Come to day two, please take your seats.
We're going to get started.
So microphone on.
All right, Douglas, if you could please do the role in instructions.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you, chair.
Commissioner Bradshaw, commissioner Cruz and Mr.
Brown Heinz, commissioner Eager.
Present commissioner Elliot vice chair Falcone, Mr.
I believe she's online. Mr. Lugo. I'm here. President. Thank you. Commissioner man. Commissioner
Tiffany. There grisby. President. Senator Cortese. Here. Assemblymember Wilson. Here
we have a quorum. Welcome to day two of the January CTC meeting here in Roseville and
Placer County. The meeting agenda is located on our website at www.ctc.ca.gov. All of the
presentations for today's meeting are also available on the Commissioned 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.ca.gov and we'll have
them return to you as quickly as possible. American Sign Language Translation will be
provided on this webinar. You should see the translators on your screen. Live closed 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. For our
presenters, if you're on the agenda to make your presentation please do your
best to be succinct. Please remember to speak at a steady pace to allow our
translating services adequate time for accurate translations. If you are
presenting remotely we hope that you will turn on your camera during your
presentation if you have one. For the members of the public, we welcome
comments from the public as part of each item at this meeting. For those attending in person,
please submit a speaker slip to the clerk at the front of the room, that's me,
speaker slips are here or in the back, but let us know you want to comment on an item.
For those attending via Zoom, you should see the webinar control panel,
likely located on the bottom of your screen. There you will find the raise hand and Q&A tab.
We encourage you to use the raise hand feature as early into the item as you can
to give this system time to acknowledge you. Staff will let you know when it's your turn to
make your comment. Alternately you may use a Q&A tab to submit your comment. Please be sure to
include the agenda item number you are commenting on in your question. Staff will read the comment
on your behalf. As a reminder, each registered attendee is provided a unique link and phone
number to access the webinar. These should not be shared with other participants as they are
registered to your specific name and can create confusion for staff when
making comments. For all of our meeting attendees, please do your best to be
concise. Please make sure that your comments add new information. If you
agree with the comments of a previous speaker, simply make that
statement. Please remember to speak at a steady pace to allow our translating
services adequate time for accurate translations. Since we often have many
speakers, we ask that you make your point in two minutes or less. If for some
reason we have many speakers on any single topic we reserve the right to
limit comments to one minute if needed thank you for joining us again today
thank you chair thank you Douglas and now we'll start with item 52 Tim good
morning commissioners tab 52 is an action item for a resolution of
necessity or Ron the Ron hearing was requested by the property owner Robert
John prune due to impact to their property from a project on State Route
74 in Orange County within the City of San Juan Capistrano. The project is
planned to relieve congestion, improve safety, and support long-term mobility.
Some of the main project features are to widen the facility from two to four
lanes, upgrade intersections, and improve bike and pedestrian access. In addition,
the project will construct retaining walls, sidewalks, and sound walls. At this
time I'd like to ask if the property owner or representative are in attendance
or participating virtually. We don't see any indication online of anyone looking
to acknowledge this item. Thank you. With the property owner not being here to
participate in the Ron hearing and Caltrans's responses to the
contentions are posted in the book item, I recommend we skip the Caltrans
presentation on this item. Before making a recommendation, I would like to briefly
cover what will be considered today. Under eminent domain law, a property
owner whose properties under account of nation consideration has the right to
to appear before the Commission to request to question three finding three
of the four findings that are required to be met per section 12 45 230 of the
code of civil procedure prior to the Commission adopting a resolution the
findings are does a public interest in necessity require the proposed project
is the project planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with
greatest public good and least private injury and is the project necessary for
the proposed project. The fourth finding requires that an offer to acquire the
property in accordance with government code section 72 67.2 has been made to
the owner of record. The Commission's understanding that the department
provided this offer on January 22nd of 25. The Commission neither determines the
amount of compensation for the property rights to be acquired nor deals with any
other issue any issue other than the first three findings. Code of civil
procedures section 1245.240 specifies eight affirmative votes are needed for
the Commission approval of a resolution of the necessity. The reason for the
required area from the parcel is a temporary construction easement to
construct a sound wall. Commission staff has reviewed the proposed Ron and
concludes Caltrans has met the statutory requirements and therefore recommends
approval. All right. Thank you, Tim. Uh, let's move to public comment.
Is there any public comment on this item?
There's no request to comment on the item at this time. All right. Great.
Thank you. Uh, question, comment or motion to approve the desk.
So moved by commissioner eager. Second, seconded by commissioner Gardeno.
All those in favor post sentions motion as approved on to item 53.
John. Yeah. Good morning, commissioners. Tab 53 is an action item to approve the execution
of two directors deeds in accordance with section one 18 of the streets and highways
code the Roberti act and the state route 710 sales program regulations. Both of these properties
are being sold to the current tenants. The first director's deed is for a property in
the City of Los Angeles. The current tenants meet the criteria required for
purchasing the property at the fair market value, which includes being in
good standing with their rental agreement and meeting the five-year
occupancy requirement. The sales price of $633,000 represents the appraised fair
market value of this property. The second director's deed is for a property in the
City of South Pasadena. The current tenants meet all the requirements to
purchase at an affordable price. The sales price of $83,866
represents the calculated affordable price for these buyers. A declaration of
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, commonly known as CC&Rs, will be
recorded against the property and these CC&Rs will provide the use and resale
restrictions including a requirement to pay back the difference between the
current fair market value and the calculated affordable sales price which
is referred to as the net equity and it gets paid back to the California
affordable housing trust account upon a subsequent market sale of the property
or 45 years from the date the department closes escrow
on the transaction with the buyer.
There's one change on the change list for this item.
It's deleting a sentence and the reason
that sentence has been deleted was to maintain clarity
on where the proceeds of this sale will go.
And with that, I wanna talk about the proceeds of the sale.
In accordance with the law, proceeds from these two sales
totaling $716,866 will be deposited into the state route 7 10 rehabilitation
account. This account is used to fund lender required repairs for future
properties being sold at affordable prices. With that staff recommends
approval of tab 53. Thank you, John. Any public comment on this item? We do not
I received any requests a comment on this item. Thank you. A question,
comment or a motion to approve the dice.
So I move by commissioner Eger. Is there a second? Seconded by commissioner.
Tiffany. All those in favor.
Post abstentions motion is approved. Uh,
item 54 cherry tab 54 is an action item to accept the environmental documentation
and approve future consideration of funding for the link union station project
Los Angeles County. The sequel lead agency LA Metro adopted an addendum and supplemental
environmental impact report and statement of overriding considerations for this project,
finding benefits outweigh the impacts. Staff has reviewed the quest and recommends approval.
All right. Thank you so much. Any public comment? There was no request to comment on the item.
Thank you. Question, comment or motion to approve Nadais.
so moved by commissioner eager is there a second seconded by commissioner man thank you all those
in favor opposed extensions motion is approved item 55 brandy good morning commissioners tab
55 is an informational item to present the draft 2025 program of projects for the federal transit
administration section 5310 enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities program.
The program funds transportation services planned designed and carried out to meet the
special transportation needs of the seniors of seniors and individuals with disabilities
in large urbanized small urbanized and rural areas of California. The program has two components
the first is the large urbanized areas and the second is the small urbanized and rural areas.
Caltrans administers both and the commission is responsible for approving the small urbanized and
rural area component. Non-profit agencies, federally recognized tribes, and qualifying
public agencies are eligible to apply for funding. The details for the draft 2025
Program of Projects are included in the book item. The next steps following this meeting
are a Caltrans administered appeals process in February of this year. As mandated the Commission
will hold a public hearing at the March 2026 meeting to discuss the final 2025 Program of
Projects. Upon conclusion of the public hearing the Commission will consider approving and adopting
the final 2025 Program of Projects for small urbanized and rural areas. As a reminder,
Tab 55 is an information item. Therefore, there is no action required at this time.
This concludes the presentation of the draft 2025 Program of Projects for the Federal Transit
Administration, Section 5310, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
program. We are happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you, Brandi. Any public comment
on this item? There's no request to comment on this item. All right, thank you. Anything from
the dais? Oh, we have a in-person commenter, Sean Tijan. I can't pronounce your last name,
Sean Tijan. Welcome. Good morning. Sean Tijan, the executive director of the Shasta Regional
transportation agency. Just briefly I wanted on behalf of the transit agencies
in our region express their support to CTC staff as well as the Caltrans staff
that oversee the FTA program and all the work of working with them throughout the
process, the guidelines, and also in working with them as an MPO for the
region to review the scoring criteria. We wanted to support the staff's draft
recommendation as not only will this help provide eight replacement vehicles
that are critical for small urban and rural services to seniors and individuals disabilities
within the area as large as ours but it's also going to help support any program to
provide free fares for seniors.
And as was also mentioned yesterday, we continue on to voice our support for the use of federal
toll credits related to the FTA programs as much as that is critical for our small urbanized
and rural communities across the state to be able to deliver these projects in a timely
fashion and those operations. And we want to support that not only for the current cycle
for FDA 5310, but for future cycles as well that we continue to consider that moving forward.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Want to also welcome Senator Cortezi, who's online with us now.
Thank you for being with us. On this item, any comment, questions from that? Hearing
none, we can move on to item 56, Tim.
Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, tab 56 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 Kalenosine, Caltrans Division Chief of Project Management is here to provide a
presentation on the first quarter project delivery report for fiscal year 2025-2026.
When the red light's on, there you go.
Good morning, Chair Grisby, Director Taylor, commissioners, and transportation partners.
My name is Sujaya Kalaenason,
and I'm the Division Chief for Project Management.
Today, I will be presenting an update
on project delivery for the current fiscal year.
In my presentation,
I will cover the first quarter delivery report data.
I will also present a current project delivery status,
how we are approaching project delivery this year,
and highlight the various improvement efforts
we are doing for the fiscal year.
Next slide, please.
This slide provides a snapshot
of what our fiscal year looked like when we started year.
We had planned to deliver 229 projects
at a capital value of almost $5.9 billion.
We had 138 projects identified with some level of risk.
Let's say roughly about 50 projects in each risk category,
low, medium, and high.
The 229 also include carryover projects
from previous fiscal years.
Next slide, please.
This slide is a snapshot of the data you will be seeing
in the first quarter delivery report.
I wanna highlight two numbers there.
One is the capital value that's ready for allocation.
These are projects that completed design and waiting.
These are projects that completed design
and waiting for allocation,
and we have so far allocated 665 million.
I also want to point out to the total average of percentages completed, we are about 10%,
a little over 10% across the boat in all milestones.
And for projects that completed construction, we're at 20%, which is higher than the average.
Next slide, please.
This is to get a little bit more into the milestones.
I know those numbers look small.
So for the first milestone there, which is draft environmental document, we've achieved
10%, which is eight of the 82 milestones planned.
For the project approval and development document,
we have 27 of the 206 that we planned,
and which is 13%.
For the project certified for right away,
it's 13%, which is 30 of 238.
And that milestone's important
because that directly correlates
with the number of projects that are ready for allocation.
and this percentage is higher than where we were last year
at this point in the fiscal year.
This is just to highlight that a lot of the efforts
that we're putting in and moving project degree forward
is materializing and we're able to see results.
All the other three percentages noted there,
which is projects designed and ready for construction,
is at 9%, which is again higher than the 7%
we saw at this time of the year,
but in terms of number of projects also,
it's a much higher number,
and so on with the rest of the milestones.
Next slide please this is again data that you'll see in the first quarter delivery report it shows
STIP and shop projects after six months of construction completed this tracks expanded
amount versus planned amount and here we're seeing savings at seven million for three STIP projects
and about 88% of expended for shop projects. So in both cases, we have savings and it's
consistent with the past data we've shown you. Next slide, please. Next slide, please.
This is the current delivery status. This is as of January 21st. So it is just after the second
in quarter. Usually there are certain meetings that trigger the updates in our database,
so there's probably some numbers that still need to be updated. I'm trying to hint that
the percentages are actually a little higher than what I'm showing here on the screen.
We're about at 40 percent across the different milestones, which is great. Now, if we expect
equally distributed project delivery across all the four quarters, then you would probably
expect to see a little over 50 percent. But I've mentioned this in my previous reports
as well. Our programming cycles and our project recycle does not align itself very well for
first quarter deliveries. Typically you will see the number of projects delivered increasing
as we move towards the fourth quarter. So 40% at the end of second quarter is a really
good number. You also see a 32% in right away certification which is again higher than what
we had last year and the 26% in design and ready for construction shows there are projects
and queue that'll get to that point very soon.
It's just a matter of the dates being updated in our databases.
OK, next slide, please.
So I want to touch a little bit upon just the project delivery
cycle and the environment this year.
Last year, the focus was a lot on improving delivery.
And I talked about all the improvement efforts
and what we're doing to message on it
and how we're pulling delivery percentages higher, which
you did see happen at the end of the fiscal year.
But going into this fiscal year it was a completely different environment with shop rebalancing.
I'm sure you heard from the other presenters in the earlier meetings and this on just the
limited allocation capacity we have. In a way it's an opportunity because we are ahead in terms of
delivery. We have more projects that will be available and ready when allocation capacity is
available. But it does take strategic management of our portfolio. What we are looking at is
continuing to work on all our projects. So we are holding our project delivery teams accountable
for the milestone dates that we planned at the beginning of the fiscal year.
If allocation capacity is available this year, they will get allocated. For those that don't
have allocation capacity, there are two scenarios. One, it'll get allocated next fiscal year.
In that case, we're being strategic where we will RTL the project, shelf it may be allocated at the
beginning of next fiscal year, so you'll almost see no impacts. But for a small
percent of projects that get pushed out more than one fiscal year, that's where
we need to do some strategic repackaging of these projects. So we're having a lot
of collaborative conversations at this point. For instance, what happens, you know,
if there's a run for the project, you can move forward with it until you have a
commitment on funding. Or if we are in permit conversations, do we need to come
back and revisit design. Does that reset our clock on the application? How do we deal with
right away and railroad agreements? So there are a lot of conversations to be had in this
third category, which I would say is about 20% of our projects. So those conversations
are happening now and we are coming up with a Q&A that will help the districts make decisions
effectively. We're also having a lot of conversations both at the district level and at headquarters.
So the process is smooth for our project delivery team.
Next slide, please.
OK.
Now I want to touch upon some of the continuous improvements.
I've been highlighting this at every meeting
beginning last fiscal year.
In the beginning, I kind of threw some ideas out there.
Now we've actually implemented it.
And we have some results.
When we started the fiscal year, I
mentioned doing a high risk workshop, which was really
the aftermath of last fiscal year.
We just brought all of our leadership team
across project delivery from all the 12 districts,
and we talked about what are our key issues?
What is the low-hanging fruit?
Where can we start solving problems?
That yielded some cliche, but very useful outputs.
One, we needed more communication.
We needed a lot more strategic collaboration,
and we needed to think about design early.
One big risk that stood out was just how new
our project delivery team is,
and we recognize the need for training at all levels.
So the three continuous improvements I've listed there
highlights each one of those areas.
And I'll talk a little bit more about my next slide.
Next slide, please.
The first one is joint board meetings.
The HIRUS workshop really opened our mind up
about how there are so many existing processes
that we just haven't revisited in so many years.
We've lost a lot of the brain power through retirement.
Now new staff need to be reminded
of maybe this really good policy
that we had 10 years back.
So it was a good conversation.
And so we thought the joint board meetings
will refresh that thinking and conversation.
We've had two or three joint board meetings so far.
And this fiscal year we met with right away
at the beginning of fiscal year,
which is project management right away
brainstorming on solutions.
The second one was with environmental
and DES in project management.
Again, great conversations came out of it.
We're summarizing the outcome of it.
It was a lot of discussion.
It was two days of continuous conversations.
And we're gonna pick some low hanging fruit out of that
to address it.
And I'll bring that back to you in the next meetings.
Next slide, please.
Okay, this is on project delivery training.
I mean, I just touched upon how new our workforce is.
We wanted to do some ad hoc training,
looking at the level of talent
for different groups in different districts.
There might be some district
that has a lot of environmental type work
and they might need support.
There are others with right away.
So we've developed this menu of asynchronous content,
and we go into a district, meet with newer PM's and PE's,
and we ask them about their areas of gaps.
And we actually pull up asynchronous content,
run it through that.
We bring SMEs for that area, do workshops,
and discuss how to deliver a project.
I showed you about the mock training
we did at the beginning of the fiscal year.
We did our first training with District 3 earlier this month.
And one thing that came out of it was,
we've had so many new people participate,
sometimes to have good conversations
and bring up good examples,
we don't even have that in the team right now.
So we're going back to get some experience
just for the sake of good conversations.
Next slide, please.
This is about providing better guidance
and targeted guidance to our team.
We talked a lot about how project teams are meeting,
but when it comes to decision making,
maybe there is some ambiguity.
So we wanted to give our project teams better tools
to be able to make decisions quickly and document those
and keep up the timeline on different decisions made.
So our project delivery team meeting guidance
does exactly that, it drives effective decision making,
timely decision making, it promotes risk buy-in,
often different type of risk thrown at a discussion,
but does everybody buy-in?
Is it documented?
Do we consider the cost scope, schedule risks of it?
this gives them a framework to do it,
keeps the project on schedule, focuses on quality,
and most importantly,
keeps communication effective and strategic.
So these are the three things
that we've implemented right now.
All the three improvements that I presented here,
we have moved forward with it.
Next slide, please.
So that was my last slide.
And I wanna end maybe on a slightly different note this time.
I always notice when the commission staff present,
they thank your team, they thank your leader.
I'm inspired by that, wanna embrace that.
So I will end with a shout out
to all the district project delivery staff
and their leadership that's here,
because it's been two years of really changing,
ambiguous environment.
And I think the team's embracing very well.
Last but not the least,
I wanna thank the fearless project delivery leader,
Donna Berry, my boss, for keeping me in line.
Thank you.
can take questions now. All right. Thank you, Sanjaya. Any public comment? We do not receive any
requested comment online. All right. Thank you. Any questions from the dais? See Commissioner
Eger. I just wanted to tell you, I certainly understand there was a lot of work that went
into this and this is a long time coming and all of the people that had to come together to make
sure that this continues. And I know with new people having to
start fresh, and that's always exciting too, right, bringing
in new ideas. But I also wanted to congratulate you. Thank you,
Donna. I know this has been on your plate for a while, and you
pushed it forward. So I also want to make sure that all the
people here in Caltrans know how much we appreciate all the work
you all do and all the things that go into not just out there on the road you
know laying down the pavement but all the things behind the scenes so thank
you so much for this I appreciate it thank you it on that one
Commissioner Tiffany thank you I just want to echo Commissioner Eager's
comments you know we talk again as we talked yesterday a lot about you know
lessons learned and getting communication out there among all the
different Caltrans districts and your presentation really illustrates the
progress you guys have made in that area and I just wanted to say it's it's
definitely recognized by this Commission and greatly appreciate it so I would
just want to thank you for all your efforts. Thank you. Bravo to all the good
work that you're doing. Any other comments from the dais? Hearing none
thank you so much for the presentation. Next up we're gonna move to item 60
the emergency projects. Are you
This is a construction plan
that mandates reservation, and
that's for a relinquishment.
Which leaves just one of the 25
new projects that's not coming
from a reservation.
This is a new project, and it's
a pavement rehabilitation
project on State Route 37 in
Sonoma and Solano Counties.
Which is expected to be combined
for construction with the
locally sponsored State Route 37
project which proposes to add a new toll lane on State Route 37 in the eastbound direction.
So that's the new projects and then there's 13 projects that are being revised which is
typically various proactive changes. I wanted to highlight two of them. The first highlight
which is the reason that this tab is being taken slightly out of order is an amendment
to fully program the construction phases
for a pavement rehabilitation and safety improvement project
on State Route 1 in Los Angeles County.
And we'll be hearing the allocation
for that a little bit later.
And then the second highlight is also in Los Angeles County.
Project number 9, a Games Route Network project
for the LA-28 Olympic Games, is proposing
to amend the project description to change the project's
delivery method to the job order contracting delivery method.
This innovative delivery method is being employed
due to this project's accelerated schedule
and looming LA-28 Olympic Games construction deadline.
That concludes my comments on this item
and staff recommends approval of tab 60.
Thank you, John.
Is there any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
All right, thank you so much.
Any questions, comments, or a motion
to approve from the dais.
So moved by Commissioner Eker,
seconded by Commissioner Tiffany.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Stentions?
Motion is approved.
Back now to item 57, Tim.
Thank you.
Commissioners, tab 57 is an action item
for a shop, pavement, preservation, and safety project
that John just mentioned.
state Route 1 in Los Angeles County requesting an initial allocation of
greater than 20% of the program amount for both construction capital and support.
The increase in construction capital is related to increases from the inclusion
of a significant amount of safety and complete streets elements to the scope
of the project after conducting a safety audit and engagement with
the City of Malibu and other stakeholders. In addition, unit prices have
increased since the last time Caltrans had the ability to amend the program
amount following shop guidelines. The increase in
construction support is primarily related to the need for additional
inspection and coordination from the added safety and complete street scope
as well as the need for additional inspectors than originally planned to
complete the project within the number of construction working days. Staff has
reviewed the project and the request for tab 57. It is consistent with the
the commission approved shop allocation plan and recommends approval. All right. Thank you, Tim. Uh, any public comments? No, there was no request to comment. Thank you. Uh, question, comment or emotion to approve from the dais. So moved by vice chair Falcon. Is there a second? Second by commissioner eager. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions motion is approved. Uh, moving to item 58.
10 58 and 59 Tim thank you commissioners tabs 58 and 59 are action items for supplemental funds
tab 58 and actually i'll take them both together with it with a recommendation at the end
tab 58 is an action item for a shop pavement rehabilitation project on interstate 15 in
san diego county that is requesting a supplemental allocation of 650 000 and construction support
The increase in construction support costs are related to delays due to extreme weather
encountering significantly more hard rock material than was anticipated and
delays from the contractor completing the work in a timely manner
Tab 59 is an action item for a shop safety roadside
Rest area facilities project on interstate 5 in Stanislaus County that is requesting supplemental
allocation of $1,200,000 for the construction support phase and $2,849,000 for the construction
capital phase.
The increase in construction capital is due to contract change orders related to addressing
discrepancies in the contract that required redesigning certain components of the project
plans, adjustments to bid item quantities, and incorporating missing design elements.
The increase in support costs is related
to more staff time needed due to contract change orders,
the redesign of the contract plans,
and additional field inspections.
In addition, the use of consultants for inspection
and the delay of the contract acceptance by six months
also contributed to the increased costs.
Before giving my recommendation,
I would like to summarize the total shop increases.
The total increases related to initial allocations
exceed the program amount by more than 20% and supplemental funds from the shop at the
January CTC meeting is approximately 32 million. Cumulatively for this fiscal year, the total
increase is approximately 444 million. Staff has reviewed the project and the requests
for tabs 58 and 59 and recommend approval. All right, thank you, Tim. Any public comment
item. Thank you. Any question,
comment or emotion for the bias? So move by Commission Eager, second by Commissioner
Tiffany. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion is approved. On to item 61. John.
Tab 61 is an action item to amend the 2024 shop. This amendment will increase the major
damage emergency opening reservation for fiscal year 25-26, which is the current year, by
$200 million. This increases the reservation from $700 million to $900 million. The current
amount of approved contracts is around $600 million, so it's still less than the current
reservation. However, Caltrans estimates that the current $700 million reservation will
And it will be exceeded prior to the March meeting,
which is why an increase is being requested now.
End of fiscal year estimates are still in the $1 billion range
with weather obviously being a huge question mark as always.
Caltrans and commission staff will continue to monitor
the reservation closely through the end of the fiscal year
and we'll return to the commission
if further adjustments beyond the requested $900 million
necessary. Staff recommends approval of tab 61. All right. Thank you, John. Any public
comment? No, there was no request to comment on the item. Thank you. A question, comment
or a motion from the dais. So moved by Commissioner Tiffany. Is there a second? Commissioner Eger
seconds. All those in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Motion is approved. Item 62 through 63. LaShara.
Commissioners? Okay. Tab 62 and 63 will be presented separately and then voted on together
at the end. Tab 62 is an action item to split the Bay Area rapid transit Silicon Valley
phase 2 extension project in Santa Clara County into two separate project components. This
will allow the project sponsor to deliver the construction project in two separate components
and better manage the project delivery.
Along with the project split,
this action amends the project title, components
and description while preserving the original scope,
outputs and programmed amounts.
This project is multi-funded
with the solutions for congested corridors program
and will result in a six mile extension
to the existing Bay Area rapid transit rail infrastructure.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval.
Commissioners, tab 63 is an action item
to amend the local partnership formulate program.
This amendment will make the following updates
to the current formulaic program of projects.
First, add a total of $41,000 in supplemental funding
to five projects in Imperial County.
These projects will make improvements
such as rehabilitating, deteriorating roadway,
new sidewalk construction,
and the installation of ADA ramps to improve safety
and reliability throughout Imperial County.
Next, add the Redwood Park and Ride Capital Improvement
Project in Napa County and program $538,000
to the construction phase in fiscal year 25-26.
The project will improve a key transit hub
in the city of Napa by installing a new restroom facility
and upgrading wayfinding signage, striping, and pavement.
Next, add the San Fran... excuse me, San Fransiquito Creek Bridge Bank Stabilization
Project in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and program $3,842,000 to the construction phase
in fiscal year 25-26. The project will protect the Caltrain Railroad Bridge and Palo Alto's
bicycle pedestrian bridge by stabilizing eroded creek banks and replacing aging storm
drain outfall with modern and more resilient features. Lastly, add the Amador City old
highway 49 resurfacing pedestrian bike crossings and sidewalk improvement project in Amador
County and programed $200,000 to the project approval and environmental document phase
in fiscal year 2526.
The project will rehabilitate over one half mile
of old highway 49, which runs across the city
and will enhance pedestrian safety
and encourage non-motorized travel.
This action leaves $18,301,000 of 2022
formulaic program funding available for programming
through June 30th, 2026 and $87,242,000
of 2024, formulaic program funding available for programming through June 30th, 2028 staff
recommends approval of tab 62 for the local partnership competitive program and tab 63
for the local partnership formulaic program.
All right, thank you so much. We're going to first go to public comment. Um, we know
we have a big proponent here on the, on the commission on this item.
All right, thank you. Uh, I'd like to turn to, uh, Carl Gordino.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I with great enthusiasm. I'd like to move approval of item 62 and item
63 as moved by commissioner by Commissioner Gardeno, seconded by Commissioner Eager. All
those in favor. Opposed. Abstentions. Motion is approved and thank you Carl for your leadership
or getting part to Silicon Valley.
Absolutely.
Moving on to item 64 and 65, Naveen.
Commissioners, tabs 64 and 65 are action items
that will be voted together.
Tab 64 amends the 2024 solutions
for congested corridors program as provided in the book item
and so capably explained by Lashara Ward just before me.
Tab 65 requests approval
of two multi-funded baseline agreements
for projects funded in the 2024 solutions
for congested corridors program
and the 2024 local partnership competitive program.
This includes the Santa Clara Valley
transportation authorities,
BART Silicon Valley phase two extension project
and the final phase of Santa Barbara County
of association governments is US 101
multimodal corridor project.
These requests are consistent with program guidelines.
Therefore staff recommend your approval
of tabs 64 and 65 as presented.
All right, thank you, Davine.
Any online public comment?
There was no request to comment on either of them.
Great, thank you.
We have in-person commenter Marcella Rindzi from VTA.
Thank you for joining us.
Okay, excellent.
I'm here to thank you on behalf of VTA
for your continued support
for the Barta Silicon Valley extension,
and also to thank and commend CTC staff
and department staff to you from the local level
through headquarters for guiding us so far
and continuing to guide us in the most effective way
to deploy this resources you're granting us on the project.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Commissioner Gardena.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
again with a tremendous enthusiasm on something that has been two and a half decades in the
making, I enthusiastically move approval of items 64 and 65.
All right. Thank you. Is there a second? Seconded by Vice Chair Falcone. All those in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions? Motion is approved. All right. Now we're going to take items 66
and 67 together. Beverly.
Commissioners, I will present tab 66 and 67 together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 66 is a scope amendment request
for the freight logistics electrifications
for a mission-free transport project,
which was jointly nominated by Caltrans
and Prologis Mobility and programmed with $14,650,000
in the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
The project proposes to construct a medium
and heavy duty zero emission vehicle charging station.
Caltrans and Prologism ability
are requesting to relocate the charging station
from Hayward and Alameda County
to Tracy in San Joaquin County
after determining the original site was infeasible
due to geometric constraints
and the need for an intersection reconfiguration.
The proposed Tracy site is environmentally cleared and is located at the junction of
Interstates 205, 580 and 5 serving interregional freight movements.
This area of San Joaquin County is critically underserved by medium and heavy duty zero
mission vehicle charging infrastructure and is in close proximity to several major freight
generators including Amazon, Costco, Safeway, FedEx, DHL, Smuckers and Medline.
The new location is in an industrial area,
physically separated from residential communities
with the nearest neighborhood approximately one mile away.
There will be no negative impacts
on historically impacted or marginalized communities.
The proposed scope amendment also upgrades
the charging station to the megawatt charging system
and combined charging system charging standard,
enabling faster charging and increased truck throughput.
Overall, the scope change will result
and a slight increase to project benefits.
That concludes my presentation on tab 66,
and I will now proceed to tab 67.
Tab 67 is a request to approve baseline agreements
for six 2024 trade corridor enhancement program projects.
Please note that this item
has a yellow replacement attachment,
making minor technical corrections
to the freight logistics electrifications
for a mission-free transport project baseline agreement.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and recommends approval of TAP 66 and 67
with the changes to TAP 67 noted
and the yellow replacement attachment.
All righty, thank you.
I know we have online comment.
Yes, we did receive a request.
Charles Stewart, you're free to unmute yourself
and make a comment.
Thank you, appreciate your time here.
And I am quite thankful for the trade quarter
enhancement program overall.
So I do not want to criticize that in any way,
but in review-
We're not getting the audio online.
We're not getting the audio in the room.
Charles, do you mind holding for one moment?
Oh, sorry about that.
Charles, do you mind starting having to try again?
Absolutely, can you hear me now?
Is it working?
Still not getting you in the room yet.
Okay.
Stand by it.
Charles, try one more time.
Yeah, here I am.
Can you hear me now?
Yes.
Excellent, thank you.
Even with the technical glitches,
I do appreciate this opportunity
and the ability to do this online
and save a little energy traveling around.
But quickly here in review of the meeting materials,
my team has discovered a significant concern
with one of the baseline agreements in tab 67.
In short, we suggest the commission hold off
on approving baseline agreement for SR 99,
the Tularey, Six Lane and Page Avenue
interchange improvement project due to ambiguity
and potential $40 million plus in project inefficiencies
documented within the baseline agreement.
The issue with the baseline agreement
is related to the pavement type selection process
for the project and the contradictory
and ambiguous information provided in the baseline agreement.
More specifically, I can get into the details,
but on page 61 and 62 and 260 and 264 of the report,
life cycle cost analysis is discussed,
which helps determine payment type for the project.
There are some alternatives there,
and it appears that the project team
is going with an alternative
that will cost 350 times more.
So that's the difference between alternative two
and alternative three.
it appears that the team is going with some variety
of the alternative three.
And so we see a huge inefficiency here,
kind of moving on what is being proposed.
It appears as a 20 year design for pavement,
which is really not what we want in a truck corridor.
We are typically building or seeing built
long life pavements in these corridors,
which have 40-year design life.
So before asking the commission
to approve this baseline agreement,
I urge you to take adequate time
to explore these project details.
Thank you so much for your time.
I think you understand there's someone in the room
that can respond to that.
Michael, good morning.
How are you?
He didn't say,
his name was Charles Stewart.
He didn't say who he represented.
Good.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair. Grisby, Vice Chair Falcone, Commissioners, Secretary Director Taylor, Michael Navarro, Caltrans District 6 Director.
We believe we do have a sound pavement strategy in this project, and just to clarify the project for the TSEP, what we're doing is, we have two existing lanes that are recently rehabbed out there currently that are asphalt pavement.
And so the new, what we're building with a TSEP
is we're adding a new lane in the median,
in that median lane, we're constructing the asphalt lanes
to match up with a 20 year design life
to the pavement that's out there now.
So we can have a long-term uniform
consistent pavement strategy.
Obviously we had a very detailed presentation
about pavement yesterday, that was very informative.
And correct, this is a freight corridor.
We do oftentimes do CRCP, but this situation,
they would not match, create profile issues
of long-term pavement concerns.
Also wanted to say this new number one,
were building the median. This is a freight corridor, but trucks would not be using this
new lane. Trucks would be on the outside. They would be prohibited from the number one lane anyway.
So I think our pay for strategy is sound in this particular situation. It was well thought out.
So just a quick question. So to do the asphalt for all three would make them all three even,
right? All three. And then when it's time to redo them all again, it'll be on the same timeline.
Correct. If you have the same rehabilitation timeline, obviously we do sound maintenance along
the way. And then when there is a pavement in the future, then we would obviously reevaluate
the situation to see if concrete lanes is needed. Then we can do all of the uniform process.
It's a long term.
Correct.
They come together.
Correct.
We're pavement nerds. So, you know, we go there.
At the end of the day, we're all pavement experts after yesterday.
Thank you.
The question is probably, just to clarify, this ESUP application, obviously very important with
commission support and is actually the match for the $98 million dollar
infant grant received for this very same project through these improvements in
partnership with TCAG. So this continues for the federal grant to correct it's
important to support the federal grant make it a fully funded project that we
be RTL-ing this fall and anticipate construction spring of 2027. Great, thank
you. Alright, thank you Michael, really appreciate it. Director Taylor, you wanted to
make a comment. Just in response to Commissioner Cruz's question about who
through the comments or wasn't who they represent the commoner was Charles Stewart, and he represents the Southwest concrete pavement association.
All right, thank you so much. Thank you.
I would like to make the motion to approve.
All right, thank you. Is there a second, second.
Seconded by Commissioner Gardeno, all those in favor.
motion is approved and thank you Commissioner Iger for your Valley work much appreciated.
Item 68 through 70, a leak of commissioners, I will present tab 68 69 and 70 with a recommendation
at the end. Tab 68 and 69 are action items for the active transportation program to present
scope amendment requests. Tab 68 is a request for the City of West Sacramento's
Sycamore Trail Extension Phase 3 project located in Yolo County. The project scope as submitted
in the application proposes to close a gap by constructing a Class 1 trail extension from
Westmore Oaks Elementary School to the intersection of Park Boulevard and Stone Boulevard.
At the time of application, the city anticipated entering into a joint use agreement with a
Washington Unified School District to allow construction of the Class 1 trail along an
existing fire access path. However, during the project's design phase, the Washington Unified
School District determined that the existing fire access path will instead be used for bus parking.
For this reason, the city is requesting a scope change to reduce the Class 1 Trail
and add a Class 3 bike route on an adjacent low-volume residential street
with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Additionally, the city is proposing to add
over 2,000 feet of decomposed granite adjacent to the Class 1 Trail to provide separation between
pedestrians and people biking and rolling, as well as adding three benches. With these changes,
the project will maintain the same conditions and connections the community originally requested.
Caltrans performed an engineering assessment of the updated scope and has determined that the
replacement of part of the Class 1 facility with a Class 3 facility will likely decrease the overall
benefits. However, the addition of the decomposed granite trail will provide an increase in safety
for all active transportation users. Tab 69 is a request for the city of La Mesa's
bike and sidewalk connections project located in San Diego County. The project scope as submitted
in the application proposes to construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities to complete
gaps in the active transportation networks within the City of La Mesa.
After the project was awarded, the City embarked on the development of complete streets corridors.
Through this process, the City Council approved two segments along the corridor to provide
community members with pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements to key destinations.
of the Active Transportation Program Bike and Sidewalk Connections project scope is
included in the approved Segment 2 Complete Streets project. For this reason, the City
is requesting a scope change to remove sidewalks, Class 2 bike lanes, and Americans with disabilities
ramps, as it will be included in the La Mesa Boulevard Complete Streets Segment 2 project.
Caltrans performed an engineering assessment of the updated scope
and has determined that the changes will retain the safety benefits of the project as compared
to the original scope. Based on the proposed changes, Caltrans estimated a reduction of
$861,000 in construction costs. Staff has reviewed both of these scope change requests
and concurs with Caltrans's assessment and finds them consistent with the active transportation
program guidelines. Tab 7D is an action item to amend the active transportation program
to deprogram $861,000 from the City of La Mesa's bike and sidewalk connections project
located in San Diego County. As discussed under Tab 69, the City is requesting to remove part
of their originally submitted scope, as it will be completed through a separate project.
The City's Active Transportation Program project received a total of $3,962,000 in funding,
with $3,407,000 of those funds programmed to the construction phase.
Due to the reduction in scope and based on Caltrans's determination,
This amendment will reduce the programmed construction funds by $861,000, bringing the
project's total construction funding to $2,546,000. Staff met with the City to discuss this programming
update. Consistent with the program guidelines, these cost savings will be returned to the active
transportation program for programming in a future cycle. Commissioners staff recommends
approval of tabs 68, 69 and 70. Thank you, Alika. Any public comment?
We do not receive any requested comment on the listed items.
Is there a question, comment or emotion for the dais?
Just thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick comment. Just acknowledging the city of La Mesa and
you know their work to really look at comprehensively how you know their their complete streets
corridor you know works overall with with circulation for their residents there I
I know the city quite well and they're doing a lot as it relates to multimodal
approach is to their transportation and it's good to, you know, good to hear that that they
really took the time to look at this project thoughtfully and was able to scope it appropriately
so that we could get cost savings that can be returned to the to the ATP pool. So I just want
to acknowledge that and if if it's okay I'd like to make a motion to approve. Moved by Vice Chair
action item. Uh, Senator
Falcon. Is there a second?
Second by Commissioner Tiffany.
All those in favor? Uh opposed
extensions. Motion is approved
onto items 71 through 73. John.
Yes, Tab 71 through 73 are all
action items for shop
allocations, so we'll take
those three together. Tab 71 is
$46,559,000 for six SHOT projects.
This is a much lower quantity and dollar amount
than we typically allocate at one commission meeting.
And this is a result of the allocation plan
that was approved at the December commission meeting.
These six projects align with the priorities
that were approved by the commission.
Five of the six projects are emergency restoration projects.
and one of the six projects
is a state mandated plant establishment
and monitoring project.
Typically, I also give a brief summary
of the performance outputs or impactful projects,
but there's nothing to report this time
because they're five emergency
and one plant establishment project.
So that's tab 71.
Tab 72 is an action item for shop
pre-construction allocations.
There are no changes on the current change list.
However, there is one last minute change
that we do need to make.
Project number 16, which is EA07-38660,
has been withdrawn from this request.
Caltrans withdrew that request.
And that change will be noted on the final change list.
So with that change,
This item will now allocate $117,224,000 for 73 shop pre-construction phases.
This is for environmental and design and right-of-way phases.
And then Tab 73 is an action item to allocate construction funds for a shop minor program project
to fund a safety and operational improvement project on county road 29,
which is a state-owned frontage road off of state route 99 in Madera County.
Minor A project allocations are typically delegated to Caltrans
and then reported on the information calendar.
However, this project was not on the minor A project list
that the commission approved in June,
And therefore it's required to come to the commission for a separate individual
allocation staff recommends approval of tabs, 71, 72, and 73.
All right.
Thank you, John.
Uh, any public comment on this item?
No, we don't did not receive a request to comment on the listed items.
Thank you.
A question, comment, or a motion from the notice.
Uh, so moved by commissioner Cruz.
Is there a second, second by commissioner eager?
All those in favor?
post extension's motion is approved uh on now to items 74 through 77 shila thank you
good morning commissioners i'll be presenting tabs 74 through 77 with a recommendation at the end
tab 74 is a request to allocate 72 million eight hundred and eighty nine thousand dollars
for the locally administered state transportation improvement program interstate 10 corridor freight
and Managed Lane Project Contract 2B
from Sierra Avenue in Fontana to Pepper Avenue in Colton
on the state highway system in San Bernardino County.
Tab 75 is a request to allocate a total of $16,663,000
for 10 locally administered state transportation
improvement program and planning program
and monitoring projects off the state highway system.
Tab 76 is a request to allocate $12 million, $500,000
for the locally administered
state transportation improvement program, Santa Claus Lane,
railroad crossing and beach access improvements
phase two project on the state highway system
in Santa Barbara County.
And finally, tab 77 is a request to allocate
$60,820,000 for the locally administered
state transportation improvement program,
link union station phase A component
of the Southern California optimized rail expansion
or score program, main construction contract rail project
in Los Angeles County.
Please note the updates to tabs 75, 76, and 77
as reflected on the change list.
Staff has reviewed these requests
and recommends approval of tabs 74 through 77.
All right, thank you, Sheila.
Any public comment?
No, we don't receive any request of call on the items.
Thank you.
Question, comment, or a motion from the DICE.
So moved by Vice Chair Falcone,
seconded by Commissioner Mann.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Stentions?
Motion is approved.
item 78 through 82, Caleb.
Good morning commissioners.
Tab 78 through 82 will be presented together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 78 is an allocation request for $152,000
in local partnership formulate program funds
for the Western Avenue pedestrian improvements project
in Imperial County.
The project will make several pedestrian improvements
in the city of Brawley on Western Avenue
from Main Street to State Route 86.
Tab 79 is an advanced allocation request
for $2,115,000 in local partnership
formulate program funds for the AC overlay project
2026 phase C in Sacramento County.
The project will rehabilitate nine lane miles
of local road and make ADA improvements
to increase the pavement conditions in the Foothill Farms,
Fair Oaks, and Arden Arcade communities in Sacramento County.
Tab 80 is an allocation request for $6,718,000 in local partnership, formulaic program, and
STIP funds for the Bay-Skyway Phase 1 Yerba-Buena Island multi-use pathway and related roadway
improvements project in San Francisco County.
The project will complete bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between Yerba-Buena Island and
east bay. Tab 81 is an allocation request for $538,000 in local partnership formulaic program
funds for the redwood park and ride capital improvements project in Napa county. As mentioned
earlier the project will improve a key transit hub in the city of Napa. Tab 82 is an application
request for $3,842,000 in local partnership formulaic program funds for the San Francisco
Creek Bridge bank stabilization project in various counties. The project will make improvements to
protect the Caltrain railroad bridge and Palo Alto's bicycle pedestrian bridge. Staff have reviewed
these requests and found them to be consistent with local partnership formulaic program and STIP
guidelines staff recommends your approval of tabs 78 79 80 81 and 82 all
right thank you Kayla any public comment no there was no request to comment on
the listed items thank you motion to approve or statement
Carl Cardino I'd be honored to make a motion that we approve tab 78 79 80 81
and I think that's about it.
Thank you. Commissioner Eager.
All those in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions.
Motion is approved.
And that culture and
electrification has been a home
run by any measure.
Absolutely.
Yes.
Items 83 through 84, Naveen.
Thank you, Commissioner.
TAB 83 is an action item to
approve a multi-funded solutions
the state's first state to be a
comment. No requests from any of our online attendees. Great, thank you. I have a card from
Sarcas. After all these years, I still cannot pronounce your name. Kaczek, Santa Barbara County.
Good afternoon. Good morning, as you say. Welcome. Morning. Thank you, Chair Grisby. You actually got
it right. So it's Sarcas Kaczek. Oh, wow. Okay, cool. Yeah, thank you. So thank you, Chair, Vice
chair thank you for your leadership as chair last this past year and
congratulations to incoming chair Falcon and vice chair Cruz my name is Sarkis
Kacek with the Santa Barbara County Association governments I'm here today
to say the biggest thank you in the world thank you for this allocation
today this is a historic day for our region because this allocation is the
final segment of our Santa Barbara US 101 HOV corridor and so we've been
working on this for over 20 years. We've had over 20 different types of funding
in the corridor so we're thankful for our partnership with Caltrans but thank
you for your support because we couldn't have done it without you. Our voters did
approve measure A back in 2008 to leverage the funding that is being
approved for today. So on behalf of our region, our agency and our voters, thank
you. And I did want to thank Commission staff, Matt Yozka, Naveen, Alashara and
others. This has been a long time coming and we're so thankful and we look
forward to having you back in Santa Barbara in a couple years once the
corridors finished for a celebration event. So thank you. Thank you and
Thank you. Thank you. Um congratulations again. My trips down there. I know the community really backs it. So congratulations. Um is there a motion to approve or comments or questions for tonight from the dias? So moved by Commissioner Eager. Seconded by Commissioner Falcone. All those in favor. Opposed. Abstentions. Motion is approved. Um we have item 85 by Naveen. I know, uh, Commissioner Mann, you need to recuse. Right.
I'm recusing myself on this item out of the abundance of caution due to a potential complaint
All right. Naveed
Thank you, so tab 85 is an action item to approve an allocation of
18 million eight hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars for the Wallace Annenberg wildlife crossing project
Enabling the California Natural Resources Agency and Caltrans to complete and deliver the project timely as approved under tab 21 yesterday
Commissioned staff reviewed this request and recommend your approval of tab 85
And thank you. I mean any public comment on this item? No, there's no request comment on the item
Thank you question comment or a motion to approve
vice-chair Falcon
Yeah, I like to move that look make a motion to approve to align with the comments that I made yesterday on this item
Indeed so moved by vice-chair Falcon seconded by Commissioner Tiffany all those in favor
Both extensions motion is approved
Now into item 86. I'll pause
second
All right, I'd of 86 Sheila. Thank you
Commissioners tab 86 is a request to allocate 30 million
$770,000 for the state administered trade corridor enhancement program high desert corridor
Operational efficiency rail project in San Bernardino County
This project will improve the efficiency reliability and resiliency of the freight rail network
by constructing two
22,500 foot staging tracks and
11.2 mile extension of an existing main track and an associated
Railroad signal grading and drainage improvements these improvements will increase freight rail throughput
velocity and operational safety
supporting more reliable goods movement to and from the ports, reducing congestion on
the roadway transportation system, and lowering greenhouse gas and diesel particulate emissions.
Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval of tabs 86.
All right.
Thank you, Sheila.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request of comment on this item.
Thank you.
Question, comment, or emotion?
Commissioner Cruz.
I just want to thank you for bringing this project forward, and there was one previously
with Prologis on improving efficiencies, but also improving just the logistics industry
in general.
There's been big debate about logistics, especially in the capital over the last few years, and
then you see now a move to make these 21st century warehouses, to make these green warehouses,
But also to invest, to make investments along the corridor to allow for trucks to move through
but they're also changing the way they do business.
So I appreciate all these efforts they are in line with or tend to do as a state to keep
that industry healthy, but also to keep the communities that surround them with clean
air.
So thank you.
Would you like to make a motion as well or Mr. Cruz?
Thank you. All right. So moved
by Commissioner Cruz. Is there
a second? Second by
Commissioner Eager. All those
in favor? Opposed?
xtensions? Motion is approved.
On now to items 87 and 88,
Jaden. Thank you.
Commissioners, tabs 87 and 88
are action items to consider
approval to allocate $54,597,000
program projects, as well as to consider an approval to advance an allocation of $4,550,000
for the locally administered ATP, memory lane, and Flower Street Bikeway Project in Orange
County.
Please make note of the changelist for tab 87, and before offering a recommendation,
I would like to highlight a project from each book item.
Within tab 87, there is an allocation of $200,000 for the PSNE phase of the Folsom
Placerville rail trail gap closure project which will construct over 7,000 feet of class one bike
lanes and enhance crosswalks among several other improvements. Within tab 88 there's an allocation
of four million five hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the construction phase of the memory
lane and flower street bikeway project in the city of Santa Ana and the city of Orange. This project
process. So this project will
construct two lane miles of
bikeway, construct 21 curb
extensions and two raised cross
walks with rectangular rapid
flashing beacons, among several
other improvements. Staff has
reviewed tabs 87 and 88 and
recommends your approval. All
right. Thank you, Jane. Any
public comment? No, there was no
requested comment on the items.
Thank you. Question comment or
So moved by Commissioner Mann. Is there a second? Second by Vice Chair Falcone. All those
in favor? Opposed? Stentions? Motion is approved. Item 89, Brandy.
Good morning, Commissioners. Tab 89 is an action item requesting an advanced allocation
of $365,000 to the local transportation climate adaptation programs. All of Hearst Roadway
climate resiliency project phase two in Yuba County. The county is requesting an
advanced allocation from fiscal year 26-27 to the current fiscal year 25-26 to
initiate the environmental phase. Staff has reviewed this request and finds it
consistent with the program's guidelines. Staff recommends approval of tab 89.
Thank you Brandy. Any public comment? No there was no request comment. Thank you.
questions, comments, or a motion from the dais? So moved. So moved by Commissioner Eger. Is there a second?
Second. Second by Vice Chair Falcon. All those in favor? Opposed.
Stentions. Motion is approved. Brandy, item 90. Commissioners, tab 90 is an action item to approve
applications. The program has a
No, there was no request to comment again. All right. Thank you question comment or a motion from the dice. So moved by Commissioner Eager. Second by Commissioner man. All those in favor.
Opposed abstentions motion is approved. Item 91 through 103. Justin.
It's me actually.
hi commissioners I will presenting tabs 91 through 103 together these are
action items consisting of time extension requests for projects from the
following programs the stage highway operation and protection program the
state transportation improvement program the local partnership program
the trade corridor enhancement program the active transportation program and
the transience in inner city rail capital program staff has reviewed this
request and determine they are consistent with the respective program
guidelines. Please make note of the change list for tab 102. That recommends
your approval of tabs 91 through 103. All right. Thank you, Kenneth. Uh, any
public comment? No, not seeing any requested comment on any of the listed
items. Thank you. Uh, question, comment or a motion from the diets? So moved
by, uh, Commissioner Eger. Is there a second? Seconded by vice chair,
Falcon. All those in favor? Opposed? Stensions? Motion is approved. Item 104 through 105. Justin.
Thank you, commissioners. Tabs 104 and 105 are action items for your consideration regarding
the approval of time extension amendments as exceptions to the shop guidelines.
Tab 104 is an amendment to the project allocation period for one
top safety improvement project in rusett county tab 105 is an amendment to the project development
expenditure period for five shop projects commission has reviewed these requests and
recommend approval of taps 104 to 105 all right thank you justin um any public comment no there
was no request to comment thank you uh question comment or a motion from the dais
So moved by Commissioner Eger, seconded by Commissioner Cruz. All those in favor?
Opposed? Extension's motion is approved. Item 106, Randy.
Commissioners, tab 106 is an action item to approve a time extension amendment for the
period of project development expenditures for four Valley Rail components in Sacramento County.
staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval of tab 106 all right thank you brandy
uh any public comment no there's no request to comment thank you justin uh any comment question
or a motion from the dais so moved by commissioner eager is there a second second by vice chair
All those in favor, oppose, extensions, motion is approved.
We now have a time for a public comment.
Is there any public comment?
I've seen requests to comment from online attendees at this time.
All right. Thank you.
With that, no one in the room as well.
All right. Well, in that case, it's been a pleasure to serve.
Uh, look forward to the leadership of the next team and, uh, save trip home.
Bye.