HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04242012 - C.825(&200(1'$7,21 6
$&&(37UHSRUWRQWKHSURSRVHG0HWURSROLWDQ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ 07& 2QH%D\$UHD*UDQW 2%$*
SURJUDPDVUHFRPPHQGHGE\WKH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ:DWHU ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7:, &RPPLWWHH
$87+25,=(WKH&KDLURIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUVWRVLJQWKHDWWDFKHGUHVSRQVHWRWKHSURSRVHG2%$*SURJUDP
),6&$/,03$&7
1RQHWRWKH*HQHUDO)XQG
%$&.*5281'
2Q-XO\WKH07&UHOHDVHGWKHLUGUDIW2%$*3URJUDPIRUSXEOLFUHYLHZ $WWDFKPHQW$ 2%$*ZDV
LQWHQGHGWRSURYLGHDQDOWHUQDWLYHZD\RIGLVWULEXWLQJ&\FOHRI6XUIDFH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3URJUDP 673 DQG
&RQJHVWLRQ0LWLJDWLRQDQG$LU4XDOLW\ &0$4 IXQGVUHFHLYHGWKURXJKWKH)HGHUDO6XUIDFH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$FW
07&VWDIISURSRVHGWKLVDOWHUQDWLYHWR&\FOHWREHWWHULQWHJUDWHWKH%D\$UHDUHJLRQ¶VIHGHUDOWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ
SURJUDPZLWKODQGXVHDQGKRXVLQJSROLFLHVE\SURYLGLQJLQFHQWLYHVIRUWKHSURGXFWLRQRIKRXVLQJZLWKVXSSRUWLYH
WUDQVSRUWDWLRQLQYHVWPHQWV7KLVSURSRVDOZRXOGIXOILOOWKHLQWHQWRI6HQDWH%LOOWKH6XVWDLQDEOH&RPPXQLWLHV$FW
&RXQW\VWDIIUHYLHZHGWKHSURSRVHG2%$*3URJUDPDQGSUHSDUHGFRPPHQWV $WWDFKPHQW% $WWKH'HFHPEHU
7:,&RPPLWWHHPHHWLQJWKH&RPPLWWHHUHTXHVWHGVWDIIWRSURYLGHDFRS\RIRXUFRPPHQWVWRWKH&RQWUD&RVWD
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$XWKRULW\ &&7$ 07&UHFHLYHGWKLUW\QLQHFRPPHQWOHWWHUVIURPYDULRXV%D\$UHDDJHQFLHV2Q
-DQXDU\07&UHOHDVHGDQXSGDWH $WWDFKPHQW& RQWKHSURSRVHG2%$*3URJUDPDVDJHQHUDOUHVSRQVHWR
WKHFRPPHQWVWKH\UHFHLYHGRQWKHLULQLWLDO-XO\GUDIWSURSRVDO
$33529( 27+(5
5(&200(1'$7,212)&17<
$'0,1,675$725
5(&200(1'$7,212)%2$5'
&200,77((
$FWLRQRI%RDUG2Q $33529('$6
5(&200(1'('
27+(5
&OHUNV1RWHV
927(2)683(59,6256
$<( -RKQ*LRLD'LVWULFW,6XSHUYLVRU
0DU\13LHSKR'LVWULFW,,,
6XSHUYLVRU
.DUHQ0LWFKRII'LVWULFW,9
6XSHUYLVRU
)HGHUDO'*ORYHU'LVWULFW9
6XSHUYLVRU
$%6(17 *D\OH%8LONHPD'LVWULFW,,
6XSHUYLVRU
&RQWDFW -DPDU6WDPSV
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVLVDWUXHDQGFRUUHFWFRS\RIDQDFWLRQWDNHQDQGHQWHUHGRQWKHPLQXWHVRIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV
RQWKHGDWHVKRZQ
$77(67(' $SULO
'DYLG-7ZD&RXQW\$GPLQLVWUDWRUDQG&OHUNRIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV
%\ -XQH0F+XHQ'HSXW\
FF
&
7R %RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV
)URP 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ:DWHUDQG,QIUDVWUXFWXUH&WH
'DWH $SULO
&RQWUD
&RVWD
&RXQW\
6XEMHFW 5HSRUWRQ0HWURSROLWDQ7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ
V2QH%D\$UHD*UDQW3URSRVDO
%$&.*5281' &217
'
&RXQW\&RPPHQWVDQG07&5HVSRQVH
&RXQW\VWDIIUHYLHZHG07&¶VUHYLVHGSURSRVDODQGGHWHUPLQHGWKDWPDQ\RIRXUSULRUFRPPHQWVZHUHDGGUHVVHG
+RZHYHU&RXQW\VWDIIKDVLGHQWLILHGWKHIROORZLQJDUHDVRIWKHXSGDWHGSURSRVDOWKDWVKRXOGVWLOOEHDGGUHVVHGE\
07&
07&LVUHTXLULQJRIIXQGVEHVSHQWLQ3ULRULW\'HYHORSPHQW$UHDV 3'$V 7KLVOLPLWVWKHIOH[LELOLW\RIKRZ
IXQGVFRXOGEHVSHQWZKLFKVKRXOGEHGHSHQGHQWRQQHHGDQGQRWMXVWORFDWLRQ3URMHFWVWKDWKDYHDGLUHFW
FRQQHFWLRQRU³SUR[LPDWHDFFHVV´WR3'$VDUHHOLJLEOH+RZHYHU³SUR[LPDWHDFFHVV´ZDVQRWGHILQHGLQWKH
SURSRVDO&RXQW\VWDIIUHFRPPHQGVWKDW07&OHDYH³SUR[LPDWHDFFHVV´WREHGHILQHGE\WKH&RQJHVWLRQ
0DQDJHPHQW$JHQFLHV &0$ &&7$KDVFRPPHQWHGRQWKHXSGDWHGSURSRVDODQGH[SUHVVHGVLPLODUFRQFHUQV
,QSULRUFRPPHQWVWKH&RXQW\UHFRPPHQGHG07&DOORZWKH3ULRULW\&RQVHUYDWLRQ$UHD 3&$ SLORWIXQGLQJ
SURJUDPEHRSHQHGXSWRDOOFRXQWLHV7KHXSGDWHGSURSRVDOVWLOOOLPLWVWKHSLORWSURJUDPWRRQO\WKH³1RUWK%D\
&RXQWLHV´ 0DULQ1DSD6RQRPDDQG6RODQR DQGH[SDQGHGWKHSURJUDPWRDOORZFHUWDLQDJULFXOWXUDODQGRSHQ
VSDFHFDSLWDOSURMHFWVWREHHOLJLEOHZLWKLQWKHVHVHOHFWHGFRXQWLHV07&KDVQRWH[SODLQHGZK\RWKHUFRXQWLHV
VKRXOGQRWEHHOLJLEOHIRUWKLVIXQGLQJ&RQWUD&RVWDKDVVLJQLILFDQWXQIXQGHGQHHGVIRURXURZQ3&$V
VSHFLILFDOO\LQWKHDFUH$JULFXOWXUDO&RUHDQGWKHDFUHSUHVHUYHV\VWHPRIWKH(DVW&RQWUD&RVWD
+DELWDW&RQVHUYDQF\
7KHSUHFHGLQJLVVXHLOOXVWUDWHVWKHODFNRIDWWHQWLRQSDLGWRHDVWHUQ&RQWUD&RVWD&RXQW\LQWKHSURSRVHGSURJUDP
,QDGGLWLRQWKHSURSRVHGSURJUDPGRHVQRWDFNQRZOHGJHWKHGHPRJUDSKLFVKLIWLQDJHFRKRUWVWKDWZLOODIIHFW
ZKHUHUHVLGHQWLDOJURZWKRFFXUV07&VKRXOGWDNHVXFKIDFWRUVLQWRDFFRXQWZKHQGHYHORSLQJWKH2%$*SURJUDP
$WWDFKPHQW
'
LVDGUDIWUHVSRQVHWR07&VSURSRVHG2%$*SURJUDPXSGDWH
&216(48(1&(2)1(*$7,9($&7,21
7KH&RXQW\
VFRQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWKHSURSRVHG2%$*SURJUDPZLOOQRWEHUHFHLYHGE\07&SULRUWRWKHLU
SODQQHGDGRSWLRQLQ0D\
&+,/'5(1
6,03$&767$7(0(17
QD
$77$&+0(176
$WWDFKPHQW$2%$*3URSRVDO
$WWDFKPHQW%&RXQW\&RPPHQWV
$WWDFKPHQW&2%$*3URSRVDO8SGDWH
$WWDFKPHQW'2%$*8SGDWH5HVSRQVH
OneBayArea Grant Program
(Draft July 8, 2011)
Federal Transportation Funding and Program Policies (Attachment A)
Approximately every six years, U.S. Congress enacts a surface transportation act. The current act
(SAFETEA) originally scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009 is still in effect through
several legislative extensions. The funding provided to our area through this legislation includes
Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds.
In December 2009 the Commission adopted an overall framework directing how approximately
$1.4 billion in STP and CMAQ funds were to be allocated over the following six years (2010-
2015). The first three years (Cycle 1) of this period were committed to projects and programs
and the overall framework provided policy direction for the second three years (Cycle 2).
Staff proposes an alternative to the current Cycle 2 framework that better integrates the region’s
federal transportation program with land-use and housing policies by providing incentives for the
production of housing with supportive transportation investments. Attachment A summarizes
this framework and proposal for Cycle 2.
OneBayArea Grant Program
As shown in the chart below, over time the county congestion management agencies (CMAs)
have been given increased responsibility for project selection for an increasing share of funding
coming to the region.
Program and Project Selection Evolves over Past Two Decades
For Cycle 2, staff proposes to continue this trend by shifting a larger portion of discretionary
federal funding to local jurisdictions for taking on a larger share of the region’s housing
production. Further, additional flexibility is proposed for CMAs to address their respective
transportation needs. Specifically, the proposal would:
PastLongRangePlanDiscretionaryFunding Assignments
$Ͳ
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
$4.0
$5.0
MTC CMAs MTC CMAs MTC CMAs
2001RTP T2030 T2035Billions Lifeline
Bike/Ped
TLC
LS&R
T20302001RTP T2035
MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 2
Shift more Funding to Locally Managed OneBayArea Grant Program: Dedicate $211
million or roughly 40% of the Cycle 2 funding program to a new OneBayArea Grant.
The funding for the OneBayArea Grant is the result of merging many of the programs in
the Cycle 2 framework into a single flexible grant program and is roughly a 70% increase
in the funding distributed to the counties as compared to the Cycle 2 framework adopted
by the Commission. By comparison, the status quo approach for Cycle 2 would result in
22% going to County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) programs down from
30% in Cycle 1
Add Flexibility by Eliminating Program Categories: The One Bay Grant proposal
provides additional flexibility under Cycle 2 by eliminating required program categories
and combining funding for TLC, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and
Safe Routes to School. See figure illustrating this change on the following page. Project
selection will be limited to a degree by the project eligibility limitations of CMAQ which
will make up approximately half of the funds that each county will receive.
LSR
TLC
Bike
Bicycle,
TLC,
LSR,
SR2S
Original
Framework
$122M
Proposed
OneBayArea
Grant
$211M
Leverage Outside Funds to Grow Program and Meet More Objectives: Additional
opportunities could be sought through other regional programs, other non-federal sources
for affordable housing, and other local funds to augment program objectives. As a start,
the Air District proposes $6 million from its Regional Transportation for Clean Air
(TFCA) Program. TFCA eligibility considerations will be guiding the use of these funds
in the overall program.
Continue Key Regional Programs: The remaining funding is targeted to continue regional
programs such as Regional Operations, Freeway Performance Initiative, and Transit
Capital Rehabilitation. Refer to Attachment A-2 for a description of these regional
programs.
Establish a Priority Conservation Area Planning Program: This new $5 million program
element will provide financial incentives for counties with populations under 500,000 for
MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 3
preservation of resource area and farmland, as defined in California Government Code
Section 65080.01.
Distribution Formula for the OneBayArea Grant (Attachments B, C, D)
Staff proposes a distribution formula for OneBayArea Grant funding (Attachment B) that
includes housing incentives to support the SCS and promote effective transportation investments
that support focused development. In order to ease the transition to this new funding approach,
staff is also recommending a 50% population share factor in the formula:
1. Formula to Counties: The proposed distribution formula to the counties includes three
components: 50% population, 25% Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for
2007-2014, and 25% actual housing production. This approach provides incentives for
both future housing commitments and actual housing production. The fund distribution
will be refined using the new RHNA to be adopted by ABAG next spring along with the
SCS. The new RHNA being developed, which covers years 2015-2022, places a greater
emphasis on city centered growth. As a result, refinements are likely to result in modest
revisions to the funding distribution consistent with these revised development patterns.
The proposed OneBayArea Grant formula also uses actual housing data from 1999-2006,
and has been capped such that each jurisdiction receives credit for housing up to its
RHNA allocation. Subsequent funding cycles would rely on housing production from
ABAG’s next housing report to be published in 2013.
2. Priority Development Area (PDA) Minimum: Require that at least 70% of funding be
spent on projects in Priority Development Areas (planned, potential and growth
opportunity areas). Counties, at their discretion, can elect to use up to 5% of the PDA
restricted funds for the development of priority conservation area (PCA) plans. Growth
opportunity areas are tentatively considered as PDAs until ABAG completes final PDA
designations next fall. See Attachment C for PDA program minimums for each county
and Attachment D for a map and a list of the PDAs.
MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 4
An ywhere
30%
PDA
Restricted
70 %
Proposed Funding Minimum to
be Spent in PDAs
$63M
$148M
The OneBayArea Grant supports Priority Development Areas while
providing flexibility to fund transportation needs in other areas.
Performance and Accountability
As noted at the outset, housing allocation according to RHNA and housing production will be
the primary metric for distributing the OneBayArea Grant funding. In addition, staff
recommends the following performance and accountability requirements.
1. Supportive Local Transportation and Land-Use Policies: Staff recommends that local
agencies be required to have at least two of the following four policies adopted in order
to be eligible for grant funds:
a) Parking/pricing policies (e.g. cash out, peak pricing, on-street/off street pricing
differentials, eliminate parking minimums, unbundled parking) and adopted city
and/or countywide employer trip reduction ordinances
b) Adopted Community Risk Reduction Plans (CRRP) per CEQA guidelines
c) Have affordable housing policies in place or policies that ensure that new
development projects do not displace low income housing
d) Adopted bicycle/pedestrian plan and complete streets policy in general plans
pursuant to Complete Streets Act of 2008
2. Approved Housing Element: Also, a HCD-approved housing element consistent with
RHNA/SB375 law is a proposed condition for any jurisdiction receiving Cycle 2
OneBayArea grants. This may be met as follows: 1) adoption of a housing element that
meets the current RHNA before the new RHNA is adopted, or 2) the adoption of a
housing element that meets the new RHNA after its approval early in 2012. Jurisdictions
have 18 months after the adoption of the SCS to meet the new RHNA; therefore,
compliance is expected and required by September2014. Any jurisdiction failing to meet
either one of these deadlines will not be allowed to receive grant funding. Lastly any
MTC Planning Committee/ABAG Administrative Committee: OneBayArea Grant (cont.)
July 8, 2011
Page 5
jurisdiction without adopted housing elements addressing the new RHNA by September
2014 will be ineligible to receive any funding after Cycle 2 until they have adopted a
housing element.
Implementation Issues
Below are issues to be addressed as we further develop the OneBayArea Grant concept:
1. Federal Authorization Uncertainty: We will need to closely monitor development of the
new federal surface transportation authorization. New federal programs, their eligibility
rules, and how money is distributed could potentially impact the implementation of the
OneBayArea Grant Program as proposed.
2. Revenue Estimates: Staff assumes a steady but modest nominal revenue growth rate of
4% annually. Given the mood of Congress to downsize federal programs, these estimates
are potentially overly optimistic if there are significant reductions in STP / CMAQ
apportionments over the Cycle 2 time period. Staff recommends continuing to move
forward with the conservative revenue assumptions and make adjustments later if needed.
Attachments
MTC MTC MTC
1 Regional Planning *23 26 5 21 26
2 Regional Operations 84 0 74 0 74 0 74
3 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)51 0 66 0 66 0 66
4 Transit Capital Rehabilitation *0 0 125 0 125 0 125
5 Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation*694 770 374 77
6 Climate Initiatives *80 40 25 12 37
7 Regional Bicycle Program *020 020 020 20
8 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) *51 28 64 32
9 Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) Fund 10000
10 Priority Conservation Area Planning Pilot 5
11 MTC Res 3814 Transit Payback Commitment 6 0 25 0 25 0 25
324 142 426 122 343 211 554
70% 30% 78% 22% 62% 38%
142 30% 122 22% 211 38%
*
TLC program eliminated - All TLC funds to OneBayArea grant
$5M for SFGo in Regional. Eastern Solano CMAQ to Solano TA part of OneBayArea Grant.
7) Regional Bicycle Program:
$20M as CMAQ rather than TE as originally proposed in Framework
8) Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
100% Transit Rehab assigned as Regional Transit Rehabilitation, as Transit is network based and regional
5) Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation
$3M for a scaled back PTAP program
6) Climate Initiative:
Air District funding of $6 million adds capacity to suppport OneBay Area Grant.
1) Regional Planning:
$21M ($7M per year) for CMA Planning to be distributed to CMAs through OneBayArea Grant.
4) Transit Capital Rehabilitation:
J:\PROJECT\Funding\T4 - New Act\T4 - STP-CMAQ\T4 Cycle Programming\T4 Second Cycle\Cycle 2 Policy Dev\One Bay Area Grant\[Cycle2 Develop tables.xls]Program Funding 7-8-11
Cycle 1
Block Grant
Cycle 2
Status Quo
85 105
Cycle 2
One Bay Area
Total
Grant Totals:
15
Cycle 2
One Bay Area
Cycle 2
Total
One
Bay Area
Grant*
CMA
Block
Grant
CMA
Grant
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Status QuoFunding Available:
Cycle 1: $466M (after $54M Carryover)
Cycle 2: $548M
Air District: $6M
New Act STP / CMAQ Cycle 2 Draft Funding Proposal
July 8, 2011
(amounts in millions $)
Existing Framework
Attachment A-1
OneBayArea Grant
Proposal
Attachment A-2: Regional Programs
Regional Planning to support planning activities in the region carried out by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development
commission (BCDC), and MTC. CMAs would access their OneBayArea grant to fund planning
activities.
Regional Operations: This program includes Clipper, 511, Incident Management and a scaled-
back Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP).
Freeway Performance Initiative This program emphasizes the delivery of ramp metering projects
on the State Highway System throughout the Bay Area to gain the most efficiency out of the
existing highway network.
Priority Conservation Area Planning: Staff is recommending a new pilot for the development of
priority conservation area (PCA) plans for counties with populations under 500,000 to
ameliorate outward development expansion and maintain their rural character.
Transportation for the Livable Communities (TLC) and the Affordable Transportation Oriented
Development (TOD) Housing Fund: The bulk of the TLC Program’s funding will shift to the
OneBayArea Grant. The remaining funds under MTC’s management are proposed to continue
station area planning and/or CEQA assistance to PDAs and support additional investments in
affordable housing.
Climate Initiatives: The objective of the Climate Initiatives Program launched in Cycle 1 was to
make short-term investments that reduce transportation-related emissions and vehicle miles
traveled, and encourage the use of cleaner fuels. Through the innovative projects selected and
evaluation process, the region is building its knowledge base for the most effective Bay Area
strategies for the Sustainable Communities Strategy and next long-range plan. The proposed
funding for the Cycle 2 Climate Initiative Program would allow some continuation of these
efforts at the regional level and protect a prior commitment to the SFGo project.
Transit Capital Rehabilitation: The Commission deferred transit rehabilitation needs from Cycle
1 to Cycle 2 in order to allow more immediate delivery of some of the other programs. The
program objective, as in the past, is to assist transit operators to fund major fleet replacements,
fixed guideway rehabilitation and other high-scoring capital needs that cannot be accommodated
within the FTA Transit Capital Priorities program.
MTC Resolution 3814 Transit Payback Commitment: Consistent with the Cycle 2 framework,
MTC is proposing to program $25 million to Lifeline, small operators, and SamTrans right-of-
way settlement to partially address a commitment originally envisioned to be met with state
spillover funds.
County
50%-25%-25%(Pop.-
RHNA - Housing
Production Capped)
Status Quo Grant
Program
Alameda $42.4 $25.4
Contra Costa $31.5 $16.6
Marin $6.4 $5.0
Napa $4.2 $2.9
San Francisco $24.6 $11.8
San Mateo $17.2 $11.1
Santa Clara $55.3 $28.1
Solano $13.8 $9.0
Sonoma $15.8 $12.3
Bay Area Total $211.0 $122.1
Difference From Status Quo Grant Program
County
50%-25%-25%(Pop.-
RHNA - Housing
Production Capped)
Status Quo Grant
Program
Alameda $17.1 -
Contra Costa $14.9 -
Marin $1.4 -
Napa $1.3 -
San Francisco $12.8 -
San Mateo $6.1 -
Santa Clara $27.2 -
Solano $4.8 -
Sonoma $3.5 -
Bay Area Total $88.9 -
% Change From Status Quo Grant Program
County
50%-25%-25%(Pop.-
RHNA - Housing
Production Capped)
Status Quo Grant
Program
Alameda 67% -
Contra Costa 89% -
Marin 27% -
Napa 43% -
San Francisco 109% -
San Mateo 55% -
Santa Clara 97% -
Solano 53% -
Sonoma 29% -
Bay Area Total 73% -
Notes:
Attachment B
PROPOSAL
Housing production 1999-2006 is capped at 1999-2006 RHNA thresholds
RHNA is based on current 2007-20014 targets
Cycle 2 (FYs 2013, 2014, 2015)
OneBayArea Grant Distribution Formula
Status quo program based on framework for Cycle 2 adopted by the Commission and
continuation of Cycle 1 county block grant policies.
Population data from Department of Finance, US Census 2010
J:\PROJECT\Funding\T4 - New Act\T4 - STP-CMAQ\T4 Cycle Programming\T4 Second Cycle\Cycle 2
Policy Dev\Block Grant\[Distribution Options.xls]Distrib Overview
Attachment C
Apportionment
Area
County Grant
Amount
PDA 70%
Minimum
Anywhere
in County
Alameda $42.4 $29.7 $12.7
Contra Costa $31.5 $22.0 $9.4
Marin $6.4 $4.5 $1.9
Napa $4.2 $2.9 $1.2
San Francisco $24.6 $17.2 $7.4
San Mateo $17.2 $12.0 $5.1
Santa Clara $55.3 $38.7 $16.6
Solano $13.8 $9.6 $4.1
Sonoma $15.8 $11.0 $4.7
Regional Total $211.0 $147.7 $63.3
Allocation Areas
PROPOSAL
PDA Investments for the OneBayArea Grant
50%-25%-25% (Pop.- RHNA - Actual Housing Production
Capped) Distribution
Daly
City
San
Leandro
San Jose
San
Francisco
Oakland
San
Rafael
Mountain
View Sunnyvale
South
San Francisco
Santa Rosa
Santa
Clara
San Mateo
Richmond
Redwood
City
Pleasanton
Pittsburg
Petaluma
Palo Alto
Milpitas
Hayward
Fremont
Fairfield
Cupertino
Concord
Berkeley
Antioch
Alameda
Napa
Walnut
Creek
Vallejo
Vacaville
Union City
Santa Clara
Alameda
San
Mateo
Contra Costa
Marin
Sonoma Napa
Solano
Priority Development Areas
Attachment D
Source: MTC, June 2011, ABAG 2011
Cartography: MTC GIS/June 2011
Path: C:\WorkSpace\Craig\PDAs.mxd
Scale:
½1023in.in.
1 inch = 10 miles
Priority Development
Areas
Planned
Planned/Potential
Potential
Growth Opportunity
Areas
Current
Alameda County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
Alameda
Naval Air Station Planned/Potential
Northern Waterfront Growth Opportunity Area
Albany
San Pablo Avenue & Solano Avenue Growth Opportunity Area
Berkeley
Adeline Street Potential
Downtown Planned
San Pablo Avenue Planned
South Shattuck Planned
Telegraph Avenue Potential
University Avenue Planned
Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan Area Planned
Town Center Planned
Transit Center Planned
Emeryville
Mixed-Use Core Planned
Fremont
Centerville Planned
City Center Planned
Irvington District Planned
Ardenwood Business Park Growth Opportunity Area
Fremont Boulevard & Warm Springs Boulevard Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Fremont Boulevard Decoto Road Crossing Growth Opportunity Area
South Fremont/Warm Springs Growth Opportunity Area
Hayward
Downtown Planned
South Hayward BART Planned
South Hayward BART Planned
The Cannery Planned
Carlos Bee Quarry Growth Opportunity Area
Mission Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Livermore
Downtown Planned
Vasco Road Station Planning Area Potential
Newark
Dumbarton Transit Oriented Development Potential
Old Town MIxed Use Area Potential
Cedar Boulevard Transit Growth Opportunity Area
Civic Center Re-Use Transit Growth Opportunity Area
Attachment D: Priority Development Areas
Oakland
Coliseum BART Station Area Planned
Downtown & Jack London Square Planned
Eastmont Town Center Planned
Fruitvale & Dimond Areas Planned
MacArthur Transit Village Planned
Transit Oriented Development Corridors Potential
West Oakland Planned
Pleasanton
Hacienda Potential
San Leandro
Bay Fair BART Transit Village Potential
Downtown Transit Oriented Development Planned
East 14th Street Planned
Union City
Intermodal Station District Planned
Mission Boulevard Growth Opportunity Area
Old Alvarado Growth Opportunity Area
Alameda County Unincorporated
Castro Valley BART Growth Opportunity Area
East 14th Street and Mission Boulevard Mixed Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Contra Costa County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
Antioch
Hillcrest eBART Station Planned
Rivertown Waterfront Potential
Concord
Community Reuse Area Potential
Community Reuse Area Potential
Downtown BART Station Planning Growth Opportunity Area
North Concord BART Adjacent Growth Opportunity Area
West Downtown Planning Area Growth Opportunity Area
El Cerrito
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Planned
Hercules
Central Hercules Planned
Waterfront District Planned
Lafayette
Downtown Planned
Martinez
Downtown Planned
Moraga
Moraga Center Potential
Oakley
Downtown Potential
Employment Area Potential
Potential Planning Area Potential
Orinda
Downtown Potential
Pinole
Appian Way Corridor Potential
Old Town Potential
Pittsburg
Downtown Planned
Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Planned
Railroad Avenue eBART Station Planned
Pleasant Hill
Buskirk Avenue Corridor Potential
Diablo Valley College Potential
Richmond
Central Richmond Planned
South Richmond Planned
23rd Street Growth Opportunity Area
San Pablo Avenue Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
San Ramon
City Center Planned
North Camino Ramon Potential
Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek: West Downtown Planned
Contra Costa County Unincorporated
Contra Costa Centre Planned
Downtown El Sobrante Potential
North Richmond Potential
Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Planned
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee: San Pablo Avenue
Corridor Planned/Potential
Marin County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
San Rafael
Civic Center/North Rafael Town Center Planned
Downtown Planned
Marin County Unincorporated
Urbanized 101 Corridor Potential
San Quentin Growth Opportunity Area
Napa County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
American Canyon
Highway 29 Corridor Potential
San Francisco County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
San Francisco
19th Avenue Potential
Balboa Park Planned
Bayview/Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Planned
Downtown-Van Ness-Geary Planned
Eastern Neighborhoods Planned
Market & Octavia Planned
Mission Bay Planned
Mission-San Jose Corridor Planned
Port of San Francisco Planned
San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with City of Brisbane) Planned
Transbay Terminal Planned
Treasure Island Planned
Citywide Growth Opportunity Area
San Mateo County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
Brisbane
San Francisco/San Mateo Bi-County Area (with San Francisco) Potential
Burlingame
Burlingame El Camino Real Planned
Daly City
Bayshore Potential
Mission Boulevard Potential
Citywide
East Palo Alto
Ravenswood Potential
Woodland/Willow Neighborhood
Menlo Park
El Camino Real Corridor and Downtown Planned
Millbrae
Transit Station Area Planned
Redwood City
Downtown Planned
Broadway Growth Opportunity Area
Middlefield Growth Opportunity Area
Mixed Use Waterfront Growth Opportunity Area
Veterans Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
San Bruno
Transit Corridors Planned
San Carlos
Railroad Corridor Planned
San Mateo
Downtown Planned
El Camino Real Planned
Rail Corridor Planned
South San Francisco
Downtown Planned
Lindenville Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area
CCAG of San Mateo County: El Camino Real Planned/Potential
Santa Clara County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
Cambell
Central Redevelopment Area Planned
Winchester Boulevard Master Plan Growth Opportunity Area
Gilroy
Downtown Planned
Los Altos
El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Milpitas
Transit Area Planned
Hammond Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area
McCandless Transit Neighborhood Growth Opportunity Area
McCarthy Ranch Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area
Midtown Mixed-Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Serra Center Mixed-Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Tasman Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area
Town Center Mixed-Use Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Yosemite Employment Center Growth Opportunity Area
Morgan Hill
Morgan Hill: Downtown Planned
Mountain View
Whisman Station Potential
Downtown Growth Opportunity Area
East Whisman Growth Opportunity Area
El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Moffett Field/NASA Ames Growth Opportunity Area
North Bayshore Growth Opportunity Area
San Antonio Center Growth Opportunity Area
Palo Alto
Palo Alto: California Avenue Planned
Palo Alto: El Camino Real Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Palo Alto: University Avenue/Downtown Growth Opportunity Area
San Jose
Berryessa Station Planned
Communications Hill Planned
Cottle Transit Village Planned
Downtown "Frame" Planned
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Planned
Greater Downtown Planned
North San Jose Planned
West San Carlos and Southwest Expressway Corridors Planned
Bascom TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Bascom Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Camden Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages Growth Opportunity Area
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages Growth Opportunity Area
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Saratoga TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Stevens Creek TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village Growth Opportunity Area
Winchester Boulevard TOD Corridor Growth Opportunity Area
Santa Clara
Central Expressway Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
El Camino Real Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Great America Parkway Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Lawrence Station Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Santa Clara Station Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Tasman East Focus Area Growth Opportunity Area
Sunnyvale
Downtown & Caltrain Station Planned
El Camino Real Corridor Planned
Lawrence Station Transit Village Potential
East Sunnyvale ITR Growth Opportunity Area
Moffett Park Growth Opportunity Area
Peery Park Growth Opportunity Area
Reamwood Light Rail Station Growth Opportunity Area
Tasman Station ITR Growth Opportunity Area
VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas (estimate) Potential
Solano County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
Benicia
Downtown Planned
Northern Gateway Growth Opportunity Area
Dixon
Fairfield
Downtown South (Jefferson Street) Planned
Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station Potential
North Texas Street Core Potential
West Texas Street Gateway Planned
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Downtown & Waterfront Planned
Vacaville
Allison Area Planned
Downtown Planned
Vallejo
Waterfront & Downtown Planned
Solano County Unincorporated
Sonoma County
Jursidiction or Area Name PDA Status
Cloverdale
Downtown/SMART Transit Area Planned
Cotati
Downtown and Cotati Depot Planned
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Central, Turning Basin/Lower Reach Planned
Rohnert Park
Sonoma Mountain Village Potential
Santa Rosa
Downtown Station Area Planned
Mendocino Avenue/Santa Rosa Avenue Corridor Potential
Sebastopol Road Corridor Planned/Potential
North Santa Rosa Station Growth Opportunity Area
Sebastopol
Nexus Area Potential
Sonoma
Windsor
Redevelopment Area Planned
Sonoma County Unincorporated
8th Street East Industrial Area Growth Opportunity Area
Airport/Larkfield Urban Service Area Growth Opportunity Area
Penngrove Urban Service Area Growth Opportunity Area
The Springs Growth Opportunity Area
Provided by ABAG 6/6/2011
TO: MTC Planning Committee /
ABAG Administrative Committee
DATE: 1/13/2012
FR: Deputy Executive Director, Policy, MTC
Executive Director, ABAG
RE: Update on Proposed OneBayArea Grant — Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ Funding
Background
The OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) represents a significant step toward integrating the region’s federal
transportation program and its land-use and housing policies by:
x Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations and produce housing with additional
transportation dollars.
x Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the Bay Area by promoting
transportation investments in priority development areas (PDAs) and by initiating a pilot
program in the North Bay Counties that will support open space preservation in priority
conservation areas (PCAs).
x Increasing funding levels and eliminating program silos for greater local investment
flexibility.
Staff presented the OneBayArea Grant proposal to the MTC Planning Committee / ABAG
Administrative Committee on July 8, 2011. At that meeting, the committee directed that staff release
the proposal for public review. That initial proposal can be downloaded from the MTC website at
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/. Since then MTC has received numerous comment
letters from stakeholders, transportation agencies and local jurisdictions. Staff has given
presentations to the Bay Area Partnership working groups, Policy Advisory Council, ABAG
Executive Board, ABAG Planning Committee, Regional Advisory Working Group, and the Regional
Bicycle Working Group, as well as at various workshops in conjunction with the Plan Bay Area
development.
Stakeholder Response to OBAG Proposal
Attachment A lists the comment letters received to date. The letters are available at the website
referenced above with numbering consistent with the comment reference numbers in the attachment.
Overall, the comments are supportive of several key elements of the program proposal, including
greater program flexibility, increased funding subject to local priority-setting, and financial rewards
for accepting Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) commitments.
Comments Requesting Material Changes to Initial OBAG Proposal:
1. Priority Development Areas: There is support for lowering the proposed requirement that 70% of
funding to each county be used to fund projects in PDAs, and providing more flexibility with
respect to the use of these funds, particularly for counties with relatively few existing PDAs. In
contrast, several stakeholder groups and the MTC Policy Advisory Council support retaining the
70% requirement. Because many noted that project benefits to PDAs are not just from those
projects funded directly within the PDA limits, comment letters recommended allowing projects
Planning Committee Memo – Update on Proposed OneBayArea Grant
Page 2 of 4
that support or provide benefit to PDAs count towards the PDA requirements. There were
requests to exempt certain OBAG program eligibility categories from the PDA requirements,
such as streets and roads rehabilitation, regional bicycle, and Safe Routes to School. A reason
cited was that transportation needs do not always align geographically with PDAs.
2. Priority Conservation Areas: Some comments call for expanding the eligible use of PCA funding
beyond planning purposes in order to fund capital projects such as farm-to-market and open
space access needs. Additional comments call for expanding the regional pilot program
eligibility beyond the four North Bay counties.
3. Low Income Housing and Protections for Communities of Concern: Comments recommend
modifying the OBAG funding formula to reward jurisdictions that zone for or produce low
income housing units. In addition, some stakeholders also cited the need for policies that will
prevent displacement of low-income residents, which was noted as a potentially unintended
outcome of new housing and transportation investments in PDAs.
4. Performance and Accountability: In the areas of performance and accountability, many
comments asked for more flexibility, such as reasonable progress toward, instead of final
approval of, required policy actions, in the first round of OBAG funding. The reason cited was
limited time and staff resources to enact new policies in the timeframe proposed.
5. Regional Program: We received requests to continue funding the Safe Routes to School Program
(SR2S) as a regional program within the Climate Initiatives Program since the implementation of
SR2S at the county level is uneven throughout the region.
Recommended Program Revisions
As a result of the input received and continued regional agency dialogue, staff recommends that the
Committee consider significant revisions to the July 8, 2011 proposal, as outlined in the presentation
slides (Attachment B) and explained more fully below. Staff proposes to increase the OneBayArea
Grant from the initial $211 million funding level to $250 million. The increase comprises $39
million in federal funds, with $3 million directed specifically to preserve the “hold harmless”
provision for Marin, Napa and Solano Counties, after accounting for Cycle 1 planning and SR2S
funds. The funding distribution is also revised to reflect the formula changes discussed below to
reward jurisdictions for very-low and low-income housing units. Attachment C provides the revised
funding levels and distribution amounts.
1. Priority Development Areas
x Increase PDA Flexibility: Staff recommends reducing the requirement that at least 70% of
investments be directed to the PDAs to 50% for the four North Bay counties (Marin, Napa,
Solano, and Sonoma) as there are relatively fewer PDA opportunities in these counties.
Further, staff recommends that for all counties a project outside of a PDA count towards the
PDA minimum if it directly connects to or provides proximate access to a PDA. However,
staff does not recommend exempting certain programs or using different formulas to address
any single program investment as this would run counter to the flexibility of the OneBayArea
grant.
x Strengthen Planning Integration: While an entire county is rewarded financially if its
individual jurisdictions accept housing to meet RHNA targets, there is a need to ensure that
RHNA, PDAs, and supporting zoning policies are effectively aligned. Therefore, staff
recommends that all jurisdictions receiving OBAG funding be required to pass a non-binding
Planning Committee Memo – Update on Proposed OneBayArea Grant
Page 3 of 4
resolution of intent to align these three elements. Staff also recommends that CMAs prepare
and adopt a PDA development strategy to guide transportation investments that are
supportive of PDAs. Specific requirements will be developed as part of the next round of
planning agreements between MTC and the CMAs.
x Clarify Eligibility for Programs:Staff is proposing to clarify that both pedestrian and all
bicycle facilities would be eligible for OBAG funding and CMA planning costs would
partially count towards PDA targets (50% or 70%), in line with its PDA funding requirement.
2. Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs)
x Focus on North Bay through Competitive Pilot Program: Staff recommends that the $5
million pilot program continue to be limited to the North Bay Counties and be conducted as a
regional competitive program. However, eligibility would be expanded from planning to
land / easement acquisition, farm-to-market capital projects, and open space access projects.
x Leverage Additional Funding: A priority for these funds should be to partner with state
agencies and private foundations to leverage outside funds for these projects, particularly for
land acquisition and open space access. ABAG and MTC would pursue these leveraging
opportunities.
3. Low-Income/Workforce Housing
x Reward counties for low-income/workforce housing production:Staff recommends revising
the funding formula to recognize the importance of planning for and producing very low
and/or low-income housing by directing 25% in total, or 50% of the housing share, to very
low and low-income housing production and RHNA share.
4. Performance and Accountability
x Streamline Requirements: Staff recommends streamlining the performance and
accountability requirements in recognition of the considerable lead time required to
implement these requirements. Jurisdictions will need to be in compliance with the Complete
Streets Act of 2008 by July 1, 2013 to be eligible for OBAG funds. Staff will work with
jurisdictions to develop a strategy for meeting this timeline that considers individual
jurisdiction’s general plan update schedules. MTC will also revise its Complete Streets
Policy to ensure that public review and input for projects occurs early enough to better
inform CMA project selection.
x Retain Housing Element Requirement:Staff recommends no change to the proposal that a
jurisdiction be required to have its general plan housing element adopted and approved by
HCD for 2007-14 RHNA prior to July 1, 2013. Attachment D summarizes current
compliance, with 72% of Bay Area jurisdictions already meeting this requirement.
5. Regional Programs: Within the Climate Initiatives program, the SR2S Program would be
continued as a regional program with $10 million being distributed to the counties to be used
only for that purpose. Staff proposes that the remaining $10 million be used for electric vehicle
infrastructure and other climate strategies. Staff is also proposing a new regional $30 million
pilot Transit Performance Initiative Program to implement transit supportive investments in
major transit corridors. Finally, within the regional TLC Program, $15 million would be directed
to PDA planning grants with a special focus on selected PDAs with greater potential for
residential displacement, and to develop and implement community risk reduction plans.
Attachment A: Comment Letters Received in Response to the
OneBayArea Grant Proposal Released on July 8, 2011
Letter # Date Organization From
1 03/31/11 STA (Solano Transportation Authority) - re SB 375 Open
Space & Ag Land Harry Price, Chair, STA; Mayor, City of Fairfield
2 06/21/11 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C/CAG) - Letter 1 Richard Napier, Executive Director
3 07/05/11 TAM (Transportation Authority of Marin) Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director
4 08/05/11 Marshall_NCTPA TAC (Napa County Transportation &
Planning Agency)Rick Marshall, Chair, NCTPA TAC
5 08/12/11 City/Council Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C/CAG) - Letter 2 Richard Napier, Executive Director
6 08/25/11 Cortese_Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Dave Cortese, President, Board of Supervisors
7 08/31/11 Town of Los Gatos Greg Larson, Town Manager
8 08/31/11 City of Half Moon Bay Naomi Patridge, Mayor
9 08/31/11 City of Millbrae David F. Quigg, Mayor
10 09/01/11 City of Burlingame Terry Nagel, Mayor
11 09/01/11 Contra Costa County
Catherine O. Kutsuris, Director, Conservation and Development
Department and Julie Burren, Director, Public Works
Department
12 09/02/11 City of Mountain View
Michael A. Fuller, Public Works Director and Randal Tsuda,
Community Development Director
13 09/09/11 City of Brisbane Randy L. Breault, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
14 09/09/11 City of Milpitas Jose Esteves, Mayor
15 09/14/11 City of Fremont / LSRWG
Norm Hughes, Chair, Local Streets & Roads Working Group;
Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer
16 09/15/11 SCTA (Sonoma County Transportation Authority/Regional
Climate Protection Authority)Jake Mackenzie, Chair, SCTA/RCPA
17 09/15/11 City of Rohnert Park
Darren Jenkins, PE, Director of Development Services/City
Engineer
18 09/22/11 City of Sunnyvale Melinda Hamilton, Mayor
19 09/29/11 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) David E. Durant, Chair, Board of Commissioners
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2012\January12\One Bay Area Grant\OneBayArea Grant-Attach A.xls Page 1 of 3
Letter # Date Organization From
20 10/12/11 City of Lafayette Carl Anduri, Mayor
21 10/26/11 City of Morgan Hill Steve Tate, Mayor
22 10/26/11 County of Sonoma Efren Carrillo, Chairman, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
23 10/28/11
Bay Area Business Coalition
[Bay Area Council, Bay Planning Coalition, BIA Bay Area,
Contra Costa Council, East Bay EDA, Jobs & Housing
Coalition, North Bay Leadership Couyncil, Silicon Valley
Leadership Group, SAMCEDA, Solano EDC}
In order of organizations named in adjoining column:
Jim Wunderman, President & CEO; John Coleman, Executive
Director; Paul Campos, Senior VP, Govt. Affairs; Linda Best,
President & CEO; Karen Engel, Executive Director; Gregory
McConnell, President & CEO; Cynthia Murray, President & CEO;
Carl Guardino, President & CEO; Rosanne Foust, President &
CEO; Sandy Person, President
24 11/03/11 Greenbelt Alliance Stephanie Reyes, Policy Director
25 11/04/11 SFCTA (San Francisco County Transportation Authority) Ross Mirkarimi, Chair of the Board
26 11/15/11 City of Napa Jill Techel, Mayor
27 11/18/11
OBAG Comment Letter: Asian Pacific Environmental
Network, Bay Localize, California WALKS, Causa Justa::Just
Cause, Chinatown Community Development Center, Council
of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO), East Bay
Housing Organizations (EBHO), Genesis, Green Youth
Alliance, Greenbelt Alliance, The League of Women Voters of
the Bay Area, National CAPACD, Public Advocates,
TransForm, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, Urban
Habitat
(no names provided)
28 11/22/11 Santa Clara VTA (Valley Transportation Authority) John Ristow, VTA Chief CMA Officer
29 11/28/11 City of Palo Alto Sidney Espinosa, Mayor
30 11/28/11 SRTSNP (Safe Routes to School National
Partnership)_BABC (Bay Area Bicycle Coalition)
Deb Hubsmith, Director, SRTSNP and Corrine Winter, Chair,
BABC
31 12/02/11 City of Richmond William Lindsay, City Manager
32 12/06/11 County of Napa Bill Dodd, Chairman, Board of Supervisors
33 12/07/11 City of Santa Rosa Ernesto Oliveras, Mayor
34 12/09/11 City of American Canyon Richard Ramirez, Acting City Manager
35 12/12/11 Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Mark Moulton, Executive Director
36 12/19/11 Alameda County Transportation Commission Art Dao, Executive Director
37 12/19/11 City of Petaluma David Glass, Mayor
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2012\January12\One Bay Area Grant\OneBayArea Grant-Attach A.xls Page 2 of 3
Letter # Date Organization From
38 12/21/11 San Mateo County Health System SaraT L. Mayer, Director
39 12/23/11
City of Oakland
City and County of San Francisco
City of San Jose
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
Fred Blackwell, Assistant City Administrator
Jose Campos, Chief of Citywide Planning
Laurel Prevetti, Assistant Planning Director
Carter Mau, Executive Manager of Budget and Planning
Timothy Papandreou, Deputy Director for Sustainable Streets
Tina Spencer, Director of Service Development and Planning
Tilly Chang, Deputy Director for Planning
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2012\January12\One Bay Area Grant\OneBayArea Grant-Attach A.xls Page 3 of 3
OneBayArea GrantJoint MTC Planning/ABAG Administrative CommitteeJanuary 2012
2OverviewPriority Development AreasPriority Conservation AreasPerformance and AccountabilityNorthern County– Hold HarmlessRevised Funding FrameworkFunding AugmentationRegional Program DetailOBAG Flexibility
3Proposed Revisions: Priority Development AreasOverall Requirement: Reduce 70% requirement to 50% for the North Bay CountiesRequire PDA growth strategy to be adopted by CMAs (add to CMA planning agreements)Link RHNA, PDAs, and zoning policies. Jurisdictions must pass a resolution of intent to align these three elementsEligible Projects:Allow a project to count toward the PDA target if it connects to or provides proximate access to a PDAClarify expanded eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, not just limited to the regional bike networkPlanning Funds: Allow 70% or 50% of planning costs to count toward PDA targets to align with OBAG PDA investments
4Proposed Revisions: Priority Conservation AreasNorth Bay Pilot Program: Limited to 4 North Bay counties Project Eligibility for MTC/ABAG Selection:PlanningLand / easement acquisition Farm to market capital projectsOpen space accessSecure matching funds from state agencies/private foundationsRemaining Counties:Expand eligibility for “anywhere funds” to include project types above
5Proposed Revisions: Performance and Accountability1.Supportive Transportation and Land Use PoliciesMove from a menu approach (2 of 4) to 1 requirement.Complete Streets Compliance: For Cycle 2, amendment to the circulation element of the General Plan to comply with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 by July 1, 2013.Complete Streets checklist to be revised to allow public review and input prior to county project selection.2.Retain Housing Element Requirement: Require HCD approval of revised housing element to meet current 2007-14 RHNA prior to July 1, 2013.
6Proposed Revisions: Low-Income/Workforce HousingRevised Funding Formula: Add weighting to formula to recognize very low and low income categories.Direct 25% overall, or 50% of housing share, on very low and low income categories50% population / 12.5% RHNA / 12.5% Housing Production Capped / 12.5% Low- Income RHNA / 12.5% Low-Income Housing Production County% Change From July Proposal to Reflect Low Income HousingWeightingAlameda -3%Contra Costa -1%Marin 2%Napa-2%San Francisco 4%San Mateo -2%Santa Clara 2%Solano -7%Sonoma 5%Bay Area Total
7Proposed Revisions: County Funding LevelsHold Harmless: xAdd $3 million for address Marin, Napa, and Solano counties so that all counties see either growth or equivalent funding levels as compared to Cycle 2 status quo
8Proposed OBAG Funding AugmentationIncrease from $211 million to $250 million Add $18 million in federal STP/CMAQ funds to OBAGAdd $18 million in 2012 STIP TE funds (can be used for bicycle facilities and other enhancement projects)Add $3 million for “hold harmless” for Marin, Napa, and Solano
9Revised Funding Framework* Includes $6 million from Air DistrictRegional Regional Regional1 Regional Planning26 5 21 5 21 262 Regional Operations74 74 74 743 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI)66 66 66 664 Transit Capital Rehabilitation125 125 125 1255 Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation770 374 374776 Climate Initiatives40 25 12 20 12 327 Regional Bicycle Program20 20 20 208 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)64 32 15 85 25 85 1109 Priority Conservation Area Planning Pilot55510 MTC Res 3814 Transit Payback Commitment25 25 12 1211 Transit Sustainability Project30 3012 Augmentation39 39426 122 343 211 365 250 61578% 22% 62% 38% 59% 41%122 22% 211 38% 250 41%Original Cycle 2One Bay AreaRevised Cycle 2One Bay AreaGrant Totals:Cycle 1 Revised Block GrantTotalSTP/CMAQ ($591M)RTIP/TE ($18M)Air District ($6M)CMA Block GrantOneBay Area GrantOneBay Area GrantCycle 2OneBayAreaRevisedCycle 2TotalCycle 2Status QuoCycle 2OneBayAreaExisting Framework(as updated Jul 8, 2011)Original ProposalJul 8, 2011Revised Proposal *Jan 13, 2012New Act Cycle 2 Funding
10Regional Program Detail Regional Program Area AmountClimate Initiatives $20 millionSafe Routes to School $10 millionClimate Strategy $10 millionTransportation for Livable Communities $25 millionPDA Planning Grants $15 millionAffordable TOD Fund $10 millionTransit Performance Initiative (per TSP) $30 million
11Climate Initiatives ProgramSafe Routes to Schools ($10 million): Continue Safe Routes to School program to supplement OBAG investments and focus on non-infrastructure programs that may or not be in PDAsClimate Strategy Reserve ($10 million):Consider EV infrastructure and other promising projects; specific projects TBD.SR2S Fund Distribution by Total Student Enrollment*(millions $s)Alameda 21% $2.1Contra Costa 16% $1.6Marin 3% $0.3Napa 2% $0.2San Francisco 7% $0.7San Mateo 10% $0.9Santa Clara 27% $2.7Solano 6% $0.6Sonoma 7% $0.7Total 100% $10.0*Includes public and private K-12
12Transportation for Livable CommunitiesAffordable TOD Fund($10 million): Continue to leverageinvestment in affordable TODInitial $10 million (cycle 1) public investment yielded $40 million private capitalPDA Planning($15 million)Focus on PDAs with high potential for residential displacementAddress CEQA, entitlements, and community risk reduction planningWill fund roughly 40 plans
13Transit Performance Initiative Implement pilot program focused on transit supportive investments in major transit corridorsInitial ~$30 million capital to improve operations and customer experienceImplement several “quick wins” within 12 to 24 months Projects could include transit signal prioritization, passenger circulation improvements at major hubs, and boarding/stop improvementsApprove the first program of projects in April 2012 with the TSP adoptionRequire local jurisdictions to implement transit-supportive arterial management strategiesRescoped “Freeway Performance Initiative” includes funding for major arterials that can be used to support transit performance improvements
14OneBayArea Grant FlexibilityProgram and Project CategoriesPriority Development Areas“Anywhere”Planning ActivitiesXUp to 50% (North Counties)Up to 70% (Remaining Counties)XAugment Regional Safe Routes to SchoolXXStreets and Roads RehabilitationXXTransportation for Livable CommunitiesXXBicycle and Pedestrian ProjectsXXPriority Conservation AreasX
15County Funding at Augmented Levels CountyCycle 2Status QuoGrant ProgramJuly Initial ProposalRevised*50%-25%-25%(Pop-RHNA-Housing Production)$Difference(Revised - July)Alameda$25$42$48$6Contra Costa $17$31$36 $5Marin $5$6$9 $3Napa$3$4$6 $2San Francisco$12$25$30$5San Mateo $11$17$20 $2Santa Clara $28$55$66 $10Solano $9$14$16 $2Sonoma $12$16$19 $4Bay Area Total$122 $211 $250 $39* Proposal includes Low-Income and Very Low-Income weightingCycle 2 OBAG($ millions)
16($ millions)Total FundsPDA/"Anywhere" SplitWithin PDAs"Anywhere"FundsAlameda$48 70/30 $34 $14Contra Costa$36 70/30 $25 $11Marin$9 50/50 $4 $4Napa$6 50/50 $3 $3San Francisco$30 70/30 $21 $9San Mateo$20 70/30 $14 $6Santa Clara$66 70/30 $46 $20Solano$16 50/50 $8 $8Sonoma$19 50/50 $10 $10Regional Total$250 $165 $85County Funding Geographic Split
17Proposed OBAG Schedule ApprovalDecember 2011: Release scenario analysis resultsJanuary 2012Public outreach on scenario results Joint Planning / ABAG Administrative Committee review of initial comments and staff recommendationsFebruary 2012Release Guidance for applying Project Performance Assessment to Investment StrategyMarch 2012Release Final Draft Cycle 2 One Bay Area Grant proposalRelease Preliminary Preferred Scenario for Plan Bay AreaPreliminary Investment Strategy for Plan Bay AreaMay 2012Commission Approves Cycle 2 One Bay Area Grant programMTC / ABAG approves Preferred Scenario for Plan Bay Area
Attachment C: Revised Funding Distribution CountyCycle 2Status QuoGrantProgramJuly Initial ProposalRevised*50%-25%-25%(Pop-RHNA-Housing Production)$Difference(Revised - July)Alameda$25$42$48$6Contra Costa$17$31$36$5Marin$5$6$9$3Napa$3$4$6$2San Francisco$12$25$30$5San Mateo$11$17$20$2Santa Clara$28$55$66$10Solano$9$14$16$2Sonoma $12$16$19 $4Bay Area Total$122 $211 $250 $39* Proposal includes Low-Income and Very Low-Income weightingCycle 2 OBAG($ millions)
Attachment D
# County HCD Report
dtd 12/21/11
Alameda County
1 Alameda
2Albany
3 Berkeley X
4 Dublin X
5Emeryville X
6 Fremont X
7Hayward X
8Livermore X
9Newark X
10 Oakland X
11 Piedmont X
12 Pleasanton
13 San Leandro X
14 Union City X
15 Alameda County Unincorporated X
Contra Costa County
16 Antioch X
17 Brentwood
18 Clayton X
19 Concord X
20 Danville X
21 El Cerrito IN REVIEW
22 Hercules
23 Lafayette X
24 Martinez X
25 MoragaX
26 Oakley X
27 Orinda
28 Pinole X
29 Pittsburg X
30 Pleasant Hill X
31 Richmond
32 San Pablo X
33 San Ramon X
34 Walnut Creek X
35 Contra Costa County Unincorporated X
Marin County
36 Belvedere X
37 Corte Madera X
38 Fairfax
39 Larkspur X
Bay Area Jurisdictions' General Plan
Housing Element Compliance
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2012\January12\One Bay Area Grant\OneBayArea Grant-Attach D.xls Page 1 of 3
# County HCD Report
dtd 12/21/11
Bay Area Jurisdictions' General Plan
Housing Element Compliance
40 Mill Valley
41 Novato
42 Ross X
43 San Anselmo
44 San Rafael X
45 Sausalito
46 Tiburon
47 Marin County Unincorporated
Napa County
48 American Canyon X
49 CalistogaX
50 NapaX
51 St. Helena X
52 Yountville X
53 Napa County Unincorporated
San Francisco County
54 San Francisco X
San Mateo County
55 Atherton X
56 Belmont X
57 Brisbane X
58 Burlingame X
59 Colma
60 Daly City
61 East Palo Alto X
62 Foster City X
63 Half Moon Bay X
64 HillsboroughX
65 Menlo Park
66 Millbrae
67 Pacifica
68 Portola Valley X
69 Redwood City X
70 San Bruno X
71 San Carlos X
72 San Mateo X
73 South San Francisco X
74 Woodside X
75 San Mateo County Unincorporated IN REVIEW
Santa Clara County
76 Campbell X
77 Cupertino X
78 Gilroy
79 Los Altos X
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2012\January12\One Bay Area Grant\OneBayArea Grant-Attach D.xls Page 2 of 3
# County HCD Report
dtd 12/21/11
Bay Area Jurisdictions' General Plan
Housing Element Compliance
80 Los Altos Hills X
81 Los Gatos
82 Milpitas X
83 Monte Sereno X
84 Morgan Hill X
85 Mountain View IN REVIEW
86 Palo Alto
87 San Jose X
88 Santa Clara
89 SaratogaX
90 Sunnyvale X
91 Santa Clara County Unincorporated X
Solano County
92 Benicia
93 Dixon X
94 Fairfield X
95 Rio Vista X
96 Suisun City X
97 Vacaville X
98 VallejoX
99 Solano County Unincorporated X
Sonoma County
100 Cloverdale X
101 Cotati
102 Healdsburg X
103 Petaluma X
104 Rohnert Park X
105 Santa Rosa X
106 Sebastopol X
107 Sonoma
108 Windsor X
109 Sonoma County Unincorporated X
109 Bay Area Total 79
72%
J:\COMMITTE\Planning Committee\2012\January12\One Bay Area Grant\OneBayArea Grant-Attach D.xls Page 3 of 3
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
John Gioia, 1st District
Gayle B. Uilkema, 2nd District
Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District
Karen Mitchoff, 4th District
Federal D. Glover, 5th District
April 24, 2012
Mr. Steve Heminger
Executive Director
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
RE: Update on Proposed OneBayArea Grant – Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ Funding
Dear Mr. Heminger:
Contra Costa County has had the opportunity to review the updated “OneBayArea” Grant –
Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ Funding (OBAG) dated 1/13/2012. The County would like to offer the
following comments based on the information provided.
1. Priority Development Area (PDA) Minimum. Generally, requiring 70% of STP funds to be
spent in PDAs may not be the best use of funds. Local streets and roads shortfalls may not
necessarily fall within a PDA, or at least to the magnitude of 70% of available STP funds.
Greater needs for pavement rehabilitation may exist beyond PDAs. However the proposal
indicates flexibility would be increased by allowing projects that directly connect to, or have
“proximate access” to a PDA to count toward the 70% minimum. If this is going to be the
qualifier for non-PDA projects, the County would recommend that “proximate access” be left
to be defined by the CMAs.
2. Priority Conservation Areas (PCA): In our previous comments the County recommended
expanding the proposed Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Planning Program to counties with
populations 500,000 and over. While MTC staff did recommend expanding eligible projects
beyond planning to land/easement acquisition, farm-to-market capital project, and open space
access projects, non-North Bay counties are ineligible to compete. The proposed update
provides no justification for not expanding the program to counties with populations of
500,000 and over.
The County has two PCAs of concern, the 7,500 acre Agricultural Core and a 30,000 acre
preserve system of the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy. The County has significant
unfunded needs for 1) land/easement acquisition, 2) farm-to-market capital projects, and 3)
open space access, yet we will be unable to compete for this program because of the
limitations proposed.
David Twa
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administrator
(925) 335-1900
Contra
Costa
County
Mr. Heminger
April 5, 2012
Page 2 of 2
3. The proposed program does not acknowledge and should take into account recent census data
that has revealed an overall minimal increase, stabilization, or decline in the population of
urban centers within the Bay Area over the last 10 years. In addition the age demographic in
urban areas are changing. The 18 and over population is increasing while 17 and under is
decreasing. For Contra Costa County this is evident in cities such as Hercules, Pinole, El
Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo1. Conversely, census data has shown significant increases in
population and housing in suburban areas like Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley (Eastern
Contra Costa County) where there are relatively fewer PDAs.
The County agrees with the intent of the OBAG program, which is to strengthen the economic
vitality of existing communities through investments in infrastructure and transit in these areas.
However the proposed OBAG program may be trying to do too much too soon. In other words,
the program contains a potential fundamental flaw by mandating a large portion of funding be
spent within urban centers, or PDAs, when there is no reasonable indication that these areas
will have a substantial need for the proposed level of infrastructure and program funding in the
near future. During Cycle 1 the County did not have a funding need near 70% in PDAs, and
may not for Cycle 2.
Over time this may change, but this change will be gradual. Therefore it would be reasonable
for MTC to consider a more gradual investment approach, and increasing that investment over
time rather than all at once and up front. The fact remains that higher funding needs currently
exist beyond the proposed program limits and PDAs.
Again, the County appreciates the efforts by MTC to modify these fund programs to provide
more flexibility and efficiency. The County looks forward to being involved in further
discussions regarding the proposed framework for the OneBayArea Grant program.
Sincerely,
SUPERVISOR MARY N. PIEPHO – CHAIR
DISTRICT III
cc: C. Kutsuris, DCD
Steven L. Goetz, DCD
P. Roche, DCD
Steven Kowalewski, PWD
1 MTC-ABAG Census 2000, Census 2010. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/counties.htm
5(&200(1'$7,21 6
$SSURYHDQGDXWKRUL]HWKH+HDOWK6HUYLFHV'LUHFWRURUGHVLJQHHWRH[HFXWHRQEHKDOIRIWKH&RXQW\8QSDLG6WXGHQW
7UDLQLQJ$JUHHPHQW± ZLWK0W'LDEOR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFWDQHGXFDWLRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQWRSURYLGH
VXSHUYLVHGILHOGLQVWUXFWLRQDW&RQWUD&RVWD5HJLRQDO0HGLFDO&HQWHUDQG&RQWUD&RVWD+HDOWK&HQWHUVIRUWKHSHULRG
$SULOWKURXJK$XJXVW
),6&$/,03$&7
1RQH
%$&.*5281'
7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWLVWRSURYLGH&RQWUDFWRU¶VVWXGHQWVZLWKWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRLQWHJUDWHDFDGHPLF
NQRZOHGJHZLWKDSSOLHGVNLOOVDWSURJUHVVLYHO\KLJKHUOHYHOVRISHUIRUPDQFHDQGUHVSRQVLELOLW\6XSHUYLVHGILHOGZRUN
H[SHULHQFHIRUVWXGHQWVLVFRQVLGHUHGWREHDQLQWHJUDOSDUWRIERWKHGXFDWLRQDODQGSURIHVVLRQDOSUHSDUDWLRQ7KH
+HDOWK6HUYLFHV'HSDUWPHQW
$33529( 27+(5
5(&200(1'$7,212)&17<
$'0,1,675$725
5(&200(1'$7,212)%2$5'
&200,77((
$FWLRQRI%RDUG2Q $33529('$6
5(&200(1'('
27+(5
&OHUNV1RWHV
927(2)683(59,6256
$<( -RKQ*LRLD'LVWULFW,6XSHUYLVRU
0DU\13LHSKR'LVWULFW,,,
6XSHUYLVRU
.DUHQ0LWFKRII'LVWULFW,9
6XSHUYLVRU
)HGHUDO'*ORYHU'LVWULFW9
6XSHUYLVRU
$%6(17 *D\OH%8LONHPD'LVWULFW,,
6XSHUYLVRU
&RQWDFW $QQD5RWK
,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVLVDWUXHDQGFRUUHFWFRS\RIDQDFWLRQWDNHQDQGHQWHUHGRQWKHPLQXWHVRIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV
RQWKHGDWHVKRZQ
$77(67(' $SULO
'DYLG-7ZD&RXQW\$GPLQLVWUDWRUDQG&OHUNRIWKH%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV
%\ -XQH0F+XHQ'HSXW\
FF '0RUJDQ
&
7R %RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV
)URP :LOOLDP:DONHU0'+HDOWK6HUYLFHV'LUHFWRU
'DWH $SULO
Contra
Costa
County
6XEMHFW 8QSDLG6WXGHQW7UDLQLQJ$JUHHPHQW± ZLWK0W'LDEOR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW