HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2744
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2744)
Housing Needs Mandate Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/19/2012
April 19, 2012 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 2744)
Summary Title: Update of One Bay Area Transportation Grant Progra
Title: Update and Direction on Final City Response Regarding One Bay Area
Transportation Grant Program Criteria
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Regional Housing Mandate Committee provide
direction for a final response by the City to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission regarding the latest version of the proposed One Bay Area
Transportation Grant Program.
Background
On November 7, 2011, Council approved a letter to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) noting the City’s concerns and objections
regarding the proposed One Bay Area Transportation Grant Criteria. In particular,
the City suggested: a) that a certified Housing Element should not be prerequisite
to eligibility for transportation grants, and b) that some of the criteria (complete
streets, housing programs, etc.) were vague and should be clarified and
simplified. On January 13, 2012, MTC issued a response and revised program
recommendations. The agency agreed to simplify some of the requirements,
though still somewhat vague, but retained the prerequisite to obtain a “certified”
Housing Element from the State as eligibility for grant funding. The criteria also
indicated that a city would need to provide a “nonbinding letter of intent” that it
will make a good faith effort to implement the Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) through its housing element and zoning.
On February 27, 2012, Council approved a letter (Attachment B) to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) further objecting to the housing
April 19, 2012 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 2744)
element requirement and the provision for the “nonbinding letter of intent.” The
Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials and the Cities Association also
sent letters to MTC with similar objections.
On March 9, 2012, MTC released its latest draft of the program (Attachment A), as
discussed below.
Discussion
The latest version of the One Bay Area Transportation Grant agency) has provided
several revisions to the prior iteration, which are discussed in Attachment A.
Those that are most relevant to Palo Alto include the following:
1. The “certified” housing element requirement remains, but a provision is
added to allow for cities that are delayed in the HCD review process prior to
the July 1, 2013 deadline to request a waiver to allow eligibility. Staff
believes the City of Palo Alto should still register its opposition, as there are
no criteria for such a waiver and because (see # 3 below) another measure
of housing production is proposed to qualify for funding.
2. The “nonbinding letter of intent” requirement has been deleted, and MTC
will rely on each congestion management agency (CMA), including VTA for
Santa Clara County cities, to determine strategies for allocation of funds,
based on housing production and proximity to PDAs. There are again no
specific criteria provided for these “PDA strategies,” but VTA and the other
agencies must prepare drafts for approval by MTC by October 1, 2012.
3. The program would add “housing production” as a factor in the amount of
funding by County and expects each CMA to apportion funding based on a
formula of 50% population and the remainder depending on a city’s
affordable housing production. Palo Alto probably would fare better than
most cities in such a formula, at least based on recent history, which would
be the basis for the next round of funding. Staff believes, however, that it
would be appropriate to note that this criterion lessens the need for the
“certified housing element” eligibility.
4. The prior version required a “Complete Streets” policy to be included in
each city’s Comprehensive/General Plan, to be adopted by July 2013, which
April 19, 2012 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 2744)
was probably not an obstacle for Palo Alto. The latest update, however,
requires a “Complete Streets” ordinance to be adopted by each city by
October 2012. The intent is that an ordinance should be easier to adopt,
since it doesn’t take the kind of time and effort required of a general plan
update. Staff believes, however, that MTC does not understand the
difference between an ordinance and a resolution and a policy in a general
plan, and the City of Palo Alto should suggest that a resolution would be
the appropriate vehicle, and likely one that would be attainable in Palo Alto
in that timeframe. In discussions with MTC, it appears that the agency may
modify that provision accordingly, as they’ve heard a similar concern from
many cities.
Staff expects that a letter from the City to MTC would stress: a) opposition to the
“certified” housing element requirement and substitution of the housing
production formula for housing element certification, b) elaboration on the
criteria for waivers for housing element eligibility, and c) allowing cities to adopt
“Complete Streets” resolutions rather than ordinances. Any other suggestions by
the Committee could be incorporated as well. Staff may have a draft letter
available for the meeting on the 19th.
Next Steps
Staff will prepare a draft letter to MTC for either Council approval on an upcoming
Consent Calendar, or for final review by the Committee at its May 17th meeting, in
advance of MTC’s May 23rd anticipated action on the program. If MTC moves
forward with the program following that meeting, the schedule calls for a period
of grant requests and deliberations beginning in October of 2012 through early
2013.
cc: Planning and Transportation Commission
Attachments:
Attachment A: One Bay Area Grant Proposal_Revised April 4, 2012 (PDF)
Attachment B: February 28, 2012 Palo Alto Letter to MTC re: One Bay Area Grant Program
(PDF)
April 19, 2012 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 2744)
Prepared By: Curtis Williams, Director
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
TO: Policy Advisory Council DATE: April 4, 2012
FR: Alix Bockelman, Director Programming and Allocations
RE: Update on Proposed OneBayArea Grant — Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ Funding
Background
Staff presented the initial OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) proposal to the MTC Planning Committee / ABAG
Administrative Committee on July 8, 2011. At that meeting, the committee directed that staff release the
proposal for public review. On January 13, 2012 staff recommended revisions to the OBAG proposal to
the Joint Committee addressing comment letters and other concerns expressed by stakeholders,
transportation agencies and local jurisdictions at various meetings (Bay Area Partnership working groups;
Policy Advisory Council; ABAG Executive Board; ABAG Planning Committee; Regional Advisory
Working Group, Regional Bicycle Working Group; and Plan Bay Area workshops). Committee
memoranda and comment letters received to date can be viewed on the MTC website at
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/ .
Additional OBAG Policy Program Revisions
At their January meeting, the Joint Planning / ABAG Administrative Committee members were generally
supportive of the staff recommended revisions to the OBAG grant program and requested more clarity
and adjustments which are outlined below as additional staff recommended revisions. Staff is also
recommending to add one year to the OBAG funding cycle to address regional delivery, as described in
item #1 below.
1. Add a Fourth Year of Funding to Cycle 2: Project sponsors and MTC staff are experiencing delivery
challenges because of insufficient lead time for projects to go through the federal aid process. Sponsors
need a minimum of 36 months, and ideally 48 months from the time of program adoption to proceed
through the federal-aid process and deliver the projects especially for less traditional projects such as the
Climate Initiatives and Safe Routes to School (SR2S) projects.
Recommended Revision: To ensure the region does not lose federal funds due to extended delivery
timelines, staff is recommending adding a fourth year of funding to Cycle 2 / OBAG funding which
allows the region to better manage the use of federal funds. This adds approximately $70 million in
funding that would go to CMAs for project selection. Funding to the regional programs also increases
proportionately. Attachment 1 lays out the proposed new funding levels.
2. Increase Priority Development Area Flexibility: Staff had recommended that a project outside of a
priority development area (PDA) count towards the required PDA minimum expenditure if it directly
connects to or provides proximate access to a PDA. Further definition was requested.
Recommended revision: Rather than establishing a regional definition of “proximate access”, staff
recommends that the CMAs make the determination for projects to count toward the PDA minimum that
are not otherwise geographically located within a PDA. CMAs would need to map projects and designate
2
which projects are considered to support a PDA along with policy justifications. This analysis would be
subject to public review when the CMA board acts on OBAG programming decisions. This should allow
decision makers, stakeholders, and the public to understand how an investment outside of a PDA is to be
considered to support a PDA and to be credited towards the PDA investment minimum threshold
requirements. MTC staff will evaluate and report to the Commission on how well this approach achieves
the OBAG objectives prior to the next programming cycle. MTC staff has prepared illustrative examples
of projects that may count toward the PDA minimum based on direct connection or proximate access (see
Attachment 2).
3. North Bay Priority Conservation Areas Pilot Program: There were requests to allow other counties to
participate in the pilot outside of the four North Bay counties and an extensive discussion about which
priority conservation area components (i.e. farm to market transportation projects versus open space
acquisition / access) should be eligible given the limited funds in this program.
Recommended revision: Implement this program as a regionally competitive program with first priority
going to the North Bay counties of Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma. Eligible projects would include
planning, land/easement acquisition, open space access projects, and farm-to-market capital projects.
Priority would be given to projects that can partner with state agencies, regional districts and private
foundations to leverage outside funds, particularly for land acquisition and open space access. Funding
leveraged by MTC and ABAG beyond the $5 million program (not including sponsor-provided match)
could grow the program budget and open up consideration of projects outside of the North Bay counties.
Program guidelines will be developed over the next several months. Prior to the call for projects, a
meeting will be held with stakeholders to discuss the program framework and project eligibility. The
program guidelines will be approved by the Commission following those discussions. Note that tribal
consultation for Plan Bay Area highlighted the need for CMAs in Sonoma and Marin to involve tribes in
PCA planning and project delivery.
4. Affordable Housing Production and Preservation: Concerns were expressed that the proposed OBAG
fund distribution at the county level does not explicitly recognize an individual jurisdiction’s performance
in producing affordable housing. Further, MTC was asked to consider specific requirements for local
jurisdictions to adopt policies to encourage affordable housing production and preservation.
Recommended revision: MTC will expect CMAs to distribute funds at the county level in a way that
balances a variety of objectives, including low-income housing production. The following three measures
are intended to support CMA decisions related to low-income housing production and protection of
affordable housing.
a) In order to facilitate a discussion among the constituent jurisdictions within a county as part of the
project selection process, MTC is publishing data for each county, showing each jurisdiction’s
contribution to the county’s fund distribution based on a formula which includes low-income housing
factors (See Attachment 3). For future cycles, staff recommends that housing production data be revised
to incorporate the most up-to-date jurisdiction information.
b) CMAs would be required to develop and approve a PDA Growth Strategy that addresses affordable
housing strategies (see Attachment 4). The PDA Growth Strategy will be due to MTC and ABAG by
October 2012. By that date, CMAs will have completed an inventory of affordable housing policies
currently enacted by each local jurisdiction. By October 2013, CMAs would work with their respective
jurisdictions to formulate affordable housing strategies and identify which, if any, policies/ordinances are
recommended to promote and preserve affordable housing in PDAs. To support the CMAs and local
3
jurisdictions in these efforts, MTC and ABAG will coordinate with related work conducted through the
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant awarded to the region in fall 2011. Based on this
information and recommendations in the PDA growth strategy, MTC would consider linking the release
of future cycle funding (subsequent to FY 2015-16) on local progress to enact locally developed
affordable housing policies. MTC expects the share of funding attributable to affordable housing
production to increase in future cycles.
c) MTC and ABAG’s PDA Planning Grant Program will place an emphasis on affordable housing
production, and preservation in funding agreements with grantees.
5. Performance and Accountability: Staff had recommended streamlining the performance and
accountability requirements in recognition of the considerable lead time required to implement these
requirements as a condition for receiving OBAG funds. The two requirements due by July 1, 2013 are the
Complete Streets Act of 2008 compliant general plan circulation element and a 2007-14 RHNA compliant
general plan housing element approved by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). Some of the committee members reported that the time and resources involved for a
general plan amendment made the Complete Streets Act deadline in many cases impractical; and others
believed that HCD approval process in some cases can be very unpredictable.
Recommended revision: The following provides additional flexibility to jurisdictions to meet these
requirements:
a) To be eligible for OBAG funds, a jurisdiction will need to address complete streets policies at the local
level through the adoption of a complete streets ordinance no later than October 1, 2012. A jurisdiction
can also meet this requirement by already having a general plan that complies with the Complete Streets
Act of 2008 or by its adoption by the October 1, 2012 deadline. Staff will provide minimum requirements
based on best practices for the ordinances.
b) A jurisdiction is required to have its general plan housing element adopted and approved by HCD for
2007-14 RHNA prior to July 1, 2013. If a jurisdiction submits its housing element to HCD on a timely
basis but is facing obstacles in the HCD review process, a waiver may be given by the Joint MTC
Planning/ABAG Administrative Committee based on a consideration of the circumstances involved.
6. Lessons Learned: MTC staff will report on the outcome of the CMA project selection process in late
2013. This information will include, but not be limited to, the following:
Mix of project types selected;
Projects funded within PDAs and outside of PDAs and how proximity and direct connections were
used and justified through the county process;
Complete streets elements that were funded;
Adherence to the performance and accountability requirements; and
Amount of funding to various jurisdictions and how this related to the distribution formula that
includes population, RHNA housing allocations and housing production, as well as low-income
housing factors.
Public participation process
The CMAs will also be required to present their PDA Growth Strategy to the Joint MTC Planning/ABAG
Administrative Committee in November or December 2012.
4
7. Safe Routes to School Regional Program: The committee discussed whether the funding for the MTC
Safe Routes to School Program (SR2S) should be increased from $10 million to $17 million. In Cycle 1,
$15 million was made available to the counties by formula for a three-year period and $2 million was
directed to a regionally competitive Creative Grant Program.
Recommended revision: Staff recommends that the Regional Safe Routes to School Program be funded at
$5 million annually for the four-year period consistent with Cycle 1 but that the regionally competitive
program be discontinued. In addition CMAs may choose to provide additional funds to the SR2S program
through county OBAG investments.
8. Pavement Technical Assistance Program: The Local Streets and Roads Working Group requested
additional funding to continue to carry out the Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP).
Recommended revision: Staff recommends increasing the PTAP program funding level by $4 million to a
revised total of $7 million. This funding level allows for the reinspection of the majority of each
jurisdiction's local street and road network every other year which will result in updated asset
management data needed to complete regional condition summaries and needs analyses for planning and
programming purposes. In response to Tribal Consultation for Plan Bay Area, staff recommends that
PTAP also be made available to assist tribes in conducting road condition inventories on tribal lands
within the Bay Area.
Next Steps
The staff proposal has relied to date, on the current 2007-14 Regional Housing Needs Allocations
(RHNA) for the proposed OBAG fund distribution. We intend to use the new RHNA 2014-2022 that will
be available in May. Staff will revise the county level funding distribution, as appropriate, based on the
new RHNA figures. In July, ABAG will finish its consideration of new PDA designation applications,
and MTC staff will provide final PDA definitions and maps at that time.
After further discussions with stakeholders and working group committees, staff will prepare Final Cycle
2/OBAG Programming Policies for presentation to the Joint MTC Planning Committee/ABAG
Administrative Committee in May and referral to the Commission for final approval. If approved, staff
will start working on OBAG Program implementation in June.
J:\COMMITTE\Policy Advisory Council\Meeting Packets\2012\04_April_2012\6__OBAG Revisions_memo_3-28-12.doc
4-Year
Total January 2012
Proposal *Augmentation 4-Year Total
1 Regional Planning Activities $7 $5 $2 $7
2 Regional Operations $105 $74 $31 $105
3 Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI) $96 $66 $31 $96
4 Pavement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP)$7 $3 $4 $7
5 Priority Development Area (PDA) Plans $30 $25 $5 $30
6 Climate Initiatives $20 $10 $10 $20
7 Safe Routes To School (SR2S) $20 $10 $10 $20
8 Transit Capital Rehabilitation $150 $125 $25 $150
9 Transit Performance Initiative (TPI) $30 $30 $30
10 Priority Conservation Area (PCA) $5 $5 $5
Regional Program Total:**$470 $353 $117 $470
60%
4-Year
Total
1 Alameda $61
2 Contra Costa $46
3 Marin $10
4 Napa $7
5 San Francisco $38
6 San Mateo $25
7 Santa Clara $84
8 Solano $20
9 Sonoma $24
OBAG Total:** $320 $250 $70 $320
40%
Cycle 2 Total Total:** $790 $604 $186 $790
April 2012
Cycle 2 Funding Commitments
Program Categories
(millions $ - rounded)
Attachment 1
OneBayArea
Proposal
New Act Cycle 2 Program
* Without Lifeline and transit payback which have been advanced and funded in Cycle 1
Regional Program
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
** Amounts may not total due to rounding
County Program
January 2012
Proposal Augmentation 4-Year Total
Attachment 2: Examples of Projects That Provide Proximate Access to a
Priority Development Area
For illustration purposes, below are examples of projects outside of PDAs which may count towards
OBAG minimum expenditures in PDAs, by providing proximate access to a PDA. The intention of these
examples is to provide general guidance to CMAs in their discussions with their board, stakeholders, and
the public about how to apply this definition.
Project Type Eligible Examples
Road
Rehabilitation
Program
A continuous street rehabilitation project that directly connects to a PDA. A
road project in the geographic vicinity of a PDA which leads to a PDA.
(Ygnacio Valley Road within Walnut Creek both inside and outside of the
PDA)
Bicycle /
Pedestrian
Program
A bicycle lane / facility that is integral to a planned bicycle network (i.e. gap
closures) that leads to a PDA (Alto Tunnel in Mill Valley).
A bicycle / pedestrian project that directly connects to a PDA; or in the
geographic vicinity of a PDA that leads to a PDA. (Entire Embarcadero Rd
Bicycle Lanes alignment in the City of Palo Alto which crosses over the El
Camino Real PDA. Georgia Street Corridor Bicycle Improvements in
Vallejo, small portion in PDA)
Safe Routes to
Schools
A project outside of a PDA that encourages students that reside in a PDA to
walk, bike, or carpool to school. (District wide outreach and safety
programs)
County TLC
Program
For enhancement / streetscape elements, the following projects may be
supportive of PDAs although outside of their limits:
o PDA corridor gap closure (El Camino Real segments between PDAs
in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara)
PDA connection to a nearby significant transit node (North Berkeley
BART station to University Avenue PDA)
Attachment 3: OBAG Formula Factors and Distribution Within County
April 2012
County 2010 Population
Intra-
County
Share
Very Low
+ Low
Income
Units
Intra-
County
Share
Total
Units
Intra-
County
Share
Very Low
+ Low
Units
Intra-
County
Share
Total
Units
(capped)
Intra-
County
Share
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Alameda 73,812 4.9% 811 4.6% 2,046 4.6% 336 6.7% 952 3.0%
Albany 18,539 1.2% 107 0.6% 276 0.6% 15 0.3% 160 0.5%
Berkeley 112,580 7.5% 752 4.3% 2,431 5.4% 496 9.9% 1,269 4.0%
Dublin 46,036 3.0% 1,753 9.9% 3,330 7.4% 506 10.1% 3,832 12.2%
Emeryville 10,080 0.7% 360 2.0% 1,137 2.5% 187 3.7% 777 2.5%
Fremont 214,089 14.2% 2,235 12.7% 4,380 9.7% 503 10.0% 2,971 9.5%
Hayward 144,186 9.5% 1,251 7.1% 3,393 7.6% 57 1.1% 2,602 8.3%Livermore 80,968 5.4% 1,698 9.6% 3,394 7.6% 461 9.2% 3,746 11.9%
Newark 42,573 2.8% 417 2.4% 863 1.9% 0 0.0% 314 1.0%
Oakland 390,724 25.9% 3,998 22.7% 14,629 32.6% 1,300 25.8% 7,733 24.7%
Piedmont 10,667 0.7% 23 0.1% 40 0.1% 0 0.0% 9 0.0%
Pleasanton 70,285 4.7% 1,804 10.2% 3,277 7.3% 530 10.5% 2,391 7.6%
San Leandro 84,950 5.6% 596 3.4% 1,630 3.6% 108 2.1% 870 2.8%
Union City 69,516 4.6% 952 5.4% 1,944 4.3% 232 4.6% 1,852 5.9%
Alameda County Unincorporated 141,266 9.4% 876 5.0% 2,167 4.8% 303 6.0% 1,878 6.0%
ALAMEDA TOTAL: 1,510,271 100.0% 17,633 100.0% 44,937 100.0% 5,034 100.0% 31,356 100.0%
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Antioch 102,372 9.8% 855 7.9% 2,282 8.4% 838 13.2% 4,459 13.8%
Brentwood 51,481 4.9% 1,152 10.6% 2,705 10.0% 614 9.7% 4,073 12.6%
Clayton 10,897 1.0% 84 0.8% 151 0.6% 84 1.3% 219 0.7%
Concord 122,067 11.6% 1,065 9.8% 3,043 11.2% 286 4.5% 2,319 7.2%
Danville 42,039 4.0% 326 3.0% 583 2.2% 141 2.2% 721 2.2%
El Cerrito 23,549 2.2% 152 1.4% 431 1.6% 5 0.1% 185 0.6%
Hercules 24,060 2.3% 217 2.0% 453 1.7% 164 2.6% 792 2.5%
Lafayette 23,893 2.3% 190 1.8% 361 1.3% 17 0.3% 194 0.6%
Martinez 35,824 3.4% 427 3.9% 1,060 3.9% 0 0.0% 424 1.3%
Moraga 16,016 1.5% 120 1.1% 234 0.9% 21 0.3% 86 0.3%
Oakley 35,432 3.4% 339 3.1% 775 2.9% 461 7.3% 1,208 3.7%Orinda 17,643 1.7% 118 1.1% 218 0.8% 0 0.0% 157 0.5%
Pinole 18,390 1.8% 132 1.2% 323 1.2% 40 0.6% 172 0.5%
Pittsburg 63,264 6.0% 545 5.0% 1,772 6.5% 628 9.9% 2,513 7.8%
Pleasant Hill 33,152 3.2% 265 2.4% 628 2.3% 164 2.6% 714 2.2%
Richmond 103,701 9.9% 730 6.7% 2,826 10.4% 1,293 20.4% 2,229 6.9%
San Pablo 29,139 2.8% 60 0.6% 298 1.1% 284 4.5% 494 1.5%
San Ramon 72,148 6.9% 1,889 17.4% 3,463 12.8% 564 8.9% 4,447 13.8%
Walnut Creek 64,173 6.1% 758 7.0% 1,958 7.2% 179 2.8% 1,477 4.6%
Contra Costa County Unincorporated 159,785 15.2% 1,413 13.0% 3,508 13.0% 549 8.7% 5,436 16.8%
CONTRA COSTA TOTAL: 1,049,025 100.0% 10,837 100.0% 27,072 100.0% 6,332 100.0% 32,319 100.0%
MARIN COUNTY
Belvedere 2,068 0.8% 9 0.5% 17 0.3% 0 0.0% 9 0.2%
Corte Madera 9,253 3.7% 104 5.6% 244 5.0% 0 0.0% 99 2.0%Fairfax 7,441 2.9% 35 1.9% 108 2.2% 0 0.0% 18 0.4%
Larkspur 11,926 4.7% 145 7.9% 382 7.8% 13 1.0% 53 1.1%
Mill Valley 13,903 5.5% 128 6.9% 292 6.0% 97 7.6% 170 3.4%
Novato 51,904 20.6% 446 24.1% 1,241 25.4% 824 64.4% 2,582 52.2%
Ross 2,415 1.0% 14 0.8% 27 0.6% 0 0.0% 21 0.4%
San Anselmo 12,336 4.9% 45 2.4% 113 2.3% 0 0.0% 70 1.4%
San Rafael 57,713 22.9% 469 25.4% 1,403 28.7% 112 8.8% 1,184 23.9%
Sausalito 7,061 2.8% 75 4.1% 165 3.4% 22 1.7% 73 1.5%
Tiburon 8,962 3.6% 57 3.1% 117 2.4% 7 0.5% 151 3.0%
Marin County Unincorporated 67,427 26.7% 320 17.3% 773 15.8% 204 15.9% 521 10.5%
MARIN TOTAL: 252,409 100.0% 1,847 100.0% 4,882 100.0% 1,279 100.0% 4,951 100.0%
NAPA COUNTY
American Canyon 19,454 14.3% 285 19.6% 728 19.6% 174 21.3% 1,323 31.3%
Calistoga 5,155 3.8% 28 1.9% 94 2.5% 18 2.2% 78 1.8%
Napa 76,915 56.4% 761 52.4% 2,024 54.6% 528 64.6% 2,397 56.6%
St. Helena 5,814 4.3% 51 3.5% 121 3.3% 20 2.4% 124 2.9%
Yountville 2,933 2.1% 31 2.1% 87 2.3% 2 0.2% 67 1.6%
Napa County Unincorporated 26,213 19.2% 297 20.4% 651 17.6% 75 9.2% 244 5.8%
NAPA TOTAL: 136,484 100.0% 1,453 100.0% 3,705 100.0% 817 100.0% 4,233 100.0%
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO TOTAL: 805,235 100.0% 12,124 100.0% 31,193 100.0% 5,304 100.0% 17,439 100.0%
Population 2007-2011 RHNA 1999-2006 Housing Production
Attachment 3: OBAG Formula Factors and Distribution Within County
April 2012
County 2010 Population
Intra-
County
Share
Very Low
+ Low
Income
Units
Intra-
County
Share
Total
Units
Intra-
County
Share
Very Low
+ Low
Units
Intra-
County
Share
Total
Units
(capped)
Intra-
County
Share
Population 2007-2011 RHNA 1999-2006 Housing Production
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Atherton 6,914 1.0% 33 0.5% 83 0.5% 0 0.0% 5 0.1%
Belmont 25,835 3.6% 156 2.5% 399 2.5% 44 3.0% 317 3.4%
Brisbane 4,282 0.6% 157 2.5% 401 2.5% 8 0.5% 108 1.2%
Burlingame 28,806 4.0% 255 4.1% 650 4.1% 0 0.0% 104 1.1%
Colma 1,792 0.2% 26 0.4% 65 0.4% 73 5.0% 74 0.8%
Daly City 101,123 14.1% 473 7.7% 1,207 7.7% 33 2.2% 416 4.5%
East Palo Alto 28,155 3.9% 247 4.0% 630 4.0% 212 14.4% 719 7.7%
Foster City 30,567 4.3% 191 3.1% 486 3.1% 88 6.0% 533 5.7%
Half Moon Bay 11,324 1.6% 108 1.8% 276 1.8% 106 7.2% 356 3.8%
Hillsborough 10,825 1.5% 34 0.6% 86 0.5% 15 1.0% 84 0.9%Menlo Park 32,026 4.5% 389 6.3% 993 6.3% 0 0.0% 215 2.3%
Millbrae 21,532 3.0% 177 2.9% 452 2.9% 0 0.0% 262 2.8%
Pacifica 37,234 5.2% 108 1.8% 275 1.7% 10 0.7% 179 1.9%
Portola Valley 4,353 0.6% 29 0.5% 74 0.5% 15 1.0% 61 0.7%
Redwood City 76,815 10.7% 726 11.8% 1,856 11.8% 106 7.2% 465 5.0%
San Bruno 41,114 5.7% 382 6.2% 973 6.2% 325 22.1% 378 4.1%
San Carlos 28,406 4.0% 235 3.8% 599 3.8% 0 0.0% 208 2.2%
San Mateo 97,207 13.5% 1,195 19.4% 3,051 19.4% 210 14.3% 1,771 19.1%
South San Francisco 63,632 8.9% 641 10.4% 1,635 10.4% 192 13.1% 1,310 14.1%
Woodside 5,287 0.7% 17 0.3% 41 0.3% 0 0.0% 41 0.4%
San Mateo County Unincorporated 61,222 8.5% 590 9.6% 1,506 9.6% 31 2.1% 1,680 18.1%
SAN MATEO TOTAL: 718,451 100.0% 6,169 100.0% 15,738 100.0% 1,468 100.0% 9,286 100.0%
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Campbell 39,349 2.2% 321 1.4% 892 1.5% 37 0.3% 617 1.3%
Cupertino 58,302 3.3% 570 2.4% 1,170 1.9% 48 0.4% 1,339 2.7%
Gilroy 48,821 2.7% 536 2.3% 1,615 2.7% 516 4.2% 2,577 5.3%
Los Altos 28,976 1.6% 164 0.7% 317 0.5% 40 0.3% 261 0.5%
Los Altos Hills 7,922 0.4% 46 0.2% 81 0.1% 32 0.3% 83 0.2%
Los Gatos 29,413 1.7% 254 1.1% 562 0.9% 86 0.7% 402 0.8%
Milpitas 66,790 3.7% 1,110 4.7% 2,487 4.1% 701 5.7% 3,318 6.8%
Monte Sereno 3,341 0.2% 22 0.1% 41 0.1% 19 0.2% 76 0.2%Morgan Hill 37,882 2.1% 566 2.4% 1,312 2.2% 556 4.6% 2,335 4.8%
Mountain View 74,066 4.2% 959 4.1% 2,599 4.3% 123 1.0% 1,484 3.0%
Palo Alto 64,403 3.6% 1,233 5.3% 2,860 4.7% 344 2.8% 1,397 2.9%
San Jose 945,942 53.1% 13,073 55.8% 34,721 57.5% 8,301 67.9% 26,114 53.4%
Santa Clara 116,468 6.5% 2,207 9.4% 5,873 9.7% 758 6.2% 4,763 9.7%
Saratoga 29,926 1.7% 158 0.7% 292 0.5% 61 0.5% 539 1.1%
Sunnyvale 140,081 7.9% 1,781 7.6% 4,426 7.3% 112 0.9% 2,167 4.4%
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 89,960 5.0% 445 1.9% 1,090 1.8% 483 4.0% 1,421 2.9%
SANTA CLARA TOTAL: 1,781,642 100.0% 23,445 100.0% 60,338 100.0% 12,217 100.0% 48,893 100.0%
SOLANO COUNTY
Benicia 26,997 6.5% 246 4.9% 532 4.1% 182 9.3% 413 2.7%
Dixon 18,351 4.4% 295 5.9% 728 5.6% 0 0.0% 1,017 6.6%
Fairfield 105,321 25.5% 1,435 28.5% 3,796 29.2% 249 12.8% 3,812 24.7%
Rio Vista 7,360 1.8% 389 7.7% 1,219 9.4% 39 2.0% 1,391 9.0%
Suisun City 28,111 6.8% 282 5.6% 610 4.7% 80 4.1% 1,004 6.5%
Vacaville 92,428 22.4% 1,222 24.3% 2,901 22.3% 778 39.9% 4,406 28.5%
Vallejo 115,942 28.0% 1,123 22.3% 3,100 23.9% 553 28.3% 2,965 19.2%
Solano County Unincorporated 18,834 4.6% 42 0.8% 99 0.8% 71 3.6% 427 2.8%
SOLANO TOTAL: 413,344 100.0% 5,034 100.0% 12,985 100.0% 1,952 100.0% 15,435 100.0%
SONOMA COUNTY
Cloverdale 8,618 1.8% 132 2.4% 417 3.1% 163 3.2% 423 2.3%
Cotati 7,265 1.5% 103 1.9% 257 1.9% 114 2.2% 520 2.9%
Healdsburg 11,254 2.3% 119 2.2% 331 2.4% 188 3.7% 516 2.8%
Petaluma 57,941 12.0% 874 16.2% 1,945 14.2% 451 8.8% 1,144 6.3%
Rohnert Park 40,971 8.5% 602 11.2% 1,554 11.4% 760 14.9% 2,124 11.7%Santa Rosa 167,815 34.7% 2,516 46.6% 6,534 47.9% 1,929 37.7% 7,654 42.0%
Sebastopol 7,379 1.5% 60 1.1% 176 1.3% 5 0.1% 121 0.7%
Sonoma 10,648 2.2% 128 2.4% 353 2.6% 179 3.5% 684 3.8%
Windsor 26,801 5.5% 328 6.1% 719 5.3% 332 6.5% 1,881 10.3%
Sonoma County Unincorporated 145,186 30.0% 536 9.9% 1,364 10.0% 989 19.4% 3,142 17.3%
SONOMA TOTAL: 483,878 100.0% 5,398 100.0% 13,650 100.0% 5,110 100.0% 18,209 100.0%
Bay Area Total 7,150,739 100.0% 83,940 100.0% 214,500 100.0% 39,513 100.0% 182,121 100.0%
J:\PROJECT\Funding\T4 - New Act\T4 - STP-CMAQ\T4 Cycle Programming\T4 Second Cycle\One Bay Area Grant\[OBAG IntraCounty Distribution.xls]IntraCounty 03-19-2012
DRAFT – 3/23/12
Attachment 4
PDA Growth Strategy
The purpose of a PDA Growth Strategy is to ensure that each CMA’s transportation investments will support
and encourage development in the region’s PDAs. Some of the planning activities noted below may be
appropriate for CMAs to consider for jurisdictions or areas not currently designated as PDAs if those
areas are still considering future housing and job growth. CMAs should incorporate necessary planning,
infrastructure and funding for PDAs, as described below:
(1) Engagement with Local Jurisdictions – CMAs are to develop a process to regularly engage local
planners, public works staff and encourage community participation throughout the planning process and in
determining implementation priorities.
(2) Planning - Review existing plans and participate in new planning work1
Review adopted land use plans - Specific, precise, or community plans for PDAs (or general plans with
adopted transit-supportive zoning), particularly those with programmatic EIRs, contain details about
circulation and access, pedestrian guidelines, parking and other development-related standards that can
help to determine appropriate investments. These plans have undergone significant community
involvement and have been adopted by Planning Commissions & City Councils.
Take an inventory of transportation, infrastructure and implementation sections in land use plans for
jurisdiction priorities and cost estimates for transportation infrastructure projects that serve or provide
proximate access to PDAs. These may include streetscapes, bike, pedestrian, transit and road
improvements, transit station improvements, connectivity projects and transportation demand
management projects, including parking structures. For any TOD parking structure project, it is
strongly recommended that a cost/benefit analysis be conducted using pricing, unbundling/cash-out,
shared parking, shuttles and other locally appropriate TDM strategies to ensure it is built at an
appropriate scale and well-managed.
Inventory jurisdiction affordable housing policies, strategies, zoning and ordinances designed to
encourage affordable housing production and/or preserve existing affordable housing. The three broad
objectives for the housing policies are to promote housing production overall, ensure that housing units
(planned and built) are balanced across income levels, and to avoid displacement of existing residents
of the PDAs.
The policies should be targeted to the specific circumstances of each PDA. For example, if the PDA
currently does not provide for a mix of income-levels, the policies should be aimed at promoting
affordable housing. If the PDA currently is mostly low-income housing, the policies should be aimed
at community stabilization.
Starting in October 2013 and for subsequent updates, PDA Growth Strategies will assess existing and
future affordable housing needs and make appropriate recommendations to fill gaps in local policies to
achieve these goals. This analysis will be coordinated with related work conducted through the
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant awarded to the region in fall 2011.
Review ABAG/MTC PDA Assessment results for details about PDA infrastructure needs and
priorities2
Consider non-transportation infrastructure projects, such as sewer and utility upgrades or site
assembly/land banking, as they are often a necessary prerequisite for TOD development projects in
PDAs. Facilitate funding exchanges (federal for local dollars) when possible to address these funding
gaps.
1 MTC & ABAG staff are available to assist with the review and inventory of adopted land use plans
2 In 2009, MTC/ABAG staff conducted an assessment of planned PDAs and their future development needs. Jurisdictions
were asked to estimate infrastructure needs and associated costs.
DRAFT – 3/23/12
Participate as a TAC member in local jurisdiction planning processes funded through the regional PDA
Planning Program or as requested by jurisdictions. Assist MTC and ABAG staff with oversight to
ensure that regional policies are addressed in PDA plans.
Help develop protocols with MTC, ABAG and Air District staff to assess emissions, as well as related
mitigation strategies, as part of regional PDA Planning Program.
Potential PDAs that do not have adopted plans, call on regional agency staff to assist in the
identification of planning and future transportation infrastructure needs.
(3) Funding - Develop guidelines for evaluating OBAG projects that improve multi-modal transportation
connections to housing, jobs and commercial activity, considering the following criteria:
Projects in High Impact Areas - Assessment of the project area in which a project is located should
be a key component for investment consideration. Key factors defining high impact project areas
include;
a. Housing – PDAs taking on significant housing growth in the SCS (total number of units and
percentage change), including RHNA income allocations,
b. Jobs in proximity to housing and transit (both current levels and those included in the SCS),
c. Improved transportation choices for all income levels (reduces VMT), proximity to quality transit
access, with an emphasis on connectivity (including safety, lighting, etc.)
d. Consistency with regional TLC design guidelines or design that encourages multi-modal access:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tlc/2009_TLC_Design_Guidelines.pdf
Projects located in Communities of Concern (COC) – favorably consider projects located in a COC
see: http://geocommons.com/maps/110983
PDAs with affordable housing preservation and creation strategies – favorably consider projects in
jurisdictions with affordable housing preservation and creation strategies or policies
PDAs that overlap with Air District CARE Communities and/or are in proximity to freight
transport infrastructure - Consider projects located in PDAs with highest exposure to PM and Toxic
Air Contaminants. Employ best management practices to mitigate exposure and determine where non-
motorized investments would best support additional housing production.
II) RHNA Coordination – Given the OBAG connection to RHNA:
Monitor development of Housing Elements/zoning updates supportive of RHNA.
Process/Timeline
CMAs/MTC amend current funding agreements with PDA Growth
Strategy tasks/language
Spring 2012
OBAG adopted by MTC May 23, 2012
Updated CMA agreements ready for signature July 1, 2012
CMAs develop PDA Growth Strategy May - October 2012
PDA Growth Strategy Presentations by CMAs to Joint MTC Planning
and ABAG Administrative Committee
November 2012 – December 2012
CMAs program OBAG funds May 2012 – April 2013
CMAs amend PDA Growth Strategy to incorporate follow-up to local
affordable housing policies
October 2013
CMAs submit annual progress reports related to PDA Growth
Strategies, including status of jurisdiction progress on
development/adoption of housing elements and complete streets
ordinances.
October 2013, Ongoing
J:\COMMITTE\Policy Advisory Council\Meeting Packets\2012\04_April_2012\6_Attach-4_PDA Growth Strategy_draft 3_23.doc
OneBayArea Grant Proposed
Revisions
(Cycle 2 STP/CMAQ)
Policy Advisory Council
April 11, 2012
Alix Bockelman
Slide 2
OneBayArea Grant
Outreach To Date
•July 8, 2011: Initial OneBayGrant (OBAG) proposal
released to Joint MTC Planning Committee / ABAG
Administrative Committee
•January 13, 2012: Staff recommended revisions
based on stakeholders comments presented to Joint
Committee
•April 2012: Further recommended revisions to be
presented to working groups and stakeholders prior
to final proposal for Commission approval
Slide 3
Recommended Revisions /
Clarifications
1.Program Timeframe
2.PDA Flexibility
3.PCA Program Eligibility
4.Affordable Housing Production and Preservation
5.Performance and Accountability
6.Lessons Learned
7.Safe Routes to School and Pavement Management
Technical Assistance Program
Slide 4
Program Timeframe
Add Fourth Year of Funding
Recommended Revision:
•Total OBAG Program increased to $320 million
•Increase of $70 million to OBAG for congestion
management agencies’ project selection
•Increase of $117 million to Regional Program
Provide a larger “shelf list”of projects for better
project management delivery and prevent potential
loss of federal funds
Slide 5
PDA Flexibility
Recommended Revision:
•Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) to
make determination
•The CMA is to establish a process that includes
mapping projects that are outside a PDA, policy
justifications for counting towards a PDA, and
public review
Request for more definition on how a project “directly
connects” or provides “proximate access”to count
towards the PDA investment minimum
Slide 6
North Bay Priority Conservation
Areas Pilot Program
Recommended Revision:
•Funding leveraged by MTC and ABAG beyond the $5
million program (not including sponsor-provided match)
could increase program budget and extend consideration
to projects outside North Bay
•Further discussion with stakeholders on program
framework and project eligibility prior to Commission
approval
Requests to allow counties outside of the four North
Bay counties to participate and further define eligible
project types given limited funds in program
Slide 7
Affordable Housing Production and
Preservation
Recommended Revision:
•Publication of data on jurisdictions’contribution on a formula factor basis to each county’s OBAG distribution facilitates discussions during project selection
•PDA Growth Strategy addresses affordable housing policies.
–CMAs will work with jurisdictions to inventory current policies and make appropriate policy / ordinance recommendations.
–PDA Growth Strategy presentation by CMAs to Joint Planning / ABAG Committee in Fall 2012
–MTC may link the release of future cycle funding (after FY 2015-16) on local progress towards enacting affordable housing policies
•PDA Planning Grant Program places emphasis on meeting affordablehousing objectives through the funding agreements with jurisdiction grantees
Concern that OBAG fund distribution / performance and
accountability requirements do not adequately address affordable
housing production and preservation
Slide 8
Performance and Accountability
Recommended Revision:
•Adoption of a complete streets ordinance by October 1,
2012 instead of Complete Streets Act of 2008 compliance.
Latter path still acceptable if the October 1, 2012 deadline
can be met
•Waiver process through Joint MTC Planning/ABAG
Administration Committee available if jurisdiction faces
delays in the HCD approval process
Request to provide greater flexibility for housing and
complete streets requirement
Slide 9
Performance and Accountability
Deadlines
•October 1, 2012: Jurisdiction adoption of Complete
Streets ordinance
•October 1, 2012: CMA adoption of PDA Growth
Strategy
•July 1, 2013: HCD adoption of a jurisdiction’s general
plan housing element
•October 1, 2013: PDA Growth Strategy amendment
to incorporate follow-up to local affordable housing
policies and recommendations
Slide 10
Lessons Learned
Recommended Approach:
•MTC staff report on project selection process outcomes of
OBAG in late 2013 such as:
–Mix of projects selected
–Type and funding level of PDA investments
–Funded complete streets elements
–Adherence to performance and accountability requirements
–Amount of funding allocated to jurisdictions and how this relates
to the distribution formula jurisdiction shares based on the
formula factors
–Public participation process
Request to be able to monitor and evaluate OBAG
project selection and policy compliance
Slide 11
Safe Routes to School and Pavement
Technical Assistance Programs
Recommended Revision:
•Increase funding for Safe Routes to Schools to $5 million
per year ($20 million total) which is the annual amount
made available to the counties by formula over the Cycle
1 period
•Increase the PTAP program from $4 to $7 million to meet
inspection schedule for the majority of each jurisdiction’s
local street and road network every other year which
feeds into regional reporting and needs analyses
Request to increase funding for the Regional Safe
Routes to School and PTAP programs
Cycle 2 Funding
Commitments Overview
$470Regional Program
$790TOTAL
$320OneBayArea Grant for Counties
$5Priority Conservation Area North Bay Pilot
$30Transit Performance Initiative
$150Transit Capital Rehabilitation
$20Safe Routes to School
$20Climate Initiatives
$30Priority Development Area Planning Program
$7Pavement Technical Assistance Program
$96Freeway Performance Initiative
$105Regional Operations
$7Regional Planning
4-Year Total
FundingProgram Categories
(Millions $, rounded)
Slide 13
OBAG Distribution Formula
*RHNA 2007-14 to be replaced by RHNA 2014-2022
** Housing Production Report 1999-2006, ABAG
Population
50%
Housing Production
(low-income housing units)
12.5%
BBNA*
Housing
Produc:tion**
(total housing units)
12.5%
BBNA
(low-income
housing units)
12.5%
(total housing units)
12.5%
Slide 14
OBAG County Fund Distribution
$320Regional Total
$24Sonoma
$20Solano
$84Santa Clara
$25San Mateo
$38San Francisco
$7Napa
$10Marin
$46Contra Costa
$61Alameda
Total
FundsCounty
(Millions $, rounded)
Amounts may not total due to rounding
Slide 15
Eligible OBAG Projects
•Each County CMA may program OBAG
funds to any one of the following six
transportation improvement categories:
–Local Streets and Roads Preservation
–Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
–Transportation for Livable Communities
–Safe Routes to Schools
–Priority Conservation Area
–CMA Planning Activities
Slide 16
Next Steps
April 2012:
•Continue outreach
May 2012:
•Revise fund distribution as appropriate based on
new RHNA methodology
•Joint Committee review/recommendations (May 11th)
•MTC Commission adoption (May 23rd)
June 2012:
•OBAG program implementation begins
July 2012:
•ABAG approves PDA designation requests
February 28, 2012
Adrienne Tissier, Chair and Commission Members
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Re: One Bay Area Grant Proposal
Dear Chair Tissier and Commission Members:
Cit)' of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Thank you for the opportunity forthe City of Palo Alto to provide input to the updated (January
13,2012) version of the One Bay Area Grant program proposed by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). As
you may know, the City of Palo Alto has a strong record of leadership in providing facilities and
programs to encourage alternative transportation options, often in partnership with MTC, the
Valley Transportation,Authority (VTA), and the Joint Powers Board ofCaltrain. The proposed
One Bay Area Grant program criteria, however, would significantly deter the City of Palo Alto
(and other cities) from advancing stich programs and projects in the future, contrary to the intent
of the One Bay Area planning and transportation goals.
Two provisions of the program criteria are highly objectionable and should be modified to assure
that innovative and effective transportation programs may be proposed by local jurisdictions and
remain eligible for funding:
1. Housing Element Prerequisite: Requiring a "certified" Housing Element as prerequisite to
eligibility is problematic and premature. Certification of a Housing Element involves
many complexities and is subject to a highly discretionary approval process by a State
agency (the Department of Housing and Community Development) that is often not
responsive to local concerns. Such a requirement would vest a tremendous amount of
authority with HCD to determine the fate of a city's or county's transportation funds.
Further, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation will be based on a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) that has not yet been approved, so it is inappropriate to
require conlpliance with a process that has not been finalized and the implications of
which are unknown. The City of Palo Alto requests that Housing Element certification be
eliminated as a prerequisite to grant funding, and that either no connection to the Housing
Element be required or at most that it be limited to "approval" of a Housing Element by a
local agency, rather than HCD "certification."
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
MTC: One Bay Area Grant
Page 2
2. Non-binding Resolution of Intent: The proposed prerequisites now include a "non
binding resolution of intent" to align a city's RHNA, PDAs, and zoning consistent with
the Sustainable Conlll1unities Strategy (SCS). Such a resolution is again prenlature, given
that the SCS will not be adopted until early 2013, while the grant application process will
be underway later this year. The City of Palo Alto suggests that such a guideline be
postponed until the next cycle of funding, at which time all cities, counties and CMAs
will better understand the implications of a resolution. Alternatively, MTC should allow
the CMAs to work with their respective jurisdictions to satisfy that there is substantial
consistency between a city's or county's policies and regulations and the objectives of the
SCS.
The City of Palo Alto continues to support the program's Complete Streets policy approach
(though further guidance would be helpful) and the focus of transportation investments in PDAs.
We do, however, strongly recommend that transportation investments be targeted to Growth
Opportunity Areas (GOAs) as well, since these areas also are proximate to transit and typically
are linked to PDAs in some fashion (particularly for the EI Camino Real corridor in Palo Alto).
Without the availability of grant funding, resources will not be available to implement important
programs and projects of benefit to the City and the region. Many of the City's recent
transportation policies and projects have been consistent with and demonstrated leadership for
MTC's objectives for innovation and multi-modal planning, including:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan: The City is completing its updated plan to
accommodate enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs, and to elevate the
City's Bicycle-Friendly Community status from Gold to Platinum level.
• Stanford Avenue/EI Camino Real Intersection hnprovements: The City has recently
completed improvements at this intersection to enhance safety for pedestrians and
cyclists, including children who use the intersection as a route to school, and to upgrade
. the aesthetic qualities of the intersection and ofEI Camino Real. We expect the project
will serve as a tenlplate for improving intersections throughout the Grand Boulevard
corridor.
• Safe Routes to School: The City's Safe Routes to School program has resulted in a
phenomenal increase in school children bicycling and walking to school over the past
decade. In the 2011 fiscal year, City staff coordinated 140 in-class bike and pedestrian
safety education programs in 12 elementary schools, reaching 4,250 students. Recent
surveys of how children usually get to elementary school showed an average of 42%
choosing to walk, bike or skate to school, compared to a national average of only 13%
(figures for middle schools and high schools are even greater). A recent grant will allow
the City to prepare Safe Routes maps for every elementary school in the city as well as to
expand our education curriculum into middle schools and to adults.
• Traffic Calming on Residential Arterials: The City has an ambitious traffic calming
program along "residential arterials" in efforts to support our Safe Routes to School
program and to enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety. In particular, the ongoing
Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor project has provided substantial safety
2
MTC: One Bay Area Grant
Page 3
improvements and selective lane reductions to enhance bicycling and walking while
maintaining efficient levels of vehicle throughput similar to those prior to the traffic
caln1ing improvements.
• Bike Parking Corrals: The City has recently installed six green "bicycle parking corrals"
in the Bay Area, with each corral providing for up to 10 bicycle parking spaces in highly
visible, signed on-street areas in downtown. Each bicycle corral replaces one vehicle
parking space. Up to a dozen more such installations are planned in the downtown and
California Avenue areas.
• California Avenue Streetscape Improvements: A pending grant would suppoli the
substantial upgrade of California Avenue to a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
roadway, incorporating "complete street" principles, and also enhancing access to the
California A venue Caltrain station.
• Local Shuttles: The City, with some support from the Caltrain JPB, offers local shqttle
services for commuters, school children, seniors and others between points of interest
within the city. These shuttles further reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle trips
and reduce traffic congestion and parking needs.
Thank you for your consideration of thes.e issues and suggestions. The City of Palo Alto hopes to
remain at the forefront of continuing efforts to facilitate programs to encourage transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian use in the Bay Area, and believes it is essential that the One Bay Area Grant
process support those efforts as outlined above. .
If you have questions, please feel free to contact Curtis Williams, the City'S Director of Planning
and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
07-
Mayor i'
City of Palo Alto
cc: City Council
Planning and Transportation Commission
J ames Keene, City Manager
Ezra Rapport, ABAG
Steve Heminger, MTC
John Ristow, VT A
3