
And additionally, the city has committed additional funds
to fund some of the gaps.
So we're just here to show appreciation to the staff
and urge the commission
for strong consideration for approval.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for joining us.
Any other public comment?
There is no public comment online.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
I just want to say thank you for being here
and making a presentation at the appropriate time.
Make a motion.
Thank you.
Is there a motion?
So moved by Commissioner Eger.
Is there a second?
Thank you, Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we're on to item 172, John.
Yes, tab 172 is an action item
to extend the period of construction
for a SHOT project by six months.
The deadline to request a time extension for this project
was April 30th, 2025.
Caltrans is requesting the commission
make an exception to our guidelines
to allow this additional time to be approved
even though the deadline is already passed.
For the sake of completing construction
and to maintain the state's ability
to pay the contractor with this project's allocated funds,
staff does recommend approval of tab 172
as an exception to the shop guidelines.
Thank you, John.
Any public comment?
We do not have any public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Vice Chair Falcon,
seconded by Commissioner Eager.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we'll take items 173 through 135 together.
John, again, thank you.
Tabs 173 through 175 are all action items
for shop time extension amendments
as exceptions to the shop guidelines,
and we'll take them all three together.
Tab 173 is requesting to amend the period of allocation
for 10 shop projects and tab 174 is requesting
to amend the period of construction,
construction completion for three shop projects.
And tab 175 is requesting to amend the period
of project development expenditure for three shop projects.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and recommends approval of tabs 173, 174 and 175.
Thank you.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Commissioner Eger, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Escentions?
Motion passes.
On to item 176, LaShara.
Commissioners, tab 176 is an action item to approve an amended time extension for the
period of project development for the Marin Sonoma Narrows contract B7
project in Marin County. This project experienced delays in the right-of-way
phase related to environmental mitigation and is requesting an
additional four months for completion. Staff has reviewed this request and
recommends approval of tab 176. Thank you. Any public comment? There is no
public comment, thank you. Thank you. Any questions, comments, or a motion from the
council would like to call on
the committee on the motion to
amend the motion of the diocese.
So moved by vice chair folk on
seconded by Commissioner eager. All
those in favor. Yeah, opposed.
Abstentions motion passes.
Now we're taking item 1 77.
Keith Kenneth.
I'm Kenneth today.
Commissioners tab one 77 is a
request to amend the project
multi-funded trade corridor enhancement program and proposition 1B state route 99 program
South Madera six lane project in Madera County
The Commission approved a 12 month project development time project development
expenditure time extension for the right-of-way phase in May 2024
Caltrans is now requesting 29 additional months for a total of 41 months
Caltrans has faced right of way acquisition delays due to design
modifications, utility relocation efforts, and parcel acquisition efforts.
Property owners requested changes to the project design and those changes led to
the acquisition of additional properties. Resolutions of necessity for the
properties are scheduled for the August 2025 Commission meeting and potential
condemnation proceedings may cause further delays if the resolutions of
the city's staff. The staff is
the staff's necessity are
contested. Staff recommends
deferring this item to the
August 2025 commission meeting.
So that staff can work with
Caltrans on potential
alternative solutions. So that's
a recommendation, right? Yes,
it's a recommendation to defer
to August 2020 August 2025
meeting and the deferral of this
public comment. We do not have any public comment. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any
questions, comments, or a motion from the dais? So moved by Commissioner Eager. Seconded
by Vice Chair Falcone. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions. Motion passes.
Item 178.
Commissioners tab 178 is a request to amend a construction allocation time extension for
the Interstate 605 Valley Boulevard
interchange improvements project in Los Angeles County.
The commission approved a 12 month
construction allocation time extension
at the May 2024 commission meeting.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
is requesting 12 additional months,
bringing the total extension to 24 months.
LA Metro has faced delays completing right of way.
The project requires the acquisition of 13 parcels
from eight different owners.
LA Metro is still working to acquire seven of these parcels
and efforts to achieve right away certification
were delayed when Southern California Edison
and the LA County Department of Public Works
redirected personnel to focus on
recent wildfire recovery efforts.
Additionally, one remaining parcel is in litigation
with a court hearing scheduled for November, 2025.
given these extraordinary circumstances,
staff recommends approval of this request.
Thank you.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments or a motion from the dais.
So moved by Commissioner Eger.
Seconded by Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we'll take item 179.
Beverly.
Missioners tab 179 is a request to amend a construction allocation time extension for
the Stockton Diamond grade separation project in San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin Regional
Rail Commission is requesting six additional months. The Commission previously approved
two construction allocation time extensions totaling 24 months, so this action will bring
the total extended time to 30 months.
The Stockton Diamond grade separation project
was nominated by Caltrans and is being implemented
by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission.
It is a uniquely complex project
that will construct a grade separation
at the current at-grade crossing of two class one railroads.
The project was originally programmed
with $100 million in TSIP funds.
And in May of this year,
the commission approved $38 million
and supplemental TSIP funding to cover cost increases
and to backfill rescinded port
and freight infrastructure program funding
for complimentary improvements
in the South Stockton rail yard.
The six additional months for construction allocation
will allow the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
to complete construction and maintenance agreements
with the two class one railroads involved.
The agency is committed
to requesting construction allocation by December.
please note that this item has an updated attachment
which includes letters from the class one railroads
expressing their commitment to delivering the project.
Staff recommends approval of this request.
Thank you.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Commissioner Tiffany.
Is there a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Eager.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
extensions. Motion passes. I will take items 180 or 182 together. Kat. Good afternoon commissioners.
Tabs 180, 181 and 182 are action items to approve time extension amendments for three project
components in the transit and intercity rail capital program. Staff has reviewed these requests
and supports this exception to the program's allocation policy. Staff recommends approval
of tabs 180 181 and 182. Thank you, Kat. Any public comment? There is no public comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Question, comment, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Commissioner Eger. Seconded by former Chair Garchia.
All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. We can now move on to public comment.
is there any public comment.
I am not seeing any public comment.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Oh, okay, so a couple of mics up.
So Commissioner Gordino followed by Vice Chair Falcone
and then Elliot.
Thank you, Chair Grisby and colleagues and stakeholders
in the room and virtual,
another wonderful and productive meeting
where we're advancing so many mobility improvements
throughout the state.
Another form of mobility is going
to happen tomorrow morning in Silicon Valley.
We're going to have our fifth annual Stars and Strides
community run and walk and kids fun run
to benefit our public hospitals and health care systems
and one million primarily underserved neighbors
throughout Silicon Valley.
And I have brought the shirt for Stars and Strides,
playoff of Stars and Stripes entering into Independence Week, Independence Day
Week. And I've got about 20 that I brought and if you would like one, if you
would like to sweat in style, these are complimentary from my wife and I. We've
formed four community charity runs and have been able to give away about 15
million dollars throughout the Bay Area over the last 20 years and we'd love for
you to be a free advertisement for this, right?
So if you want it, come on up afterwards.
And if you don't, it won't hurt my feelings.
Thank you, Chair Grisby.
Problem.
Vice Chair Fokker?
Thank you, Chair.
I have three quick things.
Well, maybe quick, I hope.
We have programmed a heck of a lot of money
and just allocated a lot of money as well.
And so, you know, we have complimented staff and, you know, just wonderful job, all of you.
I also want to recognize my fellow commissioners.
It's great to, we had a full dais and virtual of commissioners yesterday and today.
And, you know, it's just a privilege to serve with all of you.
Um, I have to say like all the the thoughtful questions and comments. I mean these are coming from
genuine interest in
in moving our
Our state in many ways and so it is a privilege to to um
Be here with you
And thank you chair for your leader leadership and and kind of shepherding us through the last couple days
um second of all
As you recall some of you that were here last year. I did a
big 15-minute speech about a special someone. And as the historian of the commission, I want to
remind you that this is somebody's second work anniversary as our Executive Director, Tanisha
Taylor, whom I affectionately named as Maestro and for many good reasons. And then finally,
guess where our next hearing is everyone. San Diego there. So we are looking forward to seeing
all of your smiley faces in San Diego. Bring your sunglasses and your sunscreen. You know that we
put on a nice welcome map for all of you and we look forward to seeing you in San Diego. That's
it. Thank you Vice Chair. Commissioner Elliott. Oh thanks. Thank you Chair. My my updates a little
less fun than versus I just wanted I was out of the room when item 22 was taken
up it was LPP and if it's possible I'd like to add on as an I vote on that
because there are great projects in there specifically Bart extension and I
hope that some future CTC sometime in the future is gonna vote on Bart
extension phase 3 that's gonna finally force the peninsula to connect all the
way through on Bart and so I wouldn't it be nice but nevertheless for now we have
this so I'd like to add on as an eye on item 22 thank you thank you Commissioner
and I just like to say a lot of people have already said it but the staff got a
lot of attention over the last few weeks and y'all are rock stars and it went
really well thank you so much for the work that you all put into this it shows
that you're all professionals and with that we'll adjourn