Southern California Association of Governments

2018 Sustainable Communities Program Quick Build Demonstrations Application

Agency Name:

Project Name:

2

Project Information A. General Information

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:

Sub region or COG County:

Requested Amount: Local Match:

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 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.

3

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

2. SCAG requires that each jurisdiction submit a supporting resolution from the elected body or a letter

of intent in support of the project from the appropriate executive officer prior to receiving funding.

a. Is your agency willing to adopt/provide documentation of support?

Yes No

3. 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:

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

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.

4

Application: Quick Builds Demonstrations

A. Project Need (Total 50 points)

1. Mobility – Need (15 points)

a. Does your community currently have a bicycle, pedestrian, complete streets, 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 Complete Streets Plan

Pedestrian Master Plan

Safe Routes to School Master Plan

Active Transportation Plan Other Planning Document

*If your plan is not currently available via hyperlink, please submit a PDF of the document with

your application.

i. If yes, describe how the project will support implementation and/or outreach goals of the

plan(s). If no, describe how this project will continue to build local capacity to facilitate the

development of a plan in the future.

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

5

Points Mobility – Need Score

5 Points Applicant currently has a bicycle, pedestrian, mobility plan, or Safe Routes to School Plan and demonstrates a clear linkage between the proposed project and plan.

For Reviewer

Only

2-4 Points Applicant currently has some form of bicycle, pedestrian or Safe Routes to School Plan and the applicant demonstrates there is at least some connection between the proposed project and the plan. Alternatively, the applicant describes how this project will reasonably lead to the development of a plan in the future.

For Reviewer

Only

0-1 Point Applicant has no plans, and does not clearly articulate how the project will lead to future plan development.

For Reviewer

Only

b. Describe how the project will support greater rates of walking and biking in the project corridor?

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)

6

Points Mobility – Need Score

3-5 Points Applicant provides clear examples of current or future policies that will support greater rates of walking and biking. Describes a current or future policy environment where an active transportation project 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 project will have limited impact.

For Reviewer

Only

c. Describe the state of active transportation infrastructure in the project corridor. Are there

existing studies or plans completed in the project corridor that would position the project for

success? What bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure/non-infrastructure programs are in place?

What infrastructure gaps exist that you would hope to address with the project? (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 – Need Score

3-5 Points

Applicant presents a clear need for active transportation infrastructure improvements. Applicant demonstrates how the proposed project will address gaps in infrastructure and identifies existing studies and/or plans in the project corridor that position the proposed project for success.

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 or identify existing studies in the project corridor.

For Reviewer

Only

7

2. Safety (20 points) a. For quick builds, identify the rate of bicycle or pedestrian collisions within the project area by

creating a weighted average. Select 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.

Bicycle Rate (Bicycle Projects Only):

Pedestrian Rate (Pedestrian Projects Only):

Combined Rate (For Projects Involving Bicycles and Pedestrians):

Points Census Tract Score Score

15 Points

0.0021 or greater bicycle, or For

Reviewer

Only 0.0021 or greater pedestrian, or

0.0042 or greater combined bike/ped.

12 Points

0.0015-0.0021 bicycle, or For

Reviewer

Only

0.0011-0.0021 pedestrian, or

0.0022-0.0042 combined bike/ped.

7 Points

0.0004-0.0015 bicycle, or For

Reviewer

Only

0.0004-0.0011 pedestrian, or

0.0010-0.0022 combined bike/ped.

3 Points

0.0001-0.0004 bicycle, or For

Reviewer

Only

0.0001-0.0004 pedestrian, or

0.0001-0.0010 combined bike/ped.

0 Points 0.000

b. Describe any additional factors that impact real or perceived safety in the project corridor (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 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

quick builds use the census tract 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.

Healthy Places Index Score:

Points Public Health Score

5 Points Score is below 25. For Reviewer

Only

3 Points Score is less than 50 but more than 25. For Reviewer

Only

1 Points Score is 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.

9

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:

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)

10

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

B. Project Goals, Objectives and Outcomes (Total 40 points)

1. Mobility – 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:

A goal of this project is to address a gap in active transportation infrastructure

within the project corridor identified as high priority in the most recent mobility or

active transportation plan.

A goal of this project is to increase rates of walking and bicycling in the project

corridor by XX%.

A goal of this project is to receive public feedback to inform the final project design

and receive XX number of surveys from local residents.

Open Ended (1000 character limit)

Points Mobility – Benefits Score

3-5

Points

Applicant identifies goals and objectives that meet the needs of the

community that are achievable. For

Reviewer Only

11

0-2

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. The applicant shall provide a scope of work, schedule and budget for the proposed project using

the provided templates. These materials will serve as the primary means for assigning points for

this sub-section. SCAG anticipates the following activities will be included and further described

in the scope of work: Advisory committee formation, outreach, installation, and

survey/documentation. Please provide below any supplemental information to elaborate on

your approach and why you think it will be successful.

Open Ended (1000 character limit)

Points Mobility – Feasibility Score

6-10

Points

Applicant identifies specific and 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 project? 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 project 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 corridor. The letter should include a description of the support

12

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)

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 project? Discuss any analysis

tools, outreach or other strategies incorporated into the scope of work that will help ensure

health outcomes are considered in project 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.

13

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

4. Public Participation & Community Outreach (5 Points)

a. Describe innovative approaches for outreach and public feedback that will be included in your

project. How will the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) be formed? How will the survey and

documentation tools be designed and what methodologies will be used? How will the feedback

be utilized to build support for project implementation? Include target audiences, outreach

strategies and desired outcomes. Include strategies for reaching members of disadvantaged

communities and non-English speaking populations.

14

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Public Participation Score

6-10 Points

Applicant clearly describes the formation of a CAC, and provides specific examples of how surveys and documentation will be utilized. Includes comprehensive and innovative outreach strategies that will engage identified target audiences.

For Reviewer

Only

2-5 Points Applicant does not define how the CAC will be utilized during the project planning phase, and includes sufficient outreach and includes outreach strategies to reach identified target audiences.

For Reviewer

Only

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

Only

C. Partnerships and Leveraging (15pts)

1. Cost Effectiveness (5 pts.)

a. By design, quick builds are relatively low investment projects and are often altered during

the interim phases of deployment. Thus, they are built using more versatile materials that

allow such design modifications. Please discuss how your agency’s traffic engineering team

has been involved in the scoping and development of this project and explain how the

materials and procedures for implementing the quick build project differ or have been

modified to reflect that this is a short-term, rather than permanent, improvement? Please

provide any additional information that would be valuable to assess the deliverability of a

low-cost, quick-build project in your community.

15

Open Ended (1500 character limit)

Points Cost Effectiveness Score

3-5 Points Applicant identifies existing programs/tools/policies to be included in the project and clearly describes how they will be incorporated into project. Applicant clearly describes inter-departmental collaboration and provides clear benefits to the demonstration project.

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 inter-departmental collaboration and provides little or no evidence of clear benefits to the demonstration project.

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 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.)

16

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. No match is required to receive AT-SCP funding, however additional points will be provided for

agencies that provide a cash match for demonstration projects.

i. Will your agency provide a cash match? Yes No

ii. How much match will be provided and what percentage of the project does this represent?

iii. Please describe the source of the cash match (i.e. General Fund, SB1, Local Return, etc).

Points % of Project Cost Pledged as Match to the project. Score

5 Points 20% or more of total project cost For

Reviewer

Only

4 Points 15% to 19.9% of total project cost For

Reviewer

Only

3 Points 11.5% to 14.9% of total project cost For

Reviewerr

Only

2 Point 1% to 11.4% of total project cost For

Reviewer

Only

0 Points No match For

Reviewer

Only

17

Attachment 1

Scoring Matrix

18

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:

19

Attachment 2

Letters of Support

20

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.

21

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

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