BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Wednesday, October 10, :30 PM. VTA Conference Room B North First Street San Jose, CA

Transcription

1 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 10, :30 PM VTA Conference Room B North First Street San Jose, CA ADDENDUM TO AGENDA 9.X. ACTION ITEM Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the Santa Clara One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program Criteria.

2 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 10, :30 PM VTA Conference Room B North First Street San Jose, CA REVISED AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL 2. ORDERS OF THE DAY 3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is requested, the matter can be placed on a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. 4. Receive Committee Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Y. Smith) Capital Program Update. 5. Receive Chairperson's Report. (Verbal Report) (Goldstein) 6. Receive Reports from BPAC subcommittees. (Verbal Report) CONSENT AGENDA 7. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 12, INFORMATION ITEM - Receive report on the Semi-annual Update of BEP projects North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

3 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee October 10, 2012 REGULAR AGENDA 9. ACTION ITEM - Appoint a nomination subcommittee to identify Committee members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson for ACTION ITEM - Recommend that the Board of Directors Adopt the Priority Development Area (PDA) Serving Definition. 11. INFORMATION ITEM - Receive report on the Complete Streets General Plan compliance assessment strategy. SANTA CLARA COUNTY BPAC AGENDA 12. Receive County Staff Report. (Verbal Report) (Cameron) 13. ACTION ITEM - Recommend that the County Board of Supervisors adopt the Complete Streets Resolution. (County Item) 14. INFORMATION ITEM -County staff will provide information on the bicycle adaptive signal timing project on all expressways and the Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor. (County Item) OTHER 15. Receive Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) Report. (Verbal Report) (Wadler) 16. Local Jurisdiction Project Review Section. (Verbal Report) (Committee Members) 17. Review BPAC Work Plan. (Y Smith/D. Cameron) 18. ANNOUNCEMENTS 19. ADJOURN In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations should notify the Board Secretary s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary s Office at least 72-hours prior to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) or board.secretary@vta.org <mailto:board.secretary@vta.org> or (408) (TTY only). VTA s home page is on the web at: < or visit us on Facebook at: < (408) : 中文 / Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog. All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board Secretary s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) , the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on VTA s website at and also at the meeting. Page 2

4 CALL TO ORDER BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 12, 2012 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) was called to order at 6:32 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Bell in Conference Room B-104, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 3331 North First Street, San José, California. 1. ROLL CALL Attendee Name Title Status Jeffrey Balfus City of Monte Sereno Present Jim Bell, Vice Chairperson City of San José Present Wes Brinsfield City of Los Altos Present Christie Cooley City of Saratoga Present Aaron Faupell City of Milpitas Present Paul Goldstein, Chairperson City of Palo Alto Present Melanie Hanssen Town of Los Gatos Absent Breene Kerr Town of Los Altos Hills Present Thomas Muniz City of Gilroy Present Marc Roddin City of Mountain View Present Dale Schouten City of Santa Clara Present David Simons City of Sunnyvale Present Herman Wadler City of Campbell Present James Wiant City of Cupertino Present Corinne Winter Ex-Officio, SVBC Present Vacant County of Santa Clara Absent Vacant City of Morgan Hill Absent A quorum was present. 2. ORDERS OF THE DAY Vice Chairperson Bell recommended that Agenda Item #12, Complete Streets in Santa Clara County, and Agenda Item #15, Expressway Bicycle Signal Detection be deferred until the October 10, 2012, BPAC meeting. Member Cooley took her seat at 6:37 p.m. Vice Chairperson Bell requested that Agenda Item #16, Central Expressway/Fair Oaks On-Ramp Bicycle Sign, be heard as the first item on the Regular Agenda North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

5 Vice Chairperson Bell stated the Chairperson s Report would be deferred until the arrival of Chairperson Goldstein. Members of the Committee requested that they be informed in advance of the meeting when items are removed from the agenda. M/S/C (Wadler/Wiant) to approve the Orders of the Day. 3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS There were no Public Presentations. 4. Committee Staff Report Stephen Flynn provided a brief overview of the new member orientation held on August 29, Ying Smith, Transportation Planning Manager, provided an update on the Bike Share Program, noting the program will begin with 1000 bikes shared among three counties, with 400 of the bikes earmarked for Santa Clara County. Michelle DeRobertis, Senior Transportation Planner, distributed a handout, highlighting: 1) Libraries were provided hard copies of the Draft Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG) Update; 2) Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) Policy Updates and Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040; and 3) BEP Funding Sources and Amounts. Capital Program Update Ex-Officio Member Winter took her seat at 6:49 p.m. There was no Capital Program Update. On order of Vice Chairperson Bell and there being no objection, the Committee received the Committee Staff Report. 6. BPAC Subcommittees Reports The Agenda was taken out of order. OBAG and BEP Policies Subcommittee Vice Chairperson Bell reported the subcommittee discussed: 1) draft scoring and how it might apply to the member agencies; 2) how to keep the BEP projects moving forward; and 3) placing all BEP projects on the scoring criteria list without prescreening. Ms. Smith noted Priority Development Areas (PDA) requirements are defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and therefore are not in VTA s control. If a project does not meet the PDA serving definition established by MTC, a city may use its own portion of the funding to complete the project. Chairperson Goldstein took his seat at 7:00 p.m. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 2 of 6 September 12, 2012

6 Members of the Committee referenced the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) surface transportation authorization bill and questioned whether the California Governor had obtained a waiver regarding trails and bikes. Marcella Rensi, Transportation Planning Manager, noted she would obtain an answer and respond back to the BPAC. Members of the Committee discussed whether it made sense to have a BEP with the new funding structure. On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received the BPAC Subcommittee Reports. 5. Chairperson's Report There was no Chairperson s Report. CONSENT AGENDA 7. Regular Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2012 M/S/C (Wadler/Bell) to approve the Regular Minutes of May 9, Regular Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 M/S/C (Wadler/Bell) to approve the Regular Minutes of July 11, Programmed Project Monitoring Quarterly Report On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received the Programmed Projects Quarterly Monitoring Report for April through June Proactive Congestion Management Program (CMP) Quarterly Report for April through June 2012 On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received the Proactive CMP Quarterly Report for April through June SANTA CLARA COUNTY BPAC AGENDA 16. Central Expressway/Fair Oaks On-Ramp Bicycle Sign Bill Yeung, Senior Civil Engineer - Electrical Design, County of Santa Clara, provided the staff report. Chairperson Goldstein stated the on-ramp bicycle sign is an experiment in response to the BPAC's suggestion. NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 3 of 6 September 12, 2012

7 Members of the Committee: 1) discussed the pros and cons of signage location, recommending that the sign be placed to the left of vehicles preparing to merge, due to the motorists point of focus; 2) confirmed with staff that the bicycle detector loop could detect a bicycle s speed; 3) recommended the initial flashing of the sign be set to accommodate the fastest cyclists and to remain flashing in order to accommodate the slower cyclists; and 4) recommended a speed measurement test be held to determine if motorists slowed when the Bicycle Crossing Sign was flashing. On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received the update on plans to enhance the existing Bicycle Crossing Sign on Central Expressway at the Fair Oaks ramp merge. REGULAR AGENDA 11. One Bay Area Grant (OBAG): Local Program Development - Criteria Ms. Rensi provided a brief description of the action taken on this item by the Citizens Advisory Committee. Ms. Rensi distributed a handout entitled, PDA Serving Definition. Ms. Rensi noted that members of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Working Group populate the scoring committee. She reviewed the scoring process utilized by the CIP, noting relevant material is provided a week in advance of the scoring committee meeting to enable the CIP to review the material and ask any clarifying questions prior to meeting. The CIP reviews the criteria, discusses each project and scores them. After the scores are tallied they are reviewed to ensure consistency. The OBAG and BEP Policies Subcommittee proposed retention of the guarantee for the entire BEP regardless of PDA status. Members of the Committee requested inclusion of a public involvement criterion and that the points be adjusted as follows: Safety: 25; Gap Closure: 15; Air Quality: 10; Project Benefits: 5; Local Match: 15; and Project Readiness: 15. Member Schouten left the meeting at 8:08 p.m. M/S/C (Wadler/Simons) to Call the Question. Member Kerr opposed. Ms. Rensi noted that BEP projects outside of PDAs and the PDA Serving Definition could not be made eligible through the Competitive Complete Streets Program, but they could be funded by the City Guarantee shares. She further noted that the BPAC could request that the Board continue guaranteed funding of eligible BEP projects, instead of having them compete and receive bonus points as proposed. M/S/C (Wadler/Simons) to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the Santa Clara One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program Criteria with the amendment that a quantitative scoring criteria metrics be prepared and provided to the BPAC and to the Board in advance of the Board s vote on this item. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 4 of 6 September 12, 2012

8 Member Brinsfield left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 12. (Deferred to the October 10, 2012, BPAC Committee Meeting) Receive a report on Complete Streets in Santa Clara County. 13. Complete Streets General Plan Compliance Assessment Ms. DeRobertis provided the staff report. On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received a report on the Complete Streets General Plan compliance assessment strategy. SANTA CLARA COUNTY BPAC AGENDA 14. County Staff Report Dawn Cameron, Santa Clara County Roads and Airports, provided the staff report, highlighting: 1) The County Circulation Element will need to be revised over the next 2 to 3 years at a cost of approximately $1 million; 2) The County has drafted a Complete Streets Policy to be taken to the County Board of Supervisors before the end of this year. The draft policy will be presented to the BPAC at its October 10, 2012, meeting; 3) On September 11, 2012, the State of California announced the awards of the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Grants. Ms. Cameron reported that only five projects in the Bay Area received BTA grants. The City of San José received 2 grants and the County received 1 grant to install bicycle signal detection and adaptive timing along Montague Expressway. She noted with the County s grant, 7 of the 8 expressways within the County will have had bicycle signal detection equipment installed or funded; and 4) Special Event Permits can only be issued by the County for County Roads. If an event utilizes another jurisdiction s roadway, a permit must be issued by that jurisdiction. On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received the County Staff Report. 15. (Deferred to the October 10, 2012, BPAC Committee Meeting) OTHER Receive information on the bicycle adaptive signal timing project on all expressways and the Santa Teresa/Hale Corridor. 17. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee (CWC) Report There was no CAC/CWC Committee Report. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 5 of 6 September 12, 2012

9 18. Local Jurisdiction Project Review Section The cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale want to extend the Stevens Creek Trail. A Citizens Advisory Committee is being organized by the City of Sunnyvale. The deadline to respond is September 28, On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee received the report on the Local Jurisdiction Project Review Section. 19. BPAC Work Plan On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the Committee reviewed the BPAC Work plan. 20. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. 21. ADJOURNMENT On order of Chairperson Goldstein and there being no objection, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan E. Garcia, Board Assistant VTA Office of the Board Secretary Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 6 of 6 September 12, 2012

10 8 Date: September 17, 2012 Current Meeting: October 10, 2012 Board Meeting: November 1, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee General Manager, Michael T. Burns Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow BEP Project Status Semi-Annual Update (Funding & Delivery) BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY VTA s long-range transportation plan, the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035, adopted in December 2008, included an allocation of $160 million in future funding commitments to 81 bicycle projects throughout Santa Clara County. This funding program is referred to as the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) and is the implementation plan for regional and countywide bicycle projects in Santa Clara County. It is governed by a set of policies adopted by the VTA Board of Directors including criteria for evaluating and scoring potential bicycle projects to include in the BEP. This memorandum is intended to provide a status report on the progress of projects within the plan. This report was last presented to the committees in March DISCUSSION: Overall, Cities and County are making good progress in project development; they and VTA have an admirable track record for planning, funding, and building bicycle projects. Table 1 shows the funding status of the 81 projects as of August 31, 2012 compared to that of 6, 12 and 18 months ago; the projects are categorized as completed, active, and no progress. Active projects are further broken down as fully funded, funded with BEP funds, and funded with only non-bep funds. Since the last report in March 2012, four of the fully funded projects have been completed: Gilroy - Lions Creek Trail/service road between Wren Ave. and Kern Ave. Morgan Hill - Cochrane Road bike lane and pedestrian sidewalk improvements Mountain View: Permanente Creek Trail & Bridge over Hwy 101 and Old Middlefield Rd North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

11 8 Mountain View: Stevens Creek Trail Reach 4 and bike bridge over S.R. 85 (from Sleeper to Dale / Heatherstone) Two projects have moved out of the No Funding Category (Group E) into Active projects (Group D). The City of Sunnyvale is nearing completion of the design for one segment of Mathilda Avenue from Maude Avenue to California Avenue using TFCA-BEP funds. The city of Sunnyvale has also started feasibility studies for the East Channel Trail using City funds. In addition, some projects already in progress (Group D) received additional funding: the County received $250,000 in TDA-BEP funds for the expressway signal timing project for Foothill Expressway. The City of Santa Clara received $100,000 in TDA guaranteed funds for the San Tomas Aquino Spur Trail. In all, 49 of the 81 projects are either completed or in some stage of implementation. Seventeen projects are completed, six projects are fully funded and are under development (Groups B and C), and twenty-six (Group D) are in progress but are not fully funded. This latter group of active projects will need funding in upcoming cycles. The remaining 32 projects (Group E) are currently not funded. Page 2 of 3

12 8 Table 1 Summary of BEP Project Funding Status Group Funding Status # of Projects Feb Aug Feb Aug A Completed B Active: Fully funded and in progress w/o BEP funding C Active: Fully funded and in progress with BEP funding D Active: In progress but not fully funded E No funding Total Attachment A presents the list of projects in each of the funding status groups. Attachment B presents the progress of the BEP projects by jurisdiction. Of note, many jurisdictions continue to be successful in obtaining funds outside of the BEP (in Groups B and D), such as Bicycle Transportation Account funds from Caltrans (County Bike Detection on Expressways and City of San Jose Hedding Bikeway). It appears that many BEP projects will be ready to award a construction contract in the next one or two funding cycles. If all of these projects progress according to current schedules, VTA anticipates that at least $16 million will be needed in the next cycle beginning July This does not include any BEP projects that may enter into project development or design phase in the next two years. The proposed new OneBayArea Grant proposal, with increased funding and more flexibility, may help with some of this shortfall but not all. Accordingly, VTA may need to develop additional criteria to select projects to receive BEP funding in the event the program becomes over-subscribed in the near-term. Prepared By: Michelle DeRobertis Memo No Page 3 of 3

13 ATTACHMENT A 8.a BEP Project List Funding Status Project Sponsor VTP 2035ID Project Title Total Project Cost Current BEP Request Funding progress: Group A completed Campbell 35-B01 Campbell Ave.Widening over Los Gatos Creek $1,500,000 $0 County 35-B32 Foothill - Loyola Bridge(8) Short-term $460,000 $0 Roads&Airports Cupertino 35-B03 Mary Ave. at I-280 Bicycle /Pedestrian Overcrossing $15,400,000 $0 Gilroy 35-B04 Tier 2-Uvas Creek Trail Feasibility Study $150,000 $120,000 Gilroy 35-B45 Lions Creek SCVWD Service Road west (Wren Ave. to $900,000 $720,000 Kern Ave.) Los Altos 35-B05 Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Replacement $500,000 $0 Los Altos Hills 35-B06 Moody Rd./El Monte Rd. Bike Improvements - Segments $3,500,000 $0 1-3 Morgan Hill 35-B08 West Little Llagas Creek Trail Phase 4 (Spring Rd to $650,000 $500,000 Edes) Morgan Hill 35-B52 Highway 101 and Cochrane Rd. $600,000 $480,000 Mountain View 35-B09 Tier 2-Stevens Creek Trail Reach 4 & bike bridge over $10,000,000 $7,000,000 SR 85 (Sleeper To Dale Heatherstone) Mountain View 35-B54 Permanente Creek Trail Bike/Pedestrian Crossing of US $9,500,000 $2,100, and Old Middlefield Way Santa Clara 35-B22 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail - North of Monroe Ave. $10,000,000 $0 to SR 237 Santa Clara 35-B23 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail - Monroe Ave. to $1,600,000 $1,300,000 south/west city limit Saratoga 35-B24 PG&E De Anza Trail (Reach 3) Joe'sTrail $2,497,000 $220,000 Sunnyvale 35-B27 Borregas Bike Lanes between Weddell and Persian $60,000 $50,000 Sunnyvale 35-B28 Borregas Bicycle Bridge Over US 101 and SR 237 $8,700,000 $0 VTA 35-B36 Pilot Bicycle Parking Program (didn t have VTP #) $250,000 $30,000 Number of Projects 17 Total: $66,267,000 $12,520,000 Funding progress: Group Fully Funded w/o BEP-IP B All Under Construction Los Gatos 35-B49 Blossom Hill Rd. Sidewalks and Bicycle Lanes from Cherrystone Dr to Camino del Cerro $800,000 $640,000 Number of Projects Funding progress: Group 1 Total: $800,000 $640,000 Fully Funded-IP All Under Construction except where noted. Morgan Hill 35-B53 Madrone Recharge Channel $500,000 $400,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B14 Guadalupe River Trail (Montague Expwy. to Alviso) $5,000,000 $2,620,000 Saratoga/LosGat os C 35-B25 SR 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improvements $2,700,000 $0 Friday, September 14, 2012 Page 1 of 4 A-1

14 ATTACHMENT A 8.a Project Sponsor VTP 2035ID Project Title Sunnyvale 35-B80 Pastoria Avenue, Bike Lanes from El Camino Real to Evelyn Avenue Sunnyvale 35-B81 Hendy Avenue, Bike Lanes from Sunnyvale Avenue to Fair Oaks Avenue Total Project Cost Current BEP Request $237,000 $190,000 $670,000 $540,000 Design Phase Design Phase Number of Projects 5 Total: $9,107,000 $3,750,000 Funding progress: Group D-1 IP-BEP funds Campbell 35-B39 Portals Project: Widening Campbell Ave. under SR 17- Bike Lanes County Roads&Airports 35-B93 All Expressways + Santa Teresa Blvd./Hale Ave. Bicycle Detection Gilroy 35-B40 Western Ronan Channel SCVWD service road (Leavesley to Llagas Creek) Gilroy 35-B42 Lions Creek Trail SCVWD on service road between Kern Ave. and Day Rd. Gilroy 35-B43 Lions Creek SCVWD Trail- on service road between Tapestry and Santa Teresa Blvd/Day Rd. (east) intersection. $3,000,000 $2,400,000 $2,100,000 $1,680,000 $2,700,000 $2,160,000 $1,900,000 $1,520,000 $600,000 $480,000 Palo Alto 35-B11 Bicycle Boulevards Network Project $5,000,000 $3,930,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B66 Hedding St. Bikeway $200,000 $160,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B70 Park Ave./San Fernando St./San Antonio Bikeway $100,000 $80,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B15 Los Gatos Creek Trail (Park Ave. to Santa Clara St.) $5,000,000 $2,940,000 Reach 5d San Jose (Parks) 35-B16 Los Gatos Creek Trail Reach 5 (Auzerais Ave. to Park $7,300,000 $5,860,000 Ave.)-Reach 5a,5b & 5c Santa Clara 35-B74 San Tomas Aquino Creek Spur Trail from Cabrillo to $1,000,000 $800,000 Central Park along expressway shoulder until. Sunnyvale 35-B76 Mary Avenue, Bike Lanes from Evelyn to Fremont $519,800 $420,000 Sunnyvale 35-B79 Mathilda Avenue, Bike Lanes from US 101 to El Camino $3,900,000 $3,120,000 Real VTA 35-B35 Santa Clara Caltrain Undercrossing Extension $8,000,000 $2,730,000 Number of Projects 14 Total: $41,319,800 $28,280,000 Funding progress: Group IP-Local funds All in Planning Phase D-2 All in Planning or Design Phase County 35-B33 Loyola bridge over Foothill Expressway: Long term $7,000,000 $1,000,000 Roads&Airports Palo Alto 35-B59 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation $13,000,000 $10,400,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B13 Almaden Expwy. Bike/Ped Overcrossing $5,700,000 $4,600,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B17 Coyote Creek Trail (Montague Expwy. to Oakland Rd.) $7,500,000 $6,000,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B18 Coyote Creek Trail (Oakland Rd. to Watson Park) $7,500,000 $6,000,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B19 Tier 2-Coyote Creek Trail (Watson Park to Williams St. $5,000,000 $4,000,000 Park) San Jose (Parks) 35-B20 Coyote Creek Trail (Williams St. Park to Kelley Park/Story Road) $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Friday, September 14, 2012 Page 2 of 4 A-2

15 ATTACHMENT A 8.a Project Sponsor VTP 2035ID Project Title Total Project Cost Current BEP Request San Jose (Parks) 35-B71 Penitencia Creek Trail (Coyote Creek to King Rd) - $3,750,000 $3,000,000 Berryessa BART Station Segment San Jose (Parks) 35-B72 Thompson Creek Trail from Tully Road to the County $6,400,000 $4,250,000 Line San Jose (Parks) 35-B73 Three Creeks Trail from Lonus Street to Coyote Creek $2,500,000 $2,000,000 (formerly Willow Glen Spur Trail) Sunnyvale 35-B26 Sunnyvale East Channel Trail $1,330,000 $1,040,000 Sunnyvale 35-B78 Stevens Creek Trail Connector Provides access to Mountain View Reach 4 trail. $1,400,000 $1,120,000 Number of Projects Funding progress: Group E 12 Total: $63,580,000 $45,410,000 Not Funded Campbell 35-B02 Tier 2-Los Gatos Creek Trail Expansion on west side $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Campbell 35-B37 Widen Los Gatos Creek Trail on east side (Camden Ave. $300,000 $240,000 to Campbell Ave.) Campbell 35-B38 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail-Westmont High School $1,500,000 $1,200,000 to Virginia County Parks 35-B94 Los Gatos Creek Trail (Vasona County Park) $1,500,000 $1,200,000 County Parks 35-B95 Coyote Creek Trail (Coyote Creek County Park) $1,100,000 $880,000 County 35-B31 Tier 2-McKean Rd. Shoulder Improvements $6,600,000 $3,960,000 Roads&Airports County Roads&Airports 35-B34 Page Mill/I-280 Interchange Bike Safety Improvements $6,600,000 $1,320,000 County Roads&Airports 35-B92 Santa Teresa Blvd./Hale Ave. Bicycle Delineation at Eight Intersections $500,000 $400,000 Gilroy 35-B41 Gilroy Sports Park (Santa Teresa Blvd./Mesa Rd. to $4,800,000 $3,840,000 Sports Park Ticket Booth) Gilroy 35-B44 Northern Uvas Creek SCVWD service road (Santa Teresa $1,900,000 $1,520,000 Blvd. at Third St. to Burchell Creek Bridge) Los Altos 35-B47 Miramonte Avenue Bikeway Improvement Project $1,400,000 $1,120,000 (Approval contingent on design) Los Altos 35-B48 Stevens Creek Link Trail $3,000,000 $2,400,000 Los Altos Hills 35-B07 El Monte Rd. Project Segment 4 Bike Improvements $200,000 $160,000 (from Stonebrook to Voorhees) Los Gatos 35-B50 Los Gatos Creek Trail Connector to SR 9 $1,000,000 $800,000 Milpitas 35-B51 Montague Expwy. Pedestrian Overcrossing $15,000,000 $7,500,000 Mountain View 35-B10 Stevens Creek Trail Reach 4 & bridge over SR 85 (Dale $12,000,000 $10,000,000 Ave./Heatherstone Way to Mountain View High School) Mountain View 35-B55 Stevens Creek Trail/Middlefield Rd. North Side Access $700,000 $350,000 Mountain View 35-B56 Stevens Creek Trail/Landels School Trailhead $600,000 $480,000 Improvements Palo Alto 35-B12 California Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing- Replacement $13,000,000 $10,400,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B61 Blossom Hill - Calero Bikeways $300,000 $240,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B62 Brokaw-Coleman-Airport Bikeway $1,000,000 $800,000 Friday, September 14, 2012 Page 3 of 4 A-3

16 ATTACHMENT A 8.a Project Sponsor VTP 2035ID Project Title Total Project Cost Current BEP Request San Jose (DOT) 35-B63 Capitol Ave./Capitol Expwy. Bikeway $300,000 $240,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B64 Charcot Bikeway $400,000 $320,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B67 Hwy 237 Bikeway (onstreet portion of the northside Trail) $400,000 $320,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B68 Monroe Bikeway $100,000 $80,000 San Jose (DOT) 35-B69 Newhall St. Bike/Ped Overcrossing over Caltrain ROW $7,000,000 $5,600,000 San Jose (Parks) 35-B21 Branham Ln- Edenvale./US 101 Bicycle /Pedestrian $7,000,000 $5,600,000 Overcrossing San Jose (Parks) 35-B65 Five Wounds Trail (Watson Park to Williams St. Park) $5,000,000 $4,000,000 Saratoga 35-B75 Blue Hills School RR XING SAFETY PROJECT $380,000 $300,000 Bicycle and Pedestrian Rail Crossing Sunnyvale 35-B29 Bernardo Ave. Caltrain Undercrossing $8,500,000 $1,000,000 Sunnyvale 35-B77 Maude Ave, Bike Lanes from Mathilda to Wolfe; 30 $221,000 $180,000 mph posted spd VTA 35-B96 Capitol Caltrain Station Crossing $8,500,000 $1,000,000 Number of Projects 32 Total: $113,301,000 $69,450,000 Total: $294,374,800 $160,050,000 Funding Progress options: Completed: Project has completed construction and is open to the public. FF- Fully Funded: project has received all of its BEP funding allocation or is otherwise fully funded. IP: Project is In Progress/Active project, in some level of implementation. Not Funded- City has not allocated any funds to date. Friday, September 14, 2012 Page 4 of 4 A-4

17 City # BEP Projects # Active Projects partially & fully funded ** # Active and fully funded Attachment B City Progress on BEP Projects # Completed Projects # Inactive Projects 1 Campbell Cupertino a County Roads b County Parks Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto a San Jose Roads b San Jose Parks Notes Lons Creek SCVWD Trail from Wren to Kern was completed. Hihgway 101 and Cochrane Road was completed Stevens Creek Trail from Sleeper to Dale>Heatherstone) and Peermante Creek trail crossing of US 101 were completed. 14 Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale VTA Mathilda Ave from Maude to California is under design and almost ready for construction. 8.b

18 9 Date: September 27, 2012 Current Meeting: October 10, 2012 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee General Manager, Michael T. Burns Board Secretary Sandra Weymouth Election Process for 2013 Advisory Committee Leadership: Appoint Nomination Subcommittee Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a nomination subcommittee to identify Committee members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson for BACKGROUND: VTA has five advisory committees providing input to the Board of Directors: Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC); Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC); Committee for Transit Accessibility (CTA); Policy Advisory Committee (PAC); and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The bylaws for these committees specify that each committee must elect from its membership a chairperson and vice chairperson annually. The duties of the chairperson are to preside at all meetings of the committee and represent the committee before the Board of Directors. In addition, it is the responsibility of the CAC and PAC chairpersons to provide the Board at each of its regular meetings a verbal report on the previous meeting of their respective committees and any of the committee s concerns. The duty of the vice chairperson is to perform the duties of the chairperson when the chairperson is absent. The chairperson and vice chairperson positions both serve a one-year term coinciding with the calendar year and are eligible for election to multiple and consecutive terms. For the PAC and TAC, only members, not alternates, are eligible to serve in these positions. The bylaws for all advisory committees bylaws except PAC specify that the elections for the 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

19 9 chairperson and vice chairperson positions are held the last meeting of the calendar year (usually December), whenever possible. The PAC bylaws specify that the elections for that committee are conducted the first meeting of the calendar year (typically January). DISCUSSION: The election process for chairperson and vice chairperson is comprised of three distinct steps. The first step is the appointing of the nomination subcommittee. The second is presentation of the nomination subcommittee s report. The final step is conducting elections to select the chairperson and vice chairperson. Each of these components is conducted during the committee meeting. Appointing the Nomination Subcommittee The chairperson requests a small number of volunteers to serve on the nomination subcommittee, typically two to three members. For PAC and TAC, only members, not alternates, are eligible to serve on the nomination subcommittee. If there are no volunteers or an insufficient number, it is the chairperson s prerogative to appoint committee members to serve on it. The bylaws require that each committee vote to approve the appointment of members to the nomination subcommittee. This step normally takes place two meetings prior to conducting the elections. The mission of the nomination subcommittee is to determine members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson. This is done by soliciting nominations from members, either for themselves or other members, and is done at a time other than during the committee meeting. Additionally, it is the nomination subcommittee s responsibility to determine that members that have been nominated are willing to serve. Report from the Nomination Subcommittee At the meeting immediately preceding the elections, whenever feasible, the nomination subcommittee provides a verbal report to the advisory committee identifying committee members who have confirmed their willingness to serve. This establishes the initial list of candidates for the elections to be held at the next meeting. The nomination subcommittee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the committee. No action is required of the committee other than to receive the report. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson These elections, which are held at the bylaw-specified meeting whenever possible, are conducted for the chairperson and vice chairperson positions individually and in sequence. Immediately preceding the vote, the chairperson shall ask whether there are any nominations from the floor, then close the nomination process to establish the final list of candidates for each position. For all advisory committees except CTA and PAC, the affirmative vote of a majority of the total authorized membership is required to elect the chairperson and vice chairperson. CTA requires the affirmative vote of nine members or a majority of the members present, whichever is greater, and PAC requires the affirmative vote of the majority of the quorum present. For PAC, the term for the newly elected chairperson and vice-chairperson commences at the same meeting as the scheduled elections and immediately following completion of the voting for Page 2 of 3

20 9 each office. For the other four committees, the term of office begins January 1 of the calendar year following the scheduled vote. ALTERNATIVES: There are no alternatives since the Committee s bylaws specifies that to complete the required election process, the Committee must first appoint a nomination subcommittee to identify members interested in serving as the chairperson or vice chairperson. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Prepared by: Stephen Flynn, Advisory Committee Coordinator Memo No Page 3 of 3

21 9.X Date: October 5, 2012 Current Meeting: October 10, 2012 Board Meeting: November 1, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee General Manager, Michael T. Burns Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow One Bay Area Grant (OBAG): Local Program Development Criteria Policy Related Action: Yes Government Code Section Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve the Santa Clara One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program Criteria. BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted its programming framework and criteria for Federal flexible grant funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 on May 17, The full text is available at _approved.pdf While projects will be selected and programmed under the auspices of the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MTC is incorporating policy concepts that were developed for the new Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), called T2040. MTC's framework for programming Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Alternatives (formerly Enhancements) (TA) funds is called the "OneBayAreaGrant Program (OBAG). While it builds upon and expands many of the concepts introduced in the previous programming cycle which covered , there are significant changes from previous federal funding cycles. OBAG provides $87.3 million for Santa Clara County. This is the largest amount that has been made available by MTC for county level decision making since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) in Due to the complexity of the program, VTA Staff is developing the local OBAG programming 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

22 framework with VTA's Advisory Committees in a three part process: (1) Program Structure, (2) Guarantee Formulas and (3) Project Selection Criteria. The VTA Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) discussed and recommended the proposed program structure and the City Guarantee formula at their respective June, July and August 2012 meetings. The September 6, 2012 Board of Directors approved the program structure and guarantee formula. The complete agenda item is shown as Attachment B. DISCUSSION: This memo will now address the third part: Project Selection Criteria. VTA staff has developed screening and scoring criteria that meet Federal and regional requirements, and VTA policies in consultation with VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)'s Capital Improvement Program Working Group (CIPWG). These proposed criteria are presented in Attachment A. Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program: The competitive portion of the OBAG funding will consist of CMAQ and/or TA. Projects must be CMAQ eligible and located either in, or have proximate access to a PDA. The following project types will be eligible for Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program Funding. VTA staff will issue a competitive call for Complete Streets projects with the County eligible to apply. Santa Clara County OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Eligible Project Category Valley Transportation Distinguishing Characteristics Plan Consistency Regional Bike/Ped Projects Bicycle Listed in most recent BEP update and/or, BEP 2035 Regional Focus: Class I, II, III Bike/Ped Facilities Expenditure Program constrained list Local Bike/Ped Projects Project level listing in Local Focus: Class I, II, III VTP 2040* Bike/Ped/Streetscape Projects Multi modal Transportation Investment (Street Completion) Intelligent Transportation Systems (Street Completion) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Other VTP/BEP No specific VTP listing required, if project is Air Quality Conformity Exempt Project level listing in VTP 2040 No specific VTP listing required, if project is Air Quality Conformity Exempt Facilities Local Focus: Class II, III Facilities; provides (or significantly upgrades) missing elements on existing streets such as sidewalks, bike lanes, trees, etc. and/or alters street design to facilitate multi modal use. Signal systems, transit priority, multi modal road user detection, etc. TDM, Safe Routes to School (capital), Parking Management *If a project was not submitted as part of the VTP call for projects, a sponsor can still complete the VTP2040 form at the same time as the OBAG application. Page 2 of 5

23 This program will be the first time since the mid 1990's that VTA has solicited and evaluated such a broad array of project types in a single call, using the same criteria for each project type. VTA Staff and the CIP working group developed the proposed criteria by reviewing criteria from each of the prior programs, and adapting them to cover a broader project spectrum. Staff and the Working Group then did a trial run of the scoring criteria on each project type to detect potential biases for or against particular project types. The scoring criteria proposal recommends providing bonus points for Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP) projects. This is a significant change in how BEP project are treated in Federal programming cycles. Previously, BEP projects were evaluated in a separate process, and guaranteed funding as the sponsors were ready to deliver them. This proposal suspends the guarantee for this cycle, but gives eligible, ready to go BEP projects a significant advantage in the competition. ALTERNATIVES: The VTA Board may adopt other criteria. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION: The TAC reviewed and discussed this item at their August 9, 2012 meeting. The TAC requested clarification of VTP 2040 consistency and the Complete Streets Resolution of Local Support, which staff provided at the meeting. Staff also explained that the definition of PDA serving is currently being developed by the TAC working groups and will be presented to TAC at a later date. One TAC member expressed concern that the structure of the Safety criterion would deter innovation, and requested a criterion addressing cost/benefit ratio. The TAC deferred action on the staff proposal until its September meeting. The CAC, BPAC, TAC and PAC reviewed and discussed this item at their respective September 12 and 13, 2012 meetings. Staff explained how the draft criteria were developed, how they would be applied, and addressed committee member questions at the meetings. VTA staff also announced that an information item on the definition of "PDA Serving" would be presented at each committee's October meeting. The CAC received a verbal request from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) to consider employment density in the scoring criteria, provide more guidance to staff in evaluating Gap Closures, and to give priority PDA's with more housing and employment growth capacity, and that are more prepared to develop in the short term. VTA staff suggested that the committee consider adding job density as a specific term to the "Project Benefits" criterion. One committee member inquired as to whether the criteria would address job housing imbalance in particular areas. VTA staff responded that the criteria do not address this, and further explained that the methodology and information to do this, and to differentiate between PDAs as requested by SVLG needs to be developed as part of the PDA Growth Strategy effort that VTA will be conducting over the next 10 months. Another committee member requested that a criterion be Page 3 of 5

24 added to capture public private partnerships and provide additional points for private financial contributions. Staff explained that public private partnerships were included in the "Public Involvement/Support" criterion, and that the CIP working group had engaged in a protracted debate over the value of various types of non Federal match in the recent past, and had ultimately declined to recommend differentiating between them. After discussion, the CAC unanimously recommended that the VTA Board approve the staff recommendation without change. The BPAC received a brief verbal description of CAC's action in addition to the staff presentation of the item. The BPAC also received a draft of the PDA Serving definition. The BPAC also received a report and recommendation from one of its working groups, proposing retention of the guarantee for the entire BEP regardless of PDA status if possible. Should that not be possible, the BPAC requested that the Public Involvement criterion become a screening criterion, and that the points be adjusted as follows: Safety: 25, Project Benefits: 5, Gap Closure: 15, Local Match: 15, Project Readiness: 15. The BPAC working group also recommended quantification of evaluation scale wherever possible. VTA staff explained that BEP projects outside of PDAs and the PDA serving definition could not be made eligible through the Competitive Complete Streets program, but they could be funded by the City Guarantee shares. VTA staff also explained that the BPAC could request that the Board continue guaranteed funding of eligible BEP projects, instead of having them compete and receive bonus points as proposed. The committee requested, and was provided with a more detailed description of the CIP Working Group membership, and how the scoring process proceeds. After a lengthy, detailed and thoughtful discussion, the BPAC unanimously recommended that the VTA Board adopt the staff recommendation, and that staff would create category specific quantitative measures to the extent possible for use in the evaluation process, and show the results thereof to BPAC. The TAC received brief verbal descriptions of CAC and BPAC's discussions and action. One TAC member requested consideration of adjusting the OBAG program structure to provide more guaranteed funding to the Cities. VTA staff responded that while possible, the program had been structured to address multiple requirements and goals, including the need to provide free and open competition, reward agencies who accommodated growth, enable agencies with small shares to submit large projects, and avoid passing the 70/30 PDA/Non PDA split down to the City/County level. One committee member requested clarification of the COC and CARE designations, which staff provided. The Committee requested more clarification on "Good Design and Best Practices" as written in the Project Benefits criterion referred to specific design documents. VTA staff responded that they did not. Several Committee members requested that the phrase "using Good Design and Best Practices" be stricken from the criteria. One committee member requested that Multi modal synergy element require improvement of two or more transportation modes instead of the three proposed. One committee member proposed reducing the Project Benefits criterion to 10 points, and increasing Local Match to 15 points. This was opposed by another committee member. After discussion, the TAC unanimously voted to support the staff recommendation, modified by removing the phrase "using Good Design and Best Practices" from the Project Benefits criterion. The PAC received brief verbal descriptions of CAC, BPAC and TAC's discussions and actions. The PAC also received the detailed explanation of the formula share calculations, the range of Page 4 of 5

25 funding that the County would have received under various guarantee formula proposals, and a description of potential guarantee formula factors that have been discussed in the working groups over time, but have not survived to the recommendation stage. These items were requested by PAC at its August meeting. One Committee member requested that the phrase "using Good Design and Best Practices" be stricken from the criteria, that the points be reduced to 10 points, and the points for Local Match be increased to15. VTA staff explained that this change had been discussed by TAC, who recommended the wording change, but not the point change. After discussion, the PAC voted to support the staff recommendation as modified by TAC on a 7 to 1 vote. STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION: The CMPP Committee reviewed and discussed this item at its September 27, 2012 meeting. The Committee confirmed receipt of Greenbelt Alliance's letter, and staff notified the Committee of a multi agency letter and discussed comments from the Silicon Valley Leadership group, requesting priority for Priority Development Areas (PDA) providing significant housing and job growth. The Committee received public comment and a letter from the local representative of Urban Habitat, requesting that the Committee adopt criteria prioritizing PDAs with affordable housing and preservation strategies, and those that take on significant housing. Member Campos queried VTA staff with regards to VTA's ability to replicate the former State Redevelopment affordable housing mandate. Staff responded that this was beyond VTA's scope; however one of the intents of the OBAG program is to provide incentives for compact housing development. Member Campos also requested clarification of why the Communities of Concern/CARE Communities criterion was separate from "Project Benefits" and assigned 5 points. VTA staff responded that the criterion was carried over from previous grant programs, and addressed potential Title VI issues created by other criteria. The Committee adopted the staff recommendation as modified by the TAC and PAC, and recommended adoption by the full VTA Board of Directors. Prepared by: Marcella Rensi Memo No Page 5 of 5

26 ATTACHMENT A Santa Clara County OBAG Discretionary Program Scoring Criteria PRE-SCREENING CRITERIA CHECKLIST: SCREENING CRITERIA CHECKLIST: 2008 Complete Streets Act Compliance VTP 2040 Consistency Housing Element Completed/HCD certified MTC Complete Streets Checklist PDA (and proximate access) location(s) Grant Request $350,000 CRITERIA: CATEGORIES Safety Project Benefits: Catalyst for Economic Vitality; Livability (Design); Multimodal Synergy DETAILS High: Project will address a demonstrated safety issue with a proven or demonstrated countermeasure. Medium: Project will improve a situation with some safety issues (e.g. some reported collisions, conflicts, near-misses, or evidence of high vehicle traffic volume or speed). Low: Project will generally improve safety, even though there are no known problems. Project will reduce exposure/risk of conflicts between motor-vehicles and bike/pedestrians. The overall project will have identifiable and likely synergistic effects. The overall project will improve livability and create a sense of place by using Good Design and Best Practices. Project addresses and/or improves three (3) or more transportation modes. Gap Closure/ Connectivity Air Quality Improvement Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduced Public Involvement/Support Project proposes a shorter route, completes sidewalks, closes gaps in a transportation facility and/or multimodal network. Project demonstrates it can improve air quality by reducing emissions or lessening traffic congestion. The project employs strategies to reduce VMT (such as travel demand management, bike/ped facilities, parking mgmt, etc.). Project developed through a collaborative planning process that included broad partnerships among a variety of stakeholders Local Match Project can commit from 12% to 21% of total project cost from non- federal sources. (one point for each 1 percent to 10 points max) 10 Project Readiness/Delivery Community of Concern and/or Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program Minimum Score 25 points BEP Plan Categorical Exclusion (CE) pts Not CE pts Design Complete 5 ENV Complete 4 ROW Complete 5 Design Complete 3 ROW Complete 3 Project is located within a COC and/or CARE area. Map included showing project location. Y/N? Project is in the Bicycle Expenditure Program Y/N? MAX PTS BONUS 10 A 1 of 1

27 Date: August 27, 2012 Current Meeting: September 6, 2012 Board Meeting: September 6, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors THROUGH: General Manager, Michael T. Burns FROM: SUBJECT: Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow One Bay Area Grant (OBAG): Local Program Development - Structure and Formula Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Santa Clara One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Guarantee Program Distribution Structure and Formula. BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted its programming framework and criteria for Federal flexible grant funds for fiscal years 2013 through 2016 on May 17, The full text is available at While projects will be selected and programmed under the auspices of the current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), MTC is incorporating policy concepts that were developed for the new Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), called T2040. MTC's framework for programming Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds is called the "One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG). While it builds upon and expands many of the concepts introduced in the previous programming cycle which covered , there are significant changes from previous federal funding cycles. OBAG provides $87.3 million for Santa Clara County. This is the largest amount that has been made available by MTC for county-level decision making since the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA) in Due to the complexity of the program, VTA Staff is developing the local OBAG programming 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

28 framework with VTA's Advisory Committees in a three part process: (1) Program Structure, (2) Guarantee Formulas and (3) Project Selection Criteria. This three-part approach is reflected in the schedule provided in Attachment A. The VTA Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) discussed and recommended the proposed program structure at their respective June 2012 meetings. The program structure is provided in Attachment B. DISCUSSION: MTC places the following requirements on VTA in developing its local OBAG program structure. Eligibility: Eligible Project Types: Local road reconstruction and rehabilitation, bicycle, pedestrian, streetscape, and Safe-Routes-to-School projects that are eligible for Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) or Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. Project Sponsor Eligibility: Cities and Counties must adopt resolutions ensuring compliance with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by January 1, 2013, and have General Plan Housing Elements certified to be in compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by January 31, Transportation agency sponsored projects, other than vehicles, are only eligible if located in jurisdictions that meet these two requirements. Geographic Limits: Selection Criteria: At least 70% of the funds must be programmed in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDA-serving projects, as justified by the Congestion Management Agency, count towards this requirement, as does 70% of funding used for CMA planning purposes. MTC expects CMA s project selection process and criteria to be open, reward jurisdictions which provide housing, and support the growth and development of PDAs. Santa Clara County s share OBAG funding is expected to be composed of 36% STP, 5% TE, and 59% CMAQ. This funding split creates its own limitations as the eligibility for each funding program varies. CMA Planning Funds: VTA staff recommends programming $6.0 Million for CMA planning and programming over the four year period of the program. VTA currently receives approximately $1.3 million per year from this source from MTC. These activities are only eligible for STP. San Tomas Expressway Preservation: San Tomas Aquino Creek has undercut the culvert in a four-mile section beneath San Tomas Expressway between Williams Road in San Jose and Monroe St. in Santa Clara. If the culvert fails, the roadway will collapse and could trigger Page 2 of 6

29 extensive flooding, including submersion of sections of El Camino Real and Stevens Creek Boulevard, significantly disrupting traffic patterns through this part of the Valley. Agreements signed by the County of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Valley Water District in the 1960 s make the County responsible for repair and replacement of the culvert. The project is ready for construction as soon as funds become available. The County estimates the cost to be $12 - $14 million. VTA staff recommends providing $10 million to the County for the project. This project is in a PDA and PDA-serving. It is only eligible for STP. City Guarantee Program: Road Rehabilitation Guarantee: VTA staff recommends making the balance of the STP funds available to the cities for pavement rehabilitation. As a condition of receiving the $10 million for San Tomas Expressway, the County will not participate in this program. While VTA supports and encourages the cities to use these funds within, or serving the PDAs, it would not be required. Consistent with previous Board-adopted programs, the first expected use of these funds will be for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Federal Aid-eligible local roads with a pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or less. If a City has no eligible road rehabilitation projects, it may use its funds for Complete Streets projects and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Complete Streets Guarantee: VTA staff recommends making the balance of the non- PDA funds available to the cities for Complete Streets projects such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, safe routes to school projects, and traffic signal systems. As condition of receiving the $10 million for San Tomas Expressway, the County will not participate in this program. Guarantee Distribution Formula VTA staff proposes to use MTC s OBAG formula as the basis for directing City Guarantee program funds to each city. The OBAG formula meets Federal and regional requirements and responds to regional direction to reward cities and counties that have produced, and will continue to produce new housing. The formula is as follows: Factor Percentage Population 50% Actual Housing Production , All Units 12.5% Actual Housing Production , Low Income Units 12.5% Regional Housing Needs Allocation, All Units 12.5% Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Low Income Units 12.5% VTA staff also recommends reconciling commitments from the 2009 American Reconstruction and Recovery Act (ARRA) and the 2010 Block Grant in this OBAG Guarantee program. Page 3 of 6

30 Monte Sereno: The City of Monte Sereno s formula share in the 2010 Block Grant was too small for a viable project. The City was offered $250,000; with the condition that there would be no additional guaranteed programming until its share was paid back in future programming rounds. The City did not claim the funds in 2010, and they were distributed to other agencies. VTA staff recommends re-extending the offer. The approximate payback period would be years. The funds would come from the Local Road Rehabilitation Guarantee, as they did in the original offer. Other Block Grant Advances and ARRA Savings: Several cities were advanced funds against their future guarantee shares in the 2010 Block Grant. Several cities also made the savings from their ARRA funded projects available to other cities in order ensure that the funds would not be lost. VTA staff recommends adjusting the Local Road Rehabilitation Guarantee share of each city involved, as the original funding adjustments occurred in the previous local road rehabilitation programs. Attachment C shows each city s projected total Guarantee share, before and after adjustments. Countywide Competitive Complete Streets Program: The balance of the OBAG funding will consist of CMAQ and/or TE, and be subject to the PDA requirement. VTA staff proposes issuing a competitive call for Complete Streets projects. The County would be eligible to apply for these funds. VTA staff will develop project screening and scoring criteria that meet Federal and regional requirements, and VTA policies in consultation with VTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). These criteria will be presented to the VTA Board of Directors for approval after review and discussion with VTA s Advisory Committees in future months. ALTERNATIVES: The Committee may recommend alternatives structures and formulas. FISCAL IMPACT: If adopted as proposed, $6,000,000 will be made available to VTA Congestion Management Program budgets covering the fiscal years 2013 through ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) considered this item at their respective July 11 and July 12, 2012 meetings. The Committee on Transit Accessibility (CTA), Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) considered this item at their respective August 8 and August 9, 2012 meetings. TAC: The TAC unanimously recommended the VTA staff proposal to the VTA Board for Page 4 of 6

31 approval. BPAC: The BPAC did not have a quorum and could therefore not take action. However the Chair requested consideration of a distribution formula which included daytime population vs. residency. Two other members voiced concerns that the size of the PDA restriction (70%) and the use of a formula for the non-pda restricted funds (30%) could limit the ability of cities and the County to construct bicycle facilities in more rural areas. CTA: The CTA requested direction from staff with regards to how to best assure that VTA, the Cities and the County develop transit stop and other public facility accessibility improvement projects for funding through the OBAG Guarantee and Competitive Complete Streets program. VTA staff recommended that this process begin with VTA Service and Operations Planning for transit-related access, such as bus stop improvements and the individual City/County Public Works departments for non-transit related improvements, such as sidewalks, curb cuts, lighting, pedestrian crossing signals, barrier removal, etc. The CTA recommended approval of the staff proposal for both structure and formula, and recommended that the criteria to be developed for the Competitive Complete Streets program include specific consideration of seniors and persons with disabilities. The CTA is supportive of the Complete Street concept as it provides for safe travel by any mode (auto, transit, pedestrian, etc.) for seniors and persons with disabilities. CAC: The CAC requested information on which cities were not currently able to meet the Housing Element and/or Complete Streets Compliance screening criteria. Staff was able to provide information on Housing Element compliance at the meeting, but none will be available on Complete Streets until at least mid-october. One CAC member requested information on the development of a "PDA-Serving" definition, which staff was able provide at the meeting. The CAC requested a presentation of the "PDA-Serving" definition at a later date. The CAC recommended approval of the staff proposal for both the structure and formula. PAC: The PAC noted an apparent discrepancy on Attachment D, between the OBAG percentage shares shown and the Initial OBAG Target dollar amounts shown, and asked for a more detailed explanation, with spreadsheets, at a later date. One PAC member requested information as to whether day-time population, average daily traffic, and pavement condition were considered as factors in this formula recommendation or previous programming cycles. Staff responded with a brief history of previous pavement funding formulas used in Santa Clara County. The PAC recommended approval of the staff proposal for the structure, but requested deferral of the formula until their September meeting. STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS: The Congestion Management Planning and Programming Committee reviewed and discussed the item at it's August 16, 2012 meeting. Staff provided an updated Attachment C with corrected figures, based on PAC comments. One committee member asked whether the San Tomas project would include improvements beyond reconstruction of the culvert, and whether the reconstructed culvert would be sufficiently robust to support light rail facilities. Staff responded that all improvements would be below ground, and that the light rail issue would be investigated. The Chair asked whether the San Tomas funding would be timely enough to prevent the facility failure. Staff responded that a September board approval would enable the County to begin construction next spring. Whether the facility remains intact until that time is dependent on the Page 5 of 6

32 severity of the upcoming rainy season. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of the staff recommendation. Prepared by: Marcella Rensi Memo No Page 6 of 6

33 Attachment A OBAG PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE No Mtg April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr CIP Structure Formula Criteria Criteria No LUTI Status Meeting No Meeting Structure Formula No Meeting TAC Status Status Structure Formula Criteria PAC Status Status Structure No Meeting Formula Criteria BPAC No Meeting Structure Formula Criteria CAC Structure Formula Criteria CTA CMPP BOD Status No Meeting No Meeting Status No Meeting No Meeting Structure Formula Structure Formula Criteria Adopt Structure & Formula Call For Projects No Meeting Call For Projects Call For Projects Call For Projects Call For Projects Call For Projects Call For Projects Adopt Criteria Draft Program of Projects Draft Program of Projects Draft Program of Projects Draft Program of Projects Draft Program of Projects Draft Program of Projects Draft Program of Projects Adopt Program of Projects Page A1 of 1

34 Attachment B: OBAG Proposal SCL OBAG TOTAL $87.3M STP -36% $31.42M 70% PDA $61.1M CMAQ /TE 64% $55.86M CMA Planning $6.0M San Tomas Expressway $10M City Road Rehab. Guarantee $15.42M City Complete Streets Guarantee $10.77 M Complete Streets Competitive $45.1M 30% - Non-PDA $26.2M Page B1 of 1

35 ATTACHMENT C CITY GUARANTEE PROGRAM FORMULA AND SHARE ESTIMATES Santa Clara County $1000's Local Agency Modified Initial OBAG ARRA/Block Grant Total Est. Population % OBAG % Target Adjustment OBAG Target Campbell 2.2% 1.7% $ 453 $ (179) $ 274 Cupertino 3.3% 2.8% $ 722 $ 50 $ 772 Gilroy 2.7% 3.1% $ 799 $ - $ 799 Los Altos 1.6% 1.2% $ 311 $ - $ 311 Los Altos Hills 0.4% 0.4% $ 91 $ 94 $ 185 Los Gatos 1.7% 1.3% $ 349 $ (213) $ 136 Milpitas 3.7% 4.7% $ 1,211 $ 324 $ 1,535 Monte Sereno 0.2% 0.0% $ - $ 250 $ 250 Morgan Hill 2.1% 2.7% $ 712 $ 665 $ 1,377 Mountain View 4.2% 3.9% $ 1,015 $ 126 $ 1,141 Palo Alto 3.6% 3.7% $ 955 $ - $ 955 San Jose 53.1% 59.0% $ 15,297 $ (273) $ 15,024 Santa Clara 6.5% 7.0% $ 1,826 $ - $ 1,826 Saratoga 1.7% 1.3% $ 337 $ (177) $ 160 Sunnyvale 7.9% 7.2% $ 1,862 $ (381) $ 1,481 SC County* 5.0% Total 100% 100% $ 25,940 $ 286 $ 26,226 * County does not participate in Guarantee Program and has no ARRA/Block Grant Adjustments Page C1 of 1

36 REVISED AGENDA ITEM #10 Date: October 2, 2012 Current Meeting: October 10, 2012 Board Meeting: November 1, 2012 BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee THROUGH: General Manager, Michael T. Burns FROM: SUBJECT: Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow Priority Development Area (PDA) Serving Definition Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the Board of Directors Adopt the Priority Development Area (PDA) Serving Definition. BACKGROUND: On May 17, 2012, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted the One Bay Area Grant program to distribute funds for the Cycle 2 Program, covers the four years from FY to FY As part of the Cycle 2 Program, known as the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), MTC and ABAG adopted general programming policies for the distribution of funds by Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs). The CMAs in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara are required to direct at least 70% of their OBAG investments to PDAs for projects located either in, or serving the PDA s. Attachment A describes and provides a map of the PDAs. Each CMA is charged with defining proximate access to Priority Development Areas (PDA) for its county, subject to challenge by MTC. For projects not geographically within a PDA, CMAs are required to map projects and designate which projects are considered to support a PDA along with policy justifications. This analysis is subject to public review when the CMA board acts on OBAG programming decisions. This should allow decision makers, stakeholders, and the public to understand how an investment outside of a PDA is to be considered to support a PDA and to be credited towards the PDA investment minimum target. MTC staff will evaluate and report to the Commission on how well this approach achieves the OBAG objectives prior to 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

37 the next programming cycle. The VTA Board of Directors adopted its' overall Santa Clara County OBAG program structure at its' September 6, 2012 Meeting, creating a countywide Complete Streets Competive Grant program to which the cities, the County, and VTA itself, can apply for funding. The projects that they will propose must be either be located in, or serve, a PDA in order to be eligible for funding. DISCUSSION: VTA staff, working in consultation with the TAC's Land Use and Transportation Integration (LUTI) Working Group, has developed the following proposal for determining whether projects are "PDA-serving". The proposal is intended to create a consistent and reasonable PDA-serving definition and evaluation that supports the OBAG program goals and provides the cities and the Counties maximum flexibility in project development. VTA staff is looking for the Committees and the Board to approve the PDA Serving definition. The proposal was developed as follows: 1. VTA staff considered the locations of the PDAs and the multimodal elements that support them. 2. VTA staff identified the Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas defined in the Community Design and Transportation (CDT) manual. 3. VTA added existing and future transit high impact services and corridors consisting of the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) extension, Caltrain, Light Rail Extensions, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). 4. VTA staff also considered the Cross County Bicycle Corridors that were developed as part of the Countywide Bicycle Plan. VTA staff took the draft proposal and resulting map to the TAC s Land Use Transportation Integration (LUTI) and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) working groups for review and comment. The Working Groups provided feedback to staff who then finalized the draft definition. This input included the addition of Caltrain stations to the map. A formal description of the PDA-serving definition is described in the box below. DEFINITION OF PDA SERVING DEFINITELY 1. Project is completely or partially in a PDA 2. Any point portion of the SERVES project is within ½ mile of a PDA Boundary 3. The project wholly on one of the included Transit Investment Corridors (see map) 4. The project is wholly within an included Countywide Bicycle Corridor (see map) 5. The Project connects one PDA to another 6. The Project removes a barrier to a PDA NEEDS JUSTIFICATION 7. If a Project is greater than ½ mile from any PDA and does not meet any of the above criteria, but have benefits to a PDA, with clear Page 2 of 4

38 justification There are two categories of PDA-serving, projects that definitely serve a PDA and those that need some justification. Definitely Serves The projects that definitely serve PDA are those projects that are wholly or partially contained within the PDA. A ½ mile buffer from PDAs was used to allow projects that indirectly serve PDAs be included as part of the definition, as well as provide as much flexibility as possible to allow Member Agencies to apply. Projects that connect one PDA to another and those that remove an access barrier to a PDA will help complete the transportation network and are believed to be beneficial to the PDAs. Transit investment corridors are defined as the SVRT, Caltrain, Light Rail and BRT corridors. VTA has and will continue investments in these corridors to provide high quality transit services. Staff felt that these corridors had a connection to PDAs, whether they were located in one or provide access to one. All SVRT stations have been designated by the local agencies as PDAs. For the Light Rail and Caltrain Station Areas, the project must be entirely within the 1/3 mile radius as defined by the CDT Manual. For projects along the BRT Corridors, the project must be on the streets of the BRT lines. Projects located in the Countywide Bicycle Corridor are based on those routes contained within the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle Plan. These routes have been developed on the concept of Cross County Bicycle Corridors which are outlined in the plan. Many of the projects in the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) are on these cross county corridors. Specifically they must be Class I, Class II, or provide bicycle signal system upgrades and improvements to that specific project on that corridor. Needs Justification Projects that are located more than ½ mile from any PDA and do not meet any of the Definitely Serves criteria must provide a justification. The justification must include technical data demonstrating how that project serves a particular PDA. For example, if a project that is being submitted is a safety project, the project sponsor must provide backup data, such as accident reports and provide traffic information and justify why the project will provide benefits to a PDA. VTA shall use its discretion when evaluating a project application. A map of the PDA-serving corridors is included as Attachment B. VTA staff is also in the process of developing a web-based application for Member Agencies to use when developing projects for the grant. This web-based application will allow Member Agencies to draw lines that would determine whether their project adheres to the definition that is developed. ALTERNATIVES: The Board may choose to adopt a different set of criteria for the PDA Serving Definition. Page 3 of 4

39 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate impact financially; however the Priority Development Area (PDA) Serving Definition is a prerequisite for CMAs to obtain One Bay Area Grant Funds. Prepared by: John Sighamony Memo No Page 4 of 4

40 10.a September 17, 2012 [ATTACHMENT A] Priority Development Areas Fact Sheet The PDA layer used in the interactive map was provided by ABAG in July For the purposes of the OBAG grant, PDA s do not distinguish between planned and potential. Two PDA Boundary Categories: 1. ABAG PDA s Jurisdictions nominated the PDAs to ABAG through an adopted land use plan and resolution of support from city. Each jurisdiction determined the boundaries for their PDAs in different ways Each PDA is at least 100 acres in size to encompass what would be considered a neighborhood/community (with some exceptions). In some instances general plan land uses and zoning designation boundaries were utilized to determine the boundaries. In these cases it is possible for the boundaries to be defined at the parcel level. In other cases the jurisdictions may simply be defined as an area surrounding a transit station or corridor. For example, some PDA s were drawn as ½ mile radius around a transit station. 2. PDAs based on the CDT Cores Corridors and Station Areas (CCSA) Some jurisdictions accepted the CCSA nominated by VTA in their boundary. They didn t modify the CCSA boundaries. For ABAG PDA purposes the cores, corridors, and station areas are all a 1/8 th mile radius. 9/11/2012

41 San Antonio Union Attachment A - Priority Development Areas (Sep. 2012) 10.a University Embarcadero Calaveras Priority Development Area (PDA) 0 4 Miles o Page Mill Arastradero Alma Middlefield El Camino Real Rengstorff Charleston Caribbean Tasman }þ Abel 680 Landess Shoreline Moffet /(/ 101 Montague 1ST Miramonte Grant Mary Fair Oaks Central Expressway Reed Foothill Expressway Lafayette Zanker Lundy Berryessa Mabury Piedmont onterey Highway Burnett Main Dunne Tennant /(/ 101 South County San Martin Fremont }þ 85 McClellan Sunnyvale Saratoga Mathilda Rainbow Cox Wolfe Homestead Stevens Creek Prospect Lawrence Saratoga Doyle 280 Campbell Hacienda Scott Winchester Coleman Naglee Hamilton Meridian Willow Curtner Taylor Oakland Hillsdale 13th 10th William }þ 87 Alum Rock McLaughlin Keyes King Senter Tully Capitol Expressway /(/ 101 Coyote Santa Teresa Winchester Bascom }þ 85 Branham Snell Cottle Monterey }þ 152 Leavesley }þ 152 Blossom Hill Coleman Camden Almaden Expressway Santa Teresa Bernal Miles Source: Valley Transportation Authority, TeleAtlas, ABAG Date: M

42 /(/ San Antonio Union Attachment B - PDA Serving Corridors 10.b University Page Mill Embarcadero Arastradero Alma Middlefield El Camino Real Rengstorff Charleston Caribbean Tasman }þ Abel Calaveras 680 Landess LRT Station Areas Caltrain Station Areas LRT Extension Bicycle Corridors BRT Corridors Priority Development Area (PDA) 0 4 Miles o Shoreline Moffet /(/ 101 Montague 1ST Miramonte Grant Mary Fair Oaks Central Expressway Reed Foothill Expressway Lafayette Zanker Lundy Berryessa Mabury Piedmont onterey Highway /(/ 101 Burnett Main Dunne Tennant /(/ 101 South CountyA San Martin Fremont }þ 85 McClellan Sunnyvale Saratoga Mathilda Rainbow Cox Wolfe Homestead Prospect Lawrence Saratoga Stevens Creek Doyle 280 Campbell Hacienda Scott Winchester Coleman Naglee Hamilton Meridian Willow Curtner Taylor Oakland Hillsdale 13th 10th William }þ 87 Alum Rock McLaughlin Keyes King Senter Tully Capitol Expressway /(/ 101 Coyote Santa Teresa Winchester Bascom }þ 85 Branham Snell Cottle Monterey }þ 152 Leavesley }þ 152 Blossom Hill Coleman Camden Almaden Expressway Santa Teresa Bernal Miles Source: Valley Transportation Authority, TeleAtlas, ABAG approved PDA's as of July Date: M

43 11 Date: September 19, 2012 Current Meeting: October 10, 2012 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee General Manager, Michael T. Burns Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow Complete Streets General Plan Compliance Assessment BACKGROUND: FOR INFORMATION ONLY The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Grant Fund Program adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on May 17, 2012 requires that jurisdictions, in order to be eligible to receive funds, have specific policies regarding their General Plan Housing Element and Complete Streets. This memo describes the respective responsibilities of VTA and its Member Agencies and VTA s proposed process to implement the Complete Streets requirement. Bay Area Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) are responsible for determining if potential grant recipients in their jurisdictions meet MTC s Complete Streets requirement. Therefore VTA, as the CMA, is required to provide documentation to MTC that Members Agencies comply. MTC s Complete Streets Requirement There are two ways that Member Agencies can meet the OBAG Complete Streets requirement as shown in Figure 1. One of these two must be completed no later than January 31, 2013 in order to be eligible to receive OBAG funds in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013/14 to 15/16 cycle. To be eligible for the funding cycle subsequent to FY 2015/16, jurisdictions will be expected to have General Plan that complies with the Complete Streets Act of North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

44 11 Figure 1: Options to Meet MTC s OBAG Complete Streets Requirements DISCUSSION: VTA as the Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County is responsible for determining if an agency meets MTC s Complete Streets Requirement. Over the past three months, VTA staff met with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) subcommittee as well as the TAC's Land Use/Transportation Integration Working Group (LUTI) in order to develop a process to verify this requirement for each of the two options. These are described below. Option 1: Circulation Element pursuant to Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB1358) The first option is to demonstrate that the current Circulation Element of an agency s General Plan already complies with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358). If a Member Agency believes that the Circulation Element of its General Plan complies with the Complete Streets Act of 2008, then it could fill out the assessment form in Attachment A. The Complete Streets Act states that, when revised, the Circulation Element shall plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. The statute defines all users of streets, roads and highways as bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. VTA staff developed the assessment form with suggested policies extracted from the Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete Streets and the Circulation Element by the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), December 15, All agencies are encouraged to reference this document for additional guidance and policies. This document points out that not Page 2 of 3

45 11 all of these suggested policies are required nor will all be relevant in every jurisdiction. The purpose of this assessment is to provide VTA with sufficient evidence that the jurisdiction s General Plan meets the intent of the Complete Streets Act of If Member Agencies choose this option, Member Agencies are required to submit the assessment form prior to October 11, An evaluation committee made up of Member Agency and VTA staff will then make a determination based on the Member Agencies responses. An electronic format of the assessment form will be provided to Member Agency staff, which contains detailed reference to the OPR Guidelines as requested by CIP subcommittee members. Option 2: Complete Streets Policy Resolution A jurisdiction may opt instead to adopt a Complete Streets Policy Resolution that meets MTC s minimum requirements. MTC has provided a sample resolution. Attachment B includes a MTC Memo and a sample resolution. The resolution needs to be adopted by the City Council or Board of Supervisors by January 31, 2013 and submitted to VTA. ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION This item was presented to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee on September 12, The item was received with approval. This item was presented to the Technical Advisory Committee on September 13, Member Witthaus disagreed with the approach of using the OPR Guidelines for the assessment form, and preferred the option of each Member Agency telling VTA how their Circulation Element met the intent of AB Other members commented that consistency would be important and that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Working Group had seen and agreed with the form. It was suggested that staff discuss alternatives with the CIP Working Group. The CIP Working Group meeting will be held on September 25, 2012, which is after this memo was prepared. Their discussion and a modified form, if available, will be presented to the BPAC and the TAC at their October meetings. It should be noted that two Member Agencies have already filled out the current form, and a third is in the process of doing so. The original deadline of October 11, 2012 that VTA suggested for receiving the form was set so that Member Agencies would know whether their Circulation Elements complied with AB 1358 with enough lead time so that, if they didn't comply, they could adopt a complete streets policy resolution by the MTC deadline of January 31, Staff suggests that at a minimum, the existing form be retained for those who want to or who have already used it. Prepared By: Michelle DeRobertis Memo No Page 3 of 3

46 11.a ATTACHMENT A AB 1358 Compliance Assessment Evaluation Form 1. How does your Circulation Element (CE) define Complete Streets or a similar intent to meet the needs of all modes and all users of the streets, roadways and highways? 2. Does the Circulation Element identify Street Typology and /or mode priority streets? See Chapter 4 of the CDT Manual. E.g. transit priority street, bicycle priority street, or bike boulevard, pedestrian priority street or zone, woonerf, or similar concepts. List specific typology below and the page where it is discussed in the Circulation Element. (page: ) (page: ) 3. Specific Policy Areas: indicate the GP section& page no. If not applicable briefly explain. Where does the Circulation Element (CE) of your General Plan address: Major Thoroughfares: Streets, Roads and Highways Rights of Way a. Requirement for Bike Lanes? (List street classifications: ) b. Requirement for sidewalks or pathways? (List street classifications: ) c. Design of intersections and public rights of way for all users including pedestrians & bicyclists? d. Transit Agencies needs for the development and improvement of transit service within roadway ROW including local, express bus, BRT? e. Provision of signal priority for local and express bus, BRT and LRT? f. Exclusive Bus Lanes or other exclusive ROW for transit vehicles? g. Intersection Design & adequate and safe access for bicyclists? h. Intersection Design & adequate and safe access for pedestrians? i. Adopted Traffic Calming strategies, policy or plan? j. Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists? Other? Major Thoroughfares: Transit and Railroad Rights of Way k. Transit Agencies needs on the development & improvement of transit service including mass rapid transit, commuter rail, light rail, & high speed rail? l. Preservation and/or repositioning of abandoned Rail ROW for future transportation use? Transportation Routes: Pedestrian and Bicycle m. Adopted bike and / or pedestrian plan? (Indicate exact title & year adopted): ; (date) n. The development and Improvement of bike facilities both on and off street? (Describe range of accommodations or attached proposed Bikeways map in circ. element: e.g. bike lanes, bike paths, bike blvds, woonerfs, bike ped bridges). List CE policy # (or other plan / ordinance) (if none leave blank; if NA, explain why) A 1

47 11.a Where does the Circulation Element (CE) of your General Plan address: o. The Development of a Safe Routes to School program for K through 12? Describe extent and age, and % of students reached annually. p. Incentive programs to encourage walking and biking? Other: Transportation Routes: Transit Routes q. Transit Agencies needs on the development and improvement of public transit routes? r. The development and improvement of access to public transit stops and stations by walking &biking? Other: Terminals: Transit s. Transit Agencies needs on the location and characteristics of transit terminals to maximize accessibly by all modes? t. Development of intermodal facilities including bus transfer stations, and bike parking? u. Development of safe transit amenities with lighting, shelters, safe street crossings, ADA Accessibility? Other: Transportation Operations Management (TOM) & Parking Management v. Development of TOM or Transportation Demand Management policies? w. Balancing needs of various users when establishing speed limits? x. Provision of bicycle parking such as with new development, by the city on city property, etc.? (Describe briefly: ) y. Development of strategies to control vehicle parking demand or supply such as: Transit fare subsidy Subsidized rideshare Parking fees Graduated parking fees Staggered Shared parking Metered Congestion work between land on street parking schedules uses parking pricing Other: Land Use and Transportation Integration z. Development (or adoption) of Transit Oriented Development standards? aa. Development of flexible performance & LOS standards in areas planned for increased density & mixed uses, to increase walking, biking & transit? Other? Green Streets, Air Quality bb. Encouragement of the following green practices? (Check appropriate boxes) Tree canopies Greenways Green medians Landscape minimums Parking maximums No parking minimums List CE policy # or section (if none leave blank; if NA, explain why) Parking cash outs Other All cities have adopted the VTA CDT Manual Reduced motor vehicle emissions Other: A 2

48 11.b TO: Partnership Jurisdictions Expecting to Receive OBAG Funding DATE: July 16, 2012 FR: Sean Co RE: One Bay Area Grant: Complete Streets Required Elements The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Complete Streets requires agencies to incorporate the elements listed in Attachment A into a council/board of supervisors-adopted resolution by January 31, Jurisdictions are encouraged to develop the best policy that fits within the context of their local area in consultation with affected departments and stakeholders and to go beyond the required elements to accommodate all users of the roadway network. Language in the elements is general to allow jurisdictions the flexibility they need to develop their own policy. For example there are no specific exceptions for complete streets in the MTC requirements so agencies can define their own. Jurisdictions may also meet this requirement by having adopted a General Plan that complies with the California Complete Streets Act of For the next round of One Bay Area Grants (anticipated in 2015), the OBAG program will require jurisdictions to update the circulation element of their general plan consistent with the Complete Streets Act to maintain eligibility for these funds. To assist agencies in developing their own resolution, MTC with assistance from ChangeLab Solutions, has developed a sample resolution of support. Jurisdictions are encouraged to adapt the elements and language of the sample resolution to meet their own circumstances and plans. This sample resolution is included as Attachment B. As an example of sample language of an adopted complete streets policy, the City of Baldwin Park s policy is included as Attachment C. J:\PROJECT\Ped and Bike\Complete Streets Update\complete streets OBAG reso guidance final.docx B1

49 11.b Attachment A: Elements Required of a Complete Streets Resolution to Comply with the One Bay Area Grant (Revised July 1, 2012) To receive funding through the OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program, a jurisdiction must have either updated its General Plan to comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 or adopted a Complete Streets Resolution that incorporates all nine of the following elements. Complete Streets Principles 1. Serve all Users - All transportation improvements will be planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained to support safe and convenient access for all users, and increase mobility for walking, bicycling and transit use, wherever possible while promoting safe and accessible operations for all users. 2. Context Sensitivity The planning and implementation of transportation projects will reflect conditions within and surrounding the project area, whether the area is a residential or business district or urban, suburban or rural. Project planning, design and construction of complete streets projects should include working with residents and merchants to ensure that a strong sense of place is maintained. 3. Complete Streets in all Departments All departments in the jurisdiction whose work affects the roadway must incorporate a complete streets approach into the review and implementation of their projects and activities. Potential Complete Streets opportunities could apply to projects such as, transportation projects, road rehabilitation, new development, utilities, etc. 4. All Projects/Phases - The policy will apply to all roadway projects including those involving new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation, or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway, as well as those that involve new privately built roads and easements intended for public use. Implementation 5. Plan Consultation Any proposed improvements should be evaluated for consistency with all local bicycle, pedestrian and /or trans plans and any other plans that affect the right of way should be consulted for consistency with any proposed improvements. 6. Street Network/Connectivity - The transportation system should provide a connected network of facilities accommodating all modes of travel. This includes looking for opportunities for repurposing rights-of-ways to enhance connectivity for cyclists, pedestrians and transit users. A well connected network should include nonmotorized connectivity to schools, parks, commercial areas, civic destinations and regional non-motorized networks on both publically owned roads/land and private developments (or redevelopment areas). 7. BPAC Consultation - Input shall be solicited from local bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees (BPACs) or similar advisory group in an early project development phase to verify bicycling and pedestrian needs for projects. (MTC Resolution 875 requires that cities of 10,000 or more create and maintain a BPAC or rely on the county BPAC to receive TDA-3 funds.) 8. Evaluation City will establish a means to collect data and indicate how the jurisdiction is evaluating their implementation of complete streets policies. For example tracking the number of miles of bike lanes and sidewalks, numbers of street crossings, signage etc. Exceptions 9. Process Plans or projects that seek exemptions from the Complete Streets approach outlined in prior sections must provide written finding of why accommodations for all modes were not included in the project. The memorandum should be signed off by the Public Works Director or equivalent high level staff person. Plans or projects that are granted exceptions must be made publically available for review. B2 Federal guidance on exceptions can be found from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel

50 11.b Attachment B: Sample MTC Complete Streets Sample Resolution for Bay Area Cities and Counties ChangeLab Solutions & MTC Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE [City Council/Board of Supervisors] OF THE [Jurisdiction] ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY WHEREAS, the term Complete Streets describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families [insert other significant local users if desired, e.g. drivers of agricultural vehicles, emergency vehicles, or freight]; WHEREAS, [Jurisdiction] acknowledges the benefits and value for the public health and welfare of reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and public transportation; WHEREAS, [Jurisdiction] recognizes that the planning and coordinated development of Complete Streets infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastructure cost savings; public health; and environmental sustainability; WHEREAS, the State of California has emphasized the importance of Complete Streets by enacting the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (also known as AB 1358), which requires that when cities or counties revise general plans, they identify how they will provide for the mobility needs of all users of the roadways, as well as through Deputy Directive 64, in which the California Department of Transportation explained that it views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system ; WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land-use policy, and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit, bicycling, and walking; WHEREAS, numerous California counties, cities, and agencies have adopted Complete Streets policies and legislation in order to further the health, safety, welfare, economic vitality, and environmental wellbeing of their communities; WHEREAS, [Jurisdiction] therefore, in light of the foregoing benefits and considerations, wishes to improve its commitment to Complete Streets and desires that its streets form a comprehensive and integrated transportation network promoting safe, equitable, and convenient travel for all users while preserving flexibility, recognizing community context, and using the latest and best design guidelines and standards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of [Jurisdiction], State of California, as follows: B3

51 11.b 1. That the [Jurisdiction] adopts the Complete Streets Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made part of this Resolution, and that said exhibit is hereby approved and adopted. 2. That the next substantial revision of the [Jurisdiction] General Plan circulation shall incorporate Complete Streets policies and principles consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and with the Complete Streets Policy adopted by this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [Jurisdiction], State of California, on, 201_, by the following vote: Attachment: Exhibit A B4

52 11.b Exhibit A This Complete Streets Policy was adopted by Resolution No. by the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] of the [Jurisdiction] on, 201_. A. Complete Streets Principles COMPLETE STREETS POLICY OF [JURISDICTION] 1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. [Jurisdiction] expresses its commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families [insert other significant local users if desired, e.g. drivers of agricultural vehicles, emergency vehicles, freight, etc.]. 2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projects, departments and agencies of [Jurisdiction] shall maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and shall work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues. Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users, such as traffic calming circles, transit bulb outs, and road diets [, as well as other features such as insert other accommodations if desired] [, and those features identified in insert name of Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan if it exists]. 3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments. All relevant departments and agencies of [Jurisdiction] shall work towards making Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations, approach every relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users, and work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. The following projects provide opportunities: pavement resurfacing, restriping, accessing above and underground utilities, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of landscaping/related features. 4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users shall be incorporated into all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system), except that specific infrastructure for a given category of users may be excluded if an exemption is approved via the process set forth in section C. 1of this policy. B. Implementation B5 1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the transportation system shall be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other relevant plans, except that where such consistency cannot be achieved without negative consequences, consistency shall not be required if the head of the relevant department provides written approval explaining the basis of such deviation. If [Jurisdiction] has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, such deviations shall be presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee early in the planning and design stage, to ensure the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee has an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations.

53 11.b 2. Street Network/Connectivity. As feasible, [Jurisdiction] shall incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users and to create employment, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of facilities accommodating each category of users, and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and for existing and anticipated future areas of travel origination or destination. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Consultation. If [Jurisdiction] has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, transportation projects shall be reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee early in the planning and design stage, to provide the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete Streets features to be incorporated into the project. 4. Evaluation. All relevant agencies or departments shall perform evaluations of how well the streets and transportation network of [Jurisdiction] are serving each category of users by collecting baseline data and collecting follow-up data on a regular basis. C. Exemptions 1. Leadership Approval for Exemptions. Projects that seek Complete Streets exemptions must provide written finding of why accommodations for all modes that were not included in the project and signed off by the Public Works Director or equivalent high level staff person. Projects that are granted exceptions must be made publically available for review. Federal guidance on exceptions can be found from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel B6

54 11.b Attachment C: City of Baldwin Park Complete Streets Policy B7

55 B8 11.b

56 B9 11.b

57 B10 11.b

58 B11 11.b

59 B12 11.b

60 13 Date: September 27, 2012 Current Meeting: October 10, 2012 Board Meeting: N/A BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee General Manager, Michael T. Burns Chief CMA Officer, John Ristow Santa Clara County Complete Streets Policy (County Item) Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section Applies: No ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the County Board of Supervisors adopt the Complete Streets Resolution. BACKGROUND: Santa Clara County Department of Roads and Airports staff will present Santa Clara County's Complete Streets Resolution to comply with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) policy, as described in the County's transmittal presented in Attachment A. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a Santa Clara County item and there is no fiscal impact to VTA. Prepared by: Michelle DeRobertis Memo No North First Street San Jose, CA Administration Customer Service

61 A-1 13.a

62 A-2 13.a

63 13.a Metropolitan Transportation Commission Elements Required of a Complete Streets Resolution to Comply with OneBayArea Grant Program To receive funding through the OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program, a jurisdiction must have either updated its General Plan to comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 or adopted a Complete Streets Resolution that incorporates all nine of the following elements. Complete Streets Principles 1. Serve all Users - All transportation improvements will be planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained to support safe and convenient access for all users, and increase mobility for walking, bicycling and transit use, wherever possible while promoting safe and accessible operations for all users. 2. Context Sensitivity The planning and implementation of transportation projects will reflect conditions within and surrounding the project area, whether the area is a residential or business district or urban, suburban or rural. Project planning, design and construction of complete streets projects should include working with residents and merchants to ensure that a strong sense of place is maintained. 3. Complete Streets in all Departments All departments in the jurisdiction whose work affects the roadway must incorporate a complete streets approach into the review and implementation of their projects and activities. Potential Complete Streets opportunities could apply to projects such as, transportation projects, road rehabilitation, new development, utilities, etc. 4. All Projects/Phases - The policy will apply to all roadway projects including those involving new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation, or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway, as well as those that involve new privately built roads and easements intended for public use. Implementation 5. Plan Consultation Any proposed improvements should be evaluated for consistency with all local bicycle, pedestrian and /or transportation plans and any other plans that affect the right of way should be consulted for consistency with any proposed improvements. 6. Street Network/Connectivity - The transportation system should provide a connected network of facilities accommodating all modes of travel. This includes looking for opportunities for repurposing rights-of-ways to enhance connectivity for cyclists, pedestrians and transit users. A well connected network should include non-motorized connectivity to A-3

64 13.a schools, parks, commercial areas, civic destinations and regional non-motorized networks on both publically owned roads/land and private developments (or redevelopment areas). 7. BPAC Consultation - Input shall be solicited from local bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees (BPACs) or similar advisory group in an early project development phase to verify bicycling and pedestrian needs for projects. (MTC Resolution 875 requires that cities of 10,000 or more create and maintain a BPAC or rely on the county BPAC to receive TDA- 3 funds.) 8. Evaluation City will establish a means to collect data and indicate how the jurisdiction is evaluating their implementation of complete streets policies. For example tracking the number of miles of bike lanes and sidewalks, numbers of street crossings, signage etc. Exceptions 9. Process Plans or projects that seek exemptions from the Complete Streets approach outlined in prior sections must provide written finding of why accommodations for all modes were not included in the project. The memorandum should be signed off by the Public Works Director or equivalent high level staff person. Plans or projects that are granted exceptions must be made publically available for review. Federal guidance on exceptions can be found from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel cfm MTC Complete Streets Policy Requirements Page 2 of 2 A-4

65 13.a Complete Streets Resolution Resolution No. Adopting a Complete Streets Policy WHEREAS, the term Complete Streets describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families; WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara acknowledges the benefits, value, and public health and welfare interest in increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and public transportation; WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara recognizes that the planning and coordinated development of Complete Streets infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastructure cost savings, public health, and environmental sustainability; WHEREAS, the State of California has emphasized the importance of Complete Streets by enacting the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (also known as AB 1358), which requires that when cities or counties revise general plans, they identify how they will provide for the mobility needs of all users of the roadways, as well as through Deputy Directive 64, in which the California Department of Transportation explained that it views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system ; WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land-use policy, and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit, bicycling, and walking; WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara is responsible for operating, maintaining, and improving over 1,400 lane miles of roads, including expressways, roads in unincorporated areas, and rural/mountain roads; WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara therefore, in light of the foregoing benefits and considerations, wishes to confirm its commitment to Complete Streets and desires that its streets form a comprehensive and integrated transportation network promoting safe, equitable, and convenient travel for all users while preserving flexibility, recognizing community context, and using the latest and best design guidelines and standards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as follows: Resolution Adopting a Complete Streets Policy 1 A-5

66 13.a 1. That the County of Santa Clara adopts the Complete Streets Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made part of this Resolution, and that said exhibit is hereby approved and adopted. 2. That the next substantial revision of the County of Santa Clara General Plan Circulation Element shall incorporate Complete Streets policies and principles consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and with the Complete Streets Policy adopted by this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS on, 2012 by the following vote. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BY: GEORGE SHIRAKAWA, President Board of Supervisors ATTEST: LYNN REGADANZ Interim Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: E. RAY RUIZ Deputy County Counsel Attachment: Exhibit A Resolution Adopting a Complete Streets Policy 2 A-6

67 13.a Exhibit A COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COMPLETE STREETS POLICY A. Complete Streets Principles 1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. The County of Santa Clara expresses its commitment to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families. 2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projects, departments and agencies of the County of Santa Clara shall maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and shall work with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues. Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users. 3. Complete Streets Incorporated into All Department Operations. All relevant departments and agencies of the County of Santa Clara shall work towards making Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations; approach every relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users; and work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. 4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and across the right-of-way for each category of users shall be incorporated into all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation system), consistent with the urban, suburban, or rural character of the road. Specific infrastructure or operations may be excluded by definition or if an exemption is approved via the process set forth in Section C of this policy. 5. NPDES Requirements. Complete Streets designs shall not be exempt from National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) considerations and design elements, and shall be consistent with NPDES best practices. Exhibit A: Complete Streets Policy 1 A-7

68 13.a B. Implementation 1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the transportation system shall be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other relevant plans, except where such consistency cannot be achieved without negative consequences. Consistency shall not be required if the Director of the relevant department provides written approval explaining the basis of such exemptions. Exemptions shall be presented to the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) early in the planning and design stage to ensure the BPAC has an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations. 2. Street Network/Connectivity. As feasible, the County of Santa Clara shall incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users and to create access to employment, with the particular goals of creating a connected network of facilities accommodating each category of user, increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries, and providing for existing and anticipated future areas of travel origination or destination. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Consultation. Transportation projects shall be reviewed by the County BPAC early in the planning and design stage to provide the BPAC an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete Streets features to be incorporated into the project. 4. Evaluation. The County will track implementation of Complete Streets improvements and report progress as part of the annual Countywide Sustainability Matrix. C. Exemptions 1. Excluded Project/Operations Categories. Projects that involve only ordinary, routine, seasonal, or emergency maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition are exempt from the Complete Streets Policy requirements. These activities include debris removal, landscape maintenance including mowing, drainage maintenance, street sweeping, pavement pothole repairs, and existing infrastructure repairs (e.g., repairs to sidewalks, curbs, concrete joints, sound walls, fiber optics, traffic control and safety devices, etc.). Capitol projects that are only for drainage or work below the road surface (e.g., culverts, bridge foundations, fiber optics/conduits, utilities, etc.) are exempt from the Complete Streets Policy requirements. 2. Approval for All Other Project Exemptions. All other projects granted an exemption from providing context appropriate accommodations for all modes must include written finding of why such accommodations were not included in the project. The written findings must be signed off by the relevant Department Director or equivalent high level staff person and be made publically available for review. Examples of grounds for exemptions include, but are not limited to, the following: Exhibit A: Complete Streets Policy 2 A-8

69 13.a There are excessive and disproportionate costs of establishing a bikeway, walkway, transit, or other enhancement as part of the project. The construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts or due to impacts on neighboring land uses, including impact from right-of-way acquisitions. The Complete Streets modifications are inconsistent with NPDES best practices. There is opposition by a significant number of the project area community. Exhibit A: Complete Streets Policy 3 A-9