You know, right?
Wow.
Good morning, Paul.
Good morning, Paul.
Did you get a good night's sleep?
Yeah.
We have a message that's okay.
We'll see.
You have sick.
Such a beautiful day.
All right.
for a walk this morning. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to day two of the California Transportation
Commission hearings in Folsom, California. We're gonna get started with a call Douglas.
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Bradshaw. Here. Vice Chair Cruz. Commissioner Brown-Hines. Commissioner
Eager. Commissioner Grisby. Commissioner Gordino. Present. Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Tiffany.
Chair Falcone. Present. Senator Cortese. Assemblymember Wilson. Sure we have a forum. Thank you, Douglas.
to you for instructions for public participation. Thank you. Welcome to day two of the June 2026
CTC meeting in Fabulous Folsom. The meeting agenda is located on our website at www.catc.ca.gov.
All the presentations for today's meeting are also available on the commission meetings page
of our website under the view download meeting materials tab. Any document that 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 is being provided on the
webinar for this meeting. 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's a number of language options available there to choose from. For our presenters,
presentation. If you're on the
agenda to make a presentation,
please do your best to be
succinct. Please remember to
speak at a steady pace to allow
our translating services
adequate time for accurate
translations. If you're
presenting remotely, we hope
that you will turn on your
camera during your presentation
if you have one. For the
public. We welcome comments
from the public as a part of
each item at this meeting. For
those attending in person,
So, if you want to join us in
there, that will let us know
what item you want to comment
on.
For those attending by Zoom,
you should see the webinar
control panel, likely located
at the bottom of your screen.
There you will find the raised
hand and Q&A tabs.
We encourage you to use the
raised hand feature as early
into the item as you can to
give the system time to
acknowledge you.
Ultimately, you may use the
Q&A tab to submit your
comment.
on their behalf.
As a reminder, each registered attendee
has provided a unique link and phone number
to access the webinar.
These should not be shared with other participants
as they are registered specifically to your name
and can create confusion for staff
when trying to make comments.
For all of our main 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
our translating services adequate time for accurate translations and since we often have
many speakers we make your point in two minutes or less if for some reason we have a lot of speakers
on any single item we reserve the right to limit comments to one minute as needed thank you for
joining us today thank you chair thank you douglas we're gonna start um a little bit out of order
to the public. Thank you. I'm
projects in the county. And the
funding that was available for programming by the 2022 cycle deadline of June 30th, 2026.
This leaves $73,582,000 of 2024 Formulate Program funding available for programming
through June 30th, 2028. Please note that this item is on the change list for a minor
to the agenda title. Tab 99 is a supplemental allocation request for $9,661,000 in local
partnership formulate program funds for the BART Silicon Valley phase 2 New Hall yard
tunneling NTP 1 package 1 of 2 project in Santa Clara County. This supplemental amount
was programed in tab 97. $100 million in SCCP and LPP competitive funds was allocated to
the project in March 2026. The project will construct a tunnel launch structure and tunnel
supports to begin extending the BART rail system by six miles through downtown San Jose to
the city of Santa Clara. Staff recommends approval of tabs 97 and 99. Thank you, Kayla. Just
Thank you. Thank you. And I'm
it's literally a timing issue for today. We need to have the CTC take an action before the VTA
board takes an action later this morning. So we really appreciate that. Thank you very much.
Thank you. All right, any questions or comments from the dais? I do know that
the gentleman to the right of me wants to make a motion, right?
but it's stage left, I think.
Wow, very good.
Ununable.
Chair Falcone, thank you.
And Celeste, thank you for being here as well.
It is a timing issue, and the timing
is long overdue to continue BARC phase 2 into Silicon Valley
with the 6.1 mile extension into the city of Santa Clara.
Many of us have been working on this private, public,
nonprofit stakeholder partnership for three decades, and it is only fitting that Will
Kimpton is here today who has had so much to do with transportation improvements around
our state and in Santa Clara County where he served as the executive director of the
first self-help county sales tax initiative from 1984 to 1995. Will
Kimpton, are you here? There you are. Could you stand? More or later about Will
Kimpton, I'm going to see how many shades of red I can make his face turn, but I'll
do that under Commissioner Common, so if we do that a second time today. But this
effort was part of the sales tax initiative in the year 2000, again in
in 2018, in 2018, in 2018, and again in 2018, again in 2018, and again in 2020, with a regional
measure and another countywide measure. We put our wallets where our words are, and this
just shows the state's ongoing commitment to the improvements in this vital region.
So with great pride, I would be honored to make a motion to move this forward this morning.
Thank you. Beautiful. All right. We have a motion and second by Commissioner Bradshaw on favor. Any oppose extensions. All right, those two items pass back to the information calendar. We have Erwin refino. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Erwin refino representing the commission's engineering team. My presentation addresses the book items listed under the information calendar.
item. Starting with tab 24 and
ending with tab 44. Please make
note of the recent change list
published pertain to types 24.
25 27 and 31. This batch of
information items have been
reviewed and found to have no
issues raised by commission
staff. As such, individual
items will not be presented
and respectfully turn it back to the commission
for some thoughts before concluding.
Okay, this concludes my presentation
and for the information calendar.
Thank you, Erwin.
Any public comment, Justin?
Thank you, Chair.
At this time, I do not see any requests
to comment on any of these listed items.
Very nice.
Any questions, Erwin already brought them,
but if there are any questions or comments from the dais,
please make them now.
Okay.
All right, do I have a motion?
Motion to approve.
All right, Commissioner Bradshaw, who makes a motion?
Oh, it's info.
Oh, she said information.
I support the information.
Noted publicly on the record, thank you.
All right, consent calendar, which is an action.
We have Erwin.
OK, to continue on my presentation,
this presentation addresses the book items
the agenda. The agenda is to
as published pertaining to tabs 47 and 58.
And lastly, tab 54 is being segregated
from this action item batch
to be addressed later as its own item.
As a result, tabs 45 through 53,
followed by tabs five through 76
are action items being brought before the commission.
The staff recommends the commission's approval
the motion to approve the
somebody needs to get me another cup of coffee maybe all right um any questions
or comments from the dais we do okay yes thank you chair I do see some of our
virtual attendees who've raised their hand at this time like the first call on
John McCune John McCune you are muted and free to comment John if you're
speaking we cannot hear you hello yes hello you are unmuted and free to
comment okay thank you um I see that item 54 is gonna be moved to a different
time when will that be addressed it'll be addressed right after this item okay
thank you okay we have yes can you hear me yes we can okay yeah what's what's
going to happen to item or tab 44 tab 44 has already come and we've passed we've
gone beyond that one sir we've gone beyond that okay thank you and that
concludes all requests to comment from our virtual attendees at this time thank
you Justin any comments or questions from the dais or emotion yes
Commissioner crispy I just want to make a comment about the fact that we have a
the city of Toronto. I have a
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Okay. Consent calendar passes. We now go to item 54.
Yes. Good morning, commissioners. Excuse me. Tab 54 is an action item to approve the execution of
12 directors deeds in accordance with section 118 of the Streets and Highways Code. The state will
we will receive a return of $4,148,911
from the sale of these properties.
Sorry.
Please note, the commission has received a few letters
and emails related to a couple
of the director's deeds in this item.
We received one letter yesterday morning
that has been distributed to commissioners
and will soon be posted online.
That letter was from Assembly Member Valencia
and support of directors deed number nine in this item,
which is being sold to the Cinev Anaheim
to be used for a future fire station.
We also received multiple emails
from a member of the public related
to directors deed number two in this item.
This correspondence was posted online
with the additional materials on Tuesday
and is available as a pink handout in the back of the room
in the side of the room.
The correspondence is from Mr. John Ingerham,
who claims to have former owner buyback rights
to an 80 acre portion of the parcel being offered
under director's deed number two in the book item.
The total size of the property being offered
is a 104 acre parcel in Monterey County.
We can go through just a few details of this parcel.
Monterey County acquired the 80 acre parcel.
Monterey County acquired the 80 acre portion
this 104 acre parcel in 1983 and later transferred the parcel to Caltrans in 1986. Mr. Ingerham's
claim in his emails is that the property was purchased by Monterey County back in 1983 under
the threat of imminent domain for the State Route 101 Prunedale bypass. And now that the bypass
project has been rescinded, he has buyback rights from Caltrans as a representative of a company
who had an ownership stake at the time of acquisition in 1983.
Mr. Ingraham is asking that approval of this sale be delayed to further evaluate
whether he has buyback rights based on various state and federal laws
that he has suggested are relevant, including the Roberti Act,
a section of California's imminent domain law, and FHWA right-of-way regulations.
For the past several weeks, Commission staff, Caltrans staff, and both of our legal teams
have spent significant time evaluating whether these state and federal laws apply to this
situation and would obligate the state to offer the property to Mr. Ingraham instead
of moving forward with this public sale that's before us.
What we found was that the Roberti Act doesn't apply to non-residential properties or to
to freeway routes that were rescinded after 1984.
And this route was rescinded in 2021.
We also found that the section of eminent domain law
that Mr. Ingram is referencing,
which is Code of Civil Procedures 1245.245.
This section was added with the approval
of Senate Bill 1650 in 2006.
And the very last section of the bill says,
this act shall apply prospectively
and shall apply to property acquired
after January 1st, 2007.
And based on this and the fact that this property
was acquired in 1983,
staff concluded that this section is not applicable
to the 1983 sale.
And then finally regarding his point about FHWA approval,
FHWA approval is not needed when Caltrans is selling parcels
at the fair market value,
which this is based on the fact that it was a public sale
a public auction. So after reviewing all 12 of the directors deeds in this item and after
reviewing all the correspondence we received from Mr. Ingerham related to directors deed number two
and after consulting with the commission and Caltrans teams, staff has concluded that all the
sales in this item including the parcel that Mr. Ingerham is objecting to are in compliance with
the commission's approval of the
Well, she is online.
Is she still online, the person that called earlier?
To the one who indicated they wish to comment on item 54.
Please use the virtual raise and feature
so that you'd like to comment on this item.
In the meantime, we can call up Mr. Jonathan Ingraham.
Thank you, Chair and commissioners.
My name is Jonathan Ingraham and of Reavis and Williams.
Our property was taken under threat
the highway bypass. Ultimately,
not in effect at the time of the
property was taken. But indeed
the obligation was triggered to
give first owners rights in 2021
when the project was abandoned,
not when the property was taken.
The obligation to resell it to
the owner was triggered at that
point. What Caltrans did do was
package my property with four
other properties. I was
the other properties. And then in their own words for a quicker sale with better return
and administrative efficiency. My parcel wasn't even recognizable anymore if I wanted to buy
it. It was packaged up with others for a quicker sale, better return for administrative efficiency.
conclusion I mean just because I only have two minutes and 43 years to talk
about this the Commission's not being asked to void this sale in favor of me
today I'm asking that the request is narrow and reasonable I'm asking to
propose postpone the approval for 30 days allow the outstanding public record
requests to get fulfilled require Caltrans CTC to provide single consistent
legal, defensible conditions. Thank you for your time. I have my time. Thank you for being
here. Are there other comments? Sir, can you tell me, I'll give you a couple more minutes
here, exactly what you're asking for today. I'm asking for the CTC to postpone this decision
what we have to do. To get it
right is all I am asking for.
I just want the right decision
to be made. And this has been
fumbled and bumbled all along
by Caltrans. And by the own
public records received many on
CTC staff, Caltrans staff
the state. The state records.
The state records asked to be,
to be fulfilled mainly by
Monterey County. Monterey
County is the one that with the
threat of eminent domain took
the property from me. Then in 83.
And then transferred it to the
state. And Monterey County has
not fulfilled. But to my
understanding not even to
Caltrans. The history of the
parcel. You know Caltrans first claim was that that it was not taken under
eminent domain. On the deed itself and on the back pages of what you see there it
was taken in it by eminent domain. That was her first claim and then they gave
me I've only known about this for I've only known that of the total sale for a
few months and as soon as I found out beginning of April I reached out to say
I said, hey, we were the former owners of this. We should have been given first right. I tried to research it and I reached out and then the middle of May, I was given two weeks to respond to Caltrans statement. Thank you. Chief Deputy Gaurju C has a question. I just wanted to ask John again, if you could read the section of the law that talks about how it applies prospectively.
that we were guided to. And it.
It was enacted with the approval of Senate Bill 16 15 2006. If you read to the bottom of Senate Bill 16 50 the very last section of that bill.
the property. So the property.
this from the legal perspective or have someone here who who might um I'm not an attorney uh
to have something apply prospectively not. Thank you Commissioner Gardino. Yes we would like to
comment on this I would like to defer to my staff uh I think Carolyn may be here to talk about some
of the communications that has taken place uh back and forth regarding this item. Thanks for being
have a question. Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Good morning, chair.
Yes, we have looked at this on a legal perspective and
everything that John's has indicated is what we have
found.
I would like to point out in addition to what John has
mentioned that if for the sake of argument say that
Mr Ingram's arguments are valid.
We would have to that would only solely extend to the
the property from Hollow Hills Partnership, which has since been dissolved. Mr. Ingerham has not
been able to provide us any documentation that indicates that when that partnership is dissolved
that Reavis and William Builders acquired all the interest of that partnership. You can see by his
age that he wasn't the original owner back in 1983. I'm sure you're a young boy back then,
but I certainly understand I could see his emotion and it's a difficult situation,
the city of Washington. We did
We have a follow-up.
And this was the third time that you went out to bid, and a bid has been accepted and
an offer has been accepted, and that's what we're voting on today, correct?
That's correct.
We had two auctions with no bidders, and we went out with a third auction that was a sealed
bid auction, and resulted in one bidder, and that's the transaction before you today.
And that's for that entire parcel.
the entire piece, thank you.
Any other questions, comments?
Madame Chair, before we take a vote, I'd like to make some comments.
Sure, absolutely.
Okay, thank you.
Prunedale was pretty much in my backyard, so this is an area that I'm very familiar
with, and I have spoken to Mr. Ingraham at some length, heard from him last week. There's
been extensive emails back and forth, and I've read those thoroughly, as I'm sure the
rest of the commissioners here have as well. It's an unfortunate situation. In 1983, as
And Ingraham told me he was five years old.
So this was his grandfather's property
or his grandfather's company's property.
So this was a long time ago.
And I'm frankly very sympathetic to your situation,
to his situation.
But unfortunately, I really don't see a way forward on this
with that not moving forward.
And I think it would be misleading, frankly, to delay,
at least from my point of view,
because I don't see how we can make a decision
other than approving this
because a bid has already been accepted.
There doesn't seem to be strong legal reasons
to make a decision otherwise.
And so unfortunately, although, again,
and I'm certainly sympathetic to the situation.
I feel our hands are tied, and I'm
going to have to vote to approve this director's deed.
Thank you.
Is that a motion, Commissioner?
I'll make that motion.
OK, great.
Thank you.
Do we have a second on the motion?
Second.
Second by Commissioner Bradshaw.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Extensions?
Okay. Thank you. That tab passes. Thank you, Mr. Graham for being here and for sharing your perspective with us going to tab 77. Christine Gordon.
Thank you. Good morning, commissioners tab 77 is an information item of the inspector general report.
of 2021 and then you'll start the findings of implementation.
With the office of audits and investigations to present the
report highlight.
Thank you to the chair and commissioners for the opportunity to present this
morning. Um, my name is Matt has been stayed on the chief deputy inspector
general for the Caltrans independent office of audits and investigations.
As Christine mentioned, the purpose is to present an overview of our work in fiscal year 25.
And that's moving a little slow, but it's catching up.
That's right.
So, first, a brief overview of the statutory requirements for office.
We were established by a government code as an independent office within Caltrans with
several responsibilities first is to conduct audits of basically anything
that receives data federal transportation funding that goes
through Caltrans. We also conduct investigations employee misconduct. We
do a review or reviews of Caltrans outreach efforts to increase procurement
opportunities for small and disadvantaged business enterprises and we
provide an annual summary of our findings and recommendations
which is accomplished by our annual report.
Next slide, please.
Here's a little more detail on the work that we conduct.
We mainly conduct two different types of audits.
There are performance audits that can touch on
just about any topic within Caltrans or local agencies.
And most of our work really is done via
project compliance audits.
and most of it at local agencies will often audit projects
from procurement through completion.
And then we also have some non-audit services
that we conduct, including kind of a
relatively new data analytics function,
as well as some reviews of cost proposals
for architectural and engineering contracts.
And then of course investigations,
we manage a complaint hotline
and conduct various investigations within the department.
Next slide please.
So here's a brief overview of the audits
that were completed during this fiscal year.
We conducted 10 audits and special reviews.
There were nine audits, one special review.
55 recommendations to the department
and to the local agencies.
Total costs audited were a little over almost $1.3 billion.
And we questioned about $9 million in costs
that we did not believe complied with state or federal rules.
Most of our work, as I mentioned,
was done at local agencies.
We had three audits of Caltrans districts.
And one special review, it was kind of a risk review,
of IIJA activities at Caltrans.
Next slide.
And here's our non-audit services.
Again, review of architectural and engineering cost proposals
to make sure they're supported.
They meet the departmental guidelines.
And these are actually avoided costs.
So we review this prospectively.
So this resulted in about $5 million
in savings for the department.
Next slide, please.
Here's a summary, again, our potential financial impact
was almost $14 million during the fiscal year.
And in addition to that, we, of course,
made numerous recommendations to improve processes
and compliance going forward at local agencies
and at Caltrans.
Next slide.
Here's a summary of the status of open recommendations
as of our prior annual report.
First of all, as I mentioned,
were 55 recommendations from audits conducted during that fiscal year many
of those audits were actually published towards the end of the fiscal year so
it's not unusual for those to remain open so we're highlighting the 149 that
remained open as of the prior annual report so 49 of those were fully
implemented by Caltrans and the local agencies 77 remain not implemented 21
One, had some progress, so they were partially implemented.
And two, were communicated to us
that they just will not implement the recommendation.
Essentially, they're accepting the risk.
We're about ready to conduct an updated review.
We do this starting July 1st every year,
so we're a few days away.
And I know we've heard from Caltrans leadership,
they are committed to working to close these recommendations.
the local agencies. But Caltrans does have some
responsibility in ensuring that they're carried through and
implemented. Next slide. That's a brief summary of our work.
Um, thank you again to for allowing me to present and I'm
happy to address any questions. Thank you. Thank you for your
Thank you for your presentation.
Any comments, Justin?
No, I don't see any requests from our virtual attendees
to comment on the item.
Any questions or comments from the dais?
I had a quick question.
So when was the last time that you've conducted
an audit of the department?
We are conducting multiple audits all the time.
All the time, OK.
The reason why I'm asking is I like
there are any trends, you know, in terms of any, you know, improvements or or changes between your auditing of, of, of this department.
I don't know if I can comment on the department so much because our audits tend to be pretty targeted for different programs within the department. I will say, you know, statewide, some of the issues we've noticed come up
repeatedly are problems with the procurement process by locals, compliance with Buy America.
That's an area we've seen multiple times. There are a lot of detailed requirements on documenting compliance with that.
And it does vary from local entity to local entity. Some of them are more robust and larger.
and. You know, larger, they're
used to managing projects more
often where you know some of
the smaller entities. Maybe
aren't as familiar with all the
requirements. Okay. All right.
Thank you. Any other comments
or questions? All right. Thank
you for your presentation.
Thank you. That was an
informational item. Next item
the California Transportation Asset Management Plan and Senate Bill 1 each established 10 year performance targets for the state highway operations and protection program primary asset classes which are pavements, bridges, culverts, and transportation management systems.
To measure progress towards meeting the defined performance targets, the Commission adopted an addendum to the SHOP guidelines calling on Caltrans to develop annual benchmarks with future condition projections
work to ensure that they're
And to report annually to
measure progress made for each
of the four primary asset
classes towards achieving the
10 year targets.
Diana Campbell, the acting
state asset management
engineer for Caltrans, is here
to provide a presentation on
the 25-26 annual performance
benchmark report.
Turn over to Diana.
Thank you, Tim.
information item the 2026. Benchmark performance report. This is our interim report card. We've
been monitoring our progress annually towards meeting the Senate bill one commitments that were
established back in 2017 as well as the performance targets that were established and adopted by the
commission. Next slide please. So this report card shows our anticipated future projections
towards our 2027 targets by balancing three things.
One, our current condition.
Two, our ongoing rate of deterioration for our assets.
And three, we look at all of the planned work.
It combines all of these factors to help show
how we're doing and where we're headed.
Next slide, please.
To start, I wanted to share a summary table
and highlight two distinct benchmarks
we're currently reporting on for the four asset classes.
payment, bridges, culverts, and transportation management systems or TMS.
First, we start with Senate Bill 1 targets, and the other is the asset management targets
set by the Commission.
So let's start with Senate Bill 1.
And everything is showing in green.
Green is good.
We're on track to meet or exceed our expectations across the board for four asset classes.
Now, notably for the bridge metrics, where our goal is to fix over 500 bridges, we've surpassed that by a considerable margin, fixing over 2,341 bridges. So everything is good for Senate Bill 1 summary. Next slide, please.
Now, here's a quick overview of how we present the targets. Each asset class includes a table with its targets. And in this example, this is our TMS elements.
It shows the established targets on the left,
in the gray box.
Last year's condition in the center current year condition,
and then in the far right,
that shows our change from last year.
Now notice the color coding on the far right.
The color corresponds to whether we're heading
in the right direction.
So sometimes down is good, sometimes up can be good,
depending where we're trending
if it's in the preferred direction.
it just depends if we're talking about good, fair, or poor.
But green is good and red needs improvement.
So that's why we color code them
to make it easy to understand.
Now, while TMS has improved,
as you can see, 20% of the system
is still in poor condition,
leaving a 10% gap to complete in the next two years.
So you might be thinking,
how are we gonna get there by 2027?
Well, most of this gap is due to one single project
that is currently in construction
with over 1,000 TMS elements,
which will significantly improve conditions
once that project is complete.
Next slide, please.
Also for each asset class, we show a simple trend graph.
The red line is our actual performance, solid dots,
we measured the condition.
Hollow dots, future projections.
The gray line is what we predicted back in 2016.
And the shaded gray area is the uncertainty band
from our Monty Carlo analysis.
So far, our results are tracking within this band for TMS,
and based on the projects and the pipeline,
we remain confident that we will meet our goals by 2027.
Next slide, please.
So this is an example of our drainage asset.
Our target is 10% poor,
and we're at 10.2% near our 2027 goals.
Next slide.
Again, nothing terribly exciting here.
The range numbers are fairly steady and pretty flat.
The graph shows we're currently at 10.2%,
as I mentioned before, on track to meet SB1 goals.
Next slide, please.
All right, let's shift gears a little bit.
Next, we're shifting from SB1 targets
to commission asset management adopted targets
that were set back in 2016.
These targets are much more ambitious.
The main difference is the target class one payment
is 1% poor condition as opposed to SB1's 2%.
For bridges, the focus also changes
rather than counting the number of fixed bridges since 2017,
we now look at the overall condition of the bridge network.
Now, most assets are performing well
while the bridge condition and class two pavement
remain in monitor status,
but moving in the right direction.
Next slide, please.
So let's start with payment classes.
If you look at the far right,
we're at 1.3% poor for class one against our 1%,
which is pretty good considering class one payment
represents half of all the payment in California,
covering all of our major interstates
and busiest highways throughout the state.
And as a reminder, Senate bill one target is 2%.
So at 1.3%, we are meeting our SB1 goals.
Oh, I'm sorry, it's slowing down.
Sorry, there's a lag.
So now we're shifting from SP one payment to commissioners asset target.
And with 1.3% for poor for class one payment.
We are close to our target.
As a reminder Senate bill one again target is 2% and we're at 1.3% meeting our SP one
target.
Next slide please.
Next for class payment to which are largely our number state highways were still below
the 22% for target, which is great. While we're trending in the right direction downward for fair target, but based on future projections, we're slightly higher than the fair target, which is why we have class two and monitor status. Next slide, please. So moving on to class three are our two lane rural state highways. And again, everything is green and we're better than where we're required to be under Senate Bill one. Next slide, please.
Next, I'll be talking about bridges, and I want to spend a little time on this slide.
California holds itself to a 1.5% poor condition target, one of the strictest in the nation.
For perspective, the national average is around 6-7% poor, and in some other states, closer
to 19% poor.
these examples underscore how ambitious California's 1.5 percent target truly is compared to the
rest of the nation. Today, California is at 3.4 percent poor. That's less than half the
national average, but still above our target. The encouraging part is we've improved by
half a percent this year, and we had almost a one percent reduction, poor bridge condition
in 2023 to 2024. Now, you may be wondering, why isn't progress improving faster? Well,
I've been with Bridge Program for 25 years and serving as the Chief of Bridge Asset Management,
so let me take a moment to explain. Our infrastructure was largely built in the
late 60s to early 70s. Many are hitting peak rehabilitation all at the same time.
over 60% of our nearly 13,600 bridge inventory is over 53 years old and nearly 10% is over 75.
Pandemic impacts, inflation, sharp woods, steel price increases further reduced our
purchasing power. To add, we cannot take credit for completed bridge work until it's inspected,
which typically occurs every two years, creating a lag between construction completion
to when we take credit for condition improvement.
Also, large complex shop projects can last five to 20 years.
A bridge remains rated poor until the project is done and re-inspected.
Now, despite these challenges, we're being proactive.
We're building a strong shelf-ready pipeline
to advance where quickly a funding becomes available, like IIJA or SB1.
Another example is through the Poor Bridge Deck Initiative in fiscal year 21-22 to 22-23.
My team evaluated over 13,500 bridges to advance low-risk, high-success deck preservation projects
to successfully fix 99 poor bridges totaling 2.3 million square feet of deck area.
Now, before I move on to the next slide, I wanted to address a really important point
city and state. Now I want to
state that commissioner
Tiffany brought up at the last
commission meeting. On the
benchmark report whether a poor
bridge overlaps with safety.
To clarify, a poor rating is a
federal condition classification,
not a safety designation. Many
bridges rated poor simply need
rehabilitation like changing the
oil on your car rotating your
tires. If a bridge was deemed
unsafe, we would immediately
As I was watching the December commission meeting last year, Chair Falcone, you said to Michael Johnson,
acknowledging as your recalibrating priorities the work that the districts have to do
in order to meet priority guidelines in moving around projects, that's not easy.
So just wanted to uplift their work in meeting where we are at right now as it relates to our capacity.
Your comment really resonated with me. Thank you for that. I appreciate you.
It has been a challenging year.
And with that, I would like to follow your lead and take a page out of your playbook.
I would like to take a moment to recognize my team and uplift my team.
I wanted to thank the director and all 12 district directors and single focal points
here today behind me for their leadership, passion, and commitment to the people of the
state of California.
I also want to recognize all of Caltrans, the entire Caltrans team, who have carried
an enormous workload through a rebalance, a pandemic, and a major pandemic.
I appreciate your efforts.
Under extraordinary conditions, the department developed nearly 700 projects totaling $20
billion.
It's not easy.
we also recognize that California has incurred 1 billion in emergency response costs last
year. So what did we do? We transparently acknowledged it, evaluated and rebounded.
We led with purpose as one Caltrans to play offense by proactively advancing climate resiliency
with larger culverts using nonflammable materials and resilience built directly into our highway
design standards for areas prone to fire and flood. District 11 prepared a major emergency
evacuation response plan on State Route 67 as a result of prior fires, which reflects
our forward-thinking approach. This dual approach actively advances climate resiliency, both
by delivering hardened infrastructure projects now and by embedding into how we design projects
moving forward. This puts a lot of pressure on us because we have to pay
for defense and site offense simultaneously. All right. My favorite
part of the presentation Commissioner Tiffany. This one's for you. This bridge
is in district five along U. S. 101 Monterey County. What is not apparent
from this photo with a good looking bridge deck and a safe railing is that
it took over 10 years to fix this bridge due to permitting fiber optic
lines under the foundation, traffic staging, and constructability constraints
to name a few challenges. This example underscores how certain complex bridges
can exceed the 10-year SB1 window, but also reflects strong district partnership
and commitment to delivery. Next slide, please. Hindsight's 2020. Looking back, the
residents. In fact, the 1.5%
poor condition and the 10 year
horizon. We're likely too
aggressive given the pandemic
inflation mega project
timelines and credit leg. For
from inspections, but the
department remains full steam
ahead and aggressively pushing
forward towards our targets.
Before I conclude, I didn't
to do with this work. It's
incredibly helpful to understand
CTC's perspective. So thank
you for the collaboration in
the partnership. And with that,
this concludes my presentation.
Commissioner Tiffany. I assure
you the bridge is very safe to
drive over. Happy to answer any
questions and thank you so much
for your time. Thank you, Diana
for your very thorough report
and very rehatching some of our
quotes. I think you say it
that you shared towards progress.
Particularly with bridges, we've been very sensitive, obviously, to the health of that
particular asset of the system.
Back to the our clerk, do we have any public comment on Diana's position?
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Okay.
Any questions or comments?
Yes.
Commissioner Tiffany.
thank you Diana. A couple of comments before I get into what I wanted to say. First of
all, Leanna and I were wondering if you could tell us where the 19% states are not so, so
we're not, we're not going to drive there. I purposely left that out. And thank you for
your very thorough report. And I appreciate you recognizing everyone at Caltrans that
has helped that, and it's refreshing to hear someone
recognize someone other than Matthew for exchange.
Ty, you already addressed this a bit,
but I'm just, talk a little bit more about how you
looking for beyond 2027, and we know that there is
a significant shortfall that we're looking at,
and you talked about the challenge of playing defense
as well as offense.
I appreciate that, but how do you looking forward,
how do you see addressing and meeting these benchmarks?
I'm assuming we're gonna have to make priorities.
Safety always comes first, and so it probably means
there's gonna be less money for other programs.
I'm going to guess.
But I'm just curious your thoughts about that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great question, Commissioner Tiffany.
Well, first of all, there's minimal impact.
And the reason being because the benchmark projections
are based on ECWC as expected condition work complete, which
is two-thirds of the way from award to contract acceptance
open to traffic.
So what does that mean?
The projects that were actually that matter in 2027
are all in construction or in highway preservation projects.
So they're counted.
The projects that got deferred are outside of the 2027 range.
But also, the gas tax declines and other funding issues,
well, I wish I had a crystal ball.
That's the million dollar question.
We don't have that.
But to meet the 2027 targets, the work
that drives the outcomes are already in construction,
like I said.
So we should be able to account for that.
not only that, we are leveraging new emerging technologies
such as electrochemical chloride extraction
that I mentioned in the March commission meeting
for more cost efficiencies.
And we're playing offense, like I said,
by embedding hardened infrastructures,
not only just in our projects,
but moving forward in our design.
So that should alleviate the $1 billion in emergency work.
And as the peak passes, as I noted earlier,
the expansion was in the 60s to 70 as we crest that curve, we should see significant down decline
in work needed to be done by 2027. Thank you, good question. Any other questions or comments
from Dias? Commissioner Crispy. All right thanks so much for the presentation and congratulations
on the improvements. You mentioned there's a major project on the TMS site that once
was a little weird to me. But
I guess completed a lot of the
numbers there would improve.
I'm just sort of curious which
project that is.
I will have to get back to you
on that. I don't have the EA in
front of me. But it's yes. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other
questions or comments? It wasn't
too long ago that I remember
seeing red dots on those
reports. And so we're hoping by
the city of Davis. And so we're
going to have to have three
dots. Of course, we'll have to
reassess given, you know, the
state of. Given what? Mr.
Tiffany mentioned, you know the
state of our funding to continue
to maintain our assets. It's a
big talking point that each of
us I know are very concerned
about. And so we want to, you
know, we want to continue to
appreciate you bringing all the updates and progress in the work that the team is doing and
we're here as partners with you and so always appreciate your update so thank you Diana.
Thank you so much. All right, next item tab 79 adoption of the 2027 active transportation
for health. Thank you. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
glad to have you here. I'm
California Association of governments. The 2027 active transportation program
guidelines allow the 10 large MPOs to develop guidelines outlining their
regional project selection processes and the MPO component of the ATP. Regional
guidelines must be consistent with the state guidelines but the MPOs do have
discretion in certain areas, such as issuing a supplemental call for projects
and adjusting project selection criteria and weighting. By developing
regional guidelines, MPOs can encourage applicants to propose projects that
advance regional priorities. Regional guidelines must be approved by the Commission.
the city of California. It's a
further advancement of regional greenhouse gas reduction goals.
And the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments scores on project readiness and
demand based on the percentage of existing or potential active transportation users relative
to the size of their community.
The regional guidelines for the five MPOs are included as attachment B in the book item.
the San Diego Association of Governments
and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency regional guidelines
will be presented to you at the August Commission meeting.
Commission staff has reviewed each MPO's guidelines
and finds them consistent with statewide guidelines.
Therefore, staff recommends adoption
of the 2027 Active Transportation Program
regional guidelines for the five previously mentioned MPOs.
Thank you, Erica. Any public comment, Justin?
No, there was no request of comment from our virtual attendees.
Back to the dais. Questions, comments, motion. Motion by Commissioner Mann, second by Commissioner
Bradshaw. All in favor?
No, abstentions. Okay, thank you.
Item 80, back to you, Erica.
is tab 80 is an action item presenting the Calgary division of aeronautics 2026 acquisition
and development program or a and d. The a and d is a two year program providing state
grants to airports for planning construction and land acquisition. These projects are selected
based on the most recently adopted capital improvement plan. At the December 2025 commission
meeting. The commission adopted the amendment to the aeronautics capital improvement plan
ranking priority matrix which includes expanded priority areas to include three new categories.
Climate action, equity and environmental justice, and economic development and multimodal access.
The amended matrix was used for the ranking of projects in this A&D program.
past. The 2022. The 2026 and
the program, which cover
covers fiscal years. 2026 27
and 2027. 28 includes 18
projects valued at $4.1 million.
Commissioners staff has reviewed
this item and recommends
approval of the 2026 aeronautics
acquisition and development
item. Okay. Commissures. Questions, comments, motion. All right. Motion by Commissioner
Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Brownhides. All in favor? No. Abstentions? Okay. Thank you. That item passes. On to environmental matters. Cherie Zamora, tab 81. All right. Good morning. Tab 81 is an action item to accept the addendum in supplemental environmental
the city of Toronto. The city of
motion to approve the motion.
the city of Minnesota. The
city of Minnesota has authorized
Caltrans to transfer a collection of properties known as blues beach in
Mendocino County to the ky Poma nonprofit corporation. The blues beach properties include 136.23 acres of coastal land that was purchased in the 1970s under the highway beautification act of 1965 to protect the scenic nature of the coastline.
resources and history that are important to local Native American tribes. In 2021, Senate
Bill 231 added Section 118.9 to the Streets and Highways Code authorizing the state to
convey the land at no cost to a qualified nonprofit corporation organized by one or
more California Native American tribes for the purpose of environmental protection. The
The Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians,
the Round Valley Indian Tribes,
and the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
formed the Kaipoma Corporation as a qualified nonprofit
under Section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Approval of this item will authorize Caltrans
to execute the director's deed
to complete the land transfer to Kaipoma Corporation.
staff recommends approval of tab 82.
Thank you, John.
Any public comment?
Yes, I do see some virtual attendees
with their hand raised at this time.
I'd call on Patricia Obama.
Greetings and good morning to all.
High POMA is an inter-tribal effort
to preserve our historic territory
and promote cultural autonomy and vibrancy
for generations to come for the three tribes
that came together to form this nonprofit.
The three tribes are Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians,
Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians,
and Round Valley Indian tribes.
The importance of seeing the land's cultural resources,
food, plants, and all that was given to sustain life
in our ancestral territory
is a collective set of relationships to protect.
We want to continue to have the ability for the protection of this land.
It is what we were taught. Although there is mention of three tribes, know that the advocacy
is for all our relations who share in the same memories and hope once again to teach our children
and generations to come so that they too will know the truth of their existence.
The tribes stand together in solidarity and assure that they are the best suited to protect,
preserve and provide oversight to this highly important property and its cultural resources.
The tribes wish to encourage you to approve the transfer of the Blues Beach Chadbrin Gulch
property to Kaipoma. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for your comments. Any additional
Justin? Yes, we have one other hand raised at this time. I'd like to call on
Thank you. Kelly Brinko was not supposed to be raised. Thank you. And that includes all requests to comment on the item at this time. Okay, and we do have a speaker slip from the room, Sean Drake, from our sister agency California Coastal Commission.
Chair Falcone, commissioners, I'm Sean Drake,
legislative program manager
for the California Coastal Commission.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today
on behalf of the Coastal Commission
in support of this important project.
Since SB 231 was passed in 2021,
Coastal Commission staff have been working closely
with the Kaipoma Board, their consultant team,
and the Caltrans District One team
on laying the groundwork to get the Blues Beach property
successfully transferred to Kaipoma.
As part of that preparation Caltrans staff worked closely with me and with my colleagues to secure a coastal development permit that provides the necessary authorization under the Coastal Act.
To divide off and transfer the 136 acres of coastal land as proposed today, I want to express our appreciation to Caltrans district one staff.
Brandon Larson and his team for their collaboration throughout that process.
The Coastal Commission also partnered with KIPOMA
to co-develop a management plan for the Blues Beach property,
which will help guide KIPOMA's management of public access
and natural and cultural resources
consistent with SB 231 and to the Coastal Act.
We're deeply grateful to KIPOMA board,
as well as their consultant team
for their leadership, collaboration, and their patience
in developing this management plan together with us.
With those key documents in place,
We're so pleased that this year's long effort now
comes before you.
Although the transfer process is nearing completion,
it will remain critical for the Coastal Commission
as the land use regulatory agency and Caltrans
as an easement holder and the adjacent pretty owner
to continue working in genuine partnership with Kaipoma
to support their management of Blue's Beach into the future.
We look forward to doing just that.
As for today, your approval will be a milestone
in returning this spectacular piece of coastal land
to Native American Stewardship.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Drake, appreciate you being here.
Back at the dais, anybody have any questions
or comments on this item?
So moved.
Second.
Okay, motion made by Commissioner Grisby,
seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw.
I just wanna say this is such an exciting item
to bring up today.
returning lands to our indigenous people in the state.
And these are the kinds of things that kind of really,
add to the importance of what we do.
We do a lot of funding here on this commission,
but also it's stewardship of important lands
that like Lewis Beach that we're returning to folks.
and it seems like a justice.
So I just wanted to make that comment
before we take the vote.
So appreciate the comments that were made
by a virtual commenter as in addition to Mr. Drake.
So this is an exciting and something to celebrate.
Appreciate Caltrans's and the Coastal Commission's
collaboration on this item.
And with that, all in favor?
We can just acknowledge tab 83 with withdrawn. Yes, acknowledge tab 83 with withdrawn. Thanks
for the reminder, Douglas. All right. Back to you, Tim. Thank you. Commissioners tab
The item number 84 is an action item requesting commission approval of terms, conditions, and execution of a high voltage underground utility license agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric to be able to provide underground installation of electric distribution lines for approximately .6 miles along an access controlled right away section of State Route 49 in Placer County.
please note this item has an edit to the agenda title and the yellow
replacement book item as noted on the change list. Since the enactment of
Senate Bill 901 in 2018, electric utility companies are required to develop
annual wildfire mitigation plans detailing how their facilities will be
maintained and operated or reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. A common
mitigation strategy is to underground existing overhead electric
distribution lines. In some project areas use of access controlled right-of-way is
the last remaining option where utilities can be placed underground. To
accommodate these projects an encroachment policy exception and a
license fee are required to grant use of access controlled right-of-way to
utilities. The Commission's approval of the terms conditions and execution of a
high-voltage underground utility license agreement will help expedite the
undergrounding of the utilities at this location as PG&E has already completed
the work outside the access control right away section and PG&E is ready to
complete the remaining utility undergrounding work at this location.
Staff is, excuse me, staff has reviewed the book item for tab 84 and recommends
approval. Thank you Tim. Little comment Justin. No would you not receive any
request a comment on the item. Thank you. Any questions, comments from the dais or motion?
Commissioner Tiffany and seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw. All in favor?
Any no's, abstentions? Okay that item passes. Back to you Tim. Thank you. Tab 85 is similar to tab 84.
It is an action item requesting commission approval of terms, conditions and execution
of high voltage underground utility license agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric to
provide underground installation of distribution lines for approximately 1.6 miles along an
access controlled right of way section in State Route 29 in Lake County.
Please note this item also has an edit to the agenda title and a yellow replacement
book item as noted on the change list.
as I said, this is very similar to what was previously described under tab 84 regarding
mitigation strategy to underground utilities as part of their annual wildfire mitigation
plans and that due to this section of State Route 29 being access controlled and encouraged
from permanent policy exception and license fee are required to grant use of access control
right away to utilities. The approval of the terms conditions and execution of a high voltage
underground utility license agreement will help expedite the undergrounding of the utilities
the city of Toronto. The city of
Okay, that item passes.
All right, tabs 86 and 87 together, back to you Tim.
Thank you, yes, I'll present 86 and 87 with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 86 is an action item for a shop drainage restoration project on State Route 198 in
Fresno County requesting 1,400,000 supplemental funds in construction support to complete
construction.
projects and they are
providing funding to the
community.
The project realized support
cost increases due to an
increase in the permitting
requirements beyond what was
anticipated.
In addition, consultants were
necessary to augment staff due
to the increased resource needs
to address the requirements of
the incidental take permit and
biological opinion for the
California tiger salamander.
tab 87 is an action item for a
shop pavement preservation
project on state route 27 in
the project. The project has
been in the process of making
the plans for construction
support to complete
construction. The project
realized support cost increases
due to delays caused by wildfire
and storm damage soon after the
project started construction.
The events have resulted in the
need of additional resources to
support ongoing coordination
efforts with other directors
orders projects within the
project limits, utility impacts,
inspection of contract change
item. The item is the item. I
I'll take 88 and 89, and I'll make a recommendation at the end.
Tab 88 is an action item for a shot major damage permanent restoration project,
also called Last Chance Grade.
On US Highway 101 in Del Norte County, that's requesting 6,789,000 in supplemental funds
to complete the project approval and environmental document phase.
The project realize cost increases due to delays in executing the section 106 memorandum
meeting with the project
during the stage.
We had a meeting of agreement
between the department and state
historic preservation officer
regarding cultural resources.
Due to sensitivity and
uniqueness of the project impacts
and the challenges associated with
identifying suitable mitigation or
treatments for the project impacts
that were meaningful to all five
local tribes, the memorandum of
agreement, negotiation and
the project will be able to
that this is not going to be
the case.
This will reduce the risk of
future project delays.
In addition, it should be
noted the amount of funding
being requested in this
supplemental for the geotechnical
investigation will be reflected
in a reduced amount being
requested for the design phase
allocation.
Tab 89 is an action item for
stop pavement preservation
project on state route 150 in
Ventura County requesting
325,000 in supplemental funds
increases due to the adoption of new guardrail standards which will require additional resources
to further evaluate the segment at each location and revise and complete the environmental document.
Commission staff has reviewed the projects and the book items for tab 88 and 89 and recommends
approval. Thank you Tim. Any public comment Justin? No there was no request to comment on either item.
Thank you. Questions, comments, motion for the diets. Move by Commissioner Eger, seconded by
I, commissioner Tiffany, all in favor? Any no's, abstentions? Okay, tabs 88, 89 passes.
Item 90. Mr. Solbeleman. Thank you. Tab 90 is an action item for a shop safety improvements
project on State Route 49 in Placer County requesting $1,300,000 in supplemental funds
in construction capital to close out the project. The cost increase was identified
the contract. The contract
was completed. The contract
submitted a number of claims
related to the acceleration of
work, changes of the plan
detours which increased
temporary traffic control costs
and constructability issues
related to unforeseen utility
conflicts. Caltrans reviewed
and concurred with the proposed
amounts of the claims and is
requesting approval of the
supplemental funds to close out
increases for supplementals at the June, 2026 CTC meeting is approximately $11 million.
This is the lowest amount of increases being requested at any CTC meeting in the 2526 fiscal
year. The total increases for the 2526 fiscal year for supplementals and initial allocations
greater than 20% of the program amount is approximately $500 million. Commission staff
the item. Thank you, Tim. Thank
you for your perspective. Um any
public comment? No, there was
no request to comment on the
item. Any questions or comments
from the dias? Yes, Commissioner
Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Um, there's a question for
Sergio. Um, once again, Sergio,
yesterday morning. In regards to this this item I just wanted to hear a little
bit more about there's been on this project four time extensions. There's
been and what we're approving today are four separate contractor claims it looks
like for the 1.3 million dollars supplemental. I would be remiss if I went
through a meeting without asking are there lessons learned.
Anyways, so I pulled this one out because this one with the
semester number extensions and supplementals, I just wanted to
hear from you again, are there are the things that might have
it's been a decade. I think
it's been a decade. I think
it's been done differently and
looking forward. Are there
lessons learned not just for
your district, but for others
in a project like this? Thank
you. Um, yeah, Good morning,
commissioners and thank you.
Commissioner Tiffany for this
question, and again, it was a
pleasure having all of you
yesterday for the tour.
Absolutely. There's lessons
learned on these types of
projects. Um, a few things,
and I think we spoke a little
in an area that you're gonna come in and do a roundabout.
There's unknown underground surfacing
that in many cases is not gonna be well ascertained
until you get into it and start digging.
In this case, we encountered some of that.
There was coordination between PG&E utilities
as well as the local city sewer line that needed to happen.
And while we were trying to push both of those entities
to move faster, they frankly did not,
and it took us a while to get in there and do this work.
And the other part of it that I will wanna say
is these types of projects,
the reason is that we took longer also to complete this
is we did not want to,
we could have finished the roundabout
because again, these are underground utilities.
I wanna remind everybody about this is,
but if we were to complete the roundabout,
that sewer line needed to be repaired at some point
and needed to be worked on.
we do not want to have a roundabout that's complete
in a few years, come in and tear up that brand new roundabout
to do underground utility work.
So it's one of those situations where it's important
for us to get in there, do it once and then leave.
Did we learn a lot in regards
to potential conflicts? Absolutely.
Are we gonna try to use some of the things we spoke
about yesterday before I another methods to improve
on that utility location and avoidance measures
before we get down there?
Absolutely.
So there's a lot of things we learned.
We also learned things that we need to do better
in regards to shepherding these permitting processes forward.
Not in this case, where it was done in this case,
but very similar story to where we need to get other entities
to help us move some of these permits forward.
Thank you, Sergio.
Appreciate that.
I'll make a motion for approval.
Thank you.
Okay, so a motion made by Commissioner Tiffany,
second by Commissioner Grisby. And it's not a hearing without a Tiffany-ism, so thank
you for your questions. All right, all in favor? Any no's, abstentions? Okay, that item
passes. Item 91, Kayla?
Commissioner's tab 91 is a supplemental allocation request for an additional $33,000 in local
the city of Davis. The city of
is on the changelist for a minor direction to the agenda title. Staff recommends approval
of this request. Thank you, Kayla. Any public comment? No, there's no request to comment
on the item. Okay, thank you. Questions, comments, motion from the dais. Moved by Commissioner
motion to approve the motion.
the city of Los Angeles. This
the next item is the approval.
the board. And then we have a
seconded by, did you want to make a comment?
I had my light on before either of their lights, but it's okay.
We're all excited about this.
We're all excited about this.
Can we give it to the commissioner?
No, no, take it, take it.
The regional improvement.
It's only because I'm blind and my life's not wrong.
Oh, now you're making me feel bad.
You did a good job.
We have very considerate commissioners.
All right.
Okay.
Seconded by commissioner, Gordito, all in favor.
Okay. Any no abstentions? Okay. Items 892 93 passes. Okay. And, um, to have 94 are John Pray. Yes, to have 94 is an action item to approve amendments to the 2026 shop. Please note there are a few changes on the change list. And with those changes, these shop amendments will add 35 new projects and revise 55.2.
new projects in the 2020 job.
Of the 35 new projects, 25 of them are emergency projects
from the major damage reservation and eight are safety projects from the safety reservation.
And so that leaves just two of the 35 new projects that are not coming from a reservation.
And we always treat those with a little more care when they come in mid cycle like this.
So I just want to give a few details.
The next project is a complete streets, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure project on state route to in the city of Los Angeles. This project was originally planned to be programmed in the 2026 shop, but it was left out due to limited programming capacity.
But it's being funded now through savings that were realized on to stormwater projects in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.
one, and then the other new project is a financial contribution only project in Humboldt County
for the Sunset Avenue overcrossing project on Highway 101.
This project is funded from a federal bill grant awarded last year that's being processed
through the shop.
So that's the two new projects.
They're not coming from a reservation.
And then the 55 projects that are being revised are various proactive changes to scopes, costs,
to work on those projects.
55 is slightly more than we see
at one meeting, but that's
because the shop guidelines do
not allow changes once the
projects enter their year of
delivery, so June is the last
time that many of these
projects can make these
proactive changes.
With that, staff recommends
approval of tab 94.
Thank you, John.
Public comment, Justin.
No, there was no request a
comment on the item.
motion to approve. Motion to
to move $300,000 from the right-of-way phase
to the construction phase.
The total funds programmed to the project will not change.
Tab 96 is a funding distribution amendment to request
for the city of Ventura's Santa Paula Trail,
East Ventura Station to East of Wells Road Project
to reprogram $1,770,000 in return.
the construction phase. Again,
I saw Mr. Tiffany's. You know, I'm going to have to separate you two. All right. Second,
by Commissioner Eager on favor. And he knows abstentions. Those two items 95 and 96 passes.
Since we did 97 we will skip over to tab 98 Kayla. Commissioner's tab 98 is a supplemental
application request for $105,000 in local partnership formulate program funds for the
state route 65 realignment and operational improvements oak street roundabout location
one phase one project into larry county this supplemental amount was programmed and approved
in tab 97 2 million 500,000 in STIP funds was allocated to the project in december 2023
the city of Lindsay. The project
will construct a roundabout in
the city of Lindsay to improve
traffic operations and safety
and relief congestion staff.
Staff recommends approval of
this request. Thank you, Kayla.
Public comment. No, there was no
request to comment on the item.
Right, commissioners. Questions.
motion to approve the motion.
which was jointly nominated by the Shasta Regional Transportation Authority and Caltrans
and programmed with $72,722,000 in total Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funding.
Caltrans is requesting to make adjustments to the scope of the project, as indicated
in the book item, which staff has reviewed and agreed are necessary.
which staff has reviewed and agreed are necessary.
Tab 101 is an amendment to the 2022 Trade Quarter Enhancement
Program for two projects.
The first project is the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry
Project, which was jointly nominated
by Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments
and is currently programmed with $191 million, $657,000,
for five components in the 2022 Trade Quarter Enhancement
program. The Otay Mesa East port of entry projects funding plan includes a mixture of state,
federal, and local funding, along with bonds against future toll revenue. These bonds are
issued by the San Diego association of governments and repaid over time using toll revenues from
facility users of the border crossing. However, the project has faced challenges selling these
bonds due to broader economic uncertainty including tariffs and higher fuel costs,
as well as a lack of federal private activity bond capacity in the current federal fiscal year.
Therefore, the San Diego Association of Governments and Caltrans are proposing
to restructure the project so that the primary told northbound vehicle facilities are constructed
with trade corridor enhancement program funding first, allowing toll revenue generation to begin
earlier and supporting the sale of bonds. Specific details regarding the adjustments
to the project are outlined in the book item. The full scope is included in an executed baseline
agreement meaning that all project components must be delivered. The second project is the Port of
Oakland Green Power Microgrid Project which was jointly nominated by Caltrans, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the Port of Oakland and is currently programmed with $41,635,000
for five components in the 2022 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program. At its May,
2026 meeting, the Commission approved a scope amendment to remove the battery energy storage
system and solar amount elements from Harbor Facilities component of the project. The project
no requires a program amendment to reflect a funding reduction commensurate with the loss of
project benefits. Specifically staff recommends reducing the trade corridor enhancement program
funding for the project from 41 million 635 thousand dollars to 38 million 3 thousand dollars
and returning the resulting 3 million 632 thousand dollars in savings to the program for future
reprogramming. TABO note 2 is an amendment to the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program for the
EV Realty Livermore Charging Hub Project, formerly known as the GAGE-0 Accelerating Zero
Emission Fleet Charging on Priority Corridors Project. The project was nominated by Caltrans
and GAGE-0 LLC and programmed to its $20,117,000 for four components in the 2024 Trade Corridor
enhancement program. E.B. Realty Holdings LLC acquired Gage Zero LLC in March 2025 and inherited
the project at the time of programming. At its May 2026 meeting, the commission approved a scope
amendment for the project. A program amendment is now needed to memorialize the scope changes into
the adopted program and to return $15,116,000 to the program for future programming.
to have no three is a request to approve baseline agreements for three 2024 trade corridor
enhancement program projects staff has reviewed each of these requests and recommends approval
of tabs 100 101 102 and 103 thank you beverly any public comment no there was no request to comment
on any of the listed items thank you justin any questions comments motion from the dice
the board. Moved by Commissioner.
Eastland port of entry, northbound vehicle processing and tolling package component.
This is being treated as an allocation for a project with costs that exceed the programmed
amount by more than 20% because it includes an additional $24,500,000 in coordinated border
infrastructure program funds in alignment with the project restructuring outlined under tab 101.
This component will construct the northbound vehicle facility of the new Otan Mesa east
border crossing including the federal facility information technology system and toning facilities
and will directly support the future delivery of the northbound cargo facility.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 104. Thank you Beverly. Any public comment?
No there was no request to comment on the item. Comments questions?
motion from the diodes yes from michigan yes i just want to say this is obviously a very
important project uh to all of us here and we were just there not very long ago um day before
yesterday just before i came here i went to go drop my cousin off at otamisa that walk across
the ziawana uh to catch up later express the cross border express and we drove around and went down
And I'm going to make a motion
to go down the 11th to go look.
The work that's being done
there, absolutely amazing.
The trucks are still backed up
on both sides for 20 hours, 25
hours.
I forget what they told me.
So getting this one to the next
step is extremely important.
And I know Chair Falcone has been
doing this for a long time.
So I'm going to let you make a
motion.
Thank you.
I'll take that.
But any comments before we make
a motion?
appreciate it. All right. Thank
you. Thank you for for
indulging me in making letting
me do the motion. Uh my friend
and commissioner eager. Just
quickly. Yes, this is a very
complex, complicated project.
Um multiple jurisdictions to
two over 70 billion dollars that cross the border every year and that's about five hundred and
sixty thousand I understand in jobs that are generated by our trade corridor on the California
Mexico border and so this is going to be an important piece to continuing for this corridor
the board to support the board.
And the board to flourish and to
generate the economic development.
And in the jobs that that the
corridor support so appreciate
making the motion. Is there a
second? All right. Second,
Commissioner either all in favor.
Any nose abstentions? Okay, that
for this. I think it's one of
the ways to go, but I hope you
don't mind. We're going to take
a break. We have been requested
to take a break, and I think
folks need to stretch. So let's
do what 15. 15 minutes. All
right. Thank you. All right. We
have tabs one of five and one
of six together solutions for
congested corridors. Miss
hubby. Thank you, Chair
commissioners. Tabs one of five
to one of six are action items
for Congested Corridors Program as provided in the book item.
Tab 106 is an amendment to the multi-funded US 101
Connected Communities Corridor,
Rail and Active Transportation Improvements
Baseline Agreement as approved by the commission in May 2025.
This project was programmed in the 2022 Solutions
for Congested Corridors Program
and the 2023 Active Transportation Program,
Metropolitan Planning Organization component.
approval of tab 105 necessitates an amendment to the original baseline agreement. These requests
are consistent with program guidelines therefore staff recommends your approvals of tabs 105 and 106
as presented. Thank you Naveen any public comment? No there was no request to comment on either item.
Back at the dais questions comments motion. Motion made by commissioner Mann seconded by
And Commissioner Eger, all in favor?
Any no's, abstentions?
All right, tabs 105 and 106 passes, thank you.
All right, tab 107, Sheila Ennis.
Thank you.
Tab 107 is an action item to allocate $219,323,000
in state funds for the local assistance annual allocation
for fiscal year 2026, 2027.
the application provides funding for the department to administer several state transportation
prevention programs consistent with the authority delegated by the commission and the enacted
state budget staff recommends approval of tab one oh seven. Thanks, Sheila. Comments.
No there was no request of comment on the item. Missures. Questions, comments. All right.
seconded by the commissioners.
Seconded by commissioner Eger
seconded by Commissioner Brown
Hines on favor. He knows
abstentions. A tab 107 passes.
Tab 108 Tim. Commissioners tab
108 is an action item to
allocate 100 and 1 million. For
Caltrans annual. Sorry Caltrans
right away and you allocation
for fiscal year 26 27. Each
to deliver the right-of-way needs for program projects and the project delivery plan.
The right-of-way capital annual allocation is used for state highway operations and protection
program or shop and state transportation improvement program or STIP projects with right-of-way
capital programming of $10 million or less.
Any project needing right-of-way capital greater than $10 million requires an individual allocation
by the Commission.
the board. The staff. The
staff trans meets with
commission staff and provides
quarterly reports to show how
they're managing the annual
allocation. Please note the
third quarter report is tab 33
on the agenda under the
information calendar. Staff is
review the allocation requests
and recommends approval. Thank
you, Tim. Any public comment?
No, there was no request to
comment on the item. Thanks,
Justin. Questions, comments,
the item. Commissioner Tiffany.
program enables Caltrans to quickly address small scale needs beyond the scope of what
can be managed by the Caltrans maintenance program.
Approval of this item will allocate $250 million for the fiscal year 2627 minor program so
that Caltrans can utilize their delegated authority to allocate these funds to minor
projects throughout the year in accordance with Commission Resolution G1905A. Staff recommends
approval of tab 109. Thanks, Sean. Public comments? No, there was no requested comment on the item.
Thank you, Justin. Questions, comments? Motion from the dais? Okay, motion by Commissioner
Mr. Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Brown-Hines.
All in favor?
Any no's, abstentions?
All right, tab 109 passes.
Thank you, John.
Tab 110, Alica.
Commissioners, tab 110 is an action item
to approve the Aeronautics Resolution,
FDOA-2026-01 to allocate 2.5 million
for the Division of Aeronautics Fiscal Year
2026-27 Annual Allocation.
Each fiscal year, the Commission approves
an annual allocation to match
the Federal Airport Improvement Program Grants.
This allocation provides the authority
for the Division of Aeronautics
to sub-allocate matching funds to individual projects
as requested by airport sponsors.
Commissioners staff recommends approval of tab 110
to allocate 2.5 million for fiscal year 2627 for federal airport improvement program grants.
Thanks, Alika. Any public comment? No, there was no request to comment on the item. Questions, comments? Motion by commissioners. Move by Commissioner Eger, seconded by Commissioner Brown-Pines. All in favor? No. Abstentions.
That item passes tabs 1 11 1 12 1 13 and 1 14 back to you John. Yes tabs 1 11 through 1 14 action items for shop allocations, and these will be taken together.
tab 1 11 is an action item for shop construction allocations. This item will allocate 187 million 140,000 for 10 shop projects.
project. If you would like to
get your presentation. As Keith
Duncan mentioned in his
presentation yesterday, all 10
of these projects are in
alignment with the allocation
plan that was approved by the
commission at the December.
2025 Commission meeting. Six of
these 10 projects emergency
projects. One of the 10 is a
safety year. It's a mitigation
for a safety project. So it
the city. The city is a very,
allocations as usual starting in August which is great news. And then tab 112 is an action item
for shop pre-construction allocations. This item will allocate $108,893,000 for 85 shop
pre-construction phases for environmental design and right-of-way. And tab 113 is an action item
for shop pre-construction allocations. It's another action item for pre-construction
allocations. This item will allocate $30,279,000 for 18 shop pre-construction phases. This one
specifically, this item, these are all new 2026 shop projects and are all allocations for the
PA&ED phase. So these new projects can begin preliminary design and environmental studies.
the next item is tab 1.14.
And the last tab of this group is tab 1.14.
It's an action item for advanced shop construction allocations.
This item will allocate $76,683,000 for three shop projects.
These three projects are all programmed in the 26-27 fiscal
and the projects, importantly, not part of the currently your shop allocation plan.
These projects are planned for next year, so they're using funding that's already been
planned for next year, and these are the first projects coming in using next year's funds,
and they're being advanced for various reasons because they're high priority for Caltrans
to get these out the door.
the motion. I second. I have a
the city's city's city. And the
the city of Toronto. The city of
legislation. Of this amount,
16,971,000 will fund six
locally administered STIP
construction projects in
Plumas, Siskiyou, Trinity,
Sacramento and Sierra
counties. Collectively, these
projects will improve roadway
and bridge conditions, enhance
pedestrian and bicycle safety,
support multimodal access and
The remaining $3,570,000 consists of planning, programming, and monitoring funds for three
projects in Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, and Chihuahua County.
These funds will support project development, delivery, and oversight activities necessary
to advance future transportation improvements.
the state's city's city. And the
the city of Toronto. We have a
and the city of Toronto. We
the fiscal year, helping to maintain project schedules and support timely delivery. Staff
recommends your approval of tabs 115, 116, 117, 118 and 119. Thank you Sheila. Any public comment? No, there was no request to comment on any of the listed items. Okay Justin. Questions, comments, motion from the dais. Move approval. Okay, move by
Councilmember. Seconded by. I'm.
the city's proposed resolution.
the commission. We will be in
the city of Minnesota. And the
improvements to the change in
I-10 as well as a class four
bike and low speed electric
vehicle path, ensuring safer
conditions for all travelers
along the corridor and
multimodal options for
avoiding congestion. Staff
recommends your approval of
tab 121.
Good stuff. Thank you, Ania.
Public comment?
Well, there was no request to
comment on the item.
Thank you, Justin. Any
motion from the dais. Moved by Commissioner Brown Heinz. It's your neighborhood. Second by Commissioner Eger. All in favor. And he knows abstentions. Thank you Anya. Tabs 122, 123, and 124, LaShara. Good afternoon commissioners. Tabs 122 through 124 will be presented together with a recommendation at the end.
the city of Sacramento. And I
the local partnership program.
Fresno, Madera and Imperial Counties, all of them.
In the competitive program,
the request is for $2,438,000
for the Central Ukiah Circulation Improvement Project.
This project will improve non-motorized facilities
by reducing stormwater inundation,
updating existing facilities
and adding new sidewalks and bike lanes.
Please note a small edit to Project 5 on the change list.
Tab 124 is an allocation request for a total of $9,875,000
in local partnership funds.
This includes five transit projects
from the local partnership formulaic program
and one transit project from the competitive program.
The formulaic transit projects are located in, ready?
Sacramento, Sonoma, and San Benito counties,
sure, this time, and will include 19 public transit
vehicles, improvement of transit facilities,
and construct a class 1 pathway gap closure.
In the competitive program, the request
is for $7,250,000 for the Southeast Los Angeles Transit
Improvements Project for the zero emission bus charging
contract a component. This project will purchase and install 10 zero emission
bus charging mass including associated infrastructure to improve bus service
with speed reliability and enhanced customer amenities. Staff has reviewed
these requests and found them to be consistent with local partnership
formulaic and competitive program guidelines. Staff recommends your
approval of tabs one twenty two one twenty three and one twenty four. Thank
you. Got something for everybody. And if you didn't know, Commissioner Eager and
her past life was a cheerleader. So no big shock there. Public comment, Justin.
There was no request to comment on any of the listed items. All right, thank you. Any
any comments questions cheerleading motion from the dais motion by Commissioner eater
second by Commissioner Bradshaw on favor any no abstentions right tabs one twenty two to
one twenty four passes Thank you la Shara tab one twenty five Kayla commissioners tab
The project will provide a new
for a minor edit to the project title.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 125,
as noted on the change list.
Thank you, Kayla.
Public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Thank you, Justin.
Comments, questions?
Motion from the dais.
Motion made by Commissioner Mann, seconded by?
Thank you.
Commissioner Eger.
All in favor?
Noes, abstentions.
Okay, that item passes, thank you, Kayla.
Tab 126, Kenneth.
Thank you, Chair.
Tab 126 is an allocation request of $60,076,000
for the state-administered multi-funded local partnership
formulaic and competitive programs
and the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program,
Castroville Boulevard interchange project
in Monterey County.
The project will enhance safety for low-income residents
with those traffic congestion,
improves access for traveling visitors
and improve the quality of life
for all communities along the corridor.
staff recommends your approval of TAF 126.
Thank you, Kenneth.
Public comment.
No, there was no request to comment on the item.
Okay, questions, comments, motion from the dais.
I'm feeling it right here on my left.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
yeah, I just want to say this is a very important project for that part of the county and it's
it's intersection I go through weekly and for safety reasons it is a lower income area as well.
This is very important project for those people and I'm very happy to make a motion to approve.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments. The motion made by commissioner Tiffany seconded by
by Commissioner Eger on favor? No abstentions? Okay. Tab 126 passes. Back at you Kenneth,
127, 128, and 129. I want commissioners will present tab 127 through 129 together with
the recommendation at the end. Tab 127 is a request of $45,736,000 for two locally administered
trade quarter enhancement program projects. This allocation request includes $18,369,000
for the Baker Boulevard Bridge and Zero Mission Truck Infrastructure Project Bridge component.
The project will replace the existing two-lane bridge with a new four-lane structure, ten-foot
soldiers in sidewalks. The second allocation request of $27,367,000 is for the transforming
Oakland's waterfront or town rail safety improvements project in Alameda County. This project includes
new railroad and pedestrian crossings, signage, new pavement and lighting, and street lighting.
this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, enhance transportation equity in
Oakland communities, and significantly improve the community's quality of life and enhance
pedestrian safety. That 128 is an allocation request of $33,570,000 for the locally administered
trade corridor enhancement program Interstate 605 Valley Boulevard interchange improvement project
the city of San Francisco. In
building. The project will
construct and install medium
heavy duty charging
infrastructure that will
address needed infrastructure
to accelerate the adoption of
zero emission freight vehicles
improving air quality and
environmental health for the
community surrounding freight
corridors. Please note that
this item has a change on the
change list, correcting the
date of program amendment noted
the motion. Okay. 128 and 129.
the board. So we'll go ahead and
the city of Santa Barbara, the
community. Our goal is to
move people efficiently and to
ensure a healthy, multimodal
environment for all
Californians. These requests
are consistent with program
guidelines, Therefore,
Commission staff recommends
your approvals of tabs. 130 to
133. Thank you, Navin. Any
public comment? No, there was
no request to comment on any
of the listed items. Questions
comments motion from the dais.
This one is big out in favor of the Greenway and Oakland.
The Bay Area has one of the best climates to bike probably an entire nation,
but not everyone has equal access.
This will go through some of the most needy neighborhoods in the entire region.
So I'd like to make a motion.
Absolutely. Then seconded by Commissioner Mann.
All in favor? Any noes, extensions?
All right Tabs 132, 133 passes. Thank you Naveem, cheerleader. All right,
all right Tabs 134, 135, and 136. Rebecca. Good morning. Commissioners Tabs 134 and 135
will be taken together with a recommendation at the end. TAB 134 is an allocation request of
to $51,767,000 in active transportation program funds
for 27 projects in various counties
off the state highway system.
These projects will construct a wide range
of improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians
by implementing safe routes to school education programs,
ensuring safer conditions for people walking and biking,
as well as promoting a healthy environment for all.
Please note that the environmental permit
project for is noted on the change list tab 135 is an allocation request of two million two hundred
and forty eight thousand dollars in active transportation program funds for the central
avenue i-80 under crossing bike ped improvements project in Contra Costa county on the state highway
system this project will ensure a healthier environment for all by improving pedestrian
bicycle access at central avenue i-80 under crossing with wider sidewalks new sidewalk
the city's approval of the
to the next item. I'm going to
project. With that, I will
now call on the board of
visitation climate adaptation
program funds for three
projects located in Orange,
Sacramento and Yuba counties
off the state highway system.
These projects will upgrade
and protect the transportation
system and prioritize the
safety of all users from
flooding by removing storm
water from surface streets,
upgrading floodgate systems
and mitigating slope failure.
Please note that the
Thank you. Public comment. There's no request to comment on 137 questions. Comments motion from the dice. Motion made by Commissioner man seconded by Commissioner Tiffany on favor.
the city's city. I'm sorry. I'm
systems, bus and ferry transit
systems including integration
with the high speed rail system,
increasing ridership, improving
safety, and significantly
reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases, vehicle miles traveled,
and congestion. Please note the
updates to projects 15, 16, and
20 as reflected in the change
list. Staff recommends your
the city of Davis. And that's
that this is not the state of
California. So this integration
is really important. So I would
like to make a motion when it
is time. But I think you have
another comment.
I just want to second. As a
matter of fact, I wanted to
back up what you are saying.
This is the way it should be
done to support the coming
network backbone of the state
and like to second.
Excellent. Motion made by
Commissioner Eager, seconded by
commissioner Grisby in favor.
Aye.
Any no's? Abstentions?
just be real. Does your pocket feel a little bit emptier? It's like 500 and you have any
more in there? Just kidding. All right. Um, tabs one 39 to one 81 Justin. Thank you commissioners.
I'll be addressing what tabs 139 through 181 together. These are action items consisting
of time extension requests for projects from the programs, state highway operation and
protection program, state transportation improvement program, local partnership program, trade
corridor enhancement program, solutions for congested corridors program, active transportation
program, local transportation climate adaptation program, and the transit city and inner city
rail capital program.
make note of the change list for tops 161, 163, 165, 168, and 171. Also note for top
161, there is a total funding amount from $5,946,000 to $5,061,000. And it changed to
the project title to E.B. Realty Livermore Charging Hub. This item is related to reference
number 4.24, and these changes will be reflected on the final change list.
Tab 160A added language to add more clarification for projects 2 through 7.
Also for tabs 171, there was a mistake on the change list, and all 38 projects under
tab 171 are being recommended for approval, including project 1, PPNO2480.
Staff has reviewed these requests and determined they're consistent with their respective program
guidelines.
Staff recommends their approval of tabs 139 through 181.
Thank you, Justin.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment from any of our virtual attendees on any of these listed
items.
Thank you, Justin.
We do have a comment in the room, Alicia Winniter.
Hi, good morning, Mendocino County Department of Transportation just wants to thank the
commission for their consideration of the time extensions on these important LT cap projects,
particularly our two projects of Brook trails, second access and the Redemeyer Road extension,
which both seek to provide second access routes for emergency evacuations to vulnerable communities,
including tribal lands. So thank you. Thank you for being here. Any comments, questions,
motion from the dais motion to approve oh sorry a second we do have i just wanted to make a quick
comment yeah sure um so item 150 is the centennial corridor in carne county i know we've been hearing
about that forever and many of you uh have been on that corridor and talked to the folks about
getting that to the place that it is now so i just want to thank the staff and caltrans and everyone
here, but we're hoping to get
us to this place where we're
continuing to move forward on
that very important corridor
right there. So thank you. Thank
you for your comments. Yes,
Commissioner Tiffany. I wasn't
a cheerleader, but I was in the
band. Um, but, uh, I did want
to, uh, also make a mention
that one of the items here is,
uh, in my home county, San
which was a project that was over 20 years in the making.
It's made a huge impact in our community
for those people that are commuting
out of town up to Silicon Valley and to Monterey County.
Still have highway 25 to do, but anyway,
I'm very supportive of this
and glad to see it come to fruition.
Thank you for your comments.
I felt the motions here on the right.
So the motion was made by Commissioner Bradshaw,
seconded by Commissioner Grisby.
Did you have a comment, Commissioner?
Perfect, all right.
All in favor?
Any no's, abstentions?
All right, all of those motions or tabs pass.
Thank you.
We are now at tab 182, Alika.
Commissioners, tab 182 is an action item
the city of San Andreas. I
need to consider a post back
time extension for the period
of project development
expenditure for the city of
Sonora's State Route 49 Gold
Rush multi use path. Phase one
project located in Tuolumne
County. This time extension
request is for the P D phase,
which was allocated June 2023.
the city and department was required which resulted in a one-year delay in the start of the phase to June 2024. There was confusion on the timely use of funds deadline which led to miscommunication between the department and the city. For this reason, the city never submitted a time extension request for the period of project development expenditure of this phase.
the city of Lincoln. In May 2026.
Two additional resources were
discovered that we're not not
found during the original
archaeological survey. The city
is working with the department
to expedite the review process.
This has caused further delays
in the project phase, requiring
additional time. Commissioners
staff has reviewed this item
That's a public comment.
There's no request to comment on the item.
Thank you, Justin.
Questions, comments, motion from the dais?
Yes, Commissioner Tiffany.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to address this to someone from Caltrans.
I don't know if that's D or...
It would be D.
D out there.
Sorry to make you walk all the way to the front.
Good morning.
I'm in support of approving the extension.
But coming myself from a rural area,
I know that many times counties in rural areas
don't have the resources, the staffing
to necessarily stay on top of things
as well as some of the larger counties.
And also they don't deal with these kinds of projects.
I think this is the first time for Sonora
in terms of an ATP project.
And so I think it really behooves Caltrans
to make sure that they work closely with these situations
so that there isn't miscommunication.
I'm just wondering what steps is Caltrans taking
to maybe try to avoid this kind of thing happening
in the future.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Tiffany.
absolutely. We work closely closely with our district local assistance as well. I do want to
commend all the work that they've done hand in hand with agencies, especially local agencies
that are either more disadvantaged or staff turnover or the lack of, I wouldn't say the lack,
but the need for more assistance. So what we do is it's project by project as well.
so there's definitely technical assistance there. As headquarters in our way we manage our program
we do look at ways to streamline and ways to further inform our districts and our agencies
and it comes in the form of training, more focused targeted training, we provide that
whether it's project by project or whether it's programmatic. In this situation definitely there
There are ways that we're gonna improve our letters
and our documentation, as far as further direction
on the difference of various critical dates.
So it is a definitely continuous improvement process
across the state for local assistance and our agencies.
Thank you very much, appreciate that response.
Thank you.
And I'll make a motion for approval.
All right, thank you, Commissioner Tiffany.
Seconded by Commissioner Eger, all in favor?
no abstentions okay that item passes we have tabs 183 to 193 and I understand
that Matthew will be taking those up yes I will chair make it good so tabs 183
through 193 are all actions to approve amended time extensions which are all
activities. These are all
considered exceptions to the
respective program guidelines.
These involve the shop program,
the solutions for congested
corridors program, the trade
corridor enhancement program,
the local transportation climate
adaptation program, and the
active transportation program.
I do want to note a few things
before I ask for your vote to
approve. Please note and
the change the list specifically for tab 188 I do want to call in a specific
sentence into the record that I do not believe made it into the change the list
so under tab 188 the department's recommendation is that the commission
amend the project allocation periods because the program funds would be lost
and could not be programmed in the local transportation climate adaptation
program this program is closed out with no chance of additional funding therefore
the funds are already aging. And at the risk of expiring and there is no chance of a separate call for product. Just to find a new project to allocate these funds towards. So with those noted changes, staff will recommend your approval of tabs.
comments. Thank you. Thank you
and thank you for highlighting
the change, Matthew. Any
public comment? Yes, we do have
two virtual attendees with their
hand raised at this time. Like
to call on Nafili Barrett. Hi.
Good morning, commissioners.
This is Nafili Barrett,
executive director of the
Mendocino Council of
Governments, and I am speaking
today about the first and second
Brook trail's second access both LT-CAP projects. Both projects have been identified as needs in
the Mendocino County region for many years by the public, local agencies, and other stakeholders.
As a geographically large rural county with a large road network and very little formula
funding available to either the county or the region for maintaining and improving the road
network, Mendocino County must rely on competitive funding for projects of this magnitude. The LT-CAP
provided a somewhat unique opportunity to finally fund these large projects.
The first project, Redemeyer Road, is the only ingress egress for a residential area
in the Ukiah Valley. It serves an area within a very high fire hazard severity zone. The area
which is on the east side of the Russian River is also often cut off during severe weather events
due to roadway flooding, leaving residents without access to jobs, schools, and emergency services.
This extension will provide a second access to the area during times of emergency evacuation
and a reliable route when the existing access road is closed due to flooding.
The second project, Brick Trail's second access is in a residential area with a single ingress
egress near the city of Willets. It's in a mountainous wooded area and provides one of
the few opportunities in the county for affordable housing options. The project will provide a second
access allowing easier evacuation in times of emergency and improving access to the area for
emergency responders. The current single access road, Sherwood Road, is a narrow and curving road
with no shoulders in many areas with widening opportunities severely limited by topography.
These conditions make Sherwood Road subject to potential blockage during emergency events,
as well as make it unsafe for walking and biking. So although not the primary purpose of this
project, the second access with its paved shoulders will also provide a safer option
for pedestrians and cyclists to reach the city of Willets. We encourage approval of the extensions
to allow the county to continue with development of these critical projects. And I also want
to note. Thank you. Next we have Kelly. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, we can. My name
is Kelly brakeman. I'm one of the tenants affected by this SR 710 home sales process.
I'm here asking this commission to do two. We're hearing comments for tabs 183 through
Good. I'm sorry. Okay, Then
I'll save my to public comment
because I know that's coming
up because we missed 44 don't
know what happened to 44. Thank
you. Thank you, Miss Brinkman
for waiting. We will be going
to public comment shortly. Um
any other public comment? No,
there were no other requests to
comment. Any questions,
comments? Motion from the dais.
Okay, motion made by Commissioner Mann,
second by Commissioner Bradshaw.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any no, abstentions?
All right, so tabs 183 to 193 passes.
Public comment, Ms. Brinkman, are you still online?
Yes, I am.
Okay, please proceed.
Okay, okay, let me, okay.
and we know we're coming that fast.
I'm here asking this commission to do two simple things.
First, direct Caltrans to pause any home sales
when a tenant requests it.
Second, remove Caltrans and VRG group
from administering these sales
and replace them with an independent party
that has no financial stake in the outcome.
Truth is, Caltrans and VRG have had every opportunity
to get this right and they have failed.
They have used their discretion to create a process that tenants don't trust where
sales price ignored the true condition of these neglected homes and leave families carrying
the burden of decades of deferred maintenance.
The legislature already recognizes there's a problem.
AB 2329 will require sales prices to reflect a home's actual condition and repair costs,
inflated market values, but many tenants, especially in El Serino, are left unprotected.
That's why we are here today. We don't need another report to tell us what tenants have
lived through through the years. We don't need more promises. We need action. This commission
has already discussed moving surplus property away from Caltrans. It's time to follow through.
If a promise is processed and broken, you don't keep handing it back to the people who broke it.
use your authority, pause the sales, remove Caltrans and VRG from the process,
give tenants a fair, transparent path forward. Because after decades of uncertainty, we've
earned at least not much. And I'd like to comment that I am fair market value and I received my
letter from VRG and it makes no sense at all. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience
and hanging in with us. Any other public comments? Yes, I see two other hands raised at this time
from our virtual attendees. Up next, we have Sean Salazar. Sean Salazar, you've been unmuted,
you're free to comment at this time. Do not see Sean coming up mute, so we'll move to the next
hand raise I see, which is Nafili Barrett. Hi, yes, thank you. Again, Nafili Barrett,
MCOG Executive Director. You heard me speak just a moment ago about our two LT
CAP funded projects. So I wanted to just take another moment and talk about the
importance of funding programs like that to rural communities. We don't have a lot
of formula funding available but we do have a lot of needs and I know Mendocino
County is not alone in this. This is common across you know almost all rural
counties in California. We have a lot of emergency evacuation needs and it's very hard to fund
those projects. So I know LT-CAP is done. We just heard about that. But I wanted to
express support for any future programs that will provide similar funding for emergency
access projects and improvements to emergency evacuation routes. Thank you for your time.
We're going to try Sean Salazar one more time. Sean Salazar, I saw you come up and
you are free to unmute yourselves at this time and speak.
I'm seeing Sean come off mute at this time.
And I no other request to comment.
Thank you, Justin.
Any comments from commissioners before I close out?
Yes, Commissioner Guardino.
Thank you, Chair Falcone.
It is so wonderful to be here in Folsom.
And I just want to take the opportunity again
to expand on someone who I mentioned very briefly
this morning in the context of an agenda item.
And that person I think has impacted not only a lot
of our work individually and collectively
in transportation in this state,
but has impacted the state overall.
I first had the opportunity to meet him
when I was a very young legislative aide
and he was working for Caltrans under
then Caltrans Director Leo Tramatola
working on safety improvements on Highway 152.
He was recruited after the first
county-wide self-help county sales tax campaign
was passed in 1984 in Santa Clara County
to lead that effort.
And because of how successfully he and leaders
in Santa Clara County led that effort,
It paved the way for the self-help county coalition,
which he then successfully built a coalition around
but was able to pass state legislation
that rewarded counties who taxed themselves
rather than penalized counties for taxing themselves
with the opportunities for more funds from the state.
He went on to be the director of Caltrans.
he was our executive director here at the California Transportation Commission and he has
just been a legend for mobility improvements in our state and he taught me how to run hills
successfully as well. So I'm hoping that we can all thank and I'm going to ask him to stand
Will Kimpton for all he has done for our state. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Commissioner
Thank you for your work up and down the state. So this is the last meeting for the fiscal
year. And all in total, we have allocated $13.7 billion. And I think the total jobs created
needs to be updated from our agenda. But what it says is about 124,811. But I think that's
a conservative number. So I just want to thank first of all my fellow commissioners. All of you
to have a lot of heart and bring your perspective
and your time and your talent to these commissions,
meetings, every hearing.
And I just want to say that I am honored
to serve with each and every one of you.
You come in with a lot of perspective
and knowledge from each of the areas that you come from.
And so I want to thank you.
I also want to thank staff.
You make our jobs easy,
but I know that there's a lot of work that comes before us
and in cooperation with all of your partners
and in our state agencies and our regional partners
and working with advocates.
I am deeply thankful for each and every one of you
and the work that you all do.
And to all of you, thank you for hanging tight
this past couple days. And all the hearings that we've had this fiscal year, it has generated
a lot of progress and productivity, obviously. And so we look forward to the next fiscal
year. And so for our next hearing in San Diego, I hope to see all of you there. It is a special
time particularly for me to have a hearing in San Diego. We try to make it special for
you all. So do come down with your sunscreen and and hopefully you spend a little bit of extra
time there. And to close out this hearing we're going to do a little bit of something different
and I had a couple of folks that are helping me with this. I'm not into gals but I am into disco
balls and we're going to end a Friday afternoon with some 90s hip-hop. We made sure that the lyrics
were appropriate. Thank you Brandy, thank you Sheila. And with that we are adjourning
for our June hearing. Go ahead music please. All right safe travels everyone.