California Transportation Commission Meeting - October 17, 2025 (Day 2)

October 17, 2025 · California Transportation Commission

Agenda

0.0. (PM 0.0) at Excelsior Avenue to kilometer post 11.4

(PM 7.1) at Elkhorn Avenue and install streetlights at the Excelsior interchange from PM R48.0 to R48.3 in Kings County. (MND Addenda) (PPNO 1350) (STIP) Resolution E-25-64A 02-07-LA-47, PM R0.4/2.1 Vincent Thomas Bridge Deck Replacement Project Replace the deteriorated bridge deck, upgrade seismic sensors, and improve the existing median barrier and railings on the Vincent Thomas Bridge (State Route 47) in the Port of Los Angeles. (FEIR Addenda) (PPNO 6024) (SHOPP) Resolution E-25-65A (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.5d.(16)) Page 5 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 46 Four Relinquishment Resolutions 2.3c. A D 03-Sac-99-PM 14.8/15.1 Right of way along State Route 99 on West Stockton Blvd, in the City of Sacramento. Resolution R-4122 06-Tul-99-PM 33.2/34.3 Right of way along State Route 99 on Avenue 264 (Liberty Avenue), Drive 94, and North J Street, in the County of Tulare. Resolution R-4123 11-SD-5-PM 23.7 Right of way along Interstate 5 on Santa Fe Street, in the City of San Diego. Resolution R-4124 11-SD-163-PM 4.4 Right of way along State Route 163 on Friars Road, in the City of San Diego. Resolution R-4125 47 12 Resolutions of Necessity 2.4b. A D 8 Ayes Resolutions C-22580 through C-22591 48 Director’s Deeds 2.4d.(1) A D Items 1 through 21 Excess Lands - Return to State: $2,512,061 49 Director’s Deeds 2.4d.(2) A D Items 1 through 5 Excess Land – Return to State $322,828 50 Rescinding Resolution of Necessity 2.4e. A D 8 Ayes --Resolution CR-172 DIAMOND K, LLC 03-Gle-162-PM 65.27 51 State Highway Operation and Protection Program 2.5b.(4) A D (SHOPP) – Allocation Increase Amendment Request to amend the SHOPP Safety Improvements project, in Sacramento County, to increase and correct the Right of Way Support allocation amount from $5,000 to $50,000. (PPNO 5884) Resolution FP-25-45, Amending Resolution FP-25-23 52 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) AB 2.5c.(4) A D 3090 – Allocation Amendment Request to amend the locally-administered STIP AB 3090 Reimbursement – Route 71/91 Interchange EB-NB Connector project, on the State Highway System, in Riverside County, to revise the Construction phase fund type from Federal Trust Fund (FTF) to a FTF and State Highway Account (SHA) split and revise the Budget Year. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO 0077M) Resolution FP-25-53, Amending Resolution FP-24-13 Page 6 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 53 STIP – Allocation Amendment 2.5c.(7) A D Request to amend the STIP Jamestown Safe, Healthy, and Equitable Streets Improvements project, in Tuolumne County, to revise the recipient, fund type, project ID, program code, and add the advantage phase, postmiles, and route. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO 3489) Resolution FP-25-46, Amending Resolution FP-24-99 54 Local Transportation Climate Adaptation Program 2.5p.(4) A D (LTCAP) – Allocation Amendment Request to amend the locally-administered LTCAP OCTA Coastal Rail Infrastructure Corridor Resiliency Phase 1 project, off the State Highway System, in Orange County, to rescind the full amount of $3,824,000 from the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase due to incompatible National Environmental Policy Act document requirements from different federal funding sources. (PPNO 1323) Resolution LTCAP-A-2526-01, Amending Resolution LTCAP-A-2425-05 55 Multi-funded Trade Corridor Enhancement Program and 2.5s.(5) A D Local Partnership Program (LPP) (Formulaic) – Allocation Amendment Request to amend the locally-administered TCEP and LPP (Formulaic) Interstate 10 Corridor Freight and Managed Lane Project: I-15 to Sierra Avenue, Contract 2A, on the State Highway System, in San Bernardino County, to revise the TCEP funding split from Trade Corridor Enhancement Account (TCEA) and FTF to just TCEA and revise the Budget Year. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO 1325) Resolution TCEP-A-2526-14, Amending Resolution TCEP-A-2425-24 Resolution LPP-A-2526-08, Amending Resolution LPP-A-2425-33 56 Multi-funded Solutions for Congested Corridors 2.5s.(8) A D Program (SCCP) and LPP (Formulaic) – Allocation Amendment Request to amend the locally-administered multi-funded SCCP and LPP (Formulaic) Mid County Parkway: Ramona Expressway project, off the State Highway System, in Riverside County, to revise the outputs. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO 1276) Resolution SCCP-A-2526-01, Amending Resolution SCCP-A-2425-03 Resolution LPP-A-2526-04, Amending Resolution LPP-A-2425-34 Page 7 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 57 Active Transportation Program (ATP) – Allocation 2.5w.(4) A D Amendment Request to amend the locally-administered ATP South Downey Safe Routes to School project, off the State Highway System, in Los Angeles County, to split the original allocation between two Budget Authority fiscal years. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO 5126) Resolution FATP-2526-06, Amending Resolution FATP-2021-08 58 ATP – Allocation Amendment 2.5w.(5) A D Request to amend the locally-administered ATP Pacific Highway Coastal Rail Trail Airport Connection (PACTAC) project, off the State Highway System, in San Diego County, to rescind the full amount of $3,818,000 from the Project Approval and Environmental Document phase due to cancellation of the project. (PPNO 1531) Resolution FATP-2526-07, Amending Resolution FATP-2324-28 59 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) – 2.6g.(2) A D Allocation Amendment Request to amend the TIRCP (2023:24) Keep Truckee Moving: Expansion and Electrification project, in Nevada County, to revise the program code and deallocate a combined total of $178,000 from the CON phase of two components to reflect component savings, as follows: • $29,000 from the Purchase Zero Emission Electric Vehicles, Phase 1 component. (PPNO CP130) (2.6g.(2a)) Resolution TIRCP-2526-13, Amending Resolution TIRCP-2324-25 • $149,000 from the Microtransit Ridebooking Technology component. (PPNO CP130A) (2.6g.(2b)) Resolution TIRCP-2526-14, Amending Resolution TIRCP-2324-25 60 TIRCP – Allocation Amendment 2.6g.(3) A D Request to amend the TIRCP (2022:04) Sacramento Valley Station (SVS) Transit Center: Priority Projects (Sacramento Downtown Regional Bus Route Consolidation – 5th Street Extension) component, in Sacramento County, to add the Expenditure Authorization number and deallocate $37,000 from the PS&E phase to reflect component savings. (PPNO CP094) Resolution TIRCP-2526-15S, Amending Resolution TIRCP-2324-06S (Related Item under Ref. 2.6g.(10)) Page 8 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 61 TIRCP – Allocation Amendment 2.6g.(4) A D Request to amend the TIRCP (2022:04) Sacramento Valley Station (SVS) Transit Center: Priority Projects (Contactless EMV Readers Placer County Transit) component, in Placer County, to rescind the full amount of $92,000 from the CON phase due to local funds covering the costs. (PPNO CP094Q) Resolution TIRCP-2526-16, Amending Resolution TIRCP-2425-14 (Related Item under Ref. 2.6g.(1)) 62 TIRCP – Allocation Amendment 2.6g.(5) A D Request to amend the TIRCP (2018:17) Blue Line Rail Corridor Transit Enhancements (American Plaza Pedestrian Enhancements) component, in San Diego County, to deallocate $1,000 from the CON phase to maintain consistency with the approved programmed amount. (PPNO CP032) Resolution TIRCP-2526-17, Amending Resolution TIRCP-2425-26 63 LPP (Formulaic) – Allocation Amendment 2.6s.(5) A D Request to amend the locally-administered LPP (Formulaic) Santa Rosa Zero-Emission Battery Electric Bus Transit project, in Sonoma County, to revise the recipient. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO 0090F) Resolution LPP-A-2526-05, Amending Resolution LPP-A-2223-05 (Related Item under Ref. 2.8c.(2)) 64 TCEP and TIRCP – Allocation Amendment 2.6s.(6) A D Request to amend the locally-administered multi-funded TCEP and TIRCP Turnbull Canyon Road Grade Separation Project, in Los Angeles County, to include the Grade Separation Award information and revise the TIRCP program code. There is no change to the allocation amount. (PPNO T0009) Resolution TCEP-A-2526-13S, Amending Resolution TCEP-A-2526-09S Resolution TIRCP-2526-22S, Amending Resolution TIRCP-2526-12S 65 2022 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program Baseline 4.8 A C Agreement Amendment for the EV Oasis South Project Resolution TCEP-P-2526-04BA, Amending Resolution TCEP-P-2324-08B 66 Multi-funded 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement 4.9 A C Program and 2024 Local Partnership Competitive Program Baseline Agreement for the State Route 156 Castroville Boulevard Interchange Project Resolution TCEP-P-2526-05B Resolution LPP-P-2526-05B 67 Approval of four Active Transportation Program 4.10 A C Baseline Agreements Resolution ATP-P-2526-03B (Related Items under Ref. 2.2c.(2) and 2.5w.(1)) 68 Approval of four State Highway Operation and 4.18 A C Protection Program Baseline Agreements Resolution SHOPP-P-2526-02B (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.5b.(2)) END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Page 9 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 PROGRAM UPDATES Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 69 Request to: 2.1a.(1) Jon Pray A D --Add 48 new projects into the 2024 SHOPP. (2.1a.(1a) James R. Anderson and 2.1a.(1b)) --Revise 36 projects currently programmed in the 2024 SHOPP. (2.1a.(1d), 2.1a.(1f), and 2.1a.(1g)) SHOPP Amendment 24H-015 (Related Items under Ref. 2.2c.(8), 2.4a., 2.5b.(1), 2.5b.(2), 2.5d.(3), 2.5d.(4), 2.5d.(5), 2.5d.(16), 2.5f. and 4.18) RIGHT-OF-WAY MATTERS Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 70 Resolutions of Necessity - Appearance 2.4a. Tim Sobelman A D 8 Ayes --07-LA-1-PM 0.13 Rizwan Tanvir Bom Wetlands MB SPV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Resolution C-22578 --07-LA-1-PM 0.10 Los Cerritos Wetlands, LLC, a California limited liability company Resolution C-22579 (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.5b.(2)) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 71 Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 2.2c.(3) Cherry Zamora A C/D 01-Men-1, PM 43.3/44.2 Jeremiah Ketchum Albion River Bridge Project Replace the Albion River Bridge on State Route 1 in Mendocino County near Albion from 3.0 miles north of the Route 128 junction to 0.2 mile north of the Albion River. (FEIR) (PPNO 4490) (SHOPP) Resolution E-25-59 (Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(2) and 2.5b.(3)) 72 Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 2.2c.(4) Cherry Zamora A C 03-Sacramento County I Street Bridge Replacement Project New two-lane bridge to replace existing two-lane vehicle crossing. (FEIR) (PPNO 1809) (LPP) Resolution E-25-60 73 Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 2.2c.(5) Cherry Zamora A C/D 05-Mon-68, PM 4.8/13.7 Jeremiah Ketchum Scenic Route 68 Corridor Improvements Project Improve operations at nine intersections along State Route 68 from post miles 4.8 to 13.7 in Monterey County. Specifically, construct roundabouts or upgraded signalized intersections with enhanced lane configurations and wildlife crossing improvements including replacing existing underground culverts at five locations and providing fencing along the highway at culvert entrances. (FEIR) (PPNO 1790) (STIP) (LPP (Formulaic)) Resolution E-25-61 Page 10 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 74 Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 2.2c.(6) Cherry Zamora A C/D 07-LA-39, PM 40.0/44.4 Jeremiah Ketchum California State Route 39 (San Gabriel Canyon Road) Reopening Project Restore and reopen a segment of SR 39 as an evacuation route and for use by the Department, United States Forest Service, and emergency-response personnel. (FEIR) (PPNO 5381) (SHOPP) Resolution E-25-62 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(2)) 75 Approval of Project for Future Consideration of Funding: 2.2c.(7) Cherry Zamora A C 10-Stanislaus County 7th Street Bridge Project Replace existing structurally deficient two-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge. (FEIR) (PPNO 1809) (LPP) Resolution E-25-63 PROGRAM UPDATES Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 76 Fourth Quarter – Project Delivery Report – Fiscal Year 3.8 Tim Sobelman I D 2024-25 Sujaya Kalainesan ALLOCATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS REQUEST Projects with costs that exceed the Programmed Amount by More than 20 Percent Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 77 Request for $45,735,000 (43.1 percent increase) 2.5d.(10) Kacey Moore- A D allocation in Construction Capital and $5,200,000 (zero Gutierrez percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for Michael Navarro the State-Administered multi-funded STIP and LPP (Formulaic) Excelsior Expressway project on State Route 41, in Kings and Fresno counties. (EA 0S370, PPNO 6705) Resolution FP-25-38 Resolution LPP-A-2526-09 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5d.(13)) 78 Request for $237,000 (73.0 percent increase) allocation 2.5d.(1) Tim Sobelman A D in Construction Capital and $333,000 (zero percent Matthew Brady increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Major Damage (Permanent Restoration) project on State Route 254, in Humboldt County. (EA 0H801, PPNO 2502M) Resolution FP-25-29 79 Request for $82,027,000 (68.3 percent increase) 2.5d.(2) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $5,327,000 (16.9 Matthew Brady percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Major Damage (Permanent Restoration) project on State Route 299, in Humboldt County. (EA 0J801, PPNO 2535) Resolution FP-25-30 80 Request for $129,514,000 (38.5 percent increase) 2.5d.(3) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $9,500,000 (zero Sergio Aceves percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Roadway Rehabilitation project on Interstate 80, in Placer County. (EA 3H590, PPNO 5131) Resolution FP-25-31 (Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(1)) Page 11 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 81 Request for $114,947,000 (33.4 percent increase) 2.5d.(4) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $14,601,000 (19.0 David Ambuehl percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Roadway Rehabilitation project on State Route 82, in San Mateo County. (EA 0K810, PPNO 1496J) Resolution FP-25-32 (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.5d.(6)) 82 Request for $69,730,000 (103.2 percent increase) 2.5d.(5) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $8,995,000 (101.4 David Ambuehl percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement project on Interstate 80 and United States Highway 101, in San Francisco County. (EA 0Q020, PPNO 2021K) Resolution FP-25-33 (Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(1)) 83 Request for $14,206,000 (55.8 percent increase) 2.5d.(6) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $1,190,000 (19.0 David Ambuehl percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Americans with Disabilities Act Pedestrian Infrastructure project on State Route 82, in San Mateo County. (EA 1G900, PPNO 0730D) Resolution FP-25-34 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5d.(4)) 84 Request for $10,833,000 (75.0 percent increase) 2.5d.(7) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $1,877,000 (29.7 Scott Eades percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Americans with Disabilities Act Curb Ramps project on State Route 1 and 166, in Santa Barbara County. (EA 1E030, PPNO 2466) Resolution FP-25-35 85 Request for $19,037,000 (46.7 percent increase) 2.5d.(8) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $3,520,000 (50.3 Scott Eades percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Drainage System Restoration project on State Route 154, in Santa Barbara County. (EA 1K520, PPNO 2919) Resolution FP-25-36 86 Request for $300,000 (50.0 percent increase) allocation 2.5d.(9) Tim Sobelman A D in Pre-Construction Support, Plans, Specifications, and Scott Eades Estimate (PS&E) phase, for the SHOPP Drainage System Restoration project on State Route 154, in Santa Barbara County. (EA 1K521, PPNO 2919Y) Resolution FP-25-37 87 Request for $16,522,000 (83.6 percent decrease) 2.5d.(11) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $2,600,000 (44.4 Michael Navarro percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Roadway Rehabilitation project on State Route 155, in Kern County. (EA 0W810, PPNO 6960) Resolution FP-25-39 88 Request for $8,681,000 (34.4 percent increase) 2.5d.(12) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $2,636,000 (1.4 Michael Navarro percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Safety Improvements project on State Route 41, in Kings County. (EA 0X950, PPNO 7031) Resolution FP-25-40 Page 12 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 89 Request for $16,252,000 (31.1 percent increase) 2.5d.(13) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $2,400,000 (zero Michael Navarro percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Pavement Preservation project on State Route 41, in Fresno County. (EA 1A790, PPNO 7064) Resolution FP-25-41 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5d.(10)) 90 Request for $14,790,000 (140.4 percent increase) 2.5d.(14) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $3,450,000 (60.8 Gloria Roberts percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Safety Improvements project on State Route 138, in Los Angeles County. (EA 36490, PPNO 5573) Resolution FP-25-42 91 Request for $12,814,000 (95.5 percent increase) 2.5d.(15) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $2,206,000 (44.7 Gloria Roberts percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Drainage System Restoration project on State Route 138, in Los Angeles County. (EA 37640, PPNO 5802) Resolution FP-25-43 92 Request for $639,085,000 (3.3 percent increase) 2.5d.(16) Tim Sobelman A D allocation in Construction Capital and $61,336,000 (32.4 Gloria Roberts percent increase) allocation in Construction Support, for the SHOPP Bridge Formula Program project on State Route 47, in Los Angeles County. (EA 39020, PPNO 6024) Resolution FP-25-44 (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.2c.(8)) Capital Outlay Support (COS) Supplemental Fund Allocations Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 93 Request for an additional $1,400,000 (52.0 percent 2.5e.(1) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Pre-Construction Support for the PS&E Matthew Brady phase, for the SHOPP Sustainability and Miscellaneous project on State Route 254, in Humboldt County. (EA 0H240, PPNO 2484) Resolution FA-25-13 94 Request for an additional $950,000 (44.6 percent 2.5e.(2) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Pre-Construction Support for the Project David Moore Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase, for the SHOPP Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement project on State Route 96, in Siskiyou County. (EA 0H730, PPNO 3660) Resolution FA-25-14 95 Request for an additional $550,000 (37.9 percent 2.5e.(8) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Pre-Construction Support for the PS&E Michael Navarro phase, for the SHOPP Maintenance Facilities project on State Route 99, in Kern County. (EA 1A810, PPNO 7094) Resolution FA-25-15 Page 13 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Capital Supplemental Fund Allocations – Complete Construction Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 96 Request for an additional $454,000 (100.9 percent 2.5e.(3) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Capital and $60,000 (100.0 David Moore percent increase) in Construction Support for the SHOPP Major Damage (Emergency Restoration) project on State Route 299, in Shasta County. (EA 2K360, PPNO 3978) Resolution FA-25-16 97 Request for an additional $500,000 (20.7 percent 2.5e.(4) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Support for the SHOPP David Moore Pavement Preservation project on State Route 273 and 299, in Shasta County. (EA 4H050, PPNO 2711) Resolution FA-25-17 98 Request for an additional $850,000 (14.0 percent 2.5e.(5) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Capital for the SHOPP Safety Sergio Aceves Improvements project on State Route 49, in Placer County. (EA 1H240, PPNO 4785) Resolution FA-25-18 (Related Item under Ref. 2.8v.(7)) 99 Request for an additional $768,000 (10.5 percent 2.5e.(6) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Support for the SHOPP Safety David Ambuehl Improvements project on Interstate 80, in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. (EA 0K160, PPNO 1497F) Resolution FA-25-19 100 Request for an additional $450,000 (7.8 percent 2.5e.(7) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Capital and $225,000 (13.7 David Ambuehl percent increase) in Construction Support for the SHOPP Major Damage (Permanent Restoration) project on State Route 128, in Napa County. (EA 3Y890, PPNO 2925K) Resolution FA-25-20 101 Request for an additional $1,595,000 (13.0 percent 2.5e.(10) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Capital for the SHOPP Gloria Roberts Transportation Management Systems project at various locations, in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. (EA 34620, PPNO 5365) Resolution FA-25-21 102 Request for an additional $1,608,000 (16.0 percent 2.5e.(11) Tim Sobelman A D increase) in Construction Capital for the SHOPP Gloria Roberts Maintenance Facilities project on State Route 90, in Los Angeles County. (EA 35480, PPNO 5500) Resolution FA-25-22 Multi-Funded LPP (Formulaic) and STIP Supplemental Fund Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 103 Request for an additional $4,567,000 (142.0 percent 2.5s.(7) Kayla Giese A D increase) in Pre-Construction Right of Way (RW) / Grace Magsayo Capital, for the locally-administered multi-funded LPP 2.5v.(1) (Formulaic) and STIP State Route 132 West Freeway/Expressway Phase II Project on State Route 99 and 132, in Stanislaus County. (EA 40352, PPNO 0944A) Resolution LPP-A-2526-06S Resolution FA-25-24 Page 14 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 TIRCP Supplemental Fund Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 104 Request for an additional $37,000 (0.8 percent 2.6g.(10) Brandy Fleming A D increase) for the CON phase of the TIRCP (2022:04) Dee Lam Sacramento Valley Station (SVS) Transit Center: Priority Projects (Sacramento Downtown Regional Bus Route Consolidation-5th Street Extension) component, in Sacramento County. (PPNO CP094) Resolution TIRCP-2526-23S (Related Item under Ref. 2.6g.(3)) 105 Request for an additional $906,000 (10.1 percent 2.6g.(11) Brandy Fleming A D increase) for the CON phase of the TIRCP (2023:22) Dee Lam Santa Cruz Zero Emission Intercity Transit Service Expansion Project (Hydrogen Fueling Station) component, in Santa Cruz County. (PPNO CP128A) Resolution TIRCP-2526-24S PROGRAM UPDATES State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 106 Director’s Orders Annual Close-out Report for Fiscal 4.11 Jon Pray I D Year 2024-25 Mauricio Serrano Active Transportation Program (ATP) Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 107 2023 Active Transportation Program Metropolitan 4.21 Anja Aulenbacher A C Planning Organization Component Amendment • Split the existing East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project Phase 1. • Add four project segments. Resolution G-25-61, Amending Resolution G-23-37 (Related Items under Ref. 4.12 and 4.13) Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 108 2022 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program 4.12 Naveen Habib A C Amendment • Split the existing East Bay Greenway Multimodal - North Segment Project Phase 1. • Add five project components. Resolution G-25-58, Amending Resolution G-24-55 (Related Items under Ref. 4.13 and 4.21) 109 Multi-funded Solutions for Congested Corridors 4.13 Naveen Habib A C Program and Active Transportation Program Baseline Agreement Amendment Resolution SCCP-P-2526-01BA, Amending Resolution SCCP-P-2324-03B Resolution ATP-P-2526-05B (Related Items under Ref. 4.12 and 4.21) Page 15 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Local Partnership Program (LPP) (Formulaic) Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 110 Local Partnership Formulaic Program Amendment 4.14 Kayla Giese A C • Program $168,000 in Supplemental Funds to the Santa Barbara US 101 Multimodal Corridor Project- Segment 4E North-Cabrillo Interchange in Santa Barbara County. • Add nine projects in various counties and program $17,543,000. Resolution LPP-P-2526-04, Amending Resolution LPP-P-2526-01 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 111 TCEP – Project Scope Amendment 2.1s.(1) Beverley Newman- A D The City of Oakland proposes to amend the TCEP Burckhard TOWN Rail Safety Improvements project, in Alameda Dee Lam County, to amend the scope. (PPNO 2090K) Resolution TCEP-P-2526-06 Proposition 1A High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Program Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 112 Proposition 1A High-Speed Passenger Train Bond 4.16 Brandy Fleming A C Program Amendment Resolution HST1A-P-2526-01 (Related Item under Ref. 2.6g.(8)) Local Streets and Roads Program (LSR) Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 113 Adoption of the FY 2025-26 Road Maintenance and 4.6 Celeste Almanza A C Rehabilitation Account Local Streets and Roads Funding Subsequent Report of Eligible Cities and County Resolution G-25-57 ALLOCATIONS Annual Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 114 Local Assistance (Federal) – Annual Allocation 2.5h. Kacey Moore- A D Request of $2,752,442,000 in Federal Funds for Local Gutierrez Assistance Annual Allocation for Fiscal Year 2025-26. Dee Lam Resolution FM-25-01 STIP Allocations Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 115 Request of $1,454,000 for the State-Administered South 2.5c.(1) Kacey Moore- A D Main Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Access project, on Gutierrez the State Highway System, in Mendocino County. James R. Anderson (PPNO 4593) Resolution FP-25-52 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5b.(1)) 116 Request of $10,000,000 for the locally-administered 2.5c.(2) Kacey Moore- A D STIP I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvement Gutierrez project, on the State Highway System, in Santa Clara James R. Anderson County. (PPNO 2091M) Resolution FP-25-50 117 Request of $2,901,000 for 10 locally-administered STIP 2.5c.(3) Kacey Moore- A D and Planning, Programming, and Monitoring projects, Gutierrez off the State Highway System. Dee Lam Resolution FP-25-51 Page 16 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 STIP Transit Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 118 Request of $2,500,000 for the locally-administered STIP 2.6a. Kacey Moore- A D Digital Bus Stop Signs Transit project, in Orange Gutierrez County. (PPNO 9660) Dee Lam Resolution MFP-25-02 SHOPP Allocations Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 119 Request $354,845,000 for 23 SHOPP projects. 2.5b.(1) Jon Pray A D Resolution FP-25-47 James R. Anderson (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.5b.(2), and 2.5c.(1)) 120 Request of $148,306,000 for 103 2024 SHOPP 2.5b.(2) Jon Pray A D preconstruction project phases for environmental James R. Anderson support, design, and R/W support. Resolution FP-25-48 (Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1), 2.2c.(1), 2.2c.(3), 2.2c.(6), 2.4a., 2.5b.(1), 2.5b.(3), and 4.18) SHOPP Right of Way Capital – Advance Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 121 Request of $13,977,000 for the Right of Way Capital 2.5b.(3) Jon Pray A D phase for the SHOPP Bridge Preservation project, on James R. Anderson State Route 1, in Mendocino County, programmed in Fiscal Year 2026-27. (PPNO 4490) Resolution FP-25-49 (Related Items under Ref. 2.2c.(3) and 2.5b.(2)) Local Alternative Transportation Improvement Program (LATIP) Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 122 Request of $461,000 for four locally-administered LATIP 2.5c.(6) Laurie Waters A D projects, off the State Highway System. Dee Lam Resolution FP-25-54 LPP (Formulaic) Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 123 Request of $2,500,000 for the locally-administered LPP 2.5s.(3) Kayla Giese A D (Formulaic) Bascom Complete Streets (I-880 to Dee Lam Hamilton Ave) project, off the State Highway System, in Santa Clara County. (PPNO 2364R) Resolution LPP-A-2526-07 LTCAP – Advance Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 124 Request of $450,000 for the locally-administered 2.5p.(3) Kat Kim A D LTCAP 14th Street Underpass Stormwater Pump Dee Lam Station Planning project, off the State Highway System, in Riverside County, programmed in Fiscal Year 2026-27. (PPNO 1345) Resolution LTCAP-A-2526-02 ATP Allocations Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 125 Request of $7,762,000 for nine locally-administered 2.5w.(1) Jaeden Gales A D ATP projects, off the State Highway System. Dee Lam Resolution FATP-2526-08 (Related Items under Ref. 2.2c.(2) and 4.10) 126 Request of $912,000 for the State-Administered ATP 2.5w.(2) Jaeden Gales A D Los Alamos Connected Community Project, on the James R. Anderson State Highway System, in Santa Barbara County. (PPNO 3111A) Resolution FATP-2526-09 Page 17 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 TIRCP Allocations Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 127 Request of $78,912,000 for 13 TIRCP projects. 2.6g.(1) Brandy Fleming A D Resolution TIRCP-2526-25 Dee Lam (Related Item under Ref. 2.6g.(4)) Multi-Funded TIRCP and Proposition 1A High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Program (HSPTBP) Transit Allocation Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 128 Request of $6,950,000 for the locally-administered 2.6g.(8) Brandy Fleming A D multi-funded TIRCP and Prop 1A HSPTBP (2024:02) Dee Lam Capitol Corridor Revamping Accessibility and Performance for the Corridor ID Program (Capitol Corridor RAPID Program) (Agnew Siding) Transit project, in Santa Clara County. (PPNO CP145A) Resolution TIRCP-2526-26 Resolution HST1A-A-2526-01 (Related Item under Ref. 4.16) TIME EXTENSION REQUESTS SHOPP Time Extensions Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 129 Request to extend the period of contract award for three 2.8b.(1) Ahmed Ghonim A D SHOPP projects, per SHOPP Guidelines. James R. Anderson Waiver 25-171 130 Request to extend the period of project completion for 2.8c.(1) Ahmed Ghonim A D nine SHOPP projects, per SHOPP Guidelines. James R. Anderson Waiver 25-172 (Related Item under Ref. 2.8c.(5)) 131 Request to extend the period of project development 2.8d.(1) Ahmed Ghonim A D expenditure for six SHOPP projects, per SHOPP James R. Anderson Guidelines. Waiver 25-173 Multi-Funded STIP and LPP (Formulaic and Competitive) Time Extension Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 132 Request to extend the period of project completion for 2.8c.(5) Leishara Ward A D the State-Administered multi-funded STIP and LPP James R. Anderson (Formulaic and Competitive) Interstate 680 Southbound Express Lane from State Route 84 to Alcosta Blvd project, on the State Highway System, in Alameda County, per STIP and LPP (Formulaic and Competitive) Guidelines. (PPNO 2905F) Waiver 25-189 (Related Item under Ref. 2.8c.(1)) LPP (Formulaic) Time Extensions Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 133 Request to extend the period of contract award for the 2.8b.(2) Kayla Giese A D locally-administered LPP (Formulaic) Lake Merritt UPS Dee Lam Replacement and Relocation Transit project, in Alameda County, per LPP (Formulaic) Guidelines. (PPNO 2364F) Waiver 25-174 (Related Item under Ref. 2.8b.(5)) Page 18 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 134 Request to extend the period of project completion for 2.8c.(2) Kayla Giese A D the locally-administered LPP (Formulaic) Santa Rosa Dee Lam Zero-Emission Battery Electric Bus Transit project, in Sonoma County, per LPP (Formulaic) Guidelines. (PPNO 0090F) Waiver 25-175 (Related Item under Ref. 2.6s.(5)) TCEP Time Extension Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 135 Request to extend the period of contract award for the 2.8b.(3) Kenneth Lopez A D locally-administered TCEP San Dieguito Double Track Dee Lam Phase 1 project, in San Diego County, per TCEP Guidelines. (PPNO LP003) Waiver 25-176 ATP Time Extensions Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 136 Request to extend the period of contract award for six 2.8b.(4) Jaeden Gales A D locally-administered ATP project, off the State Highway Dee Lam System, per ATP Guidelines. Waiver 25-177 137 Request to extend the period of project completion for 2.8c.(6) Jaeden Gales A D the locally-administered ATP Santa Ana River Trail - Dee Lam Phase III project, off the State Highway System, in San Bernardino County, per ATP Guidelines. (PPNO 1278) Waiver 25-190 TIRCP Time Extensions Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 138 Request to extend the period of contract award for the 2.8b.(5) Kat Kim A D TIRCP (2022:03) East Bay Transit-Oriented Dee Lam Development Mobility Enhancement Project (Lake Merritt UPS Relocation) component, in Alameda County, per TIRCP Allocation Policy. (PPNO CP099) Waiver 25-178 (Related Item under Ref. 2.8b.(2)) 139 Request to extend the period of contract award for the 2.8b.(6) Kat Kim A D TIRCP (2024:19) Harbor Bay Ferry Facility Electric Float Dee Lam and Infrastructure Project (Universal Charging Float) component, in Alameda County, per TIRCP Allocation Policy. (PPNO CP162) Waiver 25-179 TIME EXTENSION AMENDMENTS Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 140 Request to amend the period of project allocation for the 2.8v.(2) Ahmed Ghonim A D SHOPP Roadway Rehabilitation project, in Fresno James R. Anderson County, as an exception to the SHOPP Guidelines. (PPNO 6949) Waiver 25-183, Amending Waiver 25-43 141 Request to amend the period of contract award for the 2.8v.(8) Ahmed Ghonim A D SHOPP Mobility project, in Alameda County, as an James R. Anderson exception to the SHOPP Guidelines. (PPNO 2027J) Waiver 25-191, Amending Waiver 25-96 Page 19 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* 142 Request to amend the period of project completion for 2.8v.(7) Ahmed Ghonim A D the SHOPP Collision Reduction project, in Placer James R. Anderson County, as an exception to the SHOPP Guidelines. (PPNO 4785) Waiver 25-188, Amending Waiver 25-52 (Related Item under Ref. 2.5e.(5)) 143 Request to amend the period of project development 2.8v.(3) Ahmed Ghonim A D expenditure for two SHOPP projects, as an exception to James R. Anderson the SHOPP Guidelines. Waiver 25-184, Amending Waivers 24-128 and 25-53 144 Request to amend the period of project allocation for 2.8v.(4) Kenneth Lopez A D two State-Administered TCEP projects, off the State Dee Lam Highway System. Waiver 25-185, Amending Waiver 25-123 145 Request to amend the period of project completion for 2.8v.(5) Kenneth Lopez A D the locally-administered multi-funded TCEP, LPP James R. Anderson (Formulaic), STIP, and Prop 1B TCIF I-10 Corridor Express Lanes Contract 1 project, on the State Highway System, in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties. (PPNO 3009P) Waiver 25-186, Amending Waiver 24-37 146 Request to amend the period of contract award for two 2.8v.(6) Jaeden Gales A D locally-administered ATP projects, off the State Highway Dee Lam System, in Los Angeles County, per the Interim Timely Use of Funds Policy – 2024 and 2025 Southern California Fires. Waiver 25-187, Amending Waiver 24-110 and 24-157 147 Request to amend the period of project development 2.8v.(1) Jaeden Gales A D expenditure for the locally-administered ATP SRTS Dee Lam Panorama City Elementary School Project, off the State Highway System, in Los Angeles County, per the Interim Timely Use of Funds Policy – 2024 and 2025 Southern California Fires. (PPNO 5866) Waiver 25-182, Amending Waiver 24-71 OTHER MATTERS Tab Item Description Ref# Presenter Type* Agency* Public Comment 6 Darnell Grisby I C ADJOURN Page 20 CTC MEETING AGENDA October 16-17, 2025 Highway and Mass Transportation Financial Matters Program Current Meeting Final FY 2025-2026 Proposed Allocations Year to Date Total* (October 16-17, 2025) (Through September 30, 2025) SHOPP Allocations $1,943,949,000 $2,318,414,000 STIP Allocations $63,626,000 $118,942,000 LATIP Allocations $461,000 Senate Bill 1 Allocations $11,231,000 $279,189,000 Proposition 1B Allocations Proposition 1A Allocations $1,950,000 ATP Allocations $8,674,000 $22,441,000 LTCAP Allocations $450,000 TIRCP Allocations $84,855,000 $263,173,000 Short-Line Railroad Aeronautics Allocations Local Assistance Annual Allocation $2,752,442,000 Waterborne Ferry Program Grand Total: $4,867,638,000 $3,002,159,000 Total Jobs Created: 53,544 33,024 Total De-Allocations: $7,950,000 $17,429,000 *Year to Date Totals are based on the Fiscal Year the action was taken. Page 21

Attachments (1417)

Transcript

Warning: This transcript is automatically generated by machine and may contain errors, including misheard words, misattributed speakers, and omitted passages. Always listen to the audio or video recording before assuming the transcript correctly reflects what was said. Do not rely on the transcript alone for quotation, reporting, or any other purpose where accuracy matters.
All right. Good morning. We're going to get started. Thank you for joining us on day two.
I'm going to ask Justin to do the role and the instructions.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. Commissioner Bradshaw? Commissioner Cruz?
Commissioner Eager? Here. Commissioner Elliott? Vice Chair Falcone? Here. Commissioner Gardeno?
Commissioner Lugo, I'm here online.
Commissioner Mann, Commissioner Tiffany, Chair Grisby, present.
Senator Cortese, Assemblymember Wilson, Chair we have quorum.
Now for our webinar logistics welcome everyone to day two of the October 2025 CTC meeting
in Merced.
The meeting agenda is located on our website
at www.catc.ca.gov.
All the presentations for today's meeting are available,
are also available on the commission meetings page
of 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.catc.ca.gov.
We'll have them return 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 close captioning is also available.
Please select 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 translating services
adequate time for accurate translation.
you're presenting remotely.
We hope that you would turn 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.
Those attending in person,
please submit a speaker slip to the clerk
at the front of the room.
That's me right here.
Please do not use the drop box in the back.
You can bring them up front here.
For those attending via Zoom,
you should see the webinar control panel,
likely located on the bottom of your screen.
There you will find the raise hand and Q&A tabs.
I encourage you to use the raise hand feature
as early into the item as you can
to give the system time to acknowledge you.
Commission staff will let you know when it's your turn
to make your comment.
Alternately, you may use the Q&A tab to submit your comment.
Please be sure to include the agenda item number
you're commenting on.
Commission staff will read the comment on your behalf.
And as a reminder, each registered attendee
is provided a unique link and number to access the webinar
and they should not be shared with other participants
and this can create confusion for staff
when you're trying to make comments.
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.
Remember to speak at a steady pace
to allow our translating services adequate time
for accurate translation.
And since we often have many speakers,
we have to make your point in two minutes or less.
And if for some reason we have many speakers
on a single topic, we reserve the right
to limit comments to a minute if needed.
Thank you all for joining us today.
Thank you so much, Justin.
Now we're gonna move to item 70,
resolutions of necessity Tim. Good morning commissioners. There top 70 is an
action item. There are two resolutions of necessity under this item. The hearings
were requested by legal counsel who is representing both property owners bomb
wetlands and Los Cerritos wetlands due to impacts on their to their properties
from a bridge rehabilitation project on State Route 1 in Los Angeles County. The
The project will address nonstandard bridge drilling,
insufficient bridge width,
and provide adequate pedestrian infrastructure
and a class two bike lane.
Prior to presenting this item,
I wanted to note the commission received a letter
yesterday afternoon from legal counsel
representing the property owners,
and it has been distributed to the commissioners.
At this time, I'd like to ask if the property owners
or a representative are in attendance
or participating virtually.
I'm not seeing any hands raised virtually.
Okay, before hearing from Caltrans,
I'd like to briefly cover what will be discussed.
The BOM wetlands property is approximately 4.25 acres
and is currently making unimproved land.
The required area from this property is 1,508 square feet
for temporary construction easement
and 1,853 square feet for temporary access easement.
Below Cerritos, wetlands property is approximately 7.3 acres
and is currently in use as a flood control channel.
The required area from the Los Cerritos property
is 1,842 square feet for a temporary construction easement.
The requested temporary easements are necessary
to provide space for a temporary trestle
during construction and to support construction equipment
to drive piles into the riverbed
to support the bridge widening.
They also provide room for the contractor
to work around existing utilities.
Under eminent domain law, a property owner
properties under condemnation consideration, has a right to appear before the commission
to question three of the four findings that are required to be met for section 1245-230
of the Code of Civil Procedures prior to the commission adopting a resolution.
The three findings are, does public interest and necessity require the proposed project?
Is the project planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and lease private injury.
And is the property necessary for the proposed project.
The fourth finding requires an offer to acquire the property in
accordance with the government code.
Section 72 67.2 has been made to the property of made to the owner of record.
It is the commissioner commission's understanding the department provided
this offer on August 1st, 2024 for the bomb parcel and June 12th, 2024
for the low Cerritos parcel.
The commission neither determines the amount of compensation
for the property rights to be acquired,
nor deals with any other issue
other than the first three findings.
Code of civil procedures specifies eight affirmative votes
are needed for commission approval
of a resolution of necessity.
I'd like to ask again if the property owner
or the representatives are in the room or virtual.
I'm not seeing any hands raised online.
Thank you.
With the property owner not being here to participate
in the Ron hearing and the Caltrans responses
to contentions in the posted book item.
I recommend we skip the Caltrans presentation
on this item.
Agree to.
Thank you.
Since there are two Ron's under this individual item,
I would like to take separate votes for each parcel.
So I'll make my recommendations individually.
Commission staff has reviewed the proposed Ron
and concludes Caltrans has met the statutory requirements
and therefore recommends approval of the Ron
for the Bomb Wetlands parcel.
Second.
Motion by Cruz, seconded by Commissioner Eger.
Is there any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Unless there's any comments or questions from the dais,
is there all those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Thank you, Tim.
And we have one, we'll take the second parcel.
That's the second one, yes, thank you.
Commissioner Stapp has reviewed the proposed Ron
concludes Caltrans has met the statutory requirements
and therefore recommends approval for the Ron,
of the Ron for the Los Cerritos Wetlands parcel.
I'll make a motion to approve.
Second.
So moved by Tiffany, seconded by Bradshaw.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
All right, thank you, Tim.
Now we're on to item 71.
Cherry.
App 71 is an action item to accept the environmental
document and approve future consideration of funding
for the Albion River Bridge Project in Mendocino 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.
Thanks so much.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the DICE?
Is there a motion?
So moved by Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Thank you.
Item 72 is also cherry.
PAB 72 is an action item to accept
the environmental document
and approve future consideration of funding
for the I Street bridge replacement project
in the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento.
The lead agency 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 so much.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the guys?
I just wanna say it's a great project.
I've been working on this for a long time indirectly.
High Street Bridge we've been talking about,
it connects West Sac and in Sacramento.
So I wanna make a motion to approve.
Great.
Okay.
I'd like to help you.
Yeah, exactly, it's important bridge.
So moved by Cruz, seconded by Eager.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Seconded.
Motion passes.
Item 73, also Sherry.
HAB 73 is an action item to accept
the environmental document
and approve future consideration of funding
for the scenic route 68 corridor improvements project
in Monterrey County.
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, any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the dice?
Yeah, I would just say that this is a road I drive often,
and this is, I think, a very good project,
and I would make a motion to approve.
All right, so moved by Tiffany,
seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Item 74, Cherry.
Ab 74 is an action item to accept
the environmental document
and approve future consideration of funding
for the California State Route 39,
San Gabriel Canyon Road reopening project in LA County.
Caltrans adopted an environmental impact report
and findings for this project,
finding that impacts would be less than significant
with the implementation of mitigation measures.
staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval.
All right, thank you, Chair.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments, Madias or motion?
Motion to approve.
So moved by Commissioner Bradshaw, is there a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany, all those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Item 75, Chair.
HAB 75 is an action item to accept the environmental
document and approve future consideration of funding
for the 7th Street Bridge Replacement Project
in Stanislaus County.
Stanislaus County 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.
All right, thank you.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions, comments, or a motion from the dice?
So moved by Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Thank you, Chair.
Now we're moving on to item 76, Tim.
Commissioners, tab 76 is an information item.
Pursuant to government code section 14-526.6,
Caltrans is required to report to the commission quarterly
for projects which complete construction
in the previous quarter for all major shop projects.
The report also provides an update on project milestones
to show how well Caltrans is meeting its commitments
to deliver projects funded out of the STIP, shop
and locally funded programs
where Caltrans is the implementing agency.
Sujaya Kalanissen, and I can,
I'm happy to say that I can change the title
to remove the word acting.
Caltrans Division Chief of Project Management
is here to provide a presentation
on the Fourth Quarter Project Delivery Report
for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Crispy, commissioners,
Chief W. Goloswisski, and transportation partners.
My name is Sujaya Kalainiessen,
and I'm the Division Chief
for the Division of Project Management.
Today, I will be presenting a brief overview
of the Project Delivery Report
for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2425.
I will also talk about some of the continuous improvements
we're making to strengthen our project delivery.
And I will provide you a brief snapshot
of how we're doing in the current quarter
of the current fiscal year.
Next slide please.
This slide gives you a good snapshot
of how we ended the fiscal year 2024-25.
We achieved 83% delivery.
We planned 250 projects to be delivered in the fiscal year
and we delivered 207 of them.
In the past you'd asked about carryover projects
and that we consider it.
This 250 includes the carryover projects.
And the 83% is the delivery rate considering projects
carried over from several previous fiscal years.
43 of those projects were impacted as in they were either
on part to be potentially reprogrammed in a future year
or we're working on them through time extensions.
I also want to point out that 88 of those projects were delivered in June, and the reason
I'm pointing that out is in the past we've had questions about is it realistic to expect
a large part of the portfolio to be delivered in the last quarter. That trend has been consistent
over the years, and we did manage to deliver most of it in the last quarter. Also, I want to point
out that 40% of our portfolio had significant risk to them. I had highlighted the complex and the
and the multiple risks on several projects,
but we were able to work through them.
Thanks to just the incredible diligence,
hardworking project delivery teams,
the advice from the commission and the commission staff,
we were able to move forward and reach 83% delivery.
Now you will see another number
in the fourth quarter project delivery report,
which is 86% delivery.
That number does not consider the carryover projects.
So 83 would be the comprehensive delivery percentage.
Next slide please, okay.
Here are some percentages on the milestones
that we achieved throughout the project delivery process.
As you can see there on the percentage completed column,
we've on an average achieved somewhere around 85% completion
across all milestones.
And that is very consistent with the last five year average
which is shown in the last column.
I do want to point out that row five there
which shows the capital value ready for allocation.
We've achieved 92% in the last fiscal year,
which is significantly higher
than the previous several fiscal years.
The dollar value that we delivered versus planned
was at 4.4 billion compared to the 4.8 billion plan.
Next slide, please.
We're digging deeper into that five-year trend data
that I shared in the previous slide.
The graph there on top shows the annual commitment
percentage achieved for the Capital Dollar Value Plant.
Again, like I said, we achieved 92% of the planned capital
value, which is at $4.4 billion.
And the graph below shows how many projects
we completed in construction.
And that, again, has been significantly higher
the last fiscal year than the previous fiscal years.
We achieved 214 projects completed in construction.
And that's 80%, which is much higher
than the previous two fiscal years.
This slide shows construction costs six months
after a project completed construction.
And we've laid out the STIP and SHOP dollars there.
We're showing the savings that we achieved
comparing the planned budget versus expended dollars.
Again, this is very consistent with a five year trend,
87% versus 88% average.
Next slide, please.
And now I wanna talk about
some of the continuous improvements we're doing
to strengthen our project delivery.
When I presented the last fiscal year,
there were a lot of questions on
how are you managing your delivery?
I highlighted a lot of the risks,
which some of them were typical,
some of them were more complex.
And you wanted to know what we were doing currently
and what we were doing in addition to those
in order to achieve some of those risk mitigation.
So I outlined a lot of the delivery forums that we had,
the discussions and the collaborative meetings we have,
but we've added several other new initiatives
to our delivery process.
One of them is the HIDIS workshop.
Because we bucketed so many risk types last fiscal year,
we wanted to look deeper into how those re-surgeonated
and how can we better mitigate them.
So we called our leadership team
and we had a half a data workshop
where we looked into each of the risk area.
The goal was to identify some low hanging fruit
for quick action, as well as revisit
some of the more complex topics in the future
to find better solutions for them.
And I'll cover a little bit more of it in the next slides.
The next thing we did was project delivery training.
I had also pointed out in the past
that we had a lot of new staff
and they're figuring out the project delivery process
and not all of them had completed a very complex project.
That impacted some of the risks on our project.
So our project delivery training
will be this boot camp or crash course,
which brings subject matter experts
across the different areas of expertise in Caltrans
and it offers a quick training
for anybody that's taking on a project
delivery responsibility, relatively new.
The next item we're doing
is project delivery team meeting guidance.
PDT meetings or the project delivery team meetings
are a key mechanism for how we manage our project
on a day-to-day basis.
And we see a lot of value in providing some tools
for effectively managing that meeting.
So we're putting out new guidance for it.
And of course, we're doing a lot of streamlined reporting
tracking and we're focusing on early design so we identify our risks early in the face of the
project. Next slide please. This slide shows the risk workshop that we did this was in Oakland and
the pictures there are from the the real workshop. The deputies and the assistant deputies of the
various project delivery divisions met. The division chiefs were there and we looked at
the key risk areas like right away, utility agreement, various other scope related changes,
engagement, complete streets, all the different complexities that we faced in the portfolio last
year. So we bucketed them into five risk types and we looked at it. And I've laid out the risk areas
there. We had a really good discussion and we came up with some action items for the next 90 days.
We're also going to have a lot of collaborative project management board meetings with the other
the project delivery divisions,
so that should help address our better.
Next slide please.
This is again, the picture there is
from the mock workshop we did.
We put together new training content
for our new PMs and PEs.
This is very unique in terms of training
because it's a hands-on workshop.
It's a laptop, cell phone free workshop
where project managers and project engineers
can collaborate and discuss project issues.
It also has a curated menu of project delivery content
where every team can focus on the typical project
delivery issues that they face
and could be unique from one project to another.
And the menu delivers their need.
So it's quite a unique way of training staff
and we've just developed this.
We did a mock of it and we received some great feedback.
We're going to be rolling that out
to all the districts shortly.
Next slide please.
Okay, now for the current fiscal year, 25-26,
we have 228 projects in our CFT.
138 of those projects have some level of risk identified,
whether it's low, medium or high.
About 90 of them, we say no risk.
They don't necessarily not have risks,
but it's typical risk that we think we can manage.
The total capital dollar plan is 5.8 billion.
That includes multiple fund sources.
Next slide, please.
In terms of delivery, we also pointed out in the previous discussions that we will try and hold our teams to quarterly delivery to try and achieve milestones sooner in the fiscal year.
We are trying to do that this fiscal year. As you can see there, our draft environmental document is at 16% completed at the end of first quarter.
Ideally, it could be 25% but our project milestones never align themselves such that most of them
are in the first quarter, they are in the later quarters.
So given that, I think the 16% is a really good delivery percent.
And you can see about the same percentage across the different milestones.
So I think we're doing pretty good for the first quarter.
I think that's about the end of my presentation.
Thank you.
I can take any questions.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate that.
Let's go to public comment first.
There is no public comment.
All right. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the guys? I see Commissioner Tiffany.
Yes. Thank you, Chair. So Jaya, first of all, congratulations on no longer being acting.
As you referenced in your presentation, we really appreciate progress that you've made
over the last year. I know that a lot of us up here have talked about lessons learned
and getting that spread across all districts.
And it looks like with the training statewide training,
you're having some impact in that area.
So anyway, I just wanna say thank you for listening
and we appreciate your efforts
to move us in a positive direction.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
That's the Vice Chair, co-con.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So Jayant, congratulations.
No wonder you were in such a good mood yesterday
When I said, um, and this is, this is really great, um, trending.
Um, well, you know, Basque.
This is the interpreter.
I can't hear anything.
Can anybody hear me?
I briefly pointed out that we have, uh, management goals.
This is all the same districts.
The various challenges, taking it even up at this meeting that every other people, that helps daylight a lot of. We're having our project with guidance staff that are placed very closely. So we identify and then speak this issues way sooner. We're looking at.
Can you hold on another minute, we're having some audio issues.
Should I start over?
It's a great question to be stuck on.
I can brag about all the great things for you.
All right, so to begin with, I think
we're improving the amount of collaboration
across the districts just discussing
project delivery issues.
Like I pointed out, the project management board
is one that we bring district leadership into,
and we talk about project issues.
Now we're doing it collaboratively
with other project delivery divisions.
And this will specifically target those risk buckets that I pointed out.
We're also looking at, you know, early engagement.
I pointed out to the early design.
We also talked about AB 1282 in the past.
So we're continuing to work on all those areas.
We're looking at efficiencies across our project delivery process.
You saw the Gen AI presentation yesterday.
We're looking at ways in which we can make our workload efficient so we can focus more
on strategic thinking and we're exploring tools and how we can improve our project delivery
by using new and innovative tools.
So there are tons of things we're doing.
I will keep updating you as we achieve success
with those measures.
Thank you, Sujaya, and congratulations
from moving from acting to permanent is so well-deserved.
And this is really exciting to hear this update.
Keep going and keep us posted.
Thank you.
Yeah, congrats.
Thank you.
Great.
Any other questions or comments from the desk?
Mr. Keck.
Thank you, I think this is a good opportunity
to tie in with Sujaya's discussion.
He talked about the really great delivery
we had last year after some fumbles,
I think in the year before.
Appreciate the commission's focus on that.
Very much appreciate Sujaya's focus on that.
She talked about the really tremendous dollar value
of projects that were delivered last year.
And also that many of them were delivered
and allocated in the last month of the year in June.
actually most of them were delivered in June
and a great deal of them were allocated
very early this year.
We saw really large shop allocations
in the first meeting and again today.
And that creates a little bit of a problem
that we haven't seen in quite some time.
And what was really happening is despite the fact
that the allocation capacity for the current year
is exactly in line with the 2024 fund estimate
in the very recently adopted 26 fund estimate.
The fact that so many projects have voted this year
puts us a little bit out of sync.
So the allocation capacity target
is kind of a moving target.
It often increases throughout the year.
We've already increased it, I think 111 million,
as Keith mentioned yesterday,
because of August redistribution.
We're receiving bid savings
at a very significant rate this year.
I think we're up to 156 million already in G12 savings
this just in the first quarter,
which is much greater than what we normally see.
I mean, it's gonna depend on
if this fitting environment continues
and also what kind of emergencies we see here.
So I wanna put the commission just sort of on notice
that we have formed an executive team
to look at the tightness and capacity this year.
we're developing a plan to deal with that and also to make sure this doesn't become an
ongoing rolling problem. So we're looking at a short-term fix and a long-term fix for this.
We'll be reporting that in future meetings but I think this is a really great touch point so
that nobody's surprised when we start talking about it. All right thank you so much that's
very helpful. Any other questions or comments for this? This is Tiffany. I assume you're
you're referring to, if I recall, is 51%
for the shop through August.
And so that's the point, specifically your-
Absolutely, yes.
Yeah, yeah.
And I think yesterday was the commissioner eager
to ask the question about total capacity.
So Keith was thinking, and we talked to him last night,
total capacity includes all the other programs.
So I wanted to make sure that you're aware
that we absolutely keeping an eye on shop capacity.
But in total with all the different programs,
we probably will hit about 80%.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Hearing no other questions or comments,
thank you for your presentations.
Congratulations to you and your team
and congrats on being permanent.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now we're on to item 77.
Lori.
Morning commissioners.
Tab 77 is an action item requesting an allocation
of 50,935,000 for the Shellsier Expressway project
in Fresno and Kings counties.
This amount includes both state transportation
improvement program and local partnership program
formulaic fund.
The increase, which is approximately 14 million,
represents a 43.1% increase over the originally
programmed amount and a split between the STIPs regional
and inner regional shares.
The cost increase is primarily due to design refinements,
including the addition of right turn lanes
and a sound wall for environmental mitigation,
which increased excavation and material needs.
Adjustments to drainage systems
and the installation of temporary signals
at intersections further contributed to higher costs.
Rising material prices,
particular layer for hot mix asphalt
and structural materials also contributed to the increase.
Local agencies are contributing an additional 15 million,
15 million, 273 million to support the increase.
Staff recommends your approval.
Thank you, Lori.
Let's go to public comment first.
There's no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'd like to recognize Michelle Eagle.
Thank you.
And I'll try not to cry
when I get through this one.
Yeah.
So about five years ago,
I got a call from a local elected official and said,
there's a woman that would like to meet with you.
She saw in the newspaper that you got appointed to the CTC
and she needs to tell you a story.
So Diana Gomez and I went to go meet with her,
her brother-in-law had just been killed on this road,
maybe three weeks before.
And she said, I'm the 20th person I know
whose family members have been killed on this road.
This particular section has been in the queue
for over 20 years and never made it to the top.
And this is an area where you go from Fresno
to Lamor Naval Air Station,
out to the Central Coast or vice versa.
And it goes from four lanes to two
and then back to four in a short period of time.
And there's a lot of trucks that go back and forth
and people going back and forth.
And you can't see when that truck's coming
around that corner.
And so we went and met on that corner.
And 20 family members came out.
And all of them had had people who had died on that stretch.
And Diana and I promised them that we'd get to this day.
So I'm sorry, Diana, it's not here.
But if those family members are on the line,
and I know they said they would be listening,
we hope this gives you some sort of peace
that you fought the good fight.
And you never gave up this entire five years.
So with this, I'd like to make a motion.
All right, thank you, commissioner.
Much appreciated.
I have seconded by commissioner Fulk on.
I'll pause to see if there's any questions or comments.
Hearing none.
All those in favor.
Closed.
Censions.
Motion passes.
Thank you.
Do we like to be recognized for something?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If it pleases the chair and the commission,
Leanne, perhaps you can close today's meeting
in memory of those who have lost their lives on this.
Okay, that'd be great, thank you.
All right, let's move on to items 78 through 92, Tim.
Commissioners, I'll be taking tabs 78 through 92
with a recommendation at the end.
Please note changes to tabs 81 and 83
as identified on the change list.
Tabs 78 through 92 are all action items for shop projects
with at least one phase requesting initial allocations
that exceed the program amount by more than 20%.
These projects include many different types of projects including major damage, roadway
rehabilitation, bridge rehabilitation and replacement, ADA, drainage system restoration
and safety improvements.
Four of the projects being considered are utilizing the construction manager general
contractor or CMGC delivery method.
These allocations total approximately $1.27 billion, which includes an amount of approximately
$226 million over the program amount for those phases.
Staff has reviewed the projects and the book items
for tabs 78 through 92 and recommends approval.
All right, thank you, Tim.
Let's move to public comment first.
Thank you.
We do have public comment.
I'd like to first call on Michael Brownrigg.
Please unmute yourself to begin your comment.
Michael Brownrigg, please.
Yes, yes, thank you.
Sorry, I was struggling to find the mic.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners.
I'm Michael Brownrigg, Vice Mayor of Burlingame
and a Burlingame Council member since 2009.
I appreciate your time.
For over 40 years, this highway 82 through Burlingame,
which we all know is El Camino Real,
has been one of the most dangerous stretches of highway
in the Bay Area.
Trees impinge on the highway.
They crack curbs, creating potholes,
leaning over the highway
from failing private retaining walls.
Children cross El Camino Real to get to our public schools,
mostly at crosswalks, but not always running a gauntlet
speeding cars and distracted drivers and the sidewalks in a many places look like scenes
after a major earthquake with lifted concrete, narrow walkways, and uneven footing. It's
a miracle there haven't been more pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist accidents and deaths.
That said, it's also one of El Camino's most iconic and beautiful stretches. Only four
lanes wide and largely without strip malls or commerce with a historic grove of stately
eucalyptus lining the highway. It's beautiful and that means a lot to our city.
For decades, our city has battled Caltrans on how best to address this failing highway.
Passionate citizens insisted that the state fix the road, but preserve all the trees,
and Caltrans resisted saying that fixing the road but not addressing the trees wouldn't
be a long-term fix worthy of public funding and impasse ruled for decades.
Eight years ago as Vice Mayor, I helped convene a task force to find a resolution working
hard for over two years, Burlingame residents, including members of our historic preservation
Committee and Caltrans met in mediated sessions to develop a solution that would safeguard
the character of Burlingame while making the highway much safer.
That compromise, literally years in the making, is a testament to the way politics and policy
should be made.
And it's what you see before you today, and we're grateful to Caltrans staff for leaning
into this process.
I urge you to support this significant and historic investment.
The compromise will create a much safer highway
for motorists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities,
which we owe them,
while also preserving the tree line character
that distinguishes the stretch of highway 82.
Please vote yes.
Thank you so much council member.
Next I'd like to call on Peter Stevenson.
Please unmute yourself to begin your comment.
Thank you.
And Chair Grigsby and commissioners, thank you for your time.
My colleague and friend and vice mayor, Mr. Brownrigg,
articulated very elegantly the situation
we're facing with this corridor through our city.
It's a vital corridor for San Mateo County overall.
And just wanna add my voice of support.
This has been a corridor that's been suffering
from deferred maintenance for more than four decades.
It becomes a lake during the winters
with reoccurring flooding conditions.
It's one of the highest high-injury network roadways
in our city, let alone in the county.
But we'll also bring very, very important
and substantial benefits,
not only improve pavement conditions,
address this reoccurring flooding,
but also enhance the safety and accessibility
for all users with upgrades
to the pedestrian infrastructure.
I urge you to vote yes.
We've been working very closely with Caltrans
as the vice mayor indicated for more than a decade.
We've been very careful with all the planning
and the opportunity and just wanna thank Caltrans
for all of the collaboration over this past decade.
I urge you to vote yes, thank you.
Thank you, that is all for public comment.
All right, thank you so much.
Any public comments or any comments or questions
from the DICE?
Seeing none, is there a motion?
So moved.
So moved by Commissioner Bradshaw, is there a second?
Second by Commissioner Cruz, all those in favor?
Opposed, abstentions, motion passes.
Tabs 93 through 102, Tim.
Thank you, commissioners.
I'll be taking tabs 93 through 102
with a recommendation at the end.
Please note changes to tab 93
as identified on the change list.
Tabs 93 through 95 are all supplemental fund
allocation requests for capital outlay support phases
for three projects including culvert rehabilitation
and fish passage, bridge rehabilitation and replacement
and a maintenance facility project.
Tab 96 through 102 are all supplemental fund allocations
for shop projects to complete construction.
These projects include major damage, pavement preservation,
safety improvements, transportation management systems,
and a maintenance facility.
These allocations total approximately $9.4 million
over the previously allocated amounts for these phases.
These increases do not account for any prior supplemental
or delegated G12 funding already received for these phases.
Before giving my recommendation for these items,
I'd like to summarize the total shop increases.
The total increases related to initial allocations
that exceed the program amount by 20%
and supplemental fund requests from the shop
at the October CTC meeting is approximately $236 million.
Cumulatively for the 25-26 fiscal year,
the total increases from the shop
through these projects with initial allocations
that exceed the program amount by 20%
and supplemental fund requests
is approximately $360 million.
Staff has reviewed the projects and book items
for tabs 93 through 102 and recommends approval.
All right, thank you, Tim.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion passes.
Now we're on to item 103, Kayla.
Good morning commissioners.
Tab 103 is an allocation request
for an additional $4,567,000
in local partnership formulaic program funds
for the right-of-way phase of the state route
132 West Freeway Expressway phase two project
in Stanislaus County.
This supplemental amount was programmed
and approved at the August 2025 commission meeting.
This action will result in a total of $7,784,000
in formulaic program funds
on the right of way phase of this project.
The additional funds will be used
for right of way acquisition.
And once the project is complete,
it will improve safety for all users,
reduce congestion and delays
and increase resiliency of the route.
Staff recommends approval of this request.
Thank you.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
Motion approved.
So moved by Bradshaw, is there a second?
Seconded by Vice Chair Falcone.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Now we're taking tabs 104 and 105, Brandy.
Good morning, commissioners.
I will present tabs 104 and 105 together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 104 is an action item requesting 37,000
and supplemental funds for the construction phase
of the Transit and Inner City Rail Capital Program Project,
Sacramento Valley Station,
Transit Center Priority Projects,
Sacramento Downtown Regional Bus Route Consolidation,
Fifth Street Extension in Sacramento County.
Tab 105 is an action item requesting $906,000
and supplemental funds for the construction phase
of the Transit and Inner City Rail Capital Program,
Santa Cruz Zero Admissions,
Inner City Transit Service Expansion Project,
Hydrogen Fueling Station Component in Santa Cruz County.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and finds them consistent with the program's
allocation policy and program update.
Staff recommends approval of tabs 104 and 105.
All right, thank you, Brandy.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions, comments, or a motion from the dais.
So moved by Commissioner Cruz.
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion's approved.
Now we're moving on to item 106, John.
Hi commissioners, tab 106 is an information item.
Reporting on allocations made by Caltrans
for emergency projects in the 24-25 fiscal year.
The commission has delegated the authority to Caltrans
to allocate funds for emergency projects
and resolution G2111.
And that resolution also requires Caltrans
to provide an annual report
at the completion of the fiscal year,
reporting on all the allocations they made in that prior year.
At the close of the 24-25 fiscal year,
Caltrans approved approximately $857 million
in construction contracts on 231 projects
from the shop major damage reservation.
857 million is a little lower than the past couple years,
but still trending higher than our previous five
or 10 year averages.
Weather winter storms are always a big factor.
And then it's for other things like fire,
theft, vandalism, stuff like that.
Caltrans does report on and staff reviews
every single one of the projects
that uses this delegation as they come in
throughout the year.
We do get some federal grants and reimbursements
to offset some of these costs through things like FEMA
and federal emergency relief funds,
but those grants and reimbursements come in future years,
depending on eligibility of improvements
and availability of funds.
In fiscal year 2425, Caltrans received
approximately $300 million in federal emergency relief funds.
As a reminder, this is an information item.
There's no action required.
I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Okay, thank you, John.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, any questions or comments from the DICE?
Hearing none, thank you, John.
Moving on to item 107, Anya.
Commissioners, tab 107 is an action item
to amend the 2023 active transportation program
metropolitan planning organization component.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission
has requested approval to segment
the East Bay Greenway Multimodal Project, phase one.
Tab 109 on this agenda requests the Commission's approval
of a baseline agreement amendment for this project.
Staff has reviewed the request
and recommends your approval of tab 107.
Thank you, Anya.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions or comments from the Dias or in motion?
If I move by Vice Chair Falcom,
seconded by Commissioner Eger.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving on to TABs 108 and 109, Naveen.
Good morning commissioners.
TABs 108 and 109 are action items
that will be voted together.
TAB 108 is an amendment to the 2022 solutions
for congested corridors program
as provided in the book item.
TAB 109 is an amendment to the multi-funded
East Bay Greenway multimodal North segment project phase one
baseline agreement approved by the commission
in December, 2023.
This project was programmed in the 2022 solutions
for congested corridors program
and the 2023 active transportation program.
The approval of tabs 107 and 108 necessitate an amendment
to the original baseline agreement.
These requests are consistent with program guidelines.
Therefore staff recommends your approval
of tabs 108 and 109.
Thank you.
If any public comment.
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions, comments, or a motion from the DICE?
Motion to approve by commissioner Bradshaw,
seconded by commissioner Tiffany.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Chair, just a quick reminder to all our speakers,
if they could slow down a bit on their pace of talking,
so our translating services can keep up.
All right, that sounds great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Much appreciated.
Item 110 is next.
Sheila?
Commissioners, tab 110 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.
First, program $168,000 in supplemental funds
to the Santa Barbara US 101 multimodal corridor project,
segment 4E North Cabrillo Interchange
in Santa Barbara County,
to the construction phase in fiscal year 2526.
This addition of supplemental funds results
in a total of $2,679,000 in 2024 formulaic funds
on this project phase.
The supplemental funds will reduce a portion
of local funds that are committed to the project,
which is allowable in the program.
The project will construct high occupancy vehicle lanes
to help reduce congestion and delays,
improve goods movement,
and provide a more efficient alternative route
for North-South connectivity.
And add nine new projects in Contra Costa, San Francisco,
Marin, Sonoma, and Sacramento counties,
and program a total of $17,543,000
in 2022 and 2024 formulaic funds
to various phases in fiscal years 25-26 and 26-27.
These nine projects will provide benefits
such as enhanced pavement conditions,
bridge preservation, transit safety improvements
and pedestrian and active transportation improvements.
More detailed descriptions of each project
can be found in the corresponding book item.
This action leaves $28,480,000 of 2022
formulaic program funding available
for programming through June 30th, 2026
and $89,172,000 of 2024 formulate program funding
available for programming through June 30th, 2028.
Staff recommends approval of this item.
All right, thank you so much.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Commissioner Tiffany, is there a second?
So seconded by Commissioner Eger.
All those in favor?
Opposed, abstentions, motion is approved.
Moving on to item 111, Beverly.
Commissioners, tab 111 is a scope amendment request
for the city of Oakland
town rail safety improvements project in Alameda County.
The project was programmed with $30,200,000
in trade corridor enhancement program funds
and proposes improvements to an overweight vehicle corridor
and three at-grade crossings.
The city of Oakland is proposing to remove
the original three at-grade crossings from the scope
because it needs more time to work
with Union Pacific Railroad on these crossings
and will not be able to allocate
Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funds
by the extended June 30th, 2026 deadline.
Instead, the city is proposing improvements
to two alternate at-grade crossings
along the same half-mile segment of Embarcadero West,
both of which have already received
design package approval from Union Pacific Railroad.
The city will deliver these three original crossings
through the larger Embarcadero West project
with Assembly Bill 128 funds, which are already committed.
The city estimates that these improvements
will be completed by December, 2029,
which aligns with the expected
Trade Corridor Enhancement Program completion date
originally programmed. The City and Union Pacific Railroad have submitted letters committing
to delivering improvements to both the original and proposed alternate crossings. Although the
revised Trade Corridor Enhancement Program scope includes fewer crossings, it targets locations
with higher injury and fatality rates and incorporates enhanced safety features, resulting
in greater overall safety benefits than the original programmed scope. Staff has reviewed
this request and recommends approval. Thank you Beverly. Is there any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you. Thank you. Questions, comments, or a motion from the dais?
So moved by Vice Chair Falkheim. Seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion is approved. Moving to item 112, Brandy.
Good morning commissioners tab 112 is an action item to approve a program amendment
for the proposition 1a high-speed passenger train bond program. The capital corridor
joint powers authority requests to add the capital corridor revamping accessibility and performance
for the corridor id program capital corridor rapid program big new sighting sorry we weren't
project in Santa Clara County and program one million nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars in deallocated project cost savings to the construction phase in fiscal year twenty five twenty six the new citing component project will reduce train delays caused by conflicting train movements and congestion near the great American station and the junction of two main lines at control point coast.
These delays result from a single track operation,
station activity, and converting rail traffic
at Control Point Coast.
By mitigating these delays,
the project will increase ridership
and enhance service reliability.
Additionally, the siting will support
increased train operations during special events
at Levi's Stadium.
As a result, the project will contribute to the reduction
in vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions,
and other air pollutants.
There is a concurrent allocation on the agenda.
Staff has reviewed this request
and recommends approval of tab 112.
Thank you so much.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, any questions, comments, or a motion?
I'm happy to make that motion.
Second.
Thank you.
So moved by Commissioner Gardino.
Seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving to item 113, Celeste.
Good morning commissioners, tab 113 is an action item
to adopt the fiscal year, fiscal year 2526,
road maintenance and rehabilitation account
subsequent report of eligible cities and counties.
For jurisdictions to be included in the fiscal year 2526
subsequent eligibility report,
jurisdictions must adopt by resolution,
a list of projects expected to be funded
with the fiscal year program funds
for which eligibility is sought.
The list and resolution must be received by the commission
no later than September 30th, 2025.
The commission adopted the initial eligibility report
at the August commission meeting,
at which time 525 out of the 540 jurisdictions
were deemed eligible.
Commission staff confirmed that the 14 remaining cities
in one county identified an attachment B intended
to seek subsequent funding eligibility
on or by September 30th.
We have since received adopted resolutions
from the remaining jurisdictions
and confirmed each of their subsequent eligibility.
The commission must adopt
and submit the subsequent report of eligible cities
to Ann County to the controller on or by October 30th, 2025.
Eligible agencies will begin receiving monthly disbursements
from the controller in November.
This marks the seventh cycle,
which 100% funding eligibility has been obtained.
So staff would like to acknowledge the ongoing effort
and partnership of the jurisdictions
and the regional transportation planning agencies,
helping us maintain 100% eligibility each year.
Staff recommends the commission adopt the fiscal year 2526,
road maintenance and rehabilitation account,
local streets and roads funding subsequent report
of eligible cities and county
as provided in attachment B and direct staff
to transmit the list of eligible jurisdictions
to the state controller.
Are there any questions?
Thank you, Celeste.
Is there any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, any questions, comments,
or a motion from the DICE?
Commissioner Tiffany.
Yeah, I just wanted to congratulate Celeste
and her team for again, 100%, two years in a row.
So congratulations, and I'll make a motion to approve.
Okay, so moved by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by Vice Chair Falkkorn.
Any other questions or comments for the day?
There is, let's move to vote.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving to items,
tab 114 through 118, Lori.
Commissioners, tabs 114 through 118 will be voted together.
Tab 114 is an action I'm requesting the departments
annual allocation of federal funds
totaling 2,752,442,000 for fiscal year 2526.
The department's division of local assistance
administers the subvention budget
under the delegated authority from the commission.
This request is consistent with the budget act of 2025.
And then tabs 115 through 118,
Those are for state transportation
improvement program project allocations
as outlined on the agenda.
And these are consistent with the STIP's guidelines.
Staff recommend your approval of tabs 114 through 118.
All right, thank you, Lori.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
So moved by Commissioner Cruz.
Seconded by Commissioner Eger.
All those in favor?
Aye.
closed extensions motion is approved.
Never taking tabs 119 through 121, John.
Yes, tabs 119 through 121 are all action items
for shop allocations.
And so we'll take all of them together.
Tab 119 is an action item
for shop construction allocations.
There's one small change on the change list.
And with that change, this item will allocate
$354,845,000 for 23 shop projects.
I sometimes like to highlight some of the improvements
that that will make.
These 23 projects will improve three bridges,
59 lane miles of pavement,
122 transportation management system elements.
That's things like digital signs and cameras and stuff.
And in addition to all that,
there's a lot of non-primary asset improvements
that these projects will be making.
Okay, so then tab 120 is an action item
for shop pre-construction allocations.
There are a couple of changes on the change list
and then one additional change
that we need to make prior to taking action.
This additional change is that Caltrans has withdrawn
their requests for project number five,
identified by EA03-0J910 or PPNO 03-8385.
This is the same Sutter County safety project
that was withdrawn from the shop amendments under tab 69.
With that change and the other changes
that are already noted on the change list,
this item will allocate 145,601,000
dollars for 99 shop pre-construction phases for environmental design and
right-of-way. And then tab 121 is an action item to allocate $13,977,000
for the right-of-way capital phase for the Albion River Bridge project. Most
right-of-way capital allocations are delegated to Caltrans under the
right away annual allocation.
However, right away capital allocations
greater than $10 million are required to come
to the commission for individual approval.
This allocation will fund right away acquisitions,
utility relocations and environmental mitigation obligations
for the bridge replacement project.
So with that staff recommends approval of tabs 119, 120,
and 121.
All right, thank you, John.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there a motion?
Question?
Pardon me.
Any questions, comments or a motion for the DICE?
Motion approved.
So moved by Commissioner Bradshaw.
Do you have a question or a second?
Seconded by Commissioner Eager.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Now we're moving on to item 122.
Lori.
Lori.
Commissioners, tab 122 is an allocation request
of 461,000 for four locally administered
local alternative transportation improvement
program projects off the state highway.
This allocation request is consistent with the program
and staff recommends your approval.
All right, thank you, Lori.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, a question, comment, or a motion from the DICE.
So I move by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Now we're going to item 123, Caleb.
Commissioners, tab 123 is an allocation to action request
for $2,500,000 in local partnership,
formulaic program funds for the Bascom Complete Streets
project in Santa Clara County.
The project will construct community identified
complete streets and safety improvements
on a three mile stretch of Bascom Avenue.
Staff has reviewed this request
and found it to be consistent with program guidelines.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of tab 123.
All right, thank you.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
All right, motion, questions or comment from the dais?
A motion to approve.
Garden, Gordino.
Moved by Commissioner Cardino.
Seconded by Vice Chair Fulk on.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving on to item 124, Cat.
Good morning commissioners, can you hear me okay?
We can.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning commissioners.
Tap 124 is an action item requesting an advanced allocation
of 450,000 to the local transportation
Climate Adaptation Programs, 14th Street underpass stormwater pump station planning project in Riverside County.
The project is focused on addressing the significant and reoccurring flooding issues at the 14th Street underpass, a critical infrastructure located in Riverside, California.
The project will develop improvement plans for a new pump station designed to handle extreme weather events, ensuring that this essential roadway remains functional and secure.
The City of Riverside is requesting an advance allocation from fiscal year 2026-27 to the current fiscal year 2025-26 to initiate the environmental phase.
Staff has reviewed this request and finds it consistent with the program's guidelines. Staff recommends approval of tab 124.
Thank you, Kat. Any public comment?
There is no public comment. Thank you.
Thank you. Questions, comments, or a motion? The dice?
I'll make a motion.
If I move by Commissioner Tiffany,
seconded by Vice Chair Falkkorn.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Taking next up, we're taking tabs 125 and 126 together.
Jayden.
Commissioners, tabs 125 and 126 are action items
to consider approval to allocate 7,762,000
for nine locally administered
active transportation program projects,
as well as to consider approval to allocate $912,000
for the state administered active transportation program,
Los Alamos Connected Community Project
in Santa Barbara County.
Please make note of the change list for tab 125.
I'd like to highlight a project within each book item
before offering a recommendation.
Tab 125 contains an allocation of 1,118,000
for the PSNE phase of the Niblick Road
complete and sustainable bike
and pedestrian street project.
This project will construct 8,100 feet of class one bike path,
2,800 feet of new sidewalks,
and reconstruct 21 curb ramps to ADA standards,
which will provide safe access to school
and will benefit multiple disadvantaged communities.
Additionally, the project within tab 126
will construct pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
for 0.9 miles of State Route 135
to connect residential areas to downtown Community Corridor
and Olga Reed Elementary School in Los Alamos.
Staff has reviewed tabs 125 and 126
and recommends your approval.
All right, thank you, Jayden.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, questions, comments, or a motion from the dais.
Motion approved.
Okay, so moved by Commissioner Tiffany,
Seconded by Vice Chair Falkhorn.
All those in favor?
Mr. Bradshaw.
Oh, that was Bradshaw?
I apologize, brother.
Sorry.
I'm on.
I just heard a voice down that direction.
The activity's way more stable.
I'll take it as a compliment.
All right, so still moved by Commissioner Bradshaw,
seconded by Vice Chair Falkhorn.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving on to tabs 127 and 128.
Thank you, Brandy.
Commissioners, I will present tabs 127 and 128 together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 127 is an action item to approve allocations
totaling 78,912,000 for 13 transit
and inner city rail capital program projects.
And I would like to highlight one project on that list,
and here comes those long names again.
The expanding transit service and introducing zero emissions fleets on
California's North coast intermodal transit and housing center project in
Humboldt County for $10,308,000 with Cal Poly Humboldt projected to double in
size to about 12,000 students in the next seven years, the existing housing
shortage will be further exasperated.
HTA's innovative transit center, the Eureka Regional Transit and Housing Center, also
known as Earth Center, will not only integrate local and inner city bus services with rideshare,
bicycle and paths, and pedestrian travel, but also provide workforce and student housing,
a childcare center, retail and open space, co-located with transit at the center.
This project will support strategies to meet the demand of an improved transit infrastructure
workforce and housing 16 development.
Through match funding the Earth Center will provide housing for students, staff and faculty
and a convenient 20 minute transit commute to the University on zero emission bus.
And then tab 128 is an action item to approve an allocation for $6,950,000 for the locally
administered multi-funded transit and inner city rail capital program and Proposition
1A high speed passenger trail bond program.
Here we go.
Capital corridor revamping accessibility and performance for the corridor ID program transit
project in Santa Clara County.
Staff has reviewed these requests and finds it consistent with the program's allocation
policy and program update.
Oh, I do have a note.
Please note the updates to the project, project number 6, 10 and 13 as reflected on the change
list.
And staff recommends approval of tabs 127 and 128.
All right, thank you.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
in the comments or a motion from the diets.
So moved by.
I'd happy to just second your motion.
Yeah.
Motion to approve.
All right.
Yeah.
So moved by Commissioner Guardino,
seconded by Vice Chair Faucon.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Bunch of state goals all in one item is great.
Yeah.
And now we're taking tabs 129 through 139, Justin.
Thank you commissioners.
I will be addressing tabs 129 through 139 together.
These are action items consisting of time extension requests
for projects from the following programs.
State highway operation and protection program,
state transportation improvement program,
local partnership program,
trade corridor enhancement program,
Active Transportation Program,
and the Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and determined they are consistent
with the program guidelines.
Please note the change list for Tabs 136.
Staff recommends your approval of Tabs 129 through 139.
All right, thank you.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, question, comment, or a motion from the dais.
Motion approved.
So moved by Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Tiffany.
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Now we're moving to items 140 through 143.
Justin.
Tabs 140 through 143 are action items
for your consideration regarding the approval
of time extension amendments expectations
to the SHOP guidelines.
Tab 140 is an amendment to the project allocation period
for a shop roadway rehabilitation project
in Fresno County.
Tab 141 is an amendment to the contract award period
for a shop, protect program project in Alameda County.
Tab 142 is an amendment to the project completion period
for a shop collision reduction project in Placer County.
Tab 143 is an amendment
to the project development expenditure period
for two shop projects.
The commission staff has reviewed these requests
and recommends approval of Tabs 140 to 143.
All right, thank you, I appreciate that.
Any public comment?
There's no public comment, thank you.
Thank you, question, comment or motion from the DICE.
So moved by commissioner Eager, apologies.
Is there a second?
Second by commissioner Bradshaw, all those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Motion is approved.
Moving to Items 144 and 145, the Kennett.
The commissioners will present Tabs 144 and 145 together
with the recommendation at the end.
TAB 144 is a request to amend
the previously approved construction allocation
time extension for two trade quarter enhancement program
projects, including the EVOASIS South BTA Will and Rich
project in Kern County and the EVOASIS South A,
Metro Ontario project in San Bernardino County.
In June 2025, Caltrans requested four additional months
to allocate construction funds for each project
due to high demand and limited supply of equipment
necessary to begin project construction.
Additionally, Caltrans needed more time
to complete utility reviews and permits
to receive all necessary approvals to begin construction.
Caltrans is now requesting eight additional months
for each project after the commission approval
the original four-month time extensions, tariff led to higher material costs, prompt and design
changes, and subsequent revisions to the project documents in an effort to mitigate those increased
costs. Also refinements to the microgrid control system and coordination across partners require
additional time not originally anticipated. If approved, this amendment would bring the total
allocation time extension to 12 months, which aligns with the allowable time under the Trade
chartering has been program guidelines that 145 is a request to amend a previously approved
project completion time extension for the multi-funded trade quartering has been program
local partnership for Malay program proposition 1b trade quarter's improvement fund program
and interstate transportation improvement program interstate 10 quarter express lanes contract one
project in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties please note that all state transportation
Improvement Program funds programmed to the project have been fully expended,
so the State Transportation Improvement Program is not included in the time in the public station
amendment request. In June of 2018 at the time of construction allocation, the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority was granted 30 additional months to complete the project under as allowed
under program guidelines. In March 2024, the Commission approved a 20-month project completion
time extension due to the impact of the COVID pandemic construction progress not being made by
the contractor and delays caused by utility issues and unexpected weather events. The San Bernardino
County Transportation Authority is now requesting 38 additional months to complete the project due
to continued performance issues with the prime contractor. Specifically, the prime contractor
failed to meet production rates and its slower pace affected the delivery of major components
of the project, including retaining wall construction, roadway paving, electrical and
communication systems, essential utility and drainage infrastructure, and the implementation
of the tolling system. Despite the December County Transportation Authority's repeated efforts to
address the contractor's performance issues through formal non-compliance reports, continuous
engagement, and ongoing oversight, the contractors struggle to maintain an adequate labor force
further impacting the schedule and quality of construction.
Additionally, the prime contractor failed to pay
project subcontractors on time, further delaying the project.
Ultimately, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
was compelled to remove the contractor from the project
and is now in litigation with the contractor. When the prime contract was
removed, the agency was required to find a new
contractor for the landscaping components of the project,
which still remain and this component also required a new design package
embedding process. Work on the project's primary improvements is complete
and program funds are nearly fully expended. However some close-out tasks
still need to be completed including landscaping, plant establishment,
and punch list items. Given this extraordinary circumstances
staff recommends approval of a 38-month project completion
time extension amendment for the trade quarter enhancement program, local partnership formulae
program, and Proposition 1B trade quarter's improvement fund program. As mentioned previously,
the state transportation improvement program funds programmed to the project have been fully
expended so the state transportation improvement program is not included in this action.
Commissioners staff recommends approval of titles 144 and 145 noting that the state transportation
and improvement program is excluded from tab from the tab 1 45 action.
Thank you, Kenneth.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions, comments, or motion that dies.
Uh, so moved by commissioner Tiffany, is there seconded by commissioner Brad Shaw.
All those in favor.
Opposed abstentions motion is approved.
Now we're moving to tabs 1 46 and 1 47.
Jaden.
Thank you.
commissioners, tabs 146 and 147 are action items
to consider approval of time extensions
to amend the period of contract award
for two locally administered active transportation program
projects in Los Angeles County,
as well as to consider approval of a time extension
to amend the period of project development expenditure
for the locally administered active transportation program
safe routes to school,
Panorama City Elementary School Project.
All of these projects are in Los Angeles County
and were affected by the Southern California fires.
The time extension requests are consistent
with the interim timely use of funds policy,
2024 and 2025 Southern California fires resolution G2521.
Staff has reviewed tabs 146 and 147
and recommends your approval.
All right, thank you, Jayden.
Any public comment?
There is no public comment.
Thank you.
So motion to approve or questions?
I miss saying take us home, Jayden, and you did.
He took us home with that, I'll make a motion.
All right, so moved by Commissioner Eager,
seconded by Commissioner Cruz.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstention?
Motion is approved.
Now we're gonna move to public comment.
Is there any?
I'm not seeing any public comment, thank you.
Thank you.
Now I'd like to recognize Paul G.
I just wanted to make two comments
before we close out this meeting.
So first, I wanted to acknowledge that Senator Cortese
had intended to join today's meeting virtually,
but unfortunately encountered some technical difficulties
and was not able to log on, but wanted to acknowledge him.
And then second, I wanted to again acknowledge Merced
and our partners at MCAG and Stacey Guzman for hosting us.
They were juggling a lot.
They took us on a tour yesterday.
They welcomed us here.
They helped with the reception.
And what I did not know until I was talking to Stacy
yesterday at the reception is they had their own board
meeting yesterday afternoon going on.
So I know it's difficult for smaller agencies sometimes
to host the commission and really want to acknowledge
how seamless it was and thanks again, Stacy.
All right, thank you.
I'd like to turn to Commissioner Eager to lead us
and a German member.
Yes, thank you.
Oh, I apologize first.
Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment really quick.
I just wanted to kind of piggyback on Paul's comments
and really want to thank MCAG and Stacey and staff
and cities of Merced and Atwater and the County of Merced
for really hosting a wonderful gathering
and welcoming us with open arms.
And the tour was very impactful for us
to see all the exciting economic development
and mobility projects that you're all endeavoring
to hopefully complete.
And it's great to have a partnership with you
and thank you again for hosting us.
Yes, I think we all agree with that.
I'd like to move to Commissioner Eger to lead us.
Yes, thank you.
And as we said before, today we'd like to adjourn
in memory of those lives that were lost
on State Route 41 South between Fresno and Kings County.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Want to do a moment of silence, sir.
Moment of silence.
Thank you.
Thank you for your attendance.
We are adjourned.
For the interpreters,
are you guys done with the meeting for the entire day?
Hi, this is Kat with the commission.
Yes, when they adjourn the meeting's usually,
the meeting's done for the day.
Okay, I just wanted to confirm
because we were spending for a lot later.
So I just wanted to know before we locked up.
Yeah, no, they got done really,
we got done really quick today.
So yeah, they're done for the day.
Okay, perfect.
I appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
All right, take care.