Matthew Yoscott, deputy director for SB 1 programming at the California Transportation Commission, told the Interagency Transportation Equity Advisory Subcommittee on Nov. 14 that EAC member evaluations were directly incorporated into project ratings and influenced staff recommendations.

Yoscott outlined the scale of the SB 1 competitive programs to frame that influence: the Local Partnership competitive program has about $200 million a year (40% competitive), the Solutions for Congested Corridors program is roughly $250 million a year, and the Trade Corridor Enhancement program is about $400 million a year. "EAC member evaluations were directly incorporated into the overall ratings for the SB‑1 projects, which ultimately informed the final staff recommendations," he said.

Why it matters: EAC input fed into scoring that guided hundreds of millions in funding decisions. Yoscott said seven EAC members participated in cycle 4 evaluations, received an orientation and evaluation templates, and were compensated for their time. He said some projects that received high EAC ratings were elevated to staff recommendations and some that were rated poorly by EAC reviewers were removed from recommended lists.

Yoscott also summarized operational issues flagged by EAC reviewers and program managers: difficulty accessing application materials through file‑sharing systems, the need for a technology dry run for evaluators, and a proposal to require SB 1 application PDFs to be remediated for ADA accessibility. "We are going to move forward with requiring all applications to be remediated," he said, describing this as a planned program change to make evaluator access more equitable.

Public comment and member reactions underlined a demand for transparency. Jeanne Wardwaller of Climate Plan asked that the EAC feedback and the process showing how it changed award outcomes be made public so community advocates can follow how evaluations affect local projects. Several members said they were frustrated at first but appreciated understanding how their ratings were used and asked staff to document and publish more specifics about the feedback loop between EAC reviews and final recommendations.

Votes at a glance: The committee adopted the Aug. 18, 2025 meeting minutes (motion by Member Michelle Rousey; second not explicitly recorded by name on the transcript). The chair called the motion passed after recorded 'Aye' responses from Michelle Rousey, Bolani Vasquez and Chair Randy Torres Van Vleck.

Next steps: Staff said EAC evaluations will continue to be integrated and that the program managers plan to streamline access to applications, require ADA remediation of application materials, and provide more precise guidance and examples to evaluators in future cycles. The subcommittee will reconvene in early 2026 to follow up on the statewide community engagement playbook and implementation items.