Richmond City Council
June 28, 2022

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

On November 20, 2019, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $6,023,000 in MTC exchange funds in accordance with MTC Resolution No. 3989 to 13 projects within the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Grants program; and within the Contra Costa County program, redirect $1,025,000 from Brentwood’s Various Streets and Roads Preservation project to Pittsburg’s Pavement Improvements project, redirect $618,000 from San Pablo’s Market Street Pavement Rehabilitation project to Giant Road Pavement Rehabilitation project; and revise the name of Walnut Creek’s Ygnacio Valley Road Rehabilitation project to reflect the latest proposed scope of work.

Further discussion of the project selection criteria and programming policy is contained in the memorandum to the Programming and Allocations Committee dated November 4, 2015, July 13, 2016, October 12, 2016, December 14, 2016, February 8, 2017 (action deferred to March 2017), March 8, 2017, April 12, 2017, May 10, 2017, June 14, 2017, July 12, 2017, September 13, 2017, October 11, 2017, November 8, 2017, December 13, 2017, January 10, 2018, February 14, 2018, March 7, 2018, and April 11, 2018; the Planning Committee dated April 6, 2018; and the Programming and Allocations Committee dated May 9, 2018, June 13, 2018, July 11, 2018, September 12, 2018, November 14, 2018, December 12, 2018, January 9, 2019, February 13, 2019, March 6, 2019, June 12, 2019, July 10, 2019, September 4, 2019, October 9, 2019, and November 13, 2019.

Date: November 18, 2015
W.I.: 1512
Referred By: Programming & Allocations

RE: One Bay Area Grant Program Second Round (OBAG 2) Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 4202

WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code Section 66500 et seq.; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area region and is required to prepare and endorse a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which includes federal funds; and

WHEREAS, MTC is the designated recipient for state and federal funding assigned to the RTPA/MPO of the San Francisco Bay Area for the programming of projects; and

WHEREAS, state and federal funds assigned for RTPA/MPO programming discretion are subject to availability and must be used within prescribed funding deadlines regardless of project readiness; and

WHEREAS, MTC, in cooperation with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), county Transportation Authorities (TAs), transit operators, counties, cities, and interested stakeholders, has developed criteria, policies and procedures to be used in the selection of projects to be funded with various funding including regional federal funds as set forth in Attachments A, B-1 and B-2 of this Resolution, incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and

WHEREAS, using the policies set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution, MTC, in cooperation with the Bay Area Partnership and interested stakeholders, will develop a program of projects to be funded with these funds for inclusion in the federal TIP, as set forth in Attachments B-1 and B-2 of this Resolution, incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and

WHEREAS the federal TIP and subsequent TIP amendments and updates are subject to public review and comment; now therefore be it

MTC Resolution 4202

RESOLVED that MTC approves the “Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy” for projects to be funded in the OBAG 2 Program as set forth in Attachments A, B-i and B-2 of this Resolution; and be it further
RESOLVED that the regional discretionary funding shall be pooled and distributed on a regional basis for implementation of project selection criteria, policies, procedures and programming, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and be it further RESOLVED that the projects will be included in the federal TIP subject to final federal approval and requirements; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee may make technical adjustments and other non-substantial revisions, including updates to fund sources and distributions to reflect final funding criteria and availability; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee is authorized to revise Attachments B-i and B-2 as necessary to reflect the programming of projects as the projects are selected, revised and included in the federal TIP; and be it further
RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee shall make available a copy of this resolution, and attachements as may be required and appropriate.

The above resolution was entered into
by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission at the regular meeting
of the Commission held in Oakland,
California, on November 18, 2015

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Dave Cortese, Chair

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Date: November 18, 2015
W.I.: 1512
Referred by: P&A
Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C
12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C
07/24/19-C

Attachment A
Resolution No. 4202

OBAG 2
One Bay Area Grant Program
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

T h i s p a g e i n t e n t i o n a l l y l e f t b l a n k

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 3
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Revenue Estimates and Program Architecture ................................................................................ 1 Program Categories and Project List ................................................................................................ 6 General Programming Policies ......................................................................................................... 6 Regional Programs ........................................................................................................................... 13 County Programming Policies ........................................................................................................ 17 County Programs.............................................................................................................................. 22

Appendices
Appendix A-1 Regional and County Program Categories
Appendix A-2 County Program Fund Distribution
Appendix A-3 Regional and County Planning Activities
Appendix A-4 County Federal-Aid Secondary (FAS)
Appendix A-5 County Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Appendix A-6 Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
Appendix A-7 CMA Call for Projects Guidance
Appendix A-8 County PDA Investment and Growth Strategy Appendix A-9 Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Implementation Appendix A-10 Checklist for CMA and Local Jurisdiction Compliance with MTC Resolution 4202

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 1
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

The One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 2) is the second round of the federal funding program designed to support the implementation of Plan Bay Area, the region’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). OBAG 2 covers the five-year period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2021-22. The proposed revenue estimates, funding approach, programming policies, project guidance, and timeline for OBAG 2 are outlined in this attachment.

BACKGROUND
The inaugural One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG 1) was approved by the Commission in May 2012 (MTC Resolution 4035). The OBAG 1 program incorporated the following program features:
 Targeting project investments to the region’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs);  Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process and produce housing;
 Supporting open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs); and  Providing a larger and more flexible funding pot to deliver transportation projects in categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing dedicated funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School activities and PCAs.

The early outcomes of the OBAG 1 program are documented in the One Bay Area Grant Report Card located at: (http://files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/OBAG_Report_Card.pdf). The key findings of the report highlight a variety of improvements as compared to previous federal highway funding programs, including:
increased grant and project size, complexity, and multi-modality; significant investments in active transportation and TLC projects; region wide achievement of PDA investment targets; and compliance with local performance and accountability requirements. Considering the positive results achieved in OBAG 1, and in order to further extend the timeframe for OBAG to meet its policy goals, OBAG 2 maintains largely the same framework and policies.

REVENUE ESTIMATES AND PROGRAM ARCHITECTURE
OBAG 2 funding is based on anticipated future federal transportation program apportionments from the regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Programs. Originally, the programming capacity estimated for OBAG 2 amounted to $790 million (down from $827 million programmed with OBAG 1). The estimated decrease in revenues between program cycles reflects annual apportionment amounts in the federal surface transportation act (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21) authorized after approval of OBAG 1 not keeping pace with estimated growth rates, as well as changes in state and federal programs that impacted estimated regional funding levels (such as the elimination of the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program). Subsequent to the Commission’s original adoption of OBAG 2, Congress approved the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, providing an additional

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 2
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

estimated $72 million during the OBAG 2 period. The revised total STP/CMAQ funding for OBAG 2 is $862 million.

The OBAG 2 program continues to integrate the region’s federal transportation program with California’s climate statutes and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and contributes to the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Regional Transportation Plan. Funding distribution formulas to the counties will continue to encourage land-use, housing and complete streets policies that support the production of housing with supportive transportation investments. This is accomplished through the following principles:

1. Realistic Revenue Assumptions:

OBAG 2 funding is based on anticipated future federal transportation program apportionments. In past years, the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement programs (STP/CMAQ) have not grown, and changes in the federal and state programs (such as elimination of the Transportation Enhancement (TE) program) resulted in decreases that were not anticipated when OBAG 1 was developed. For the initial OBAG 2 estimates, a 2% annual escalation rate above current federal revenues was assumed, consistent with the mark- up of the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Even with the 2% escalation, revenues for OBAG 2 were expected to be 4% less than OBAG 1 revenues. Following the Commission’s original adoption of OBAG 2, an additional $72 million in FAST Act revenue was made available, for a total of $862 million for OBAG 2 - an increase of 4% over the OBAG 1 funding level.

If there are significant changes in federal apportionments over the OBAG 2 time period, MTC will return to the Commission to recommend adjustments to the program. These adjustments could include increasing or decreasing funding amounts for one or more programs, postponement of projects, expansion of existing programs, development of new programs, or adjustments to subsequent programming cycles.

Upon enactment and extension of the federal surface transportation authorizations expected during the OBAG funding period, MTC will need to closely monitor any new federal programs, their eligibility rules, and how funding is distributed to the states and regions. It is anticipated that any changes to the current federal programs would likely overlap to a large extent with projects that are currently eligible for funding under 23 U.S.C., although the actual fund sources may no longer mirror the current STP and CMAQ programs. Therefore, any reference to a specific fund source in the OBAG 2 programming serves as a proxy for replacement fund sources for which MTC has discretionary project selection and programming authority.

OBAG 2 programming capacity is based on apportionment rather than obligation authority. Because obligation authority (the amount actually received) is less than the apportionment level, there is typically a carryover balance from year to year of unfunded

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 3
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

commitments. MTC’s current negative obligation authority imbalance is $51 million, and has held steady the past few years as a result of the region’s excellent delivery record.

Successful project delivery has allowed MTC to capture additional, unused obligation authority (OA) from other states, enabling the region to deliver additional projects each year. Because this negative balance has held steady, there does not appear to be a need to true-up the difference at this time. MTC staff will continue to monitor this OA shortfall throughout the OBAG 2 period and make adjustments as necessary in the next round of programming.

2. Support Existing Programs:

Originally, the OBAG program was expected to face declining revenues from $827 million in OBAG 1 to $790 million in OBAG 2. Therefore, no new programs were introduced with OBAG 2 and the anticipated funding reduction was spread among the various transportation needs supported in OBAG 1. With the $72 million in additional revenues from the FAST Act, funding for OBAG 2 increased to $862 million.

The OBAG 2 program categories and commitments for the regional and county programs are outlined in Appendix A-1.

3. Support Plan Bay Area’s Sustainable Communities Strategy by Linking OBAG Funding to Housing:

County Program Distribution Formula
OBAG 1’s county distribution formula leveraged transportation dollars to reward jurisdictions that produce housing and accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. The formula also considered the share of affordable housing within housing production and RHNA allocations.

In OBAG 2, the county distribution formula is updated to use the latest housing data from the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG). The formula is also based on housing over a longer time frame, considering housing production between 1999 and 2006 (weighted 30%) and between 2007 and 2014 (weighted 70%) in order to mitigate the effect of the recent recession and major swings in housing permit approvals.

The OBAG 2 formula places additional emphasis on housing production and the share of affordable housing within both production and RHNA. The formula also expands the definition of affordable housing to include housing for moderate-income households in addition to low- and very low-income households. Furthermore, housing production is capped at the total RHNA allocation.

The distribution formula factors for OBAG 2 are detailed in the table below.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 4
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

OBAG 2 County Distribution Formula Factors

*OBAG 2 housing affordability factor includes housing at the very low, low and moderate income levels which are weighted within both housing production and RHNA allocation.

The distribution formula is further adjusted to ensure that CMA base planning funds are no more than 50% of the total distribution for that county. The resulting proposed county program formula distributions are presented in Appendix A-2.

Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
OBAG 2 continues to support the SCS for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs).
 PDA Investment targets remain at OBAG 1 levels: 50% for the four North Bay counties and 70% for the remaining counties.
 PDA Investment and Growth Strategies should play a strong role in guiding the County CMA project selection and be aligned with the Plan Bay Area update cycle.

Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs)
OBAG 2 maintains the two separate Priority Conservation Area (PCA) programs as introduced in OBAG 1, with one program dedicating funding to the four North Bay counties and one competitive program for the remaining counties.

4. Continue Flexibility and Local Transportation Investment Decision Making:

OBAG 2 continues to provide the same base share of the funding pot (40%) to the county CMAs for local decision-making. The program allows CMAs the flexibility to invest in various transportation categories, such as Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning and outreach activities.

In addition to the base county program, two previously regional programs, Safe Routes to School and the Federal-Aid Secondary (rural roads), have been consolidated into the county program with guaranteed minimum funding amounts to ensure the programs continue to be funded at specified levels.

5. Cultivate Linkages with Local Land-Use Planning:

As a condition to access funds, local jurisdictions need to continue to align their general plans’ housing and complete streets policies as a part of OBAG 2 and as separately required by state law.

Population
Housing
RHNA
Housing
Production
Housing
Affordability *
OBAG 2 50% 20% 30% 60%

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 5
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Complete Streets Requirement
Jurisdictions must adopt a complete streets resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC, incorporating MTC’s required complete streets elements as outlined in MTC’s Complete Streets Guidance.

Alternatively, to recognize local jurisdictions’ efforts to update their general plan circulation element to incorporate the provisions of the 2008 Complete Streets Act in response to the provisions stated in OBAG 1, a jurisdiction may adopt a significant revision to the circulation element of the general plan that complies with the Act after January 1, 2010 and before the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC.

The approach above focuses on the adoption of local complete streets resolutions, while acknowledging the jurisdictions that took efforts to update their circulation element in anticipation of future OBAG requirements.

Housing Element Requirement
Jurisdictions (cities and counties) must have a general plan housing element adopted and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2014-2022 RHNA by May 31, 2015. Jurisdictions that have failed to meet this deadline must have their housing elements certified by HCD by June 30, 2016 in order to be eligible to receive OBAG 2 funding.

Furthermore, under state statute, jurisdictions are required to submit Housing Element Annual Reports by April 1 every year. All cities and counties receiving OBAG 2 funding must comply with this requirement during the entire OBAG 2 funding period or risk deprogramming of OBAG 2 funding.

The complete streets and housing requirements are not required for jurisdictions with no general plan or land use authority such as Caltrans, CMAs or transit agencies under a JPA or district (not under the governance of a local jurisdiction). However, in such instances the jurisdiction in which the project is physically located must meet these requirements, except for transit/rail agency property such as, track, rolling stock or a maintenance facility.

Surplus Land Requirement
Cities and counties receiving funds through the County Program must adopt a surplus land resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC. The resolution must verify that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdiction complies with the State Surplus Land Act, as amended by AB 2135, 2014. MTC will issue guidance to assist cities and counties in drafting a resolution to meet this requirement. This guidance will be posted on the OBAG 2 website: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal-funding/obag-2.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 6
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

This requirement shall not apply to charter cities unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities are subject to the provisions of the Act. In addition, the resolution is not required for public agencies with no general plan or land use authority.

6. Continue Transparency and Outreach to the Public Throughout the Process:

CMAs will continue to report on their outreach process as part of their solicitation and selection of projects for OBAG. Each CMA will develop a memorandum addressing outreach efforts, agency coordination, distribution methodology and Title VI compliance.

CMA reporting requirements are provided in Appendix A-10, the Checklist for CMA and Local Jurisdiction Compliance with MTC Resolution 4202.

PROGRAM CATEGORIES AND PROJECT LIST
Appendix A-1 outlines the OBAG 2 program categories and commitments.

Attachment B of Resolution 4202 contains the list of projects to be programmed under the OBAG 2 program. Attachments B-1 and B-2 list the projects receiving OBAG 2 funding through the regional programs and county programs respectively. The project lists are subject to project selection actions (conducted by MTC for most of the regional programs and by the CMAs for the county programs and other funds distributed to them). MTC staff will update Attachments B-1 and B-2 as projects are selected or revised by the Commission and CMAs and are included in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

GENERAL PROGRAMMING POLICIES
The following programming policies apply to all projects funded in OBAG 2:

1. Public Involvement. MTC is committed to a public involvement process that is proactive and provides comprehensive information, timely public notice, public access to key decisions, and opportunities for continuing involvement. MTC provides many methods to fulfill this commitment, as outlined in the MTC Public Participation Plan, Resolution No. 4174.

The Commission’s adoption of the OBAG 2 program, including policy and procedures, meets the provisions of the MTC Public Participation Plan. MTC’s advisory committees and the Bay Area Partnership have been consulted in the development of funding commitments and policies for this program; and opportunities to comment have been provided to other stakeholders and members of the public.

Furthermore, investments made in the OBAG 2 program must be consistent with federal Title VI requirements. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, income, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Public outreach to and involvement of individuals in low income and minority communities covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Executive Order pertaining to Environmental Justice is critical to both local and regional decisions. Additionally, when CMAs select projects for funding at the county level, they must consider equitable solicitation and

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 7
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

selection of project candidates in accordance with federal Title VI requirements (as set forth in Appendix A-7).

2. Commission Approval of Programs and Projects and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Projects approved as part of the OBAG 2 program must be amended into the TIP. The federally-required TIP is a comprehensive listing of all San Francisco Bay Area surface transportation projects that receive federal funds, and/or are subject to a federally required action, such as federal environmental clearance, and/or are regionally significant for air quality conformity or modeling purposes. It is the project sponsor’s responsibility to ensure their project is properly programmed in the TIP in a timely manner. Where CMAs are responsible for project selection, the Commission will revise the TIP to include the resulting projects and Attachment B to this Resolution may be updated by MTC staff to reflect these revisions. Where responsibility for project selection is assigned to MTC, TIP amendments and a revision to Attachment B to add or delete a project will be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Changes to existing projects in Attachment B may be made by MTC staff following approval of a related TIP revision.

3. Minimum Grant Size. Funding grants per project must be a minimum of $500,000 for counties with a population over 1 million (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties) and $250,000 for counties with a population under one million (Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties). The objective of a grant minimum requirement is to maximize the efficient use of federal funds and minimize the number of federal-aid projects which place administrative burdens on project sponsors, CMAs, MTC, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) staff.

To provide flexibility, an alternative averaging approach may be used. For this approach, a CMA may program grant amounts no less than $100,000 for any project, provided that the overall average of all grant amounts within their County CMA Program meets the county minimum grant amount threshold. This lower threshold of $100,000 also applies to Safe Routes to School projects, which are typically of smaller scale.

Furthermore, all OBAG 2 programming amounts must be rounded to thousands.

4. Air Quality Conformity. In the Bay Area, it is the responsibility of MTC to make a regional air quality conformity determination for the TIP in accordance with federal Clean Air Act requirements and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conformity regulations. MTC evaluates the impact of the TIP on regional air quality during the update of the TIP. Non- exempt projects that are not incorporated in the current finding for the TIP will not be considered for funding in the OBAG 2 program until the development of a subsequent air quality finding for the TIP. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated the Bay Area as a non-attainment area for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Therefore, based on consultation with the MTC Air Quality Conformity Task Force, projects deemed Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) must complete a hot-spot analysis as required by the Transportation Conformity Rule. Generally, POAQC are those projects that result in significant increases in, or concentrations of, emissions from diesel vehicles.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 8
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

5. Environmental Clearance. Project sponsors are responsible for compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section § 15000 et seq.), and the National Environmental Protection Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) standards and procedures for all projects with federal funds.

6. Application and Resolution of Local Support. Once a project has been selected for funding, project sponsors must submit a completed project application for each project through MTC’s Funding Management System (FMS). The project application consists of two parts: 1) a project submittal and/or TIP revision request to MTC staff through FMS, and 2) a Resolution of Local Support approved by the project sponsor’s governing board or council and submitted in FMS. A template for the Resolution of Local Support can be downloaded from the MTC website using the following link: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund- invest/federal-funding/obag-2.

7. Project Screening and Compliance with Regional and Federal Requirements. MTC staff will perform a review of projects proposed for OBAG 2 to ensure 1) eligibility; 2) consistency with the region’s long-range plan; and 3) project readiness. In addition, project sponsors must adhere to directives such as the Complete Streets Requirements, Housing Element Requirements, and the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606), as outlined below, and provide the required matching funds. Project sponsors should note that fund source programs, eligibility criteria, and regulations may change as a result of the passage of new surface transportation authorization legislation. In this situation, MTC staff will work to realign new fund sources with the funding commitments approved by the Commission.
Federal Project Eligibility: STP is the most flexible source of federal funding, with a wide range of projects that may be considered eligible. Eligible projects include roadway and bridge improvements (construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration), public transit capital improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transportation system management, transportation demand management, transportation control measures, mitigation related to an STP project, surface transportation planning activities, and safety. More detailed eligibility requirements can be found in 23 U.S.C § 133 and at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/ factsheets/stp.cfm.

CMAQ is a more targeted funding source. In general, CMAQ funds may be used for new or expanded transportation projects, programs, and operations that help reduce emissions. Eligible project categories that meet this basic criteria include:

Transportation activities in an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP), Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), alternative fuels, traffic flow improvements, transit expansion projects, new bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, travel demand management, outreach and rideshare activities, telecommuting programs, intermodal freight, planning and project development activities, and experimental

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 9
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

pilot projects. For more detailed information, refer to FHWA’s revised guidance provided at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/ cmaq/policy_and_guidance/.

MTC reserves the right to assign specific fund sources to projects based on availability and eligibility requirements. In the event that a new surface transportation authorization is enacted during implementation of OBAG 2 that materially alters these programs, MTC staff will work with the CMAs and project sponsors to match projects with appropriate federal fund programs.
RTP Consistency: Projects funded through OBAG 2 must be consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (currently Plan Bay Area). Project sponsors must identify each project’s relationship with meeting the goals and objectives of the RTP, including the specific RTP ID number or reference. RTP consistency will be verified by MTC staff for all OBAG 2 projects. Projects in the County program will also be reviewed by CMA staff prior to submitting selected projects to MTC. Complete Streets Policy: Federal, state and regional policies and directives emphasize the accommodation of bicyclists, pedestrians, and persons with disabilities when designing transportation facilities. MTC's Complete Streets Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3765) created a checklist that is intended for use on projects to ensure the accommodation of non-motorized travelers is considered at the earliest conception or design phase. The county CMAs ensure that project sponsors complete the checklist before projects are considered by the county for OBAG 2 funding and submitted to MTC. The CMAs are required to make completed checklists available to their Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for review prior to CMAs’ project selection actions.

Related state policies include: Caltrans Complete Streets Policy Deputy Directive 64 R1, which stipulates pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities must be considered in all programming, planning, maintenance, construction, operations, and project development activities and products; and the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, which requires local agency general plan circulation elements to address all travel modes.
Project Delivery and Monitoring: OBAG 2 funding is available in the following five federal fiscal years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. Funds may be programmed in any of these years, conditioned upon the availability of federal apportionment and obligation authority (OA), and subject to TIP financial constraint requirements. In addition, in order to provide uninterrupted funding to ongoing efforts and to provide more time to prepare for the effective delivery of capital projects, priority of funding for the first year of programming apportionment (FY 2017-18) will be provided to ongoing programs, such as regional and CMA planning, non-infrastructure projects, and the preliminary engineering phase of capital projects.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 10
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Specific programming timelines will be determined through the development of the Annual Obligation Plan, which is developed by MTC staff in collaboration with the Bay Area Partnership technical working groups and project sponsors. Once programmed in the TIP, the funds must be obligated by FHWA or transferred to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within the federal fiscal year the funds are programmed in the TIP. Additionally, all OBAG 2 funds must be obligated no later than January 31, 2023.

Obligation deadlines, project substitutions and redirection of project savings will continue to be governed by the MTC Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606 and any subsequent revisions). All funds are subject to obligation, award, invoicing, reimbursement and project close-out requirements. The failure to meet these deadlines may result in the de-programming and redirection of funds to other projects.

To further facilitate project delivery and ensure all federal funds in the region are meeting federal and state regulations and deadlines, every recipient of OBAG 2 funding is required to identify and maintain a staff position that serves as the single point of contact (SPOC) for the implementation of all FHWA-administered funds within that agency. The person in this position must have sufficient knowledge and expertise in the federal-aid delivery process to coordinate issues and questions that may arise from project inception to project close-out. The agency is required to identify the contact information for this position at the time of programming of funds in the TIP, and to notify MTC immediately when the position contact has changed.

This person will be expected to work closely with FHWA, Caltrans, MTC and the respective CMA on all issues related to federal funding for all FHWA-funded projects implemented by the recipient.

Project sponsors that continue to miss delivery milestones and funding deadlines for any federal funds are required to prepare and update a delivery status report on all projects with FHWA-administered funds they manage, and participate, if requested, in a consultation meeting with the county CMA, MTC and Caltrans prior to MTC approving future programming or including any funding revisions for the agency in the TIP. The purpose of the status report and consultation is to ensure the local public agency has the resources and technical capacity to deliver FHWA federal-aid projects, is fully aware of the required delivery deadlines, and has developed a delivery timeline that takes into consideration the requirements and lead-time of the federal-aid process within available resources.

By applying for and accepting OBAG 2 funding, the project sponsor is acknowledging that it has and will maintain the expertise and staff resources necessary to deliver the federal-aid project within the project-funding timeframe. Funding Exchange: Sometimes federal funds may not be the best fit for projects being implemented to meet plan and program goals and objectives. In such cases, federal OBAG funding may be exchanged with non-federal funds. MTC staff will work with the

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 11
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

CMAs when such opportunities arise. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331) and the locally-funded project must be included in the federal TIP.
Local Match: Projects funded with STP or CMAQ funding require a non-federal local match. Although local match requirements are subject to change, the current local match requirement for STP and CMAQ funded projects in California is 11.47% of the total project cost, with FHWA providing up to 88.53% of the total project cost through reimbursements. For capital projects, sponsors that fully fund the project development or Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase with non-federal funds may use toll credits in lieu of a match for the construction phase. For these projects, sponsors must still meet all federal requirements for the PE phase. Fixed Program and Specific Project Selection: Projects are chosen for the program based on eligibility, project merit, and deliverability within established deadlines. The OBAG 2 program is project-specific and the funds programmed to projects are for those projects alone.

The OBAG 2 program funding is fixed at the programmed amount; therefore, any project cost increases may not be covered by additional OBAG 2 funds. Project sponsors are responsible for securing the necessary match, and for cost increases or additional funding needed to complete the project, including contingencies.

Regional STP/CMAQ Exchanges: It is often difficult for smaller regions to fully utilize their federal funds and deliver projects through the federal-aid process.

Projects are chosen for the program based on eligibility, project merit, and deliverability within established deadlines. The OBAG 2 program is project-specific and the funds programmed to projects are for those projects alone.

The OBAG 2 program funding is fixed at the programmed amount; therefore, any project cost increases may not be covered by additional OBAG 2 funds. Project sponsors are responsible for securing the necessary match, and for cost increases or additional funding needed to complete the project, including contingencies.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 12
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

8. Regional STP/CMAQ Exchanges. It is often difficult for smaller regions to fully utilize their federal funds and deliver projects through the federal-aid process. This can place these more rural regions in conflict with state and federal timely use funds provisions, such as Sections 182.6 and 182.7 of the State Streets and Highways Code which require federal apportionment to be secured (obligated) within three years of federal eligibility, or when Congress enacts rescissions of unobligated funds. The SF Bay Area region is often in the opposite situation – more projects are ready for delivery than funds available each year.

Regions also find themselves in situations where a project or activity is ineligible for a certain federal fund source such as CMAQ, and may require STP, while another region can easily use either fund source.

To avoid the lapsing of funds and address these funding issues, regions may enter into exchange agreements, where older unused STP/CMAQ funds subject to lapse or rescission from one region are “exchanged” with future funds from a region that can use the funds by the deadline. Or a simple fund source exchange is needed. Such exchanges benefit both regions by avoiding the loss of funds in one region, while another region can advance projects that may be stalled due to a lack of eligible funding.

To facilitate such exchanges, the MTC Executive Director or designee is hereby authorized to sign letters of understanding with other regions for the exchange of STP/CMAQ funds with the following conditions and limitations.  The exchange does not negatively impact the delivery of regional STP/CMAQ projects.
 The amount exchanged does not exceed $2 million per region per year.  The exchange is a dollar for dollar exchange.
 The exchange is allowed under Caltrans’ obligation authority management policy.
 The Letter of Understanding can be executed in time for the MTC to secure the funds prior to any lapse or rescission.
 If any timely use of funds deadlines or Caltrans processes are not met in time and therefore result in the loss of apportionment balance, MTC’s apportionment shall not be negatively affected and the Letter of Understanding is null and void.

Exchanges beyond these conditions and limitations may be approved by a standing Committee of the Commission.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 13
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

REGIONAL PROGRAMS
The programs below comprise the OBAG 2 Regional Programs, managed by MTC. Funding amounts for each program are included in Appendix A-1. Individual projects will be added to Attachment B-1 and B-2 as they are selected and included in the federal TIP.

1. Regional Planning Activities
This program provides funding to support regional planning and outreach activities.

Appendix A-3 details the funding amounts and distribution for planning and outreach activities.

2. Pavement Management Program
This continues the region’s acclaimed Pavement Management Program (PMP) and related activities including the Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP), training, and regional and statewide local streets and roads needs assessment. MTC provides grants to local jurisdictions to perform regular inspections of their local streets and roads networks and to update their pavement management systems which is a requirement to receive certain funding.

MTC also assists local jurisdictions in conducting associated data collection and analysis efforts including local roads needs assessments and inventory surveys and asset management analysis that feed into regional planning efforts. MTC provides, training, research and development of pavement and non-pavement preservation management techniques, and participates in the statewide local streets and roads needs assessment effort.

To support the collection and analysis of local roads asset conditions for regional planning efforts and statewide funding advocacy, and to be eligible for OBAG 2 funding for local streets and roads, a jurisdiction must:
 Have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent) updated at least once every three years (with a one-year extension allowed); and  Fully participate in the statewide local streets and road needs assessment survey (including any assigned funding contribution); and
 Provide updated information to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) at least once every 3 years (with a one-year grace period allowed).

3. Regional Priority Development Area (PDA) Planning & Implementation Funding in this program implements the following:

Regional PDA Planning and Implementation: The PDA Planning Program places an emphasis on intensifying land uses at and near transit stations and along transit corridors in PDAs. The key goals of the program are to: increase supply of affordable and market rate housing, jobs and services within the PDA planning area; boost transit ridership and thereby reduce vehicle miles traveled by PDA residents, employees and visitors; increase walking and bicycling by improving multi-modal access and effectively managing parking; and locate key services and retail within the PDA planning area. Funding is available for regional planning and implementation efforts and grants to jurisdictions to provide PDA planning support, and typically fund specific plans and programmatic Environmental Impact Reports. PDA plans funded through the program focus on a range of transit-supportive elements including market demand analysis, affordable housing

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 14
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

strategies, multi-modal connectivity including pedestrian-friendly design standards, parking demand analysis, infrastructure development, implementation planning and financing strategies and implementation of the best practices identified in the Air District’s Planning Healthy Places guidelines.

The PDA Planning Program will give priority to cities with high risk of displacement in order to support the development of local policies and programs to meaningfully address identified housing issues.

Community-Based Transportation Planning: A portion of this program will be dedicated to the Community-Based Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant program. These locally-led plans address the mobility needs of low-income households in the region’s 35 Communities of Concern. Grant funds will be used to update CBTPs that are in many cases more than 10 years old.

Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH): Consistent with the OBAG 2 framework and PDA Planning Program, a NOAH revolving loan fund will be established as a complement to the existing TOAH loan products for new construction. NOAH loans would be used to buy apartment buildings to create long-term affordability where displacement risk is high and to secure long-term affordability in currently subsidized units that are set to expire. NOAH investments will be made in PDAs or Transit Priority Areas.

4. Climate Initiatives Program
The purpose of the OBAG 2 Climate Initiatives Program is to support the implementation of strategies identified in Plan Bay Area to achieve the required CO2 emissions reductions per SB375 and federal criteria pollutant reductions. Investments focus on projects and programs with effective greenhouse gas emission reduction results.

Spare the Air Youth: A portion of the Climate Initiatives program would be directed to the implementation of Spare the Air Youth program.

5. Regional Active Operational Management
This program is administered at the regional level by MTC to actively manage congestion through cost-effective operational strategies that improve mobility and system efficiency across freeways, arterials and transit modes. Funding continues to be directed to evolving MTC operational programs such as next generation 511, Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), incident management program, managed lanes and regional rideshare program. Funding will also be directed to new initiatives such as the Columbus Day Initiative that deploys advanced technologies and Transportation Management Systems that ensures the existing and new technology infrastructure is operational and well-maintained.

Columbus Day Initiative
The Columbus Day Initiative (CDI) builds on the proven success of its predecessor program (the Freeway Performance Initiative), which implemented traditional fixed time-of-day freeway ramp metering and arterial signal timing projects that achieved significant delay reduction and safety on Bay Area freeways and arterials at a fraction of the cost of traditional highway widening

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 15
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

projects. The CDI aims to deliver cost-effective, technology-driven operational improvement projects such as, adaptive ramp metering, hard shoulder running lanes, queue warning signs, connected vehicle technologies, shared mobility technologies, and regional arterial operations strategies. Projects would target priority freeway and arterial corridors with significant congestion. Funding for performance monitoring activities and corridor studies is included to monitor the state of the system and to identify and assess the feasibility of operational strategies to be deployed.

Transportation Management Systems
This program includes the operations and management of highway operations field equipment; critical freeway and incident management functions; and Transportation Management Center (TMC) staff resources needed to actively operate and maintain the highway system.

Bay Bridge Forward Project
As part of the overall OBAG 2 framework, this project encompasses the implementation of several near-term, cost-effective operational improvements that offer travel time savings, reliability and lower costs for carpooling and bus/ferry transit use to increase person throughput and reduce congestion, incidents, and emissions in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge corridor.

6. Transit Priorities Program
The objective of the Transit Priorities Program is to assist transit operators to fund major fleet replacements, including the BART Car Replacement Phase 1 project, fixed guideway rehabilitation and other high-scoring capital needs, including replacement of Clipper equipment and development of Clipper 2.0, that are consistent with MTC’s Transit Capital Priorities policy for programming federal transit funds (MTC Resolution 4140 or successor resolution).

The program also implements elements of the Transit Sustainability Project by making transit- supportive investments in major transit corridors that can be carried out within two years through the Transit Performance Initiative (TPI). The focus of TPI is on making cost-effective operational improvements on significant trunk lines which carry the largest number of passengers in the Bay Area including transit signal prioritization, passenger circulation improvements at major hubs, boarding/stop improvements and other improvements to improve the passenger experience.

7. Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program
The Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program provides funding for the development of plans and projects to assist in the preservation and enhancement of rural lands. Specifically, projects must support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands and open space amidst a growing population across the Bay Area, for residents and businesses. The PCA program includes one approach for the North Bay counties (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) and a second approach for the remaining five counties.

In the North Bay, each of the four CMAs will take the lead to develop a county-wide program, building on PCA planning conducted to date to select projects for funding.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 16
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

For the remaining counties, MTC will partner with the Coastal Conservancy, a California State agency, to program the PCA funds. MTC will provide federal funding which will be combined with the Coastal Conservancy’s own program funds in order to support a broader range of projects (i.e. land acquisition and easement projects) than can be accommodated with federal transportation dollars alone. The Coastal Conservancy, MTC, and ABAG staff will cooperatively manage the call for proposals.

The minimum non-federal match required for PCA-program funding is 2:1.

As a part of the update to Plan Bay Area, MTC is exploring implementing a Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) Program. RAMP would mitigate certain environmental impacts from multiple planned transportation projects, rather than mitigating on a less-efficient per-project level. Partnering arrangements can be established to leverage multiple fund sources in order to maximize benefits of the RAMP and PCA programs. As such, PCA funds may be used to deliver net environmental benefits to a RAMP program project.

In instances where federal funds may not be used for this purpose, sponsors may exchange OBAG 2 funds with eligible non-federal funds. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331).

Appendix A-9 outlines the framework for this program including goals, project screening, eligibility, eligible sponsors, and project selection.

8. Housing Production Incentive
As part of the OBAG 2 framework, MTC will develop a challenge grant program for the production of affordable housing. The purpose of the program is to reward local jurisdictions that produce the most housing units at the very low, low, and moderate income levels.

The proposed concept for this program is to set a six year target for production of low and moderate income housing units (2015 through 2020), based on the housing unit needs identified through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for 2014-22. The target for the proposed challenge grant period is approximately 80,000 low and moderate income units (35,000 very low, 22,000 low and 25,000 moderate units, for a total of 82,000 units, derived from the years of the current RHNA cycle). The units would need to be located in PDA’s or in Transit Priority Areas (TPA’s). Additionally, to be credited towards reaching the production targets, very low and low income units need to be deed restricted; moderate income units do not require deed restriction to be credited in the program. Existing units that are preserved for long-term affordability will also be credited towards the program’s production targets.

At the end of the production challenge cycle, MTC will distribute grant funds to the jurisdictions that contribute the most toward reaching the regional production target. To keep the grant size large enough to serve as an incentive for housing production, the grant program would be limited to no more than the top 15 producers of affordable housing units, or fewer, if the 80,000 unit target is reached by less than 15 jurisdictions. In addition, at least one jurisdiction from each

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 17
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

county will be awarded a challenge grant. Staff will provide annual progress reports on production of affordable housing units.

The funds provided through OBAG 2 would be STP/CMAQ, and would need to be used only for federally eligible transportation purposes. Additional funds may be added outside of OBAG 2 to increase the size of the challenge grant program.

COUNTY PROGRAMMING POLICIES
The policies below apply to the programs managed by the county Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) or substitute agency:
 Program Eligibility: The CMA, or substitute agency, may program funds from its OBAG 2 county fund distribution to projects that meet the eligibility requirements for any of the following transportation improvement types:
 Planning and Outreach Activities
 Local Streets and Roads Preservation
 Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
 Transportation for Livable Communities
 Safe Routes To School
 Priority Conservation Areas
 Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) Improvements
 Fund Sources & Formula Distribution: OBAG 2 is funded primarily from two federal fund sources: STP and CMAQ. The CMAs will be provided a breakdown of specific OBAG 2 fund sources, with the understanding that actual fund sources are subject to change. Should there be significant changes to federal fund sources, MTC staff will work with the CMAs to identify and realign new fund sources with the funding commitments approved by the Commission. Furthermore, due to strict funding availability and eligibility requirements, the CMAs must adhere to the fund source limitations provided. Exceptions may be granted by MTC staff based on actual fund source availability and final federal apportionment levels.

Consistent with OBAG 1, 60% of available OBAG 2 funding is assigned to Regional Programs and 40% assigned to the base County CMA Programs. The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) programs augment the county base funding, bringing the final proportionate share to 55% regional and 45% county. The Base county funds (SRTS & FAS have their own formula distribution) are distributed to each county based on the OBAG 2 county distribution formula (see page 3). Counties are further guaranteed that the funding amount for planning purposes will not exceed 50% of their total distribution. This results in the county of Napa receiving additional funding. This planning guarantee clause results in a slight deviation in the final OBAG 2 fund distribution for each county. The base County CMA Program fund distribution after the planning guarantee adjustment is shown in Appendix A-2.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 18
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

 Priority Development Area (PDA) Policies
 PDA minimum investment: CMAs in larger counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) shall direct at least 70% of their OBAG 2 investments to PDAs. For North Bay counties (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) this minimum target is 50% to reflect the more rural nature of these counties. CMA planning and outreach costs partially count towards PDA minimum investment targets (70% or 50%, in line with each county’s PDA minimum investment target). The guaranteed minimum for Priority Conservation Area (PCA), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) do not count towards PDA targets. The PDA/non-PDA funding split is shown in Appendix A-2.
 PDA boundary delineation: Refer to http://gis.mtc.ca.gov/interactive_maps/ which provides a GIS overlay of the PDAs in the Bay Area to exact map boundaries including transportation facilities. This map is updated as ABAG approves new PDA designations.
 Defining proximate access to PDAs: The CMAs may determine that a project located outside of a PDA provides proximate access to the PDA, and thus counts towards the county’s minimum PDA investment target. The CMA is required to map these projects along with the associated PDA(s) and provide a policy justification for designating the project as supporting a PDA through proximate access. This information should assist decision makers, stakeholders, and the public in evaluating the impact of the investment on a nearby PDA, to determine whether or not the investment should be credited towards the county’s PDA minimum investment target. This information must be presented for public review when the CMA board acts on OBAG programming decisions.
 PDA Investment & Growth Strategy: Updates to each county’s PDA Investment & Growth Strategy are required every four years and must be adopted by the CMA Board. The updates should be coordinated with the countywide plan and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) updates to inform RTP development decisions. Interim status reports are required two years after each update to address needed revisions and provide an activity and progress status. The interim status report required for 2019 will be satisfied through a collaborative effort between the CMAs and MTC. See Appendix A-8 for details.
 Project Selection: County CMAs or substitute agencies are given the responsibility to develop a project selection process. The process should include solicitation of projects, identifying evaluation criteria, conducting outreach, evaluating project applications, and selecting projects.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 19
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

 Public Involvement: In selecting projects for federal funding, the decision making authority is responsible for ensuring that the process complies with federal statutes and regulations. In order to ensure that the CMA process for administering OBAG 2 is in compliance with federal regulations, CMAs are required to lead a public outreach process as directed by Appendix A-7.  CMAs must adopt a specific scoring methodology for funding allocation to projects within PDAs or Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) that rewards jurisdictions with the most effective housing anti-displacement policies.  MTC and the CMAs will conduct an analysis of the impact of this incentive- based scoring methodology on project selection and local anti-displacement and affordable housing production policy development. The findings will be used to inform future planning and funding priorities.
 Unified Call for Projects: CMAs are requested to issue one unified call for projects for their OBAG 2 program. Final project lists are due to MTC by July 31, 2017, with all associated project information submitted to MTC using the Fund Management System (FMS) by August 31, 2017. On a case-by-case basis and as approved in advance by MTC staff, these deadlines may be waived to allow coordination with other county-wide call for projects or programming needs. The goal is to coordinate the OBAG2 call for projects, and provide project sponsors the maximum time to deliver projects.  Project Programming Targets and Delivery Deadlines: CMAs must program their block grant funds over the OBAG 2 period (FY 2017-18 through FY 2021- 22). In general, the expectation is that on-going activities such as CMA planning, non-infrastructure projects and the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase of projects would use capacity in the first year, followed by the capital phases of project in later years.
 OBAG 2 funding is subject to the provisions of the Regional Project Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution 3606, or its successor) including the deadlines for Request for Authorization (RFA) submittal and federal authorization/ obligation. Additionally, the following funding deadlines apply for each county, with earlier delivery strongly encouraged:
o At least half of the OBAG 2 funds, must be obligated (federal authorization/FTA Transfer) by January 31, 2020.
o All remaining OBAG 2 funds must be obligated by January 31, 2023.  Performance and Accountability Policies: Jurisdictions need to comply with the following policies, as well as other requirements noted in the document, in order to be eligible recipients of OBAG 2 funds.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 20
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

 Adopt a complete streets resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC, incorporating MTC’s required complete streets elements as outlined in MTC’s Complete Streets Guidance.

Alternatively, to recognize local jurisdiction’s efforts to update their general plan circulation element to incorporate the provisions of the 2008 Complete Streets Act in response to the provisions stated in OBAG 1, a jurisdiction may adopt a significant revision to the circulation element of the general plan that complies with the Act after January 1, 2010.

For compliance, a substantial revision of the circulation element, passed after January 1, 2010, shall “…plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan,” while complying with the other provisions of CA Government Code Section 65302 and Complete Streets Act of 2008.

The approach above focuses on the adoption of local complete streets resolutions, while acknowledging the jurisdictions that took efforts to update their circulation element in anticipation of future OBAG requirements.  Jurisdictions (cities and counties) must have a general plan housing element adopted and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2014-2022 RHNA by May 31, 2015.

Jurisdictions that have failed to meet this deadline must have their housing elements certified by HCD by June 30, 2016 in order to be eligible to receive OBAG 2 funding.
 Furthermore, under state statute, jurisdictions are required to submit Housing Element Annual Reports by April 1 every year. All cities and counties receiving OBAG 2 funding must comply with this statute during the entire OBAG 2 funding period or risk deprogramming of OBAG 2 funding.  General law cities and counties must adopt a surplus land resolution by the date the CMAs submit their OBAG 2 project recommendations to MTC. The resolution must verify that any disposition of surplus land undertaken by the jurisdiction complies with the State Surplus Land Act, as amended by AB 2135, 2014. MTC will issue guidance to assist cities and counties in drafting a resolution to meet this requirement. This guidance will be posted on the OBAG 2 website: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/federal- funding/obag-2.

Charter cities do not have to adopt a surplus land resolution unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities are subject to the provisions of the Act.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 21
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

 For jurisdictions with local public streets and roads, to be eligible for OBAG 2 funding, the jurisdiction must:
o Have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent) updated at least once every three years (with a one-year extension allowed);
o Fully participate in the statewide local streets and road needs assessment survey; and
o Provide updated information to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) at least once every 3 years (with a one-year grace period allowed).
 For a transit agency project sponsor under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or district (not under the governance of a local jurisdiction), or an agency where housing and complete streets policies do not apply, the jurisdiction where the project is located (such as station/stop improvements) will need to comply with the policies and other requirements specified in this attachment before funds may be programmed to the project sponsor. However, this is not required if the project is transit/rail agency property such as, track, rolling stock or a transit maintenance facility.
 OBAG 2 funds may not be programmed to any jurisdiction out of compliance with the policies and other requirements specified in this attachment.  The CMA will be responsible for tracking progress towards all OBAG 2 requirements and affirming to MTC that a jurisdiction is in compliance prior to MTC programming OBAG 2 funds to its projects in the TIP.

CMAs will provide the following prior to programming projects in the TIP (see Appendix A-10):
o Documentation of the approach used to select OBAG 2 projects including outreach efforts, agency coordination, Title VI compliance, the methodology used for distributing funds within the county, and the specific scoring methodology used for allocating funds to projects within PDAs or TPAs that rewards local jurisdictions with the most effective housing anti-displacement policies;
o The board adopted list of projects recommended for OBAG 2 funding; o Self-certification that all projects recommended for funding are consistent with the current RTP (including documentation) and have completed project-specific Complete Streets Checklists (including documentation);
o Identification of the Single-Point of Contact assigned by the jurisdiction for all FHWA-funded projects, including OBAG 2 projects; o Documentation of local jurisdiction compliance with MTC’s Complete Streets Policy, including a list of the status of each jurisdiction, a letter

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 22
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

from the CMA for each jurisdiction describing how the jurisdiction meets the policy requirements, and supporting documentation for each local jurisdiction (resolutions and/or circulation elements) o Documentation of local jurisdiction compliance with MTC’s Housing Element requirements, including a list of the status of each jurisdiction’s Annual Housing Element Progress Report as well as any supporting documentation for each jurisdiction (progress reports and copies of submittal letter to HCD). This documentation will be required annually from CMAs (April 30 each year) throughout the OBAG 2 programming period;
o Documentation of compliance with the State’s Surplus Land Act requirements, for each applicable jurisdiction (copy of adopted resolution).
o Documentation for any projects recommended for funding that apply toward the county’s minimum PDA investment target. This includes mapping of all mappable projects (projects with a physical location). For projects that are not physically located within a PDA, the CMA is required to map each project along with the associated PDA(s) and provide a policy justification for designating each project as supporting a PDA through proximate access. CMAs must also document that this information was used when presenting its program of projects to their board and the public; and
o Self-certification that the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy has been completed and adopted by the CMA Board, or will be adopted in coordination with the RTP update. The interim progress report requirement for 2019 will be satisfied through a collaborative effort between the CMAs and MTC. Documentation of subsequent required updates and interim progress reports must also be submitted by the CMAs throughout the OBAG 2 period.

COUNTY PROGRAMS
The categories below comprise the eligible OBAG 2 County Programs, administered by the nine county CMAs. The CMAs should ensure that the project selection process and selected projects meet all eligibility requirements throughout this document as well as in federal statutes and regulations. MTC staff will work with CMAs and project sponsors to resolve any eligibility issues which may arise, including air quality conformity exceptions and requirements.

County CMA Program

The base OBAG 2 County program accounts for 40% of the total funding available through OBAG 2 and is distributed to each county according to the OBAG 2 county formula after

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 23
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

accounting for the CMA Planning minimum guarantee (see Appendices A-2 and A-3). This program includes CMA planning and outreach as well as the various projects selected through each county’s competitive call for projects. Projects selected through the base county program are subject to the PDA investment minimum requirements.

1. CMA Planning and Outreach
This category provides funding to the county Congestion Management Agency (CMA) or substitute agency to support programming, monitoring and outreach activities. Such efforts include, but are not limited to: county-based planning efforts for development of the RTP/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); development of PDA growth strategies; development and implementation of a complete streets compliance protocol; establishing land use and travel forecasting process and procedures consistent with ABAG/MTC; ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of federal-aid local projects; and undertaking the programming of assigned funding and solicitation of projects.

The minimum funding level for the CMA planning and outreach program continues OBAG 1 commitments by escalating FY 2016-17 amounts at 2% per year. In addition, counties are guaranteed that the base funding level for the CMA’s planning and outreach program will not exceed 50% of the county’s total OBAG 2 County Program distribution. Actual CMA planning and outreach amounts for each county, are shown in Appendix A-3.

At their discretion, the CMAs may choose to designate additional funding from their County Program to augment their planning and outreach efforts.

All funding and activities will be administered through an interagency agreement between MTC and the respective CMA.

2. Local Streets and Roads Preservation
This category is for the preservation of local streets and roads on the federal-aid system. To be eligible for funding of any Local Streets and Roads (LSR) preservation project, the jurisdiction must have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent). In addition, selected pavement projects should be based on the needs analysis resulting from the established Pavement Management Program (PMP) for the jurisdiction. This requirement ensures that streets selected for investment are cost effective. MTC is responsible for verifying the certification status of jurisdictions. The current certification status of area jurisdictions can be found at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/services/pmp/.

Furthermore, to support the collection and analysis of local roads asset conditions for comprehensive regional planning efforts and statewide funding advocacy, a jurisdiction must fully participate in the statewide local streets and road needs assessment survey to be eligible for OBAG 2 funding for pavement rehabilitation.

Eligibility requirements for specific project types are included below:
 Pavement Rehabilitation:

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 24
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

All pavement rehabilitation projects, including projects with pavement segments with a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) below 70, must be consistent with segments recommended for treatment within the programming cycle by the jurisdiction’s PMP.  Preventive Maintenance:

Only projects where pavement segments have a PCI of 70 or above are eligible for preventive maintenance. Furthermore, the local agency's PMP must demonstrate that the preventive maintenance strategy is a cost effective method of extending the service life of the pavement.
 Non-Pavement:

Eligible non-pavement activities and projects include rehabilitation or replacement of existing features on the roadway facility, such as bridge structures, storm drains, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), curbs, gutters, culverts, medians, guardrails, safety features, signals, signage, sidewalks, ramps, complete streets elements and features that bring the facility to current standards. Jurisdictions must have a certified PMP to be eligible to receive funding for improvements to non- pavement features.

Activities that are not eligible for funding include: Air quality non-exempt projects (unless granted an exception by MTC staff), new roadways, roadway extensions, right of way acquisition for future expansion, operations, routine maintenance, spot application, enhancements that are above and beyond repair or replacement of existing assets (other than bringing roadway to current standards or implementing compete streets elements) and any pavement application not recommended by the PMP unless otherwise allowed above.

Federal-Aid Eligible Facilities: Federal-aid highways as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(6) are eligible for local streets and roads preservation funding. A federal-aid highway is a public road that is not classified as a rural minor collector or local road (residential) or lower. Project sponsors must confirm the eligibility of their roadway through the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) prior to the application for funding.

3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
This category funds a wide range of bicycle and pedestrian improvements including Class I, II and III bicycle facilities; cycle tracks; bicycle education, outreach, sharing and parking; sidewalks, ramps, pathways and pedestrian bridges; user safety and supporting facilities; and traffic signal actuation. Bicycle and pedestrian projects may be located on or off the federal-aid highway system.

Additional eligibility requirements will apply to bicycle and pedestrian projects that are funded with CMAQ funds rather than STP funds, given the more limited scope of the CMAQ funding program. According to CMAQ eligibility requirements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities must not be exclusively recreational and should reduce vehicle trips resulting in air pollution reductions. Also, the hours of operation need to be reasonable and support bicycle/pedestrian needs, particularly during commute periods. For example, the policy that a trail be closed to users before sunrise or

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 25
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

after sunset may limit users from using the facility during the portions of peak commute hours, particularly during times of the year with shorter days.

4. Transportation for Livable Communities
The purpose of Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) projects is to support community- based transportation projects that bring new vibrancy to downtown areas, commercial cores, high-density neighborhoods, and transit corridors; enhancing their amenities and ambiance and making them places where people want to live, work and visit. The TLC program supports the RTP/SCS by investing in improvements and facilities that promote alternative transportation modes rather than the single-occupant automobile.

General project categories include the following:
 Transit station improvements such as plazas, station access, pocket parks, and bicycle parking.
 Transit expansions serving PDAs.
 Complete Streets improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian access and encourage use of alternative modes.
 Cost-effective, technology-driven active operational management strategies for local arterials and for highways when used to augment other fund sources or match challenge grants.
 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects including car sharing, vanpooling traveler coordination and information, and Clipper®-related projects.  Transit access projects connecting high density housing/jobs/mixed land use to transit, such as bicycle/pedestrian paths and bridges and safe routes to transit.  Streetscape projects focusing on high-impact, multi-modal improvements or associated with high density housing/mixed use and transit, such as bulb outs, sidewalk widening, crosswalk enhancements, audible signal modification, mid-block crossing and signals, new striping for bicycle lanes and road diets, pedestrian street lighting, medians, pedestrian refuges, wayfinding signage, tree grates, bollards, permanent bicycle racks, signal modification for bicycle detection, street trees, raised planters, planters, costs associated with on-site storm water management, permeable paving, and pedestrian-scaled street furniture including bus shelters, benches, magazine racks, garbage and recycling bins.
 Mobility management and coordination projects that meet the specific needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities and enhance transportation access for populations beyond those served by one agency or organization within a community.

Examples include the integration and coordination of services for individuals with disabilities, seniors, and low-income individuals; individualized travel training and trip planning activities for customers; the development and operation of one-stop transportation traveler call centers to coordinate transportation information on all travel modes and to manage eligibility requirements and arrangements for customers among supporting programs; and the operation of transportation

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 26
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

brokerages to coordinate providers, funding agencies and passengers. Selected project sponsors may need to transfer the STP/CMAQ funds received to FTA.  PDA planning and implementation, including projects that incentivize local PDA transit oriented development housing (within funding eligibility limitations unless exchanged).  Density incentives projects and non-transportation infrastructure improvements that include density bonuses, sewer upgrade, land banking or site assembly (these projects require funding exchanges to address federal funding eligibility limitations).

Activities that are not eligible for funding include: air quality non-exempt projects (unless granted an exception by MTC staff), new roadways, roadway extensions, right of way acquisition for future expansion, operations, and routine maintenance.

Additional County Programs

In addition to the base County CMA Program, OBAG 2 directs additional funds to the CMAs to distribute to eligible project types. These programs are the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program, the Federal Aid Secondary Shares Continuation (FAS) program, and for the North Bay Counties, the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) program.

1. Safe Routes to School
Eligible projects for the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program include infrastructure and non- infrastructure projects that facilitate reduction in vehicular travel to and from schools. It is important to note that this program is funded exclusively by the CMAQ funding program. Given the intent of the CMAQ program to reduce vehicular emissions, the OBAG 2 SRTS program is targeted towards air quality improvement rather than the health or safety of school-aged children. Despite this limitation, project eligibility under CMAQ largely overlaps with typical eligibility requirements for Safe Routes to School programs. Detailed examples of eligible projects are provided below:

Eligible Non-Infrastructure Projects
Public Education and Outreach Activities
 Public education and outreach can help communities reduce emissions and congestion by inducing drivers to change their transportation choices  Activities that promote new or existing transportation services, developing messages and advertising materials (including market research, focus groups, and creative), placing messages and materials, evaluating message and material dissemination and public awareness, technical assistance, programs that promote the Tax Code provision related to commute benefits, and any other activities that help forward less-polluting transportation options
 Air quality public education messages: Long-term public education and outreach can be effective in raising awareness that can lead to changes in travel behavior and ongoing emissions reductions; therefore, these activities may be funded indefinitely  Non-construction outreach related to safe bicycle use

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 27
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

 Travel Demand Management (TDM) activities including traveler information services, shuttle services, carpools, vanpools, parking pricing, etc.

Eligible Infrastructure Projects
 Constructing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (paths, sidewalks, bike racks, support facilities, etc.), that are not exclusively recreational and reduce vehicle trips  Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas  New construction and major reconstructions of paths, tracks, or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest
 Traffic calming measures
Exclusions found to be ineligible uses of CMAQ funds
 Walking audits and other planning activities (Upon the CMA’s request and availability of funds, STP funds will be provided for these purposes)
 Crossing guards, vehicle speed feedback devices, and traffic control that is primarily oriented to vehicular traffic rather than bicyclists and pedestrians  Material incentives that lack an educational message or exceed a nominal cost Within the SRTS program, funding is distributed among the nine Bay Area counties based on K-12 total enrollment for private and public schools as reported by the California Department of Education for FY 2013-14 (see Appendix A-5). SRTS funding distributed to CMAs based on enrollment is not subject to the PDA minimum investment requirements. However, if a CMA chooses to augment the SRTS program with additional funding from their base OBAG 2 County CMA program, this additional funding is subject to the PDA minimum investment requirements.

Before programming projects into the TIP, the CMAs shall provide the SRTS projects, recommended county program scope, budget, schedule, agency roles, and federal funding recipient(s).

In programming the funds in the TIP, project sponsors may consider using non-federal funds to fund SRTS activities ineligible for federal funding. In such instances, the sponsor is allowed to use toll credits for the federal project, conditioned upon a minimum of 11.47% in non-federal funds being dedicated for SRTS activities. Separate accounting of a federalized project and a non-federalized project to fund a single program can be challenging, so care should be taken when using this option.

CMAs with an established SRTS program may choose to program local funds for SRTS projects in lieu of OBAG 2 funds and use the OBAG 2 funding for other eligible OBAG 2 projects. In such instances the local SRTS project(s) must be identified at the time the CMA submits the county OBAG 2 program to MTC and subsequently programmed in the federal TIP.

2. Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) Shares
The Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) program, which directed funding to rural roads, was eliminated in 1991 with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 28
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

However, California statutes provide for the continuation of minimum funding levels to counties, guaranteeing their prior FAS shares for rural county roads.

The county CMAs are required to ensure the counties receive their guaranteed annual funding through the CMA-managed OBAG county program. The county of San Francisco has no rural roads, and therefore does not receive FAS funding. In addition, the counties of Marin, Napa, and San Mateo may exchange their annual guaranteed FAS funding with state funding from Caltrans, as permitted by state statute. Caltrans takes these federal funds “off the top” before distributing regional STP funds to MTC. The CMAs for these three counties are not required to provide FAS guaranteed funding to these three counties for years in which these counties request such an exchange, as the statutory requirement is met through this exchange with Caltrans.

Counties may access their FAS funding at any time within the OBAG 2 period for any project eligible for STP funding. Guaranteed minimum FAS funding amounts are determined by California’s Federal-Aid Secondary Highways Act (California Code § 2200-2214) and are listed in Appendix A-4. This FAS funding is not subject to the minimum PDA investment requirement.

Any additional funding provided by the CMAs to the counties from the OBAG 2 county base formula distribution is subject to the minimum PDA investment requirements.

3. Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
The Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program provides funding for the development of plans and projects to assist in the preservation and enhancement of rural lands and open space.

Generally, eligible projects include PCA planning activities, bicycle and pedestrian access to open space and parklands, visual enhancements and habitat/environmental enhancements.

Specifically, projects must support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands amidst a growing population across the Bay Area, for residents and businesses.

Land acquisition for preservation purposes is not federally eligible, but may be facilitated through CMA-initiated funding exchanges.

The PCA funding program includes one approach for the North Bay program (Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma) and a second for the remaining five counties. In the North Bay, each CMA will receive dedicated funding, lead a county-wide program building on PCA planning conducted to date, and select projects for funding. For the remaining counties, MTC will partner with the Coastal Conservancy, a California State agency, to program the PCA funds. Appendix A- 9 outlines the framework for this program including goals, project screening eligibility, eligible sponsors, and project selection.

Any CMA may use additional funding from its base OBAG 2 County Program to expand its dedicated PCA program (North Bay counties), augment grants received from the regionally competitive PCA program (remaining counties), or develop its own county PCA program (all counties).

The North Bay program framework is to be developed by the four North Bay CMAs, building upon their PCA planning and priorities carried out to date. Project eligibility is limited by the

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/20/17-C 03/27/19-C 07/24/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 29
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

eligibility of federal surface transportation funding; unless the CMA can exchange these funds or leverage new fund sources for their programs.

As a part of the update to Plan Bay Area, MTC is exploring implementing a Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) Program. RAMP would mitigate certain environmental impacts from multiple planned transportation projects, rather than mitigating on a less-efficient per-project level. Partnering arrangements can be established to leverage multiple fund sources in order to maximize benefits of the RAMP and PCA programs. As such, PCA funds may be used to deliver net environmental benefits to a RAMP program project.

In instances where federal funds may not be used for this purpose, sponsors may exchange OBAG 2 funds with eligible non-federal funds. Such exchanges must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331).

Resolution No. 4202
Appendix A‐1

Adopted: 11/18/15‐C
Revised: 07/27/16‐C
Appendix A‐1
OBAG 2
Program Categories
FY 2017‐18 through FY 2019‐22
Program Categories
OBAG 2
% Share Amount
Regional Categories $499.3 476.5
1R e g i o n a l  Planning Activities 2% $8.5 2% 9.6
2 Pavement  Management Program 2% $9.1 2% 9.3
3R e g i o n a l  PDA Planning & Implementation 4% $20.0 5% 20.0 4 Climate  Initiatives 4% $22.3 5% 23.0
5P r i o r i t y  Conservation Area 2% $9.5 4% 16.4
6R e g i o n a l  Active Operational Management 37% $183.5 39% 179.0 7T r a n s i t  Capital Priorities 40% $201.4 43% 189.3 $454.3 Regional  Program Total: 52% 446.5
Local Categories
4% $20.0
5% $25.0
‐‐
8 ‐‐ 30.0
9% $45.0 Local  Program Total: 3% 30.0
OBAG 2
Population SRTS *** FAS  ***
Counties
1 Alameda 21.2% 19.6% $64.1 19.7% $73.4 20.0% $69.7 $5.3 $1.8 19.9% $76.7 2C o n t r a  Costa 14.6% 14.1% $46.0 14.2% $52.9 14.6% $50.8 $4.1 $1.3 14.6% $56.1 3 Marin 3.4% 3.3% $10.7 3.3% $12.3 2.6% $9.2 $0.9 $0.8 2.8% $10.9 4 Napa 1.9% 2.3% $7.4 2.3% $8.7 1.6% $5.5 $0.5 $1.2 2.2% $8.2 5S a n  Francisco  11.3% 12.0% $39.3 11.7% $43.5 13.4% $46.5 $1.8 $0.0 12.4% $48.2 6S a n  Mateo 10.0% 8.3% $27.2 8.4% $31.2 8.4% $29.3 $2.4 $0.9 8.4% $32.5 7S a n t a  Clara 25.2% 27.3% $89.3 27.2% $101.4 27.5% $95.8 $6.9 $1.7 26.9% $104.1 8 Solano 5.7% 6.0% $19.5 5.9% $22.1 5.2% $18.3 $1.5 $1.5 5.5% $21.2 9 Sonoma 6.6% 7.3% $23.8 7.2% $26.9 6.6% $22.9 $1.7 $3.3 7.2% $27.7 Total:  $327.4 $372.4 $348.0 $25.0 $12.5 45% $385.5
OBAG Total: OBAG 1:  $827 OBAG 2:  $862
* OBAG 1: In OBAG 1, the county CMAs received $327 M with $18 M in RTIP‐TE and $309 M in STP/CMAQ. RTIP‐TE funding is no longer part of OBAG 2 ** Base: Unadjusted raw county base formula amount
*** SRTS:  SRTS moved to County Program and distributed based on FY 2013‐14 K‐12 school enrollment *** FAS: Federal‐Aid Secondary (FAS) distributed based by statutory requirements. San Francisco has no rural roads and therefore is not subject to State Statute requirements **** OBAG2: Final county distribution rounded to nearest $1,000 and includes SRTS & FAS and adjusted so a county CMA's base planning is no more than 50% of total July 27, 2016
Regional Program OBAG 1
Regional Distribution
Local PDA Planning (within county program for OBAG 2)
Base Formula ** Final Adjusted Distribution
Including SRTS & FAS ****
J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP‐RES\MTC\RES‐4202_ongoing\Final_ver3\[tmp‐4202_Appendix‐A1‐A6.xlsx]A‐3 Planning Federal‐Aid Secondary ‐ FAS (within county program for OBAG 2) Safe Routes To School (Moved to county program for OBAG 2) Local Housing Production Incentive
County Program
OBAG 1
Base Formula
STP/CMAQ/TE *
Final Distribution
Including SRTS & PDA

Resolution No. 4202
Appendix A‐2

Adopted: 11/18/15‐C
Revised: 07/27/16‐C
Appendix A‐2
OBAG 2
County Fund Distribution
FY 2017‐18 through FY 2021‐22
OBAG 2 ‐ County Funding Formula Distribution
Alameda $76,655,000 $69,728,000 70% 70/30 $48,810,000 $27,845,000 Contra Costa $56,136,000 $50,846,000 70% 70/30 $35,592,000 $20,544,000 Marin $10,870,000 $9,194,000 50% 50/50 $4,597,000 $6,273,000 Napa $8,150,000 $5,501,000 50% 50/50 $2,751,000 $5,399,000 San Francisco $48,183,000 $46,514,000 70% 70/30 $32,560,000 $15,623,000 San Mateo $32,545,000 $29,339,000 70% 70/30 $20,537,000 $12,008,000 Santa Clara $104,073,000 $95,758,000 70% 70/30 $67,031,000 $37,042,000 Solano $21,177,000 $18,253,000 50% 50/50 $9,127,000 $12,050,000 Sonoma $27,723,000 $22,867,000 50% 50/50 $11,434,000 $16,289,000 Total:  $385,512,000 $348,000,000 $232,439,000 $153,073,000 * Total county distribution including SRTS, FAS and planning adjustment July 27, 2016
County PDA  Percentage PDA Anywhere
J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP‐RES\MTC\RES‐4202_ongoing\Final_ver3\[tmp‐4202_Appendix‐A1‐A6.xlsx]A‐3 Planning ** OBAG 2 adjusted base county amount subject to PDA investment ‐ does not include SRTS, FAS or PCA.  Rounded to thousands and adjusted to ensure a county's base planning activity is no more than 50% of the total distribution Total County
Distribution *
OBAG 2
Adjusted Base **
PDA/Anywhere
Split

Resolution No. 4202
Appendix A-3

Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 12/20/17-C
Appendix A-3
OBAG 2
Planning & Outreach
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
OBAG 2 - County CMA Planning

2.0%
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 SubTotal Supplemental Alameda ACTC $1,034,000 $1,055,000 $1,076,000 $1,097,000 $1,119,000 $1,142,000 $5,489,000 $2,800,000 $8,289,000 Contra Costa CCTA $818,000 $834,000 $851,000 $868,000 $885,000 $904,000 $4,342,000 $0 $4,342,000 Marin TAM $720,000 $734,000 $749,000 $764,000 $779,000 $796,000 $3,822,000 $0 $3,822,000 Napa NCTPA NVTA $720,000 $734,000 $749,000 $764,000 $779,000 $796,000 $3,822,000 $0 $3,822,000 San Francisco SFCTA $753,000 $768,000 $783,000 $799,000 $815,000 $832,000 $3,997,000 $1,900,000 $5,897,000 San Mateo SMCCAG $720,000 $734,000 $749,000 $764,000 $779,000 $796,000 $3,822,000 $1,512,000 $5,334,000 Santa Clara VTA $1,145,000 $1,168,000 $1,191,000 $1,215,000 $1,239,000 $1,265,000 $6,078,000 $4,822,000 $10,900,000 Solano STA $720,000 $734,000 $749,000 $764,000 $779,000 $796,000 $3,822,000 $3,039,000 $6,861,000 Sonoma SCTA $720,000 $734,000 $749,000 $764,000 $779,000 $796,000 $3,822,000 $1,178,000 $5,000,000 $7,350,000 $7,495,000 $7,646,000 $7,799,000 $7,953,000 $8,123,000 $39,016,000 $15,251,000 $54,267,000 OBAG 2 - Regional Planning

2.0%
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 SubTotal Augmentation Regional Planning Total: $1,800,000 $1,835,000 $1,873,000 $1,910,000 $1,948,000 $1,989,000 $9,555,000 $0 $9,555,000 * 2% escalation from FY 2016-17 Planning Base
$63,822,000
December 20, 2017
County Agency
OBAG 2 County CMA Planning - Base *
Total
County CMAs Total:

J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP-RES\MTC\RES-4202_ongoing_OBAG2\[tmp-4202_Appendix-A1-A6 12-20-17.xlsx]A-3 Planning 12-20-17 OBAG 2 Regional Agency Planning - Base *
Total

Resolution No. 4202
Appendix A‐4

Adopted: 11/18/15‐CAppendix A‐4
OBAG 2
Federal‐Aid Secondary
FY 2017‐18 through FY 2021‐22
OBAG 2 ‐ Federal‐Aid Secondary (FAS)
Alameda 14.2% $355,761 $1,778,805 $1,779,000
Contra Costa 10.7% $268,441 $1,342,205 $1,343,000
Marin 6.7% $167,509 $837,545 $838,000
Napa 9.5% $237,648 $1,188,240 $1,189,000
San Francisco ** 0.0% $0 $0 $0
San Mateo 7.1% $178,268 $891,340 $892,000
Santa Clara 13.6% $340,149 $1,700,745 $1,701,000
Solano 12.0% $301,159 $1,505,795 $1,506,000
Sonoma 26.1% $652,790 $3,263,950 $3,264,000
Total:  100.0% $2,501,725 $12,508,625 $12,512,000
* As provided by Caltrans per State Statute
** San Francisco has no rural roads
J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP‐RES\MTC\RES‐4202_ongoing\Final_ver3\[tmp‐4202_Appendix‐A1‐A6.xlsx]A‐3 Planning November 18, 2015
Total
OBAG 2
RoundedCounty
FAS
Regional
Percentage
Annual
FAS Funding *
5‐Year
FAS Funding

Resolution No. 4202
Appendix A‐5

Adopted: 11/18/15‐CAppendix A‐5
OBAG 2
Safe Routes to School County
FY 2017‐18 through FY 2021‐22
OBAG 2 ‐ Safe Routes To School County Distribution
Alameda 222,681 24,036 246,717 21.4% $5,340,000
Contra Costa 173,020 15,825 188,845 16.4% $4,088,000
Marin 32,793 7,104 39,897 3.5% $864,000
Napa 20,868 2,913 23,781 2.1% $515,000
San Francisco 58,394 24,657 83,051 7.2% $1,797,000
San Mateo 94,667 15,927 110,594 9.6% $2,394,000
Santa Clara 276,175 41,577 317,752 27.5% $6,878,000
Solano 63,825 4,051 67,876 5.9% $1,469,000
Sonoma 70,932 5,504 76,436 6.6% $1,655,000
Total:  1,013,355 141,594 1,154,949 100% $25,000,000
* From California Department of Education for FY 2013‐14 J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\TEMP‐RES\MTC\RES‐4202_ongoing\Final_ver3\[tmp‐4202_Appendix‐A1‐A6.xlsx]A‐3 Planning November 18, 2015
County
Public School
Enrollment
(K‐12) *
Private School
Enrollment
(K‐12) *
Total School
Enrollment
(K‐12) *
Total
OBAG 2
Rounded
FY 2013‐14
Percentage

Resolution No. 4202
Appendix A‐6

Adopted: 11/18/15‐CAppendix A‐6
OBAG 2
Priority Conservation Area
FY 2017‐18 through FY 2021‐22
OBAG 2 ‐ Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
Northbay Program
Marin $2,050,000
Napa $2,050,000
Solano $2,050,000
Sonoma $2,050,000
Subtotal:  $8,200,000
Remaining Counties Competitive Program
Subtotal:  $8,200,000
Total
Total:  $16,400,000
PCA Program
Total
OBAG 2
November 18, 2015

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 1
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Appendix A-7: OBAG 2 – CMA One Bay Area Grant County Program Outreach

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) delegates authority for the county program project selection to the nine Bay Area Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). The existing relationships the CMAs have with local jurisdictions, elected officials, transit agencies, community organizations and stakeholders, and members of the public within their respective counties make them best suited for this role. As one of the requirements for distributing federal transportation funding, MTC expects the CMAs to plan and execute an effective public outreach and local engagement process during development of the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy and the solicitation and project selection for the OBAG 2 program. CMAs also serve as the main point of contact for local sponsoring agencies and members of the public submitting projects for consideration for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

To comply with federal regulations, the CMAs must conduct a transparent process for the Call for Projects, and include the following activities:

1. Public Involvement and Outreach
Conduct countywide outreach to stakeholders and the public to solicit project ideas.

CMAs are expected to implement their public outreach efforts in a manner consistent with MTC’s Public Participation Plan (MTC Resolution No. 4174), which can be found at http://mtc.ca.gov/about-mtc/public-participation/public-participation-plan . CMAs are expected at a minimum to:
o Execute effective and meaningful local engagement efforts during the call for projects by working closely with local jurisdictions, elected officials, transit agencies, community-based organizations, and the public through the project solicitation process;
o Explain the local call for projects process, informing stakeholders and the public about the opportunities for public comments on project ideas and when decisions are to be made on the list of projects to be submitted to MTC; o Hold public meetings and/or workshops at times that are conducive to public participation to solicit public input on project ideas to submit; o Post notices of public meetings and hearing(s) on their agency website; include information on how to request language translation for individuals with limited English proficiency. If agency protocol has not been established, please refer to MTC’s Plan for Assisting Limited English Proficient Populations at http://mtc.ca.gov/about-mtc/public-participation/get-language-assistance ;
o Offer language translations and accommodations for people with disabilities, if requested at least three days in advance of the meeting; and o Hold public meetings in central locations that are accessible for people with disabilities and by public transit.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 2
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Document the outreach effort undertaken for the local call for projects. CMAs are to provide MTC with a:
o Description of how the public was involved in the process for nominating and/or commenting on projects selected for OBAG 2 funding.

2. Agency Coordination
• Work closely with local jurisdictions, transit agencies, MTC, Caltrans, federally recognized tribal governments, and stakeholders to identify projects for consideration in the OBAG 2 Program. CMAs will assist with agency coordination by:
o Communicating this call for projects guidance to local jurisdictions, transit agencies, federally recognized tribal governments, and other stakeholders. o Documenting the steps taken to engage the above-listed organizations.

3. Title VI Responsibilities
• Ensure the public involvement process provides underserved communities access to the project submittal process in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
o Assist community-based organizations, communities of concern, and any other underserved community interested in having projects submitted for funding. o Remove barriers for persons with limited-English proficiency to have access to the project submittal process.
o Document the steps taken to engage underserved communities. o For Title VI outreach strategies, please refer to MTC’s Public Participation Plan found at: http://mtc.ca.gov/about-mtc/public-participation/public-participation-plan. o Additional resources are available at:
i. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/tvi.htm ii. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/DBE_CRLC.html#TitleVI iii. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/get_involved/rights/index.htm

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 1
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Appendix A-8: PDA Investment & Growth Strategy

The purpose of a PDA Investment & Growth Strategy is to ensure that CMAs have a transportation project priority-setting process for OBAG 2 funding that supports and encourages development in the region’s PDAs, recognizing that the diversity of PDAs will require a range of different strategies.

Some of the planning activities noted below may be appropriate for CMAs to consider for jurisdictions or areas not currently designated as PDAs if those areas are still considering future housing and job growth. Regional agencies will provide support, as needed, for the PDA Investment & Growth Strategies. From time to time, MTC shall consult with the CMAs to evaluate progress on the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy. This consultation may result in specific work elements shifting among MTC, ABAG and the CMAs. Significant modifications to the scope of activities may be formalized through future revisions to this resolution. The following are activities CMAs need to undertake in order to develop a project priority-setting process:

(1) Engaging Regional/Local Agencies
 Develop or continue a process to regularly engage local planners and public works staff.

Understand the needs of both groups and share information with MTC and ABAG.  Encourage community participation throughout the development of the Investment and Growth Strategy, consistent with the OBAG 2 Call for Projects Guidance (Appendix A-7).  The CMA governing boards must adopt the final Investment & Growth Strategy.  Participate as a TAC member in local jurisdiction planning processes funded through the regional PDA Planning Program or as requested by jurisdictions. Partner with MTC and ABAG staff to ensure that regional policies are addressed in PDA plans. Look for opportunities to support planning processes with technical or financial assistance.

(2) Planning Objectives – to Inform Project Priorities
 Keep apprised of ongoing transportation and land-use planning efforts throughout the county
 Encourage local agencies to quantify transportation infrastructure needs and costs as part of their planning processes
 Encourage and support local jurisdictions in meeting their housing objectives established through their adopted Housing Elements and RHNA.

The second round of PDA Investment & Growth Strategies will assess local jurisdiction success approving sufficient housing at all income levels. They will also, where appropriate, assist local jurisdictions in implementing local policy changes to facilitate achieving these goals1. The locally crafted policies should be targeted to the specific circumstances of each PDA. For example, if the PDA currently has few moderate- or low-income households, any recommend policy changes should be aimed at promoting affordable housing. If the PDA currently is mostly low-income housing, any needed policy changes should be aimed at community stabilization.

1 Such as inclusionary housing requirements, city-sponsored land-banking for affordable housing production, “just cause eviction” policies, policies or investments that preserve existing deed-restricted or “naturally” affordable housing, condo conversion ordinances that support stability and preserve affordable housing, etc.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 2
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

MTC and ABAG staff will distribute a technical memo to guide this task by October 1, 2016, including data to identify jurisdictions’ challenges (e.g. RHNA performance and current affordability) and a listing of the Bay Area’s best housing policies that are intended to address a range of housing challenges. This section should identify planning costs needed to address policy changes and other barriers to creating or maintaining affordability.

(3) Establishing Local Funding Priorities
Develop funding guidelines for evaluating OBAG projects that support multi-modal transportation priorities based on connections to housing, services, jobs and commercial activity. Emphasis should be placed on the following factors when developing project evaluation criteria:
 Projects located in high impact project areas. Favorably consider projects in high impact areas, defined as:
a. PDAs taking on significant housing growth in the SCS (total number of units), including RHNA allocations, as well as housing production, especially those PDAs that are delivering large numbers of very low, low and moderate income housing units,
b. Dense job centers in proximity to transit and housing (both current levels and those included in the SCS) especially those which are supported by reduced parking requirements and TDM programs,
c. Improved transportation choices for all income levels (reduces VMT), proximity to quality transit access, with an emphasis on connectivity (including safety, lighting, etc.)
 Projects located in Communities of Concern (COC) – favorably consider projects located in a COC as defined by MTC or as defined by CMAs or Community Based Transportation Plans.
 PDAs with affordable housing preservation, creation strategies and community stabilization policies – favorably consider projects in jurisdictions with affordable housing preservation, creation strategies and community stabilization policies.  Projects that protect public health during construction and operation – Favorably consider projects that implement the Best Practices in the Air District’s Planning Healthy Places, or projects located in jurisdictions that have demonstrated a commitment to adopt, as policies and/or enforceable ordinances, best practices to reduce emissions of and exposure to local air pollution.2
 PDAs that overlap or are co-located with: 1) populations exposed to outdoor toxic air contaminants as identified in the Air District’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program and/or 2) freight transport infrastructure – Favorably consider projects in these areas where local jurisdictions employ best management practices to mitigate PM and toxic air contaminants exposure.

2 Guidance and maps have been developed in partnership with BAAQMD, CMAs, ABAG, and city staff, pl ease see: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/planning-healthy-places.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015
Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 3
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

Process/Timeline
CMAs will develop a new PDA Investment & Growth Strategy every four years, consistent with the update of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Investment & Growth Strategy must be adopted by the CMA Board (new for OBAG 2). The interim status report required for 2019 will be satisfied through a collaborative effort between the CMAs and MTC.

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 1
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

APPENDIX A-9: Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program

Program Goals and Eligible Projects
The goal of the Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program is to support Plan Bay Area by preserving and enhancing the natural, economic and social value of rural lands and open space in the Bay Area, for residents and businesses. These values include globally unique ecosystems, productive agricultural lands, recreational opportunities, urban greening, healthy fisheries, and climate protection (mitigation and adaptation), among others.

The PCA Program should also be linked to SB 375 goals which direct MPOs to prepare sustainable community strategies which consider resource areas and farmland in the region as defined in Section 65080.01. One purpose of the PCA program is to reinforce efforts to target growth in existing neighborhoods (PDAs), rather than allowing growth to occur in an unplanned “project-by-project” approach.

The PCA program is split into two elements:

1. North Bay Program ($8 million)

2. Peninsula, Southern and Eastern Counties Program ($8 million)

The North Bay program framework is to be developed by the four North Bay county Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), building on their PCA planning and priorities carried out to date.

Project eligibility is limited by the eligibility of federal surface transportation funding; unless the CMA can exchange these funds or leverage new fund sources for their programs.

The Peninsula, Southern and Eastern Counties Program will be administered by the Coastal Conservancy* in partnership with MTC based on the proposal provided below. The table below outlines screening criteria, eligible applicants, and the proposed project selection and programming process for the Peninsula, Southern and Eastern Counties.

Funding Amount • $8 million

Screening Criteria
• PCA Designation: Eligible projects must be within a designated PCA.

The list of adopted PCAs can be found
at:
http://abag.ca.gov/priority/conservation/.
• Regionally Significant: Indicators of regional significance include a project’s contribution to goals stated in regional habitat, agricultural or open space plans (i.e. San Francisco Bay Area Upland Habitat Goals Project Report at http://www.bayarealands.org/reports/), countywide Plans or ABAG’s PCA designations. Applicants should describe who will benefit from the project and the regional (greater- than-local) need it serves.
• Open Space Protection In Place: Linkages to or location in a Greenbelt area that is policy protected from development. Land acquisition or easement projects would be permitted in an area without open space policy protections in place.
• Non-Federal Local Match: 2:1 minimum match

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 2
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

• Meets Program Goals: Projects that meet one of the following program goals (subject to funding eligibility—see below):
o Protects or enhances “resource areas” or habitats as defined in California Government Code § 65080.01(a).
o Provides or enhances bicycle and pedestrian access to open space / parkland resources. Notable examples are the Bay and Ridge Trail Systems.
o Supports the agricultural economy of the region.
o Includes existing and potential urban green spaces that increase habitat connectivity, improve community health, capture carbon emissions, and address stormwater.

Eligible Applicants
• Local governments (cities, counties, towns), county congestion management agencies, tribes, water/utility districts, resource conservation districts, park and/or open space districts, land trusts and other land/resource protection nonprofit organizations in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area are invited to nominate projects. Applicants are strongly encouraged to collaborate and partner with other entities on the nomination of projects, and partnerships that leverage additional funding will be given higher priority in the grant award process. Partnerships are necessary with cities, counties, or CMAs in order to access federal funds.

Federally-funded projects must have an implementing agency that is able to receive a federal-aid grant (master agreement with Caltrans).

Emphasis Areas /
Eligible Projects
Eligible Projects

1. Planning Activities

2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities/ Infrastructure: On-road and off-road trail facilities, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming, lighting and other safety related infrastructure, and ADA compliance, conversion and use of abandoned rail corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists.

3. Visual Enhancements: Construction of turnouts, overlooks and viewing areas.

4. Habitat / Environmental Enhancements: Vegetation
management practices in transportation rights-of-way, reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats, mitigation of transportation project environmental impacts funded through the federal-aid surface transportation program.

5. Protection (Land Acquisition or Easement) or Enhancement of Natural Resources, Open Space or Agricultural Lands: Parks and

Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202
November 18, 2015

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
OBAG 2 – One Bay Area Grant Program Page 3
Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy

open space, staging areas or environmental facilities; or natural resources, such as listed species, identified priority habitat, wildlife corridors, wildlife corridors watersheds, or agricultural soils of importance.

6. Urban Greening: Existing and potential green spaces in cities that increase habitat connectivity, improve community health, capture carbon emissions, and address stormwater.

Note: MTC encourages PCA project applicants to partner with other agencies and programs to leverage other funds in order to maximize benefits. As such, PCA funded projects may become eligible to deliver net environmental benefits to a future Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) program project, above any required mitigation requirements. Note that such projects may need to rely on funding exchanges with eligible non-federal funds because most land acquisition and habitat restoration projects that are not mitigation for transportation projects are not eligible for federal transportation funds. Any such funding exchange must be consistent with MTC’s fund exchange policy (MTC Resolution No. 3331).

Project Selection

Coastal Conservancy Partnership Program:

MTC will provide $8 million of federal transportation funds which will be combined with the Coastal Conservancy’s own program funds in order to support a broader range of projects (i.e. land acquisition and easement projects) than can be accommodated with federal transportation dollars alone. The Coastal Conservancy, MTC, and ABAG staff will cooperatively manage the call for projects. This approach would harness the expertise of the Coastal Conservancy, expand the pool of eligible projects, and leverage additional resources through the Coastal Conservancy.

*The Coastal Conservancy is a state agency and the primary public land conservation funding source in the Bay Area, providing funding for many different types of land conservation projects.

For more information see http://scc.ca.gov/
.

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 1

APPENDIX A-10: Checklist for CMA and Local Jurisdiction Compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4202
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) Checklist for
CMA Compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4202
Federal Program Covering FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
The intent of this checklist is to delineate the requirements included in the OBAG 2 Grant Program (Resolution No. 4202), as adopted by MTC on November 18, 2015. This checklist must be completed by Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) and submitted to MTC to certify compliance with the OBAG 2 requirements. MTC will not take action to program projects recommended by a CMA until a checklist demonstrating compliance has been submitted to MTC.

CMA Call fo r Projects Guidance: Appendix A -7

1. Public Involvement and Outreach, Agency
Coordination, and Title VI YES NO N/A
a. Has the CMA conducted countywide outreach to stakeholders and the public to solicit project ideas consistent with Appendix A-7?

b. Has the CMA performed agency coordination consistent with Appendix A-7?

c. Has the CMA fulfilled its Title VI responsibilities consistent with Appendix A-7?

d. Has the CMA documented the efforts undertaken for Items 1a-1c, above, and submitted these materials to MTC as an attachment to this Checklist?

PDA Investment and Growth Strategy: Appendix A -8

2. Engage with Regional and Local Jurisdictions YES NO N/A a. Has the CMA developed a process to regularly engage local planners and public works staff in developing a PDA Investment and Growth Strategy that supports and encourages development in the county’s PDAs?

b. Has the CMA encouraged community participation throughout the development of the Investment and Growth Strategy, consistent with the OBAG 2 Call for Projects Guidance (Appendix A-7)?

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 2

c. Has the CMA governing board adopted the final Investment and Growth Strategy?

d. Has the CMA’s staff or consultant designee participated in TAC meetings established through the local jurisdiction’s planning processes funded through the regional PDA planning program?

e. Has the CMA worked with MTC and ABAG staff to confirm that regional policies are addressed in PDA plans?

3. Planning Objectives to Inform Project Priorities YES NO N/A a. Has the CMA kept itself apprised of ongoing transportation and land-use planning efforts throughout the county?

b. Has the CMA encouraged local agencies to quantify transportation infrastructure needs and costs as part of their planning processes?

c. Has the CMA encouraged and supported local jurisdictions in meeting their housing objectives established through their adopted Housing Elements and RHNA?

1. Has the CMA received and reviewed information submitted to the CMA by ABAG on the progress that local jurisdictions have made in implementing their housing element objectives and identifying current local housing policies that encourage affordable housing production and/or community stabilization?

2. In all updates of its PDA Investment & Growth Strategy, has the CMA assessed local jurisdiction efforts in approving sufficient housing for all income levels through the RHNA process and, where appropriate, assisted local jurisdictions in implementing local policy changes to facilitate achieving these goals?

3. Using guidance issued by MTC, has the Investment & Growth Strategy fully addressed items in C1 and C2, above?

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 3

4. Establishing Local Funding Priorities YES NO N/A
a. Has the CMA developed funding guidelines for evaluating OBAG 2 projects that support multi-modal transportation priorities based on connections to housing, jobs and commercial activity and that emphasize the following factors?

1. Projects located in high impact project areas – favorably consider projects in high impact areas, defined as:
a) PDAs taking on significant housing growth (total number of units) in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), including RHNA allocations, as well as housing production, especially those PDAs that are delivering large numbers of very low, low and moderate income housing units;
b) Dense job centers in proximity to transit and housing (both current levels and those included in the SCS) especially those which are supported by reduced parking requirements and Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs;
c) Improved transportation choices for all income levels (reduces VMT), proximity to quality transit access, with an emphasis on connectivity (including safety, lighting, etc.).

2. Projects located in Communities of Concern (COC) as defined by MTC:
a) CMAs may also include additional COCs beyond those defined by MTC, such as those defined by the CMAs according to local priorities or Community Based Transportation Plans.

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 4

3. PDAs with affordable housing preservation, creation strategies and community stabilization policies.

4. Specific scoring methodology for funding allocations to projects in PDAs or TPAs that rewards jurisdictions with the most effective housing anti-displacement policies.

5. Projects that implement the Best Practices identified in the Air District’s Planning Healthy Places guidelines, or projects located in jurisdictions that have demonstrated a commitment to adopt, as policies and/or enforceable ordinances, best practices to reduce emissions of and exposure to local air pollution. 1

6. PDAs that overlap or are co-located with: 1) populations exposed to outdoor toxic air contaminants, as identified in the Air District’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program and/or 2) freight transport infrastructure.

b. Has the CMA submitted the documentation for item 4a to MTC as part of this Checklist?

c. Has the CMA provided a status report on their PDA Investment & Growth Strategy (required two years after the adoption of a PDA Investment and Growth Strategy)? Note: The interim status report required for 2019 will be satisfied through a collaborative effort between the CMAs and MTC.

d. Has the CMA committed to developing a new PDA Investment & Growth Strategy by May 1, 2017 (new PDA required every four years), consistent with the update of the RTP/SCS?

] Guidance and maps have been developed in partnership with BAAQMD, CMAs, ABAG, and city staff, please see: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/planning-healthy-places.

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 5

PDA Policies

5. PDA Minimum Investment Targets YES NO N/A
a. Has the CMA met its minimum PDA investment target (70% for Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and 50% for Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano)?

b. Has the CMA defined the term “proximate access,” for projects located outside of a PDA that should be counted towards the county’s minimum PDA investment target?

c. Has the CMA designated and mapped projects recommended for funding that are not geographically within a PDA but provide “proximate access” to a PDA, along with policy justifications for those determinations, and presented this information for public review when the CMA board acts on OBAG 2 programming decisions?

d. Has the CMA submitted the documentation from items 5a-c, above, to MTC as part of this Checklist?

Project Selection Policies

6. Project Selection YES NO N/A
a. Has the CMA documented and submitted the approach used to select OBAG 2 projects including outreach, coordination, and Title VI compliance?
(See 1 & 2)
b. Has the CMA issued a unified call for projects?
c. Has the CMA submitted a board adopted list of projects to MTC by July 31, 2017?

d. Does the CMA acknowledge that all selected projects must be submitted into MTC’s Fund Management System (FMS) along with a Resolution of Local Support no later than August 31, 2017?

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 6

e. Does the CMA affirm that the projects recommended for funding meet the following requirements?

1. Are consistent with the current Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area);

2. Have completed project-specific Complete Streets Checklists;

f. Does the CMA acknowledge the that OBAG 2 funding is subject to MTC’s Regional Project Delivery Policy (Resolution No. 3606, or successor resolution) in addition to the following OBAG 2 deadlines?

1. Half of the CMA’s OBAG 2 funds, must be obligated by January 31, 2020; and

2. All remaining OBAG 2 funds must be obligated by January 31, 2023.

Performance and Accountability Policies

7. Ensuring Local Compliance YES NO N/A
a. Has the CMA received confirmation that local jurisdictions have met the Performance and Accountability Policies requirements related to Complete Streets, local Housing Elements, surplus lands (general law cities and counties only unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities are subject to the provisions of the State Surplus Land Act), local streets and roads, and transit agency project locations as set forth in pages 18-21 of MTC Resolution 4202? Note:

CMAs can use the Local Jurisdiction OBAG 2 Requirement Checklist to help fulfill this requirement.

b. Has the CMA affirmed to MTC that a jurisdiction is in compliance with the requirements of MTC Resolution 4202 prior to programming OBAG 2 funds to its projects in the TIP?

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 7

8. Completion of Checklist YES NO N/A
Has the CMA completed all section of this checklist?
If the CMA has checked “NO” or “N/A” to any checklist items, please include which item and a description below as to why the requirement was not met or is considered Not Applicable:

Attachments
Documentation of CMA efforts for public outreach, agency coordination, and Title VI compliance (Checklist Items 1, 2).

Documentation of CMA compliance with PDA minimum investment targets, including documentation that the information was presented to the public during the decision-making process (Checklist Item 6).

Reporting CMA: _______________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised 07/27/16-C 03/27/19-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 8

Review and Approval of Checklist

This checklist was prepared by:

Signature Date
Name & Title (print)
Phone Email
This checklist was approved for submission to MTC by:

Signature Date
CMA Executive Director

Reporting Jurisdiction: ___________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised: 07/27/16-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 1

One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 2) Checklist for
Local Compliance with MTC Resolution No. 4202
Federal Program Covering FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
The intent of this checklist is to delineate the requirements for local jurisdictions included in the OBAG Grant Program (Resolution No. 4202), as adopted by MTC on November 18, 2015. This checklist must be completed by local jurisdictions and submitted to the CMA to certify compliance with the OBAG 2 requirements listed in MTC Resolution No. 4202. MTC will not take action to program projects for a local jurisdiction until the CMA affirms that the jurisdiction has met all requirements included in OBAG 2.

1. Compliance with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 YES NO N/A a. Has the jurisdiction met MTC’s Complete Street Requirements for OBAG 2 prior to the CMA submitting its program to MTC through either of the following methods?

1. Adopting a Complete Streets resolution incorporating MTC’s nine required complete streets elements; or

2. Adopting a significant revision to the General Plan Circulation Element after January 1, 2010 that complies with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.

b. Has the jurisdiction submitted documentation of compliance with Item a. (copy of adopted resolution or circulation element) to the CMA as part of this Checklist?

c. Has the jurisdiction submitted a Complete Streets Checklist for any project for which the jurisdiction has applied for OBAG 2 funding?

2. Housing Element Certification YES NO N/A
a. Has the jurisdiction’s General Plan Housing Element been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2014-2022 RHNA prior to May 31, 2015? If not, has the jurisdiction’s Housing Element been fully certified by HCD by June 30, 2016?

b. Has the jurisdiction submitted the latest Annual Housing Element Report to HCD by April 1, 2017?

Reporting Jurisdiction: ___________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised: 07/27/16-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 2

c. Does the jurisdiction acknowledge that the Annual Housing Element Report must be submitted to HCD each year through the end of the OBAG 2 program (FY22) in order to be eligible to receive funding?

d. Has the jurisdiction submitted documentation of compliance with Item 2 (copy of certified housing element or annual report, or letter of compliance from HCD) to the CMA as part of this Checklist?

3. Surplus Land Act
a. Has the jurisdiction met MTC’s Surplus Land Requirements for OBAG 2 prior to the CMA submitting its program, through adoption of a resolution demonstrating compliance with the State’s Surplus Land Act (AB 2135 amended)? Resolution requirement applies only to general law cities and counties unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities must comply with the provisions of this Act.

4. Local Streets and Roads YES NO N/A
a. Does the jurisdiction have a certified Pavement Management Program (StreetSaver® or equivalent) updated at least once every three years (with a one-year extension allowed)?

b. Does the jurisdiction fully participate in the statewide local streets and roads needs assessment survey?

c. Does the jurisdiction provide updated information to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) at least once every 3 years (with a one-year grace period allowed)?

5. Projects Sponsored by Other Agencies YES NO N/A
a. Does the jurisdiction acknowledge that the jurisdiction in which a project is located must comply with OBAG 2 requirements (MTC Resolution No. 4202) in order for any project funded with OBAG 2 funds to be located within the jurisdiction, even if the project is sponsored by an outside agency (such as a transit agency)?

Reporting Jurisdiction: ___________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised: 07/27/16-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 3

6. Regional Project Delivery Requirements YES NO N/A
a. Does the jurisdiction acknowledge that it must comply with the regional Project Delivery Policy and Guidance requirements (MTC Resolution No. 3606) in the implementation of the project, and that the jurisdiction must identify and maintain a Single Point of Contact for all projects with FHWA-administered funding?

7. Completion of Checklist YES NO N/A
Has the jurisdiction completed all sections of this checklist? If the jurisdiction has checked “NO” or “N/A” to any of the above questions, please provide an explanation below as to why the requirement was not met or is considered not applicable:

Attachments
Documentation of local jurisdiction’s compliance with MTC’s Complete Streets Requirements, including copy of adopted resolution or circulation element (Checklist Item 1).

Documentation of compliance with MTC’s Housing Element Requirements, such as a copy of certified housing element or annual report, or a letter of compliance from HCD (Checklist Item 2).

Documentation of compliance with the State’s Surplus Land Act, such as a copy of the adopted resolution (Checklist Item 3). This requirement applies only to general law cities and counties unless and until a final court decision is rendered that charter cities must comply with the provisions of this Act.

Reporting Jurisdiction: ___________________________________ Attachment A, MTC Resolution No. 4202 For Receipt of FY 2017–18 through 2021–22 OBAG 2 Funds November 18, 2015 Reporting Period: Calendar Year 2016 Revised: 07/27/16-C

If “NO” or “N/A –Not Applicable” is marked in any box on the checklist, please include a statement at the end of the checklist to indicate why the item was not met. Page 4

Review and Approval of Checklist

This checklist was prepared by:

Signature Date
Name & Title (print)
Phone Email
This checklist was approved for submission to <INSERT NAME>City/County by:

Signature Date
City Manager/Administrator or designee

Attachment B-1
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 Regional Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 Regional Programs Project List
PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE COUNTY SPONSOR Total STP/CMAQ Other OBAG 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS $483,825,151 $25,979,849

1. REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Regional Planning Regionwide MTC $9,555,000

1. REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES TOTAL: $9,555,000

2. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pavement Management Program Regionwide MTC $1,500,000
Pavement Technical Advisory Program (PTAP) Regionwide MTC $7,500,000 Statewide Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Needs Assessment Regionwide MTC/Caltrans $250,000

2. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL: $9,250,000

3. PDA PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION
PDA Planning and Implementation
PDA Implementation Regionwide MTC $2,000,000
PDA Supportive Studies Regionwide MTC $500,000
PDA Planning
Union City: Decoto Industrial Parkway Study Area Specific Plan 2.0 Alameda MTC $800,000 El Cerrito: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and EIR Update/Amendments Contra Costa MTC $308,000 Moraga: Moraga Center Specific Plan Implementation Project Contra Costa MTC $140,000 San Rafael: Downtown Precise Plan Marin MTC $500,000
San Francisco: HUB Area EIR San Francisco MTC $500,000
San Francisco: Transit Corridors Study San Francisco MTC $500,000 San Jose/VTA: Diridon Integrated Station Area Concept Plan Santa Clara MTC $800,000 San Jose: SW Expressway/Race Street Light Rail Urban Village Plans Santa Clara MTC $500,000 Vacaville: Downtown Specific Plan Solano MTC $350,000
Santa Rosa: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Update/Amendment Sonoma MTC $800,000 Staffing Assistance
Emeryville: Mitigate Regulation-Induced Displacement, Streamlined Asset Management Alameda MTC $180,000 Fremont: SB743 Implementation Alameda MTC $150,000
Hayward: SB743 Implementation Alameda MTC $150,000
Oakland: ADU Initiative Alameda MTC $200,000
Oakland: Innovative Construction Initiative Alameda MTC $200,000 Concord: VMT-based Transportation Impact Standards Contra Costa MTC $150,000 Concord: Galindo Street Corridor Plan Contra Costa MTC $200,000 Lafayette: Updated Parking Ordinance and Strategies Contra Costa MTC $150,000 San Jose: PDA/Citywide Design Guidelines Santa Clara MTC $200,000 Windsor: Parking Management and Pricing Sonoma MTC $35,000 Technical Assistance
Emeryville: Developing the Highest and Best Use of the Public Curb Alameda MTC $65,000 Oakland: General Plan Framework - PDA Community Engagement Program Alameda MTC $65,000 San Francisco: Mission-San Jose PDA Housing Feasibility Analysis San Francisco MTC $65,000 San Francisco: PDA Density Bonus Program San Francisco MTC $65,000 Belmont: Transportation Demand Management Program San Mateo MTC $65,000 BART AB2329 Implementation Various BART $1,000,000
Unprogrammed balance Regionwide MTC $7,862,000
Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Updates Regionwide MTC Alameda MTC $300,000
CCTA: Community-Based Transportation Plans Contra Costa MTC $215,000 TAM: Community-Based Transportation Plans Marin MTC $75,000 NVTA: Community-Based Transportation Plans Napa MTC $75,000 SFCTA: Community-Based Transportation Plans San Francisco MTC $175,000 C/CAG: Community-Based Transportation Plans San Mateo MTC $120,000 VTA: Community-Based Transportation Plans Santa Clara MTC $300,000 STA: Community-Based Transportation Plans Solano MTC $95,000 SCTA: Community-Based Transportation Plans Sonoma MTC $110,000 CBTP Program Evaluation Regionwide MTC $35,000

3. PDA PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION TOTAL: $20,000,000

4. CLIMATE INITIATIVES
Climate Initiatives $10,875,000
Spare the Air & EV Program Outreach (for Electric Vehicle Programs) Regionwide BAAQMD $10,000,000 Carsharing Implementation Regionwide MTC $800,000
Targeted Transportation Alternatives Regionwide MTC $325,000 Spare the Air Youth Program - 2 Regionwide MTC $1,417,000 Grand Ave Bike/Ped Imps (for SMART 2nd to Andersen Pathway) Marin San Rafael $1,000,000

4. CLIMATE INITIATIVES TOTAL: $24,417,000

5. REGIONAL ACTIVE OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Active Operational Management
AOM Implementation Regionwide MTC $23,737,000
Bay Area 511 Traveler Information
511 Next Gen Regionwide MTC $26,148,000
511 Implementation Regionwide MTC $7,450,000
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-1
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/21/16-C 03/22/17-C 05/24/17-C 06/28/17-C 07/26/17-C 09/27/17-C 10/25/17-C 12/20/17-C 01/24/18-C 02/28/18-C 03/28/18-C 04/25/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 07/25/18-C 09/26/18-C 11/28/18-C 12/19/18-C 02/27/19-C 03/27/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 10/23/19-C 11/20/19-C ACTC: CMA Planning (for Community-Based Transportation Plans) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 1 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-1

Attachment B-1
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 Regional Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 Regional Programs Project List
PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE COUNTY SPONSOR Total STP/CMAQ Other OBAG 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS $483,825,151 $25,979,849
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-1
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/21/16-C 03/22/17-C 05/24/17-C 06/28/17-C 07/26/17-C 09/27/17-C 10/25/17-C 12/20/17-C 01/24/18-C 02/28/18-C 03/28/18-C 04/25/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 07/25/18-C 09/26/18-C 11/28/18-C 12/19/18-C 02/27/19-C 03/27/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 10/23/19-C 11/20/19-C Rideshare
Rideshare Implementation Regionwide MTC $720,000
Carpool Program Regionwide MTC $7,280,000
Vanpool Program Regionwide MTC $2,000,000
Commuter Benefits Implementation Regionwide MTC $674,000 Commuter Benefits Program Regionwide MTC $1,111,000
Napa Valley Transportation Demand Strategies (Fund Exchange) Napa MTC/NVTA $1,100,000 Bay Bridge Forward
Transbay Higher Capacity Bus Fleet/Increased Service Frequencies Alameda AC Transit $1,200,000 Pilot Transbay Express Bus Routes Alameda AC Transit $800,000 Eastbay Commuter Parking Alameda MTC $2,500,000
Transbay Higher Capacity Bus Fleet/Increased Service Frequencies Contra Costa WestCat $2,000,000 Dumbarton Forward
Alameda/San Mateo MTC $4,375,000
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Forward
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bikeway Access (Fund Exchange) Contra Costa Richmond $500,000 Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Forward (Fund Exchange) Contra Costa MTC $1,160,000 Columbus Day Initiative (CDI)
Freeway Performance Program Regionwide MTC $19,240,000
FPP: I-880 (I-80 to I-280) Alameda/Santa Clara MTC $3,000,000 Alameda MTC $625,000
FPP: CC I-680 NB HOV/Express Lanes (Ala Co. to Sol Co.) Contra Costa MTC $10,000,000 FPP: US 101 (SR 85 to San Francisco Co. Line) SM / SCL MTC $3,000,000 FPP: I-80 Central Ave Interchange Improvements Contra Costa Richmond $2,000,000 Sonoma SCTA $1,000,000
Program for Arterial System Synchronization (PASS) Regionwide MTC $5,000,000 Innovative Deployments for Enhanced Arterials (IDEA)
IDEA Technical Assistance Various MTC $1,532,000
IDEA Category 1
AC Transit: Dumbarton Express Route (SR84) Various MTC $2,300,000 Alameda: Webster & Posey Tubes (SR 260), Park St Alameda MTC $276,000 Hayward: Various Locations Alameda MTC $302,000
Oakland: Bancroft Ave Alameda MTC $310,000
Pleasanton: Various Locations Alameda MTC $290,000
Union City: Union City Blvd & Decoto Rd Alameda MTC $710,000 San Ramon: Bollinger Canyon Rd & Crow Canyon Rd Contra Costa MTC $563,000 San Rafael: Downtown San Rafael Marin MTC $830,000
South San Francisco: Various Locations San Mateo MTC $532,000 San Jose: Citywide Santa Clara MTC $1,400,000
IDEA Category 2
LAVTA/Dublin: Citywide Alameda MTC $385,000
Emeryville: Powell, Shellmound, Christie & 40th St Alameda MTC $785,000 Concord: Concord Blvd, Clayton Rd & Willow Pass Rd (Fund Exchange) Contra Costa MTC $589,000 MTC Concord Blvd, Clayton Rd & Willow Pass Rd (Fund Exchange) Contra Costa MTC $30,000 Walnut Creek: Various locations (Fund Exchange) Contra Costa MTC $621,000 Los Gatos: Los Gatos Blvd Santa Clara MTC $700,000
VTA: Veterans Admin. Palo Alto Medical Center Santa Clara VTA $845,000 Connected Vehicles/Automated Vehicles (CV/AV) Regionwide MTC $2,500,000 Shared Use Mobility Regionwide MTC $2,500,000
Connected Bay Area
TMS Implementation Regionwide MTC $2,910,000
TMC Asset Upgrade and Replacement Regionwide MTC $1,150,000 I-880 Communication Upgrade and Infrastructure Gap Closures Various MTC $11,940,000 InterConnect Bay Area Program Regionwide MTC $3,000,000 Incident Management
Incident Management Implementation Regionwide MTC $4,160,000 I-880 ICM Northern Alameda MTC $6,200,000
I-880 ICM Central Alameda MTC $2,640,000
Unprogrammed Balance TBD TBD $380,000

5. REGIONAL ACTIVE OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT TOTAL: $173,000,000 $4,000,000

6. TRANSIT PRIORITIES
BART Car Replacement/Expansion Various BART $99,800,000 GGB Suicide Deterrent (for BART Car Replacement/Expansion) SF/Marin GGBH&TD $36,220,151 $3,779,849 Clipper Regionwide MTC $34,200,000
Unprogrammed Balance $15,283,000

6. TRANSIT PRIORITIES TOTAL: $185,503,151 $3,779,849

7. PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREA (PCA)
Regional Peninsula, Southern and Eastern Counties PCA Grant Program Peninsula, Southern and Eastern Counties PCA (Fund Exchange) TBD MTC/CCC $8,170,000 SR 84 (US 101 to I-880) Dumbarton Forward
FPP: I-580 WB HOV Lane Extension (SR 24 to I-80/SFOBB approach) PL & ENV Only FPP: SCTA US 101/Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) B2 Phase 2
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 2 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-1

Attachment B-1
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 Regional Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 Regional Programs Project List
PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE COUNTY SPONSOR Total STP/CMAQ Other OBAG 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS $483,825,151 $25,979,849
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-1
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/21/16-C 03/22/17-C 05/24/17-C 06/28/17-C 07/26/17-C 09/27/17-C 10/25/17-C 12/20/17-C 01/24/18-C 02/28/18-C 03/28/18-C 04/25/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 07/25/18-C 09/26/18-C 11/28/18-C 12/19/18-C 02/27/19-C 03/27/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 10/23/19-C 11/20/19-C Bay Area GreenPrint: PCA Functionality Imps (Fund Exchange) Regionwide MTC/GreenInfo Network $30,000 PCA Grant Implementation Regionwide MTC/Coastal Conservancy $500,000 Alameda County: Niles Canyon Trail, Phase 1 Alameda Alameda County $321,000 Albany: Albany Hill Access Improvements Alameda Albany $251,000 Livermore: Arroyo Road Trail Alameda Livermore $400,000 EBRPD: Bay Trail at Point Molate (RSR Bridge to Point Molate Beach Park) Contra Costa East Bay Regional Parks District $1,000,000 JMLT: Pacheco Marsh/Lower Walnut Creek Restoration and Public Access Contra Costa John Muir Land Trust $950,000 San Francisco: McLaren Park and Neighborhood Connections Plan San Francisco San Francisco Recreation and Parks $194,000 GGNPC/NPS: Rancho Corral de Tierra Unit Management Plan Engagement San Mateo National Parks Service $200,000 Half Moon Bay: Pillar Point Public Access Improvements San Mateo Half Moon Bay $298,000 Menlo Park: Bedwell Bayfront Park Entrance Improvements San Mateo Menlo Park $520,000 San Mateo County: Colma Creek Adaptation Study (Colma Creek Connector) San Mateo San Mateo County $110,000 Point Blue: Pajaro River Watershed: Habitat Restoration and Climate Resilient Imps.Santa Clara Point Blue Conservation Science $379,000 SCVOSA: Coyote Ridge Open Space Preserve Public Access, Phase 1 Santa Clara Santa Clara Valley Open Space Dist. $400,000 SCVOSA: Tilton Ranch Acquisition Santa Clara Santa Clara Valley Open Space Dist. $1,000,000 Unprogrammed Balance TBD TBD $1,647,000
North Bay PCA Grant Program
Marin County: Hicks Valley/Wilson Hill/Marshall-Petaluma Rehab. (for Corte Madera: Paradise Dr MUP)Marin Marin County $312,000 Marin County: Hicks Valley/Wilson Hill/Marshall-Petaluma Rd Rehab Marin Marin County $869,000 Novato: Nave Dr/Bell Marin Keys Rehab. (for Carmel Open Space Acquisition) Marin Novato $104,000 Novato: Vineyard Rd Improvements (for Hill Recreation Area Imps) Marin Novato $265,000 National Parks Service: Fort Baker's Vista Point Trail Marin NPS $500,000 NVTA: Vine Trail - St. Helena to Calistoga Napa NVTA $711,000 Napa: Vine Trail - Soscol Ave Corridor Napa Napa $650,000 Napa County: Silverado Trail Rehabilitation - Phase L Napa Napa County $689,000 Solano County: Suisun Valley Farm-to-Market - Phase 3 Bike Imps Solano Solano County $2,050,000 Sonoma County: Crocker Bridge Bike/Pedestrian Bridge Sonoma Sonoma County $1,280,000 Sonoma County: Joe Rodota Trail Bridge Replacement Sonoma Sonoma County $770,000

7. PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREA (PCA) TOTAL: $8,200,000 $8,200,000

8. BAY AREA HOUSING INITIATIVES
Bay Area Preservation Pilot (BAPP) (Funding Exchange) Regionwide MTC $10,000,000 Housing Incentive Pool TBD TBD $25,000,000
Sub-HIP Pilot Program
Solano County projects - TBD TBD TBD $4,000,000
Other North Bay County projects - TBD TBD TBD $1,000,000

8. BAY AREA HOUSING INITIATIVES TOTAL: $30,000,000 $10,000,000

9. REGIONAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS (RSI)
CC I-680 NB HOV/Express Lanes Ala Co to Sol Co (Fund Exchange) Contra Costa CCTA/MTC $4,000,000 US 101/Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) B2 Phase 2 (Fund Exchange) Sonoma SCTA $15,400,000 Novato: Pavement Rehab (for Downtown Novato SMART Station) Marin Novato $617,000 Old Redwood Highway Multi-Use Pathway Marin TAM $1,120,000 San Rafael: Grand Ave Bridge Marin San Rafael $763,000
US 101 Marin-Sonoma Narrows Marin TAM $2,000,000

9. REGIONAL STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS (RSI) TOTAL: $23,900,000 OBAG 2 REGIONAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $483,825,151 $25,979,849 J:\SECTION\ALLSTAFF\Resolution\RESOLUTIONS\MTC Resolutions\RES-4202_OBAG2\[RES-4202_Attachment-B-1.xlsx]Nov 2019 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 3 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-1

Attachment B-2
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 County Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 County Programs Project List OBAG 2

PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE SPONSOR STP/CMAQ
OBAG 2 COUNTY PROGRAMS $385,512,000

ALAMEDA COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base ACTC $5,489,000
Planning Activities - Supplemental ACTC $2,800,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
Alameda County: Various Streets & Roads Preservation Alameda County $1,779,000 Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
ACTC: Alameda County SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program ACTC $5,340,000 County Program
ACTC: Alameda County SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program - Supplemental ACTC $1,959,000 Alameda: Central Ave Complete Street Alameda $3,487,000 Alameda: Citywide Various Streets and Roads Preservation Alameda $827,000 Alameda: Clement Ave Complete Street Alameda $5,018,000 Alameda County: Meekland Ave Corridor Improvement, Phase II Alameda County $9,300,000 Alameda County: Various Streets and Roads Preservation Alameda County $2,171,000 Albany: San Pablo Ave and Buchanan St Pedestrian Improvements Albany $340,000 Berkeley: Southside Complete Streets & Transit Improvements Berkeley $8,335,000 Dublin: Dublin Blvd Rehabilitation Dublin $661,000
Emeryville: Slurry Seal of Frontage Rd, 65th St, and Powell St Emeryville $225,000 Fremont: Complete Streets Upgrade of Relinquished SR 84 in Centerville PDA Fremont $7,695,000 Fremont: Various Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Fremont $2,760,000 Hayward: Main St Complete Street Hayward $1,675,000
Hayward: Winton Ave Complete Street Hayward $1,750,000
Livermore: Annual Pavement Preservation Livermore $1,382,000 MTC: I-580 Corridor Study MTC $200,000
Newark: Thornton Ave Pavement Rehabilitation Newark $592,000 Oakland: Lakeside Family Streets Oakland $4,792,000
Oakland: Citywide Various Streets and Roads Rehabilitation Oakland $4,895,000 Piedmont: Oakland Ave Improvements Piedmont $168,000
Pleasanton: Hacienda Business Park Pavement Rehabilitation Pleasanton $1,095,000 San Leandro: Washington Ave Rehabilitation San Leandro $1,048,000 Union City: Dyer Rd Pavement Rehabilitation Union City $872,000 ALAMEDA COUNTY TOTAL: $76,655,000

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base CCTA $4,342,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
Contra Costa County: Kirker Pass Rd Overlay Contra Costa County $1,343,000 Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Antioch: L Street Pathway to Transit Antioch $1,469,000 Concord: Willow Pass Road Rehab and 6th St SRTS Concord $1,012,000 Contra Costa County: West County Walk & Bike Non-Infrastructure Prog. Contra Costa County $561,000 Moraga: Moraga Way and Canyon Rd/Camino Pablo Improvements Moraga $91,000 Pleasant Hill: Pleasant Hill Rd Improvements Pleasant Hill $67,000 Richmond: Lincoln Elementary Pedestrian Enhancements Richmond $497,000 San Ramon: San Ramon Valley Street Smarts Non-Infrastructure Program San Ramon $391,000 County Program
Antioch: Pavement Rehabilitation Antioch $2,474,000
Brentwood: Various Streets and Roads Preservation Brentwood $628,000 Clayton: Neighborhood Streets Rehabilitation Clayton $308,000 Concord: Monument Blvd Class I Path Concord $4,368,000
Concord: Willow Pass Road Rehab and 6th St SRTS Concord $4,183,000 Contra Costa County: Local Streets and Roads Preservation Contra Costa County $4,327,000 Danville: Camino Ramon Improvements Danville $1,357,000 El Cerrito: Carlson Blvd and Central Ave Pavement Rehabilitation El Cerrito $544,000 MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-2
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 06/28/17-C 11/15/17-C 12/20/17-C 02/28/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 09/26/18-C 12/19/18-C 01/23/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 11/20/19-C Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 1 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-2

Attachment B-2
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 County Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 County Programs Project List OBAG 2

PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE SPONSOR STP/CMAQ
OBAG 2 COUNTY PROGRAMS $385,512,000
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-2
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 06/28/17-C 11/15/17-C 12/20/17-C 02/28/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 09/26/18-C 12/19/18-C 01/23/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 11/20/19-C El Cerrito: El Cerrito del Norte TOD Complete Streets Imps El Cerrito $4,840,000 Hercules: Sycamore/Willow Pavement Rehabilitation Hercules $492,000 Lafayette: Pleasant Hill Rd Pavement Rehabilitation Lafayette $579,000 Martinez: Downtown Streets Rehabilitation Martinez $846,000 Moraga: Moraga Way and Canyon Rd/Camino Pablo Improvements Moraga $596,000 Oakley: Street Repair and Resurfacing Oakley $969,000
Orinda: Orinda Way Pavement Rehabilitation Orinda $620,000 Pinole: San Pablo Ave Rehabilitation Pinole $586,000
Pittsburg: BART Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Improvements Pittsburg $3,870,000 Pittsburg: Pavement Improvements Pittsburg $2,410,000
Pleasant Hill: Pleasant Hill Rd Improvements Pleasant Hill $920,000 Richmond: ADA Improvements on 7th, Central, Cutting, Giant Hwy Richmond $2,205,000 San Pablo: Market St Giant Rd Pavement Rehabilitation San Pablo $618,000 San Ramon: Alcosta Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation San Ramon $1,175,000 San Ramon: Iron Horse Bike and Pedestrian Overcrossings San Ramon $4,840,000 Walnut Creek: Ygnacio Valley & Oak Grove Rd Rehabilitation Walnut Creek $2,608,000 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TOTAL: $56,136,000

MARIN COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base TAM $3,822,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
County of Marin receives FAS funding directly from Caltrans Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Corte Madera: Paradise Dr Multi-Use Path (San Clement Dr to Seawolf Passage) Corte Madera $595,000 San Anselmo: San Anselmo Bike Spine San Anselmo $269,000 County Program
GGBHTD: San Rafael Bettini Transit Center GGBHTD $1,250,000 Novato: Nave Dr and Bel Marin Keys Blvd Preservation (for Novato Downtown SMART Station) Novato $1,450,000 San Anselmo: Sir Francis Drake Blvd Pavement Rehab and Crossing Imps San Anselmo $1,134,000 San Rafael: Francisco Blvd East Sidewalk Improvements San Rafael $2,100,000 Sausalito: US 101/Bridgeway/Gate 6 Bicycle Improvements Sausalito $250,000 MARIN COUNTY TOTAL: $10,870,000

NAPA COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base NVTA $3,822,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
County of Napa receives FAS funding directly from Caltrans Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
NVTA: Napa County SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program NVTA $122,000 St. Helena: Main St Pedestrian Improvements St. Helena $393,000 County Program
American Canyon: Green Island Rd Improvements American Canyon $1,000,000 Napa: Silverado Trail Five-way Intersection Improvement Napa (city) $2,000,000 St. Helena: Main St Pedestrian Improvements St. Helena $813,000 NAPA COUNTY TOTAL: $8,150,000

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base SFCTA $3,997,000
Planning Activities - Supplemental SFCTA $1,900,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
County of San Francisco is entirely urban and therefore does not receive FAS funding Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
SFMTA: San Francisco SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program SFMTA $1,797,000 County Program
BART: Embarcadero Station New Northside Platform Elevator and Faregates BART $2,000,000 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 2 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-2

Attachment B-2
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 County Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 County Programs Project List OBAG 2

PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE SPONSOR STP/CMAQ
OBAG 2 COUNTY PROGRAMS $385,512,000
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-2
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 06/28/17-C 11/15/17-C 12/20/17-C 02/28/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 09/26/18-C 12/19/18-C 01/23/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 11/20/19-C Caltrain: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Caltrain $11,188,000 SFMTA: Geary Bus Rapid Transit Phase 1 SFMTA $6,939,000 SFMTA: San Fransisco SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program - Supplemental SFMTA $1,016,000 SFMTA: Central Subway SFMTA $15,980,000
SFDPW $3,366,000
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TOTAL: $48,183,000

SAN MATEO COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base C/CAG $3,822,000
Planning Activities - Supplemental C/CAG $1,512,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
County of San Mateo receives FAS funding directly from Caltrans Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
C/CAG: San Mateo SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program CCAG/COE $2,394,000 County Program
Atherton: James Ave Rehabilitation Atherton $251,000
Belmont: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Belmont $467,000 Belmont: Ralston Ave Corridor Bike/Ped Improvements Belmont $1,000,000 Brisbane: Crocker Trail Commuter Connectivity Upgrades Brisbane $885,000 Brisbane: Tunnel Ave Rehabilitation Brisbane $137,000
Burlingame: Various Streets Resurfacing Burlingame $571,000 Burlingame: Broadway PDA Lighting Improvements Burlingame $720,000 Burlingame: Hoover School Area Sidewalk Improvements Burlingame $700,000 C/CAG: San Mateo SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program - Supplemental CCAG/COE $223,000 Colma: Mission Rd Bike/Ped Improvements Colma $625,000
Daly City: Various Streets Pavement Resurfacing and Slurry Seal Daly City $1,310,000 East Palo Alto: Various Streets Resurfacing East Palo Alto $416,000 Foster City: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Foster City $441,000 Half Moon Bay: Poplar Street Complete Streets Half Moon Bay $1,202,000 Hillborough: Various Streets Resurfacing Hillsborough $408,000 Menlo Park: Santa Cruz and Middle Avenues Rehabilitation Menlo Park $647,000 Millbrae: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Millbrae $387,000 Pacifica: Citywide Curb Ramp Replacements Pacifica $400,000 Pacifica: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Pacifica $671,000 Pacifica: Palmetto Sidewalk Improvements Pacifica $330,000 Portola Valley: Various Streets Resurfacing Portola Valley $201,000 Redwood City: Twin Dolphin Parkway Overlay Redwood City $1,266,000 Redwood City: US 101/Woodside Rd Class I Bikeway Redwood City $948,000 San Bruno: Huntington Transit Corridor Bicycle/Pedestrian and Related Imps San Bruno $914,000 San Bruno: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation San Bruno $673,000 San Carlos: Cedar and Brittan Ave Pavement Rehabilitation San Carlos $575,000 San Carlos: Ped Enhancements Arroyo/Cedar and Hemlock/Orange San Carlos $500,000 San Carlos: US 101/Holly Street Bike/Ped Overcrossing San Carlos $1,000,000 San Mateo: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation San Mateo $1,593,000 San Mateo: Laurie Meadows Ped/Bike Safety Improvements San Mateo $987,000 San Mateo County: Canada Rd and Edgewood Rd Resurfacing San Mateo County $892,000 San Mateo County: Countywide Pavement Maintenance San Mateo County $1,072,000 South San Francisco: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation South San Francisco $1,027,000 South San Francisco: Grand Boulevard Initiative Complete Street Imps South San Francisco $1,000,000 Woodside: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Woodside $242,000 Woodside: Woodside Pathway Phase 3 Woodside $136,000
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOTAL: $32,545,000
SFDPW: Better Market Street
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 3 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-2

Attachment B-2
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 County Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 County Programs Project List OBAG 2

PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE SPONSOR STP/CMAQ
OBAG 2 COUNTY PROGRAMS $385,512,000
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-2
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 06/28/17-C 11/15/17-C 12/20/17-C 02/28/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 09/26/18-C 12/19/18-C 01/23/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 11/20/19-C

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base VTA $6,078,000
Planning Activities - Supplemental VTA $4,822,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
Santa Clara County: Uvas Rd Rehabilitation Santa Clara County $1,701,000 Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Campbell: Eden Ave Sidewalk Improvements Campbell $555,000 Cupertino: McClellan Rd Separated Bike Lane Cupertino $1,000,000 Palo Alto: Waverley Multi-Use Path, E. Meadow Dr. & Fabian Wy. Enhanced BikewaysPalo Alto $919,000 San Jose: Mount Pleasant Schools Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Imps. San Jose $1,000,000 Santa Clara: Santa Clara Schools Access Improvements Santa Clara $1,146,000 Santa Clara: Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 Santa Clara $339,000 Sunnyvale: Homestead Rd at Homestead High School Ped & Bike Imps. Sunnyvale $1,000,000 Sunnyvale: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements Sunnyvale $919,000 County Program
Campbell: Winchester Boulevard Overlay Campbell $554,000 Campbell: Harriet Ave Sidewalk Project Campbell $405,900 Cupertino: Pavement Management Program Cupertino $769,000 Gilroy: Downtown Monterey St Rehabilitation Gilroy $1,028,000 Los Altos: Fremont Ave Asphalt Concrete Overlay Los Altos $336,000 Los Gatos: Los Gatos Creek Trail to Highway 9 Trailhead Connection Los Gatos $343,000 Los Gatos: Shannon Rd Complete Streets Los Gatos $940,100 Milpitas: Various Streets Resurfacing Milpitas $1,609,000 Morgan Hill: East Dunne Ave Pavement Rehabilitation Morgan Hill $857,000 Mountain View: West Middlefield Road Improvements Mountain View $1,136,000 Palo Alto: Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge Palo Alto $4,350,000 Palo Alto: El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety & Streetscape Improvements Palo Alto $4,655,000 Palo Alto: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Palo Alto $638,000 Palo Alto: Various Streets Resurfacing Palo Alto $1,009,000 San Jose: Downtown San Jose Mobility, Streetscape, and Public Life Plan San Jose $813,000 San Jose: East Side Alum Rock (east of 680) Urban Village Plan San Jose $400,000 San Jose: McKee Road Vision Zero Priority Safety Corridor Improvements San Jose $8,623,000 San Jose: Various Streets Pavement Rehabilitation San Jose $14,597,000 San Jose: Tully Road Vision Zero Priority Safety Corridor Improvements San Jose $8,599,000 San Jose: West San Carlos Urban Village Streetscape Improvements San Jose $3,582,000 Santa Clara: Hetch-Hetchy Trail Phase 1 Santa Clara $790,000 Santa Clara: San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Underpass Santa Clara $2,449,000 Santa Clara: Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 Santa Clara $3,396,000 Santa Clara: Streets & Roads Preservation Santa Clara $2,356,000 Santa Clara County: Capitol Expressway Rehabilitation Santa Clara County $5,000,000 Santa Clara County: McKean Rd Pavement Rehabilitiation Santa Clara County $1,151,000 Saratoga: Prospect Rd Complete Streets Saratoga $1,075,000 Saratoga: Saratoga Village Crosswalks & Sidewalks Rehabilitation Saratoga $338,000 Sunnyvale: Bernardo Avenue Bicycle Underpass - EIR Sunnyvale $500,000 Sunnyvale: East Sunnyvale Area Sense of Place Improvements Sunnyvale $1,701,000 Sunnyvale: Fair Oaks Avenue Bikeway - Phase 2 Sunnyvale $782,000 Sunnyvale: Java Drive Road Diet & Bike Lanes Sunnyvale $500,000 Sunnyvale: Lawrence Station Area Sidewalks & Bike Facilities Sunnyvale $500,000 Sunnyvale: Peery Park Sense of Place Improvements Sunnyvale $2,686,000 Sunnyvale: Traffic Signal Upgrades Sunnyvale $2,566,000 VTA/Milpitas: Montague Exwy Pedestrian Overcrossing at Milpitas BART VTA/Milpitas $3,560,000 SANTA CLARA COUNTY TOTAL: $104,073,000
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 4 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-2

Attachment B-2
MTC Resolution No. 4202
OBAG 2 County Programs
FY 2017-18 through FY 2021-22
November 2019
OBAG 2 County Programs Project List OBAG 2

PROJECT CATEGORY AND TITLE SPONSOR STP/CMAQ
OBAG 2 COUNTY PROGRAMS $385,512,000
MTC Res. No. 4202 Attachment B-2
Adopted: 11/18/15-C
Revised: 07/27/16-C 12/21/16-C 04/26/17-C 06/28/17-C 11/15/17-C 12/20/17-C 02/28/18-C 05/23/18-C 06/27/18-C 09/26/18-C 12/19/18-C 01/23/19-C 06/26/19-C 09/25/19-C 11/20/19-C

SOLANO COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base STA $3,822,000
Planning Activities - Supplemental STA $3,039,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
Solano County: County Roads Paving Solano County $506,000 Solano County: Farm to Market Phase 2 Imps Solano County $1,000,000 Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
Fairfield: Grange Middle School SRTS Imps Fairfield $260,000 STA: Countywide SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program STA $1,209,000 County Program
Benicia: Park Rd Improvements Benicia $2,731,000
Fairfield: Heart of Fairfield Improvements Fairfield $1,394,000 Suisun City: Railroad Ave Repaving Suisun City $491,000 STA: Vacaville Jepson Parkway Phase 3 Bike Path STA $1,407,000 STA: Solano Mobility Call Center STA $1,537,000
Vacaville: VacaValley/I-505 Roundabouts Vacaville $1,907,000 Vacaville: Local Streets Overlay Vacaville $1,193,000
Vallejo: Sacramento St Rehabilitation Vallejo $681,000
SOLANO COUNTY TOTAL: $21,177,000

SONOMA COUNTY
CMA Planning Activities
Planning Activities Base SCTA $3,822,000
Planning Activities - Supplemental SCTA $1,178,000
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS)
Sonoma County: River Road Pavement Rehabilitation Sonoma County $3,264,000 Safe Routes To School (SRTS)
SCTA: Sonoma County Safe Routes To School (SRTS) SCTA $1,655,000 County Program
Cotati: E. Cotati Avenue Street Rehabilitation Cotati $675,000 Healdsburg: Healdsburg Avenue Road Diet Healdsburg $600,000 Petaluma: Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet Petaluma $2,916,000 SMART: Petaluma SMART Pathway SMART $400,000
Rohnert Park: Various Streets Rehabilitation Rohnert Park $1,035,000 Santa Rosa: US 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Overcrossing Santa Rosa $1,418,000 Santa Rosa: Various Streets Rehabilitation Santa Rosa $1,655,000 Sebastopol: Bodega Avenue Bike Lanes and Pavement Rehabilitation Sebastopol $1,195,000 Sonoma (City) : New Fryer Creek Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Sonoma (City) $501,000 Sonoma County: Various County Roads Rehabilitation Sonoma County $2,600,000 Sonoma County: New Crocker Bridge Bike and Pedestrian Passage Sonoma County $1,809,000 Windsor: Windsor River Road at Windsor Road Intersection Imps Windsor $3,000,000 SONOMA COUNTY TOTAL: $27,723,000
OBAG 2 COUNTY PROGRAMS TOTAL: $385,512,000
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 5 MTC Resolution No. 4202 Attachment B-2

June 28, 2022

Human Resources

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Laura Marquez, Risk Manager
Subject:

Proposed 6-Month Extension Contract with Acclamation
Insurance Management Services, Inc. to Continue
Serving as the City's Third-Party Administrator of
Workers' Compensation Claims.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for this year’s portion of the total expenditure ($314,386) is included within the proposed fiscal year
2022-2023 budget, Human Resources Management
Department, Risk Management Division (50182216).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff is recommending that Acclamation
Insurance Management Services, Inc. (AIMS) be
retained for an additional six months to continue
providing workers’ compensation claims
administration services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a third contract amendment with
Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Inc. to
continue serving as the City's third-party administrator of workers' compensation claims, for a total payment
limit not to exceed $314,386, and extending the term
six-months through December 31, 2022 – Human
Resources, Risk Management Division (Laura
Marquez 620-6974).

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022

DISCUSSION:

The City generates approximately 189 new workers’ compensation claims each year and currently carries a caseload of 402 files. The highest frequency of claims filed are from the Police Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department.

Accordingly, extensive experience in handling public safety claims with special expertise and knowledge of Labor Code sections that pertain to police and fire personnel (as well as for all other employees) is essential.

For the past five (5) years, the current administrator of the City’s workers’ compensation claims program has been Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Inc. (AIMS). In February of 2022, a new request for proposals (RFP) was initiated. City staff is carefully reviewing the proposals and evaluating the current workers’ compensation claims administration process. In addition, the City Attorney’s Office, in coordination with Risk Management and Finance, will be evaluating the City’s organizational needs with respect to the administration of workers’ compensation claims. To prevent a lapse in services while City staff completes this evaluation, City staff recommends extending the current contract with AIMS for a period of six months, through December 31, 2022, and increasing the contract not to exceed amount to $314,386.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – First Amendment
Attachment 3 – Second Amendment
Attachment 4 – Third Amendment (proposed)

CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail:

Project Manager Phone No:

P.R. No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the: (2nd or subsequent amendments attach Amendment History page)

Term, Payment Limit and Service Plan
Payment Limit and Service Plan

Term and Service Plan
Service Plan
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, California, a municipal corporation (City), and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]
[ ] other [specify:]

2. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the Contract between City and Contractor which was approved by the City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on , which original term commenced on and terminates with an original contract payment limit of $ . Said contract shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Contract" and is incorporated herein by reference.

3. Original Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Contract, and any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment.

Human Resources
Laura Marquez
[email protected]
620-6974
9209
3898
Workers' Compensation third party administration services ✔
3 Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Inc.
10445 Old Placerville Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
Dominic Russo
(916) 563-1900
[email protected]
40047315
May 28, 2022
✔
June 20, 2017
July 1, 2017
June 30, 2021
1,726,747.00

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 09-26-07

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Original Contract, or any amendment thereto.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Original Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties’ agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation

By _______________________

Title:

I hereby certify that the Original Contract
and this Amendment have been approved
by the City Council or executed by the City
Manager.

By _______________________
City Clerk

Approved as to form:

By_______________________
City Attorney

List of Attachments:

1. Amendment Provisions

2. Updated Insurance Certificates

CONTRACTOR:

______________________________

(*The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President or Vice-President should sign on the line below.)

By____________________________

Title:________________________

(*The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign on the line below.)

By:___________________________

Title:________________________

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a
corporation or nonprofit organization, this
Contract (1) should be signed by the
Chairperson of the Board, President or
Vice-President
and the Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary; (2)
should have both signatures conform to
designated representative groups pursuant
to Corporations Code Section 313.

Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Inc.

Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is

____________________________________________________________ (Insert original contract commencement date)

and it terminates

___________________________________________________.
(Insert new contract termination date)

unless sooner terminated as provided herein."

2. Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $ . Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ including expenses."

“The City of Richmond shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.”

3. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

3898
3 Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Inc.

July 1, 2017
December 31, 2022
314,386.00
3,253,291.00
No changes to Service Plan.

Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)

The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

3898
3 Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Inc.

July 9, 2020
601,567.00
2,328,314.00
June 30, 2021
✔
✔
✔
610,591.00
✔
6/24/2021
June 30, 2022
2,938,905.00
314,386.00
3,253,291.00
12/31/2022
3,253,291.00
✔
✔
✔
✔
3,253,291.00

June 28, 2022

Human Resources

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Laura Marquez, Risk Manager

Subject:

Contract Amendment with George Hills Company, Inc. to
Continue to Provide Third-Party Administration (TPA) of General Liability Claims Received by the City
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure is included within the approved fiscal year 2022-2023 budget for the Human
Resources Department, Risk Management Division
(50182316)

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 16, 2019, approved standard contract with an
option for two-year extension.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

General liability or government tort claims are currently administered by a third-party administrator. A Request for Proposals for third party administration of these claims was issued in May of 2019. Following the completion of
the proposal evaluation process, George Hills Company,
Inc. was retained for three years with an option for a two- year extension to provide third party administration of general liability claims.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a six-month contract amendment with George
Hills Company, increasing the amount of the contract by $88,560, for a total amount not to exceed $598,560 to
continue to provide third party administration of general liability claims received by the City, with an extended term ending December 31, 2022 - Human Resources,
Risk Management (Laura Marquez 620-6974).

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The City is responsible for selecting its own claims adjusting firm, or third-party administrator (TPA) to investigate and manage tort claims filed against the City. The City participates in a general liability insurance program and then is part of a pooled insurance program with the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA). In FY 2021-2022, the City’s self-insured retention level was $500,000 but this retention level is now increasing to $750,000 in FY 2022-2023.The Risk Management Division is responsible for managing the third-party claims administrator.

The third-party administrator is responsible for investigating and managing claims and is also required to maintain and manage an adequate reserve to pay for all liability claims and related costs.

George Hills has been the City’s third-party claims administrator since 2004. A competitive process was initiated in 2019 and George Hills was retained again with a three-year contract and a two-year option to extend. Given the $250,000 increase in the City’s self-insured retention limit and the rising number of tort claims being filed against the City, City staff is recommending a six-month contract extension of the current contract with George Hills to continue claims management. During this six-month period, the City Attorney’s Office, in coordination with the Risk Management Division and the Finance Department, will be reviewing claims handling and making recommendations to determine whether additional performance measures need to be incorporated into the current contract with George Hills or whether to recommend issuing a new Request for Proposals to engage a different third-party administrator.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Contract
Attachment 2 – First Amendment to the Contract
Attachment 3 – Proposed Second Amendment to the Contract

CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail:

Project Manager Phone No:

P.R. No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the: (2nd or subsequent amendments attach Amendment History page)

Term, Payment Limit and Service Plan
Payment Limit and Service Plan

Term and Service Plan
Service Plan
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, California, a municipal corporation (City), and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]
[ ] other [specify:]

2. Purpose. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the Contract between City and Contractor which was approved by the City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on , which original term commenced on and terminates with an original contract payment limit of $ . Said contract shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Contract" and is incorporated herein by reference.

3. Original Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Contract, and any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment.

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 09-26-07

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Original Contract, or any amendment thereto.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Original Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties’ agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation

By _______________________

Title:

I hereby certify that the Original Contract
and this Amendment have been approved
by the City Council or executed by the City
Manager.

By _______________________
City Clerk

Approved as to form:

By_______________________
City Attorney

List of Attachments:

1. Amendment Provisions

2. Updated Insurance Certificates

CONTRACTOR:

______________________________

(*The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President or Vice-President should sign on the line below.)

By____________________________

Title:________________________

(*The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign on the line below.)

By:___________________________

Title:________________________

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a
corporation or nonprofit organization, this
Contract (1) should be signed by the
Chairperson of the Board, President or
Vice-President
and the Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary; (2)
should have both signatures conform to
designated representative groups pursuant
to Corporations Code Section 313.

Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (TERM, PAYMENT LIMIT AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 2 (Term) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to extend the Contract term. Paragraph 2 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is

____________________________________________________________ (Insert original contract commencement date)

and it terminates

___________________________________________________.
(Insert new contract termination date)

unless sooner terminated as provided herein."

2. Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $ . Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:

"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ including expenses."

“The City of Richmond shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.”

3. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the following tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

88,560
598,560

Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and

Amendment No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)

The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The second Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The third Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The fourth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

The fifth Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):

Increased contract payment limit by $ ________________for a payment limit not to exceed $ _________________________.

Term Amendment (insert new termination date):________________________

Service Plan

4/9/2021

___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 1 of 3

Revised: September 2011
In all instances where CONTRACTOR or its representatives will provide professional services (architects, engineers, construction management, counselors, medical professionals, hospitals, clinics, attorneys, consultants, accountants, etc.) to the City of Richmond (City), the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, agreement, or other order for work, services or supplies, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONTRACTOR, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Maintenance of proper insurance coverage is a material element of the contract. Failure to maintain or renew coverage or to provide evidence of renewal may be treated by the City as a material breach of contract.

CONTRACTOR agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide Commercial General Liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall look solely to its insurance for recovery.

CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY, on behalf of any insurer providing Commercial General Liability insurance to either CONTRACTOR or CITY with respect to the services of CONSULTANT herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer of said CONTRACTOR may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

Original, signed certificates and original, separate policy endorsements, naming the City as an additional insured for general liability coverage, as well as a waiver of subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance, shall be received and approved by the City before any work may begin. However, failure to do so shall not operate as a waiver of these insurance requirements.

City reserves the right to modify or require additional coverages for specific risk exposures depending on scope of CONTRACTORS work.

Minimum coverage is detailed below. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated herein shall not serve to reduce the policy limits of coverage of CONTRACTOR.

Minimum Scope of Insurance – the following forms shall be provided and coverage shall be at least as broad as the following:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001), and including coverage for bodily and personal injury, property damage, and products and completed operations (if applicable).

2. Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability coverage (ISO Form CA 0001, Code 1, Any Auto).

3. Original and Separate Additional Insured Endorsement for General Liability (ISO Form CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent) with primary and non-contributory language.

4. Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California including Employer’s Liability coverage.

5. Original and Separate Waiver of Subrogation for Workers’ Compensation insurance.

6. Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance appropriate to the CONTRACTOR’s profession (if required.)

Required Coverage Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to Self- Insure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and Self- Insurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

General Liability
(primary and excess limits
combined)
$2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If the policy includes a general aggregate, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, service or location or the minimum required aggregate limit shall be twice the per occurrence limit ($4 million aggregate limit).

Policy shall be endorsed to name the City of Richmond as an additional insured per the conditions detailed below.

___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 2 of 3

Revised: September 2011
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

PROJECT COST R EQUIRED LIMIT
$0 - $1 million $1 million p/o
$1 million - $5 million $2 million p/o
Over $5 million $5 million p/o

Professional Liability or Errors &
Omissions Liability –
Required for all professionals
including architects, engineers,
consultants, construction
management, counselors, medical
professionals, hospitals, clinics,
attorneys and accountants, & other
consultants as may be required by
the City.

Required Policy Conditions
Additional Insured Endorsement

Applicable to General Liability coverage.

The City of Richmond, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be named as additional insureds for all liability arising out of the operations by or on behalf of the named insured including bodily injury, deaths and property damage or destruction arising in any respect directly or indirectly in the performance of this contract.

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. If the Contractor is supplying their product or providing a service then the endorsement must not
exclude products and completed operations
coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
.

Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

Waiver of Subrogation
Endorsement Form
Contractor’s insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for Workers’ Compensation Insurance during the life of this contract.

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

Deductibles and Self-Insured
Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retention as respects the City or the CONTRACTOR shall procure a financial guarantee in an amount equal to the deductible or self-insured retention guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

Contractor is responsible for satisfaction of the deductible and/or self-insured retention for each loss.

A. M. Best Rating A:VII or Better. If the A.M. Best Rating falls below the required rating, CONTRACTOR must replace coverage immediately and provide notice to City.

Umbrella/Excess Liability Policies
If an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy is used to meet the liability limits, coverage shall be as broad as specified for underlying coverage’s and cover those insured in the underlying policies.

___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements - Type 2:

Professional Services

Type 2 – Page 3 of 3

Revised: September 2011
Claims-Made Policies
If any insurance policy is written on a claims-made form: 1) the retroactive date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work. 2) Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. 3) If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

Subcontractors

CONTRACTOR
shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish to the City for review and approval, separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.

CONTRACTOR agrees to defend and indemnify the City of Richmond for any damage resulting to it from failure of either CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor to take out or maintain the required insurance policies.

The fact that
insurance is obtained by CONTRACTOR, and/or CONTRACTOR’s subcontractors, will not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of CONTRACTOR, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this contract. Damages recoverable by CITY from CONTRACTOR or any third party will not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage.

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin .

The City of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

Original insurance certificates and required policy endorsements shall be mailed or delivered to the Designated Project Manager for the City of Richmond.

Insurance certificates and endorsements may be faxed to the Designated Project Manger. However, CONTRACTOR must mail the original certificates and endorsements to Designated Project Manager once faxed.

Continuous Coverage
CONTRACTOR shall maintain the required insurance for the life of the contract. Should the CONTRACTOR cease to have insurance as required during this time, all work by the CONTRACTOR pursuant to this agreement shall cease until insurance acceptable to the City is provided. In the event that CONTRACTOR fails to comply with the City’s insurance requirements, the City may take such action as it deems necessary to protect the City’s interests. Such action may include but is not limited to termination of the contract, withholding of payments, or other actions as the City deems appropriate.

If services or the scope of work extend beyond the expiration dates of the required insurance policies initially approved by the City, CONTRACTOR must provide updated certificates and endorsements indicating that the required coverage, terms and conditions are still in place. Renewal certificates and updated endorsements shall be mailed to the Designated Project Manager.

Cancellation
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that coverage shall not be cancelled, reduced or otherwise materially changed except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice has been given to the City.

Reporting Requirements

Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.

June 28, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

Appointment(s) to the Economic Development
Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Actions are required to update, and make current, the
appointment roster of the Economic Development
Commission. There are 15 seats on this commission, of
which 4 are vacant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE appointment(s) to the Economic Development
Commission: APPOINT Daniel Heiss, new appointment,
seat #2, filing an unexpired term with an expiration date of March 30, 2024; Andrea Portillo- Knowles, re-
appointment, seat #15, term expiration date of March 30, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
On April 6, 2021, Kapris James was appointed to seat #2 on the Economic Development Commission and resigned from her seat on March 25, 2022. Daniel Heiss is being appointed to fill the unexpired term left by Ms. James. Mr. Heiss is a Richmond resident and is employed as a Professional Fundraiser and Business Consultant. His term will expire on March 30, 2024.

Andrea Portillo-Knowles is being re-appointed to seat #15 for her first full term on the Economic Development Commission. Ms. Portillo-Knowles is the Executive Director of Richmond Main Street Initiative. Her term will expire on March 30, 2025.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for Daniel Heiss
Attachment 2 – Redacted application for Andrea Portillo-Knowles

BOARD OR COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
DATE: _____________________
Check one: New Appointment

Re-Appointment

NAME OF BOARD OR COMMISSION: _____________________________________________________________ NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________ HOME ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________ ZIP CODE: ____________HOME PHONE: _____ WORK PHONE: _______________________ OCCUPATION: _______________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS: ________________________ HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND: _____________________________ PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: _____________________________________________________________________ REASONS FOR INTEREST IN APPOINTMENT:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FRATERNAL AND/OR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES (Minimum 5 – List Name, Address, Phone Number, and Email Address)

1._____________________ __

2.____________________ _________

3._______________ _________________

4._________________ _____________

5.___________________________ _________
To the best of my knowledge the information provided is true and correct:
_______________________________________________ ____________________________ Signature Date
Deliver or Mail to: City Clerk Or Email to: [email protected] 450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
For Office Use Only: New Appointment:

Reappointment:

1st
2nd
3rd
06/15/2021
✔
Economic Development Commission
Daniel Nathan-Heiss
.
94804
Professional Fundraiser & Business Consultant [email protected] 1 Month
Heiss Consulting Group & Phi Kappa Sigma Educational Fund Everywhere I have lived, I have made a point to get involved. That involvement began in Los Angeles as a member of Mayor Eric Garcetti's Crisis Response Team. I have also volunteered time to the cities of Pullman, WA, Washington, D.C., Riverside, CA, and Oakland. I hope to serve the city I now call home as best I can.

Los Angeles Mayor's Crisis Response Team, Phi Kappa Sigma Fraternity, CASE (Council for the Advancement and Support of Education), NAADD (National Association of Athletics Development Directors)
Georgetown University - Master's Degree - Sports Business, Finance, & Economics - 2015 Washington State University - Bachelor's Degree - Communication - 2009 Madeline McComb,
Kimberly Perplies,
Evan Epstein,
Brandon Young,
Eric Perlmutter-Gumbiner,
06-15-21

RECEIVED

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
JUNE 15, 2021

June 28, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

Appointment(s) to the Human Rights and Human
Relations Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts related to this item

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Actions are required to update, and make current, the
appointment roster of the Human Rights and Human
Relations Commission. There are currently 9 total seats on the commission of which 2 are vacant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE appointment(s) to the Human Rights and
Human Relations Commission; APPOINT Reza Yazdi,
re-appointment, seat #4, term expiration date March 30, 2025; Rabia Watson, new appointment, seat #5, filing an unexpired term with an expiration date of March 30, 2025 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 520-620-6503).

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
DISCUSSION:

Reza Yazdi is being appointed to seat #4 for his second term on the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission. Mr. Yazdi is long term Richmond resident who is employed with the California Public Utilities Commission. Mr. Yazdi is also a member of Amnesty International. His term will expire March 30, 2022.

On April 4, 2022, Sehar Delijani was appointed to seat #5 on the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission and resigned from her seat on May 25, 2022. Rabia Watson is being appointed to fill the unexpired term left by Ms. Delijani. Ms. Watson is a longtime Richmond resident and is employed with the California Department of Public Health. Her term will expire on March 30, 2025.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for Reza Yazdi
Attachment 2 – Redacted application for Rabia Watson

BOARD OR COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM
DATE: _____________________
Check one: New Appointment 
Re-Appointment 
NAME OF BOARD OR COMMISSION: _____________________________________________________________ NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________________ HOME ADDRESS: ___ __________________________________________________ ZIP CODE: ____________HOME PHONE: ___ ______ WORK PHONE: ___ _________ OCCUPATION: _______________________________________ EMAIL ADDRESS: ________________________ HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND: _____________________________ PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: _____________________________________________________________________ REASONS FOR INTEREST IN APPOINTMENT:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ FRATERNAL AND/OR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES (Minimum 5 – List Name, Address, Phone Number, and Email Address)

1.___________ ________________

2.____________ ___________________

3._______________ _______________

4.___________ _____________________

5.__________________ ________________
To the best of my knowledge the information provided is true and correct:
_______________________________________________ ____________________________ Signature Date
Deliver or Mail to: City Clerk Or Email to: [email protected] 450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
For Office Use Only: New Appointment:  Reappointment:   1st  2nd  3rd Human Rights and Human Relations Commission
Rabia Berna Atik Watson
94803
Public Health Professional [email protected]
19 years
California Department of Public Health
I immigrated to the USA in 1995. Before I moved to the USA, I worked for improving foster care children education gaps, advocating minority rights and helping with refugees. When I first moved to the USA, I worked in UC Berkeley, Human Rights Center to work with refugees and asylum seekers. I always had passion for listening and being the voice for who are in need, who are one reason or another excluded, pushed away. I want to bring my passion and experience to my community.

California Association of Professional Scientists, ABD-ANA (Turkish-American Mothers group), Bay Area Turkish American Association, American Public Health Association Istanbul Medical School
UC Berkeley, School of Public Health
Ozlem Guclu,
Esen Aksoylu,
Nalan Hodoglugil,
Sibel Demir,
Tayyibe Kizir-Dundar,
May 2, 2022
May 2, 2022

RECEIVED BY

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MAY 2, 2022

June 28, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

Appointment(s) to the Commission on Aging
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Actions are required to update, and make current, the
appointment roster of the Commission on Aging. There
are 13 seats on this commission of which 3 are vacant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE appointment(s) to the Commission on Aging:

APPOINT Michelle Hayes, re-appointment, seat #13,
term expiration date May 19, 2026 – Mayor’s Office
(Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Michelle Hayes is being appointed to seat #13 for her first term on the Commission on Aging. Ms. Hayes is a member of the AT&T Black Employee Group Scholarship AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
Committee Chair and a member of The Way Christian Center. Her term will expire on May 19, 2026.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for Michelle Hayes

June 28, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

Appointment(s) to the Recreation and Parks Commission
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no financial impacts related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Actions are required to update, and make current, the
appointment roster of the Recreation and Parks
Commission. There are 9 seats on this commission, of
which 1 is vacant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE appointment(s) to the Recreation and Parks
Commission: APPOINT Eleanor Thompson, re-
appointment, seat #5, term expiration date October 26,
2024 – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Eleanor Thompson is being re-appointed to seat #5 for her third term on the Recreation and Parks Commission. Mrs. Thompson is a resident of Richmond and is the CEO of a non-profit. Her term will expire on October 26, 2024.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Redacted application for Eleanor Thompson AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

Vacant Seats on Richmond Boards, Commissions and
Committees
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Several of Richmond’s boards, commissions and
committees have vacant seats. Residents that are
interested in serving on a board, commission, or
committee are invited to submit their applications to the Richmond City Clerk.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ANNOUNCE recent resignation from City of Richmond
boards, commissions, and committees; and ANNOUNCE
vacancies as of, June 21, 2022, and ask that interested individuals send applications to the City Clerk – Mayor’s Office (Tom Butt 510-620-6503).

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond enjoys a long history of community involvement. Through a variety of volunteer boards, commissions, and committees, Richmond residents play an important role in advising the Mayor, City Council, and City staff on important public policy issues.

Resignations from City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees Between May 18, 2022, and June 21, 2022 City staff was informed of the following resignations from City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees:
- Alexandra McGee, Workforce Development Board, term expiration date September 22, 2026, resigned on June 3, 2022.
- Jeffrey Carr, Workforce Development Board, term expiration date March 1, 2024, resigned on May 31, 2022.
- Sahar Delijani, Human Rights/Human Relations Commission, term expiration date March 30, 2025, resigned on May 24, 2022.

Vacancies on City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees The following boards, commissions and committees currently have vacancies:
- Art and Culture Commission
- Community Police Review Commission
- Commission on Aging
- Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control Board
- Design Review Board
- Dept. of Children and Youth Oversight Board
- ECIA Grant Review Ad Hoc Committee
- ECIA Transportation Oversight Committee
- Housing Advisory Commission
- Human Rights and Human Relations Commission
- Library Commission
- Personnel Board
- Recreation and Parks Commission
- Reimaging Public Safety Community Task Force
- Shimada Friendship Commission
- Urban Forest Advisory Committee
- Workforce Development Board
- Youth Council
- Zhoushan Friendship Commission

June 28, 2022
Residents can learn more details about each board/commission/committee and apply for a vacant seat by contacting the Richmond City Clerk or visiting the Richmond City Clerk’s website.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Boards and Commissions Vacancy Report, June 21, 2022.

City of Richmond, Boards, Commissions, and Committee Vacancies As of June 28, 2022

BOARD/COMMISSION YEARS PER TERM

LIMIT OF

CONSECUTIVE
TERMS
# OF SERVING

COMMISSIONERS
# OF

VACANCIES
TOTAL # OF
SEATS
Art and Culture
Commission 4 2 7 8 15
Commission on Aging 4 N/A 10 3 13
Community Police
Review Commission 3 3 8 1 9
C.C Mosquito & Vector 2 1 0 1
Design Review Board 2 4 6 1 7
Dept. of Children and
Youth Oversight Board* 1,2 N/A 11 4 15
ECIA Grant Review
Committee 2 3 2 5
ECIA Transportation
Oversight Committee 3 3 2 3 5
Economic Development
Commission 3 3 11 4 15
Housing Advisory
Commission 2 N/A 6 1 7
Human Rights/Human
Relations Commission 3 3 7 2 9
Library Commission 3 2 4 1 5
Oak. Airport Comm.

Noise Forum 2 N/A 1 1 2
Personnel Board** 5 N/A 4 1 5
Planning Commission 2 4 7 0 7
Recreation and Parks
Commission 3 3 8 1 9
Re-Imaging Public Safety
Community Taskforce 17 4 21
Shimada Commission 3 3 10 1 11
Urban Forest Advisory
Committee 3 3 7 4 11
Workforce Development
Board*** 4 N/A 22 17 39
Youth Council 1 N/A 4 7 11
Zhoushan Commission 2 9 2 11
*Dept. of Children and Youth Oversight Board: One vacancy for eligible candidate between the ages of 15- 24 **Personnel Board: One vacancy is appointed by the mayor and one vacancy is elected as a general employees representative.
***Workforce Development Board: The composition of this board is to be composed of (20) local business representatives, (10) representatives of each of the "One-Stop" Partners; (9) representatives of education

June 28, 2022

Police Department

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM: Louie Tirona, Acting Chief of Police

Subject:

Proposed Agreement for the Provision of Communication
Services by the City of Richmond to the City of El Cerrito.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: Implementation of this agreement between the City of Richmond and the City of El Cerrito will provide revenue to the City of Richmond as follows: $812,461 in FY 2022- 2023, $828,710 in FY2023-2024, $845,285 in FY2024-
2025, $862,190 in FY2025-2026, and $879,434 in
FY2026-2027. Total revenue of $4,228,080 will be billed over the five fiscal years, account string 01197021-
341572.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

July 11, 2017

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The El Cerrito Police Department seeks to enter into a
five-year contract with the City of Richmond Police
Department for public safety communication services.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for the provision of communication services by the City of Richmond to the City of El Cerrito from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2027, with revenue to the City of Richmond as follows:
$812,461 in FY 2022-2023, $828,710 in FY2023-2024,
$845,285 in FY2024-2025, $862,190 in FY2025-2026,
and $879,434 in FY2026-2027 – Police Department
(Acting Chief Louie Tirona 621-1802).

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
DISCUSSION:

Prior to the current contract-for-services model, the Richmond Police Department had been the principle member agency in the West Contra Costa County Communications Consortium, intended to be a cost-share arrangement. Under this Consortium agreement, the Police Department provided public safety dispatch services and records management services to the agencies within the Consortium (San Pablo, Hercules, Pinole, Kensington, and El Cerrito). The employees and the infrastructure to provide these services have always been housed with the City of Richmond.

The billing structure under this model was intended so that each Consortium agency would pay their proportionate use of the communication services provided by the Richmond Police Department. In fiscal year 2016-2017, Richmond staff completed an extensive audit of the Consortium charges and services, and determined that the arrangement was causing Richmond to subsidize services in the other West County agencies. As a result, Richmond Police management determined to exercise the City’s option to exit the agreement. The Police Department offered to provide services to the West County Consortium partners under a contract-for-services model. Under a contract-for-services model, the Police Department would bill participating agencies for the services they receive, in contrast to the proportionate-cost model that existed with the Consortium agreement.

The City of El Cerrito requested that it enter into a five-year contract with the City of Richmond to receive public safety dispatching under the new contract-for-services model. The original agreement entered by El Cerrito expires June 30, 2022, and police management has negotiated with El Cerrito to continue the services at a proportionate rate to the amount of calls the City of Richmond takes for El Cerrito versus the amount of calls the City receives for itself, to determine an amicable payment schedule. The schedule was determined to be as follows, and will be billed on a monthly basis:

July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023 $ 812,461
July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024 $ 828,710
July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025 $ 845,285
July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026 $ 862,190
July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027 $ 879,434
Total $ 4,228,080

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Agreement for Communication Services

R
ESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE

PROVISION OF COMMUNICATION SERVICES BY THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO

THE CITY OF EL CERRITO
WHEREAS, there is a need in the City of El Cerrito Police Department for the services of the City of Richmond Police Department Communications Center; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond has the capability of providing the needed dispatch services and the sharing of dispatch services will benefit both Richmond and El Cerrito; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond Police Department Communications Center shall be responsible for the answering of 911 calls originating in the City of El Cerrito, twenty-four (24) hours per day, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per year; and WHEREAS, the City of Richmond Police Department Communications Center shall receive and process all emergency and non-emergency telephone calls for the El Cerrito Police Department; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond shall provide dispatch services utilizing a modern Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond shall provide the El Cerrito Police Department access and support to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) and Criminal Justice Information Network System (ACCJIN); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richmond that the City Manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City of Richmond, the agreement for the provision of Communication Services by the City of Richmond to the City of El Cerrito, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to final approval as to form by the City Attorney.
1

2 I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a _________ meeting held on _____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)

Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

_______________________________
City Attorney

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF

RICHMOND AND THE CITY OF EL CERRITO

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ____ day of ________, 2022 by and between the City of Richmond (“Richmond ”) and the City of El Cerrito, (“El Cerrito”) collectively the “Parties.”
For and in consideration of the mutual promises herein exchanged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

1. TERM

1.1 Effective Dates: This Agreement shall be effective from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027, unless terminated as provided herein.

1.2 Renewals: At any time during the term of this Agreement, the parties may evaluate the terms and modify the Agreement. An y amendment shall be in writing and approved by both parties.

1.3 Termination: Notwithstandi ng the provision of Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above, either Party may terminate this Agreement by gi ving at least nine (9) months written notice to the other party. In the event this Agreement is terminated for any reason prior to June 30, 2027, the obligation of El Cerrito and Richmond for mutual indemnification shall continue after any such termination. El Cerrito’s obligation to provide payments to the Cit y of Richmond for services provided prior to the termination date shall continue after the te rmination of this Agreement, until all outstanding payments owed, if any, are received.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.1. Duties of Richmond: Richmond agrees, through the Richmond Police Department, to provide comprehensive police dispatch services for the El Cerrito Police Department twenty-four (24) hours per day, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per year. These services shall be as follows:

2.1.1 Emergency and Non-Emergency Telephone Services: Richmond shall receive and process all emergency and non-emergency telephone calls for El Cerrito Police Department, including those received on 9-1-1 telephone lines and on published seven-digit emergency te lephone lines at t he Richmond Police Department Communications Center.

2.1.2 Computer Aided Dis patch: Richmond shall provide dispatch services utilizing a modern Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) System at the Richmond Police Department Communications Cent er. Richmond agrees to authorize El

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

Cerrito to have unlimited access to am end, enter, or view the data within Richmond’s CAD System. The El Cerrito Police Department shall be responsible for any/all hardware or software costs nec essary for access to the CAD System.

The El Cerrito Police Department agr ee s not to release any confidential information from, or grant access to conf idential information by any third party without prior written authorization from Richmond, except that the El Cerrito Police Department may release information that describes El Cerrito Police Department dispatch operation procedures. If El Cerrito believes the information contained in the CAD System would be responsive to a request for records made under the California Public Records Act, El Ce rrito shall forward the PRA request to Richmond’s City Clerk Office.

2.1.3 The California Law Enforcem ent Telecommunications Systems (“CLETS”): Richmond shall provide limited CLETS support for El Cerrito Police Department field activities. For the purposes of this Agreement, the hours during which Richmond shall provide CLETS support will be Monday-Friday, 1800-0700 hours, and Saturday and Sunday, twenty-four (24) hours per day. CLETS support will consist of entering or removing stolen/recovered vehicles, vehicle tows/impounds, missing persons, and locating wanted persons in the CLETS.

2.1.4 CLETS Access: Richmond shall provide access to the CLETS Database during the term of this Agreement; however, El Cerrito Police Department shall be responsible for managing and obtaining CL ETS mnemonics, as well as any/all hardware or software cost associated with accessing the CLETS Database. El Cerrito Police Department will also be responsible for managing and tracking CLETS compliance and personnel certifications.

2.1.5 Richmond Criminal Justice Network System (“ACCJIN”) Access: Richmond shall provide access to ACCJIN during the terms of this Agreement; however, the El Cerrito Police Department shall be re sponsible for any/all hardware, software and personnel access and compliance regulations cost associated with accessing the ACCJIN database.

2.1.6 Technical Services: The El Cerrito Police Department shall be responsible for any/all hardware or software costs associated with secondary hardware or software applications. The Richmond Polic e Department will not provide support for equipment owned by the El Cerrito Polic e Department or any other El Cerrito on-premises equipment.

2.1.7 Records Management Services: El Cerrito Police Department shall be responsible for all hardware and software costs associated with their Records Management Systems.

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

3. OPERATIONAL ISSUES

3.1. Policies and Procedures: Richmond Po lice Department Communications Center shall be under the direction and management control of the Richmond Police Chief or their designee. Matters concerning communication procedures, operations, complaints, request for changes, and/or similar operational matters provided for under this Agreement shall be submitted in writing by the El Cerrito Police Chief or their designee to the Richmond Police Chief or their designee.

3.2. Conflict Resolutions: During the regular business hours, the supervisory personnel from the El Cerrito Police Department sha ll attempt to resolve problems involving dispatch by contacting the on-duty Comm unications Shift Super visor (“CSS”). If the matter remains unresolved after cont acting the on-duty CSS, the El Cerrito supervisory personnel should contact t he Officer in Charge (“OIC”) at the Richmond Police Department.

3.3. Special Events: Whenever possible, the El Cerrito Poli ce Department shall notify the Richmond Police Department Communications Center of any planned special events at least thirty (30) days in adv ance of the event. If extra personnel are required; the El Cerrito Police Department agrees to reimburse Richmond for any additional cost associated wit h the extra staffing. The cost of and whether extra personnel are required sha ll be reviewed and agreed upon by the Parties to this Agreement at least thirty (30) days in advance of the event.

4. LEVEL OF SERVICE

4.1. Level of Service: Richm ond Shall provide police dispatch services twenty-four (24) hours per day, three hundred sixty-five (365) days per year.

4.2. Staffing: Richmond agrees to maintain the appropriate staffing levels within the Richmond Police Department Communications Center to deliver the services set forth in this Agreement.

5. PROVISION OF LABOR AND EQUIPMENT

5.1 Labor and Equipment: Richm ond shall supply all labor and supplies necessary to maintain the level of service required by this Agreement. Any equipment purchased by the El Cerrito Police D epartment to be utilized by the Richmond Police Department Communication Center (hereafter “El Cerrito Equipment”) shall meet the Richmond Police Chie f’s specifications. All El Cerrito Equipment shall remain within the Richmond Police Departm ent Communications Center during the term of this Agreement but shall be owned by El Cerrito. Richm ond and El Cerrito shall meet and confer before the installation of El Cerrito Equipment to discuss installation, maintenance, and security protocols. Richmond Police Department Communications Center st aff shall use reas onable care when operating El Cerrito Equipment. El Cerri to shall be responsible for routine

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

maintenance, repairs, and upgrades of El Cerrito Equipment. Richmond shall allow El Cerrito employees and contract ors reasonable access to the Richmond Police Department Communications Center to perform maintenance, repair, and upgrades of El Cerrito Equipment, subjec t to any standard security measures employed by Richmond at the Richmond Police Depa rtment Communications Center. In the event of damage to El Cerrito Equipment beyond normal wear-and- tear, Richmond and El Cerrito shall meet and confer in good faith to determine responsibility for any such damage and w hether reimbursement by Richmond, if applicable, shall be direct or a credit against a monthly payment by El Cerrito, as provided for in Section 7.1 of this Agreement.

6. PERSONNEL

6.1 Status of Employees: All persons employed by Ric hmond to perform services pursuant to this Agreement are Richmond employees or contractors and shall always be under the direction and control of Richmond.

6.2 Hiring, Supervising and Managing Employ ees: Richmond is responsible for hiring, supervising, and managing Richmond Police Department Communications Center employees. Richmond is bound to abide by the Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBA”) covering Richmond employees perf orming services pursuant to this Agreement. The El Cerrito Police Department Chief or designee will be provided an opportunity to the Richmond Police Chief or designee concerning the performance of dispatch personnel performi ng services for the El Cerrito Police Department under the terms of this Agreement.

7. PAYMENT

7.1 Cost Structure: El Ce rrito shall pay Richmond the do llar amounts referenced in the table listed below:

July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023     $     812,461
July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024     $     828,710
July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025     $      845,285
July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026     $      862,190
July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027       $     879,434
Total       $ 4,228,080

Richmond shall invoice El Cerrito monthly based the prorated annual amount. The monthly cost for services rendered under this Agreement shall be 1/12 of the annual cost, payable by the 10th day of each month.

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

7.2 Payment of Cost: Nonpaym ent by El Cerrito within the timeframe provided for payment in Section 7.1 above for a proper ly charged invoiced monthly bill for services shall constitute a default of this Agreement. In the event of nonpayment, Richmond shall provide notice of default to El Cerrito. If El Cerrito fails to cure the default within 10 calendar days of receiv ing the notice from Richmond (or by the date of any extension granted in writing by Richmond), Richmond’s remedy shall be to terminate this Agreement within thirty (30) days written notice to El Cerrito and to discontinue the provision of services being provided under this Agreement.

In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section because of a billing dispute, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith on an urgency basis to resolve any outstanding issues.

8. INDEMIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS

8.1 Indemnification by El Ce rrito: El Cerrito shall indem nify and hold Richmond and Richmond’s officers, agents, employee s, volunteers subcontractors, and independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or liability whatsoever based or asserted upon any act or omission of El Cerrito and El Cerrito’s officers, agents, employees, volunteers, subcontract ors, and independent contractors for property damage, bodily injury, or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, occurring in the performanc e of the Agreement to the extent that such liability is imposed on Richmond by the provisions of California Government Code Section 895.2. El Cerrito shall defend at its expense, including attorney fees, its officers, agents, employees, volunt eers, subcontractors, and independent contractors in any legal action or claim of any kind based upon such alleged acts or omissions.

8.2 Indemnification by Richm ond: Richmond shall indemnify and hold El Cerrito and El Cerrito’s officers, agents, employ ees, volunteers subcontractors, and independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or liability whatsoever based or asserted upon any act or omission of Richmond and Richmond’s officers, agents, employees, volunteers, subcontract ors, and independent contractors for property damage, bodily injury, or death, or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, occurring in the performanc e of the Agreement to the extent that such liability is imposed on El Cerrito by the provisions of California Government Code Section 895.2. Richmond shall defend at its expense, including attorney fees, its officers, agents, employees, volunteers, subcontractors, and independent contractors in any legal action or claim of any kind based upon such alleged acts or omissions.

9. RIGHT TO AUDIT

Upon reasonable notice, ei ther Party shall have the right to inspect and audit any records maintained by the other Party relevant to this Agreement, to the extent allowed by law.

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

10. INTERNAL POLICIES

If requested by the Richmond Po lice Chief the El Cerrito Police Chief, an internal policy memorandum may be entered into by and bet ween said Richmond Police Chief and El Cerrito Police Chief with respect to questions re lating to the provision of service under this Agreement. The policy will set forth the ques tion raised, and all agreements reached in resolution of the question. The intent and purpose of each such policy shall be to administratively implement, interpret, or clarify one or more provisions of this Agreement. No such policy shall have the effect of amending this Agreement unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writ ing by both the El Cerrito City Council and Richmond City Council. In the event of any inconsistency be tween the terms of such policy and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail.

11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

11.1 Any controversy, claim, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be settled first by non-binding negotiations. Either Party may initiate negotiation proceedings by giving written notice to the other Party, setting forth the particulars of the dispute, and requesting that the parties meet to resolve the dispute. Within ten (10) days after receipt of such letter, the Parties shall meet on at least two (2) occasions to attempt to resolve the matter. If the controversy is not resolved by informal negotiations within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the written notice, the matter shall be referred to a retired judge or justice selected in accordance with the rules of JAMS (the “Mediator”) for non-binding mediation. Such mediation shall occur in an informal non-binding c onference or confer ences between the Parties in which the Mediator shall seek to guide the Parties to resolution on the matter. At least ten (10) days prior to sa id mediation, each Party shall submit to the Mediator a written statement of not more than ten (10) pages setting forth their respective positions regarding the disp ute. All fees and costs incurred in connection with this mediation shall be equally borne by the Parties.

11.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary , Section 11 is not intended to limit or restrict the rights of either party to seek judicial remedy.

11.3 Governing Law; Venue: Th is Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with, and shall be governed and enforced in all respects, according to the laws of the State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement must be commenced in the courts of the State of California, and the venue for purpose of any action in co nnection with this Agreement of any document referred to herein shall be in County of Contra Costa.

12. SERVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisd iction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement is intended by the Parties as a final expression of their understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof. This Agreement supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral and written, in connection therewith.

14. NO OBLIGATION TO THIRD PARTIES

Nothing in this Agreement, or any of the addend hereto, is intended to nor shall it create any right in any person, firm, corpor ation, or entity, other than in the Parties, including but not limited to employees of the Pa rties, to any of the benefit s hereunder. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to expan d the duties and obligations of El Cerrito and/or Richmond with respect to third parties.

15. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS

The Parties agree to cooperate in the execution of any additional documents or agreements that may be required to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

16. ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION

Neither Party shall assign or transfer any intere st in this Agreement or any duty hereunder without consent of the other Pa rty, and no assignment shall be of any force or effect whatsoever unless and until the other Party has so consented.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

By: ___________________________ By: _______________________ Shasa Curl, Interim City Manager Karen Pinkos, City Manager City of Richmond City of El Cerrito

By: ___________________________ By: _______________________ Louie Tirona, Acting Chief of Police Paul Keith, City of Police

Richmond Police Dept. & El Cerrito Police Dept. Communications Contract

Richmond Police Department El Cerrito Police Department

June 28, 2022

Public Works

DATE: June 28, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Joe Leach, Public Works Director
Greg Hardesty, Parks & Landscaping Superintendent
Subject:

Request to Temporarily Display a Plaque at Shimada
Friendship Park
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the General Fund.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

-

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Department of Public Works is seeking approval to
temporarily display a plaque at Shimada Friendship Park until it can be permanently installed at its formal location at Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a request to temporarily display a plaque at
Shimada Friendship Park until it can be permanently
installed at its formal location at Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt – Public Works Department (Joe Leach 620-
5478/Greg Hardesty 620-6920).

DISCUSSION:

At the special meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission on April 20, 2022, the Commission approved a request to temporarily display a plaque at Shimada Friendship Park until it can be permanently installed at its formal location at Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt.

AGENDA
REPORT

June 28, 2022
Background

Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt is the site of the Richmond Rotary Club’s Centennial project. To celebrate their 100 years serving the Richmond community, Rotary donated $50,000 to help the City of Richmond interpret the history of the Japanese American families that ran nurseries on the Miraflores site. A series of sculptural interpretive elements will be placed throughout the park and will convey the full arc of the Japanese American story in Richmond from 1905 to the turn of the twenty-first century. The interpretive nodes employ themes such as “Arrival”, “Creating Home,” and “Making a Living” that allow the Nikkei experience to be communicated alongside those of other Richmond communities, reinforcing links among various people.

The project will provide an important node where Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historical Park can communicate the impact of WWII on Japanese Americans in a place directly affected by wartime policies and programs.

The project includes a granite plaque dedicated to David Ninomiya. Ninomiya, President of Richmond Rotary in 1978-79, was four years old when his family was forced to vacate because of internment during World War II. He became a respected leader in the horticulture industry and is fondly remembered for his dedication to the ‘rose’ that would become the national flower of the United States.

Due to the delay in construction of the interpretive elements, a temporary site for the dedication plaque is needed. Richmond Rotary Club and staff are requesting that the plaque be installed at Shimada Friendship Park in the Marina Bay Neighborhood due to the historic connection between the two sites. The timeframe for the temporary placement is approximately two years.

It is Rotary’s hope that the placement of the plaque at Shimada Friendship Park will keep the Miraflores interpretive project at the forefront of community and City awareness until the project is completed. For more information, see the link to Richmond Rotary’s website about the centennial project:
https://richmondcarotary.org/miraflores/

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Application to dedicate plaque to David Ninomiya Attachment 2 – Recreation and Parks Commission Special Meeting Minutes from April 20, 2022
Attachment 3 – Plaque drawing
Attachment 4 – Plaque photo
Attachment 5 – Letter requesting temporary plaque placement Attachment 6 – Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt presentation

1 NOMINATION FORM FOR NAMING OR RE-NAMING

PARKS, FACILITIES OR STREETS

1. Name of Nominee:

[ ] Individual [ ] Group [ ] OrganizaƟon

2. Nominated By: Name:

Address:

City and Zip:

Telephone:

Organiza Ɵon:

3. Proposed [ ] Facility [ ] Park [ ] Street [ ] Other Current Name:

Proposed Name:

P½›ƒÝ› ®Ä—®‘ƒã› 㫛 ‘ƒã›¦ÊÙù 㫃㠃ÖÖ½®›Ý ãÊ ã«› ÄÊîăã®ÊÄ :
[ ] Service Recogni Ɵon [ ] Monetary, Capital or Material [ ] Recogni Ɵon of Heroes [ ] Sp ecial Feature, Area, Locale

PLEASE FILL IN ONLY THE SECTION THAT APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED NOMINATION. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CAN BE INCLUDED ON THE SECOND (2) PAGE AND/OR OTHER RELATED MATERIALS OR COMMENTS MAY BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION.

S›Ùò®‘› R›‘ʦĮã®ÊÄ: (Individual, Group, or OrganizaƟon)

1. Was service provided in a voluntary no n-paid status or if a group or organizaƟon, was contribuƟon provided outside the normal funcƟon of a profit making organizaƟon? [ ] YES [ ] NO

2. Did the contribu Ɵon exceed five (5) years in duraƟon? [ ] YES [ ] NO

3. Is the nominee an elected or appointed o fficial?
[ ] YES [ ] NO

4. Did the contribu Ɵon have a direct posiƟve effect on the delivery of public services? [ ] YES [ ] NO

5. If the nominee is DECEASED and provided service while they were in a pay status or they were an elected or appointed official, please indicate year of death.

Year of Death
A. Did the service exceed ten (10) years in duraƟon? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Revised 01/2021
'DYLG1LQRPL\D0LUDIORUHV&HQWHQQLDO3URMHFW3ODTXH
✔
-DQ%URZQ6HFUHWDU\
3UHVLGHQW
6LOYD$YH
5,FKPRQG&$

5RWDU\&OXERI5LFKPRQG
✔
1$
1$
✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

2 MÊěãƒÙù, CƒÖ®ãƒ½ ÊÙ Mƒã›Ù®ƒ½ CÊÄãÙ®çã®ÊÄ:

1. What is the amount or value of the contribu Ɵon?
$ _________________

2. Date of contribu Ɵon: ______________________

3. Does nominee have a good record of ci Ɵzenship?
[ ] YES [ ] NO
R›‘ʦĮã®ÊÄ Ê¥ H›ÙʛÝ:

1. Did the deed for which the nominee is being honore d occur two (2) years prior to the date of consideraƟon? [ ] YES [ ] NO

2. Is the deed for which the nominee is being honored common knowledge to the ciƟzens of Richmond? [ ] YES [ ] NO

3. Does nominee have a good record of ciƟzenship?
[ ] YES [ ] NO

4. Is the nominee recognized as a naƟonal hero by an agency of the United States Government? [ ] YES [ ] NO
Name of Agency:

S֛‘®ƒ½ F›ƒãçٛ, Aٛƒ ÊÙ Lʑƒ½›:

1. Is this name appropriate to the facility?
[ ] YES [ ] NO
Please explain in comments sec Ɵon.

CÊÃÛÄãÝ:

NŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚďLJ: DĂƚĞ:

RĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŝŶZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŝǀŝƐŝŽŶLJ:

DĂƚĞ:

R›Øç›Ý㛗 A‘ã®ÊÄ:
[ ] Prepare for Commissioner recommenda Ɵon
[ ] Deny (ExplanaƟon)

Revised 01/2021


0DUFK
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
7KHUHLVQRQDPHWREHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKLVWHPSRUDU\JUDQLWHSODTXHSODFHPHQW,WZLOOHYHQWXDOO\EH DFRUQHUVWRQHWRWKHILQDOLQVWDOODWLRQRIWKH0LUDIORUHV,QWHUSUHWLYH'LVSOD\0DNLQJ$/LYLQJ 7KLVSODTXHZLOOVHUYHWRNHHSWKHVWRULHVRIORFDO-DSDQHVH$PHULFDQDQGLPPLJUDQWIDPLOLHV DWWKHIRUHIURQWRISXEOLFDZDUHQHVVXQWLOWKHGHOD\HG0LUDIORUHV'HYHORSPHQWLVFRPSOHWHG 5RWDU\&OXERI5LFKPRQG-DQ%URZQB $SULO

1 Richmond Recreation & Parks Commission

MINUTES

Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:00 PM (SPECIAL MEETING)

To view a video of this meeting click on this link:
https://richmond.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=37

CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Meeting called to order by Chair Joey Smith at 6:00 P.M. who led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Smith expressed a genuine acknowledgement of the land which was previously and currently occupied and cared for by First Peoples and wanted to embrace this wisely and respectfully.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Joey Smith, Allison Blakeley*, Soheila Bana, Maryn Hurlbut, Catalin Kaser, Aaron Rowden and Eleanor Thompson
*Arrived after Roll Call

ABSENT: Brendan Havenar-Daughton

Chair Smith provided a brief overview of the meeting procedures and the Mission of the Recreation & Parks Commission.

AGENDA REVIEW

Motion by Commissioner Hurlbut to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried by a voice vote, the agenda was approved as submitted.

OPEN FORUM

Garry Hurlbut, Richmond, expressed disappointment that SnowBall was a virtual event and hoped the event will be an in-person event in the future.

DISCUSSIONS & ACTION ITEMS

a. APPROVE a Request to convert one Tennis Court to fixed Pickleball Courts at BTA

Tetteh Kisseh, Recreation Supervisor, presented the staff report on the request of the East Bay Pickleball Association to convert one tennis court to fixed pickleball courts at Booker T. Anderson, Jr. (BTA) Park.

2 The request was presented to the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council and was approved as long as the courts were located on the West side of the courts and not the East side as preferred by Darlene Drapkin from the East Bay Pickleball Association. Follow up zoom meetings with the Southside Plus One Neighborhood Council were conducted in March but due to a lack of quorum, staff proceeded to submit a request to the Recreation and Parks Commission for their approval to install the pickleball courts on the East side of the tennis courts at the 4/6/22 meeting. However, due to lack of quorum at the Recreation and Parks Commission meeting, no vote was taken. Mr. Kisseh, reached out to both Southside Plus One and East Bay Pickleball Association for their reasons and provided a br eakdown from each group in the staff report. Mr. Kisseh request ed the Commission to provide direction as to the placement of the permanent Pickleball courts.

Commissioner Thompson, asked for clarification on which side has more cracks and Mr. Kisseh stated that while both sides show cracks, the East side, requested by the East Bay Pickleball Association has less cracks.

Commissioner Hurlbut inquired whether the mounted storage on the fence is mobile, to which Mr. Kisseh advised the storage can be moved. In addition, Ms. Hurlbut advised that the Pickleball Association has free reign to hire someone to fix the cracks. It is in her opinion the neighborhood should have preference over where to locate the pickleball courts, as they represent the people in the community that are maintaining the park.

Secretary Blakeley asked if it is possible to repave the courts and solve the issue and Mr. Kisseh advised it would solve the issue. As a result, Ms. Blakeley suggested that the courts be resurfaced.

Commissioner Rowden had questioned the dimensions of the courts and what equipment is being carried to play pickleball. Mr. Rowden also referenced the correspondence from Vice Mayor Martinez that Ms.

Drapkin, on behalf of Pickleball Association, is willing to cooperate with the Neighborhood Council’s view and should; therefore, be considered by the Commission.

Commissioner Bana asked if there was data as to the number of pickleball participants and for clarification on the vote forthcoming.

Myrtle Braxton clarified that the neighborhood is not against Pickleball but wants to ensure the community has say about what is in their parks.

JC Farr, President of the Eastshore Neighborhood Council, reiterated the desire to have Pickleball at BTA.

He later received information that Pickleball was taking over the entire court s and now that Pickleball is agreeing to go to the West side, there should not be a problem.

Garry Hurlbut, President of the Richmond Tennis Association, wanted to express their support of an active and healthy lifestyle whether that is pickleball, soccer, tennis, etc. He further expressed that a grant was submitted but they didn’t receive enough funds for BTA. He proposed to the Commission to look at the area by Nystrom School that needs development.

Commissioner Hurlbut presented the motion to have the permanent pickleball court on the West side, as proposed by the Neighborhood Council, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, a nd carried by a voice vote.

b. APPROVE a Request to temporarily display a plaque at Shimada Friendship Park

3 Marcia Vallier presented as part of the Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt Project and Richmond Rotary’s Centennial Project, to place a temporary plaque at Shimada Friendship Park.

Jan Brown, former President of the Richmond Rotary, also spoke on the Rotary’s Centennial Project to honor David Ninomiya and hopes to have a dedication this Friday (4/22/22) at 10:30 am. at Shimada Park, pending permanent placement at Miraflores Park.

Commissioner Kaser thanked Marcia and Jan for their presentation and stated she recently tou red the progress at Miraflores Park and supports the temporary placement at Shimada Park

Commissioner Hurlbut asked for the dimensions of the plaque and who will be handling the placement.

Marcia Vallier stated the plaque is 3 ft by 3 ft and 4 inches thick and she has been working with Jose Moreno and Greg Hardesty in the Parks Department.

Secretary Blakeley clarified that only the plaque will be displayed at Shimada Friendship Park and will be moved to Miraflores Park when ready and this was confirmed by Marcia Vallier.

Chair Smith inquired as to who is responsible for the maintenance and per Ms. Vallier, she has been in talks with Greg Hardesty of the Parks Department, who assured her it would be taken care of by the Parks Department and staff. In addition, Chair Smith asked what is the estimated time frame in which the plaque will be at Shimada Park and Ms. Vallier anticipated approximately 2 years and was affirmed by Jan Brown.

Don Lau and Madalyn Law both spoke in support of this development and expressed the hope of keeping the project in the public eye until the anticipated completion in 2025.

Commissioner Hurlbut motioned to allow temporary placement of the plaque at Shimada Friendship Park as outlined in the request until i t can be permanently installed at its formal location, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried by a voice vote.

c. REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS for the Draft Fee Waiver Policy and Partnership Policy

Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director for Com munity Services -Recreation, reminded the Commission the Draft Fee Waiver Policy and Partnership Policy was presented by LaShonda White (Interim Director of Library and Community Services) at the April Commission Meeting. Ms. Maharaj indicated the item will be presented to City Council in May and encouraged the commissions feedback.

Commissioner Rowden expressed his appreciation of the research and consideration put forth in the proposal and looks forward to having a clear standard that will benefit the community and provide the appropriate level in which to waive fees.

Discussion arose as to whether a vote is needed, however Commissioner Hurlbut stated that as the item is not listed as needing approval, it should be placed on the May Commission Agenda (5/4/22). Ms. Maharaj will reach out to LaShonda White asking to present to City Council at their May 17th meeting, which would allow the Recreation and Parks Commission to vote on the item.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M.

4 Respectfully Submitted,
Christine George
Executive Secretary

PROJECTDEDICATION PLAGUEMIRAFLORES PLAQUESCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" EQ.36"EQ.

S JS J(E) CONC. WALK
12"36"12"36" SQ. GRANITE PLAQUE12" EXPANSION JOINTAROUND EDGE - ALL SIDES EQ.36"EQ.
4" DEEP CONCRETE WITH4" DEEP CLASS II AGGREGATEBASE BELOW @ 95% REL.COMPACTION ONCOMPACTED SUB GRADE 12" EXPANSION JOINTAROUND EDGE - ALL SIDESCONCRETECLASS II AGGREGATE BASE95% REL. COMPACTED SUBGRADE 36" SQ. GRANITE PLAQUE

REPAIR TURF AS REQUIRED
4"4"PAD TO RUNWITH SLOPE
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN121 PARK PLACEPOINT RICHMOND, CA 94801TELEPHONE 510.237.7745 APRIL 2022DATE

V A L L I E R D E S I G N A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .

L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E | P L A N N I N G | D E S I G N

1 2 1 P A R K P L A C E | P O I N T R I C H M O N D , C A 9 4 8 0 1 | 5 0 S. E. S C O T T S T R E E T , U N I T 8 , B E N D , O R 9 7 7 0 2

P . O . B O X 7 0 3 1 0 | P O I N T R I C H M O N D , C A 9 4 8 0 7

T E L E P H O N E 5 1 0 . 2 3 7 . 7 7 4 5

v d a @ v a l l i e r d e s i g n . c o m

M A R C I A V A L L I E R , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T CA # 3 2 9 3 , OR # 7 4 6 | J C M I L L E R , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T # 5 1 0 7 February 8, 2022

Mr. Greg Hardesty, Parks & Landscaping Superintendent
City of Richmond, CA, Public Works Department
Parks Maintenance Division

RE.: MIRAFLORES SUSTAINABLE GREENBELT, RICHMOND, CA

TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF RICHMOND ROTARY CENTENNIAL PLAQUE

Dear Greg,

Miraflores Sustainable Greenbelt is the site of the Richmond Rotary Club’s Centennial project. To celebrate their 100 years serving the Richmond community, Rotary is donating funds to help the City of Richmond interpret the history of the Japanese American families that ran nurseries on the Miraflores site. A series of eight sculptural interpretive elements will be placed throughout the park and will convey the full arc of the Japanese American story in Richmond from 1905 to the turn of the twenty- first century. The interpretive nodes employ themes such as “Arrival” or “Creating Home,” that allow the Nikkei experience to be communicated alongside those of other Richmond communities., reinforcing links among various people.

The project will provide an important node where Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front National Historical Park can communicate the impact of WWII on Japanese Americans in a place directly affected by wartime policies and programs.

Due to the delay in construction of the interpretive elements, we need a temporary site where we can install the dedication plaque. We are requesting that the plaque be installed at Shimada Friendship Park in the Marina Bay Neighborhood due to the historic connection between the two sites.

It is Rotary’s hope that the placement of the plaque at Shimada Friendship Park will keep the Miraflores interpretive project at the forefront of community and City awareness until the project is completed.

Rotary would like to set up an April 2022 date for a dedication. Please let me know whether we may install the plaque at Shimada Park. For more information, see the link to Richmond Rotary’s website about the centennial project: https://richmondcarotary.org/miraflores/

Sincerely,
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.

Marcia D. Vallier, ASLA, APA, LEED AP
President, Landscape Architect #CA3293, OR746

MIRAFLORES SUSTAINABLE GREENBELT
Public Park & Creek Restoration in Richmond’s Miraflores Development Historic Interpretation Presentation
Richmond Rotary Centennial
Project, April 2022

MIRAFLORES SUSTAINABLE GREENBELT
Public Park & Creek Restoration in Richmond’s Miraflores Development Historic Interpretation Presentation, Richmond Rotary Centennial Project April 2022

OVERVIEW OF

PROJECT SITE
Miraflores Sustainable
Greenbelt
- Daylight Baxter Creek
- Urban Forest at I-80
- Lawns and Play Areas
- Historic Interpretation

MIRAFLORES SUSTAINABLE GREENBELT
Public Park & Creek Restoration in Richmond’s Miraflores Development Historic Interpretation Presentation, Richmond Rotary Centennial Project April 2022 Eden Senior Housing

OVERVIEW OF

PROJECT SITE

MIRAFLORES SUSTAINABLE GREENBELT
Public Park & Creek Restoration in Richmond’s Miraflores Development Historic Interpretation Presentation, Richmond Rotary Centennial Project April 2022 Miraflores Devco LLC
Market Rate Housing

OVERVIEW OF

PROJECT SITE

MIRAFLORES SUSTAINABLE GREENBELT
Public Park & Creek Restoration in Richmond’s Miraflores Development Historic Interpretation Presentation, Richmond Rotary Centennial Project April 2022 Relocated Oishi House

OVERVIEW OF

PROJECT SITE
Relocated Sakai House,
Water Tower and Pump
House