Richmond City Council
June 28, 2022

Date: November 18, 2015
W.I.: 1512
Referred by: PAC
Revised: 07/27/16-C 10/26/16-C 12/21/16-C
03/22/17-C 04/26/17-C 05/24/17-C
06/28/17-C 07/26/17-C 09/27/17-C
10/25/17-C 11/15/17-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 01/23/19-C 02/27/19-C
03/27/19-C 06/26/19-C 07/24/19-C
09/25/19-C 10/23/19-C 11/20/19-C

ABSTRACT
Resolution No. 4202, Revised

Adoption of the project selection policies and project programming for the second round of the One Bay Area Grant program (OBAG 2). The project selection criteria and programming policy contain the project categories that are to be funded with various fund sources including federal surface transportation act funding available to MTC for its programming discretion to be included in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the OBAG 2 funding period.

The resolution includes the following attachments:

Attachment A – OBAG 2 Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy Attachment B-1 – OBAG 2 Regional Program Project List
Attachment B-2 – OBAG 2 County Program Project List

On July 27, 2016, Attachment A, and Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to add additional funding and projects to the OBAG 2 framework, including $72 million in additional Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) funding, and to incorporate housing-related policies.

On October 26, 2016, Attachment A, and Attachment B-1 were revised to clarify language related to the North Bay Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Program in Attachment A and to deprogram $2,500,000 from the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Ferry Service Enhancement Pilot within the Regional Active Operational Management Program.

On December 21, 2016, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to redirect $417,000 in un- programmed balances from the Regional Active Operational Management program to MTC’s Spare the Air Youth within the Climate Initiatives Program; divide MTC’s Rideshare Program into three subcomponents totaling $10,000,000: $720,000 for Rideshare Implementation, $7,280,000 for the

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

Carpool Program, and $2,000,000 for the Vanpool Program; direct $1,785,000 from 511 Next Gen to the Commuter Benefits program; direct $1,000,000 in un-programmed balances to SMART’s Multi-Use Pathway; transfer $1,000,000 from MTC’s Casual Carpool project to MTC’s Eastbay Commuter Parking project within the Bay Bridge Forward program, as the former will be funded with non-federal funds; transfer $500,000 from the Freeway Performance Initiative program and $500,000 in un-programmed balances to US 101/Marin Sonoma Narrow’s B2 Phase 2 project in the Regional Active Operational Management Program; shift $40,000,000 from the BART Car Replacement/Expansion project to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent project and $13 million from MTC’s Clipper project to un-programmed balances within the Transit Priorities program as part of a RM2 funding action to address a cost increase on the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent project; and program $5,990,000 to Alameda County’s Safe Routes to School Program in the County Program.

On March 22, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $17,000,000 in un-programmed balances within the Regional Transit Priorities Program to MTC’s Clipper Program, as part of the FY17 Transit Capital Priorities program.

On April 26, 2017, Attachment B-2 was revised to program $1,655,000 to the Sonoma Safe Routes to School program; and redirect $1,000 from Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Planning Activities Base to its discretionary balance and $1,000 from San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s Planning Activities Base to its discretionary balance to address an inconsistency between amounts programmed to planning activities in Appendix A-3 and reflect actual amounts obligated for planning.

On May 24, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to redirect $1,237,000 from 511 Next Gen to AOM Implementation within the Regional Active Operational Management program to reflect re- organization of staff between program elements; direct $18,000,000 in Arterial/Transit Performance to the Program for Arterial System Synchronization ($5,000,000) and the Next Gen Arterial Operations Program ($13,000,000) within the Regional Active Operational Management program; direct $19,000,000 from the Transportation Management System (TMS) Field Equipment Devices Operations and Maintenance to TMS Implementation ($2,910,000), Performance-Based Intelligent Transportation Systems Device Maintenance and Rehabilitation ($5,940,000), Transportation Management Center Asset Upgrade and Replacement ($4,000,000), I-880 Communication Upgrade and Infrastructure Gap Closures ($4,000,000) and a Detection Technology Pilot ($5,000,000) within the Regional Active Operational Management program; and remove $290,556 in un-programmed

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

balances from the Regional Active Operational Management program to address over-programming in a previous cycles of the STP/CMAQ regional programs.

On June 28, 2017, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to reprogram $1,000,000 from the SMART Pathway – 2nd to Andersen to San Rafael’s Grand Ave Bike/Pedestrian Improvements within the Regional Climate Initiatives program as part of a funding exchange within the City of San Rafael, conditioned on San Rafael committing $1 million in non-federal funds to the construction of the pathway, and a resolution of local support for the use of federal funds on the Grand Ave project, and TAM approval of the redirection of local measure funds between the projects; split out $8,729,000 from the 511 Next Gen program to 511 Implementation within the Regional Active Operational Management program; program $1,250,000 to Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District for the Bettini Transit Center as part of the Marin County Program; and program $2,617,000 within the San Mateo County Program to the San Mateo County Office of Education for the SRTS program, including $223,000 in supplemental funds from San Mateo’s discretionary balance.

On July 26, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $12,000,000 to the US 101 Marin Sonoma Narrows project as part of a fund exchange agreement with Sonoma County Transportation Authority; $11,000,000 in exchange funds are added to the program for tracking purposes, with the final $1 million in exchange funds to be identified through a future Commission action.

On September 27, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to change the name of the Next Gen Arterial Operations Program (NGAOP) to Innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials (IDEA) to reflect program rebranding and additional focus on advanced technologies; program $4,160,000 to Incident Management Implementation and $8,840,000 to I-880 Integrated Corridor Mobility project within the Regional Active Operational Management program; split out the Connected Vehicles/Shared Mobility program into the Connected Vehicles/Automated Vehicles program for $2,500,000 and the Shared Use Mobility program for $2,500,000; and program $16,000,000 for three corridors within the Freeway Performance Program, with $8,000,000 for I- 680, $3,000,000 for I-880, and $5,000,000 for SR-84.

On October 25, 2017, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $10,000,000 to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the Spare the Air program, in lieu of the Electric Vehicle Programs within the Regional Climate Initiatives Program, conditioned on the Air District

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

contribution of an additional $10 million to advance implementation of electric vehicles within the region.

On November 15, 2017, Attachment B-2 was revised to program $200,000 in the Alameda County Program to the I-580 Corridor Study, to support a joint corridor study between Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and MTC; $122,000 within the Napa County Program to Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) for the Napa County Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program; and $300,000 within the Contra Costa County Program to San Ramon for the San Ramon Valley Street Smarts Program.

On December 20, 2017, Attachments A, Appendix A-3, B-1, and B-2 were revised to program $334 million in the County Program to local and county projects recommended by the nine Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs); redirect $10,248,000 from BART Car Replacement/Expansion to Clipper within the Regional Transit Priorities Program; revise the CMA Planning Activities funding amounts to reflect the supplementary funds requested by several CMAs through their County Programs; and clarify the program details for the Local Housing Production Incentive program (also known as the 80K by 2020 Challenge Grant).

On January 24, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to redirect $4,100,000 from Performance- Based ITS Device Maintenance and Rehabilitation to I-880 Communication Upgrade and Infrastructure Gap Closures, within the Transportation Management System program.

On February 28, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $13 million in Innovative Deployments to Enhance Arterials (IDEA) program grants within the Regional Active Operational Management Program; redirect $822,000 within Contra Costa County’s Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) for future SRTS projects; program $2,813,000 to San Francisco SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program within the San Francisco County Program; and clarify MTC exchange fund projects.

On March 28, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to distribute the $1.5 million Community- Based Transportation Planning Program among the nine county Congestion Management Areas (CMAs); clarify the limits of three Freeway Performance Program projects within the Regional Active Operational Management Program; and reflect the programming of $30,000 in MTC exchange funds for Bay Area Greenprint Functionality Improvements, as part of the PCA program.

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

On April 25, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $8,200,000 in Priority Conservation Area (PCA) grants within the North Bay PCA Program; $3,400,000 to Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) for the Marin Sonoma Narrows B2 Phase 2 project, as part of an exchange agreement in which an equal amount of SCTA’s future Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funds will be programmed at MTC’s discretion; $7,288,000 in PDA Planning and Implementation grants; and $500,000 to MTC for PDA Implementation.

On May 23, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to change the project sponsor from MTC to VTA for the IDEA Program project at the Veteran’s Administration Palo Alto Medical Center; redirect funds within the Santa Clara County OBAG 2 County Program to reduce San Jose’s West San Carlos Urban Village Streetscape Improvements by $2,050,000, redirecting $1,000,000 from the project to Santa Clara’s Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 and $1,050,000 to Saratoga’s Prospect Rd Complete Streets project; and direct an additional an additional $25,000 in unprogrammed balances within Santa Clara County OBAG 2 County Program to Saratoga’s Prospect Rd Complete Streets project.

On June 27, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $800,000 to MTC’s Carsharing Implementation and $325,000 to Targeted Transportation Alternatives within the Climate Initiatives Program; redirect from MTC’s 511 NextGen program $8,271,000 to 511 Implementation, $2,000,000 to Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA’s) I-80 Central Ave Interchange Improvements project, and $380,000 to an unprogrammed balance within the Regional Active Operational Management program; clarify the scope of MTC’s Freeway Performance Program I-880 to reflect the project limits of I-80 to I-280; and redirect $1,394,000 from Vallejo’s Local Streets Rehabilitation project to Fairfield’s Heart of Fairfield project within the Solano County Program.

On July 25, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to program $1,600,000 to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the SR 85 Transit Guideway Study as part of a fund exchange agreement; remove Rohnert Park’s $65,000 Central Rohnert Park PDA/Creekside Neighborhood Subarea Connector Path Technical Assistance grant from the Regional PDA Planning Grant program as it will be funded through a prior cycle; reduce the funding for Windsor’s PDA Planning and Implementation Staffing Assistance grant by $85,000 as this project will receive an equivalent amount of funds through a prior cycle; a total of $150,000 balance created by these two revisions was returned to the Regional PDA Planning Grant Program un-programmed balance.

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

On September 12, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to program $3,000,000 within the Freeway Performance Program to the US 101 corridor in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties; direct an additional $6,000,000 within the Freeway Performance Program to the I-680 corridor within Contra Costa County, $4,000,000 of which is part of an exchange agreement with Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA); redirect $15,000 within the Innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials (IDEA) program from IDEA Technical Assistance to VTA’s IDEA grant at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Medical Center; redirect $48,000 from MTC’s Clipper to the BART Car Replacement/Expansion project within the Transit Priorities program to reflect program amounts previously adopted through the Transit Capital Priorities (TCP) program; revise the amount programmed to VTA’s SR 85 Transit Guideway Study within Regional Strategic Initiatives to $1,200,000 to reflect amount previously approved; redirect $1,214,000 from Berkeley’s North Shattuck Avenue Rehabilitation project to its Southside Complete Streets and Transit Improvements project within the Alameda County Program; from Sunnyvale’s East Sunnyvale Area Sense of Place Improvements, redirect $1,000,000 to Los Altos’ Miramonte Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements and $1,140,000 to the Safe Routes to School program balance within the Santa Clara County Program; and program $4,500,000 available from a previous funding cycle to the following projects within Regional Strategic Initiatives: $617,000 to Novato’s Pavement Rehabilitation (for Downtown Novato SMART Station) as part of a local funding exchange, $1,120,000 to the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) for the Old Redwood Highway Multi-Use Pathway project, $763,000 for San Rafael’s Grand Ave Bridge project, and $2,000,000 to TAM for the US 101 Marin Sonoma Narrows project.

On November 28, 2018, Attachment B-1 was revised to make adjustments related to the MTC/SCVTA Funding Exchange Agreement MTC Resolution No. 4356 and to the MTC/CCTA Funding Exchange Agreement MTC Resolution No. 4357, and to program $4,000,000 in MTC exchange funds in accordance with MTC Resolution 3989, to the following projects: $619,000 to CCTA for Innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials; $621,000 to the city of Walnut Creek for innovative Deployment for Enhanced Arterials; $500,000 to the city of Richmond for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Bikeway Access; $1,160,000 to MTC for Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Forward; and $1,100,000 to MTC for Napa Valley Transportation Demand.

On December 19, 2018, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to redirect $5,200,000 from MTC’s I-880 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Central Segment to the I-880 ICM Northern Segment project within the Regional Active Operational Management Program; clarify

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

the Diridon Integrated Station Area Concept Plan project within the Regional Priority Development Planning and Implementation Program to reference Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) as a project partner; within the Santa Clara County Program, redirect $794,000 in unprogrammed balances to Sunnyvale’s East Sunnyvale Sense of Place Improvements, clarify the remaining unprogrammed balance is discretionary, and clarify the division of funding for Santa Clara’s Saratoga Creek Trail Phase 1 project between the county’s Safe Routes to School program and its discretionary program.

On January 23, 2019, Attachment B-2 was revised to redirect $15,980,000 within the San Francisco County Program from the Better Market Street project to the Central Subway project.

On February 27, 2019, Attachment B-1 was revised to change the fund source of $3,779,849 programmed to the Golden Gate Bridge Suicide Deterrent in Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funds to Highway Infrastructure Program (STP Bump) funds provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. Of the $3,779,849 freed up by this swap, $1,000,000 is returned to the region’s STP/CMAQ balance to help address the CMAQ shortfall as a result of the region becoming attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and therefore receiving less CMAQ funds which are distributed based on air quality status. The remaining $2,779,849 is held for future Commission action.

On March 27, 2019, Attachment A, Appendix A-8, Appendix A-10, and Attachment B-1 were revised to clarify provisions pertaining to the interim status report requirements for Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment & Growth Strategies; change the recipient of the Concord IDEA project from CCTA to the City of Concord and reduce the MTC Exchange funding from $619,000 to $589,000; and redirect the $30,000 in MTC Exchange funds to a new MTC-led Concord IDEA project.

On June 26, 2019, Attachment B-2 was revised to program $822,000 in unprogrammed Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) balances within the Contra Costa County Program to six existing projects; and to redirect $251,000 within the San Mateo County Program from Atherton’s Middlefield Road Class II Bike Lanes to its James Avenue Rehabilitation.

On July 24, 2019, Attachment A was revised to delegate authority to the Executive Director or designee to sign Letters of Understanding for the exchange of STP/CMAQ funds with other

ABSTRACT
MTC Resolution No. 4202, Revised

regions, within certain conditions and limitations, and to delegate to a Committee of the Commission the authority to approve exchanges beyond these conditions and limitations.

On September 25, 2019, Attachments B-1 and B-2 were revised to clarify that the $300,000 programmed to Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) within the Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Updates program will be directed to its Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Planning program as part of an internal fund exchange within ACTC; redirect $9.6 million from 511 Implementation to 511 Next Gen within the Bay Area 511 Traveler Information Program; within the Freeway Performance Program redirect $625,000 in from MTC’s SR 84 (US 101 to I-880) to the environmental phase of MTC’s I-580 WB HOV Lane Extension project and change the project sponsor of the I-80/Central Ave. Interchange Improvements project from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to City of Richmond; within the Innovative Deployment to Enhance Arterials (IDEA) program, clarify that LAVTA is a partner agency for the Dublin Category 2 IDEA project; within the Transportation Management Systems (TMS) program, change the name of the overall program to Connected Bay Area, redirect $2 million from the Detection Technology Pilot project and $1.8 million from the Performance-Based ITS Device Maintenance and Rehabilitation project to provide an additional $3.8 million to the I-880 Communications Upgrade and Infrastructure Gap Closures project; within the Incident Management program, redirect $1 million from MTC’s I-880 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Central Segment to the Northern Segment; within the San Francisco County program, redirect $3,366,000 from John Yehall Chin Elementary Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Improvement; and within the Santa Clara County program, redirect $1 million from Los Altos’ Miramonte Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements project to Cupertino’s McClellan Rd Separated Bike Lane project, and program $1,346,000 in unprogrammed discretionary balances to Campbell’s Harriet Ave Sidewalk project and Los Gatos Shannon Rd Complete Streets project.

On October 23, 2019, Attachment B-1 was revised to redirect $3 million from MTC’s Detection Technology Pilot project to establish the InterConnect Bay Area grant program within the Connected Bay Area program; direct $5 million ($4 million Solano County and $1 million other North Bay counties) within the Housing Incentive Pool program to establish the Sub-HIP program, with specific projects to be recommended through future programming actions; and program $1 million to BART for AB2923 Implementation from unprogrammed balances within the PDA Planning & Implementation program.

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