California Transportation Commission approves multiple allocations, amendments and resolutions of necessity in Merced meeting

The California Transportation Commission on Oct. 2025 in Merced voted to approve two separate resolutions of necessity related to a State Route 1 bridge rehabilitation project in Los Angeles County and approved a wide slate of allocations, environmental approvals and schedule amendments for state and locally administered transportation projects.

The commission adopted resolutions of necessity for two parcels affected by the SR‑1 bridge widening project — a 4.25‑acre Baum Wetlands parcel (temporary construction and access easements) and a 7.3‑acre Los Cerritos Wetlands parcel (temporary construction easement). Commission staff reported Caltrans met the statutory requirements; motions to approve the resolutions passed on voice votes after commissioners Cruz and Eager moved and seconded the Baum Wetlands resolution and Commissioner Tiffany and Commissioner Bradshaw moved and seconded the Los Cerritos Wetlands resolution.

Why it matters: resolutions of necessity are a formal step under eminent domain law that allow a public agency to establish the public interest and necessity for taking property and are prerequisites before acquisition under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Government Code offer requirements.

The meeting also cleared a large number of project approvals and funding actions across programs. Actions taken included acceptance of environmental documents and future funding consideration for several Caltrans-led projects — among them the Albion River Bridge project (Mendocino County), I Street Bridge replacement (Sacramento/West Sacramento), Scenic Route 68 corridor improvements (Monterey County), State Route 39 San Gabriel Canyon Road reopening (Los Angeles County) and the Seventh Street bridge replacement (Stanislaus County). All these items were moved and seconded on the record and approved by voice vote.

The commission approved an allocation of $50,935,000 for the Excelsior Expressway project in Fresno and Kings Counties, an increase of roughly $14 million (about 43.1%) over the originally programmed amount; local agencies are contributing about $15,273,000 to cover part of the increase. The motion to allocate these funds passed on a voice vote after Commissioner Eager moved and Vice Chair Falcone seconded.

Commissioners approved grouped allocations and supplemental funding requests across the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOP), local partnership and transit programs, including multiple SHOP initial and supplemental allocations, preconstruction and construction allocations, and time-extension amendments. Examples recorded on the meeting transcript include: tabs 78–92 (SHOP projects with allocations totaling roughly $1.27 billion), tabs 93–102 (SHOP supplemental allocations), tab 103 (additional Local Partnership program funds for State Route 132 West), and many others; where motions and seconders were recorded the meeting minutes show those names and the actions were approved by voice vote.

Several time-extension and scope-amendment requests were approved, including trade-corridor and local partnership project deadline amendments to address contractor performance issues, utility coordination and post‑pandemic impacts. In one notable item, a multifunded Interstate/express-lanes project in San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties received an amended completion-period extension after the prime contractor was removed for poor performance; the commission’s action excluded STIP funds for that amendment because the STIP balance for that project was already fully expended.

The commission received an informational report from Caltrans on quarterly project delivery performance for fiscal year 2024–25 and the first quarter of 2025–26 and acknowledged continuous-improvement initiatives (see separate article). The meeting included public comment on several projects; for example, Burlingame elected officials urged the commission to support a long‑planned El Camino Real (Highway 82) corridor safety and preservation project.

The meeting concluded with an adjournment in memory of people who lost their lives on State Route 41 south between Fresno and Kings County.

Votes at a glance (selected actions recorded in the meeting transcript): - Item 70 (Baum Wetlands RON): Motion by Commissioner Cruz, second by Commissioner Eager — approved (voice vote). - Item 70 (Los Cerritos Wetlands RON): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, second by Commissioner Bradshaw — approved (voice vote). - Item 71 (Albion River Bridge environmental acceptance): Moved by Commissioner Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Crews — approved (voice vote). - Item 72 (I Street Bridge environmental acceptance): Moved by Commissioner Crews, seconded by Commissioner Eager — approved (voice vote). - Item 73 (Scenic Route 68 environmental acceptance): Moved by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Cruz — approved (voice vote). - Item 74 (SR‑39 San Gabriel Canyon reopening): Moved by Commissioner Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Tiffany — approved (voice vote). - Item 75 (Seventh Street Bridge): Moved by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Cruz — approved (voice vote). - Item 77 (Excelsior Expressway allocation $50,935,000): Motion by Commissioner Eager, second by Vice Chair Falcone — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 78–92 (SHOP allocations and initial allocations >20%): Motion by Commissioner Bradshaw, second by Commissioner Cruz — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 93–102 (SHOP supplemental allocations): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw — approved (voice vote). - Tab 103 (SR‑132 West ROW supplemental $4,567,000): Motion by Commissioner Bradshaw, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 104–105 (Transit & Intercity supplemental allocations): Motion by Commissioner Cruz, seconded by Commissioner Tiffany — approved (voice vote). - Tab 107 (ATP MPO amendment East Bay Greenway segmentation): Motion by Vice Chair Falcone, seconded by Commissioner Eager — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 108–109 (East Bay Greenway baseline amendment and SCC grama amendment): Motion by Commissioner Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Tiffany — approved (voice vote). - Tab 110 (Local Partnership formula update and programming): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Eager — approved (voice vote). - Tab 111 (Oakland Town Veil safety scope amendment): Motion by Vice Chair Falcone, seconded by Commissioner Cruz — approved (voice vote). - Tab 112 (Proposition 1A program amendment — Capital Corridor siting): Motion by Commissioner Gardino, seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw — approved (voice vote). - Tab 113 (RMRA subsequent eligibility report): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 114–118 (Federal allocation and STIP allocations): Motion by Commissioner Cruz, seconded by Commissioner Eager — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 119–121 (SHOP construction, preconstruction and Albion River ROW > $10M): Motion by Commissioner Bradshaw, seconded by Commissioner Eager — approved (voice vote). - Tab 122 (Local ATIP allocations): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Crews — approved (voice vote). - Tab 123 (Bascom Complete Streets Local Partnership allocation): Motion by Commissioner Cardino, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone — approved (voice vote). - Tab 124 (LTAP adaptation pump‑station planning advance allocation): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 125–126 (Active Transportation allocations): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 127–128 (Transit & intercity rail capital allocations): Motion by Commissioner Gardino, seconded by Vice Chair Falcone — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 129–139 (Time‑extension requests across multiple programs): Motion by Commissioner Bridal, seconded by Commissioner Tiffany — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 140–143 (SHOP guideline time‑extension amendments): Motion by Commissioner Eager, seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw — approved (voice vote). - Tabs 144–145 (Trade Corridor time‑extension amendments): Motion by Commissioner Tiffany, seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw — approved (voice vote). The commission noted STIP funds were excluded from the tab 145 action because STIP funds for that project were fully expended. - Tabs 146–147 (AT program time extensions related to 2024–25 Southern California fires relief): Motion by Commissioner Eager, seconded by Commissioner Cruz — approved (voice vote).

The transcript did not record a roll‑call tally for most motions; actions were approved by voice vote unless otherwise noted. The commission recorded staff recommendations for all items and, where present, public comments were included in the record.