4/9/2025
1 SONOMA VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT
9/11 MEMORIAL
83 Sheehy Ct. Napa, CA 94558
707.933.0307
[email protected] License #945459 DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPTUAL PLANNING/ZONING BUILDING PRODUCTION These drawings are for the intended recipient(s) only and it may be privileged and condential. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or agent responsible, any review, e-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of these documents & drawings is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. Concepts shown are proprietary until released by WELL DESIGN, and at the point of client approval and payment of services in full. CLIENT: SONOMA VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT PROJEC T: STATION 1_9/11 MEMORIAL DRAWING VERSION: 03/31/2025 1 2
Agenda Item #9.1:
4/9/2025
2 83 Sheehy Ct. Napa, CA 94558
707.933.0307
[email protected] License #945459 DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPTUAL PLANNING/ZONING BUILDING PRODUCTION These drawings are for the intended recipient(s) only and it may be privileged and condential. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or agent responsible, any review, e-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of these documents & drawings is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. Concepts shown are proprietary until released by WELL DESIGN, and at the point of client approval and payment of services in full. PROJEC T: STATION 1_9/11 MEMORIAL CLIENT: SONOMA VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT DRAWING VERSION: 03/31/2025 83 Sheehy Ct. Napa, C A 94558
707.933.0307
[email protected] License #945459 CLIENT: DRAWING TYPE: CONCEPTUAL PLANNING/ZONING
BUILDING
PRODUCTION
These drawings are for the intended recipient(s) only and it may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or agent responsible, any review, e-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of these documents & drawings is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. Concepts shown are proprietary until released by WELL DESIGN, and at the point of client approval and payment of services in full. PROJECT: S T A T I ON 1_ 9/ 11 M E M ORI A L DRAWING VERSION: 03/31/2025 S ON OM A V A L L E Y FI RE DI S T RI C T 2nd St W 2nd St W N
EXISTING MONUMEN
T SIGN
PROPOSED 9/11 MEMORIAL LOCATION
SVFD COURTYARD
FLAG POLE
VIEWED FROM WITHIN COURTYARD ( FACING 2ND ST W)
SITE PLAN - LOCATION DETAIL
BACKSIDE VISIBILITY – CONTEXTUAL NOTE
THE VERTICAL STEEL BEAM, ANGLED AT 45º TO THE ROAD, HAS LIMITED VISIBILITY FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH DUE TO OBSTRUCTION BY THE MONUMENT SIGN AND ADJACENT BUILDING WALL. SVFDHAS INTENTIONALLYORIENTEDTHISELEMENTTOWARDTHECOURTYARD,ADJACENTTOTHEIR "IN MEMORIAM" WALL. BENCHES WILL BE ADDED TO SUPPORT A REFLECTIVE, VISITOR-FACING EXPE- RIENCEWITHINTHISDEFINED SPACE. 3 4
Agenda Item #9.1:
4/9/2025
3 83 Sheehy Ct. Napa, CA 94558
707.933.0307
[email protected] License #945459 DRAWING T YPE: CONCEPTUAL PLANNING/ZONING
BUILDING
PRODUCTION
These drawings are for the intended recipient(s) only and it may be privileged and condential. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or agent responsible, any review, e-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of these documents & drawings is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. Concepts shown are proprietary until released by WELL DESIGN, and at the point of client approval and payment of services in full. 40.00" Scale: NTS 2 PLAN
ELEVATION
Scale: NTS 3
Scale: NTS
1 SITEPLAN
THIS SITE
630 Second St West - Sonoma, CA 95476
8 1/4" 19 1/2" 8 3/4" 36 1/2"
3" 9 7/8" 1 7/8" 1 5/8" 1 5/8" 43 1/4" 4 1/8" 12 1/4" 10" 48 1/4" 74 5/8" 4" 1 3/4" 36" 3 3/4" 9" 2" 14" 2" 9" 3 1/2" 43 1/4" 10" 9 7/8" 10" 4" 5" 10" 1"1" 9 1/4" PROJEC T: STATION 1_9/11 MEMORIAL CLIENT: SONOMA VALLEY FIRE DISTRICT DRAWING VERSION: 03/31/2025 5 Agenda Item #9.1:
SVFD 9/11 Memorial Project Pre-Council
Meeting Checklist and Timeline
SVFD 9/11 Memorial – Pre-Council Project Checklist
This checklist outlines the required steps to complete due diligence and prepare the Sonoma Valley Fire District's 9/11 Memorial project for potential City Council consideration. The Commission has approved the proposal conceptually but did not recommend funding at this time. The checklist aligns with the Public Art Policy adopted December 18, 2024.
1. Project Documentation (SVFD to Provide)
☐ Final project narrative, including the origin of the memorial and acquisition of the WTC steel. ☐ Detailed cost estimate separating eligible (art-related) and ineligible (general construction) expenses per Sections 5.6 and 5.7.
☐ Maintenance plan confirming responsibilities for cleaning, lighting, and repairs (Sections 4.3 and 4.4). ☐ Final plaque text and artist/designer information (if applicable). ☐ Public access plan – ensure site is viewable and accessible (Section 7.1).
2. Interdepartmental Review (Staff Coordination Required) ☐ Community Development: Confirm zoning, signage, lighting, and aesthetic integration (Section 7.1). ☐ Public Works: Evaluate installation impacts, safety, visibility, ADA, and infrastructure (Section 9.6). ☐ Building Division: Review for permit requirements, anchoring, and electrical/lighting code compliance (Section 2.1.1b).
☐ Determine if engineering drawings are needed for structural review. ☐ Confirm that lighting fixtures comply with City standards for energy use and shielding.
3. Staff Actions and Funding Process
☐ Confirm current Public Art Fund balance with Finance. ☐ Review submitted budget against eligibility guidelines in Sections 5.6 and 5.7. ☐ Prepare summary for CFAC August meeting if SVFD returns with a funding request. ☐ Prepare Council staff report only after all documentation and departmental reviews are complete.
4. City Property Considerations
☐ Determine who ownership transfers to upon installation (Section 4.1). ☐ Confirm site placement complies with existing easements, utilities, or future City use. ☐ Review existing lease agreement to confirm it covers responsibilities for display, maintenance, relocation, and deaccession; assess any impacts to City property insurance (Sections 4.1e and 6.4).
Agenda Item #9.1:
SVFD 9/11 Memorial – Timeline (Pre-Council Coordination) This timeline outlines the remaining steps needed to prepare the Sonoma Valley Fire District’s proposed 9/11 Memorial for City Council consideration. While the Cultural and Fine Arts Commission has approved the proposal conceptually, Council authorization is required for installation on City property. The schedule allows time for departmental review, policy compliance, and internal coordination.
Staff have determined that the earliest feasible Council date is July 16th.
1. Final Documentation Submission (April 29 – May 13, 2025) SVFD will submit the following:
• A full project narrative, including how the World Trade Center steel was obtained • A detailed cost estimate separating eligible and ineligible expenses under the Public Art Policy (if the District intends on requesting funding)
• Final plaque language and artist/designer information (if applicable) • A comprehensive maintenance plan outlining responsibilities for cleaning, lighting, and repairs
2. Interdepartmental, Lease, and Insurance Review (May – June) • City staff will facilitate a coordinated review involving:
o Community Development, Public Works, and Building, to evaluate site access, zoning, ADA compliance, lighting, structural permits, and other technical considerations • City Manager’s Office and Administrative Services, to:
o Review the lease agreement to confirm it addresses maintenance, public access, ownership, relocation, and deaccession protocols
o Assess implications for the City’s property insurance and adjust coverage if needed • Departmental comments will be requested by June 23rd to meet staff report deadlines.
3. City Council Staff Report Preparation
• For July 16 Council: Report due by July 10
The preferred meeting date will depend on both SVFD and City staff availability.
4. Council Consideration
At the selected meeting, City Council will consider authorizing:
• Installation of the memorial on City property at Fire Station 1 • Confirmation of lease adequacy and insurance implications *Note: Public Art Funds are not currently recommended for allocation. A separate request may be submitted at the CFAC’s August 28th. *
5. Optional Follow-Up: CFAC Funding Request (August 2025) If SVFD’s fundraising does not fully cover the $57,000 project cost, the Fire District may return to the Commission in August to request partial funding. The Commission will evaluate the request based on fund Agenda Item #9.1:
availability, compliance with policy (Sections 5.6–5.7), and other funding priorities at their August 28th meeting. Would need SVFD funding request by August 14th to prepare the item for consideration.
Agenda Item #9.1:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 16 Jul 2025
Department
Administration, Police
Staff Contact
Brandon Cutting, Police Chief
David Guhin, City Manager
Agenda Item Title
A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between the County of Sonoma and the City of Sonoma, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Amendment
Summary
The City of Sonoma contracts with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office to provide law enforcement services within city limits. The existing agreement, initiated on July 1, 2020, requires periodic review and updates to ensure it remains effective and reflective of operational and fiscal realities. The proposed amendment extends the term of the agreement and incorporates several key revisions that increase transparency and align with recent service delivery and budgetary decisions.
The City and County entered into a Law Enforcement Services Agreement effective July 1, 2020, to ensure continued provision of high-quality police services through the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office. The First Amendment reflects negotiated changes to extend and streamline the agreement while addressing changes in indirect cost recovery and shared service funding structures.
The First Amendment includes the following substantive changes to the original agreement:
1. Extension of Term
The term of the agreement is extended by five years, through June 30, 2030. This ensures continuity of law enforcement services while allowing time for future strategic planning and optional renewal provisions beyond the new end date.
2. Update to Indirect Cost Recovery Discussions
The amendment removes the previous requirement to meet and confer only when indirect costs exceed 27.9%. Instead, it establishes annual meetings between City and Sheriff’s Office staff to review and discuss the indirect cost rate regardless of the amount. This change reflects a more collaborative, consistent approach to fiscal oversight and enhances transparency and budget predictability.
3. Removal of Youth and Family Services Cost-Sharing Provision The amendment eliminates the 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement between the City and County for Youth and Family Services. This change reflects a mutual decision to discontinue the joint funding of this specific program. The City and County intend to support youth and family needs through alternative approaches and programs that better align with current community priorities and service delivery models.
Additional administrative and fiscal clarifications have been incorporated into the amended agreement. These include codification of the County’s use of federally recognized A-87 cost Agenda Item #9.2:
allocation principles, the City’s right to independently review overhead charges, and a commitment to equitable treatment if indirect cost exclusions are applied to other jurisdictions.
The revenue section has also been simplified to reflect current funding practices for grants and asset forfeitures.
Recommended Council Action
Adopt a resolution approving the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between the County of Sonoma and the City of Sonoma and authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment.
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
The First Amendment is expected to have the following fiscal impacts:
Improved Budget Planning:
By extending the agreement term through 2030, the City gains greater certainty and predictability in budgeting for law enforcement services over the long term. Enhanced Oversight of Indirect Costs:
Annual reviews of indirect cost calculations—now required regardless of percentage increase—will allow for more proactive financial planning and ensure that the City stays informed about cost drivers and potential adjustments. Cost Savings from Youth and Family Services Program Changes:
The elimination of the City’s 50% share of Youth and Family Services results in general fund savings estimated at $50,000–$70,000 annually, depending on previous contribution levels. These resources may be redirected to support alternative local or regional efforts targeting youth and family needs.
No Additional Financial Commitments:
The Amendment does not introduce new programs or expanded services that would require additional funding.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
Resolution
SPD LE Services Amendment thru 6.30.30
Law Enforcement Contract Components
Agenda Item #9.2:
City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # ___- 2025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SONOMA AND THE COUNTY OF SONOMA AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Sonoma (“City”) and the County of Sonoma (“County”) entered into an Agreement for Law Enforcement Services effective July 1, 2020, under which the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services within the City’s jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the original Agreement established a five-year term, provisions for indirect cost recovery, and a cost-sharing arrangement for Youth and Family Services; and WHEREAS, the City and County desire to amend the Agreement to extend its term, improve fiscal transparency, and realign service funding structures in response to changing community priorities and administrative practices; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the Agreement includes the following key changes:
• Extends the agreement term by five years, from the current expiration date of June 30, 2025, to a new expiration date of June 30, 2030, with options for further extensions up to ten years upon mutual agreement.
• Removes the prior requirement to “meet and confer” only when indirect costs exceed
27.9% and instead requires mandatory annual meetings between City and Sheriff’s Office staff to review and discuss all indirect cost allocations. • Eliminates the 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement between the City and County for Youth and Family Services, reflecting a mutual decision to discontinue joint funding and instead support those needs through alternative strategies and programs.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that approval of this amendment supports continuity of law enforcement services, enhances financial accountability, and allows the City to reallocate limited resources more effectively.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sonoma as follows:
1. The City Council hereby approves the First Amendment to the Agreement for Law Enforcement Services between the City of Sonoma and the County of Sonoma, substantially in the form presented to the Council.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the First Amendment on behalf of the City of Sonoma and to take all actions reasonably necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution.
3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC
Agenda Item #9.2:
Agenda Item #9.2:
Agenda Item #9.2:
Agenda Item #9.2:
OVERVIEW OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
CITY OF SONOMA AND SONOMA COUNTY VIA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
Legal contract for provision of law enforcement services between the City of Sonoma and the Sheriff’s Department of Sonoma County. Outlines that the contract covers all all public safety, managerial, traffic enforcement, special services, and administrative services and enforcement of State statutes and City codes and ordinances that is customarily performed by police departments and police chiefs.
No annual costs or levels of service contained in the contract. (See Service Plan) City pays actual costs of service based on Annual Service Plan.
Either party can cancel the contract with 2-year notice.
ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN
All services to be performed by County shall be set forth in an annual Service Plan, as defined in Section 3 of the Contract. Prior to each fiscal year, an annual Service Plan will be agreed to mutually by both parties. A Cost Estimate will also be provided along with the Service Plan. The Sheriff’s Department reserves the right to ensure that the level of service agreed upon can provide for adequate community and officer safety.
The Service Plan will include the following components:
Staffing Levels
Staffing Schedules
Position Descriptions
Services, Programs and Procedures
Training Requirements
Vehicle Requirements
Miscellaneous Equipment Requirements
Performance Objectives
ANNUAL BUDGET
After review of the Service Plan and the Cost Estimate, the City Council approves an annual budget for the Police Department.
Agenda Item #9.2:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 16 Jul 2025
Department
Community Development
Department
Staff Contact
Jennifer Gates, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda Item Title
A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Burbank Housing for an Affordable Housing Grant and Associated Budget Transfer of $250,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the Purchase of 18 Units in the City of Sonoma for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
Summary
On April 1, 2025, the City received notice of intent to sell two affordable housing properties located within the City limits with affordable housing agreements. In accordance with the agreement, the City, or its designee, has 90 days’ notice before it may exercise the City's right of first refusal to purchase affordable housing units. The properties include 673First Street West, known as "Setzer Senior Affordable Apartments," which includes eight (8) units affordable to low income (80% of area median income or AMI) senior households and 270 First Street East, known as "Maysonnave Apartments," which includes 10 units affordable to low income (80% AMI) households. The Setzer Apartments agreement expired in May 2023, and the Maysonnave Apartments agreement will expire in August 2025.
To preserve the affordable units, City staff immediately reached out to different non-profits to determine interest and identified Burbank Housing as the City's designee. Burbank Housing intends to purchase all 18 units through different loans, including a BAHFA (Bay Area Housing Finance Authority) Housing Preservation Loan. With a purchase price of $5 million, Burbank is requesting a $250,000 grant to cover a funding gap for the purchase and renovation of the units.
In May 2019, the City adopted an Affordable Housing Trust Fund policy that identified the potential use of the fund for grants or loans for the preservation or creation of affordable units in the City (see attached Policy). As such, the City Council has the authority to provide a grant as requested by Burbank Housing.
If the grant is approved by City Council, Staff would enter into an agreement with Burbank Housing with the following terms:
City maintains options to purchase affordable housing units before resale; Burbank to continue maintaining the units as affordable housing for a term of not less than 55 years;
Tenant’s income may increase above 80% AMI if their income improves up to a maximum of 120% of AMI as long as overall average income of the tenancy does not exceed 80% average AMI (BAFHA term);
Burbank agrees to lease the units at a monthly rent that does not exceed 30% of 80% of Sonoma County median income, adjusted for household size; and Grant is to be refunded if terms and conditions violated or property acquisition fails.
Agenda Item #9.3:
Environmental Review:
This action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, as an organization or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Recommended Council Action
If City Council directs staff to move forward with affordable housing grant request, staff recommends City Council adopt the attached resolution to authorize City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to provide a letter of funding commitment and develop the necessary grant agreement document providing up to $250,000 to Burbank Housing for the purchase of 18 existing affordable units, subject to successful award of required financing for the purchase of the units on or before December 31, 2025 and amend the FY 25-26 Budget to appropriate $250,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to the Affordable Housing Grant.
Alternative Actions
City Council discretion.
Financial Impact
The recommended action is to use $250,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust Unreserved Fund Balance ($2,654,081.44) to provide a grant to Burbank Housing. The grant will be issued from the Affordable Housing Grant account (732-45010-850-70850), contingent upon Burbank Housing securing the necessary financing for the purchase of the units on or before December 31, 2025. Burbank Housing anticipates closing the financing by October 2025.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
CC Resolution Budget Amendment
Exhibit A Budget Adjustment Form
Affordable Housing Trust Fund Policy
Agenda Item #9.3:
City of Sonoma
RESOLUTION # _______ - 2025
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SONOMA AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BURBANK HOUSING
FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING GRANT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 ADOPTED BUDGET
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the City of Sonoma (“City”) received notice of future sale of ten (10) affordable units at 270 First Street East and eight (8) affordable units at 673 First Street West with expiring or expired affordability contracts; and WHEREAS, the City has a right of first refusal before sale of the 18 units to allow it or its designee to acquire the properties to preserve existing affordable units; and WHEREAS, the City designated purchasing authority to Burbank Housing to exercise its right of first refusal; and
WHEREAS, Burbank Housing has requested $250,000 to cover the gap between available financing and the purchase price for the 18 units as determined through an arms-length negotiation; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide a grant of $250,000 to Burbank Housing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the preservation of existing affordable units; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2025, the City Council of the City adopted the budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and
WHEREAS, the changes in anticipated revenues and/or expenditures of the City of Sonoma necessitates amendments to the appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025-26; and WHEREAS, the budgeted expenditures do not exceed anticipated revenue and available fund balance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget amendment; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to provide a letter of funding commitment and develop the necessary grant agreement document providing up to $250,000 to Burbank Housing for the purchase of 18 existing affordable units, subject to successful award of required financing and the purchase of the units on or before December 31, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sonoma that the budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2025-26 as contained in Exhibit A to this resolution are hereby adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section Agenda Item #9.3:
15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, as an organization or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
PASSED, RESOLVED, AND ADOPTED, at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sonoma on this 16th day of July 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Patricia Farrar-Rivas, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Rebekah Barr, MMC, City Clerk
Agenda Item #9.3:
Batch ID#:
Entered By:
Date:
Request Date: 6/18/2025 Fiscal Year: 2025-26
Requesting Department: Communilty Development Department Adjustment Description: Affordable Housing Grants
Requestor: Jennifer Gates
Department Head Approval: Jennifer Gates Date: 6/10/2025 Finance Review: Prapti Aryal Date: 6/10/2025
City Manager Approval (if required)*: Date:
Net Adjustment:
Justification:
City Clerk Signature (if required)**: Date:
Budget Adjustment Form
Account Description of Adjustment Increase / (Decrease) Finance Department Use Only
Total Revenue Adjustments:
Account Description of Adjustment
732-45010-850-70850 Affordable Housing Grants
Total Expenditure Adjustments: $ 250,000.00
$ 250,000.00
* City Manager Approval required for transfers between departments within the same fund, any changes to salary/benefit budgets, or matching increases to revenue and expense budgets.
** City Clerk Signature indicates that the requested Budget Adjustment was approved by Council. -
Increase / (Decrease)
$ 250,000.00
$ 250,000.00
TOTAL DEBIT
Make funds available for a grant to Burbank Housing from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. $ -
TOTAL CREDIT
Agenda Item #9.3:
CITY OF SONOMA
HOUSING TRUST FUND
A
lam
Administrative Guidelines
Planning and Community Services Department
As adopted by the City Council on May 20, 2019 by Resolution # EE)—2019 Agenda Item #9.3:
City of Sonoma
Housing Trust Fund
Administrative Guidelines
Chapter 1: Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the City of Sonoma Housing Trust Fund, (hereinafter referred to as the HTF), is to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the City of Sonoma for the benefit of vewlow, low and moderate-income households
Chapter 2: Definitions
1. ”Area median income” or “AMI"is established for metropolitan areas or non—metropolitan counties by the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pursuant to 42 U. S. C. Chapter 1437 et seq., to establish local income classi?cation levels. These classifications are also used in California housing law with respect to income eligibility limits. ”Affordable Housing" for purposes of these Guidelines shall mean rental housing that is affordable to low and/or vew—lowincome households and for sale housing that is affordable to moderate, low and/or very—lowincome households.
“Extremely low income household” shall mean a household having an income not exceeding thirty (30) percent of AMIadjusted for householdsize.
“Very low income household” shall mean a household having an income not exceeding fifty (50) percent of Am adjusted for household size.
“Low income household" shall mean a household having an income not exceeding eighty (80) percent of the AMI adjusted for household size.
“Moderate income household" shall mean a household having an income not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) percent of the AMIadjusted for household size. “ mpact Fees” are fees paid by market rate developers for either residential or non-residential projects consistent with a nexus study and the Mitigation Fee Act. ”in—LieuFees” are fees paid by a market rate developer in lieu of building affordable units on— site within the development for four or fewer units as a means of satisfying the City’s inclusionary housing requirement as speci?ed under Chapter 19.44 of the Sonoma Municipal Code. Under these Guidelines, the ln~Lieu Fees willhenceforth be dedicated to the HTF as stipulated below.
Agenda Item #9.3:
Chapter 3: Housing Trust Fund Established
1. 4.
By adoption of Resolution No. ig on MINZD, 2019, the City Council establishes a trust fund for a special revenue account under the name of the "Housing Trust Fund".
Accumulated and future Moderate, Low or Very—LowIncome Housing Fund ln-Lieu Fee dedications under Chapter 19.44 of the Municipal Code shall become HTF property and shall be deposited directly into the HTF.
The HTF may accept donations from individualsor organizations other than the City of Sonoma. Such donations may not be designated for a specific project or purpose and may be used for purposes as determined by the City Council either in the City of Sonoma or within Sonoma Valley.
Allmoneys remaining in the HTF at the end of any fiscal year, whether or not expended by the City, remain within the HTF.
Chapter 4: Distribution & Use of Housing Trust Fund Assets
1. Distributions may be made to individuals and/or private or public, profit or non—for—pro?t entities.
The types of investments the fund may make include: gifts, grants, loan guarantees, letters of credit or other forms of credit enhancement, or other disbursements deemed necessary and appropriate to fulfillthe purposes of the HTF.
Types of projects in which the HTF may invest include:
a.
b,
Creation of new affordable units;
Preservation of existing affordable housing;
Assistance with multi-family rehabilitation programs;
Conversion of market rate units to affordable housing units; Support of the construction of accessory dwelling units; Acquisition and rehabilitation of potential limited equity housing operatives; First time homebuyer loans or other forms of assistance; Predevelopment loans/grants to assist non-profit and for—profitdevelopers with project feasibility studies, site acquisition and preliminary design studies for potential affordable housing projects;
Administrative costs for affordable housing programs and projects; Program development, research or community engagement efforts focusing on housing matters; and
Purchase of [and for the development of affordable housing projects.
Agenda Item #9.3:
Chapter 5: Management
1. The Planning and Community Services Director shall serve as the Manager of the Housing Trust Fund The responsibilities of the Manager, subject to direction of the City Council, shall include:
a. Maintaining all records of the HTFt
b. Assisting prospective applicants requesting HTF support in the preparation and presentation of their applications;
c. Monitoring the use of monies distributed to successful applicants for HTF support to assure ongoing compliance with the purposes of the HTF and the conditions under which these monies were granted or loaned; and d. Reporting annually to the City Council regarding the operation and activity of the HTF with assistance from the City’s Finance staff.
The City Manager, or designee, in coordination with the Manager of the Housing Trust Fund shall be responsible for the following:
a. Disbursing and collecting HTF monies.
b. Maintaining and managing a separate account or accounts for HTF monies. c. Maintaining financial records for the HTF.
Agenda Item #9.3:
City of Sonoma
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting: City Council - 16 Jul 2025
Department
Public Works
Staff Contact
Michael Berger, Public Works Director
Agenda Item Title
Priority Projects for Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities (SCTCA) Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects
Summary
In 2021, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA, now Sonoma County Transit and Climate Authorities - SCTCA) established the SCTA Funding Program to strategically coordinate funding and program the best projects with the various fund sources available. The funding sources available include the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program (LPP-F), One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), and the Go Sonoma sales tax measure. The intent was to streamline the various funding processes for the benefit of multiple agencies across Sonoma County and ensure that resources are directed toward the highest-priority regional transportation projects. Cycle 1 of the SCTA Funding Program resulted in investment in the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project (CIP T-6), for a construction phase allocation of $1.6 million dollars.
A call for projects was released on June 11th for SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2. This round of funding will distribute approximately $100 million dollars in funding across fiscal years 2025- 26 through 2030-31 from Federal, State, and regional funding sources. For Cycle 2, these funding sources include OBAG 4, 2026 STIP, 2024 and 2026 SB1 LPP-F, Go Sonoma MTIS (Move Traffic - Improve Safety Funding), Go Sonoma BBP (Build Bikeways and Pathways), and Graton Tribal Mitigation Funds.
Cycle 2 applications are due on August 8, 2025. SCTCA is requesting that project sponsors (9 cities, County of Sonoma, and transit operators), submit their top five priority projects. SCTCA will score each project based on a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation rubric developed to meet the goals and requirements of the funding sources available. SCTCA will pair the strongest projects with the most appropriate funding resources.
The SCTCA application and scoring rubric are attached. They are geared towards specifically addressing the goals of the Sonoma County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), Plan Bay Area 2050+, and the Go Sonoma Tax Measure. The projects will be scored on meeting program requirements as well as local and regional goals for equity, climate resiliency, safety, public health, housing diversity and affordability, infrastructure condition and project readiness.
Projects submitted to Cycle 2 must be in the County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. City staff discussed projects that would score competitively based on the Cycle 2 scoring rubric. 200 points are available per project, as outlined below:
1. Benefit to Equity Priority Communities (10 points)
2. Potential for Mode Shift - this is a change in travel behaviors (20 points)
3. Collisions and Safety (25 points)
4. Public Participation and Community Support (25 points)
5. Improved Public Health (10 points)
Agenda Item #9.4:
6. Leveraging Non-SCTCA Funding Program Funds (20 points)
7. Project Readiness (20 points)
8. Project Location (20)
9. Emission Reduction (30 points)
10. Employment Opportunities, and Access to Training and Education (10 points)
11. Congestion, Reliability and Traffic Flow (10 points)
12. Infrastructure Condition (10 points)
Staff has prepared a list of potential projects after evaluating projects included in the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), and Active Transportation Plan (ATP), as well as evaluating the scoring criteria. Of the seven projects, four of them are for construction phase allocations for existing infrastructure, and three are planning related projects for new investment.
Ranking
(select
top 5)
Project
Name Location Estimated Project Cost
Established
Match (CIP
already
created?)
Grant
Request
(advised
to be no
less than
$250k)
1. Road
Rehabilitation
on First Street
West from the
Plaza to
Police
Department
First Street
West
$1.3 million ($1
million
construction,
$300 Pre
Design/Design)
No, would
need to create
CIP. Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$1 million
2. Road
Rehabilitation
Projects at
Andrieux from
2nd Street
West to
Broadway,
Verano from
Fifth Street
West to City
Limits, and
Seventh
Street West
from West
Spain street
to West Napa
Street
Listed in
Project Name
$3.0 million
($2.5 million
construction,
$300,000
design,
$200,000
R/W/Env)
No, would
need to create
CIP. Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$2.5 million
3. Broadway
Sidewalk
Displacement
and
streetscape
improvements
(PID)
Broadway
from the
Plaza to
Patten St
$6 million (all
project phases)
Yes, CIP T-7,
Broadway
Streetscape
improvements.
Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$500,000
(Planning
and Right
of Way -
R/W -
grant)
Agenda Item #9.4:
4. Sidewalk Gap
Closure
Project (PID)
Miscellaneous
locations,
addressing
Tier 1 Gaps
$4 million (all
project phases)
Yes, CIP T-4,
would be
beneficial to
set up new
project
specifically for
this work.
Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$500,000
(Planning
and R/W
grant) -
R/W is
anticipated
to be costly
5. Road
Rehabilitation
and Bike
Boulevard on
Newcomb
Street
Newcomb
Street
$3.5 million
(Construction:
$2.5 million,
R/W,
permitting,
$600,000,
design,
$400,000)
No, would
need to create
CIP. Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$3 million
6. Lovall Valley
Road Bike
Boulevard
(PID)
Lovall Valley
Road
$6 million (all
project phases)
No, would
need to create
CIP. Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$450,000
(Planning
and R/W
grant)
7. Installation of
ADA Ramps
Miscellaneous
locations $2.5 million
No, would
need to create
CIP. Match
possibilities:
Fund 303,
302, 315, 301
$2 million
Proposing local funds as leverage for additional outside funding through the Funding Program Cycle 2 will make a project more competitive. Additionally, if any of the City's projects area awarded SCTCA Cycle 2 Funding, local matching contributions will likely be required (in the case of the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project - CIP T-6, a 15% match was required). In both of these situations, the City will need to consider that the transportationrestricted funds that the City receives as formula-based allocations (such as Gas Tax, SB1, and the Go Sonoma Roads - previously Measure M - programs) have been partially planned for the next five years. This includes projects such as Biennial Slurry Seal (CIP T-3), Citywide Sidewalk Inspection and Repair Program (CIP T-4), and Ongoing Pavement Rehabilitation and Water Services Replacement Projects (CIP T-5). Relying solely on existing transportation-restricted revenue may be insufficient to both address our current projects and support match funding for new capital projects. To address this possible funding gap, the City Council may need to evaluate the use of General Fund funds to provide match for awarded projects.
Recommended Council Action
Provide direction to staff regarding the selection of five (5) priority transportation projects to submit to the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities (SCTCA) Funding Program Cycle 2.
Agenda Item #9.4:
Alternative Actions
Council discretion.
Financial Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact of the City Council providing direction on priority projects for SCTCA Funding Cycle 2. The long-term fiscal impact of these actions includes potentially requiring funds to be budgeted for a "local match" for any Federal funding and/or grants that may be awarded as part of this process. The matches typically range from 0%-20% of the total project budget. An amendment to the Capital Improvement Program Budget will be brought to City Council for consideration, should one or more of the City's proposed projects be moved forward for funding consideration.
Environmental Review Status
Environmental Impact Report
Negative Declaration
Exempt
Not Applicable
Approved/Certified
No Action Required
Action Requested
Attachments
SCTCA Priority Project Presentation
2025 SCTCA Funding Cycle 2 Application
SCTA-Funding-Program-Cycle-2-Evaluation-Criteria
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
1 Priority Projects for
the Sonoma County
Transit and Climate
Authorities Funding
Program Cycle 2
July 16, 2025
City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 1
Agenda
• SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2
• Funding Availability
• Scoring Criteria
• Goals
• Priority Projects
• Feedback
City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 2
1 2
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
2 SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2
• 2021 – SCTCA established SCTCA Funding program
to strategically coordinate funding.
• One application per project, to be evaluated for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Senate
Bill 1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program (LPP-F),
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), and the local Go
Sonoma Tax Measure.
• SCTCA Cycle 1 Program Funding – City of Sonoma
awarded $1.6 million in Go Sonoma funds for Citywide
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (CIP T-6).
City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 3
Funding
Availability
• Estimated $100 million available through FY 2030.
• Go Sonoma BBP: Build Bikeways and Pathways
• Go Sonoma MTIS: Move Traffic – Improve Safety
• STIP: State Transportation Improvement Program
• OBAG: One Bay Area Grant
• LPP-F: SB1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program
City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 4
3 4
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
3 Scoring Criteria
• SCTCA created the application and scoring criteria,
and will score each project based on this scoring rubric City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 5 Goals • Staff is looking for feedback on proposed projects
• Five projects will be submitted to SCTCA for consideration by August 5, 2025
• Seven projects will be presented for consideration, presented based on staff rank
• Scoring criteria staff used: project readiness, support for the project, and possibility of project success/completion
6 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
5 6
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
4 Priority Projects – Project No .1
• Road Rehabilitation on First Street West from the Plaza to Police Department/Council Chambers
• Staff ranked #1 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria
• Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Rating is 35 for this section (65-70 is “good”). Approx. 2,000 linear feet (approx. 1/3 of a mile) • Estimated project cost: $1.3 million; grant request: $1 million 7 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
Priority Projects – Project No. 1
8 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
7 8
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
5 Priority Projects – Project No .2
• Road Rehabilitation Projects at Andrieux Street from Second Street West to Broadway, Verano from Fifth Street West to City Limits, and Seventh Street West from West Spain Street to West Napa Street
• Staff ranked #2 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria
• Pavement Condition Index Ratings for these sections are: Verano – 53, Andrieux – 49, Seventh Street West - 26
• Estimated project cost: $3.0 million; grant request: $2.5 million 9 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
10 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
9 10
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
6 3,114 linear feet
across these three
sections of roadway
City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 11 Priority Projects – Project No .3 • Broadway Sidewalk Displacement and Streetscape Improvement • Staff ranked #3 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria
• There are significant sidewalk displacements along both sides of Broadway, addressing these and enhancing the streetscape will improve the experience for all users
• Staff is recommending to move forward with this project for a planning phase allocation
• Estimated project cost: $6.0 million; grant request: $500,000 12 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
11 12
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
7 Priority Projects – Project No. 3
13 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
Priority Projects – Project No .4
• Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closures
• Staff ranked #4 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria
• The City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan addresses sidewalk gap closures prioritized by Tiers One – Three (High, Medium, Low) • The project is currently proposed for Tier One Sidewalk Gap Closures • Staff is recommending to move forward with this project for a planning phase allocation
• Estimated project cost: $6.0 million; grant request: $500,000 14 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
13 14
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
8 15 Priority Projects – Project No .5
• Road Rehabilitation and Bike Boulevard Installation on Newcomb Street • Staff ranked #5 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria • The City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan addresses a bike boulevard on Newcomb Street as a Tier One priority project
• The PCI for the majority of Newcomb Street is 8, so conditions are favorable for a road rehabilitation and before the striping project; approx. 1,800 linear feet
• Estimated project cost: $3.5 million; grant request: $3,000,000 16 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
15 16
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
9 Priority Projects – Project No. 5
17 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
Priority Projects – Project No .6
• Lovall Valley Road Bike Boulevard from 4th Street East to 7th Street East • Staff ranked #6 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria • The City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan addresses a bike boulevard on Lovall Valley Road with traffic calming treatments from 4th Street East to 7th Street East as a Tier One (High Priority) project
• Project is currently proposed as for a planning allocation, as this will require coordination amongst various agencies
• Estimated project cost: $6.0 million for all project phases; grant request:
$450,000
18 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
17 18
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
10 19 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 Priority Projects – Project No .7
• Installation of ADA Ramps at Miscellaneous locations Citywide • Staff ranked #7 Project due to ability to construct, demonstrated City need, benefit to bike/pedestrian users, competitive against scoring criteria
• Various ADA ramps to be installed throughout the City to improve experience for all users
• Estimated project cost: $2.5 million; grant request: $2 million 20 City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025
19 20
Agenda Item #9.4:
7/11/2025
11 Feedback?
Thank you!
City of Sonoma City Council Meeting – July 16, 2025 21
21 Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 1 of 19
June 10, 2025
TO: Eligible Applicants
FROM: Seana Gause, Senior – Programming and Projects
SUBJECT: SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 - Call for Projects; projects due 8/8/2025 SCTCA is issuing a call for all projects for the SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 to program federal, State, and local funds for fiscal years 2025-26 through 2030-31. SCTCA asks project sponsors to identify the highest priorities in each jurisdiction in order for SCTCA to strategically program the best projects with the various fund sources available. Knowing the priorities of each jurisdiction will help SCTCA assess and prepare projects for the multiple funding programs, particularly the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 4 funds that are expected to be released in early 2026. The initial programming focus is for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Formulaic Program (LPP-F) in order to meet MTC/CTC deadlines this fall.
SCTCA is requesting that project sponsors submit their top 5 priority projects (top 10 for the City of Santa Rosa and the County of Sonoma), and transit operators may also submit up to 5 priorities. Project sponsors should consider that SCTCA will program projects for the 2026 STIP and 2024 and 2026 SB 1 LPP-F programming first ($18M total available), but with the understanding that priorities will also be considered for the other sources listed below..
Project sponsors must have a master agreement with Caltrans to receive federal and State transportation funding and must also meet all the minimum requirements as established in Regional Delivery Guidelines (MTC Resolution 3606) and the SCTCA application instructions. If an applicant does not meet these requirements they must partner with an agency that does.
All projects must be included in the 2050 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) or the update to the CTP, advance the goals of the Regional and Comprehensive Transportation Plans, and are subject to the requirements and guidelines of the respective funding programs.
Applications for funding must be prepared by eligible project sponsors and delivered to SCTCA staff ([email protected]) no later than close of business August 8, 2025.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 2 of 19
The funding sources considered as part of this call are:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Funding Sources
Funding Type Est. Amount ($M) SCTCA
Action
MTC
Action
CTC
Adoption
Fiscal
Years
OBAG 4 (STP/CMAQ) Federal $19.8 Sep-26 Jan-26 N/A FY 27-30 2026 STIP State/Fed $16.0 Sep-25 Dec-25 Mar-26 FY 30-31 2024 and 2026 SB 1 LPP-F State $2.0 Sep-25 N/A TBD FY 26–29 Go Sonoma MTIS Local $34.2 Feb-27 N/A N/A FY 28–31
Go Sonoma BBP Local $14.0 Feb-27 N/A N/A FY 28–31
Graton Tribal Mitigation Funds Local $14.0 Feb-27 N/A N/A FY 26–31 Total $100.0
STIP specific information:
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) will release the draft 2026 STIP fund estimate in June 2025 and expects to adopt the final STIP fund estimate in August along with the STIP Guidelines. The SCTCA Board will approve staff recommendations for nominations for the 2026 STIP programming in September 2025 as project submittals are due to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) October 6, 2025. MTC will approve projects in December 2025. All projects nominated for the 2026 STIP must have completed a Project Study Report (PSR) or equivalent before being approved by MTC in December 2025. and the CTC will approve the 2026 STIP projects in March 2026.
Once a proposed project is selected for STIP funds by approval of the SCTCA Board, project sponsors will be required to submit a complete and accurate SCTCA Funding Program Project Nomination Sheet (which may be a revision of the original submittal, depending on the amount of funds available for programming and approved by the SCTCA Board).
All necessary and required application materials are attached and may also be found in their native file formats at the SCTCA website http://scta.ca.gov/projects/funding/ Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 3 of 19
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 schedule:
June 9, 2025 SCTCA Board approves Final Scoring Criteria and Call for Projects August 8, 2025 SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Applications due to SCTCA August 14, 2025 CTC adopts Final 2026 STIP Fund Estimate August 28, 2025 2026 STIP and 2024 LPP-F recommendations presented to TAC September 9, 2025 2026 STIP and 2024 LPP-F recommendations approval by SCTCA Board October 2025 2026 STIP nominations due to MTC
March 2026 2026 STIP adoption by CTC
March 2026 OBAG 4 Call for Projects by MTC
July 2026 Draft SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) and OBAG 4 staff recommendations September 2026 Draft SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) and OBAG 4 approval by SCTCA Board September 2026 OBAG 4 Nominations due to MTC
Winter 2026 OBAG 4 Program of Projects approved by MTC
Early 2027 Final SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) approval by SCTCA Board Summer/Fall 2027 2027 Go Sonoma Strategic Implementation Plan approval by SCTCA Board Useful links:
Priority Development Area and Equity Priority Communities Maps 2021 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Draft Plan Bay Area 2050+
2026 State Transportation Improvement Program Guidelines CTP Priority Project List from jurisdictions
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Evaluation Criteria
For more general information about the application or process, please contact:
Seana Gause [email protected] 707-565-5372
David Ripperda [email protected] 707-565-2180
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 4 of 19
Project Sponsor:
Single Point of Contact:
Email/Phone:
Project Manager:
Email/Phone:
Project Title:
Project Location/Description:
Eligible Project Type:
SCTCA is seeking every jurisdiction’s highest transportation priorities in order to develop the SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2. All modes and project types will be considered based on fund source requirements.
Moving Forward 2050 Goals: Following our guiding principles to improve safety, equity, and quality of life, please describe the relationship of the project to achieving the vision that connects people and places as we transition our transportation network to zero-emissions by 2050. What goals will the project work toward?
Link: Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Link: Draft Plan Bay Area 2050+
Please describe:
Check which goals apply:
Connected and Reliable Community oriented and Place Based Safe and Well-Maintained Zero-Emissions
Schedule: Include assumptions and risks concerning the project schedule, for example environmental requirements for biological studies, etc. Specifically address deliverability and project readiness:
Phase Begin MO/YR End MO/YR
Scoping
ENV
PSE
R/W
CON
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 5 of 19
Select the OBAG 4 federal fund source(s) for which the project is eligible:
☐ Surface Transportation Block Grant (STP) Program (See FHWA fact sheet) ☐ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program (See FHWA fact sheet) Note: projects eligible for CMAQ funding must provide inputs for air quality improvement calculations, using templates provided on the OBAG 4 webpage.
Select the eligible project type(s) (refer to MTC Resolution No. 4505 for detailed eligibility guidelines):
Growth Framework Implementation
☐ PDA Planning Grant
☐ Local Planning Grant (for other Plan Bay Area 2050
Growth Geographies)
Complete Streets & Community Choice
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
☐ Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Non-Infrastructure
program
☐ SRTS Infrastructure
☐ Safety project
☐ Safety Planning efforts
☐ Complete Streets improvements
☐ Streetscape improvements
☐ Local Streets and Roads Preservation
☐ Rural Roadway Improvement
☐ Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) or
Participatory Budgeting (PB) Process in an Equity
Priority Community (EPC)
☐ CBTP/PB Project Implementation
Climate, Conservation, & Resilience
☐ Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
☐ Mobility Hub
☐ Parking/Curb Management
☐ Car/Bike Share Capital
☐ Open Space Preservation and Enhancement
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Access to Open
Space/Parkland
☐ Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
Multimodal Systems Operations & Performance
☐ Transit Capital Improvement
☐ Transit Station Improvement
☐ Transit Transformation Action Plan Project
Implementation
☐ Active Operational Management
☐ Mobility Management and coordination
☐ Project does not contain activities ineligible for
OBAG 4 funding, including: air quality non-exempt
projects, new roadways, roadway extensions, right of
way acquisition for future expansion, operations, and
routine maintenance.
☐ Project has a minimum total project cost of
$250,000 for OBAG 4 funds. On a case by case
basis, MTC may program a grant award that is
below the minimum, but no less than $150,000.
These exceptions are subject to MTC staff
discretion
Date Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) adopted by
governing body:
______________________________________________
Has the LRSP been updated or is it currently being
updated?
___________________________________________
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 6 of 19
Project Investment by Mode:
Mode Share of project
investment
Auto %
Transit %
Bicycle/Pedestrian %
Other %
Total 100%
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 7 of 19
#1 Benefit to Equity Priority Communities:
A. Map of Project Boundaries, Access and Destination (REQUIRED) Provide a detailed Project Map showing scale, project boundaries of the proposed project/program/plan and the geographic boundaries of any Equity Priority Communities.
B. Identification of Equity Priority Community (EPC)
If the project is in an Equity Priority Community or benefiting an EPC, please provide information on all census tract/block group/place # that the project affects.
Census Tract/Block Group/Place
#
Population Median Household
Income
C. Direct Benefit
1. Explain how the project closes a gap, provides connections to or addresses a deficiency or meets an important community need for the EPC.
2. Explain how the EPC residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan
3. Illustrate how the project was requested or supported by the EPC.
D. Project Location
Is project located in Equity Priority Community?
E. Severity
Calculated by SCTCA based on information provided in the table above.
Question #2: Potential for Mode Shift
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 8 of 19
A. Describe the specific mode shift that the proposed project/plan/program will address.
B. Describe how the proposed project/plan/program will address the potential mode shift and/or transit need.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 9 of 19
Question #3 Collisions and Safety
A. Describe and provide a map of the plan/program influence area or project location’s history of collisions resulting in fatalities and injuries to non-motorized users and the sources) of data used (e.g. collision reports, community observation, surveys, audits).
Attach heat maps, collision maps, summaries and reports as necessary. a) New Traffic Signals: all crashes within 250 feet of the new signal b) For intersection or mid-block crossing improvements, collisions that occurred within 250 feet of the intersection/mid-block crossing in all directions affected by the improvement may be used. c) Longitudinal improvements (roadway resurfacing, bike lanes, sidewalks, road diets, etc.): all crashes potentially effected by and within the limits of the improvement. d) If improvements represent a new route and there is no past crash and safety data available, the applicant should consider the potential for the project to eliminate or reduce existing conflict points on parallel routes.
e) The influence area may be extended beyond the physical improvements and/or the limits above if standard traffic engineering principles, as documented in Caltrans, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AHSTO) or FHWA publication suggest it would be appropriate to do so.
How many years of collision data were used in the Heat Maps and Collision Summaries:
# of Crashes Pedestrians Bicycle Total Average Per Year Fatalities
Injuries
Total
For Plans/Programs describe how the project educates cyclists, pedestrians and/or drivers about safety hazards and encourages safe behavior, including through enforcement:
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 10 of 19
B. Safety Countermeasures
Describe how the project/program/plan will remedy (one or more) potential safety hazards that contribute to injuries or fatalities; Countermeasures must directly address the underlying factors that are contributing to the occurrence of collisions. a. Reduces speed and volume of motor vehicles in the proximity of non-motorized users b. Improves sight distance and visibility between motorized and non-motorized users. c. Eliminates potential conflict points between motorized users and non-motorized users, including creating physical separation between motorized and non-motorized users. d. Improves compliance with local traffic laws for both motorized and non-motorized users e. Addresses inadequate vehicular traffic control devices f. Inadequate or unsafe bicycle facilities, trails, crosswalks and/or sidewalks? g. Eliminates or reduces behaviors that lead to collisions involving non-motorized users Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 11 of 19
Question #4: Public Participation and Community Support Describe the community based public participation process that culminated in the project/program proposal or will be utilized as part of the development of a plan.
A. What is/was the process of defining future policies, goals, investments and designs to prepare for future needs of users of this project? How did the applicant analyze the wide range of alternatives and impacts on the transportation system to influence beneficial outcomes? B. Describe who was/will be engaged in the identification and development of this project/program/plan (for plans: who will be engaged) and how they were/will be engaged.
Describe and provide documentation of the type, extent, and duration of outreach and engagement conducted to relevant stakeholders.
C. What: Describe the feedback received during the stakeholder engagement process and describe how the public participation and planning process has improved the project’s overall effectiveness at meeting the purpose and goals of the SCTCA Funding Program D. Describe how stakeholders will continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project/program/plan
Please attach any applicable Public Participation Documents Question #5 Improved Public Health
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 12 of 19
A. Describe the health status of the targeted users of the project/program/plan. Describe how you considered health benefits when developing this project or program (for plans: how will you consider health throughout the plan).
B. Describe how you expect your project/proposal/plan to promote healthy communities and provide outreach to the targeted users.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 13 of 19
Question #6 Leveraging of Non-SCTCA Funding Program Funds A. The application funding plan will show all federal, state and local funding for the project:
Fund Source by Phase Project Status
by Phase
Phase Total Cost Grant
Request Other Funds % Complete
Planning/
Conceptual $ $ $ Fund source; notes % complete
Environmental
Studies
(PA&ED)
$ $ $ Fund source; notes % complete
Design
Engineering
(PS&E)
$ $ $ Fund source; notes % complete
Right-of-way $ $ $ Fund source; notes % complete
Construction $ $ $ Fund source; notes % complete
Total $ $ $
Describe the Leveraging funding the applicant is committing to invest in the project if it is awarded SCTCA Funding Program funding (total value in dollars).
Only direct funding and the direct expenses for completing project delivery milestones can be used. Provide detailed information on actual costs for past milestones and estimated costs for future milestones.
Project Cost & Funding: Complete a 2025 SCTCA Funding Program Project Nomination Sheet (SEPARATE Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet provided by SCTCA) for each phase of your project. Provide ALL known sources of funding, insert your proposed request for funds. Please confirm that the computed Total Project Cost at the top of the spreadsheet reflects the escalated cost, based on the year of programming. Please provide any additional information, such as time limitations/restrictions associated with funding sources, which may affect your application:
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 14 of 19
QUESTION #7: PROJECT READINESS (0-20 POINTS)
Provide detailed information on completed project milestones. For completion of environmental compliance, provide a copy of the resolution or other documentation adopting the environmental document.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 15 of 19
QUESTION #8: Project Location
A. Describe the location of the project. Describe and provide a map showing how the project provides or improves connectivity across a combination of following key Community Activity Centers (CACs): (0-10 points)
• Employment centers • Compact commercial areas
• Transit Hubs/Station • Residential concentrations or
• Schools downtown/community cores
• Recreation Areas
PLUS:
Does the applicant have any jurisdictional policies that have been adopted that support a “3-Ps approach to affordable housing?
• Policies that protect current residents from displacement (with emphasis on policies that have demonstrated effectiveness in community stabilization and anti-displacement. • Policies that preserve existing affordable housing with emphasis on policies that have demonstrated effectiveness in community stabilization and anti-displacement. • Policies that produce new housing at all income levels.
B. Describe how the project supports development that reinforces and logically extends existing and planned development.
C. Describe how the project is located in an area (within a ¼ mile walk distance) with high levels of street connectivity for vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 16 of 19
Question #9: Emission Reduction
A. Project’s cost effectiveness of emissions reductions The following tools and resources should be used in order to demonstrate emissions reductions:
• For EV Charging projects use the EV Infrastructure worksheet https://scta.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/EV-Infrastructure-FYE-2026.xlsx • For Bicycle and Pedestrian projects, free fares programs, or Transportation Demand Management programs, use the Trip Reduction Worksheet https://scta.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/Trip-Reduction-FYE-2026.xlsx • For transit vehicle replacement projects use the emission reduction worksheets for vehicles 14,000 lbs or less https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Vehicles-14000-lbsless-FYE-2026.xlsx or Vehicles 14,000lbs + https://scta.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/Vehicles-14001-lbs-FYE-2026.xlsx • For traffic signal projects use the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Automated Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Tool developed by Caltrans and the Air Resources Board:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/planning/tsaq/eval/gendistricts.mdb • For roundabout projects use the CMAQ Roundabout Quantification Tool developed by SJCOG:
http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/4856/F-Roundabout-Quantification-Tool • For transit and rail expansion projects, use the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Quantification Methodology: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/auctionproceeds/calsta_tircp_finalcalculator_cycle4.xlsx • Any air quality non-exempt projects, new roadways, roadway extensions, right of way acquisition for future capacity increasing roadway expansion, operations, and routine maintenance are assumed to not reduce emissions and will receive zero points.
Please provide a copy of your emissions reductions model output.
B. Describe the projects strategies to reduce emissions Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 17 of 19
Question #10 Employment Opportunities and Access to Training and Education:
A. Describe how the project construction or implementation would positively impact employment opportunities within the community. This may include increasing community access to training and education
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 18 of 19
Question #11 Congestion, Reliability, and Traffic Flow
A. Describe how the project will reduce congestion, increase reliability and improve traffic flow in and around the area. Please reference the National Highway System (NHS) Map and state if your project is located on the NHS.
https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/apps/7cd9b8ff84504d1fa473fd3ea2a3c683/explore Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program Cycle 2 Call for Projects (FY26 through FY31) June 2025 Page 19 of 19
Question #12 Infrastructure Condition:
A. Describe how the project will improve the condition of transportation assets such as pavement, culverts, bridges, and public transit assets to maintain a state of good repair.
Include demonstrable improvements to performance measures such as Pavement Condition Index, remedying a substandard condition such as vertical clearance or insufficient sidewalk width, replacing ADA non-compliant facilities with the current standard, or replacing assets that have met or exceeded their useful life.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics Project ID:
Project Sponsor/Title:
OBAG 4 Eligibility Criteria:
Select the OBAG 4 federal fund source(s) for which the project is eligible:
☐ Surface Transportation Block Grant (STP) Program (See FHWA fact sheet) ☐ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program (See FHWA fact sheet) Note: projects eligible for CMAQ funding must provide inputs for air quality improvement calculations, using templates provided on the OBAG 4 webpage.
Select the eligible project type(s) (refer to MTC Resolution No. 4505 for detailed eligibility guidelines):
Growth Framework Implementation
☐ PDA Planning Grant
☐ Local Planning Grant (for other Plan Bay Area
2050 Growth Geographies)
Complete Streets & Community Choice
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
☐ Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Non-Infrastructure
program
☐ SRTS Infrastructure
☐ Safety project
☐ Safety Planning efforts
☐ Complete Streets improvements
☐ Streetscape improvements
☐ Local Streets and Roads Preservation
☐ Rural Roadway Improvement
☐ Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) or
Participatory Budgeting (PB) Process in an Equity
Priority Community (EPC)
☐ CBTP/PB Project Implementation
Climate, Conservation, & Resilience
☐ Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Program
☐ Mobility Hub
☐ Parking/Curb Management
☐ Car/Bike Share Capital
☐ Open Space Preservation and Enhancement
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Access to Open Space/Parkland
☐ Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
Multimodal Systems Operations & Performance
☐ Transit Capital Improvement
☐ Transit Station Improvement
☐ Transit Transformation Action Plan Project
Implementation
☐ Active Operational Management
☐ Mobility Management and coordination
☐ Project does not contain activities ineligible for
OBAG 4 funding, including: air quality non-exempt
projects, new roadways, roadway extensions, right of
way acquisition for future expansion, operations,
and routine maintenance.
☐ Project has a minimum total project cost of
$250,000 for OBAG 4 funds. On a case by case basis,
MTC may program a grant award that is below the
minimum, but no less than $150,000. These
exceptions are subject to MTC staff discretion
Date Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) adopted by
governing body:
______________________________________________________
Has the LRSP been updated or is it currently being
updated?
_________________________________________________________ This project is eligible for OBAG 4: Choose an item.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics Category Points Available Points
Awarded
1. Benefit to Equity Priority Communities 10
2. Potential for Mode Shift 20
3. Collisions and Safety 25
4. Public Participation and Community Support 15
5. Improved Public Health 10
6. Leveraging Non-SCTCA Funding Program Funds 20
7. Project Readiness 20
8. Project Location 20
9. Emission Reduction 30
10. Employment Opportunities, and Access to Training and Education
10 11. Congestion, Reliability and Traffic Flow 10
12. Infrastructure Condition 10
TOTAL 200
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #1: BENEFIT TO EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES (0-10 POINTS) A. Map of Project Boundaries, Access and Destination (0 points): REQUIRED Provide a scaled map showing the boundaries of the proposed project/program/plan and the geographic boundaries of the Equity Priority community
B. Identification of Equity Priority Community: (0 points) • Median Household Income - Must provide information for all Census Tract/Block Group/Place # that the project affects.
C. Direct Benefit: (0 - 4 points)
1. Explain how the project/program/plan closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important community need.
2. Explain how the Equity Priority community residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan.
3. Illustrate how the project was requested or supported by the Equity Priority community.
Points Applicants ability to demonstrate the project will be in a direct benefit to the Equity Priority Community
4 Points The application clearly and convincingly:
• Explains how the project/program/plan closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important community need, AND
• Explains how the Equity Priority community residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan. AND
• Illustrates and documents how the project was requested or supported by the Equity Priority Community.
3 Points The application convincingly:
• Explains how the project/program/plan closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important community need, AND
• Explains how the Equity Priority community residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan. AND
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the Equity Priority Community. 2 Points The application somewhat:
• Explains how the project/program/plan closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important community need, AND
• Explains how the Equity Priority community residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan. AND
• • Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the Equity Priority Community.
1 Point The application minimally:
• Explains how the project/program/plan closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important community need, AND • Explains how the Equity Priority community residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan. AND
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the Equity Priority Community.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics 0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe the application does not adequately make a convincing argument that the project will directly benefit a Equity Priority Community.
When evaluating “Explain how the project/program/plan closes a gap, provides connections to, or addresses a deficiency in an active transportation network or meets an important community need,” the evaluator should consider:
• If the project will provide reasonable improvements to close missing gaps; increases needed routes or connections, or addresses the poor conditions of an existing route. • If developing a new route/connection will the project result in a convenient and logical route that residents will want to use because it offers improved access to destinations the community commonly utilizes.
• If the project will address an identified “need” that was identified by the local community and is supported by backup documentation/attachments.
When evaluating “Explain how the Equity Priority Community residents will have physical access to the project/program/plan,” the evaluator should consider:
• If the improvements will be physically convenient for the community to access or use. • If the improvements will provide a logical route that residents will use or want to use because it offers safe and convenient access.
• If the plan or program will be conducted within the local EPC community, and the EPC residents will be specifically targeted to participate in the process.
When evaluating “Illustrate how the project was requested or supported by the Equity Priority Community residents,” the evaluator should consider:
• If the local EPC community actively involved in the project development; • If the EPC community had the opportunity to provide their input into the community needs and support this project,
• If this project was presented to the EPC community in a local forum so that they could provide input or support? Or, was the project simply voted upon in a general agency meeting without really reaching out to the community to learn their needs and wants.
D. Project Location: (0 - 2 points)
Is your project located within an Equity Priority community? Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate the project is located within an EPC 2 Points Project location(s) are/is fully (100%) located within an EPC 1 Point Project location(s) are/is partially (less than 100%) within an EPC 0 Points None of the project location(s) are/is located within an EPC E. Severity: (0-4 Points)
Points Median Household Income (MHI) Criteria – 2024 MHI for Sonoma County = $132,000 1 Point 75% through <80% of MHI
2 Points 70% through <75% of MHI
3 Points 65% through <70% of MHI
4 Points <65% of MHI
hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2024.pdf Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #2: POTENTIAL FOR MODE SHIFT. (0-20 POINTS)
A. Describe the specific mode shift that the proposed project/plan/program will address (0-10 points)
Breakdown of Points
• “Need” must be considered in the context of the “Potential for mode shift” • “Need” must be considered in the context of one or more of the following:
o adequacy of the existing “walking, bicycling, or transit routes,” o “Improving Connectivity” (Improvement in connectivity is defined as decreased travel time and/or increased route options), or
o “Improving Mobility” (mobility is access to everyday needs and services) • To receive the maximum points, applicants must demonstrate all of the above aspects of “need.” Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate a specific mode shift potential 7-8 Points The application clearly and convincingly demonstrates “need” in the project area, and documents:
• the lack of adequate walking, bicycling, or transit routes • the lack of connectivity,
AND
• the lack of mobility for non-motorized or transit users 5-6 Points The application convincingly demonstrates “need” in the project area, and documents:
(at least 2 of the following)
• the lack of adequate walking, bicycling or transit routes • the lack of connectivity,
• the lack of mobility for non-motorized or transit users 3-4 Points The application somewhat demonstrates “need” in the project area, and documents:
(at least 1 of the following)
• the lack of adequate walking, bicycling or transit routes • the lack of connectivity,
• the lack of mobility for non-motorized or transit users 1-2 Points The application minimally demonstrates “need” in the project area, and documents:
(partially 1 or more of the following)
• the lack of adequate walking, bicycling or transit routes • the lack of connectivity,
• the lack of mobility for non-motorized or transit users 0 Points The application does not demonstrate “need” in the project area PLUS:
POINTS Applicant’s ability to demonstrate the potential mode shift of STUDENTS 2 Points The application demonstrates the active transportation and transit needs of students 0 Points The application does not demonstrate the active transportation and transit needs of students.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are encouraged to review the data provided for reasonableness from the proposed project/plan/program.
o In doing this the evaluator should consult photos, Google Maps, and any other information available to make an informed decision. A project does not need to have, or create large numbers in order to cause great change to a community’s potential mode shift, and this can be reflected in the scores given to a project. • Evaluators are to evaluate the level to which the applicant demonstrated the need for improvements in the project area.
B. Describe how the proposed project/plan/program will address the potential mode shift and/or transit need: (0-10 points)
Breakdown of points:
• “Need” must be considered in the context of the “Potential for increased walking, bicycling, or transit use”
• “will address” must be considered in the context of one or more of the following “needs”:
o Adequacy of the existing “walking, bicycling and transit routes”, o “Improving Connectivity” (connectivity means decreased travel time and/or increased route options), or
o “Improving Mobility” (mobility is access to everyday needs and services) • To receive the maximum points, applicants must demonstrate all of the above aspects of “need.”
• The amount of points an applicant/project receives on this sub-question is not impacted by the number of categories documented for addressing the active transportation need. o Applications only documenting one category has the potential of receiving full points as long as it can fully meet the scoring criteria. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate that additional categories are not appropriate for the project to better or more fully address the need.
o Applications documenting numerous categories should not automatically receive additional points. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate that the project scope connected to each category is relevant to the non-motorized users’ needs in the project limits.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics Points Applicants ability to make a case that the project/program/plan will address potential mode shift
7-8 Points The application clearly and convincingly demonstratesthat the project will best result in meaningful increases in the number (and/or percentage for rural/small communities) of walking, bicycling, or transit users in the project area by:
• creating or improving links or connections,
• encouraging use of routes to transportation-related and community identified destinations, where an increase in active transportation and/or transit modes can be realized, AND
• a school, a very important destination and/or a large number of important destinations are identified, and access to them will be positively impacted by the project.
5-6 Points The application convincingly demonstrates that the project will likely result in meaningful increases in the number (and/or percentage for rural/small communities) of walking, bicycling, or transit users in the project area by: (at least 2 of the following) • creating or improving links or connections,
• encouraging use of routes to transportation-related and community identified destinations, where an increase in active transportation and/or transit modes can be realized,
• a school, a very important destination and/or many important destinations are identified,
and access to them will be positively impacted by the project. 3-4 Points The application somewhat demonstrates that the project will likely result in minor meaningful increases in the number (and/or percentage for rural/small communities) of walking and bicycling users in the project area by: (at least 1 of the following) • creating or improving links or connections,
• encouraging use of routes to transportation-related and community identified destinations,
where an increase in active transportation and/or transit modes can be realized, • a school, a very important destination and/or some important destinations are identified,
and access to them will be positively impacted by the project. 1-2 Points The application minimally demonstrates that the project may result in some minor increases in the number (and/or percentage for rural/small communities) of walking and bicycling users by: (partially 1 or more of the following) • creating or improving links or connections,
• encouraging use of routes to transportation-related and community identified destinations, where an increase in active transportation and/or transit modes can be realized, AND
• a school and/or few destinations are identified, and access to them will be positively
impacted by the project.
0 Points The application did not demonstrate the project would address the need.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics PLUS:
Points Applicant’s ability to make a case that the proposal will affect the potential mode shift accomplished by STUDENTS.
2 Points The project will increase the proportion of active transportation and/or transit trips accomplished by students
0 Points The project will not increase the proportion of active transportation and/or transit trips accomplished by students
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
A “very important destination”, such as access to goods, services and activities that society considers particularly important i.e. a hospital, a grocery store, a transit station, or an employment center (where the community can reasonably expect to find employment). The applicant may be able to make a case for other very important destinations, with adequate documentation.
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to evaluate if the proposed improvements are the best solution to address the need described in sub-question A.
• Evaluators are to evaluate if the destinations shown in the application, are reasonably accessible by non-motorized users.
• Evaluators are to determine if an increase in active transportation and/or transit modes can be realized by the project.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #3: Collisions & Safety (0-20 POINTS)
A. Describe the plan/program influence area or project location’s history of collisions resulting in fatalities and injuries to non-motorized users and the source(s) of data used (e.g. collision reports, community observation, surveys, audits). (10 points max) General Guidance on the safety “Influence Area” for a project:
• Where “Project” is used to describe Plan, Infrastructure, and/or Non-Infrastructure projects • The project’s “Influence area” needs to be established by the applicant. The following are some general criteria to guide applicants in determining appropriate “influence-area” for each of their proposed safety improvements/countermeasures (As defined in the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program Application Instructions). Before applying these general criteria, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that they are reasonable for their particular application.
a) New Traffic Signals: All crashes within 250 feet of the new signal. b) For intersection or mid-block crossing improvements, collisions that occurred within 250 feet of the intersection/mid-block crossing in all directions affected by the improvement may be used. If the distance to the nearest intersection is less than 500 feet, only those collisions that occurred from midpoint may be used.
c) Longitudinal Improvements (roadway resurfacing, bike lanes, sidewalks, road diets, etc.):
All crashes potentially effected by and within the limits of the improvement. d) If the improvements represent a new route and there is no past crash and safety data available within the limits of the proposed improvements, the applicant should consider the potential for the project to eliminate or reduce existing conflict points on parallel routes. A portion of the crash data from parallel routes can be included where the new facility/route can be reasonably expected to reduce the likelihood of past crashes from reoccurring. The overall applicant data provided in the Narrative Questions and various attachments must support the use of parallel crash data. e) The influence-area may be extended beyond the physical improvements and/or the limits above if standard traffic engineering principles, as documented in Caltrans, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) or FHWA publications, suggest it would be appropriate to do so. When the influence-area of the project is not obvious and judgment has been used in identifying the influence-area, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide additional documentation showing the reasonableness of the judgment.
10 points: Based on the actual history of “reported” Crash Data Breakdown of points:
• Only verified crashes are to be included when applying points for this sub-question. • A single crash with multiple injuries or fatalities must only be counted as 1 injury/fatality crash.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics • The scoring table below takes into account the difference in project cost in relation to number of accidents.
o The expectation is that higher-cost projects will address higher accident numbers. • This question allows the applicant to provide “crash rates” in addition to the crash data, in small/rural areas in order to account for the fact that non-motorized users in many small/rural communities have higher “exposure risk” than more populated urban communities, (Crash Rate must be in terms of Crashes/Total Population of the Community.) o If crash rate information is provided and it demonstrates a compelling argument that the nonmotorized users in the project area face a disproportionately high “exposure risk” compared to typical populations across California:
Then the “Size of Project” column to the left of the project’s actual cost category will be used to determine the score (except for $500K or less).
• Given that fatalities are considered to have considerably higher costs/impacts on communities and victims, each fatality-crash will be counted as 3 crashes in the following table.
Points Size of Project (in terms of Total Project Cost through Construction) $500K or less $501 to $1M $1M to $5M $5M or more
Number of Crashes
10 Points 6+ 9+ 14+ 18+
8 Points 5 8 12-13 16-17
6 Points 4 7 10-11 14-15
3 Points 3 6 9 12-13
2 Points 2 4-5 6-8 8-11
1 Point 1 1-3 2-5 3-7
0 Points 0 0 0-1 0-2
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following “Minimum Requirements” must be met for the application to receive any of these points:
• Applicant must provide a scaled map showing the crashes being counted are within the influence area of the proposed improvements that have the potential to reduce future crashes.
• Applicant must provide a listing of the crashes.
o The listing must demonstrate the crashes are from official crash reports and represent the most recent 5 years of available crash data. (Note: SWITRS and TIMS crash data is typically 1.5 to 2.5 years old before it is loaded into the crash database). o Old data, and more than 5 years of data must be excluded. • Evaluators must be able to verify that the crashes on the listing are the same as the crashes on the map AND the totals must match the crashes entered into the table.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluators prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to verify the following:
o Crashes are from official crash reports. The full crash reports do not have to be included, but their report number and agency must be identifiable. o The number of crashes entered into the table is directly supported by both the map and the listing.
Any crash that the evaluator cannot reasonably verify in both the map and listing should not be counted.
Example: If the table shows 3 fatalities and the map shows 3 fatalities, but the listing only shows 2 fatalities, then the evaluator should only consider the project limits to have 2 fatalities.
If the application includes more than 5 years of crash data, the evaluator should only consider the most recent 5 years of data.
• Evaluators need to consider whether the proposed project improvements have the potential to reduce future crashes. If the evaluators don’t feel the project improvements have the potential to reduce the future crashes, then they should not consider the crashes. • Evaluators should consider additional point reductions for this question if the applicant included significant amounts of motorized-only crashes, more than 5 years of crash data, crash data that cannot be verified by the map and report-listing, AND/OR crash data that does not reasonably tie to the influence area of the proposed “safety” improvements Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics 5 points: Based on applicant’s ability to make a compelling case that the location’s history of Crash Data (or Safety Data for projects without documented crash data) directly supports/demonstrates the “need” for “safety” improvements within the project limits.
Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate the location’s history of Crash/Safety data directly supports/demonstrates the “need” for “safety” improvements. 4-5 Points The application clearly and convincingly shows:
• how the past crash/safety data is within the expected influence area of the proposed project, • that the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crashtype trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, AND
• there are significant safety threats that can be mitigated by SCTCA Funding Program improvements
3 Points The application convincingly shows:
• how the past crash/safety data is within the expected influence area of the proposed project, • that the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crashtype trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, AND
• there are significant safety threats that can be mitigated by SCTCA Funding Program eligible improvements
2 Points The application somewhat shows:
• how the past crash/safety data is within the expected influence area of the proposed project, • that the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crashtype trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, AND
• there are significant safety threats that can be mitigated by SCTCA Funding Program eligible improvements.
1 Point The application minimally shows:
• how the past crash/safety data is within the expected influence area of the proposed project, • that the past crash/safety data was analyzed by the applicant to identify the specific crashtype trends that will likely occur in the future if no action is taken, AND
• there are significant safety threats that can be mitigated by SCTCA Funding Program eligible improvements.
0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately prove the safety need of the proposed project.
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to verify that the applicant demonstrated that the past crash/safety data is within the expected influence area of the proposed project.
• Evaluators are to verify that the applicant demonstrated that they analyzed the past crash/safety data to identify the specific crash-type trends which will likely occur in the future if no action is taken.
• Evaluators are to verify that the applicant demonstrated there are significant safety threats which can be mitigated by improvements.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics B. Safety Countermeasures (10 points max)
Describe how the project/program/plan will remedy (one or more) potential safety hazards that contribute to injuries or fatalities; Countermeasures must directly address the underlying factors that are contributing to the occurrence of collisions.
Breakdown of points:
• The amount of points an applicant/project receives on this sub-question is not impacted by the number of “Potential safety hazards” and “Countermeasures” in the application. o Applications only documenting one “Potential safety hazard” / “Countermeasure” has the potential of receiving full points as long as it can fully meet the scoring criteria and demonstrate that implementing only one countermeasure is appropriate to address the existing hazards.
o Applications documenting numerous “Potential safety hazards” / “Countermeasures” should not automatically receive additional points. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate that each safety hazard is relevant to the non-motorized users in the project limits and that each countermeasure being funded by the project is necessary to mitigate the potential for future crashes.
o Projects that appear to include elements/costs with little safety benefits should not receive as many points as projects with efficient use of limited funding.
Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate the project/program/plan will remedy (one or more) potential safety hazards
9-10 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• there is an urgent need for the countermeasure(s) proposed – based on past crash/safety data trends,
• the proposed countermeasure(s) have a proven track record for addressing the past crash/safety data trends,
AND
• the proposed application of the countermeasure(s) should fully mitigate the potential for future crashes in the area of the project.
7-8 Points The applicant convincingly demonstrates that:
• there is a significant need for the countermeasure(s) proposed – based on past crash/safety data trends,
• the proposed countermeasure(s) have a proven track record for addressing the past crash/safety data trends,
AND
• the proposed application of the countermeasure(s) should significantly (but not fully) mitigate the potential for future crashes in the area of the project. 4-6 Points The applicant somewhat demonstrates that:
• there is a moderate need for the countermeasure(s) proposed – based on past crash/safety data trends,
• the proposed countermeasure(s) have a track record for addressing the past crash/safety data trends,
AND
• the proposed application of the countermeasure(s) should somewhat mitigate the potential for future crashes in the area of the project.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics 1-3 Points The applicant minimally demonstrates that:
• there could be a need for the countermeasure(s) proposed – based on past crash/safety data trends,
• the proposed countermeasure(s) have a track record for addressing the past crash/safety data trends,
AND
• the proposed application of the countermeasure(s) should somewhat mitigate the potential for future crashes in the area of the project. 0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately prove the safety need of the proposed project.
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to evaluate the level to which the applicant demonstrated the need for the safety improvements being proposed in the project.
• Evaluators are to evaluate the level to which the applicant demonstrated that they analyzed the past crash/safety data trends and appropriately selected safety countermeasure(s) with proven track record(s) for addressing the past trends.
• Evaluators are to evaluate the level to which the applicant demonstrated each proposed safety countermeasure(s) is appropriately included in the project to mitigate the potential for future nonmotorized crashes in the area of the project.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and COMMUNITY SUPPORT (0-15 POINTS) Describe the community based public participation process that culminated in the project/program proposal or will be utilized as part of the development of a plan.
A. What is/was the process of defining future policies, goals, investments and designs to prepare for future needs of users of this project? How did the applicant analyze the wide range of alternatives and impacts on the transportation system to influence beneficial outcomes? (5 points max) Breakdown of points:
• The level of expected planning and community engagementfor a project is directly connected to the magnitude and complexity of the proposed changes/designs and to the impacts to the overall transportation network.
o Projects with larger scopes and costs should demonstrate a more extensive internal planning/community engagement process, including the analysis of a wide range of alternatives.
Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate the public participation process will be utilized as part of the development of a project.
4-5
Points
The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project scope was developed through a comprehensive technical planning and community engagement process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) and the planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system and the planning process was effectively integrated into the public participation process.
2-3
Points
The applicant demonstrates that:
• The project scope was developed through a comprehensive technical planning and community engagement process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) and the planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system and the planning process was effectively integrated into the public participation process.
1 Point The applicant somewhat demonstrates that:
• The project scope was developed through a comprehensive technical planning and community engagement process (appropriate for the complexity and magnitude of the project) and/or the planning process considered the existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system and/or the planning process was effectively integrated into the public participation process.
0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately prove the project scope is a result of technical planning and community engagement.
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to consider the level to which the applicant demonstrated the agency’s transportation technical planning and community engagement conducted as part of developing and refining the project scope.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics • Evaluators are to consider the level to which the technical planning considered both existing and future needs of the project users and transportation system. • Evaluators are to consider the level to which the process was effectively integrated into the public participation process.
B. Who: Describe who was/will be engaged in the identification and development of this project/program/plan (for plans: who will be engaged) and how they were/will be engaged.
Describe and provide documentation of the type, extent, and duration of outreach and engagement conducted to relevant stakeholders. (5 points max) General Guidance on stakeholders and their involvement in a project:
• Public stakeholders can include, but are not limited to, residents, targeted end users, community leaders, elected officials, advocacy organizations, local businesses, and members of vulnerable or underserved populations (i.e. elderly, youth, physically and/or mentally disabled, members from Equity Priority communities).
• Governmental stakeholders can include other departments, agencies, jurisdictions, etc. impacted by the proposed project that are NOT the applicant (these can include, but are not limited to law enforcement, transportation, local health department, schools/school districts, emergency services, metropolitan planning organization, etc.)
• Meetings and/or events and how many were held to engage stakeholders is key to Public Participation. These can include, but are not limited to:
o The type of meetings or events: open houses, community charrettes, city council meetings, planning commission meetings, etc.
o How the meetings or events were noticed: local newspaper, county website, on the radio, at school parents group meetings, etc.
o How the meetings or events were documented: Meeting sign-in sheets, meeting notes, letters of support, etc.
o Where the meetings or events took place: school, community center, city council hall, etc.
o The accessibility of the meetings or events: accessible by public transportation, translational services provided, and time of day the meetings or events were held, etc. o The stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making body: technical advisory committee, citizens’ advisory committee, etc.
Breakdown of points:
• Points will be awarded based on the extent that the relevant stakeholders were engaged in the development of the project and the level of community outreach and meeting/event accessibility • The level of expected public outreach and participation for a project is directly connected to the magnitude and complexity of the proposed project and the community characteristics being served and/or impacted by the project.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate the public participation process took place in development of the proposed project, or how and who will be engaged in the development of the plan.
4-5
Points
The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project scope was developed through a comprehensive public participation process which included appropriate levels of public and governmental stakeholders, and the meetings and events were fully accessible and effectively engaged all project stakeholders. 2-3
Points
The applicant demonstrates that:
• The project scope was developed through a comprehensive public participation process which included appropriate levels of public and governmental stakeholders, and the meetings and events were accessible and effectively engaged project stakeholders 1 Point The applicant somewhat demonstrates that:
The project scope was developed through a comprehensive public participation process which included some public and/or governmental stakeholders, and/or the meetings and events were accessible and engaged project stakeholders 0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately prove the project scope was developed through an adequate public participation process.
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to give consideration to any attachments the agency provided in connection with this sub-question, including but not limited to: any applicable public outreach process/proposal/plan, links to websites, meeting agenda, meeting sign-in sheet, meeting minutes, public service announcements, letters of support, etc. • Evaluators are to consider the extent that the relevant stakeholders were engaged in the development of the project and the level of community outreach and meeting/event accessibility in relation to the magnitude and complexity of the proposed project and the community characteristics being served and/or impacted by the project.
C. What: Describe the feedback received during the stakeholder engagement process and describe how the public participation and planning process has improved the project’s overall effectiveness at meeting the purpose and goals of the SCTCA Funding Program. (4 points max) Breakdown of points:
• Points will be awarded based on the extent that the public participation and planning process was utilized to identify the highest community/regional active transportation priorities and to ensure the effectiveness of the project at meeting the purpose for the SCTCA Funding Program through the use of stakeholder feedback. o The magnitude of the proposed project is directly connected to the expected degree to which the project represents a high local-community vs. regional priority.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate that feedback was received and how it will improve the project’s overall effectiveness.
4 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project scope is supported by the feedback received during the public participation and planning process, and this process has improved the project’s overall effectiveness, and the project is one of the highest community/regional active transportation priorities
2-3 Points The applicant demonstrates that:
• The project scope is supported by the feedback received during the public participation and planning process, and/or this process has improved the project’s overall effectiveness, and/or the project is one of the highest community/regional active transportation priorities.
1 Point The applicant somewhat demonstrates that:
• The project scope is supported by the feedback received during the public participation and planning process, or this process has improved the project’s overall effectiveness, although the project may not be one of the highest community/regional active transportation priorities
0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately prove project scope is supported by the feedback received during the public participation and planning process, or the project is not a high community/regional active transportation priority.
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following checks and analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• Evaluators are to consider the extent that the public participation and planning process was utilized to identify improve the effectiveness of the project • Evaluators are to consider the extent that the public participation and planning process was utilized to ensure the project is one of the highest community/regional transportation priorities.
• Evaluators are to consider the magnitude of the proposed project when considering the extent to which the project represents one of the highest community/regional active transportation priorities.
D. Describe how stakeholders will continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project/program/plan. (1 point max)
Points The applicant’s ability to demonstrate that the stakeholders will continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project/program/plan. 1 Point The applicant demonstrates that project stakeholders will continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project/program/plan.
0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately demonstrate that the project stakeholders will continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project/program/plan.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #5: IMPROVED PUBLIC HEALTH (0-10 POINTS)
A. Describe the health status of the targeted users of the project/program/plan. Describe how you considered health benefits when developing this project or program (for plans: how will you consider health throughout the plan). (5 points max)
Points The applicant’s s ability to demonstrate the health status of targeted users was considered when developing this project/program or will consider throughout a plan. 4-5 Points The application clearly and convincingly identifies the health vulnerability/ies of the project’s targeted users and clearly and convincingly describes how health benefits were considered by:
• Providing thorough health information at a level of geography appropriate to the project not just state or national data
• Providing health characteristics and vulnerabilities of the community served by the project • Contacting a local public health authority such as the local health department or school district and clearly documenting the results of the contact • Convincingly describing how the health status of the project’s targeted users influenced the development of the project/program/plan
2-3 Points The application somewhat identifies the health status of the project’s targeted users by and somewhat describes how health benefits were considered by:
• Providing some health information specific to the project area • Contacting a local public health authority
• To some extent describing how the health status of the project’s targeted users influenced the development of the project/program/plan
1 Point The application minimally identifies the health status of the project’s targeted users and minimally describes how health benefits were considered by:
• Providing broader health information using state or national data 0 Points The application does notidentify the health status of the project’s targeted users or describe how health benefits were considered.
B. Describe how you expect your project/proposal/plan to promote healthy communities and provide outreach to the targeted users. (5 points max)
Points The applicant’s ability to demonstrate the project/proposal/plan will promote healthy communities and provide outreach to targeted users.
4-5 Points The application clearly and convincingly describes specific strategies that will be employed to promote healthy communities and clearly and convincingly describes how the project will provide outreach to the targeted users
2-3 Points The application somewhat describes strategies that will promote healthy communities and somewhat describes how the project will provide outreach to the targeted users 1 Point The application minimally describes how the project will promote healthy communities and minimally describes how the project will provide outreach to the targeted users. 0 Points The application does not describe how the project will promote healthy communities or describes how the project will provide outreach to the targeted users.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #6: LEVERAGING OF NON-SCTCA FUNDING PROGRAM FUNDS (0-20 POINTS) A. The application funding plan will show all federal, state and local funding for the project:
Describe the Leveraging funding the applicant is committing to invest in the project if it is awarded SCTCA Funding Program funding (total value in dollars).
Only direct funding and the direct expenses for completing project delivery milestones can be used.
Provide detailed information on actual costs for past milestones and estimated costs for future milestones.
Breakdown of points:
• Points will be awarded based on the amount of the non-SCTCA Funding Program competitive funding pledged to the project.
0-20 Points 1 Point provided per every 2% provided as match. Maximum of 20 points for 40% or more match.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #7: PROJECT READINESS (0-20 POINTS)
Provide detailed information on completed project milestones. For completion of environmental compliance, provide a copy of the resolution or other documentation adopting the environmental document.
Points Project Readiness
2 Points • Feasibility Study/Project Study Report
4 Points • Environmental Compliance Documentation Complete 6 Points • Plans, Specifications, & Estimates
6 Points • Right of Way Acquisition Complete
2 Points • Other pre-construction requirements (permits, utility relocations, etc.) Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #8: Project Location (0-20 POINTS)
A. Describe the location of the project. Describe how the project provides or improves connectivity across a combination of following key Community Activity Centers (CACs): (0-10 points) • Employment centers • Compact commercial areas
• Transit Hubs/Station • Residential concentrations or
• Schools downtown/community cores
• Recreation Areas
Points The project provides or improves connectivity across a combination of key CACs. 9 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project falls within an area meeting 5 of 5 CACs or is within the ½ mile area around the downtown/community core
7 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project falls within an area meeting 4 of 5 CACs
5 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project falls within an area meeting 3 of 5 CACs
3 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project falls within an area meeting 2 of 5 CACs
1 Points The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates that:
• The project falls within an area meeting 1 of 5 CACs
0 Points Evaluators can award a score of zero if they believe that the application does not adequately prove the project provides or improves connectivity across a combination of key CACs
PLUS:
Does the applicant have any jurisdictional policies that have been adopted that support a “3-Ps approach to affordable housing?
• Policies that protect current residents from displacement (with emphasis on policies that have demonstrated effectiveness in community stabilization and anti-displacement. • Policies that preserve existing affordable housing with emphasis on policies that have demonstrated effectiveness in community stabilization and anti-displacement. • Policies that produce new housing at all income levels.
Points Supports a 3Ps approach to affordable housing:
1 Point Jurisdiction does have housing policies that support 3Ps 0 Points Jurisdiction does not have housing policies that support 3Ps Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics B. Describe how the project supports development that reinforces and logically extends existing and planned development. (0-5 points)
Points Project Location
5 Points • The project is adjacent to a previously developed site, has developed areas on three or more sides, complete water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure exists to support development, and is located within 1/8 mile of a PDA 4 Points • The project is adjacent to previously developed site, has developed areas on three or more sides, complete water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure exists to support development, and is located within ¼ mile of a PDA 3 Points • The project is adjacent to previously developed site, has developed areas on three or more sides, and complete water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure exists to support development , and is located within ½ mile of a PDA 2 Points • The project is adjacent to previously developed site, has developed areas on three or more sides, and complete water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure exists to support development , and is located within 1 mile of a PDA 1 Point • The project is adjacent to a previously developed site, has existing development on three or more sides and some water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure exists to support development.
0 Points • The project is adjacent to a previously undeveloped site, without existing water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure, and has developed areas on two or fewer sides.
C. Describe how the project is located in an area (within a ¼ mile walk distance) with high levels of street connectivity for vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. (0-5 points) Points Street connectivity in the project area
5 Points • The project area has an internal street network that is a highly connected grid, with streets spaced no more than 350 feet apart on average. Major thoroughfares are closely spaced so that each one requires fewer lanes. All streets are designed for vehicle speeds of 25 miles per hour or less, and every street is designed to accommodate pedestrians. The project either provides or support the inclusion of striped bicycle lanes on all major streets or a separate bicycle path serving the same destinations
4 Points • Most parts of the internal street network in the project area are a highly connected grid, with streets space no more than 400 feet apart on average. All streets in the area are designed for vehicle speeds of 30 miles per hour or less, and every street is designed to accommodate pedestrians. The project either provides or supports the inclusion of striped bicycle lanes on all major streets or a separate bicycle path serving the same destinations
3 Points • The street network in the project area has some internal connectivity, with streets spaced no more than 500 feet apart on average. Most streets in the area are designed for vehicle speeds of 35 miles per hour or less, and every street is designed to accommodate pedestrians
2 Points • Only one or two arterial roads connect the project to surrounding areas. Most circulation in the project area is channeled onto one or two collector roads. Many Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics streets do not include bicycle facilities or traffic calming measures that would facilitate use by pedestrians and bicyclists.
1 Point • The project has limited connectivity to surrounding areas. Collector and arterial roads connect the project to surrounding areas. Streets are designed for vehicle speeds of 45 miles per hour or more, and do not include bicycle facilities or traffic calming measures that would facilitate use by pedestrians and bicyclists. 0 Points • The project has poor connectivity to surrounding areas. Only one or two arterial roads connect the project to surrounding areas. Streets are designed for vehicle speeds of 55 miles per hour or more, and do not include bicycle facilities or traffic calming measures that would facilitate use by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #9: EMISSION REDUCTION (30 POINTS)
A. Project’s cost effectiveness of emissions reductions Points Cost Effectiveness of Emission Reduction
19-20 Points ≤$10 per pound of emissions reductions
17-18 Points >$10 and ≤$25 per pound of emissions reductions 15-16 Points >$25 and ≤$50 per pound of emissions reductions 13-14 Points >$50 and ≤$100 per pound of emissions reductions 11-12 Points >$100 and ≤$250 per pound of emissions reductions 9-10 Points >$250 and ≤$500 per pound of emissions reductions 7-8 Points >$500 and ≤$1,000 per pound of emissions reductions 5-6 Points >$1,000 and ≤$5,000 per pound of emissions reductions 3-4 Points >$5,000 and ≤$10,000 per pound of emissions reductions 1-2 Points >$10,000 per pound of emissions reductions
0 Points Project will not or is assumed to not reduce emissions.
Special Instructions & Expectations for Evaluators:
The following analysis must be done by the evaluator prior to awarding points:
• For EV Charging projects evaluators will use the EV Infrastructure worksheet https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/EV-Infrastructure-FYE-2026.xlsx • For Bicycle and Pedestrian projects evaluators will use the Trip Reduction Worksheet https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Trip-Reduction-FYE-2026.xlsx • For transit vehicle replacement projects evaluators will use the emission reduction worksheets for vehicles 14,000 lbs or less https://scta.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/Vehicles-14000-lbs-less-FYE-2026.xlsx or Vehicles 14,000lbs + https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Vehicles-14001-lbs-FYE-2026.xlsx • For traffic signal projects evaluators will use the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Automated Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Tool developed by Caltrans and the Air Resources Board:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/planning/tsaq/eval/gendistricts.mdb • For roundabout projects evaluators will use the CMAQ Roundabout Quantification Tool developed by SJCOG: http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/4856/F-RoundaboutQuantification-Tool • For transit and rail projects, evaluators will use the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Quantification Methodology: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/auctionproceeds/calsta_tircp_finalcalculator_cycle4.xlsx • Any air quality non-exempt projects, new roadways, roadway extensions, right of way acquisition for future expansion, operations, and routine maintenance are assumed to not reduce emissions and will receive zero points.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics B. Description of the project’s strategies to reduce emissions Points The applicant’s ability to demonstrate the project will reduce emissions through proven methods.
7-10 Points The application clearly and convincingly describes specific strategies that will be employed to reduce emissions.
3-6 Points The application somewhat describes strategies that will be employed to reduce emissions
1-2 Points The application minimally describes how the project will reduce emissions. 0 Points The application does not describe how the project will reduce emissions.
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #10 EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND ACCESS TO TRAINING AND EDUCATION (10 Points):
A. Describe how the project construction or implementation would positively impact employment opportunities within the community. This may include increasing community access to training and education (0-10 points).
Points Would the project positively impact employment opportunities within the community? 8-10 Points The application clearly and convincingly describes how the project will positively impact employment opportunities within the community and clearly and convincingly describes how the project will improve include increase community access to training and education. 4-7 Points The application somewhat describes how the project will positively impact employment opportunities within the community and somewhat describes how the project will increase community access to training and education.
1-3 Points The application minimally describes how the project will how the project will positively impact employment opportunities within the community and minimally describes how the project will improve include increasing community access to training and education. 0 Points The application does not describe how the project will positively impact employment opportunities or increasing community access to training and education within the community
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #11 CONGESTION, RELIABILITY, AND TRAFFIC FLOW (10 POINTS):
A. Describe how the project will reduce congestion, increase reliability and improve traffic flow in and around the project area.
Points The applicant’s ability to demonstrate the project will reduce congestion, improve reliability and traffic flow for all users.
7-9 Points The application clearly and convincingly describes specific strategies that will be employed to reduce congestion and clearly and convincingly describes how the project will improve reliability and traffic flow for all users
4-6 Points The application somewhat describes strategies that will reduce congestion and somewhat describes how the project will improve reliability and traffic flow for all users 1-3 Points The application minimally describes how the project will reduce congestion and minimally describes how the project will improve reliability and traffic flow for all users. 0 Points The application does not describe how the project will reduce congestion or describes how the project will improve reliability or traffic flow for all users.
Supports Maintaining the National Highway System (1 POINT) Points Project is on National Highway System (NHS)
1 Point Project is located on the NHS
0 Points Project is not located on the NHS
Agenda Item #9.4:
SCTCA Funding Program (Cycle 2) Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Rubrics QUESTION #12 INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION (10 POINTS):
Describe how the project will improve the condition of transportation assets such as pavement, culverts, bridges, and public transit assets to maintain a state of good repair. Include demonstrable improvements to performance measures such as Pavement Condition Index, remedying a substandard condition such as vertical clearance or insufficient sidewalk width, replacing ADA non-compliant facilities with the current standard, or replacing assets that have met or exceeded their useful life.
Points Applicant’s ability to demonstrate beneficial impact on Infrastructure Condition 7-9 Points The application clearly and convincingly describes how the project will positively impact the condition of transportationassets and clearly and convincingly describes how the project will improve substandard conditions of transportation assets. 4-6 Points The application somewhat describes how the project will positively impact the condition of transportation assets and somewhat describes how the project will improve substandard conditions of transportation assets.
1-3 Points The application minimally describes how the project will how the project will positively impact employment opportunities within the community and minimally describes how the project will improve substandard conditions of transportation assets. 0 Points The application does not describe how the project will how the project will positively impact the condition of transportation assets or improve substandard conditions of transportation assets.
Supports Maintaining the National Highway System (1 POINT) Points Project is on National Highway System (NHS)
1 Point Project is located on the NHS
0 Points Project is not located on the NHS
Agenda Item #9.4: