MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP The Regional Planning Technical Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, March 12, 2015 Please Note the Change in Meeting Time and Location2:15 to 4:15 p.m. UC San Diego* Price Center Marshall Room (2nd floor) 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093 * Please note: The map on page 2 shows two UC San Diego parking lots (in red) in relation to the Price Center. Lot 705 on the outskirts of campus is recommended since parking is impacted on Thursdays. Parking is $8. Place receipt on dashboard. The parking machines accept credit cards. It takes approximately 15 minutes to walk or take the shuttle from the recommended parking lots to the Price Center. The meeting will start at 2:15 p.m. Please incorporate the walk/shuttle into your travel time. Staff Contacts: Carolina Gregor (619) 699-1989 [email protected]Susan Baldwin (619) 699-1943 [email protected]AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS • SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL PLAN, ITS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY, AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING RESOURCES • UC SAN DIEGO URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING STUDENT'S URBAN EXPO UC San Diego is accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available on the UC San Diego campus. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
Transcript
MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA
REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP The Regional Planning Technical Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, March 12, 2015
Please Note the Change in Meeting Time and Location
2:15 to 4:15 p.m.
UC San Diego* Price Center
Marshall Room (2nd floor) 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093
* Please note: The map on page 2 shows two UC San Diego parking lots (in red) in relation to
the Price Center. Lot 705 on the outskirts of campus is recommended since parking is
impacted on Thursdays. Parking is $8. Place receipt on dashboard. The parking machines
accept credit cards. It takes approximately 15 minutes to walk or take the shuttle from the
recommended parking lots to the Price Center. The meeting will start at 2:15 p.m. Please
incorporate the walk/shuttle into your travel time.
• SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL PLAN, ITS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY, AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
• ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING RESOURCES
• UC SAN DIEGO URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING STUDENT'S URBAN EXPO
UC San Diego is accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available on the UC San Diego campus.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
Parking Lot P705 (Paid Parking) Access through Voigt Dr.
fwe
Text Box
Pangea Parking Structure (Paid Parking) Access through Pangea Dr.
fwe
Text Box
Parking Lot P705 (Paid Parking) The UCSD shuttle arrives every 15 minutes and takes you to the Price Center. The ride takes 7-8 minutes Pangea Parking Structure (Paid Parking) Located on N. Torrey Pines Blvd and Pangea, this is a 15-20 minute walk to the Price Center
fwe
Oval
fwe
Text Box
TWG Meeting Here
fwe
Line
REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP Thursday, March 12, 2015
ITEM NO. RECOMMENDATION 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG) on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person.
+3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
The TWG is asked to review and approve the minutes from its February 12, 2015, meeting.
CONSENT
+4. PROPOSED SANDAG EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE FY 2014-2015 CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM (Coleen Clementson)
INFORMATION
The Regional Planning and Transportation Committees have been asked to recommend that the SANDAG Board of Directors approve the quantitative criteria used in the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program for the evaluation of the full applications for the statewide Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program in the San Diego region. The attached report to the Regional Planning Committee provides information on this proposal. The Board of Directors will be asked to approve this approach on March 27, 2015.
REPORTS
5. URBAN LAND INSTITUTE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (Mary Lydon, Executive Director, ULI San Diego-Tijuana)
INFORMATION
The Urban Land Institute (ULI) organizes "Technical Assistance Panels" (TAPs) to benefit local agencies and nonprofit organizations faced with land use issues that need private sector input. Mary Lydon, the Executive Director of the ULI San Diego-Tijuana chapter, will discuss the TAP Program. TAPs are comprised of local ULI members with expertise related to the issue being studied. The members donate their time and talent as a way of giving back to their communities. TWG members interested in this program are encouraged to contact Ms. Lydon.
+6. REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS (Jenny Russo)
INFORMATION
The statewide Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statues of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statues of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation such as biking and walking. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) will adopt the ATP Guidelines and fund estimates for the second cycle of ATP funding on March 26, 2015. The ATP Guidelines require 40 percent of the fund estimates to be allocated by the regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) through a competitive selection process. MPOs, in administering the Regional ATP, are permitted to utilize a different project selection criteria or weighting, minimum project size, match requirement, or definition of disadvantaged community with CTC approval. Attached is information on the Regional ATP Call for Projects.
3
7. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM: EVALUATION PANEL FOR THIRD CYCLE OF GRANT FUNDING (Carolina Gregor)
RECOMMEND
SANDAG needs to create an evaluation panel to score the proposals that will be submitted for the third cycle of the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program. The evaluation panel will consist of two members each from the Regional Planning Technical Working Group and the Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, as well as staff representatives from SANDAG, Caltrans, the transit operators, and the academic community. A balance of subregional representation will be sought to the extent possible. The TWG should recommend two members and an alternate to the evaluation panel. Members only can serve on the evaluation panel if their jurisdiction is not submitting a proposal for the program. The work of the evaluation panel will be conducted during April 2015.
+8. ACCELERATED ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ANALYSIS (Coleen Clementson)
INFORMATION
On September 12, 2014, the Board of Directors accepted the Preferred Transportation Network for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. As part of the action, the Board of Directors requested that staff analyze an accelerated alternative transportation network that would advance public transit and active transportation projects within the first ten years of the Regional Plan. The purpose of the analysis is to inform future planning efforts and funding strategies. The item was presented for information to the Transportation Committee and discussed at the SANDAG Board Retreat in January. Staff will provide an overview of the analysis and the status of the project.
+9. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL PLAN, ITS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY, AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Carolina Gregor)
INFORMATION
In April, the Board of Directors will be asked to release a draft of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, its Sustainable Communities Strategy, and its draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis, as well as the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report – all for public review and comment. Staff will present the approach for public outreach. Attached is a report on this item to the Regional Planning Committee.
+10. ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING RESOURCES (Allison Wood, SANDAG; Laura Engeman, San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative)
DISCUSSION
Staff will describe resources available through the SANDAG Energy Roadmap Program and other San Diego Gas and Electric Local Government Partnership programs to support member agencies in developing and implementing energy and climate action plans. Laura Engeman, from the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative, will highlight opportunities for collaboration and additional resources available to support climate planning. TWG members are asked to provide input on how these programs can continue to support their jurisdiction's current and future energy and climate planning efforts.
4
+11. UC SAN DIEGO URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING STUDENT'S URBAN EXPO (Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D., Director, Urban Studies and Planning Program; Department of Communication)
INFORMATION
The UC San Diego Urban Studies and Planning (USP) Program invites TWG members to participate in the university's 25th Annual Urban Expo. Dr. Keith Pezzoli will provide a brief overview of the planning curriculum at UC San Diego, discuss opportunities for possible collaboration through UC San Diego’s new Lab for Sustainability Science, Planning and Design, and describe the Urban Expo event in more depth.
The Urban Expo event will showcase a wide range of research projects and posters completed by the USP Program’s undergraduate seniors. As a unique part of the Urban Expo, TWG members will participate, as special guests, in a student panel from 3:45 to 4:15 p.m., focused on urban agriculture and food disparities. The panel will be facilitated by Paul Watson of the Global Action Research Center.
After the student panel, TWG members are welcome and encouraged to attend the remainder of the Urban Expo, which includes a live “Food Forest Exhibit” with trees and shrubs. From 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 42 student projects will be displayed at stations throughout the Price Center ballroom. There also will be a station to watch short video clips featuring three-minute highlights of student research.
At 4:30 p.m., there will be a reception with food and refreshments. After the reception, a short program will feature keynote speaker Arnulfo Manriquez, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty. See attached flyer for more information.
12. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETING INFORMATION
The next regularly-scheduled TWG meeting will be held on April 9, 2015, from 1:15 to 3:15 p.m.
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
5
San Diego Association of Governments
REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
March 12, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3
Action Requested: APPROVE
FEBRUARY 12, 2015, MEETING MINUTES File Number 3102000
1. SITE VISIT NO. 1 LEMON GROVE MAIN STREET PROMENADE
Carol Dick (City of Lemon Grove) and Graham Mitchell (Lemon Grove) took Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG) members on a walking tour of the Lemon Grove Main Street Promenade and Trolley Plaza. One of the main goals of the project is to serve as a catalyst for privately-funded development in the Lemon Grove Downtown area. This project, which received $1.9 million grant from the Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP), was designed to improve pedestrian access from buses to the Trolley; integrate a planned, mixed-use development into the station area; and provide a walkable, sustainable gathering area for residents and visitors. Two affordable housing projects, one for families and individuals (Citronica One) and one for seniors (Citronica Two) were recently constructed adjacent to the Main Street Promenade and the San Diego Trolley stop, and have served as a transformational component of the area. A market-rate housing project has recently been approved for development in the area as well.
2. OPENING OF REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP BUSINESS MEETING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
The business meeting of the Regional Planning TWG was called to order by Chair Brad Raulston (City of National City) at 1:30 p.m.
Self-introductions were made.
Carolina Gregor (SANDAG) encouraged TWG members to submit applications for the American Planning Association Awards Program. Applications are due on February 25, 2015. Ms. Gregor also stated that SANDAG is in the process of updating the Regional Progress Table and staff will contact staff members from each jurisdiction in the next few weeks.
3. FEBRUARY 12, 2015, MEETING MINUTES (APPROVE)
Action: Upon a motion by Bill Chopyk (City of La Mesa) and a second by Kathy Garcia (City of Del Mar), the January 8, 2015, meeting minutes were approved. Yes: Chair Raulston, Ms. Garcia, Barbara Redlitz (City of Escondido), Mr. Chopyk, Ms. Dick, Rich Whipple (City of Poway), Karen Brindley (City of San Marcos), Andrew Spurgin (County of San Diego); No: None; Abstain: Ed Batchelder (City of Chula Vista), Jim Nakagawa (City of Imperial Beach), Jeff Hunt (City of Oceanside); Absent: City of Carlsbad, City of Coronado, City of Encinitas, City of San Diego, City of Santee, City of Solana Beach, City of Vista.
6
CONSENT
4. UPDATED REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP ROSTER AND FORM 700 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (INFORMATION)
Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest are due to SANDAG by Friday, March 13, 2015. All members on the TWG roster, whether primary or alternate, must submit their forms.
REPORTS
5. REGIONAL BIKE NETWORK BRAND (INFORMATION)
Beth Robrahn (SANDAG) gave a presentation on the development of “GO by BIKE,” the new brand for the San Diego Regional Bike Network. The goal of the new brand is to make biking a viable, practical, and reasonable choice for everyday travel, influencing a positive attitude about more people riding bikes in the region. In developing the brand and the logo, SANDAG conducted market research to help select the final name and logo. The market research included some additional data collection regarding people’s perception of and interest in biking throughout the San Diego region.
Elizabeth Cox (SANDAG) discussed the marketing, communications, and public outreach components of GO by BIKE, including brand application on advertising elements such as billboards, social media, and wayfinding signage to highlight the brand on regional bike network signs. The goals are to create a recognizable brand throughout the region and increase biking as an appealing mode of transportation. In mid-March, SANDAG will initiate a 30-day launch campaign, including the kickoff of the GO by BIKE landing page at GObyBIKEsd.com.
Mr. Chopyk asked if faded wayfinding signage found throughout the region will be replaced with the GO by BIKE signage. Ms. Robrahn answered that the signage guidelines are currently being analyzed, and that changing old signage on regional bike facilities is a collaborative opportunity.
Mr. Nakagawa asked if multimodal destinations could incorporate GO by BIKE wayfinding signs. Ms. Cox answered that a separate wayfinding signage effort is underway with another project manager and she will relay the request for inclusion of multimodal destinations in wayfinding signs to the project team.
Chair Raulston asked if GO by BIKE will be a universal wayfinding program for the region, or if it only will be integrated into specific projects. Additionally, Mr. Raulston suggested that GO by BIKE be incorporated into bikeway ground stencils. Ms. Robrahn and Ms. Cox responded that the goal is to develop a regional wayfinding signage package and accompanying guidelines for facilities that provide connectivity to the Regional Bike Network, and added that bikeway stencils are a potential application suggested in the GO by BIKE brand manual.
Ms. Robrahn and Ms. Cox thanked TWG members for their input and ideas.
6. REGIONAL TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (DISCUSSION)
Susan Baldwin (SANDAG) presented a discussion on the White Papers that were discussed at the SANDAG Regional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Implementation Forum that took place on January 27-28, 2015, at the Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation. The forum consisted of presentations by nationally-recognized planning experts, panel discussions, question and answer sessions, and interactive group discussions. The goal of the Regional TOD Strategy is to identify how residential and commercial development projects can help meet the region’s projected population and employment growth. It will provide a broader look at the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map and place type definitions and offer a set of implementation actions to realize the vision of healthier, sustainable communities. Ms. Baldwin solicited input from TWG members on the SANDAG Regional TOD Strategy White Papers, and indicated that the White Papers, along with other materials associated with the TOD Strategy, will be hosted on a dedicated SANDAG webpage in the coming months.
Mr. Hunt asked Ms. Baldwin what kind of document the TOD Strategy will result in. Ms. Baldwin answered that the TOD Strategy is envisioned as a guidance document and SANDAG is looking at whether a readiness tool can be incorporated into the strategy.
Mr. Batchelder pointed out that at the TOD Implementation Forum, Peter Park talked about using different tools to solve housing issues creatively and finding new strategies for affordable housing.
Chair Raulston mentioned that it would be helpful to have a readiness tool, and that at the TOD Forum, Peter Park mentioned that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a measurement that is incompatible with Form Based Codes.
Russ Cunningham (Oceanside) asked if the political aspect of community response, specifically how to effectively communicate the value of new projects, was discussed at the TOD Implementation Forum. Ms. Baldwin responded that the political aspect is an ongoing issue, and communicating the value of the projects as well as the various aspects in which affordable housing projects are real assets to the community, has been a real challenge.
Mr. Batchelder pointed out that project-by-project arm wrestling should not be the status quo and eliminating FAR and communicating the value of affordable housing projects should be paramount in the development process.
Ms. Baldwin recognized that jurisdictions are doing great work with regard to affordable housing and in many ways have set the stage for future TOD. Ms. Baldwin added that there was a good cross-section of people from the community, jurisdictions, nonprofit organizations, activists, and affordable housing developers at the TOD Implementation Forum.
Mr. Hunt asked if there was any discussion of reluctance by affordable housing developers to include commercial development in their projects. Ms. Baldwin responded that many panelists brought up the idea of being flexible and not requiring commercial up front, which often sits vacant.
As the TOD strategy is developed, staff will bring updates to the TWG for additional discussion and comments.
8
7. REGIONAL HOUSING PROGRESS REPORT (INFORMATION)
Susan Baldwin (SANDAG) provided an overview of the updated Regional Housing Progress Report 2003-2013. The Regional Housing Progress Report 2003-2013 has been updated to include data from 2012 and 2013, which has been collected from local jurisdictions’ Annual Housing Element Progress Reports submitted to the state, and data collected by SANDAG on the provision of acquired/rehabilitated/rent-restricted units and “at risk” housing units preserved. The report will be used to do the analysis required by Board Policy No. 033: Implementation Guidelines for SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment Memorandum, for evaluating grant applications submitted for Cycle 3 of the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program.
8. FY 2014-2015 CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM (INFORMATION)
Coleen Clementson (SANDAG) gave a brief presentation on the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program, a greenhouse gas emission reduction program created by the California Legislature under the Cap-and-Trade Investment Plan in the FY 2014-2015 State Budget. Ms. Clementson discussed the SANDAG role as both an applicant and a reviewer of projects. There are two phases to the application process: the first is a concept phase, and the second is an evaluation phase that will likely use the SGIP scoring criteria. SANDAG will be submitting applications to support the implementation of the Inland Rail Trail and South Bay Rapid Bus Project.
Original concept proposals for the AHSC must be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development no later than Thursday, February 19, 2015, at 5 p.m. Invited applicants will need to submit a complete application no later than April 15, 2015.
9. ADJOURNMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP BUSINESS MEETING AND NEXT MEETING
Chair Raulston adjourned the meeting of the Regional Planning TWG at 2:45 pm.
The next meeting of the Regional Planning TWG is scheduled for Thursday, March 12, 2015, and will be held at UC San Diego.
10. SITE VISIT NO. 2: LA MESA DOWNTOWN VILLAGE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mr. Chopyk led TWG members on a walking tour of the La Mesa Downtown Village Streetscape improvement Project, which received $2 million in TransNet SGIP. The purpose of the project is to help rejuvenate the downtown area, enhance its status as a destination, and solidify its core identity as La Mesa’s hub. The project is focused on enhancing crosswalks; improving pedestrian linkages; and implementing landscape improvements, street lighting, new benches, street signage (pedestrian and vehicular); as well as installing street trees and planters along the sidewalks. The Downtown La Mesa Village Streetscape Improvement Project is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2015.
9
10
11
12
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-5
MARCH 6, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – RECOMMEND
PROPOSED SANDAG EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE File Number 7300400 FY 2014-2015 CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
Introduction
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) is one of the first programs under cap-and-trade to release a notice of available funding. The initial deadline for submission of concept proposals was February 19, 2015. Full applications are due April 15, 2015.
At their February 6, 2015, meetings, the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees received a report outlining the AHSC program, initial process, and funding availability as well as SANDAG’s dual role (1) as an eligible applicant for the program; and (2) as an advisor in the application review process in the capacity as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the San Diego region.
Discussion
Metropolitan Planning Organization Role
As discussed with the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees last month, the AHSC Guidelines call for MPOs, such as SANDAG, to play an advisory role in the two-part application review process. In the first phase of the process, MPOs are asked to review concept applications for ability to support implementation of the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). Staff reported to the Committees that concept applications would be reviewed for consistency with the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS) using the relevant local general plans and Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast. Any project from the region, whether a SANDAG proposed project or a project proposed by another eligible applicant, which is consistent with the local general plan or the assumptions in the Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast, would be considered by SANDAG to implement the 2050 RTP/SCS.
Recommendation
The Regional Planning Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the quantitative criteria used in the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program capital grants for the evaluation of the full applications invited to apply for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program in the San Diego region as shown in Attachment 1.
Item No. 4 Regional Planning Technical Working Group
March 12, 2015
13
The second phase of the selection process calls for the MPO to review the full applications that are invited to submit by the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and submit a prioritized list of projects for review by the SGC. Staff proposes applying the quantitative criteria used in the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) capital grants to prioritize projects. The SGIP criteria, included in Attachment 1 for reference purposes, were approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors for the latest call for projects on December 19, 2014. The criteria were developed to implement the 2050 RTP/SCS and are largely aligned with the AHSC goals.
Staff is recommending that only the quantitative (not the qualitative) SGIP criteria be used in the review process. The quantitative criteria are marked by an asterisk, and are included in Sections 1 (land use and transportation characteristics), 3 (project readiness), 4 (cost effectiveness), 5 (matching funds), and 6 (Board Policy No. 033 points).1 The qualitative criteria, which would not be applied under this proposal, are shown in strike-out. The points allocated remain the same, except for the points associated with Board Policy No. 033 which are adjusted to 25 percent of the total points in accordance with the Policy. The quantitative process can be completed utilizing readily available data through a technical analysis. Given that SANDAG is an applicant, this approach can help to avoid any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in a qualitative analysis.
Timeline
The following provides a timeline of the AHSC program, as outlined by the SGC:
January 29, 2015 SGC releases NOFA- complete
February 19, 2015 Concept proposal due to SGC - complete
March 9, 2015 SANDAG submits concept review to SGC*
March 11, 2015 SGC issues invitations to submit full applications to selected proposals
March 27, 2015 SANDAG Board approves regional review process
April 15, 2015 Full applications due
May 22, 2015 SANDAG Board recommends regional prioritization
Mid-June 2015 SGC releases award recommendations
Late June 2015 SGC considers/approves awards
*The SGC has asked that results of the SANDAG review not be announced until the invitations tosubmit full applications have been issued.
1 Section 2 of the SGIP criteria includes only qualitative criteria, and would not be used for the review process.
14
Project Proposals
The SGC has reported that 14 concept proposals were submitted from the San Diego region. SANDAG submitted two of the 14 proposals. SANDAG staff will be reviewing concept proposals to confirm each proposal’s support of 2050 RTP/SCS implementation. In order to avoid any conflict of interest, SANDAG staff will not be reviewing and/or recommending the SANDAG proposals, and the SGC will evaluate those without the MPO advisory review.
Next Steps
Staff anticipates returning in May 2015 to the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees with a prioritized list of projects for funding based on the application of the quantitative criteria for capital projects from the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program, pending Board approval. Recommendations from the Committees will be brought to the Board of Directors for a recommendation to the SGC.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. TransNet SGIP: Scoring Criteria Matrix: Capital Grants
Points are awarded per jurisdiction based upon the methodology
adopted in Policy No. 033.
Up to 7536 1 7536
TOTAL PROJECT SCORE 300144
TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING – CAPITAL GRANTS 3
401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101 • (619) 699-1900
2015 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL COMPETITION
Item No. 6Regional Planning Technical Working Group
March 12, 2015
19
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND OF PROGRAM
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was created by Senate Bill 99 (Chapter 359, Statues of 2013) and Assembly Bill 101 (Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013) to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking.The ATP is administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).
State and federal law segregate the ATP into multiple, overlapping components. ATP funds are distributed through three separate competitive programs:
1. Small Urban/Rural Competition - 10 percent of ATP funds are distributed to small urban and rural areas with populations of 200,000 or less via a competitive process administered by the CTC.
2. Statewide Competition - 50 percent of ATP funds are distributed to projects competitively awarded by the CTC on a statewide basis.
3. Regional Competition - 40 percent of ATP funds are distributed to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. These funds are distributed based on total MPO population. The funds allocated under this portion of the ATP must be selected through a competitive process by the MPOs. As an MPO, SANDAG is the administrator for the San Diego regional competition. Projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition must be considered in the Regional Competition.
A minimum of 25 percent of the funds distributed by each of the three competitions must benefit disadvantaged communities.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the ATP is to implement strategies that increase and attract active transportation users; provide facilities for walking and biking in urban, suburban, and rural portions of the region; and to provide connections between them. Projects and programs funded through this program are consistent with the vision of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy for the San Diego Region.
In order to help implement active transportation projects in the San Diego Region, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) invests Transportation Development Act and TransNet regional funds regularly for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. ATP funds from the State of California provide an important new funding source for active transportation projects. As part of the Cycle 2 San Diego regional ATP competition, $4.361 million will be available in the second cycle of this competitive program.
PROGRAM GOALS
California Senate Bill (SB) 99 establishes California’s ATP with six program goals that provide a foundation for the state and regional ATP programs:
• Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking
• Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users
• Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals as established pursuant to SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and SB 391 (Chapter 585, Statutes of 2009)
• Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity though the use of programs including but not limited to projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding
• Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program
• Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 20
OVERVIEW
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
The applicant and/or implementing agency for ATP funds assumes responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds. Applicants and/or implementing agencies must be able to comply with all federal and state laws, regulations, and policies and procedures required to enter into a Local Administering Agency-State Master Agreement (Master Agreement). Refer to Chapter 4, Agreements, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM) for guidance and procedures on Master Agreements. The LAPM is available here: dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/lapm.htm.
The following entities, within the State of California, are eligible to apply for ATP funds:
• Local, Regional, or State Agencies – examples include city, county, MPO, and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA)
• Caltrans
• Transit Agencies – Any agency responsible for public transportation that is eligible for funds under the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Natural Resources or Public Land Agencies – Federal, Tribal, State, or local agency responsible for natural resources or public land administration. Examples include:
o State or local park or forest agencies
o State or local fish and game, or wildlife agencies
o Department of the Interior Land Management Agencies
o U.S. Forest Service
• Public schools or school districts
• Tribal Governments – Federally-recognized Native American Tribes. For funding awarded to a tribal government, a fund transfer to the Bureau of Indian Affairs may be necessary. A tribal government may also partner with another eligible entity to apply, if desired.
• Private nonprofit tax-exempt organizations – May apply for projects eligible for Recreational Trail Program funds, recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to non-motorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails. Projects must benefit the general public, and not only a private entity.
• Other - Any other entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails that the CTC determines to be eligible.
PARTNERING WITH IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
Entities that are unable to apply for ATP funds or that are unable to enter into a Master Agreement with the State, must partner with an eligible applicant that can implement the project. Entities that are unfamiliar with the requirements to administer a Federal-Aid Highway Program project may partner with an eligible applicant that can implement the project. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement (e.g. letter of intent) must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation. The implementing agency will be responsible and accountable for the use and expenditure of program funds.
All projects must be selected through a competitive process and must meet one or more of the program goals. Because the majority of funds in the ATP are federal funds, projects must be federal-aid eligible. There are four different eligible project types:
1. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Capital projects that will further the goals of the ATP. This typically includes the environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases of a capital (facilities) project. A new infrastructure project will not be programmed without a complete project study report (PSR) or PSR equivalent. The application may be considered a PSR equivalent if it defines. And justifies the project scope, cost, and schedule. Though the PSR or equivalent may focus on the project components proposed for programming, it must provide at least a preliminary estimate of costs for all components.
A capital improvement that is required as a condition for private development approval or permits is not eligible for funding from the ATP.
• SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECTS
For a project to contribute toward the Safe Routes to School funding requirement, the project must directly increase safety and convenience for public school students to walk and/or bike to school. Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects must be located within two miles of a public school or within the vicinity of a public school bus stop. Other than traffic education and enforcement activities, non-infrastructure projects do not have a location restriction.
• RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROJECTS
For trail projects that are primarily recreational to be eligible for ATP funding, the projects must meet the federal requirements of the Recreational Trails Program as such projects may not be eligible for funding from other sources (fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/). Multi-purpose trails and paths that serve both recreational and transportation purposes are generally eligible in the ATP, so long as they are consistent with one or more goals of the program.
2. NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Education, encouragement, and enforcement activities that further the goals of the ATP. The CTC intends to focus funding for non-infrastructure projects on pilot and start-up projects that can demonstrate funding for ongoing efforts. The ATP funds are not intended to fund ongoing program operations. Non-infrastructure projects are not limited to those benefiting school students.
3. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WITH NON-INFRASTRUCTURE COMPONENTS
Projects that have both infrastructure and non-infrastructure components will be scored using the scoring criteria that represents the higher proportion of the project.For example, a project that is more than 50% infrastructure will be scored using the infrastructure scoring criteria. Combination projects need to specify the percentage of each component (e.g. 75% infrastructure and 25% non-infrastructure).
The development of a community-wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community.
• ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
A city, county, county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district, or transit district may prepare an active transportation plan. An active transportation plan prepared by a city or county may be integrated into the circulation element of its general plan or a separate plan which is compliant or will be brought into compliance with the Complete Streets Act, Assembly Bill 1358 (Chapter 657, Statutes of 2008). An active transportation plan must include, but not be limited to, the following components or explain why the component is not applicable:
o The estimated number of existing bicycle trips and pedestrian trips in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all trips, and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle trips and pedestrian trips resulting from implementation of the plan.
o The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan.
o A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other destinations.
o A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation facilities.
o A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip bicycle parking facilities.
o A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public locations, private parking garages and parking lots and in new commercial and residential developments.
o A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These must include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
o A map and description of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities at major transit hubs. These must include, but are not limited to, rail and transit terminals, and ferry docks and landings.
o A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along bicycle and pedestrian networks to designated destinations.
o A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.
o A description of bicycle and pedestrian safety, education, and encouragement programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law impacting bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists and pedestrians.
o A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the plan, including disadvantaged and underserved communities.
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 23
OVERVIEW
o A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the plan area, and is consistent with the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy.
o A description of the projects and programs proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.
o A description of past expenditures for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and future financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience for bicyclists and pedestrians in the plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and potential grant funding for bicycle and pedestrian uses.
o A description of steps necessary to implement the plan and the reporting process that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the progress being made in implementing the plan.
o A resolution showing adoption of the plan by the city, county or district. If the active transportation plan was prepared by a county transportation commission, regional transportation planning agency, MPO, school district or transit district, the plan should indicate the support via resolution of the city(s) or county(s) in which the proposed facilities would be located.
A city, county, school district, or transit district that has prepared an active transportation plan may submit the plan to the county transportation commission or transportation planning agency for approval. The city, county, school district, or transit district may submit an approved plan to Caltrans in connection with an application for funds for active transportation facilities which will implement the plan.
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 24
OVERVIEW
EXAMPLE PROJECTS
Below is a list of projects considered generally eligible for ATP funding. This list is not intended to be comprehensive; other types of projects that are not on this list may also be eligible if they further the goals of the program.
• Development of new bikeways and walkways that improve mobility, access, or safety for non-motorized users.
• Improvements to existing bikeways and walkways, which improve mobility, access, or safety for non-motorized users.
o Elimination of hazardous conditions on existing bikeways and walkways.
o Preventative maintenance of bikeways and walkways with the primary goal of extending the service life of the facility.
• Installation of traffic control devices to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Safe Routes to School projects that improve the safety of children walking and bicycling to school, in accordance with Section 1404 of Public Law 109-59.
• Safe routes to transit projects, which will encourage transit by improving biking and walking routes to mass transportation facilities and school bus stops.
• Secure bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, rail and transit stations, and ferry docks and landings for the benefit of the public.
• Bicycle-carrying facilities on public transit, including rail and ferries.
• Establishment or expansion of a bike share program.
• Recreational trails and trailheads, park projects that facilitate trail linkages or connectivity to non-motorized corridors, and conversion of abandoned railroad corridors to trails.
• Development of a community wide bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or active transportation plan in a disadvantaged community.
• Education programs to increase bicycling and walking, and other non-infrastructure investments that demonstrate effectiveness in increasing active transportation, including but not limited to:
o Development and implementation of bike-to-work or walk-to-work school day/month programs.
o Conducting bicycle and/or pedestrian counts, walkability and/or bikeability assessments or audits, or pedestrian and/or bicycle safety analysis to inform plans and projects.
o Conducting pedestrian and bicycle safety education programs.
o Development and publishing of community walking and biking maps, including school route/travel plans.
o Development and implementation of walking school bus or bike train programs.
o Components of open streets events directly linked to the promotion of a new infrastructure project.
o Targeted enforcement activities around high pedestrian and/or bicycle injury and/or fatality locations (intersections or corridors). These activities cannot be general traffic enforcement but must be tied to improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
o School crossing guard training.
o School bicycle clinics.
O Development and implementation of programs and tools that maximize use of available and emerging technologies to implement the goals of the ATP.
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 25
OVERVIEW
PROJECT APPLICATION
ATP project applications are available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/index.html.
A project application must include the signature of the Chief Executive Officer or other officer authorized by the applicant’s governing board. Where the project is to be implemented by an agency other than the applicant, documentation of the agreement between the project applicant and implementing agency must be submitted with the project application. A project application must also include documentation of all other funds committed to the projects.
One hardcopy and one electronic (PDF) copy of the application must be received by SANDAG no later than 4 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2015. Applications should be addressed to:
Jenny R. Russo Regional ATP Administrator SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101
Applicants that submit applications for the statewide competition will automatically be considered for the regional competition. Applicants do not need to submit another hardcopy of their application to SANDAG if they have already provided one as part of the statewide competition.
PRE-APPLICATION WORKSHOP
SANDAG will conduct a pre-application workshop for prospective applicants to provide an overview of the program and the application process and answer any questions. Applicants are strongly encouraged to attend this workshop. The workshop will take place on Tuesday, June 9, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the Seventh Floor Board Room at the SANDAG offices.
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
This “Call for Projects” package refers to a number of documents that will help applicants prepare an application. Those documents can be found on the SANDAG website at: sandag.org/atpfunding.
Applicants that would like to be considered for non-infrastructure funding for the regional ATP competition will be asked to answer the following question, as a supplement to the state-wide application:
• INNOVATION: Does this project propose any solutions that are new to the San Diego Region?
INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS
Applicants that would like to be considered for infrastructure funding for the regional ATP competition will be asked to answer the following questions, as a supplement to the statewide application:
• PROJECT READINESS – COMPLETION OF MAJOR MILESTONES: Which of the following steps for the project have been completed?
o Community Active Transportation Strategy/Neighborhood-Level Plan/Corridor Study
o Environmental Documentation/Certification
o Right-of-Way Acquisition
o Final Design
• LINKAGES TO BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT NETWORKS: Provide a map that clearly illustrates the project’s relationship to existing local and regional bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Specifically, note if the projects closes any gaps in bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
• EFFECTIVENESS AND COMPREHENSIVENESS OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Describe the specific traffic calming, pedestrian, and bicycle treatments being proposed and why they are particularly suited to address the needs of the project area.
• COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS: Describe any programs that complement the proposed infrastructure improvements, including awareness, education efforts, increased enforcement, bicycle parking, etc. and who will be implementing them. In order to achieve points, programs must be included in the project Scope of Work, Schedule, and Budget.
• INNOVATION: Is this project an FHWA or State Experimentation Effort? Does this project propose any solutions that are new to the San Diego region?
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 27
OVERVIEW
PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
STEP 1: ELIGIBILITY SCREEN
Applications will be screened for eligibility. Applications will be removed from the competitive process if found ineligible based on the guidelines below. Projects not selected for programming in the statewide competition, but deemed eligible for the state program will be considered; applicants will be required to submit a supplemental application (see page 9).
STEP 2: QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION
SANDAG will conduct the quantitative evaluation for all Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and formula-based scores.
STEP 3: QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
A multidisciplinary review panel representing a broad array of active transportation-related interests, such as academia, advocacy, and public health, will be convened to score the qualitative portion of the application. Panel members will not review or comment on applications from their own organization; or in the case of the County of San Diego, from their own department. Eligible applicants that do not apply for funding will be encouraged to participate.
STEP 4: INITIAL RANKING
An initial list of project rankings will be produced.
STEP 5: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ADJUSTMENT
Rankings will be adjusted to ensure that 25 percent of the available funds are dedicated to projects and programs benefiting Disadvantaged Communities as identified in the State Guidelines.
STEP 6: FINAL RANKING
Rankings will be provided to the CTC in November 2015 for adoption in December 2015.
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 28
OVERVIEW
SCORING AND SELECTION PROCESS
After applications have been received and reviewed for eligibility, proposed projects will be scored and selected according to the process outlined below.
EVALUATION PANEL
The proposed projects will be scored by an evaluation panel consisting of Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG) members, Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) members, Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG) members, and/or an academic with expertise in a related field. Panel members must not represent local jurisdictions that have submitted applications for funding under cycle 2 from their own agency/department, may not have had prior involvement in any of the submitted projects, nor may they (nor the organizations they represent) receive compensation for work on any of the funded projects in the future. The Scoring Criteria are specified in the Scoring Criteria Matrix for each grant program.
SCORING APPROACH FOR CATEGORIES OF QUESTIONS
The criteria upon which projects will be scored fall into two general categories:
1. Objective criteria that are data-oriented and relate to existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian network connections, access to transit services, other transportation safety measures.
2. Subjective criteria that relate to the quality of the proposed plan or project.
Objective data-oriented criteria will be based on Geographic Information System (GIS), the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy, Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan, and the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. For information that is not readily available to SANDAG, Applicants will be asked to provide supplementary data. Points for objective criteria will be calculated by SANDAG Technical Services Department staff in accordance with the point structures delineated in the scoring criteria, and are marked with an asterisk (*) in the Scoring Criteria Matrix of each program.
For subjective criteria related to the quality of the proposed project, applicants will need to provide responses. Points for subjective criteria will be awarded by the members of the evaluation panel.
PROJECT RANKINGS
Project rankings will be produced using a “Sum of Ranks” approach. Using this approach, projects will receive two scores: objective formula-based points that are calculated by SANDAG Technical Services Department staff and subjective quality-based points that are awarded by members of the Evaluation Panel. The objective points earned will be added to the subjective points awarded by each evaluator on the panel, and will then be translated into project rankings for each evaluator. For example, the project awarded the most points from a single evaluator will rank number one; the project awarded the second most points will rank number two; and so on (one being the best rank a project can receive). The rankings from each individual evaluator will then be summed for each project to produce an overall project ranking (sum of ranks). Therefore, projects with the lowest overall numerical rank will have performed the best.
The list of overall project rankings will be used to recommend funding allocations in order of rank. The top ranking projects (or the projects with the lowest overall numerical rank) will be recommended for funding in descending rank until funding is exhausted.
SELECTION PROCESS
SANDAG Contracts and Procurement staff will present the list of overall project rankings and corresponding funding recommendations to the Transportation Committee for recommendation to the SANDAG Board of Directors. The SANDAG Board will review and recommend the final list of projects to the CTC for consideration. The CTC will consider the Regional ATP project rankings in December 2015.
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 29
OVERVIEW
PROJECT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Applicants must submit projects that meet all of the following criteria to be considered eligible for ATP funding.
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
All projects submitted must be consistent with the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The ATP will be evaluated for its effectiveness in increasing the use of active modes of transportation in California. Applicants that receive funding for a project must collect and submit data to Caltrans as described in the “Project Reporting” section of the statewide ATP Guidelines
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Unless programmed for state-only funding, project applicants must comply with the provisions of Title 23 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and with the processes and procedures contained in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and the Master Agreement with Caltrans. Below are examples of federal requirements that must be met when administering ATP projects.
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and documentation is required on all projects. Refer to Chapter 6, Environmental Procedures, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual for guidance and procedures on complying with NEPA and other federal environmentally related laws.
• Project applicants may not proceed with the final design of a project or request "Authorization to proceed with Right-of-Way" or "Authorization to proceed with Construction" until Caltrans has signed a Categorical Exclusion, a Finding of No Significant Impact, or a Record of Decision. Failure to follow this requirement will make the project ineligible for federal reimbursement. .
• If the project requires the purchase of right of way (the acquisition of real property), the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 apply. For more information, refer to Chapter 13, Right of Way, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
• If the project applicant requires the consultation services of architects, landscape architects, land surveyors, or engineers, the procedures in the Chapter 10, Consultant Selection, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual must be followed.
• Contract documents are required to incorporate applicable federal requirements such as Davis Bacon wage rates, competitive bidding, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises/Equal Employment Opportunity provisions, etc. For more information, refer to Chapter 9, Civil Rights and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and Chapter 12, Plans, Specifications & Estimate, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Failure to comply with federal requirements may result in the repayment to the State of ATP funds.
FULLY FUNDED PROJECTS
A project that is already fully funded will not be considered for funding in the ATP.
MINIMUM REQUEST FOR FUNDS
In order to maximize the effectiveness of program funds and to encourage the aggregation of small projects into a comprehensive bundling of projects, the minimum request for ATP funds that will be considered is $250,000. This minimum does not apply to non-infrastructure projects, Safe Routes to Schools projects, and Recreational Trails projects.
MAXIMUM REQUEST FOR FUNDS
The total amount of funding requested by each applicant cannot exceed the total amount available ($4.36 million).
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 30
OVERVIEW
MATCHING FUNDS
Matching funds are not required. If an applicant chooses to provide matching funds, those funds cannot be expended prior to the allocation of ATP funds in the same project phase (permits and environmental studies; plans; specifications and estimates; right-of-way capital outlay and support; and construction capital outlay and support). Matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionately to the ATP funds. The matching funds may be adjusted before or shortly after contract award to reflect any substantive change in the bid compared to the estimated cost of the project.
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate a benefit to a community that meets any of the following criteria:
• The median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current census tract level data from the American Community Survey. Data is available at htt://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
• An area identified as among the most disadvantaged 10% in the state according to latest versions of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) scores. Scores are available at htt://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces11.html
• At least 75% of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. Data is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp. Applicants using this measure must indicate how the project benefits the school students in the project area or, for projects not directly benefitting school students, explain why this measure is representative of the larger community.
If a project applicant believes a project benefits a disadvantaged community but the project does not meet the aforementioned criteria, the applicant must submit for consideration a quantitative assessment of why the community should be considered disadvantaged.
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ONLY)
Proposed bicycle and pedestrian elements must meet the minimum geometric standards set forth in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 10), the California MUTCD, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Projects may also use AASHTO standards and must also be consistent with the guidelines outlined in Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan and Planning and Designing for Pedestrians.
PROJECT READINESS (INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ONLY)
Applicant must have completed a feasibility study or an equivalent evaluation of project feasibility. For smaller-scale projects, an equivalent evaluation of project feasibility must have included the following:
Active transportation projects that are a component of major roadway reconstruction projects funded by TransNet, and therefore subject to the Routine Accommodations Provisions outlined in SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21, are not eligible.
BASELINE DATA COLLECTION
Applicants must include baseline data collection within the project application. Prior to project construction, a selected applicant must collect data on (at minimum) observed bicycle and pedestrian demand and safety in the project area, and submit results to SANDAG. A subset of selected applicants may be selected for in-depth evaluation by SANDAG, in which case, SANDAG will conduct the data collection effort with required participation from the selected applicants’ staff. Such in-depth evaluation conducted by SANDAG will take place solely for the purpose of SANDAG Active Transportation data collection and monitoring efforts, and will not impact the selected applicants’ budgets.
Bicycle and pedestrian observed demand data must be collected prior to project construction, through counts, observations of bicyclist/pedestrian/driver behavior, and intercept surveys using the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project methodology:
• Counts must be conducted prior to project construction, during National Documentation Days in the second week of September. Supplementary counts and surveys can be conducted during January, May, and July to provide seasonal data if desired.
• Counts should be conducted for two hours, at peak times relative to the facility. For example, facilities attracting utilitarian trips should be counted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., whereas facilities attracting recreational trips should be counted on a Saturday, from 9a.m. to 11a.m.
• Counts must be conducted using standard forms, to be provided by SANDAG. Completed forms must be submitted to SANDAG as a project deliverable.
FUNDING FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS
Funding from the ATP may be used to fund the development of community wide bike, pedestrian, safe routes to schools, or active transportation plans in predominantly disadvantaged communities.
The first priority for the funding of active transportation plans will be for cities, counties, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, MPOs, school districts, or transit districts that have neither a bicycle plan, a pedestrian plan, a safe routes to schools plan, nor an active transportation plan. The second priority for the funding of active transportation plans will be for cities, counties, county transportation commissions, regional transportation planning agencies, or MPOs that have a bicycle plan or a pedestrian plan but not both.
Applications for plans may not be combined with applications for infrastructure or other non-infrastructure projects.
REIMBURSEMENT
The ATP is a reimbursement program for eligible costs incurred. Reimbursement is requested through the invoice process detailed in Chapter 5, Accounting/Invoices, of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Costs incurred prior to CTC allocation and, for federally funded projects, Federal Highway Administration project approval (i.e. Authorization to Proceed) are not eligible for reimbursement.
DESIGN STANDARDS
Streets and Highways Code Section 891 requires that all city, county, regional, and other local agencies responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways where bicycle travel is permitted utilize all minimum safety design criteria established by Caltrans. Chapter 11, Design Standards, of the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual describes statewide design standards, specifications, procedures, guides, and references that are acceptable in the geometric, drainage, and structural design of Local Assistance projects. The chapter also describes design exception approval procedures, including the delegation of design exception approval authority to the City and
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 32
OVERVIEW
County Public Works Directors for projects not on the state highway system. These standards and procedures, including the exception approval process, must be used for all ATP projects.
For capital projects off the state highway system, the project applicant will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility. If another entity agrees to assume responsibility for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the facility, documentation of the agreement must be submitted with the project application, and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement between the parties must be submitted with the request for allocation.
All facilities constructed using ATP funds cannot revert to a non-ATP use for a minimum of 20 years or its actual useful life as documented in the project application, whichever is less, without approval of the CTC.
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 33
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
INFRASTRUCTURE SCORING CRITERIA GUIDANCE
How will projects be scored? The following narrative descriptions will be used to assist the evaluation panel in scoring applications. The Infrastructure Scoring Criteria Matrix on page 21 is a summary of this information.
1. PROJECT CONNECTIONS AND SAFETY
Connection to Regional Bicycle Network A.
NOTE: SANDAG’s Technical Services Department will calculate the points awarded for this criterion using the Regional Bicycle Network laid out in SANDAG Riding to 2050: The San Diego Region Bicycle Plan. Higher points will be awarded to projects proposing to construct part of the planned regional bikeway network. (Up to 8 points possible)
• Will the proposed project directly connect to the Regional Bikeway Network? (6 points) OR
• Will the proposed project construct part of the Regional Bikeway Network? (8 points)
Completes Connection in Local Bicycle Network B.
Points will be awarded if the project proposes to close a gap between existing local bicycle facilities. A gap is defined as a lack of facilities between two existing facilities, or a situation where there is an undesirable change in facility type. For example, a project upgrading a connection between two Class II segments from a Class III to a Class II segment could be closing a gap. (Up to 8 points possible)
Completes Connection in Existing Pedestrian Network C.
Points will be awarded if the project proposes to close a gap between existing local bicycle facilities. A gap is defined as a lack of facilities between two existing facilities, or a situation where there is an undesirable change in facility type. For example, a project upgrading a connection between two Class II segments from a Class III to a Class II segment could be closing a gap. (Up to 8 points possible)
Connection to Transit D.
NOTE: SANDAG’s Technical Services Department staff will calculate the points awarded for these criteria based on the transit facilities within particular distances of the project boundary.
A regional transit station is defined as any station served by COASTER, SPRINTER, San Diego Trolley, Bus Rapid Transit, or Rapid Bus. Distance refers to walking distance based on actual available pathways. Projects that propose both bicycle and pedestrian improvements will be eligible to receive points for both modes in this category. (Up to 12 points possible)
• Bicycle improvement within 1.5 miles of a regional transit station (6 points)
and/or
• Pedestrian improvement within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop (2 points)
• Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a local transit stop (4 points)
• Pedestrian improvement within 1/2 mile of a regional transit station (4 points)
• Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a regional transit station (6 points)
Safety and Access Improvements E.
Points for this section will be awarded based on the applicant’s description of safety hazards and/or collision history, degree of hazard(s), and potential for increasing bicycle or pedestrian trips. Some hazards may be so unsafe as to prohibit access and therefore lack collision data. Projects lacking collision data may still receive points only for creating safe access or overcoming hazardous conditions; however, the highest scoring projects will present both.
To earn points without collision data, Applicant must describe detractors in the project area that prohibit safe access (ex. lack of facilities, high traffic volumes/speeds where bicycle/pedestrian trips would increase with safer access, freeway on/off ramps, blind curves, steep slopes, etc.) The evaluation panel will also consider vehicle speed limit and average daily traffic information in identifying the degree of hazard. (Up to 12 points possible)
• One to two correctable collisions (2 points)
• Three to four correctable collisions (4 points)
• Five or more correctable collisions (6 points)
and/or
• Creates safe access/overcomes hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians (6 points)
2. QUALITY OF PROJECT
This section will be scored using the guidance outlined in SANDAG Riding to 2050: The San Diego Region Bicycle Plan; Planning and Designing for Pedestrians; and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
Points will be awarded based on the quality of proposed measures and the potential to address community needs identified by the Applicant. The highest scoring projects will make significant infrastructure changes that result in reduced speeds and safer environments for bicyclists and pedestrians, balance the needs of all modes, and include a broad array of devices to calm traffic and/or prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians. Low-scoring projects will have fewer features and make minimal improvements.
Impact and Effectiveness of Proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, and/or Traffic Calming Measures A.
Up to 5 points are available within each of the three project categories: bicycle, pedestrian, and/or traffic calming measures. Therefore, projects that propose improvements in more than one category are eligible to earn more points (up to 15 total points possible). In scoring traffic calming measures, the following minimum thresholds for frequency/effectiveness of traffic calming devices along a roadway will be taken into consideration:
Residential Street (20 mph) = Devices every 250 feet (on either side)
Collector or Main Street (25 mph) = Devices every 400 feet
Arterial street (35 mph) = Devices every 800 feet
• How well will the proposed traffic calming address the identified need in the project area? Are the proposed solutions appropriate for the situation? (up to 5 points)
• How well will the proposed pedestrian improvements address the identified need in the project area? (up to 5 points)
• How well will the proposed bicycle improvements address the identified need in the project area? (up to 5 points)
Program Objectives B.
Points will be awarded based on how well the proposed project aligns with ATP objectives. (Up to 18 points possible)
Innovation C.
Points will be awarded based on the breadth of solutions proposed by the project that are new to the region. Refer to the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide for examples of innovative improvements. No points will be awarded for facilities or treatments that have received FHWA approval (ex. Sharrows), unless they are new to the region. The Applicant should determine whether the proposed improvements have been FHWA approved and make a determination prior to submitting this application. (Up to 8 points possible)
• Is this project an FHWA or State experimentation effort? (4 points)
• Does this project propose any solutions that are new to the region? (Up to 4 points)
3. SUPPORTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
This section will be scored based upon the Applicant’s demonstration of plans, policies, and programs that support the proposed project. Consideration will be given to both the breadth and depth of programs. The highest scoring projects will have an adopted Community Active Transportation Strategy that incorporates Complete Streets policies specific to the project area.
Complimentary Programs A.
Points will be awarded for demonstrating that the proposed project will be complemented by supportive programs including, but not limited to: awareness campaigns, education efforts, increased enforcement, and/or bicycle parking. High scoring projects will demonstrate collaboration and integration with the supportive program(s). Up to 3 points possible.
Supportive Plans and Policies B.
Applicant must demonstrate any supportive policies by citing language from approved local plans relevant to the proposed project. Additional points will be awarded to projects preceded by a Complete Streets policy included in a community or specific plan, or Community Active Transportation Strategy completed prior to this application. The highest scoring projects will be supported by adopted plans that emphasize active transportation and identify priority improvements in the project area.
4. DEMAND ANALYSIS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
NOTE: SANDAG Technical Services Department staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion based on a GIS analysis of the project area relative to the seven factors listed below.
A half-mile buffer will be created around pedestrian improvement projects and a one-mile buffer will be created around bicycle improvement projects. Results for each factor will be ranked from highest to lowest (with the exception of vehicle ownership, which will be ranked from lowest to highest), in quintiles, for all projects. Projects will then be scored relative to each other by ranking the raw scores from highest (up to 15 points) to lowest (1 point). (Up to 15 points possible)
• Population • Activity Centers • Population Density • Employment • Employment Density • Vehicle Ownership • Intersection Density 5. PROJECT READINESS
Evidence of a completed feasibility study or equivalent evaluation of project feasibility.
Completion of Major Milestones A.
Points will be awarded based on the project development milestones completed. (Up to 20 points possible)
• Neighborhood-level plan, corridor study, or community active transportation strategy. (Up to 2 points)
• Environmental clearance under California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, if appropriate. (Up to 4 points)
• Completion of right-of-way acquisition, all necessary entitlements, or evident provided by the applicant that no right-of-way acquisition is required. (Up to 4 points)
• Completion of final design (plans, specifications, and estimates). (Up to 10 points)
6. COST EFFECTIVENESS
Ratio of Grant Request to Project Score
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 36
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
NOTE: SANDAG Technical Services Department staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
The grant-score ratio is calculated by dividing the total project grant request amount by the sum of points earned in Categories 1 through 5. The projects will be ranked against each other based on the resulting quotient and the available 10 points will be distributed accordingly. The project(s) with the smallest quotient will receive 10 points, and the one(s) with the largest quotient will receive 1 point. (Up to 10 points possible)
7. MATCHING FUNDS
NOTE: SANDAG Technical Services Department staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
Supporting documentation demonstrating that matching funds have been secured and the source(s) of the matching funds should be detailed. Matching funds that have not been secured will not count toward this score.
Points for this criterion will be calculated by SANDAG Contracts and Procurement Staff by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The projects will be awarded points proportionately on a scale of 0 to 10 based on the statistical distribution of matching fund quotients. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive 10 points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points. (Up to 10 points possible)
8. PUBLIC HEALTH
Up to 10 points will be awarded for improving public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues. Points will be awarded to applicants that conduct the following:
• Coordinate with the local health department to identify data and risk factors for the community - 2 points
• Describe the targeted populations and the health issues that the project will address - 2 points
• Assess health data using the online California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) tool available at http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx - 3 points
• Assess the project’s health benefits using the online Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) available at http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org - 3 points
9. USE OF CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS OR A QUALIFIED COMMUNITY CONSERVATION CORPS
Projects should seek to use the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code, as partners to undertake or construct applicable projects in accordance with Section 1524 of Public Law 112-141. Up to 5 points will be deduced if an applicant does not seek corps participation or if an applicant intends not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate. Applicants will not be penalized if either corps determines that they cannot participate in a project.
The California Conservation Corps can be contacted at ccc.ca.gov. Community conservation corps can be contacted at californialocalconservationcorps.org.
10. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY
For a project to contribute toward the Disadvantaged Communities funding requirement, the project must clearly demonstrate a benefit to a community that meets any of the following criteria:
• The median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current census tract level data from the American Community Survey. Data is available at htt://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
• An area identified as among the most disadvantaged 10% in the state according to latest versions of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) scores. Scores are available at htt://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces11.html
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 37
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
• At least 75% of public school students in the project area are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch Program. Data is available at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/filessp.asp. Applicants using this measure must indicate how the project benefits the school students in the project area or, for projects not directly benefitting school students, explain why this measure is representative of the larger community.
• The project benefits a disadvantaged community. (10 points) OR
• The project does not benefit a disadvantaged community. (0 points)
Projects will be scored and ranked on the basis of applicant responses to the below criteria.
Points calculated by SANDAG’s Technical Services Department or Contracts and Procurement Department are marked with an asterisk (*).
No. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS
POSSIBLE %
1. PROJECT CONNECTIONS AND SAFETY (29 % of total points)
A.* Regional Bicycle
Network
6 Project will directly connect to the Regional Bikeway Network Up to 8 5%
or
8 Project will construct part of the Regional Bikeway Network
B. Local Bicycle
Network
8 Closes a gap between existing bicycle facilities Up to 8 5%
C. Existing Pedestrian
Network
8 Closes a gap in the existing pedestrian network Up to 8 5%
D.* Connection to
Transit
6 Bicycle improvement within 1 ½ miles of a regional transit station Up to 12 7%
and/or
2 Pedestrian improvement within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop
4 Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a local transit stop
4 Pedestrian improvement within 1/2 mile of a regional transit station
6 Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a regional transit station
E. Safety and Access
Improvements
Completes connection in existing network at location with documented safety
hazard or accident history within the last seven years: Up to 12
7%
2 1 to 2 correctable crashes involving non-motorized users
4 3 to 4 correctable crashes involving non-motorized users
6 5 or more correctable crashes involving non-motorized users
and/or
6 Creates access or overcomes barriers in area where hazardous conditions
prohibit safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians.
2. QUALITY OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (41% of total points)
A. Project Impact and
Effectiveness Up to 5
How well will the proposed traffic calming address the identified need in the
project area? Are the proposed solutions appropriate for the situation? Up to 15 9%
Up to 5 How well will the proposed pedestrian improvements address the identified
need in the project area?
Up to 5 How well will the proposed bicycle improvements address the identified need in
the project area?
B. Program Objectives How well does the project meet the ATP program objectives? Up to 18 11%
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 39
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
No. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS
POSSIBLE %
C. Innovation 4 Is this project an FHWA or state experimentation effort? Up to 8 5%
4 Does the project utilize innovative solutions or propose solutions that are new to
the region and can potentially serve as a replicable model?
3. SUPPORTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (4% of total points)
A. Complementary
Programs
Are capital improvements accompanied by supportive programs such as an
awareness campaign, education efforts, and/or increased enforcement? Up to 3 2%
B. Supportive Plans
and Policies
Demonstrated complete streets policy in an approved plan or completed
community active transportation strategy? Up to 3 2%
4.* DEMAND ANALYSIS (GIS) (9% of total points)
Factors contributing to score: population and employment, population and
employment densities, intersection density, vehicle ownership, and activity
centers.
Up to 15 9%
5.* PROJECT READINESS (12% of total points)
Completion of
Major Milestones 2
Neighborhood-level plan, corridor study, or community active transportation
strategy.
Up to 20 12%
4 Environmental Clearance
4 Right-of-way Acquisition
10 Final Design
6.* COST EFFECTIVENESS (6% of total points)
Ratio of grant
request to project
score
Project grant request, divided by score in Categories 1 through 5, ranked
relative to each other. Up to 10 6%
7.* MATCHING FUNDS (6% of total points)
Matching funds can be from any of the following sources:
1. Identified and approved capital funding from identified source
2. Approved match grant
3. In-kind services.
Points for matching funds are awarded by ranking the matching fund amounts
proposed by each applicant, dividing each matching fund amount by the
highest matching fund rank, then multiplying the number of points available by
this quotient.. The project with the largest proposed matching funds will receive
ten points. Projects that do not include matching funds will receive 0 points.
Up to 10 6%
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 40
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
No. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS
POSSIBLE %
8. PUBLIC HEALTH (6% of total points)
Does the project improve public health by targeting populations with high risk
factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues?
Up to 10 6%
2 Coordination with the local health department to identify data and risk factors
for the community.
2 Description of the targeted populations and the health issues that the project
will address
3 Assessment of health data using the online California Health Interview Survey
tool.
3 Assessment of the project’s health benefits using the online Health Economic
Assessment Tool)
9. CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS (-3% of total points)
0 The applicant sought California Conservation Corps or a qualified Community
Conservation Corps participation on the project 0 to -5 -3%
or
-5
The applicant did not seek California Conservation Corps or a qualified
Community Conservation Corps for participation on the project or the applicant
intends not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate
9. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY (6% of total points)
10 The project benefits a disadvantaged community Up to 10 6%
or
0 The project does not benefit a disadvantaged community
TOTAL PROJECT SCORE 170 100%
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 41
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT SUBCATEGORIES
There are three categories of Non-infrastructure ATP Grants: Planning, EEA Programs1, and Bicycle Parking. Eligible projects are listed by category below.
PLANNING
Eligible planning projects should address bicycle and/or pedestrian access, primarily to accommodate non-recreational bicycle and walking trips, through neighborhood or citywide plans. Eligible planning projects may include, but are not limited to:
• Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategies
• Bicycle Master Plans
EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT, AND AWARENESS (EEA) PROGRAMS
Eligible EEA programs may include, but are not limited to:
• Education Programs that teach walking and bicycling safety skills to children and adults through schools, places of employment, community centers, or other venues.
• Encouragement Programs that propose targeted outreach and events designed to encourage walking and bicycling as a viable mode of transportation for everyday/utilitarian trips.
• Awareness Programs that intend to improve overall roadway safety, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians, by impacting the attitudes and behaviors of the general public through multimedia campaigns.
BICYCLE PARKING
Eligible projects intend to plan and implement bicycle parking facilities and must be designed for general public access (may NOT exclusively serve any single entity). Eligible bicycle parking/storage projects may include, but are not limited to:
• Bike Racks
• Bike Lockers
• Bike Corrals
• Bike Stations
1 (EEA) Education, Encouragement, and Awareness Programs
Regional ATP Program Guidelines
42
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE SCORING CRITERIA GUIDANCE
How will projects be scored? The following narrative descriptions will be used to assist the evaluation panel in scoring applications. The Non-Infrastructure Scoring Criteria Matrix on page 28 is a summary of this information.
1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Points will be awarded based on how well the proposed project meets the ATP objectives. The highest scoring projects will demonstrate the potential for measurable impact across multiple objectives.
2. COMPREHENSIVENESS
Points will be awarded according to the comprehensiveness of the proposed project, plan, or program, in terms of both scope and scale. The quality of the proposed project and its potential to address community needs identified by the Applicant will be considered.
• Planning: The highest scoring projects will: aim to address Complete Streets principles; incorporate traffic calming measures; prioritize bike/pedestrian access; and/or be considered a Community Active Transportation Strategy (CATS). (Up to 15 points)
• EEA Programs: The highest scoring projects will: reach more of the region’s residents, including specific underserved or vulnerable populations that lack vehicular access; take place over a longer period of time; complement a capital improvement project; and/or be part of a larger transportation demand management (TDM) effort. Lower-scoring projects will be smaller in scope, scale, or duration, and will be independent of any capital improvement projects. (Up to 15 points)
• Bike Parking: The highest scoring projects will: cover a larger geographic area; complement a capital improvement project; and/or be part of a larger TDM effort. Lower-scoring projects will be smaller in scope and scale, and will be independent of any capital improvement projects. (Up to 10 points)
3. METHODOLOGY
Points will be awarded across all categories according to how well the proposed effort will meet the demonstrated need and project goals.
• Planning: Highest scoring projects will include a comprehensive planning process in their scopes of work that addresses the goals of Complete Streets, prioritizes bicyclist and pedestrian access, plans for traffic calming, and ties into Safe Routes to School efforts in the project area. (Up to 30 points)
• EEA Programs: Highest scoring projects will clearly and succinctly demonstrate how the project scope of work will directly address the proposed program goals and objectives, and will also list measurable objectives and/or deliverables. Lower scoring projects will state a generic need, broad goals, and/or will fail to clearly articulate how the scope of work will address project goals. (Up to 30 points)
• Bicycle parking: Projects must demonstrate that they meet guidelines outlined in Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. Innovations that deviate from the guidelines may still be considered. The highest scoring bicycle parking projects will be appropriately located with attractive and functional designs and demonstrate how the project will directly address the proposed program goals and objectives. (Up to 10 points)
4. COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Points will be awarded according to the inclusiveness of the planning process and based on evidence that key stakeholders will be active participants in the process. The highest scoring projects will demonstrate: strong community support for the project; substantial community input into the planning or other process; identification of key stakeholders, including underserved and limited English proficiency populations, ensuring a meaningful role in the effort.
Lower scoring projects will: have minimal opportunities for community engagement in the scope of work; include generic letters of support that fail to demonstrate substantive stakeholder involvement; and/or fail to account for
limited English proficiency populations. (Planning: Up to 15 points; EEA Programs: Up to 15 points; Bike Parking: Up to 10 points)
5. EVALUATION
Points will be awarded for applications that clearly demonstrate a commitment to monitoring and evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the proposed project. The highest scoring projects will have identified performance measures in the application, or will include a task for identification of performance measures in the Scope of Work and/or include specific pre- and post-data collection efforts as part of the project scope, budget, and schedule in support of evaluating the project’s effectiveness. Lower scoring projects will lack meaningful evaluation methods or data collection as part of the project. (Planning: Not Applicable; EEA Programs: Up to 20 points; Bike Parking: Up to 10 points)
5. INNOVATION
Points will be awarded for applications that propose innovative solutions that show the potential to serve as a replicable model for the region. The highest scoring projects will include innovative methods of accomplishing project goals that have not yet been tried in the San Diego region to date. For innovations that have been implemented in other regions, the Applicant must demonstrate that the measure was successful and effective in those cases. (Planning: Not Applicable; EEA Programs: Up to 10 points; Bike Parking: Up to 30 points)
Ex. Ciclovias or Sunday Streets programs; bikesharing programs; bike corrals; bike stations; or bike parking ordinances.
6. DEMAND ANALYSIS (GIS)
NOTE: SANDAG Technical Services Department staff will calculate the points awarded based on a GIS analysis of the project area relative to the seven factors listed below.
A half-mile buffer will be created around pedestrian improvement projects and a one-mile buffer will be created around bicycle improvement projects. Results for each factor will be ranked from highest to lowest (with the exception of vehicle ownership, which will be ranked from lowest to highest), in quintiles, for all projects. Projects will then be scored relative to each other by ranking the raw scores from highest (up to 20 points) to lowest (1 point). No information is needed from the Applicant for this section. (Planning: Up to 20 points; EEA Program: Not Applicable; Bike Parking: Up to 20 points)
• Population • Employment • Population Density • Employment Density • Activity Centers • Vehicle Ownership • Intersection Density
7. COST EFFECTIVENESS
NOTE: SANDAG Contracts and Procurement staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
The grant-score ratio is calculated by dividing the total project grant request amount by the sum of points earned in Categories 1 through 7. The projects will be ranked against each other based on the resulting quotient and the available 20 points will be distributed accordingly. The project(s) with the smallest quotient will receive 20 points, and the one(s) with the largest quotient will receive 1 point. (Up to 20 points)
8. MATCHING FUNDS
NOTE: SANDAG Contracts and Procurement staff will calculate the points awarded for this criterion.
Supporting documentation that demonstrates that matching funds have been secured AND the source(s) of matching funds are detailed. Matching funds that have not been secured will not count toward this score.
Points for this criterion will be calculated by SANDAG’s Contracts and Procurement staff by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The projects will be awarded points proportionately on a
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 44
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
scale of 0 to 20 based on the statistical distribution of matching fund quotients. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive 20 points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points. (Up to 20 points)
9. 10. PUBLIC HEALTH
Up to 10 points will be awarded for improving public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues. Points will be awarded to applicants that conduct the following:
• Coordinate with the local health department to identify data and risk factors for the community - 2 points
• Describe the targeted populations and the health issues that the project will address - 2 points
• Assess health data using the online California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) tool available at http://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/Pages/default.aspx - 3 points
• Assess the project’s health benefits using the online Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) available at http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org - 3 points
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 45
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE SCORING CRITERIA MATRIX
Projects will be scored and ranked on the basis of applicant responses to the below criteria.
Points calculated by SANDAG’s Technical Services Department or Contracts and Procurement Department are marked with an asterisk (*).
No. CATEGORY CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE
PLANNING EEA2 PARKING
1 ATP Program Objectives
ALL How well does the proposed project address ATP objectives?
30 20 20
2 Comprehensiveness
PLANNING How comprehensive is the proposed plan? 15 n/a n/a
EEA PROGRAMS
BIKE PARKING Does this effort accompany an existing or proposed capital improvement project?
n/a 15 10
3 Methodology
PLANNING How well will the planning process or proposed effort meet the demonstrated need and project goals?
30 n/a n/a
EEA PROGRAMS
BIKE PARKING
How effective will the proposed effort be in meeting the demonstrated need and project goals?
n/a 30 10
4 Community Support
PLANNING Does the planning project include an inclusive process?
15 n/a n/a
EEA PROGRAMS
BIKE PARKING
Does the project involve broad segments of the community and does it have broad and meaningful community support?
n/a 15 10
5 Evaluation
EEA PROGRAMS
BIKE PARKING How will the project evaluate its effectiveness? n/a 20 10
6 Innovation
EEA PROGRAMS
BIKE PARKING
Is this project new to the region and have the potential to serve as a replicable model for other cities in the region?
n/a 10 30
7* Demand Analysis (GIS)
PLANNING
BIKE PARKING
Factors contributing to score: population and employment, population and employment densities, intersection density, vehicle ownership, and activity centers.
20 n/a 20
8* Cost Effectiveness
ALL Project grant request, divided by score in Categories 1 through 7, ranked relative to each other.
20 20 20
2 (EEA) Education, Encouragement, and Awareness Programs
Regional ATP Program Guidelines
46
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
9* Matching Funds
ALL
Matching funds can be from any of the following sources: 1. Identified and approved capital funding from identified source 2. Approved match grant 3 In-kind services Points for matching funds are awarded by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive twenty points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points.
20 20 20
10* Public Health
ALL
Does the project improve public health by targeting populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma, or other health issues?
10 10 10
TOTAL POINTS 160 160 160
Regional ATP Program Guidelines 47
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-01-7 JANUARY 16, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION
ACCELERATED ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK File Number 3102000 ANALYSIS
Introduction
On September 12, 2014, the Board of Directors accepted the Preferred Transportation Network (Preferred Network) for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
As part of the action, the Board of Directors requested that staff evaluate the performance and estimate the cost of an accelerated transportation network (Accelerated Network). The Accelerated Network would complete the public transit and active transportation projects in the Preferred Network within 10 years instead of the planned 35-year period.
The purpose of the analysis is to inform future planning efforts and funding strategies.
Discussion
The Preferred Network includes more than 60 new transit and 130 active transportation projects to be completed between now and 2050. An analysis has been performed to determine what it would cost to complete these projects by the year 2025 and how the Accelerated Network would perform using the Board-adopted performance measures.
The Projects
The projects include expanding the existing 53-mile trolley network with four new lines to connect job centers, higher education, parks, and beaches to where people live. Improvements in the LOSSAN corridor would double AMTRAK and COASTER service in the nation’s second busiest rail corridor. SPRINTER service frequencies would be increased and the line extended to further connect with North County job and retail centers.
A network of Rapid buses would provide high-speed, limited-stop service for travelers along freeway/express lanes and key arterial roadways, supplementing existing local bus services. A new intermodal center would enhance transit access to San Diego International Airport and transit connections to serve the new cross-border facility providing direct access to the Tijuana International Airport. With these transit investments, residents would experience quicker connections to jobs, shopping, schools, health care, and recreation.
Attachment 1 lists the transit projects included in the Preferred Network and indicates the year that the project is assumed to be operational. The table also shows the list of projects and projects costs for two accelerated transit networks, one with Managed Lanes (Accelerated Network A) that support transit and one without Managed Lanes that support transit (Accelerated Network B).
Item No. 8Regional Planning Technical Working Group
March 12, 2015
48
49
The active transportation network would add more than 500 miles of bike routes to complete the Bayshore Bikeway, Coastal Rail Trail, San Diego River Trail, and the Inland Rail Trail while adding routes that would make it more practical and desirable for the region’s residents to choose bicycling for everyday trips. Most bike projects would include safety improvements that would benefit pedestrians, such as shortened crossing distances at intersections.
Attachment 2 lists the active transportation projects, programs, and costs included in the Preferred Network. The accelerated network would advance all of the listed projects and programs to 2025.
Performance
An analysis has been conducted of the two accelerated transportation networks using the performance measures adopted by the Board of Directors in March 2014. The data and summarized results are included in Attachments 3 and 4. Overall, the accelerated transportation investments help to provide greater regional mobility and accessibility while helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2025.
While this advances many transit options, some routes are underutilized at 2025 largely because forecasted population growth expected by 2050 has not been fully realized. In addition, performance measures are reported regionally and corridors where the investments are being made would show improved results.
For 2025, in comparison to the existing conditions and the Preferred Network, the Accelerated Network shows a reduction in transit travel times, greater use of public transit, an increase in the amount of employment within ½ mile of a high frequency transit stop, and increases the amount of time people are engaged in transportation-related physical activity.
Costs and Revenues
Advancing such an extensive capital program within a 10-year time frame would be unprecedented in terms of transportation development and construction in our region. Such an endeavor is three to four times the program of projects that SANDAG has delivered in the last 10 years. In addition, the last three years of the 10-year period would be eight to ten times the construction SANDAG has delivered in any single year.
Significant new funding would be required to implement and operate the accelerated capital program, which is estimated at between $24 billion and $34 billion. This would require between $20 billion and $30 billion in new capital funds within a 10-year period, eight times more than the anticipated available revenue. The cost to operate the transit facilities would expand from approximately $350 million annually in FY 2015, to nearly $1.1 billion in FY 2025, roughly equivalent to what an additional half-cent sales tax could generate for transit operations.
Tables 1-3 below summarize the estimated operating and capital costs of the Accelerated Networks. The operating costs increase significantly after 2025 as the new transit projects are completed. Attachment 5 includes the annualized projections of the operating and capital costs of the Accelerated Networks between 2016 and 2050.
50
Table 1 Summary of Transit Operating Cost (in millions and year of expenditure)
2016-2025 2026-2050 Total
Operating Cost $6,163 $42,489 $48,652
Revenues $4,741 $29,433 $34,174
Deficit/Surplus ($1,422) ($13,056) ($14,478)
Table 2 Summary of Transit and Active Transportation Capital Costs – With Managed Lanes
(in millions and year of expenditure)
2016-2025 2026-2050 Total
Capital Cost $34,438 $9,427 $43,865
Revenues $4,761 $13,351 $18,112
Deficit/Surplus ($29,677) $3,924 ($25,753)
Table 3 Summary of Transit and Active Transportation Capital Cost – Without Managed Lanes
(in millions and year of expenditure)
2016-2025 2026-2050 Total
Capital Cost $24,111 $9,427 $33,538
Revenues $3,275 $13,351 $16,626
Deficit/Surplus ($20,836) $3,924 ($16,912)
Funding
While the funding needed to implement the Accelerated Networks are significant, several new funding options could be considered. Attachment 6 lists potential new funding sources and provides detail on the amount of funding that might be generated and the process to seek such funding.
51
Next Steps
These results will be discussed with the Board of Directors at the Board Retreat at the end of January.
CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning
Attachments: 1. Preferred and Accelerated Transit Networks - Project List, Phase Year and Cost 2. Preferred and Accelerated (Active) Transportation Network - Projects List, Phase Year3. Draft Accelerated Network Performance Data4. Draft Accelerated Network Performance Summary5. Estimated Annualized Costs and Revenues for the Accelerated Networks6. Summary of Potential Revenue Sources
6 SPRINTER 399 Branch Extension to Westfield North County 2050 2025 $231
7 SPRINTER 588 SPRINTER Express 2050 2025 $325
8 Trolley 510 2035 2025 $269
9 Trolley 510 Phase II - Blue Line rail grade separations (two) 2050 2025 $297
10 Trolley 520 Orange Line Frequency Enhancements and four rail grade separations 2035 2025 $351
11 Trolley 560 SDSU to Downtown via El Cajon Blvd/Mid-City (transition of Mid-City Rapid to Trolley) 2050 2025 $3,139
12 Trolley 561 2035 2025 $457
13 Trolley 562 2035 2025 $3,063
14 Trolley 562 Phase II - Kearny Mesa to Carmel Valley 2050 2025 $831
15 Trolley 563 Phase I - Pacific Beach to Balboa; Kearny Mesa to El Cajon Transit Center 2050 2025 $813
16 Trolley 563 Phase II - Balboa to Kearny Mesa 2050 2025 $905
17 BRT 90 2035 2025 $27
18 BRT 610 Temecula (peak only) Extension of Escondido to Downtown BRT 2050 2025 $131
COASTER double tracking (20-minute peak frequencies and current 120-minute off-peak frequencies)
COASTER double tracking (20-minute peak frequencies and 60-minute off-peak frequencies, and grade separation)
COASTER double tracking Phase 2050 (completes double tracking; includes Del Mar Tunnel)
Double tracking Oceanside to Escondido; includes 10-minute frequencies and six rail grade separations
Phase I - Blue Line Frequency Enhancements and rail grade separations, Blue/Orange Track Connection at 12th/Imperial
UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Canyon (extension of Route 510) - COASTER Connection Segment
Phase I - San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa via Mission Valley, Mid-City, National City/Chula Vista via Highland Ave/4th Ave
El Cajon Transit Center/Grossmont to San Diego International Airport ITC via SR 94, City College (peak only)
52
Attachment 1
Preferred and Accelerated Transit Networks - Project List, Phase Year and Cost
(in millions and year of expenditure)
Service Route Description*
2050 RTP Preferred Network
(Phase Year)
Accelerated Network*
(Phase Year)Accelerated
Network Cost
19 BRT 640A/640B 2035 2025 $122
20 BRT 650 Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I-805/I-5 (peak only) 2050 2025 $110
21 BRT 653 Mid City to Palomar Airport Road via Kearny Mesa/I-805/I-5 2050 2025 $14
22 BRT 870 El Cajon to UTC via Santee, SR 52, I-805 2050 2025 $10
23 BRT 890 El Cajon to Sorrento Mesa via SR 52, Kearny Mesa 2050 2025 $16
24 BRT 688/689/690 2035 2025 $601
25 BRT SR 163 DARs 2025 2025 $196
26 Rapid 550 SDSU to Palomar Station via East San Diego, Southeast San Diego, National City 2025 2025 $78
27 Rapid 2 North Park to Downtown San Diego via 30th St 2025 2025 $52
28 Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach via Mid-City, Hillcrest, Old Town 2025 2025 $117
29 Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via Southeast San Diego, Downtown, Hillcrest, Mid-City 2035 2025 $151
30 Rapid 28 Point Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town, Linda Vista 2035 2025 $66
31 Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UTC 2035 2025 $140
32 Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via Linda Vista and Clairemont 2035 2025 $73
33 Rapid 103 Solana Beach to Sabre Springs BRT station via Carmel Valley 2050 2025 $89
34 Rapid 120 Kearny Mesa to Downtown 2025 2025 $104
35 Rapid 440 Carlsbad to San Marcos via Palomar Airport Road 2050 2025 $68
36 Rapid 471 Downtown Escondido to East Escondido 2050 2025 $42
37 Rapid 473 2035 2025 $58
38 Rapid 473 Phase II - Oceanside to Solana Beach via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities 2050 2025 $116
Route 640A: I-5 - San Ysidro to Old Town Transit Center via City CollegeRoute 640B: I-5 Iris Trolley/Palomar to Kearny Mesa via City College
San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa via I-805/I-15/SR-52 Corridors; Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE) to UTC/Torrey Pines via Otay Ranch/Millennia,I-805 Corridor; Mid City to Sorrento Mesa via I-805 Corridor (Peak Only)
Kearny Mesa to Downtown via SR 163. Stations at Sharp/Children's Hospital and Hillcrest, + DAR at SR 163/Fashion Valley Transit Center
Phase I - Solana Beach to UTC/UCSD via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley
53
Preferred and Accelerated Transit Networks - Project List, Phase Year and Cost
(in millions and year of expenditure)
Service Route Description*
2050 RTP Preferred Network
(Phase Year)
Accelerated Network*
(Phase Year)Accelerated
Network Cost
39 Rapid 474 Oceanside to Vista via Mission Ave/Santa Fe Road Corridor 2050 2025 $67
40 Rapid 477 Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village via College Blvd, Plaza Camino Real 2050 2025 $107
41 Rapid 635 Eastlake to Palomar Trolley via Main Street Corridor 2035 2025 $74
42 Rapid 636 SDSU to Spring Valley via East San Diego, Lemon Grove, Skyline 2050 2025 $52
43 Rapid 637 North Park to 32nd Street Trolley via Golden Hill 2050 2025 $44
44 Rapid 638 Iris Trolley to Otay Mesa via Otay, Airway Dr, SR 905 Corridor 2035 2025 $51
45 Rapid 709 H Street Trolley to Millennia via H Street Corridor, Southwestern College 2025 2025 $49
46 Rapid 910 Coronado to Downtown via Coronado Bridge 2035 2025 $34
47 Streetcar 553 Downtown San Diego: Little Italy to East Village 2035 2025 $19
48 Streetcar 554 Hillcrest/Balboa Park/Downtown San Diego Loop 2025 2025 $38
49 Streetcar 555 30th St to Downtown San Diego via North Park/Golden Hill 2035 2025 $34
50 Streetcar 565 Mission Beach to La Jolla via Pacific Beach 2050 2025 $33
51 Airport Express Airport Express Routes (Capital cost to be funded by aviation and other private funds) 2020 2020 $62
52 Intermodal San Diego International Airport ITC 2025 2025 $223
53 Intermodal Phase I - San Ysidro ITC 2035 2025 $125
54 Intermodal Phase II - San Ysidro ITC 2050 2025 $30
55 Other 2020 2020 $506
56 Other 2035 2025 $4,058
57 Other 2050 2025 $7,473
$30,686
*Accelerated Projects Italicized
Other Improvements (Vehicles, transit system rehabilitation, regulatory compliance, park & ride)
Subtotal Transit Capital Cost
Other Improvements (Vehicles, transit system rehabilitation, regulatory compliance, park & ride)
Other Improvements (Vehicles, transit system rehabilitation, regulatory compliance, park & ride)
54
Preferred and Accelerated Network - Managed Lanes that Support TransitProject List, Phase Year and Cost
(in millions and year of expenditure)
Managed Lanes that Support Transit
2050 RTP Preferred Network
(Phase Year)
Accelerated Network*
(Phase Year)Accelerated
Network Cost
Freeway From To ExistingWith Improvements Supporting BRT Routes
1 I-5 SR 905 SR 15 8F/10F 8F/10F+2ML Route 640 2035 2025 $856
117 E. County Northern Loop – N. Marshall Ave. to El Cajon Blvd.
El Cajon Const. $0.3 2050 2025
118 E. County Northern Loop – Washington Ave. to Dewitt Ct.
El Cajon Const. $1 2050 2025
119 E. County Northern Loop – SR-94 onramp to Del Rio Rd.
Unincorporated Const. $0.1 2050 2025
120 E. County Southern Loop – Pointe Pkwy. To Omega St.
Unincorporated Const. $0.8 2050 2025
121 SR-125 Corridor – SR-94 to S of Avocado St. Unincorporated Const. $1 2050 2025
123 Centre City – La Mesa Corridor – Gateside Rd. to Campo Rd.
La Mesa, Unincorporated Const. $0.3 2050 2025
124 Bay to Ranch Bikeway – River Ash Dr. to Paseo Ranchero Chula Vista Const. $0.5 2050 2025
125 Mid-County Bikeway – San Elijo Ave. to 101 Terminus
Encinitas Const. $1 2050 2025
126 Central Coast Corridor – Van Nuys St. San Diego Const. $0.1 2050 2025
127 E. County Northern Loop – El Cajon Blvd. to Washington Ave.
El Cajon Const. $1 2050 2025
128 E. County Northern Loop – Calavo Dr. to Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Unincorporated Const. $0.7 2050 2025
129 Central Coast Corridor – Torrey Pines Rd. to Nautilus St.
San Diego Const. $6 2050 2025
130 Central Coast Corridor – Via Del Norte to Van Nuys St.
San Diego Const. $5 2050 2025
131 Kearny Mesa to Beaches Corridor – Ingraham St. from Garnet Ave. to Pacific Beach Dr.
San Diego Const. $2 2050 2025
60
Preferred and Accelerated (Active) Transportation Network - Project List and Phase Year
# Project Jurisdiction(s)
Funding Through Project Phase
Cost ($2014): millions
Early Action
Program
Preferred Network
Accelerated Network A/B
132 Kearny Mesa to Beaches Corridor – Clairemont Dr. to Genesee Ave.
San Diego Const. $10 2050 2025
133 Kearny Mesa to Beaches Corridor – Genesee Ave. to Linda Vista Dr.
San Diego Const. $6 2050 2025
134 Bay to Ranch Bikeway – E. J St. from 2nd Ave. to Paseo Del Rey Chula Vista Const. $12 2050 2025
135 Chula Vista Greenbelt – Bay Blvd. to Oleander Ave. Chula Vista Const. $17 2050 2025
136 Other Active Transportation Programs and Projects1 Various Various $287
2020/ 2035/ 2050
2025
1 Includes: Safe Routes to Transit at new transit station areas, local bike projects, local pedestrian/safety/traffic calming projects, regional bicycle and pedestrian programs, regional Safe Routes to School Implementation
Annual projected number of vehicle (driver/passenger) injury/fatal collisions per thousand vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
37 6B
Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per thousand bicyclist/pedestrian miles traveled (BPMT) 1.38 1.33 1.30 1.32 1.29 1.31 1.28 1.31 1.28
38 7Does the transportation network support smart growth?
39 7A‐1
Percentage of population within 0.5 miles of a high frequency (<=15 min peak and midday) transit stop (communities of concern and non‐communities of concern) 35% 38% 39% 52% 58% 59% 59% 59% 59%
57 7ETotal time engaged in transportation‐related physical activity per capita (minutes) 7.6 7.8 8.1 7.7 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.2
58 7F
Percent of population engaging in more than 20 minutes of daily transportation‐related physical activity 13.8% 14.2% 14.7% 14.1% 14.8% 15.0% 15.2% 15.0% 15.2%
59 8Is access to jobs and key destinations improving for all communities?
60 8A.Percent of population within 30 minutes of jobs and higher education enrollment
77 10 Are GHG emissions reduced? 78 10A Total on‐road CO2 emissions (tons/day) 39,341 32,547 33,178 32,122 32,728 32,308 32,706 32,097 32,624
79 10BTotal on‐road CO2 emissions (pounds/day) per capita 25.03 18.08 17.22 17.84 16.99 17.94 16.97 17.83 16.93
Draft Accelerated Network Performance Data
65
Attachment 4
Draft Accelerated Network A and B Performance Summary
Utilizing the performance measures approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors in March 2014, SANDAG staff has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the Accelerated Networks. Both Networks A and B show improved performance for eight of the ten key questions, and maintain current performance compared to 2012, even with projected growth in regional population and employment, for two of the key questions.
1) Do the transportation investments help to improve the regional economy?
Data for this performance measure was not available at the time this report was prepared.The Accelerated Networks will be analyzed using a Benefit-Cost test that indicates whether thestream of benefits over the life of the transportation investments outweighs the costs of thoseinvestments and reported at a future date. The Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) calculates benefits insix major categories: the value of time saved (including a reliability measure), operational costssavings (e.g., savings from not driving), accident reduction, emissions, increased physical activity,and ownership cost savings (savings from not owning a car). The benefits and costs in futureyears also are discounted to reflect the fact that a dollar in the future is worth less than a dollartoday.The results of the BCA are presented as a ratio of benefits to costs, and therefore a benefit-costratio over one means that the benefits of the scenario outweigh the costs.
Average truck/commercial vehicle times remain flat.
2) Are the relative costs of transportation changing similarly for all communities?
Yes, the relative costs of transportation are changing similarly for all communities. BothAccelerated Networks show a very modest cost increase as compared to the 2012 baseline formost communities, and are flat or show lower cost increases in comparison to the No Buildscenario1.
3) Are connections to neighboring counties, Mexico, tribal lands, and military bases/installationsimproved?
Travel times to/from military bases and installations remain flat and travel times to/from triballands decrease slightly. Travel times to/from the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa ports of entry increaseslightly compared to 2012, while travel times to/from the Tecate port of entry go down. There areno noted differences between Accelerated Networks A and B.
4) Are travel times reduced?
Yes, compared to a No Build scenario, reductions in travel times are seen in both AcceleratedNetworks, with the greatest reduction in travel time for those using transit (savings offive minutes per trip in 2025, and five (Network A) or four minutes (Network B) per trip in 2035).Modest reductions in vehicle delay also are noted when compared a No Build scenario. This results
1 The No Build scenario reflects the projected population and employment growth of the region and no
transportation improvements (other than projects under construction).
66
in an estimated 441 million hours saved for Network A, or 379 million hours for Network B, or the equivalent of a respective 2.9 weeks of vacation and 2.5 weeks of vacation for every person in the entire region.
5) Are more people walking, biking, using transit, and sharing rides?
Yes, both Accelerated Networks project more people walking, biking, using transit, and sharingrides, with more than 59 percent not driving alone in 2035 – a 2.4 percent increase over 2012rates. All day transit mode share is projected to increase from 1.8 percent in 2012 to 3.2 percentin 2025 and to 3.4 percent (Network A) and 3.5% in 2035 (Network B). This also results inadditional public health benefits as public transit riders walk 30 percent more than people whorely on cars.
6) Is the transportation system safer?
Yes, the annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions includes decreasesin both scenarios. Vehicular accidents remain flat in both Accelerated Networks2. Additionalsafety benefits also would be realized from the Active Transportation and DemandManagement elements included in the Networks, including Advance Queue Warning, SpeedHarmonization, and Dynamic Lane Control.
7) Does the transportation network support smart growth?
Yes, there are increases in the percentage of the population and employment within a half mileof high frequency transit stops (15 minutes or shorter waits) compared to 2012. With significanttransit investments and local land use encourages growth near transit, this number increasessignificantly. In 2012, only 35 percent of the population was located near high frequency transitstops. In 2025 and 2035, both scenarios show that 59 percent of the population lives near highfrequency transit. Similarly, the percentage of employment within half a mile of high frequencytransit increases from 42 percent in 2012 to 71 percent for both Accelerated Networks and forall horizon years.
Access to bicycle facilities3 also improves with implementation of both Accelerated Networks. In2012, 56 percent of the population was located within a quarter mile of a bicycle facility. Withimplementation of the Active Transportation network projects this increases to 65 percent in 2025.Even more significant gains are seen in the percentage of employment within a quarter mile ofbicycle facilities. This increases from 68 percent in 2012 to 76 percent in 2025 and 2035.
Additionally, there is an increase in the total time engaged in transportation-related physicalactivity per capita for both Accelerated Networks. The 2012 baseline year indicates the total timeengaged region-wide as more than 397,000 hours daily. Physical activity increases by more than91,000 hours daily in 2025 and more than 131,000 in 2035. Over the life of the plan, AcceleratedNetworks A and B result in additional 52.16 million hours of activity, or 14.08 billion calories
2 The methodology employed utilizes current accident rates and does not account for Transportation System
Management improvements, which have historically been shown to improve safety.
3 Bicycle facilities include class I and II facilities, cycletracks, and bicycle boulevards.
67
burned. Similarly, Network A results in more than an additional 52 million hours of activity and 14 billion calories burned, which is the equivalent of more than 56 million scoops of ice cream. The average travel distance to work remains relatively flat for all modes with a small increase in the length of transit trips from nearly 9 miles in 2012 to nearly 11 miles in 2025 and 2035.
8) Is access to jobs and key destinations improving for all communities?
Yes, the ability of residents to access jobs and services via transit improves in both Networks Aand B. The percent of the population able to access jobs and higher education within30 minutes via transit increased from 86 percent in 2012 to 89 percent in 2025, and 2035.Access to retail, health care, and parks via transit improves in both Accelerated Networks, withthe percent of the population with access to retail increasing from 2012 levels of71 percent to 73 percent in 2025 and 74 percent in 2035. Likewise, transit access to health careimproves from 70 percent of the population in 2012, to 71 percent in 2025 and 2035. Access toparks via transit improves from 53 percent in 2012 to 56 percent in 2025 and 2035. Access tojobs and higher education as well as amenities described above by driving alone remainsconstant at 99-100 percent for both scenarios.
9) Is the region’s air quality improving?
Yes, on-road smog forming pollutants decrease over the life of the plan from 0.051 pounds perday per capita in 2012 to 0.019 pounds per capita in 2025, 0.015 in 20354, a 70 percent reductionover 2012 levels.
10) Are Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduced?
Yes, GHG emissions are reduced in both Accelerated Networks. Network A shows total on-roadGHG emissions reduced from 2012 levels of 39,341 tons per day to 32,308 in 2025 and 32,706 in2035. Network B shows slightly more total GHG emissions reductions from 2012 with32,097 tons per day in 2025, and 32,624 tons per day in 2035. All GHG emission levels are lowerthan baseline levels, with a significant drop in emissions between 2020 and 2035. On aper capita basis, total GHG emissions decrease over the life of the plan from 25 pounds per dayin 2012 to 17.9 pounds per day (Network A) and 17.8 pounds per day (Network B) in 2025 and17 pounds per day for Network A and 16.9 pounds per day for Network B in 2035. By 2035,nearly 1.45 million fewer tons of GHG are emitted with Network A and 2 million fewer tons inNetwork B, as compared to a No Build scenario.
68
Accelerated Transportation NetworkEstimated Annualized Costs and Revenues:
FTA Formula is divided 75% capital, 25% operations (PM)
TDA capital 20% of FTA capital
STA divided 50/50 until post 2025, then 100% operating
Passenger fares = 32% of operating cost
TransNet: Ops = 8.1% plus transit; capital = share of overall for transit capital (consistent with preferred RTP); hwy in support of transit = 90% of highway EAP
CMAQ/RSTP represents the amounts programmed for ML and transit in 2014 RTIP thru 2019 divided evenly out to 2025
Attachment 5
69
Accelerated Transportation NetworkEstimated Annualized Costs and Revenues:
Capital Cost
Transit Capital Including ML 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Vehicle Registration Fees (12) $2 Per Vehicle $5 County (acting as APCD)
Currently Implemented, Funds Distributed Via a Competitive
Selection Process Regional Existing Structure
Transit Center User Fees
$3 Per Parking Space Fee (Range Based on Existing and
Planned Spaces at Park and Ride lots) $1 - $2
SANDAG/ Transit Agencies
SANDAG/ Transit Agency Policy Regional Requires New Structure
Parcel Taxes (2) $50 to $100 Per Parcel $56 - $84 Local Jurisdictions 2/3 Voter-Approval Local/ Regional Existing Structure
Payroll Taxes (3)0.34% to 0.66% of all
County Wages and Salaries $170 - $340 Local Jurisdictions 2/3 Voter-Approval Local/ Regional Requires New Structure (4)
Rental Car Fees (5)1% to 5% Fee on
Gross Rental Car Revenue $2 - $25 None Currently New State Legislation Local/ Regional Requires New Structure
Benefit Assessment Districts Local JurisdictionsNexus Study and
Local Agency Approval Local/ Regional Requires New Structure
Parking Assessment Districts Local JurisdictionsNexus Study and
Local Agency Approval Local/ Regional Requires New Structure
Development Impact Fees and Exactions (7) None Currently New State Legislation Local/ Regional Requires New Structure
Community Facilities Districts (8) None Currently New State Legislation Local Requires New Structure
Tax Increment Finance (9) None Currently New State Legislation Local Requires New Structure
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fee None Currently New State Legislation Regional Requires New Structure
Airport Passenger Facility Charge Increase Airports Federal Congressional Action Local Existing Structure
Cordon Pricing None Currently Requires Lead Agency Local/Regional Requires New Structure
New Vehicle Sales Tax None Currently 2/3 Voter-Approval State Requires New StructureLocal Jurisdictions
(Other than Charter Cities) New State Legislation Local/ Regional Existing StructureCharter Cities (11) 2/3 Voter-Approval Local Requires New Structure
(3) Wage and salary information from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). Tax range based on the New York MTA rate of 0.34% and Portland's Tri-Met rate of 0.66%. However, Portland does not have a transit sales tax measure.(4) Existing legislation may allow cities to institute a type of tax known as an "occupation" tax, which is a tax on employees rather than employers.
Summary of Potential Regional and Local Revenue Sources
Real Estate Transfer Taxes (10)
TBD (6)
Potential Measure
(1) Pursuant to Rev. & Tax Code § 72511.1 the cities and the County are capped at 2% aggregate for all local sales taxes. With the current 8.25% state tax rate, there is a maximum available tax rate for the cities and the County of 10.25%. All of the cities and the County have the capacity to add at least another 1/2% before reaching the maximum. The only area of the state that has exceeded this 2% cap is Los Angeles. This was accomplished via SB 314 (2003), which gave LA County the ability to exclude its transportation sales tax from the 2% limit imposed by § 72511.1.
(2) Based on the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit parcel tax rate of $96 per parcel (recent 2008 measure doubled existing $48 parcel tax for transit services).
Attachment 6
72
(12) Vehicle Registration Fees could vary based on differences in vehicle type (i.e. discounts for renewable fuel vehicles)
(5) Rental car fees are currently being charged on gross rental car revenues under the California Tourism Marketing Act. These dollars are spent at the state level by the Office of Tourism. Sample rate taken from the New York MTA recent rental car fee at 5% of gross revenues.
(6) These measures would require more research given the wide range of implementation strategies within each jurisdiction; previous estimates prepared for the 2030 RTP are out-of-date given the significant economic changes that have occurred since then.
(7) Development Impact Fees could only be applied to transit capital expenses and not operating expenses. Local jurisdictions have the authority under the Mitigation Fee Act to impose a fee for transit capital, but new legislation would be required to allow the funding to be used for transit operations.
(8) Any city can establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) under the Mello-Roos Law. However, it appears that statutes do not currently allow use of CFDs to fund transit operations.
(9) Tax Increment Financing can only be used to fund capital purchases. Current law allows redevelopment agencies formed by cities and counties to use this type of funding for transit capital projects in highly populated areas with the finding of blight. New state legislation would be required to amend the Community Redevelopment Law to authorize funding for transit operations. New state legislation would also be required to amend the Community Redevelopment Law to authorize funding for transit capital in areas with a population under the current threshholds (4 million in the County or 500,000 in a city).
(10) Currently the maximum tax is being assessed ($0.55 per $500, which is split evenly with $0.55 per $1,000 for each city and $.55 per $1,000 for the County). Any additional tax increase for non-charter cities would require new state legislation.
(11) A charter city can forgo its right to half of this tax (known as a "conforming tax"), and subsequently can levy a "nonconforming tax" in its place. There does not appear to be a limit on the amount a charter city can charge for a so-called nonconforming tax. Current examples of this practice vary and are as high as $15 per $1,000 in Berkeley and Oakland to $1.10 per $1,000 in Riverside.
73
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15-03-6 MARCH 6, 2015 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION
SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: File Number 3102000 PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS IN SUPPORT OF THE RELEASE OF THE DRAFT REGIONAL PLAN, ITS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY, AND THE ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Introduction
In late April of this year, SANDAG expects to release a draft of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and its Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis, as well as the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – all for public review and comment. Public outreach and education efforts in support of the release of these draft documents will take place over the next several months.
Discussion
In order to inform stakeholders and the public about the upcoming release of the Draft Regional Plan and its SCS, as well as the EIR, SANDAG staff will embark on a series of presentations throughout the region detailing the contents of the Plan and encouraging interested people to take part in the public review process.
During the public review period itself, SANDAG will host a series of seven public meetings throughout the region. The meetings, planned for mid to late May, will all have a similar format – a short introduction to the Draft Regional Plan/SCS/EIR, a panel discussion (including members of the local communities where the meetings will be held) centering on how the Regional Plan accomplishes the goals set out for it by the SANDAG Board of Directors, followed by an open house period during which participants can learn more details about the Plan, ask questions, and voice opinions. The open house portion of the meetings will include both workshop and public hearing components.
The seven public meetings are being designed to be accessible to everyone with location and time as key factors. Six of the meetings will take place in the evenings at venues spread throughout the region to make participation convenient. In addition, a day-time meeting will be held in central San Diego (Caltrans District 11 Headquarters). All will be simultaneously translated into Spanish. We are investigating the opportunity of providing at least two of the meetings via streamed live video on the internet, allowing remote participation in the discussion. During the meetings, participants will have the opportunity to offer detailed feedback on the Plan using comment cards or dictating their thoughts to a bilingual court reporter. In addition, SANDAG will accept comments via email, voicemail, and direct mail as well as through the Plan’s website at sdforward.com.
Item No. 9Regional Planning Technical Working Group
Proposed Schedule for Public Outreach Meetings on the Draft Regional Plan, SCS, and EIR:
Date Location Venue Time Tuesday, May 12th North County Inland Escondido City Hall 6 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 13th East County La Mesa Community Center 6 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, May 14th Central Caltrans District 11 Building 1 to 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 20th North County Coastal Oceanside City Hall 6 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, May 21st South County Casa Familiar 6 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 27th Mid-City/Southeast Jacobs Center 6 to 8:30 p.m. Thursday, May 28th Central UTC Forum Hall 6 to 8:30 p.m.
Simultaneous to SANDAG staff efforts, Community Based Organizations working with SANDAG to engage lower income and minority communities in the process of developing the Regional Plan will be conducting outreach throughout the region.
Committee members, as well as organizations and individuals in the community, are encouraged to contact SANDAG staff if they wish to participate in the public meetings or would like a presentation made to their organizations or member agencies.
ENERGY AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING RESOURCES File Number 3200700
Introduction
The state has recognized local and regional governments as essential partners in addressing climate change and helping to meet California greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. In the San Diego region, more than half of the local jurisdictions are developing or have adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP). While a CAP primarily focuses on strategies to reduce GHG emissions, many local jurisdictions also are planning for the impacts of climate change in their communities. SANDAG has an energy and climate planning program that works toward goals from the Regional Energy Strategy, Climate Action Strategy, and 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy to use energy more efficiently, expand choices in transportation fuels and electricity supply, and prepare for climate impacts in the San Diego region. This report describes one key program, the SANDAG Energy Roadmap Program, and other resources available to support local governments in their efforts to save energy, reduce GHG emissions, and prepare for climate impacts.
SANDAG Energy Roadmap Program
The Energy Roadmap Program (Program) is primarily funded by a Local Government Partnership (LGP) with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and provides technical assistance for SANDAG member agencies. Since 2010, SANDAG has been working with the 16 cities in the region that do not have their own LGP to develop and implement customized Energy Roadmaps to save energy in government operations and in the community. Now that all 16 cities have an Energy Roadmap, the focus of the Program is to assist cities with implementation and updates. Energy Roadmap implementation activities related to energy engineering and energy and climate planning are described below. Additional information on the Program is available at: sandag.org/energyroadmap.
Energy Engineering
A primary objective of the Program is to reduce energy use and save on energy costs at municipal sites. Energy engineering subcontractor, EFM Solutions, has completed preliminary energy assessments, or “Energy Report Cards,” at 243 sites across the 16 cities, and more in-depth “Phase 2 Assessments” at 132 of those sites. These assessments identify Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) and detail the costs and savings for each ECM. Thus far, some energy efficiency projects have been completed by cities and several more are in various stages. Through 2015, EFM Solutions is available at no cost to assist cities with ECM implementation through:
• Development of product/technology specifications
• Support for contractor procurement
• Completion and submittal of financing requirements
• EnergyStar certification of facilities
Energy and Climate Planning
The Program also provides planning support to assist local governments in achieving long-term energy savings in their communities. The planning chapter of each Energy Roadmap describes energy considerations that can be integrated into a CAP or other local planning effort. The chapter includes sample policies on smart growth development, energy efficient buildings, and clean and efficient transportation options. SANDAG staff offer guidance to cities on energy and climate planning, funding applications (such as the Emerging Cities Program described below), the use of GHG analysis tools, and/or review of completed CAPs.
Additional Energy and Climate Planning Resources
The following are additional energy and climate planning resources that support Energy Roadmap and CAP implementation activities.
SDG&E Emerging Cities Program
In 2013, SDG&E established the Emerging Cities Program (ECP), a funding mechanism for cities to continue work on energy-related efforts. Seven cities participated in ECP in 2014, and funding is available in 2015 for cities interested in implementing measures from an Energy Roadmap or CAP, updating a GHG inventory, engaging in community outreach, or energy-related code compliance. A summary of ECP goals and project ideas is included as Attachment 1.
San Diego Regional Energy Partnership
The San Diego Regional Energy Partnership (SDREP) is a collaborative partnership among SDG&E and the LGPs in the San Diego region, including the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, County of San Diego, Port of San Diego, and SANDAG. SDREP supports the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative (Collaborative), described below, as well as several energy efficiency initiatives to advance the growing local home performance industry. SDREP has partnered with the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE) on many of these initiatives; additional information is available on the CSE website: energycenter.org/programs/san-diego-regional-energy-partnership.
San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative
The Collaborative is a network for public agencies that serve the San Diego region to share expertise, leverage resources, and advance comprehensive solutions to facilitate climate change planning. The Collaborative also partners with academia, non-profits, and businesses to raise the profile of regional leadership. The Collaborative holds quarterly networking meetings and the
website serves as a resource on upcoming events, funding opportunities, and energy and climate efforts in the region: sdclimatecollaborative.org.
Grant Opportunity: Building Regional Resilience to Climate Change
The San Diego Foundation is releasing this new grant opportunity, in partnership with the Collaborative, as a call to action for communities to work together and invest today in solutions to manage risks and prepare for a changing climate. There is approximately $200,000 in available funding, with letters of interest due by March 16, 2015, and proposals due by April 20, 2015. More information on how to apply and guidelines for potential applicants is included in Attachment 2.
Next Steps
The energy and climate planning staff at SANDAG will continue to coordinate with member agencies to implement their Energy Roadmaps and/or CAPs and leverage the resources available through the programs described in this report. Cities interested in becoming a member of the Collaborative are encouraged to contact Laura Engeman, Manager, San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative at: [email protected].
Attachments: 1. Emerging Cities Program Goals
2. Building Regional Resilience - Grant Guidelines
• Collaboratively build capacity to achieve deep, comprehensive savings through energy efficiency and sustainability; including assisting with:
– Implementing energy sections of Climate Action Plans and Energy Action Plans
– Implementing Energy Roadmap measures
– Updating GHG inventories and forecasting
– Code compliance and reach codes
– Community outreach and relationship building
• Secondary Goals:
– Staff trainings on codes and standards
– Recognition and award opportunities
– Display regional leadership
Sample ECP Activities
• Funded consultant support for:
– GHG inventories and forecast reports
– CAP draft and presentation support
– Facilitation and project management
– PACE framework development, education, and staff reports
• Targeted marketing and community outreach
– Green Business Program
– Cobranded letters to residents
– Community events
• Code Compliance and Reach Codes
– Cool Roofs
Attachment 1
79
Building Regional Resilience - Grant Guidelines
Proposals due by noon on April 20, 2015
Building Regional Resilience – Summary of Opportunity San Diegans throughout the County have a long and rich history of local community pride and protection of our region’s clean air and water, spectacular outdoors and quality of life. Our region boasts a world-renowned climate that supports many aspects of our regional economy and quality of life. But our region faces significant challenges, like others throughout the world, from the impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of today’s communities and future generations. The “San Diego, 2050 is Calling. How Will We Answer?” report released in 2014 by Climate Education Partners and The San Diego Foundation outlines many of those challenges, with a call to action for communities to work together and invest today in solutions to manage those risks and prepare for a changing climate. It is with this in mind that The San Diego Foundation is partnering with the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative to help local governments prepare for climate change. This partnership reflects a broader effort by The San Diego Foundation to protect and enhance our region’s environment and quality of life around four core areas – Work, Enjoy, Live and Learn (WELL) – embodied in Our Greater San Diego Vision. The San Diego Foundation and the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative issue this request for grant proposals to help local governments and public agencies build resilience to climate change. Primary goals of these grants are to support projects that:
1. Advance community efforts to prepare for climate change and put the San Diego, 2050 is Calling. How Will We Answer? report into action.
2. Build capacity of local governments and public agencies to develop or implement plans and policies that address the local impacts of climate change AND/OR advance on-the-ground projects that prepares the community for the local impacts of climate change.
3. Specifically address (1) communities most vulnerable to climate change impacts, (2) public health risks worsened by climate change, (3) implementation of water reuse, conservation programs or urban greening measures, (4) implementation of the San Diego Bay Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy or new, climate-related measures in the 2015 San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, or (5) cost-benefit analysis of resilience strategies to advance decision-making.
Total available funding for this grant program is approximately $200,000, from which applicants may request between $20,000 to $100,000. Project partnerships and collaborations are strongly encouraged to maximize impact. Approximately $40,000 of the $200,000 must fund activities that address the economic or public health implications of a changing climate (for example, conducting a cost-benefit analysis of relevant policies, partnerships with the private sector to advance key aspects of the project, or conducting a vulnerability assessment and action plan to address community health risks from heat waves, wildfires or coastal flooding).
Preference will be given to projects that also incorporate as many of the below as possible:
• Collaboration with more than one city/public agency to address shared challenges and avoid duplication of efforts.
• Likelihood to leverage other public or private funding. • Engagement of community residents in decision-making or project implementation
through municipal activities or partnerships with community-based organizations. • Commitment to share lessons learned with other agencies by working with the Climate
Collaborative or other means to disseminate results and share findings. • Involvement of an AmeriCorps member from the statewide CivicSpark program to help on
implementation of the project. • Likelihood of completion within 18 months.
Important eligibility information for all applicants: The lead applicant must be a local government (city or county) or public agency serving within San Diego County, though collaboration with other agencies, community-based organizations or nonprofits is highly encouraged. A nonprofit may lead an application if there is strong evidence of collaboration with local government(s) or public agency(ies), including letters of commitment to confirm their partnership. Ineligible Projects: Projects that are primarily research-based or lacking practical application. Projects without a local government (city or county) or public agency as lead or without demonstrated commitment from local governments or public agencies.
Monday, March 2nd at noon-1pm
Grant seekers webinar for interested applicants. Please RSVP to [email protected] for simple log-in instructions.
As requested, February 12 through April 20
Staff from The San Diego Foundation or Climate Collaborative will be available throughout the process to discuss project ideas or answer questions. Please feel free to contact us! Email Kim Fields at [email protected] to set up a time.
March 16, 2015 at noon
Informal Letters of Interest (LOI) due from interested applicants. LOIs are not required, but are encouraged in hopes we can provide early feedback on proposal ideas. Instructions for LOIs are on the following page.
April 20, 2015 at noon
Proposals due. Instructions on proposal requirements and how to submit are on the following page.
April 21 - May 7 Proposals reviewed by The San Diego Foundation staff, volunteers and Climate Collaborative staff. Further information from applicants may be requested by email or through a brief interview with applicants.
Week of May 18 Grant awards announced.
June 1, 2015 Grants period starts (grant period will be for up to 18 months).
A completed letter of interest includes the following sent to [email protected] by noon on March 16th: A one page letter on organizational letterhead summarizing (a) the lead organization(s) and proposed project name, (b) a brief description of project purpose and goals, (c) collaborating organizations, (d) the amount requested, and (e) contact information including name, title, telephone number and email for the person serving as primary grant contact. Please note, these LOIs are encouraged but not required and submitting an LOI does not commit your organization to applying for that project.
A completed proposal includes the following sent to [email protected] by noon April 20th:
1. A cover letter summarizing the lead organization(s) and proposed project name, a brief description of project purpose and goals, collaborating organizations, the amount requested, and contact information including name, title, telephone number and email for the person serving as primary grant contact.
2. A PDF narrative no longer than seven pages including the following (in this order, where possible):
a. A summary of your agency’s key goals, policies or past activities to address climate change. b. A summary of the proposed program description, timeline and expected outcomes with the
following components: Proposed project goals and purpose. A description of how your project will help to achieve the aforementioned three goals
of this Building Regional Resilience program. Specific tasks and anticipated timeline for activities the grant will fund. Proposed metrics that will be used to evaluate the project’s impact, for example: Plan
or policy adopted by certain date; # community residents engaged; cost-benefit analysis completed for # adaptation measures.
Related city plans, policies or programs this project will help to develop or implement (e.g. element of general plan, climate action plan, local coastal plan)
c. A description of roles, responsibilities and qualifications of personnel critical to the project’s success (key personnel at both the lead and collaborating organizations).
d. A description of your plan for community engagement. e. A bulleted list of co-benefits this project will have for your agency or community.
3. Additional required attachments (not included in the seven page maximum):
a. A project budget with a brief narrative. Include total project cost, requested amount from The San Diego Foundation, and other secured, in-kind or anticipated funding.
b. Collaborations should include brief letters of confirmation from each partner.
Please submit your completed proposal including cover letter, narrative PDF and attachments to Kerri Favela at [email protected] by noon on April 20th. Please include the name of the lead applicant in the file name of your PDF and attachments, and ensure all attachments do not total more than 10MB in size. Relevant reference materials:
• San Diego, 2050 is Calling. How Will We Answer? • Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange (CAKE) for adaptation case studies • Other Foundation-funded research to understand the local implications of climate change • City Resilience Framework from 100 Resilient Cities and Rockefeller Foundation • Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for San Diego Bay • San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and related climate change trainings • Statewide CivicSpark website or San Diego-based CivicSpark project examples • Urban Sustainability Directors Network’s Innovation Products, Tools and Strategies
About the review process: Proposals will be reviewed by a committee comprised of staff from The San Diego Foundation and the Climate Collaborative, as well as volunteers from The San Diego Foundation’s Climate Initiative Advisory Committee and/or the San Diego Regional Disaster Fund Board. The committee will evaluate proposals based on relevance to the goals and preferences listed above, as well as merits presented in answering the proposal questions. The committee will adhere to a strict conflict of interest policy and other internal controls to ensure that grant funding is distributed in an objective manner based on the merits of each proposal. The Committee will submit final recommendations to The San Diego Foundation’s Board of Governors for final review and approval. Interested but need more information? Not sure whether to apply? Want to find other local government or nonprofit partners for your project? Join us for a grantseekers webinar on Monday, March 2nd from noon to 1pm. Foundation and/or Climate Collaborative staff will also be available by appointment to answer questions or discuss proposal ideas. Please contact [email protected] to sign up for either. For more information or any questions, contact: Nicola Hedge Laura Engeman Director, Environmental Initiatives Manager The San Diego Foundation San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative 619.235.2300 949-361-8929 [email protected][email protected] 2508 Historic Decatur Rd, Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92106 Thank you! This grant cycle and other projects of The San Diego Foundation’s Climate Initiative would not be possible without ongoing guidance from volunteers on the Climate Initiative Advisory Committee, as well as generous support from philanthropic partners such as the Kresge Foundation, Qualcomm Foundation, Marisla Foundation, Engel Family Fund, Bank of America, and Blasker-Miah Rose Fund, as well as other individual donors and partner organizations.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING (USP) PROGRAM
25TH Annual Urban Expo Thursday, March 12, 2015 UCSD Price Center Ballroom A & B Posters, Videos and Exhibits
10:00am -‐ 4:30pm Program & Awards Ceremony:
5:00pm -‐ 6:15pm
The UCSD Urban Expo includes a showcase of 42 projects completed by undergraduate seniors over a six-‐month period as part of their capstone field research requirement for a BA in Urban Studies and Planning. The students’ research covers a broad range of subjects including Architecture and Urban Design; Community and Economic Development; Environment; Housing; Public Health, Safety and Welfare; Transportation Planning; Urban and Regional Planning; Food Systems, and US-‐Mexico Border Planning.
This year the Expo includes a “Food Forest” Exhibit (with live trees and plants) featuring student and faculty research associated with the University of California’s Global Food Initiative and the new USP Lab for Sustainability Science, Planning and Design. Paul Watson of the Global Action Research Center (The Global ARC) will lead a food systems research panel from 3:45pm to 4:15 pm in the Ballroom focused on urban agriculture and food disparities. There will also be a station to watch short video clips featuring 3-‐minute highlights of student research.
At 4:30 p.m., there will be a reception with food and refreshments followed by a formal program (5:00-‐6:15pm). The formal program includes keynote speaker Arnulfo Manriquez, the President and CEO of MACC (Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-‐Poverty).
For more information, contact Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D., [email protected] Director, Urban Studies and Planning Program; Department of Communication
25th Annual Urban Expo
Item No. 11Regional Planning Technical Working Group
March 12, 2015
84
San Diego Union Tribune, February 24, 2015
Community volunteer James Gielow uses a drill to connect the joints to one of several raised planters that will make up the "Garden Plots" as Paul Watson, President of the Global Action Research Center, holds the boards in place. A UC San Diego research team along with the participation of the community is creating the Ocean View Growing Grounds, a model for positive social and ecological change in under-‐served areas.
UCSD GARDEN COULD BE MODEL FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD UCSD organizing creation of a healthy food source in southeastern San Diego By Gary Warth 5:05 a.m. Feb. 24, 2015
SAN DIEGO — Neighborhood volunteers are working side by side with university researchers in southeastern San Diego to create a community garden that could bring fresh produce to an area with few markets that sell nutritious food.
85
Beyond feeding the neighborhood, however, the researchers say the broader vision of the project is to create a model for social and economic change and a sustainable food source around the world.
Mountain View resident James Gielow, one of a couple of dozen people who worked on the Ocean View Growing Grounds project on a recent Saturday, is just happy he’ll finally have a choice of fresh vegetables in his neighborhood.
“If you go around to the local supermarkets, the produce is kind of lacking,” he said. “The quick, easy fix for a lot of people in a community that can be considered a ‘food desert’ is to just order a pizza or something else that’s not necessarily healthy. I think the idea of actually getting healthy food right in the middle of a community is going to help fix that.”
Food deserts are generally defined as areas where affordable and nutritious food is difficult to find, especially for people without cars living in low-income areas such as Mountain View.
Gielow and other volunteers helped build the first of 17 raised beds that will be part of the community garden on Ocean View Boulevard. When the project is finished, it will include an outdoor classroom, kitchen, a children’s growing space and two “food forests,” a system of fruit, nut trees, shrubs, herbs, vines and perennial vegetables that grow in natural soil.
A community board will control the garden and decide who gets to plant in the 4-by-8-foot beds while UC San Diego students will use the site for studies that range from science to economics.
Community gardens can provide fresh produce to poor neighborhoods, but they also can cost about $40,000 or $45,000 to create, said Paul Watson, executive director of the Global Action Research Center, a nonprofit focused on finding solutions to unhealthy living conditions and one of the partners involved in the garden.
Watson said the Ocean View Growing Grounds can serve as a model for cutting the costs of community gardens while also broadening their mission.
Keith Pezzoli, director of the Urban Studies and Planning Program at UC San Diego, is working with a team of researchers on the garden project, which began in 2012.
“We don’t want this to be characterized as a university project,” Pezzoli said. “It’s an authentic, neighborhood-based community project that has invited UCSD.”
The school is involved with the garden as part of the University of California’s Global Food Initiative, created last year by UC President Janet Napolitano. The initiative involves all 10 UC campuses working on sustainable ways to create a worldwide supply of nutritious food.
A survey conducted by Pezzoli’s students found 800 vacant lots in Southeast San Diego. The Global Action Research Center is leasing the site for its garden from Bob Georgiou, a UC San Diego graduate who studied urban planning.
86
Watson said another hurdle in creating an affordable community garden is the cost of soil-testing. Many community gardens avoid the expensive tests by using raised beds and packaged planting soil, which itself can be costly.
The $20,000 cost of the tests at the Ocean View garden was picked up by the city of San Diego, which used a federal grant for restoring brownfield sites, or lands that have been contaminated from commercial use, Watson said.
A neighborhood survey found 160 people were interested in the garden, Watson said. While the 17 raised planters and food forests won’t meet that need, organizers said a network of people growing and sharing their own food could spring from the garden.
“We’re going to be doing educational workshops here about growing,” Watson said. “People who don’t have a plot can then go back to their own backyard or do container gardens, and then we could really begin to set up some sort of sharing program. So if I’m growing beans and someone else is growing corn, we could come together and share.”
Workers at the site included UC San Diego political science major Hayden Galante, who said he is researching the social structure of the garden and community.
“I’d like to do a comparative study of how various other gardens have worked in creating a sustainable volunteer organization, and hopefully we can look at how this garden can do it better,” he said.
Danielle Ramirez, who is studying urban studies and planning at UC San Diego, said the focus of her research will be on how there can be a mutual exchange of information between the university and the garden project.
Watson said another student is researching how a community garden can address a community’s nutritional needs, and an economics student is researching whether the garden can produce enough to sell in a farmers market.
