Southern California Association of Governments

2018 Sustainable Communities Program /ƻƳƳdzƴƛǘȅ ²ƛŘŜ ŀƴŘ !NJŜŀ tƭŀƴǎ Application

Agency Name:

Project Name:

2

Project Information A. General Inf ormation

Project Name:

Agency Name:

Street Address:

City: State: Zip:

Project Manager:

Title:

Email: Phone:

Addtl. Contact:

Title

Email:

Phone:

B. Project Details Project Start Date: Project End Date:

Subregion or COG County:

Requested Amount:

If your agency is submitting multiple applications, please prioritize them below. Number of Applications Submitted:

Priority of this Application (Ex. 1 of 3):

If your agency is partnering with additional agencies, jurisdictions, or community based organizations for this project, please list them here and identify their roles. Partner Name: Role:

Partner Name: Role:

Partner Name: Role:

Partner Name: Role:

C. Project Description 1. Please provide a short summary of your project that includes the major deliverables.

Provide a short description of the scope of your project. (500 Character Limit)

3

D. Background Information 1. Is your agency a member of SCAG? Yes No

2. The 2016 RTP/SCS seeks to “Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air

quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking).” The Active Transportation Appendix outlines strategies for implementing the Active Transportation Component of the RTP/SCS. Please list the strategies your project will implement:

Strategy:

Strategy:

Strategy:

Strategy:

Strategy:

3. Do you wish to leverage one of the following outreach tools to complement the project type being

proposed here? Per the guidelines, these add-ons will be provided directly by SCAG and do not involve a financial award to the applicant.

Go Human Kit of Parts: Includes materials, signage, and tools that allow an applicant or a consultant to plan and implement a Go Human event and gain community feedback as part of a project-specific or community-wide planning process.

Go Human Advertising Campaign Implementation: Co-branded Go Human print materials

are available at no cost to help improve traffic safety for people walking and biking, and to help extend the reach of the Go Human campaign.

E. Grant Administration 1. Grants will be managed by SCAG and implemented through its consultants for a five percent fee,

deducted from the grant award, unless the applicant chooses to opt out of this service (See opt-out option below). As part of the grant administration, SCAG will pursue funding allocation from the California Transportation Commission for those projects receiving Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, procure consultant support, and provide all necessary reporting and documentation required by CTC and Caltrans. The Sponsoring Agency will assign a project manager and assume responsibility for the timely use of funds. Grantees not wishing to use SCAG’s grant administration services will be required to complete all Caltrans allocation and contractual paperwork and be responsible for hiring their own consultants. See the 2019 Active Transportation Program Guidelines for details on programming, allocation, evaluation and reporting.

Opt-Out of SCAG Grant Administration Services: My agency would like to decline SCAG’s

Grant Administration Services and is prepared to pursue funding allocation directly from the CTC and

assume responsibility for all aspects of grant management, if awarded ATP funding.

4

Application: Community-Wide/Area-wide Plans Mark the type(s) of project activity that you are proposing. You may mark more than one. Note all plans must meet the minimum requirements set out by the 2019 Active Transportation Guidelines Appendix A. (Information only)

Bicycle Master Plan

Pedestrian Master Plan

Safe Routes to School Master Plan

Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan

First-Last Mile Plans

Neighborhood Mobility Area Plan

A. Project Need (Total 50 pts)

1. Mobility Benefits – Project Need (15 points)

a. Does your community currently have a bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school or comprehensive Active Transportation Plan? Yes No

Mark all that your community currently has:

Type

Year Completed

Link

Bicycle Master Plan

Pedestrian Master Plan

Safe Routes to School Master Plan

Active Transportation Plan Other Planning Document

*If your plan is not currently available online, please submit a PDF of the document with your application.

i. If yes, describe the planning gap that you hope to fill and its desired impact on improving mobility/accessibility for people walking and bicycling. If no, simply write ‘No Plans.’

Provide a short description of the scope of your project. (1500 Character Limit)

5

Points Mobility Score

5 Points Agency/Community has no active transportation plans or has not updated these plans in more than 10 years.

For Reviewer

Only

2-4 Points Agency/community completed some active transportation planning, and project sponsor provides comprehensive justification for the need for additional planning.

For Reviewer

Only

0-1 Point Agency/community has updated active transportation plans, and/or presents limited justification to support the need for more planning.

For Reviewer

Only

b. Describe the state of active transportation infrastructure in your city and the project area. What

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure/non-infrastructure programs are in place? What infrastructure gaps exist that you would hope to address with the plan? (Applicant may wish to attach maps, photos, or walk audit results to support responses but they are not required).

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Mobility Score

3-5 Points Applicant presents a clear need for active transportation infrastructure improvements and shows how the proposed plan will address gaps in programming and infrastructure.

For Reviewer

Only

0-2 Points Applicant presents a limited need for active transportation infrastructure improvements and/or does not clearly illustrate how the proposed plan will address identified gaps.

For Reviewer

Only

6

c. Describe the land-use and transportation plans and policies that have been developed or are under development that will support greater rates of walking and biking. This may include plans for increased transit investment or greater mixed-use development – Transit Priority Areas, High Quality Transit Areas, and special district plans. Describe any other supporting policies adopted by your governing body related to active transportation that will support the proposed project by leveraging other efforts to create more walkable and bicycle friendly communities (Ex. Bicycle Parking Ordinance, Complete Street Policies, etc.). If your city has not yet adopted such policies but has secured funding or initiated planning for such policies, please include expected dates of completion.

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Mobility Score

3-5 Points Applicant provides clear examples of current or future plans and policies that will support greater rates of walking and biking. Describes a current or future policy environment where an active transportation plan will add considerable value.

For Reviewer

Only

0-2 Points Applicant provides few examples of current or future supportive plans and policies. Describes a policy environment where an active transportation plan will have limited impact.

For Reviewer

Only

7

2. Safety (20 points) a. For community wide projects and plans, identify the rate of bicycle or pedestrian collisions in your

city or county. If planning for an area or neighborhood, create a weighted average by selecting the census tracts within your project area, sum the total bicycle and/or pedestrian injuries/fatalities for the selected census tracts and divide by the area’s combined population. Data for this question is provided on SCAG’s Sustainability Program website.

Geographic Unit of Rate (Area or City):

Bicycle Rate (Bicycle Plans Only):

Pedestrian Rate (Pedestrian Plans Only):

Combined Rate (Active Transportation Plans/Safe Routes to school Plans):

Points Citywide Safety Score Census Tract Score Score

15 Points

0.0021 or greater bicycle, or 0.0021 or greater bicycle, or For

Reviewer Only

0.0019 or greater pedestrian, or 0.0021 or greater pedestrian, or

0.0041 or greater combined bike/ped. 0.0042 or greater combined bike/ped.

12 Points

0.0013-0.0021 bicycle, or 0.0015-0.0021 bicycle, or For

Reviewer Only

0.0012-0.0018 pedestrian, or 0.0011-0.0021 pedestrian, or

0.0025-0.0040 combined bike/ped. 0.0022-0.0042 combined bike/ped.

7 Points

0.0006-0.0010 bicycle, or 0.0004-0.0015 bicycle, or For

Reviewer Only

0.0007-0.0011 pedestrian, or 0.0004-0.0011 pedestrian, or

0.0014-0.0023 combined bike/ped. 0.0010-0.0022 combined bike/ped.

3 Points

0.0001-0.0005 bicycle, or 0.0001-0.0004 bicycle, or For

Reviewer Only

0.0001-0.0006 pedestrian, or 0.0001-0.0004 pedestrian, or

0.0001-0.0013 combined bike/ped. 0.0001-0.0010 combined bike/ped.

0 Points 0.0000 0.000

b. Describe any additional factors that impact real or perceived safety in the area (high speeds, lack of infrastructure, crime, need for additional enforcement, etc.). How will this project engage stakeholders and agency staff to address these factors?

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

8

Points Safety Score

3-5 Points Additional factors are identified that pose significant challenges to expanding rates of walking and bicycling. A clear plan for engaging stakeholders and agency staff to address the issues identified.

For Reviewer

Only

0-2 Points Additional factors are mentioned but clear strategies for engaging stakeholders are not provided.

For Reviewer

Only

3. Public Health (5 points) a. Provide the Healthy Places Index score for the where the project will be completed. For area wide

plans use the census tract score, for citywide plans use the city score (the geography can be changed in the “California Healthy Places Index” box to the right of the screen). If data is not available at your project level, use the smallest geography available. If you need assistance with finding data for this question contact your county health department. i. Geographic Unit of Data Provided:

ii. Healthy Places Index Score:

Points Public Health Score

5 Points Score is equal to or below 25. For Reviewer

Only 3 Points Score is equal to or less than 50 but more than 25. For

Reviewer Only

1 Points Score is equal to or less than 75 but more than 50. For Reviewer

Only

0 Points Score is greater than 75. For Reviewer

Only

4. Disadvantaged Communities (10 points)

a. Applicants shall show how their project benefits a disadvantaged communities using one of the methodologies outlined below. SCAG has calculated scores for each census tract based upon the available Disadvantaged Communities Definition that the applicant wishes to use (Do not mix and match definitions, you must choose one). The applicable definitions are defined in Appendix A below with the points given for each methodology. The points are based off of the scoring criteria for the 2019 Active Transportation Program as well as SCAG’s Regional Disadvantaged Communities Definition. SCAG has prepared citywide and census tract level scores for community wide projects which can be found on the Sustainability Program website. To calculate the final score for projects that do not cover an entire city, the applicant should use a weighted average based on the population of each census tract or schools used. To create a weighted average multiply the score for each census tract/school by the population, add outcomes for all census tracts, and then divide by the total population for all census tracts/schools. If a tract does not meet a definition outlined in one of the methodologies below, it receives a score of 0. GIS shapefiles for all layers in the SCAG region can be found on SCAG’s Open Data Portal.

If your agency needs technical assistance to determine this percentage, please contact SCAG by 11/9/18.

i. Disadvantaged Community Methodology Chosen:

ii. Weighted Average Score:

9

Points Disadvantaged Communities – Severity Score

8 Points The weighted average score for the area the project covers is greater than 3.

For Reviewer

Only

6 Points The weighted average score for the area the project covers is greater than 2 and less than or equal to 3.

For Reviewer

Only

4 Points The weighted average score for the area the project covers is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 2.

For Reviewer

Only

2 Points The weighted average score for the area the project covers is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1.

For Reviewer

Only

0 Points The average score for the area the project covers is 0. For Reviewer

Only

b. Describe how your project will directly improve the quality of life for disadvantaged community members within or adjacent to the project area. Explain the steps you will take to ensure the project will not result in gentrification or displacement.

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Disadvantaged Communities – Direct Benefit Score

1-2 Points The project will clearly benefit disadvantaged community members and the applicant has provided a reasonable justification of the steps that will be taken to prevent gentrification and displacement.

For Reviewer

Only

0 Points The project will not benefit a Disadvantaged Community. For Reviewer

Only

10

B. Project Goals, Objectives and Outcomes (40pts) 1. Mobility – Project Benefits (20 points)

a. State the goals and objectives in measurable terms that relate directly to the identified need/problem(s) identified in Part A. The objectives should be concise (use bullets), address a specific issue(s), and be realistic with a reasonable probability of achievement. For example:

The goal of this project is to produce a prioritized list of bicycle and pedestrian projects for future rounds of grant funding.

The objective of this plan is document community feedback and interest in planning for active transportation projects.

The objective of this project is identify safety hot spots in the community and appropriate counter measures.

Open Ended (1000 character limit)

Points Mobility Score

6-10 Points

Applicant identifies goals and objectives that meet the needs of the community that are achievable.

For Reviewer

Only

0-5 Points Applicant identifies the goals and objectives but does not tie them to the needs of the community or they are inappropriate for the context of the project.

For Reviewer

Only

b. Identify the tasks and deliverables to be completed in order to accomplish the stated objectives

above. Provide a brief summary of the deliverables contained in your scope of work. Reviewers will examine both the SOW this summary when scoring this section of the application. For example:

A prioritized list of pedestrian safety projects and expected costs.

A GIS shapefile of all existing and proposed bicycle facilities.

A final report with project descriptions that can inform future ATP grant applications.

11

Open Ended (1000 character limit)

Points Mobility Score

6-10 Points

Applicant identifies reasonable tasks to achieve the stated goals and objectives.

For Reviewer

Only

0-5 Points Applicant identifies tasks but they are not appropriate or realistic for completing the project with the proposed budget.

For Reviewer

Only

2. Safety (5 points) a. How will safety and the role of education and enforcement activities be considered in the

development of the plan? Discuss any analysis tools, outreach or other strategies to be considered in the scope of work that will help ensure education and enforcement strategies are considered in the plan development process. Provide a letter of support from School Districts, Law Enforcement agencies or other partnering organizations that are committed to enhancing safety in the project area. The letter should include a description of the support the agency or organization will provide or how the organization will be engaged in the project (such as participate on a technical advisory committee).

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

12

Points Safety Score

3-5 Points Approach is clear and comprehensive. Illustrates data based methodology for identifying and targeting collision “hot spots” and informing educational programs. A letter of support from a supporting agency is provided.

For Reviewer

Only

0-2 Points Approach is feasible but lacks a data driven approach for identifying collision “hot spots” or informing targeted educational programs. No partnership with a supporting agency.

For Reviewer

Only

3. Public Health (5 points)

a. How will public health be considered in the development of the plan? Discuss any analysis tools, outreach or other strategies incorporated into the scope of work that will help ensure health outcomes are considered in plan development. Provide a letter of support from the County Health Department, health care agency, or health focused community based organization. The letter should include a description of the support the partner will provide for the project.

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Public Health Score

3-5 Points Approach is clear and comprehensive and describes tools and strategies that will be used to incorporate health outcomes. A letter of support from public health partner is provided.

For Reviewer

Only

0-2 Points Approach is not clear and/or comprehensive, tools and strategies are not clearly defined. Lacks a letter of support from health partner.

For Reviewer

Only

13

4. Public Participation (5 Points)

a. Describe innovative approaches for outreach that will be included in your project. Include target audiences, outreach strategies and desired outcomes. Include strategies for reaching members of disadvantaged communities and non-English speaking populations if applicable.

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Public Participation Score

4-5 Points

Project includes robust and innovative outreach strategies that will engage identified target audience.

For Reviewer

Only

2-3 Points Project includes sufficient outreach and includes outreach strategies to reach identified target audience.

For Reviewer

Only

0-1 Point Project includes minimal or limited outreach strategies. For Reviewer

Only

14

C. Partnerships and Leveraging (15pts) 1. Cost Effectiveness (5 pts)

a. SCAG is seeking to limit duplication of efforts across the region and provide best practices for many of the project components eligible through the AT-SCP. If selected what existing methodologies/tools/templates will be integrated into your plan (Metro First-Last Mile Strategic Plan, Model Complete Streets Policies, Sub-regional Active Transportation Plans, etc.)? Alternatively, please describe how the plan promotes multijurisdictional collaboration and/or otherwise seeks to leverage and expand the impacts of the project beyond a single municipality.

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Cost Effectiveness Score

3-5 Points Applicant identifies existing methodologies/tools/templates to be included in the plan and clearly describes how they will be incorporated into project. Alternatively, applicant clearly defines method and approach for ensuring project results in multi-jurisdictional impact.

For Reviewer

Only

0-2 Points Project identifies existing methodologies/tools/templates but fails to clearly describe how they will be incorporated into the project. Applicant provides limited or no evidence to support that the project will have multi-jurisdictional impacts.

For Reviewer

Only

2. Public Participation/Leveraging (10 pts)

a. Provide letters of commitment for your plan from a minimum of three (3) other agencies or stakeholder groups that will contribute resources to the project’s success. These letters are in addition to other letters required throughout this application. Each letter should include a brief list of the types of activities that the other jurisdiction or stakeholder group will commit to providing as part of the project. Stakeholder groups can include the following:

i. Youth/Senior Group

15

ii. School District iii. City Agency iv. Councils of Governments v. Transit Agency

vi. Community Based Organization vii. Faith Based Organization

viii. Chamber of Commerce/Business Group ix. Advocacy Group (Social Equity, Health, Environment, etc.)

Points Public Participation Score

5 Points The applicant has provided more than 3 letters of commitment for the project and they clearly outline the types of activities each jurisdiction or stakeholder will undertake to support the project.

For Reviewer Only

3-4 Points

The applicant has provided 3 letters of commitment for the project and they clearly outline the types of activities each jurisdiction or stakeholder will undertake to support the project.

For Reviewer Only

1-2 Points

The applicant has provided less than 3 letters of commitment for the project.

For Reviewer Only

0 Points The applicant has not provided any letters of commitment. For Reviewer Only

b. Each letter should include a brief list of the types of activities that the other jurisdiction or

stakeholder group will commit to providing as part of the project. Stakeholder groups can include the following:

Points Leveraging Score

5 Points Letters of commitment outline exceptional participation by agencies that will inform and support the project, including staff time and other resources.

For Reviewer

Only

3-4 Points Letters of commitment outline sufficient participation by agencies to support and inform the project

For Reviewer

Only

1-2 Points Letters provide only vague commitments to support the project. For Reviewer

Only 0 Points The applicant has not provided any letters of commitment. For

Reviewer Only

16

Attachment 1

Scoring Matrix

17

Project Title:

Reviewer’s Name:

Agency:

Phone Number:

Email:

Scoring Matrix Sub-question Possible Total Received

Question A: Project Need

Mobility – Project Need 1 15

Safety 2 20

Public Health 3 5

Disadvantaged Communities 4 10

Question B: Project Goals, Objectives and Outcomes

Mobility – Project Benefits 1 20

Safety 2 5

Public Health 3 5

Public Participation 4 5

Question C: Partnerships and Leveraging

Cost Effectiveness 1 5

Public Participation / Leveraging 2 10

Final Score

Reviewer’s Notes

Signature: Date:

18

Attachment 2

Letters of Support

19

Appendix A

Disadvantaged Communities Definitions

SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities/CalEnviroScreen 3.0: Census tracts that have been identified by Cal/EPA as Disadvantaged Communities based on the requirements set forth in SB 535, which seeks to identify areas disproportionately burdened by and vulnerable to multiple sources of pollution.

Points CalEnviroScreen 3.0

1 Point 20% through 25% most disadvantaged

2 Points 15% through < 20% most disadvantaged

3 Points 10% through < 15% most disadvantaged

4 Points < 10% most disadvantaged

Environmental Justice Areas: Environmental Justice Areas are reflected in Transportation Analysis Zones that show a higher share of minority population or households in poverty than is seen in the greater region as a whole. These are included as part of SCAG’s Regional Disadvantaged Communities Definition.

Points Environmental Justice Areas

1 Point All census tracts that qualify receive the same score.

Communities of Concern: Communities of Concern are Census Designated Places or city of Los Angeles Community Planning Ares that fall in the upper third for their concentration of minority population households in poverty. The severity of this designation is significant due to the degree of poverty. SCAG’s Regional Disadvantaged Communities Definition.

Points Communities of Concern

4 Points All census tracts that qualify receive the same score.

National School Lunch Program: 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 here. Applicants using this measure must indicate how the project benefits the school students in the project area. Project must be located within two miles of the school(s) represented by this criteria.

Points Free or Reduced Lunches

1 Point ≥ 75% through 80% of students receive free or reduced lunches

2 Points > 80% through 85% of students receive free or reduced lunches

3 Points > 85% through 90% of students receive free or reduced lunches

4 Points > 90% of students receive free or reduced lunches

20

Native American Tribal Lands: Projects located within Federally Recognized Tribal Lands (typically within the boundaries of a Reservation or Rancheria).

Points Native American Tribal Lands

4 Points All census tracts that qualify receive the same score.

Median Household Income: Median Household Income (MHI) is less than 80% of the statewide median based on the most current Census Tract (ID 140) level data from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (<$51,026). Communities with a population less than 15,000 may use data at the Census Block Group (ID 150) level. Unincorporated communities may use data at the Census Place (ID 160) level.

Points Median Household Income (MHI) Criteria – MHI = $51,026

1 Point 75% through < 80% of MHI $47,836.50 through $51,025.59

2 Points 70% through < 75% of MHI $44,646.49 through $47,835.99

3 Points 65% through < 70% of MHI $41,458.30 through $44,646.48

4 Points < 65% of MHI less than $41,458.30