04/08/2013 - Sonoma County Transportation Authority

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

AGENDA PACKET

Monday, April 8, 2013 2:30 p.m.

Sonoma County

Permit & Resource Management Department

2550 Ventura Avenue

Santa Rosa, California

1

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA April 8, 2013 – 2:30 p.m. Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department

Planning Commission Hearing Room – 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) 2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda 3. Consent Calendar A. SCTA Consent 3.1. Hwy 101 – North Cooperative Agreement Amendments 4-2105-A2 and 4-2320-A3 for Right-of-Way Capital and Support Services (ACTION)* 3.2. Hwy 101 – Wilfred Cooperative Agreement Amendment 4-2085-A2 for Right-of-Way Capital and Support Services (ACTION)* 3.3. Measure M – Bicycle Safety and Education appropriations request (ACTION)* B. RCPA Consent 3.4. EUC – Amendment No. 14 with BKi for services related to BayREN activities (ACTION)* C. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 3.5. Admin – contract extension for audit services with Pisenti & Brinker (ACTION)* 3.6. Minutes of the March 11, 2013 meeting (ACTION)* 4. Regular Calendar A. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 4.1. SCTA/RCPA Administration 4.1.1. Executive Committee Appointment (ACTION)* B. SCTA 4.2. SCTA Planning 4.2.1. Planning – ABAG/MTC presentation on Plan Bay Area (ACTION)* 4.2.2. Planning – Priority Development Area Investment & Growth Strategy (ACTION)* 4.2.3. Transit – presentation from Santa Rosa & Petaluma transit operators (REPORT) 4.3. SCTA Projects and Programming 4.3.1. Transit – FY13/14 Coordinated Claim proposal (ACTION)* 4.3.2. Active Transportation – FY13/14 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA3) funding proposal (ACTION)* 4.3.3. MTC – proposed projects for Priority Conservation Area (ACTION)* 4.3.4. Highways – Update on State Highway projects (REPORT) C. RCPA 4.4. RCPA Planning

2

4.5.

4.4.1. Presentation on Energy Independence Program “Financing Marketplace” (REPORT)* 4.4.2. Sonoma Clean Power – update on implementation plan (REPORT) RCPA Projects and Programs 4.5.1. BayREN – contracts to implement Bay Area Regional Energy Network programs (ACTION)* • Agreement between ABAG and RCPA • Agreement between RCPA and BKi for Pay As You Save program 4.5.2. GRIP – Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Plan (ACTION)* • Overall scope of work and budget – staff, consultant • Update on individual meetings with Directors and jurisdiction staff • Status of agreements with cities • Meeting with BAAQMD representatives and staff on April 3 • Next steps for follow up: May kick-off, city contract approval, CEQA 4.5.3. RCPA activities report (REPORT)*

5. Reports and Announcements 5.1. SMART report 5.2. MTC report* 5.3. Executive Committee report 5.4. Advisory Committee agendas* 5.5. SCTA/RCPA staff report 5.6. Announcements 6. Adjourn *Materials attached.

The next SCTA/RCPA meetings will be held May 13, 2013 Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA/RCPA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the SCTA/RCPA after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the SCTA/RCPA office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system. TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS: Please consider carpooling or taking transit to this meeting. For more information check www.511.org, www.srcity.org/citybus, www.sctransit.com or www.wegorideshare.com/sonoma/

3

Staff Report

To:

Sonoma County Transportation Authority

From:

James Cameron

Item:

3.1 – Highway 101 North Cooperative Agreement Amendments 4-2105-A2 and 4-2320-A3 for Right-of-Way Capital and Support Services

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall SCTA execute the following two Cooperative Agreement Amendments for the Highway 101 North Project: (1) Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 with Caltrans, in order to transfer an equal amount of right of way capital to support services for the HOV, Soundwall, and Landscape phases; and (2) Amendment No. 4 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2320 with Caltrans, in order to transfer and equal amount of right of way capital to support services for the Airport phase? Background: On September 19, 2007, SCTA entered into Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 with Caltrans to provide $6,020,000 for right-of-way Capital and $900,000 for associated support services for the entire Highway 101 North project, form Steele Lane to Windsor River Road. The project included HOV Lanes, a collector-distributor between Airport Boulevard and Fulton Road, and soundwalls in Windsor. The project did not include the replacement of the Airport Boulevard overcrossing. After the passage of State Proposition 1B, SCTA nominated the North HOV lane project (North-A) for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding. The North-A project was well suited to receive this competitive funding due to its ability to relieve congestion and its ability to be delivered quickly, since there was no real property that was needed to be acquired to complete the HOV lanes. To be able to nominate the HOV lane project for this funding, the North project needed to be divided into phases. Initially, SCTA envisioned the North project would be split into four phases: the HOV Lane project, a project to correct the mainline operational problems caused by the short distance between the Airport Boulevard and Fulton Road interchanges, a project to construct soundwalls in Windsor, and a follow-up landscaping project. SCTA nominated and received $68,360,000 in CMIA construction funding for the HOV project as part of the initial CMIA programming action. SCTA continued to work on a strategy to deliver the remaining portions of the North project, which included an agreement with the County to combine the Airport Boulevard overcrossing project with the operational improvement project between Airport Boulevard and Fulton Road. Ultimately, it was agreed to close the Fulton Road Intersection, in lieu of constructing an expensive collector distributor to eliminate mainline weaving which causes congestion on Highway 101 due to the short distance between Airport Boulevard and Fulton Road.

4

To get started on the right-of-way phase of the new Airport Boulevard overcrossing and interchange project, Caltrans required SCTA enter into a separate cooperative agreement for the Airport Boulevard improvements. On June 23, 2010, SCTA entered into Cooperative Agreement 4-2320 with Caltrans to provide $4,588,000 for right-of-way capital and $550,000 for associated support services for the Airport Boulevard project. To account for the Airport Boulevard scope being removed from Cooperative Agreement 4-2105, SCTA and Caltrans entered into Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 on February 11, 2011. Coop 4-2105-A1 removed the Airport Boulevard scope and reduced budgets to $730,000 for right of way capital and $484,000 associated support services for the remaining scope (HOV lanes, soundwalls, and follow-up landscaping). Ultimately, SCTA nominated and received $22,242,000 in construction funding for a combined Airport Boulevard and Windsor Soundwall project in the first round of programming of CMIA savings. Although the scope was now combined into one project for delivery, Caltrans agreed to leave the Soundwall scope on Cooperative Agreement 4-2105, whereas the Airport scope remained on Cooperative Agreement 4-2320. Coop 4-2320 has since been amended three times to account for unanticipated changes in scope, budget, and to split the support budget between SCTA and Caltrans to account for who will perform the work needed for the Airport Boulevard Improvements. Reflecting these amendments, Coop 4-2320 currently provides $6,181,000 for right-of-way capital and $700,000 for support services. SCTA is assigned $100,000 of the $700,000 support budget for acquisition services, including legal support for eminent domain proceedings. SCTA and Caltrans staff recently met to discuss the current status of budgets of both Cooperative Agreements 4-2105 and 4-2320. On Cooperative Agreement 4-2105, Caltrans reported an estimated savings of $200,000 for right-of-way capital. However, Caltrans has estimated an equal deficit of $200,000 in support services and has requested that the surplus capital budget be moved to the support budget to match the anticipated final expenditures. On Cooperative Agreement 4-2320, Caltrans reported an estimated savings of $350,000 in right-of-way capital and deficit of $280,000 in the Caltrans portion of the right-of-way support budget. SCTA has also reviewed the status of its support budget and has determined that an additional $70,000 is needed to complete right of way acquisition and legal services due to the prolonged negotiations needed to settle various acquisitions as part of the eminent domain proceedings. Therefore, the $350,000 surplus capital budget is sufficient to cover the anticipated over-runs in Caltrans and SCTA support expenditures. Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 is fully funded with Measure M - Highway 101 Program funds. Right-of way-capital on Coop 4-2320 is fully funded with Measure M - Highway 101 Program funds. The support budget on Coop 4-2320 is split funded with Measure M - Highway 101 Program funds, Measure M - LSP Program funds, and County funds per Cooperative Agreement SCTA10015 between SCTA and the County. Since capital savings are 100% Measure M - 101 Program funds, it is proposed to backfill the support deficit with Measure M - Program funds. This will change the pro-rata share of each fund source in Coop SCTA10015, but will not affect the Measure M - LSP or County funds committed to the project. Caltrans is working on reconciling PS&E expenditures on the North project. Although staff has previously amended Coop SCTA10015 to address a potential over-run in PS&E, Caltrans has not provided the final documentation necessary to amend the PS&E coop, which could result in additional changes to Coop SCTA10015. Therefore, staff proposes to wait to address any changes on Coop SCTA10015, until cost issues on other development phases, such as PS&E are determined by Caltrans and verified by SCTA staff. Policy Impacts: None

5

Fiscal Impacts: The capital budgets of both Cooperative Agreements 4-2105 and 4-2320 are fully funded with Measure M - Highway 101 funds. Shifting an equal amount of Measure M - 101 funding from capital to support on Cooperative Agreements 4-2105 and 4-2320 will result in no net fiscal impact to Measure M. Staff Recommendations: 1) Staff recommends that the Board authorize for the Chair to execute the attached Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 decreasing the budget for right-of-way capital by 200,000 and increasing the amount for support services by $200,000, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel. 2) Staff recommends that the Board authorize for the Chair to execute the attached Amendment No. 4 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2320 decreasing the budget for right-of-way capital by $330,000 and increasing the budgets for right of way support services by $280,000 for Caltrans and $70,000 for SCTA, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel.

6

Resolution No. 2013-009 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 8, 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT 2 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4-2105 WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY CAPITAL AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE HOV, SOUNDWALL, AND LANDSCAPE PHASES OF THE HIGHWAY 101 NORTH PROJECT WHEREAS, SCTA is authorized to provide Measure M funds for project development and construction of certain transportation projects though the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and, WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreements No. 4-2105 and No. 4-2105-A1 were previously executed with Caltrans for right of way capital and associated support services, with current budgets of $730,000 of Measure M - 101 Program funds for Caltrans on right-way capital and $484,000 of Measure M - 101 Program funds on support services; and WHEREAS, Caltrans anticipates that the final right-of-way capital expenditures on Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 will total $530,000; and, WHEREAS, Caltrans anticipates that their final support expenditures on Cooperative Agreement 4 2105 will total $684,000; and, WHEREAS, anticipated savings in capital budget of $200,000 of off-sets the anticipated over-run in support budget of $200,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority authorizes the chair to execute Amendment 2 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2105 with the California Department of Transportation, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was moved by Director approved by the following vote: Director Allen Director Carlstrom Director Chambers Director Gallian Director Gurney Director Harris Ayes:

, seconded by Director

, and

Director Landman

Director Mackenzie

Director McGuire

Director Rabbitt

Director Russell

Director Zane

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

SO ORDERED I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on April 8, 2013. ______________________________________ Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority 7

04-Son-101 KP 34.9/47.2 (PM 21.7/29.3)

Widen Highway and include HOV Lanes

4276-0A1000 (North)

District Agreement No. 4-2105-A2

DRAFT 3-13-13 (AH)

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON ______________________________, 2013, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as “STATE,” and the SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public corporation, referred to herein as “SCTA.” RECITALS 1.

STATE and SCTA entered into an Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2105) on September 19, 2007, defining the terms and conditions under which they were to cooperate on a highway improvement project in Sonoma County. The project, referred to herein as “PROJECT,” consists of widening United States Route 101 (US 101) from four lanes to six lanes by adding one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction and includes related modifications to and replacement of structures and other highway facility improvements from Steele Lane in Santa Rosa to Windsor River Road in Windsor. The terms and conditions of said Agreement (District Agreement 42105) encompassed all of the right of way activities needed for completion of PROJECT, referred to herein as “PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY.”

2.

The parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement (District Agreement No. 42105-A1) on February 11, 2011, to reflect the latest changes to the PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY cost and to update the indemnity articles to conform to the latest approved versions.

3.

The parties now wish to enter into Amendment No. 2 to Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2105-A2) to transfer $200,000 from PROJECT Right of Way Capital to Right of Way Support, and to decrease PS&E Surveys by $77,000 and increase Right of Way Engineering by $77,000. There is no net change to the total estimated Right of Way cost for PROJECT as a result of these adjustments.

IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 1.

Exhibit A of Agreement 4-2105, as amended under Amendment No. 1, is hereby replaced in its entirety with Revised Exhibit A, dated March 13, 2013, attached to and made a part of this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement. Any reference to Exhibit A in the original Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2105) is deemed to be a reference to Revised Exhibit A, dated March 13, 2013.

2. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement (District Agreement No. 42105), as amended under Amendment No. 1, shall remain in full force and effect.

1 8


3.

This Amendment No. 2 to Agreement is hereby deemed to be a part of the original Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2105).

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation

SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

MALCOLM DOUGHERTY Director

By:______________________________________ Deputy District Director

By:______________________________________ Mike McGuire, Chair

Approved as to form and procedure:

_________________________________________ Attorney Department of Transportation

Attest:___________________________________

Certified as to funds:

Approved as to form:

_________________________________________ District Budget Manager

_________________________________________ Attorney

Certified as to financial terms and policies:

_________________________________________ Accounting Administrator

2 9


EXHIBIT A (Revised March 13, 2013) ESTIMATE OF COSTS

Agency Responsible for Performance

Funded by

MEASURE M

$370,000

STATE

SCTA

$370,000

PS&E Surveys 0A1001

$148,000

STATE

SCTA

$148,000

Right of Way Engineering 0A1002

$166,000

STATE

SCTA

$166,000

Right of Way Capital 0A1009

$530,000

STATE

SCTA

$530,000

ESTIMATED TOTALS

$1,214,000

PERFORMANCE COMMITMENTS

ESTIMATED COST

Right of Way Support 0A1002

Funding Estimate

SCTA

$1,214,000

3 10

Resolution No. 2013-010 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 8, 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT 4 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4-2320 WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY CAPITAL AND ASSOCIATED SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE AIRPORT BOULEVARD OVERCROSSING AND INTERCHANGE PHASE OF THE HIGHWAY 101 NORTH PROJECT WHEREAS, SCTA is authorized to provide Measure M funds for project development and construction of certain transportation projects though the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and; WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreement No. 4-2320, 4-2320-A1, 4-2320-A2, and 4-2320-A3 were previously executed with Caltrans for right of way capital and associated support services, with current budgets of $6,181,000 of Measure M - 101 Program funds for Caltrans on right-of-way capital, $600,000 of local funds for Caltrans on associated support services, and $100,000 of local funds for SCTA on associated support services; WHEREAS, Caltrans anticipates that the final right-of-way capital expenditures on Coop 4-2320 will total $5,831,000; and, WHEREAS, Caltrans anticipates that their final support expenditures on Coop 4-2320 will total $880,000; and, WHEREAS, SCTA anticipates that their final support expenditures on Coop 4-2320 will total $170,000; and, WHEREAS, anticipated savings in capital budget of $350,000 of off-sets the total anticipated over-runs in support budgets of $350,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority authorizes the chair to execute Amendment 4 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2320 with the California Department of Transportation, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was moved by Director approved by the following vote: Director Allen Director Carlstrom Director Chambers Director Gallian Director Gurney Director Harris Ayes:


,and

Director Landman

Director Mackenzie

Director McGuire

Director Rabbitt

Director Russell

Director Zane

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

SO ORDERED I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on April 8, 2013.

______________________________________ Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority

11

04-SON-101-25.9/26.3 EA: 3A230 District Agreement 04-2320-A4

DRAFT 3-13-13 (AH)

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 4 to Agreement (AMENDMENT), entered into, and effective on ______________________________, 2013, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and Sonoma County Transportation Authority, a public corporation, referred to as SCTA. RECITALS 1.

CALTRANS and SCTA, collectively referred to as PARTNERS, entered into Agreement No. 04-2320 (AGREEMENT) on July 23, 2010, defining the terms and conditions for cooperating on the Right of Way (R/W) phase of a highway improvement project (PROJECT) consisting of (a) reconstruction of the Airport Boulevard Interchange, and (b) implementation of improvements to the traffic operations on US 101 between Airport Boulevard and Fulton Road, in Sonoma County.

2.

PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 1 to AGREEMENT on July 19, 2011, to (a) update the funding plan by revising the FUNDING SUMMARY, (b) identify those reimbursable tasks to be performed by SCTA by revising the SCOPE SUMMARY, and (c) identify the dollar amounts PARTNERS would spend for the R/W phase of PROJECT by adding a SPENDING SUMMARY.

3.

PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 2 to AGREEMENT on October 13, 2011, to revise the FUNDING SUMMARY and SPENDING SUMMARY to show the changes to the R/W Support and Capital dollar amounts.

4.

PARTNERS entered into Amendment No. 3 to AGREEMENT on May 7, 2012, to (a) revise the FUNDING SUMMARY and SPENDING SUMMARY to show the latest changes to the R/W Support and Capital dollar amounts, and (b) revise the OBLIGATION COMPLETION date of PROJECT to December 31, 2013, as the original OBLIGATION COMPLETION date of December 31, 2011, as set forth in AGREEMENT, was past.

5.

PARTNERS now wish to enter into Amendment No. 4 to AGREEMENT to transfer $350,000 from PROJECT Right of Way Capital to Right of Way Support. There is no net change to the total estimated Right of Way cost for PROJECT as a result of this transfer of funds.

PACT Version 10.1

1 of 4 12

District Agreement 04-2320-A4

IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 6.

The attached FUNDING SUMMARY A-4, dated 3/13/2013, will replace the FUNDING SUMMARY A-3, dated 3/1/2012, of AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendment No. 3, in its entirety.

7.

The attached SPENDING SUMMARY A-4, dated 3/13/2013, will replace the SPENDING SUMMARY A-3, dated 3/1/2012, of AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendment No. 3, in its entirety.

8.

All other terms and conditions of AGREEMENT, as amended under Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3, shall remain in full force and effect.

9.

AMENDMENT is deemed to be included in, and made a part of, AGREEMENT.

CONTACT INFORMATION The information provided below indicates the primary contact data for each PARTNER to this agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. These changes do not require an amendment to this agreement. The primary agreement contact person for CALTRANS is:

Eric Schen, Project Manager

111 Grand Avenue

Oakland, California 94612

Office Phone: (510) 286-4785

Mobile Phone: (510) 715-8212

Email: [email protected]

The primary agreement contact person for SCTA is:

James Cameron, Deputy Director Projects and Programming

490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206

Santa Rosa, California 95401

Office Phone: (707) 565-5377

Email: [email protected]

PACT Version 10.1

2 of 4

13


SIGNATURES PARTNERS declare that: 1. Each PARTNER is an authorized legal entity under California state law. 2. Each PARTNER has the authority to enter into AMENDMENT. 3. The people signing AMENDMENT have the authority to do so on behalf of their public agencies.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


By:

By:______________________________ Mike McGuire Chair

Helena (Lenka) Culik-Caro Deputy District Director - Design

CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS:

Attest:____________________________ Suzanne Smith Executive Director

By: Kevin M. Strough District Budget Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE

By:______________________________ Kathy Larocque Attorney

PACT Version 10.1

3 of 4

14


Funding Source

Funding Partner

Fund Type

R/W Capital

R/W Support

Subtotal Support

Subtotal Capital

Subtotal Funds Type

FUNDING SUMMARY A-4 (3/13/2013)

LOCAL

SCTA

Local

$5,831,000

$1,050,000

$1,050,000

$5,831,000

$6,881,000

Subtotals by Component

$5,831,000

$1,050,000

$1,050,000

$5,831,000

$6,881,000

SPENDING SUMMARY A-4 (3/13/2013) Right of Way Capital

Description

R/W Capital

Work Partner assigned by Scope Summary

SCTA Local Funds

CALTRANS

$5,831,000

Right of Way Support Work Partner assigned by Scope Summary

SCTA Local Funds

R/W - 195, 200, 220, 225, 245, 255, 300, 999

CALTRANS

$880,000

R/W - 195, 200, 220, 225, 245, 255, 300, 999

SCTA

$170,000

CALTRANS/SCTA

$1,050,000

Description

TOTALS

PACT Version 10.1

4 of 4

15

Staff Report

To:


From:

Seana Gause

Item:

3.2 – Highway 101 Wilfred Cooperative Agreement Amendment 4-2085-A2 for Right-of-Way Capital and Support Services

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall SCTA execute Cooperative Agreement Amendment No. 1 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2085 with Caltrans for the Highway 101 Wilfred Project, in order to update the final anticipated budgets for rightof-way capital and support services? Background: On March 27, 2007, SCTA entered into Cooperative Agreement 4-2085 with Caltrans to provide $5,587,000 for right-of-way Capital and $840,000 for right-of-way support services for the Highway 101 Wilfred project, from Rohnert Park Expressway to Santa Rosa Avenue. Capital funding was proportioned by $2,300,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds and $3,287,000 in Measure M - 101 Program Funds. Support funding was 100% STIP-RIP funds. On October, 31, 2008, SCTA and Caltrans executed Amendment No. 1 to Coop 4-2085 to update the budget of Right-of-Way capital in order to realize anticipated savings of $341,000. Measure M - 101 funds realized 100% of the capital savings, since Measure M funds were added after STIP-RIP funds when programming the cooperative agreement budget. Accordingly, the Measure M - 101 Funds were reduced to $2,946,000 by the amendment. At their August, 2011 meeting, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved a $510,000 increase in STIP-RIP funds for right-of-way support for the Highway 101 - Wilfred Project. SCTA recently met with Caltrans to discuss the final anticipated capital expenditures on the Wilfred project. Although there are a few minor contracts to finalize, Caltrans anticipates the final cost of the Wilfred right-of-way capital to be $4,696,000, which represents a $550,000 savings over the current budget. Due to the sequential funding provision of Coop 4-2085, 100% of the savings will again be returned to Measure M. In order to account for the increase in STIP-RIP funds and to realize the savings in Measure M-101 funds for future programming, a cooperative agreement amendment is proposed. Policy Impacts: None

16

Fiscal Impacts: Proposed Cooperative Agreement 4-2085-A2 will result in $550,000 in Measure M-101 Program funds available for future programming. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Board authorize for the Chair to execute the attached Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2085 to decrease the budget for right-of-way capital by $550,000 in Measure M funds, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel.

17

Resolution No. 2013-011 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 8, 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT 2 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 4-2085 WITH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR RIGHT OF WAY CAPITAL AND RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE HIGHWAY 101 WILFRED PROJECT WHEREAS, SCTA is authorized to provide Measure M funds for project development and construction of certain transportation projects though the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and; WHEREAS, Cooperative Agreement No. 4-2085 and No. 4-2085-A1 were previously executed with Caltrans for right of way capital and right-of-way support services, with current budgets of $5,246,000 for right of way capital and $840,000 for right-of-way support; and, WHEREAS, Caltrans anticipates that the final right-of-way capital expenditures on Coop 4-2085 will total $4,696,000; and, WHEREAS, Caltrans anticipates that their final support expenditures on Coop 4-2085 will total $1,350,000; and, WHEREAS, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has programmed the additional $510,000 needed to fully fund the anticipated final right-of-way support expenditures of Coop 4-2085; and, WHEREAS, the sequential funding provisions of Coop 4-2085 provides for 100% of the anticipated $550,000 savings in right-of-way capital to be credited to the Measure M - 101 Program portion of the capital budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority authorizes the chair to execute Amendment 2 to Cooperative Agreement 4-2085 with the California Department of Transportation, in substantially similar form as provided for in the attachment, subject to the final review and approval by legal counsel. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was moved by Director approved by the following vote: Director Allen Director Carlstrom Director Chambers Director Gallian Director Gurney Director Harris Ayes:


and

Director Landman

Director Mackenzie

Director McGuire

Director Rabbitt

Director Russell

Director Zane

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

SO ORDERED I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on April 8, 2013. ______________________________________ Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority 18

04-Son-101-PM 13.9/15.5 Widen Highway and include HOV Lanes 4276-129650 District Agreement No. 4-2085-A2

DRAFT 3-21-13 (AH)

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON ______________________________, 2013, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as “STATE,” and the SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public corporation, referred to herein as “AUTHORITY”. RECITALS 1. The parties hereto entered into a Cooperative Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2085) on March 23, 2007 defining the terms and conditions under which to cooperate on the Right of Way phase of a highway improvement project, (PROJECT) in Sonoma County. PROJECT includes construction of improvements to State Route 101 consisting of roadway widening from four lanes to six lanes with a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction, related modifications and replacements of structures, and other highway facility improvements from the Rohnert Park Expressway Overcrossing to the Santa Rosa Avenue Overcrossing in the City of Rohnert Park. 2. The parties hereto also entered into Amendment No. 1 to said Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2085-A1) on October 31, 2008, to reflect the increased right of way costs for PROJECT and to stipulate that AUTHORITY would be fully responsible for complying with and implementing all of the environmental commitments outside of STATE’s highway system, as set forth in the environmental documentation.

3. The parties now wish to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement

(District Agreement No. 4-2085-A2) to reduce Measure M Funds for Right of Way Capital by $550,000. Additionally, the California Transportation Commission has approved an increase of $510,000 in STIP-RIP funds for Right of Way Support.

IT IS THEREFORE MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. Exhibit A of the Agreement, as amended under Amendment No. 1, is hereby replaced in its entirety with Revised Exhibit A, dated March 13, 2013, attached to and made a part of this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement. 2. Recital 6 of the original Agreement, as amended under Amendment No. 1, is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 6. The total estimated cost of PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY is $6,046,000, and consists of $1,350,000 for PROJECT RIGHT 1 19

District Agreement No. 4-2085-A2 OF WAY support activities and $4,696,000 for PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY acquisition and utility relocation. 3. Recital 7 of the original Agreement, as amended under Amendment No. 1, is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 7. PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY support and capital costs are AUTHORITY funded using funds from the Regional Improvement Program (RIP) of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and local Measure M funds. PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY support costs will consist of $1,350,000 from STIP-RIP funds. PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY capital costs will consist of $2,300,000 from STIP-RIP funds and $2,396,000 from local Measure M funds. 4. Article 2 of Section II of the original Agreement (titled Authority Agrees), as amended under Amendment No. 1, is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 2. AUTHORITY agrees to contribute $2,396,000 local Measure M funds for PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY Capital. 5. Article 4 of Section II of the original Agreement (titled Authority Agrees), as amended under Amendment No. 1, is hereby replaced in its entirety to read as follows: 4. If the actual total PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY capital cost exceeds the estimated amount of $4,696,000, and/or the PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY support cost exceeds the estimated amount of $1,350,000, AUTHORITY shall cooperate in seeking additional funding. 6. All other terms and conditions of the original Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2085), as amended under Amendment No. 1, shall remain in full force and effect. 7. This Amendment No. 2 to Agreement is hereby deemed to be a part of the original Agreement (District Agreement No. 4-2085).

2 20


STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation


MALCOLM DOUGHERTY Director By:______________________________________ Deputy District Director

By:______________________________________ Mike McGuire, Chair

Approved as to form and procedure:

_________________________________________ Attorney Department of Transportation

Attest:___________________________________

Certified as to funds:


_________________________________________ District Budget Manager

_________________________________________ Attorney

Certified as to financial terms and policies:

_________________________________________ Accounting Administrator

3 21

District Agreement No. 4-2085-A2 Revised EXHIBIT A – March 13, 2013 COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN

Description

Total Cost

STIP-RIP Funds

Measure M Funds

Right of Way Support

$1,350,000

$1,350,000

0

Right of Way Capital

$4,696,000

$2,300,000

$2,396,000

Total Estimate

$6,046,000

$3,650,000

$2,396,000

4 22

Staff Report

To:


From:

Seana L. S. Gause, Program/Project Analyst

Item:

3.3 – Measure M Project Appropriations – Bicycle Safety and Education

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall the SCTA approve the following appropriation requests with approved cooperative funding agreements? Coop Funding Agreement # M71515 M71515 TOTAL

Jurisdiction SCBC SCBC

Category Bike/Ped Bike/Ped

Description Bicycle Safety and Education Bicycle Safety and Education

Phase

Appropriation Amount

Bike to Work Month Safe Routes to School

$15,000 $19,000 $34,000

Background: The SCTA adopted the 2011 Measure M Strategic Plan, which sets forth the SCTA’s program and project implementation policies with regard to the use of funds provided under Measure M. Pursuant to the Strategic Plan and the associated cooperative funding agreements, each project sponsor must submit an appropriation request to initiate spending of Measure M funding for the fiscal year in which the funds are programmed. SCTA has received a request dated March 14, 2013 from the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition requesting an appropriation for Bicycle Safety and Education. The appropriation request is for $34,000 ($15,000 for Bike to Work Month; $19,000 for Safe Routes to School).

Policy Impacts: None. This action is within the established policies outlined in the Measure M Strategic Plan Chapter 4, Policy 7.

Fiscal Impacts: Consistent with the Strategic Plan, Measure M funds in the amount of $34,000 will be made available to the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition to implement Bicycle Safety and Education programs (AKA Safe Routes to Schools and Bike to Work Month). Appropriation of these funds is consistent with the funding availability defined in the Measure M cash-flow model.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board adopt Resolution Nos. 2013-12, thus approving the aforementioned appropriation requests.

23

Resolution No. 2013-012 Cooperative Agreement Number: M71515 Project Sponsor: Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Amount: $34,000 April 8, 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING MEASURE M FUNDS TO THE SONOMA COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. M71515 WHEREAS, the 2004 Sonoma County Traffic Relief Act Expenditure Plan (hereinafter “Expenditure Plan”) includes $34,000 in 2004 dollars, for the Bicycle and Pedestrian funding category; and WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (hereinafter “Authority”) and the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition (hereinafter “SCBC”) have entered into Cooperative Funding Agreement No. 71515 (hereinafter “Cooperative Agreement”) regarding the Bicycle Safety and E ducation Program (hereinafter “Project”); and WHEREAS, SCBC has submitted a Request for Appropriation of Funds dated March 14, 2013 in connection with the Project pursuant to the above referenced Cooperative Agreement; and WHEREAS, funds are included in the Authority’s Strategic Plan and annual budget for such projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Authority finds the Request for Appropriation of funds consistent with the Expenditure Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Cooperative Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Authority appropriates $34,000 to SCBC pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement to be used for the purposes set forth in Attachment A attached hereto; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds will be disbursed to SCBC in accordance with the provisions of the Cooperative Agreement but shall not exceed on an an nual basis, the amounts programmed by fiscal year, as shown in the Program of Projects in the 2009 Strategic Plan, as such plan may be amended from time to time; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the funds appropriated by the Authority under the Cooperative Agreement are hereby reflected in Attachment B; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation shall expire three years from the date of this Resolution. THE FOREGOING RESOUTION was moved by Director approved by the following vote:


, and

24

Resolution No. 2013-012 Cooperative Agreement Number: M71515 Project Sponsor: Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Amount: $34,000 April 8, 2013 Director Allen Director Carlstrom Director Chambers Director Gallian Director Gurney Director Harris Ayes:

Director Landman Director Mackenzie Director McGuire Director Rabbitt Director Russell Director Zane Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

SO ORDERED

Mike McGuire, Chair This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held April 8, 2013 in Santa Rosa, California Attest: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Attachment:

“A” Use of Appropriated Funds “B” Chronological Listing of Fund Appropriation Resolutions

ATTACHMENT A

Use of Appropriated Funds


RESOLUTION NO. 2013-012

Date: April 8, 2013

Amount of Funds:

$34,000

Appropriated to:

Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition

Program Category: Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Specific Project:

Bicycle Safety and Education Program

Appropriated For:

Bike to Work Month ($15,000), Safe Routes to Schools ($19,000)

Scope of Work:

Bike to Work Month, and Safe Routes to Schools Programs focused on educating the public and, in particular, school children.

Other Conditions:

None

Staff Comments:

This is the fifth appropriation for this project, for implementing Bicycle Safety and Education Programs.

26

ATTACHMENT B

Chronological Listing of Fund Appropriation Resolutions

COOPERATIVE FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. M71515

Between the Sonoma County Transportation Authority

and the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition

Project Number M71515

Resolution Number 2008-024 2009-032 2010-043 2011-037 2013-012

Date

Funds Appropriated $60,000 $60,000

July 14, 2008 November 9, 2009 November 8, $60,000 2010 September 12, $60,000 2011 April 8, 2013 $34,000 TOTAL FUNDS APPROPRIATED

Phase Cumulative Total $60,000 BTW/SRTS $120,000 BTW/SRTS $180,000 BTW/SRTS $240,000 BTW/SRTS $274,000 BTW/SRTS $274,000

27

BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Eric Eisenhart Vice President Nabeel Al‐Shamma Treasurer Tom Bahning Secretary Vicki Duggan Janice Eunice Tom Helm Russ McCracken Jeffrey Montague Lisa Santos Geoffrey Smith

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gary Helfrich ADVISORY BOARD Shirlee Zane Debora Fudge Patrick Slayter Ken Wells Ross Shafer Jim Keene Pam Davis Lynn Woznicki OFFICE: 750 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 MAIL: P.O. Box 3088 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 PHONE: 707‐545‐0153 FAX: 707‐573‐0147 EMAIL: General inquiries: [email protected] Events: [email protected] Safe Routes to School: [email protected] Street Skills Classes: [email protected] WEB: www.bikesonoma.org

Mike McGuire, Chair March 14, 2013



Santa Rosa, CA 95401

FUNDING APPROPRIATION REQUEST

PROJECT NAME: Bike Month Program

AGREEMENT NO. M71515‐A1

Dear SCTA Chair McGuire:

The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition has entered into a cooperative funding

agreement with the SCTA (No.M71515‐A1) and is working on the administration and

implementation of the Bike Month program for FY 2012/2013. The Sonoma County

Bicycle Coalition is requesting that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA)

take action to appropriate funds for the Bike Month Program at its next Board meeting.

Project Name & Description:

Project Category: Phase Development Phase of this Appropriation: Amount of Measure M Appropriation Request: Amount of Local Funding Match: Sources of Local Funding Match: Total Project Cost:

Bike Month Program Bike to Work Month promotes cycling for transportation by offering a series of events during May, which is National Bike Month . The events will encourage people to make riding a bicycle part of their daily transportation mix. SCBC will produce Bike to Work Day, hold bicycle safety and mechanics classes, and organize family rides during Bike Month in order to encourage more people to use bicycles for transportation and recreation. Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Bike Month Program

$15,000 $0 $6,500 ‐ Local Business Sponsorship $10,000 ‐ MTC / Bay Area Bicycle Coalition BTW Day grant $1,000 ‐ Event Proceeds and Sales $32,500

28

The current schedule for the Bike Month Project is as follows: Project Development Phase Begin Scoping N/A Environmental N/A Right of Way N/A PS&E N/A Implementation February 2013 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

Complete N/A N/A N/A N/A June 2013

Executive Director

‐ 2 ‐

BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Eric Eisenhart Vice President Nabeel Al‐Shamma Treasurer Tom Bahning Secretary Vicki Duggan Janice Eunice Tom Helm Russ McCracken Jeffrey Montague Lisa Santos Geoffrey Smith

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gary Helfrich ADVISORY BOARD Shirlee Zane Debora Fudge Patrick Slayter Ken Wells Ross Shafer Jim Keene Pam Davis Lynn Woznicki

Mike McGuire, Chair March 14, 2013 Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 FUNDING APPROPRIATION REQUEST PROJECT NAME: Bicycle Safety and Education Program AGREEMENT NO. M71515‐A1 Dear SCTA Chair McGuire: The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition has entered into a cooperative funding agreement with the SCTA (No.M71515‐A1) and is working on the administration and implementation of the Safe Routes to School Program for FY 2012/2013. The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition is requesting that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) take action to appropriate funds for the Safe Routes to School Program at its next Board meeting.

OFFICE: 750 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 MAIL: P.O. Box 3088 Santa Rosa, CA 95402

Project Name & Description:

PHONE: 707‐545‐0153 FAX: 707‐573‐0147 EMAIL: General inquiries: [email protected] Events: [email protected] Safe Routes to School: [email protected] Street Skills Classes: [email protected] WEB: www.bikesonoma.org

Project Category: Phase Development Phase of this Appropriation: Amount of Measure M Appropriation Request: Amount of Local Funding Match: Sources of Local Funding Match: Total Project Cost:

Safe Routes to School Program The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Safe Routes to Schools program (SRTS) will conduct outreach countywide to encourage participation in SRTS activities in grade schools, middle schools and high schools. The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Safe Routes to Schools Resource Specialist will augment SRTS activities beyond what is available to the schools participating in the Department of Health Services Countywide Safe Routes to School Program. Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Safe Routes to School Program

$19,000 $0 N/A $19,000 30

The current schedule for the Safe Routes to School program is as follows: Project Development Phase Begin Complete Scoping N/A N/A Environmental N/A N/A Right of Way N/A N/A PS&E N/A N/A Implementation March 2013 April 2014 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

Gary Helfrich Executive Director

‐ 2 ‐ 31

Staff Report

To:

RCPA Board of Directors

From:

Misty Mersich, Climate Protection Program Analyst

Item:

3.4 – Fourteenth Amendment to contract with Bevilacqua-Knight for budget shift related to the Better Building Program grant

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall the Board approve the proposed contract amendment with Bevilacqua-Knight (BKi) to shift funds from the Flex Package incentives to support close out grant program activities for Flex Package and Windsor Efficiency PAYS? Background: The RCPA will be closing out its Department of Energy (DOE) Better Buildings Program (BBP) Grant in the month April 2013, with the grant officially ending May 30, 2013. This will include work originally planned for RCPA’s On-Water Bill and Flex Package Pilots, as well as new work proposed to most effectively support these pilots through the end of the grant. Planned and proposed activities are outlined below. Planned activities are sufficiently supported by existing RCPA funding allocations, but proposed activities would need to be supported by RCPA BBP funding to be reallocated from existing funds currently earmarked for Sonoma Flex Package Rebates. The RCPA had originally allocated $90,000 for these rebates; at current program participation rates it was determined that this money would not be spent by the end of the grant. RCPA proposed to reallocate $50,000 total to support the proposed activities below. Planned activities that will be conducted March/April 2013 • On-Water Bill/Windsor Efficiency PAYS® o Support development and placement of 1-2 earned media stories o Final Report and Lessons Learned Report • Flex Package o Pending Outreach Network Presentations: March 20, 2013 o QA/QC Activities for all Sonoma Flex Package Rebates submitted by April 9, 2013 o Close out activities as aligned with BayREN Flex Package roll out (website updating, contractor communications, etc.) o Final Report and Lessons Learned Report • General BBP Activities o Monthly Narrative and Finance Reporting o Quarterly Reporting: 2013 Q1 and Q2 o Support as necessary for March 20 DOE/LA County Meeting; April Monthly Check In Call

32

Proposed activities to be conducted March/April 2013 • On-Water Bill/Windsor Efficiency PAYS® o Town of Windsor initiated Marketing Campaign  Bill Inserts March/April/May/June for Windsor Customers ; 16,000 total inserts  Mailer to 8,000 customers  Newspaper Inserts to 6,500 Windsor Residents o Program Marketing Push - TBD expenses for: strategic media placements in April/May/June to support program uptake (final allocation for this would be determined in mid-April based upon final remaining funds in Task 2.4a once all Flex Package Rebates have been approved) o Cell phone with Sonoma area code to improve Lead Contractor ability to reach Windsor customers – o Outreach calls to Windsor residents to promote interest in the program and connect them with program contractors – o Modifications to PAYS® On-line Field Tool -costs to provide increased functionality as prioritized by Town of Windsor o PAYS® Collateral to be used by program partners in March/April/May/June • Flex Package o Marketing Push for Contractor Support in BBP-BayREN transition – TBD expenses for: strategic media placements in April/May/June to support Sonoma Flex Package participating contractors as BayREN Single Family and Flex Package marketing campaigns are developed and launched (final allocation for this would be determined in mid-April based upon final remaining funds in Task 2.4a once all Flex Package Rebates have been approved) o Flex Package Transition Activities - support transition of Sonoma Flex Package pilot to be funded by CPUC funding pending authorization of the Regional Flex Package program to be launched under the Bay Area Regional Energy Network Of the $50,000 of incentive money RCPA proposes to be reallocated, $22,675 will be spent by RCPA and will remain in RCPA’s budget. RCPA will need to shift $22,325 from its budget to BKi to help implement these activities for RCPA. Amendment Fourteen will shift funds from RCPA’s budget of Flex Package Incentives to Bki to accommodate the close out costs for the end of the grant. To shift funds of $18,025 from RCPA Task 2.4a to BKi budget Task 1.4h On- Water Bill Program Administration and $4,300 from RCPA Task 2.4a to BKi Task 1.4g Flex Package Administration budget for a total of $22,325 to be shifted to BKi. Policy Impacts: None. Fiscal Impacts: This amendment would decrease RCPA’s budget for incentives from the Better Building Program (BBP) grant by $22,325 and increase BKi’s budget by $22,325. The total amount of the grant will not change. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to sign a fourteenth amendment to the contract between RCPA and BKi for the Department of Energy’s Better Building Program Flex Package Pilot budget shift contained in Exhibit R.

33

Contract No. RCPA10002-A14

Fourteenth Amendment to Agreement for Contract Services

Between RCPA and Bevilacqua Knight Inc.

This Fourteenth amendment is made by and between Bevilacqua Knight Inc. (hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT) and the Regional Climate Protection Authority (hereinafter referred to as RCPA)

RECITALS WHEREAS, CONSULTANT and RCPA entered into that certain Agreement for Administrative Contract Services approved by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and transferred to RCPA by concurrent resolution of the SCTA and RCPA Board of Directors on February 8, 2010, and WHEREAS, at their meeting of February 8, 2010, the RCPA Board of Directors authorized the RCPA Executive Director to approve and sign the contract amendment with the CONSULTANT, and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT agreed to initiate the professional program management, design and implementation services for the RCPA countywide building retrofit program as funded with EECBG funds provided by RCPA members with the expectation that as additional funding became available the CONSULTANT would complete the Scope of Work, and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT and RCPA desire to amend the Agreement in order to provide for Program Implementation Plan (PIP) development assistance related to a California Public Utilities Commission decision on energy efficiency and the development of a Bay Area Regional Energy Network; WHEREAS, CONSULTANT and RCPA desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend the contract date and continue the scope of work to provide for Program Implementation Plan (PIP) development assistance of a Bay Area Regional Energy Network; WHEREAS, CONSULTANT and RCPA desire to amend the Agreement in order to shift funds between RCPA and CONSULTANT to accommodate change in RCPA Countywide Building Retrofit Program , Better Building Program scope; NOW, THEREFORE, for the good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:

AGREEMENT 1. Exhibit R to the original Agreement, shifting budget amounts from RCPA’s budget from Flex Package Incentives to CONSULTANT to accommodate the close out costs for the end of the grant. To shift funds of $18,025 from RCPA Task 2.4a to BKi budget Task 1.4h and $4,300 from RCPA Task 2.4a to BKi Task 1.4g, budget for a total of $22,325. 2. Except to the extent the Agreement is specifically amended or supplemented hereby, the Agreement, together with Exhibits and schedules is, and shall continue to be, in full force and effect as originally

34

Contract No. RCPA10002-A14 executed, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to modify, invalidate or otherwise affect any provision of the Agreement or any right of RCPA arising there under. 3. CONSULTANT warrants the person affixing his or her signature hereto is authorized to execute this Amendment on behalf of CONSULTANT. RCPA and CONSULTANT have carefully read and reviewed this amendment and each term and provision contained herein and, by execution of this amendment, indicates their informed and voluntary consent thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fourteenth Amendment as set forth below:

____________________________________

______________________________________

Brian Gitt, Principal Bevilacqua, Knight Inc.

Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Date Regional Climate Protection Authority

Date


____________________________________ Kathy Larocque, County Counsel

Date

35

Exhibit R

Regional Climate Protection Authority: DOE Better Buildings Program grant RCPA Proposed Full Budget: tracks shift of funding identified in Row 27 from Task 2.4a to Tasks 1.4g and 1.4h

Proposed Budget Task

Total

Task 1.4 Project Management and Re $ 514,385.67 Task 1.4a General Project Manageme $ 48,000.00 Task 1.4b Single Family Program Adm $ Task 1.4c Multifamily Program Admi $ Task 1.4d Small Commercial Program $ Task 1.4e Large Commercial Program $ Task 1.4f Low-Income Program Admi $ Task 1.4g Neighborhood Project Adm $ 240,352.31 Task 1.4h On-Water Bill Project Adm $ 226,033.36 Task 2.1 Statewide Program Manage $ 12,500.00 $ 85,669.51 Task 2.3 Participant Recruitment Task 2.3a HVAC Contractor Outreach $ Task 2.3b Multifamily Outreach $ Task 2.3c Neighborhood Contractor R $ 54,669.51 Task 2.3d Neighborhood Contractor $ Task 2.3e On-Water-Bill Financing Co $ 31,000.00 Task 2.4 Retrofit Installations $ 542,077.64 Task 2.4a Single Family Rebates $ 40,807.87 Task 2.4b Community Rewards $ Task 2.4c Green Labeling $ Task 2.4d Multifamily Incentives $ Task 2.4e Multifamily Technical and $ Task 2.4f Multifamily Utility Allowan $ Task 2.4g Small Commercial Incentiv $ Task 2.4h Large Commercial Incentiv $ Task 2.4i Low-Income Subsidies $ Task 2.4j Neighborhood Design and S $ 48,091.61 Task 2.4k Neighborhood Market Ana $ 51,252.71 Task 2.4l Neighborhood Bulk Purchas $ 62,335.46 Task 2.4m Neighborhood Technology $ Task 2.4n On-Water-Bill Financing De $ 339,590.00 Task 2.5 Quality Assurance $ 78,506.28 Task 2.5a Neighborhood Quality Ass $ 51,966.28 Task 2.5b Multifamily Quality Assura $ Task 2.5c Quality Assurance Activitie $ 26,540.00 Task 2.6 Verification of Energy Savin $ 15,000.00 Task 2.6a IT $ 15,000.00 Task 2.6b EM&V $ Task 2.7 Marketing and Outreach $ 165,860.90 Task 2.7a Community Based Marketi $ Task 2.7b Retail Channel $ Task 2.7c Neighborhood Targeted Ma $ 112,360.90 Task 2.7d Green Building Labeling $ Task 2.7e On-Water-Bill Financing M $ 53,500.00 Total All Categories $ 1,414,000.00

Labor $ 31,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ $ 2,500.00 $ $ $ 1,500.00 $ $ 1,000.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 751.23 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 748.77 $ $ $ $ 14,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7,000.00 $ $ $ 1,500.00 $ $ 5,500.00 $ 56,500.00

Expenses Internal

Total $ 482,885.67 $ 40,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 230,852.31 $ 212,033.36 $ 12,500.00 $ 83,169.51 $ $ $ 53,169.51 $ $ 30,000.00 $ 526,577.64 $ 40,056.64 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 47,342.84 $ 51,252.71 $ 62,335.46 $ $ 325,590.00 $ 78,506.28 $ 51,966.28 $ $ 26,540.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ $ 158,860.90 $ $ $ 110,860.90 $ $ 48,000.00 $1,357,500.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

25,118.36 150.00 24,968.36 40,056.64 40,056.64 21,500.00 21,500.00 86,675.00

Change Subcontractor $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

457,767.31 40,000.00 230,702.31 187,065.00 12,500.00 83,169.51 53,169.51 30,000.00 486,521.00

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 47,342.84 $ 51,252.71 $ 62,335.46 $ $ 325,590.00 $ 78,506.28 $ 51,966.28 $ $ 26,540.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ $ 137,360.90 $ $ $ 89,360.90 $ $ 48,000.00 $ 1,270,825.00

$ 49,943.36

$ 8,450.00 $ 41,493.36 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (49,943.36) $ (49,943.36) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -

36

Exhibit R On-Water Bill/Windsor PAYS® Proposed Close Out Activities Outreach Calls to Windsor Residents $ 1,000 Expenses: Vendor calling services BKi Labor to Support Proposed Activities $ 11,000 Project Management Goodacre Labor $ 1,425 Windsor Marketing / Final Print Runs EEI Labor $ 2,250 Ongoing Windsor Support CPC Labor $ 2,350 Final Marketing Support Total Reallocation from Task 2.4a to Task 1.4h $ Flex Package Close Out Activities BKi Labor to Support Proposed Activities $

18,025 4,300

Total Reallocation from Task 2.4a to Task 1.4g $

4,300

TOTAL PROPOSED REALLOCATION $

22,325

Project Management

37

Staff Report

To:

SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors

From:

Suzanne Smith, Executive Director

Item:

3.5 – Audit Services – Contract Extension with Pisenti & Brinker LLP

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall the SCTA approve an extension to contract SCTA10022 with Pisenti and Brinker, LLP, to continue as the SCTA, Measure M and RCPA auditor performing audits of financial statements for the next two fiscal years? Background: In May of 2010 the SCTA Board approved a 3 year agreement with Pisenti & Brinker LLP to perform audits of SCTA, Measure M and RCPA financial statements. The agreement allows for up to a two year extention. Pisenti & Brinker was selected from 7 firms that responded to the original request for proposals that went out in 2010. Pisenti & Brinkers performance has met or exceeded expectations and needs of the organization. Their ability to work with staff both at our office and take work back to their local office has minimized the disruption work flow that continues while an audit is underway. Some years as many as three different audit firms were under contract to SCTA to perform different audit functions. Having one auditor service for SCTA, Measure M, and RCPA financial statements has been an effective model to increased efficency and recognized cost saving in the auditor's contract. The current agreement with Pisenti & Brinker LLP not to exceed $150,000 is set to expire with the completion of the FY 11/12 audits. The scope includes the SCTA, Measure M and RCPA audits; the Single Audit; optional services at the direction of the Executive Director for Project and Program Management (PPM) audits required by Caltrans; and an allowance for adjustments to the Measure M audit for unanticipated services related to Maintenance of Effort (MOE) auditing of local agencies if needed. On January 28th the Citizens Advisory Committee recommended an extension of two years. Policy Impacts: None. SCTA and RCPA are required to perform annual audits. Fiscal Impacts: SCTA will continue to recognize savings by having SCTA, Measure M, and RCPA fund accounts being audited by one auditor. Staff Recommendation:

The CAC and staff recommend the Board approve an extension of contract SCTA10022 with Pisenti & Brinker, LLP to perform audit services for SCTA, Measure M and RCPA and to authorize the Chair to execute contract SCTA10022-A1 not to exceed $109,000 for a term covering two additional years.

Contract No. SCTA10022-A1 AMENDMENT #1 TO STANDARD AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT SERVICES This Agreement is made by and between Pisenti & Brinker, LLP (hereinafter referred to as “AUDITOR”), and the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (hereinafter referred to as “SCTA”) for the purpose of providing skilled and knowledgeable professional auditing services. RECITALS WHEREAS, AUDITOR represents that it is a duly qualified and experienced in independent auditing and related services. WHEREAS, SCTA executed Contract Number SCTA10022 on July 12, 2010 to employ the services of AUDITOR for the financial and program audit for the SCTA, Regional Climate Protection Campaign (RCPA), and the Traffic Relief Act for Sonoma County (Measure M) financial statements for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2010, 2011, and 2012 with the option of auditing the SCTA, RCPA and Measure M financial statements for the two subsequent fiscal years. In addition, a Single Audit (OMB Circular A-133) for agencies accepting federal funds, if required, for determining compliance with reimbursement requirements of Caltrans agreement for Programming and Project Management, if required, and for determining maintenance of effort (MOE) associated with Measure M funds distributed to local agencies, if required, would be performed by Auditor based on direction from the Executive Director; and, WHEREAS, in the judgment of SCTA’s Board of Directors it is necessary and desirable for SCTA to increase the budget by $109,000 for AUDITOR to provide services for fiscal years ending June 30, 2013 and 2014. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language. 2.1 PAYMENT FOR AUDITOR’S SERVICES: For all services and incidental costs required hereunder, AUDITOR shall be paid no more than $54,500 per year and $259,000 in total. Payment shall be made in accordance with the payment terms set forth in Exhibit A and A1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Payment shall be made to AUDITOR in the manner provided in Paragraph 2.2 below 2. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language. 1

40

Contract No. SCTA10022-A1

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT: The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of contract execution or no later than June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015. 3. Except to the extent the Agreement is specifically amended or supplemented hereby, together with exhibits and schedules is, and shall continue to be, in full force and effect as originally executed, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to modify, invalidate or otherwise affect any provision of the Agreement or any right of SCTA arising there under. 4. CONSULTANT warrants the person affixing his or her signature hereto is authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT.

SCTA AND CONSULTANT HAVE CAREFULLY READ AND REVIEWED THIS AMENDMENT AND EACH TERM AND PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN AND, BY EXEUTION OF THIS AMENMENT, SHOW THEIR INFORMED AND VOLUNTARY CONSENT THERETO.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as set forth below.

Dated:

By______________________________ Pisenti & Brinker LLP

Dated:

By______________________________ Chairperson SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORTY

Dated:

By______________________________ Executive Director CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE ON FILE WITH AND APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE BY SCTA

Dated:

By_______________________________ County Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM

2

41

EXHIBIT A‐1


Contract No. SCTA 10022‐A1 between SCTA and Pisenti & Brinker Fees proposed by Pisenti & Brinker for audit services and other services for the years ending June 30, 2013 & 2014 March 8, 2013

Year ending June 30, 2013

Year ending June 30, 2014


$ 13,475

$ 13,475

Measure M

17,325

17,325

Regional Climate Protection Authority

7,700

7,700

$ 38,500

$ 38,500

First Major Program for SCTA (1)

$ 4,500

$ 4,500

First Major Program for RCPA (1)

$ 4,500

$ 4,500

Each additional major program for SCTA or RCPA (2)

$ 2,500

$ 2,500

Audit of the basic financial statements of:

Audits performed in accordance with OMB Circular A‐133 (the Single Audit) ‐ scope of work and fees determined by level of expenditures of federal awards

(1) The Single audit and first major program are required when $500,000 in federally sourced funds are expended. (2) Additional major program determination is based on guidelines prescribed by OMB Circular A‐133; generally when additional federal program expenditures exceed $300,000. CalTrans PPM Agreements ‐ Agreed Upon Procedures applied to Final Project Expenditure Report

$ 4,500

$ 4,500

TOTAL:

$ 54,500

$ 54,500

42

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2013 The following item was tabled to the April 8 meeting: 4.1.1. Executive Committee Appointment (ACTION)*

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) Meeting called to order by Vice (Acting) Chair Sarah Gurney at 2:32 p.m. Directors Present: Director Combs, City of Santa Rosa; Director Chambers, City of Healdsburg; Director Gallian, City of Sonoma; Director Harris, City of Petaluma; Director Gurney, City of Sebastopol; Director Landman, City of Cotati; Director Rabbitt, Supervisor, District 2; Director Russell, City of Cloverdale; Director Allen, Town of Windsor. Directors Absent: Director Mackenzie, City of Rohnert Park; Director McGuire, Supervisor, District 4. Vice Chair Gurney announced that Item 4.1.1, the Executive Committee Appointment, is postponed to the April 8 meeting due to Chair McGuire’s absence, and that Item 4.3.4, the Bicycle/Pedestrian-Safe Routes to School presentation, is also tabled to the April 8 meeting due to the absence of staff. 2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda None. 3. Consent Calendar A.

B.

SCTA Consent 3.1. Measure M – 2013 Bond Disclosures (ACTION)* 3.2. Hwy 101 – design services contract with URS Corporation for Hwy 101 between Petaluma and the Marin County line (ACTION)* SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 3.3. Minutes of the February 4, 2013 meeting (ACTION)*

Motion by Director Chambers, seconded by Director Combs, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Regular Calendar C.

SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 4.1. SCTA/RCPA Administration

D.

SCTA 4.2. SCTA Projects and Programming 4.2.1. MTC – One Bay Area proposed funding for local projects (ACTION)*

Seana Gause presented the proposed list of projects; which have been scored and reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Staff is seeking Board approval to forward these proposed projects to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). A total of almost $14 million is available in both CMAQ and STP funding. Ms. Gause responded to Board questions regarding the percentage of funds allocated to bicycle/pedestrian projects. Ms. Gause explained that the CMAQ funds ($4.565 million) are virtually exclusively bicycle/pedestrian projects, and that all jurisdictions made a concerted effort to address and prioritize bicycle/pedestrian projects under the RTP, and to place these projects within PDAs. Ms. Gause next responded to Board questions regarding the naming convention on the project list, confirming that this format allows for greater flexibility in allocating funds for road rehabilitation. She and Ms. Smith also responded to Board questions regarding the amount of funding to be allocated to bicycle/pedestrian projects other than the SMART multi-use pathway. The Countywide Safe Routes to School program is also being presented for Board review, although it is not part of the OBAG grant application. Ms. Smith confirmed that this item can be considered by the Board at this meeting, although Item 4.3.4, the SRS Presentation by the Department of Health Services, has been postponed to the next Board meeting. Motion by Director Rabbitt, seconded by Director Allen, to approve the list of proposed projects to be forwarded to the MTC. Motion passed unanimously. 4.2.2. Update on State Highway projects (REPORT)

43

James Cameron reported that mitigation planting of trees at the Cresta site has been completed. Tree removal is complete for the Airport Boulevard Interchange/Windsor sound wall project. A public meeting is scheduled March 14 at the Sonoma County Water Agency at 5:00 p.m. The Central C project (Old Redwood Highway Interchange in Petaluma) construction contract was awarded to Ghilotti Construction February 12. MSN C-1 (East Washington Interchange) construction is ongoing. The Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall is being installed. Tree removal is almost complete for the MSN B-2 project (Petaluma River Bridge and Petaluma Boulevard South Interchange). Tree removal is almost complete on the MSN C-3 project. Full closure of Highway 116 at Highway 101 in Petaluma is planned during nighttime hours mid to-late April. A groundbreaking ceremony is being coordinated to take place in April with the Petaluma River Bridge project. The contract for design of the final segment of the MSN Sonoma Median Widening from the Kastania Road Interchange to the County line was awarded to URS. Ms. Gause announced that the Wilfred Avenue Interchange project is ostensibly complete; an issue with SMART preemptive traffic signal operation is currently being resolved prior to contract completion. This will undergo testing and is expected to be resolved shortly. Ms. Gause next announced that the Highway 101 Central projects and the Wilfred Avenue Interchange project won statewide partnership awards. The Highway 12 Laguna de Santa Rosa bridge project is in progress. Right-of-way certification was achieved and design is complete. The construction bid is projected to be released in April, with construction to begin in June, 2013. Utility relocation will be the first task, followed by bridge construction in 2014. The public comment period has closed for the draft Environmental Document for the Highway 116 and Mirabel Road improvements in Forestville. A public outreach meeting was held February 6, 2013. The final Environmental Document is anticipated to be complete in spring 2013. Construction is projected to begin in June 2013, pending right-of-way acquisition. Caltrans is currently developing the Project Study Report/Project Development Support for the Highway 116/Highway121 Intersection improvements. This report is expected to be completed by the end of this fiscal year.

Director Gallian commented on the congestion at this intersection (Highway 12 and Broadway). Mr. Cameron responded that staff will be following up with Caltrans to resolve the signal timing issue. Board comments included the possibility of considering a roundabout to mitigate traffic. 4.3. SCTA Planning 4.3.1. Community Based Transportation Planning Grant proposals (ACTION)* Janet Spilman explained that in 2015 the SCTA will be updating the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and, with the Regional Transportation Plan coming to a close, it would be an opportune time to apply for funding for research. She presented three proposals for grant applications for Board consideration and recommendation: (1) Sonoma County Priority Development Area Market Feasibility Study; (2) Sonoma County Urban Visioning ProjectAnalysis of different future land use distributions for Sonoma County; and (3) Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Activity Modeling and Accessibility Analysis. Staff is seeking Board direction as to which option to pursue. Staff estimates costs for these proposals to be: (1) $80,000 for the feasibility study; (2) under $30,000 for the Urban Visioning Project; and (3) $80,000 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian activity modeling and accessibility analysis. Ms. Smith added that she is meeting with staff of Sonoma State University to discuss these proposals and the possibility of a partnership, particularly in regard to bicycle/pedestrian activity and the economic impact of bicycling and walking in Sonoma County. Board comments included the need for definitions of terms (e.g., “jobs”) and accurate statistics; the need to address the issue of connectivity with SMART rail stations for commuters and possible round table discussions between SMART staff and major local employers to examine this; the possibility of partnerships, to include SMART, the Economic Development Board Innovation Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and possibly also the North Bay Association of Realtors. Director Rabbitt added that ABAG is hiring an economist to research the market forces of each PDA. He emphasized the need to collaborate and the possibility that this research could likely include one or possibly two PDAS within Sonoma County, and the importance of maximizing and leveraging funds that are already invested in these efforts. Additional Board comments included the need to get comments from City Managers and City staff and the importance of community support.

44

Following extensive discussion, Board support was split between proposal #1 and proposal #3. Ms. Spilman responded to Board questions regarding identifying sources for matching funds. She also explained how implementation would be coordinated among the cities, which would engage the Planning Advisory Committee. Brant Arthur of the Climate Protection Campaign concurred with Board comments, and emphasized the importance of SMART as the first multimodal corridor, which will increase the likelihood of getting the grant award. He also cited the success of coalitions in receiving grants. Motion by Director Gallian to approve Alternative #3, seconded by Director Combs. Further discussion followed regarding a possible fourth alternative for consideration utilizing components of alternative #1 and #3; this would involve partnering with SMART, recognizing it as a vital component of job growth, the need for connectivity, and planning for the arterial transit to get to job sites from the SMART rail station. Ms. Smith noted that SMART could apply for the grant separately. Following a roll call vote, the motion failed 5-5. Motion by Director Zane to partner with SMART in putting forward a planning grant through Caltrans utilizing private and public funding and working with local employers in order to achieve the connectivity and feeder routes needed to encourage a travel mode shift from automobiles to rail, bicycle, and pedestrian travel to get to jobs. Director Russell seconded the motion. Steve Birdlebough of Friends of SMART voiced concern regarding the “last mile” issues; the necessity of implementing a Clipper card system that can be utilized for rail, bus, and the ferry. Mr. Arthur addressed the transportation demand management program as another travel option; (e.g., the WeGo Sonoma rideshare program) to increase mode shifts for reducing VMT, congestion, and GHG. Following a roll call vote, Alternative #4 failed 8-2. Motion by Director Harris to approve Alternative #1, seconded by Director Chambers. Director Zane suggested incorporating the connectivity issue and partnering with major businesses. Following a roll call vote, the motion passed 9-1. 4.3.2. Transit – presentation on MTC Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services

Transportation Plan (ACTION)* Diane Dohm explained that the purpose of this Plan is to coordinate three federal programs; Job Access and Reverse Commute Activities (JARC) (Section 5316), New Freedom Program (Section 5317), and Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310). This Plan reflects changes made under MAP-21. Ms. Dohm reported that she compiled and submitted comments to MTC March 8, 2013, as per their deadline. Next steps are adoption of the Plan by MTC later this month. MTC will then develop a Region-wide Mobility Management Implementation Plan in consultation with local partners and stakeholders. Ms. Dohm referred to the MTC presentation included in the agenda packet, which she received when she attended the MTC Regional Mobility Management conference February 14 for further information, and offered to send this to all the Directors Board comments were complimentary of Ms. Dohm’s report, and included the trend in the aging demographic (the “Silver Tsunami”); the need for additional funding for seniors and the disabled and the need to re-establish MTC’s Elderly and Disabled Advisory Committee (EDAC). 4.3.3. Bicycle/Pedestrian – presentation on SMART multi-use path (REPORT)* Bill Gamlin, Chief Engineer of SMART, showed a PowerPoint presentation previously given at the SMART Board of Directors meeting February 20, providing an update of the SMART Pathway Project and the process in implementing this 71-mile pathway going from Larkspur to Cloverdale. He summarized design concepts; environmental clearance; community partners; the pathway design; the regulatory process; funding; and construction. Next steps are the construction of seven pathway segments with the contract to be awarded this spring; the continued leveraging of Measure Q funds; completion of Federal Environmental (NEPA) clearance in early 2014; quarterly meetings with the Marin County Bicycle Coalition and Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, and progress updates. In response to Board questions and comments on the need to keep the public informed of progress on the project, Mr. Gamlin said that this presentation is available online at the SMART website. The following item was tabled to the April 8 meeting:

45

4.3.4. Bicycle/Pedestrian – Safe Routes to School presentation on the countywide program from Department of Health Services (REPORT) E.

RCPA 4.4. RCPA Planning 4.4.1. Sonoma Clean Power – update on implementation plan and energy procurement RFP (REPORT)

Director Gallian recused herself from this agenda item. Cordel Stilman of the Sonoma County Water Agency reported that a Request for Proposals was issued for energy service provision on February 22. A preproposal meeting was held for the RFP, resulting in 18 interested respondents, of which 15 serious participants were identified. High response indicates there is a good deal of interest in this program. Mr. Stilman presented a draft timeline of next steps. Proposals are due April 5, by which time staff anticipates having a good estimate of what rates will be and will likely have a financing plan in place. Jurisdictions are requested to make a decision regarding participation by June 30. To date, the Town of Windsor and City of Santa Rosa have responded. The Board acknowledged that the timeline provides adequate time for response from cities and is a good schedule. In response to Board questions, Mr. Stilman explained that staff is attempting to secure a threeyear power contract, and needs to know who would be participating in the first round of power contracts. He acknowledged the possibility of making provision to add other cities in the future, should they decide to participate later. In further response to Board inquires, Mr. Stilman explained the scope of the loan and the financing. This involves two lines of credit; one for $2.5 million to cover staff and operations costs from implementation in July through receipt of the first energy payments; and another line of credit for $7.5 million to cover power costs. Director Gallian returned to the meeting. 4.5. RCPA Projects and Programs 4.5.1. Financing – report on Windsor PAYS® pilot program and expansion opportunities (REPORT)*

Lauren Casey reported on the status of this program and potential expansion through the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN). She referred to a presentation with program details. Acceptance rate in Windsor is 80%. 149 multi-family units and 76 single-family homes (out of 95 offers) have participated in the Program. Ms. Casey announced that the Town of Windsor is the first municipal water utility in California to approve a tariffed on-bill financing program, which has set a precedent for other jurisdictions. Expansion of the program via the BayREN Program has been authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission. Staff will be giving a presentation at the Sonoma County Water Agency’s Technical Advisory Committee, explaining how they will be recruiting for BayREN and providing an update on progress of the program. She invited Directors to contact her or Paul Piazza, Town of Windsor Water Conservation Program Coordinator, and to refer any water utility staff to them with any questions. In response to Board questions, Ms. Casey explained that the Program is close to reaching its goal of 200 multi-family units, having completed 149 multi-family units, and is still short of reaching the 2,000 individual single family homes, at 76 participants. Acknowledging that currently there is no official procurement process in place, she invited any Directors interested in pursuing this program for their city to contact her. 4.5.2. RCPA activities report (REPORT)* • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GRIP) update • Cap and Trade • Climate Corp intern Ms. Casey reported that staff continues to represent Sonoma County on the nine-county steering committee for BayREN and anticipates delivering a contract between ABAG and the RCPA to the Board by its next meeting. Recruitment is taking place for regional consulting services in response to the release of an RFP in February. County-specific scopes and budgets are under development for local implementation of regional programs. Staff will be responding to GRIP-related follow-up requests as summarized by Director McGuire and will be reporting on these at the April meeting. Staff is also scheduling individual meetings with each Director to respond more fully to questions about the GRIP and to address jurisdictional-specific issues. The first meeting took place on this date with Director Russell.

46

Ms. Casey next reported that Director Zane attended a hearing on the development of a Three-Year Investment Plan for Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds at the California Environmental Protection Agency on February 25, where the Air Resources Board presented and received comments on a Draft Concept Paper issued on February 15. This paper will provide guidance to the Department of Finance for developing the Three-Year Investment Plan. Ms. Casey referred to comments submitted on behalf of the SCTA/RCPA, which are included in a letter addressed to the Air Resources Board and the Department of Finance. Comments include support of the Department of Finance in developing a proposal supporting local and regional flexibility, and that allows for transportation fuel revenues to support transportation programs, with emphasis on integrative programs.

Ms. Smith reminded the Board that their Forms 700 are due March 30. 5.6. Announcements None. 6. Adjourn 5:05 p.m.

Ms. Casey introduced Nick Danty, Climate Corps Intern, who is assisting RCPA staff in a variety of programs as well as the SCTA in conducting bicycle/pedestrian analysis. Director Russell commented on the productive and effective meeting held with RCPA staff earlier this date, noting that it was very helpful. Director Zane added that Sonoma County was recognized by representatives of both the Air Resources Board and the Department of Finance at the recent hearing for Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds for their ongoing work on climate change initiatives. Director Rabbitt reported that the issue of Cap-andTrade was addressed by the Governor’s office at a recent CCAC meeting in Sacramento, and that there is a movement to finance high-speed rail through Cap-and-Trade revenues. 5. Reports and Announcements 5.1. SMART report Nothing further to report. 5.2. MTC report* Included in the agenda packet. 5.3. Executive Committee report The Executive Committee did not meet. 5.4. Advisory Committee agendas* Included in the agenda packet. 5.5. SCTA/RCPA staff report – Plan Bay Area, Form 700 Ms. Smith reported that MTC and ABAG staff will have a presentation on Plan Bay Area at the next Board meeting.

47

Staff Report

To:

SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors

From:


Item:

4.1.1 – Executive Committee appointment

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Who shall be appointed to fill a vacancy on the 2013 SCTA/RCPA Executive Committee? Background: The selection of the Executive Committee takes place at the first meeting of the year and appointments were made in February 2013. Ordinance No. 3 states, “The Executive Committee shall have two members, in addition to the Chair, Vice-Chair and one alternate. The selection of the Executive Committee shall take place annually, in conjunction with the selection of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board. The Board shall individually nominate members of the Executive Committee, and each nominee shall be appointed after receiving a majority vote of the full Board.” Since the February meeting, the Town of Windsor has changed its appointment to the SCTA/RCPA Board and that has created a vacancy on the Executive Committee. The 2013 Executive Committee members are Chair McGuire, Vice Chair Gurney, Director Mackenzie and a vacancy. Director Rabbitt is the alternate. Policy/Fiscal Impacts: Not applicable. Staff Recommendation: Appoint a new member to the Executive Committee.

48

Staff Report

To:

SCTA Board of Directors

From:


Item:

4.2.1 – ABAG/MTC presentation on Draft Plan Bay Area

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: What is the status of the MTC/ABAG sustainable communities strategy effort known as Plan Bay Area? Background: MTC/ABAG released the Draft Plan Bay Area on March 22 for comment. See the schedule below for critical dates. MTC/ABAG staff will attend the April 8 SCTA/RCPA Board meeting to present the Draft Plan Bay Area to the Board and will hold a public hearing at the Friedman Center in Santa Rosa the evening of April 8. The Draft Plan Bay Area can be found at this link: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area/draft-plan-bay-area.html Document

Release Date

Close of Comments

Draft Plan Bay Area

Friday, March 22, 2013

4 p.m., Thursday, May 16, 2013

Draft EIR


4 p.m., Thursday, May 16, 2013

Draft 2013 TIP


4 p.m., Friday, May 3, 2013

Draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis


4 p.m., Friday, May 3, 2013

Policy Impacts: Plan Bay Area serves as the regional transportation plan and addresses regional housing needs. This has an impact on local policy decisions in terms of the implementation of SB375 and AB32 and the connection of transportation, land use and GHG emissions. Local staff, in conjunction with SCTA staff, has been involved in the Plan Bay Area process but will now review the draft plan and develop comments for the Board to consider in May. Fiscal Impacts: Policies included in Plan Bay Area will impact how transportation funding flows to jurisdictions in Sonoma County. Staff Recommendation: No action is required at this meeting but comments on the draft plan will be an action item at the May 13, 2013 Board meeting. 49

Staff Report

To:


From:

Janet Spilman, Deputy Director, Planning & Public Outreach

Item:

4.2.2 – Priority Development Area Investment and Growth Strategy

Date:

April 8, 2012

Issue: What is the status of the Priority Development Area Investment and Growth Strategy? Background: As a requirement to receive funding through the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), approved by the Board last month, the SCTA is required to work with Sonoma County jurisdictions to develop a Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment and Growth Strategy that must be adopted by the SCTA and submitted to MTC/ABAG by May 1, 2013, per MTCs Resolution 4035, Appendix A-6. The attached document was developed to fulfill the regional requirement. However, SCTA’s goal is to use it to inform the community of the PDAs and Conservation Areas (PCAs) in Sonoma County and to guide the agency in supporting PDA development over a longer time horizon than this current four-year funding cycle. This document describes PDAs and PCAs and gives a brief overview of policies in Sonoma County that support the goals of OBAG and therefore Plan Bay Area. The PDA Investment and Growth Strategic Plan, was developed as a tool to help the agency understand PDA development and better integrate land use planning with transportation programming decisions in Sonoma County over time. PDAs Investment & Growth Strategy This document, including description of the regional and local planning goals was developed with information from local jurisdictions, MTC and ABAG. It has been discussed at the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and was reviewed at the PAC twice. It is divided into four sections – Chapter 1 explains the Regional Planning effort and the funding requirements of OBAG. Local policies that support the goals of Plan Bay Area and the guide local funding decisions are also described. Chapter 2 is about Sonoma County PDAs. Sonoma County jurisdictions have adopted 12 Priority Development Areas—including five in Santa Rosa, two in Rohnert Park, and one each in Cloverdale, Cotati, Petaluma, Sebastopol, and Windsor. Unincorporated Sonoma County has designated six Rural Community Investment Areas and one Employment Investment Area. Descriptions of the local characteristics, maps, and housing projections are included. Chapter 3 showcases Sonoma County PCAs. As part of the FOCUS Program in 2007, ABAG asked local governments, public agencies and non-profit organizations to nominate potential PCAs. Final PCA designations were made based on the following three criteria: level of consensus, regional significance (in terms of providing important agricultural, natural resource, historical, scenic, cultural, recreational, and/or ecological values and ecosystem functions) and urgency for protection.

50

Land trusts, open space districts, parks and recreation departments, local jurisdictions and other organizations were all involved in the designation of PCAs. The goal of designating PCAs was to accelerate protection of key open space areas, agricultural resources, and areas with high ecological value to the regional ecosystem. Historical, scenic, and cultural resources were also considered. Chapter 4 overlays the requirements of OBAG with long held policies and funding priorities. Policy Impacts: The policies of OBAG already closely coincide with the goals of the SCTA and local jurisdictions. This is demonstrated in Chapter 4 – with the listing of the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan for Sonoma County Goals, Objectives and Policies. There are areas of conflict though, including: • Local jurisdictions do not completely agree with ABAGs forecast of housing and jobs in the designated areas. • The transit service requirements combined with underfunding transit operations has been a source of frustration. • The unincorporated County urban service areas, now designated as Rural Community Investment Areas, may not be eligible for the funding they need to implement OBAG goals. These concerns area discussed in the report and will be a part of the continued development of the long term strategy. Fiscal Impacts: The PDA Investment and Growth Strategy is a requirement of receipt of OBAG funding. The SCTA programmed $23 million in OBAG funding last month. Staff Recommendation: Review the attached report and consider the PAC and staff recommendations to approve the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy dated April 2013.

51

Staff Report

To:


From:

Diane Dohm, Transportation Planner

Item:

4.2.3 – Coordination Efforts of Transit Operators in Sonoma County

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: What is the status of coordination efforts among transit operators in Sonoma County?

Background: In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted Resolution 3866, which established specific transit operator requirements to implement a coordinated regional network of transit services and to improve overall service productivity. Per MTC’s Transit Connectivity Plan, a high priority is placed on transit coordination efforts that make tangible improvements to benefit the largest number of passengers. These improvements include: sharing agency resources to improve system productivity, enhancing the ability of passengers to reach major destinations along regional corridors, and improving connections and providing through-service. The adjoining document, Appendix A: Inter-Operator Coordination Efforts, completed in November 2012, details the coordination efforts led by Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit, in coordination with Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) District, Golden Gate Transit, and Marin Transit. The appendix will continue to serve as the foundation for ongoing and proposed transit coordination projects in Sonoma County and the North Bay. A presentation on the status of the coordinated efforts will be given by representatives from Santa Rosa CityBus Petaluma Transit, Sonoma County Transit, SMART, and Golden Gate Transit. Over the next three months, the transit operators in Sonoma County will be giving presentations to update the SCTA Board on their current system and related coordination efforts. For the April 8 meeting, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit each will be presenting on their respective systems, Short Range Transit Plan, and coordination efforts. For the May 13 meeting, Sonoma County Transit will be presenting on their current system, Short Range Transit Plan, and coordination efforts. For the June 10 meeting, Golden Gate Transit will be presenting on their system and coordination efforts, and SMART will be presenting on their system implementation and coordination efforts.

Policy Impacts: There are no policy impacts of the coordination efforts among the transit operators in Sonoma County.

Fiscal Impacts: Although there are no current fiscal impacts of this effort, it is likely that future coordination efforts will result in cost savings for transit operators through these coordinated efforts.

Action Requested: No action is requested of the SCTA Board of Directors at this time.

52

Transit Operator Presentation Topics to SCTA Inter-Operator Coordination Efforts

Introduction In 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted Resolution 3866, which established specific transit operator requirements to implement a coordinated regional network of transit services and to improve overall service productivity. Per MT’s Transit Connectivity Plan, a high priority is placed on transit coordination efforts that make tangible improvements to benefit the largest number of passengers. These improvements include: 

Sharing agency resources to improve system productivity.



Enhancing the ability of passengers to reach major destinations along regional corridors.



Improving connections and providing through service.

Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit took the lead, in cooperation with the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) District, Golden Gate Transit, and Marin Transit, to produce this summary of inter-operator transit coordination efforts in Sonoma County and along the Highway 101 corridor in the North Bay. This appendix, which is separated into a summary of Existing Coordination Efforts and potential Future Coordination Initiatives, is included in the respective FY 2012 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) prepared by Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit.

53

Existing Coordination Efforts Transit Sustainability Project – MT’s Transit Sustainability Project (TSP) was initiated in early 2010 to help chart a future for efficient, convenient and reliable public transit throughout the region, including Sonoma County. One of the major goals of the TSP is to ensure that public transit is an accessible, user-friendly and coordinated network for passengers, regardless of mode, location or jurisdiction. In summarizing the current inter-operator transit coordination and exploring ideas for future coordination, this appendix is a first step in fulfilling this recommendation. Standardization of ADA Paratransit Eligibility (Petaluma Transit 4/8) – In early 2012, Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit agreed to standardize the functional assessment process which determines an individual’s eligibility for paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After a Request for Proposals was jointly developed and released, the three operators interviewed and selected the most qualified proposer. As a result, all three operators are expected to have fully implemented the new standardized ADA eligibility assessment process by early 2013. Countywide Call Center and Website (Santa Rosa CityBus 4/8) – With Santa Rosa CityBus serving as the lead agency, this project will develop and implement a One Call/One Click Transportation Resource Center, as the initial step in providing full-service Mobility Management in Sonoma County. The concept is to build on the idea that an individual needs to make only one telephone call to be directed to an array of different types of transportation options including travel training, trip planning assistance, and/or to be connected to a specific transportation provider. This project is made up of two components. The first is a “One all” center which will give callers the option of contacting Santa Rosa Paratransit, Sonoma County Paratransit or Petaluma Paratransit. This component will also give the caller the option of speaking with an operator who has access to information about human services agencies and the specific services that they provide, including their transportation services. The second component of this project will be the development of the “Sonoma Access” website. Currently, website design proposals have been submitted. It is anticipated that the Sonoma Access website will have a similar appearance and navigation options as the Marin Access website, which was designed by Marin Transit. The website will include trip planning software, specific information on transit/paratransit agencies in Sonoma County, as well as travel training options and schedules. A search function will also provide a comprehensive list of human services programs available in Sonoma County along with their pertinent information, including direct links to volunteer driver programs located throughout the region. The website

54

will also include information on “last mile connecting services,” such as shuttles, taxis, car and bicycle sharing, bicycle parking and pedestrian access. Marin Transit has been very supportive of this effort and expressed interest in exploring the possibility of it becoming a North Bay partnership sometime in the future. Rehabilitation of Santa Rosa Transit Mall (Santa Rosa CityBus 4/8) - Due to aging infrastructure, the Santa Rosa Transit Mall, which was originally built in 1987, is currently undergoing a $3.1 million rehabilitation. Although Santa Rosa Transit is managing and solely funded the project (via federal grants, state-funded Proposition 1B and local Transportation Development Act funds), all transit operators who utilize the facility were given the opportunity to provide input on the project’s design, layout, signage, and operating aspects, including relocation logistics of the temporary Transit Mall. The project will include upgraded passenger waiting amenities and new wayfinding signage that is compliant with MT’s Regional Transit onnectivity Plan and Hub Signage Program. Served by Santa Rosa CityBus, Sonoma County Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and the Mendocino Transit Authority, this rehabilitation project, which is anticipated to open in early 2013, will enhance the usability of the largest transit hub in Sonoma County. Emergency Coordination –Sonoma County, Santa Rosa and Petaluma have their own Emergency Operations Plans to organize individual Emergency Operations Centers in the event of an emergency. Each jurisdiction’s plan includes annual emergency simulation drills that are designed to meet all federal and state mandates and guidelines while ensuring processes are well established and each jurisdiction’s staff is well prepared for any emergency. Santa Rosa CityBus, Petaluma Transit and Sonoma County Transit are each a part of the transportation component of each jurisdiction’s respective EOP. In the event of a countywide public emergency, in cooperation with the Sonoma County Office of Emergency Services, Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit will coordinate emergency public transit services that are determined necessary for public evacuation due to such things as floods, earthquakes, fires, etc. The San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transportation Emergency Management Plan provides additional guidance for coordinating emergency response capabilities among the various transportation agencies throughout the region. Ongoing Fixed-Route & Paratransit Coordination (Petaluma Transit 4/8) – Ongoing coordination projects involving Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus, Petaluma Transit and Golden Gate Transit include:

55

1. Schedule coordination, 2. Consolidation of multi-operator bus stop signs along specific corridors, 3. Reciprocal transfer agreements and guaranteed transfers on key commute period trips, 4. Implementation of the SuperPass program, which provides passengers with unlimited use on two or more transit operators in Sonoma County during a calendar month, 5. Participation in several ongoing regional coordination projects sponsored by MTC, including implementation of the Transit Connectivity Plan and the Transit Sustainability Project, and 6. Regional transit marketing promotions. The forum for discussing Sonoma County transportation issues is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). The ST!’s membership includes one representative from each of the nine incorporated cities in the County and three Supervisors from the County of Sonoma. The ST!’s Transit Technical !dvisory ommittee (T-TAC) comprised of North Bay transit operators, including SMART, Golden Gate Transit and Marin Transit, can be considered as sub-committee of ST!’s Technical !dvisory ommittee (T!). The T-TAC prepares and reviews the annual Transportation Development Act/State Transit Assistance Coordinated Funding Claim for Sonoma County and reviews various resolutions and regional directives. The T-TAC meets monthly, as needed, to discuss coordination and transportation-related issues that affect Sonoma ounty’s public transit operators. Under the SCTA, the Transit/Paratransit Coordinating Committee (TPCC) is the forum to promote cooperation and coordination among the various fixed-route transit and paratransit operators in Sonoma County. Pursuant to SB498 and Title VI, seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with low incomes and minorities are among the members represented on the TPCC, as well as human services providers and each of the ounty’s transit and paratransit operators. The TPCC is charged with approving the annual Coordinated Claim. As initiated by the TPCC, Sonoma County Transit, Petaluma Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus, and Golden Gate Transit have established inter-city and inter-county paratransit transfer points throughout the County. The TPCC also reviews the efforts of various public transit agencies in the County who must be in full compliance with the paratransit provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition, the committee conveys passenger complaints to fixed-route transit and paratransit service providers.

56

The Bay Area Partnership Transit Coordinating Council Accessibility Committee (PTCC) meets at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on a monthly basis to discuss current issues, programs and events concerning ADA paratransit service within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The primary responsibility of the PTCC Accessibility Committee is the administration and management of regional ADA paratransit services.

Future Coordination Initiatives Fare Change Coordination (Including Clipper) (Golden Gate Transit 6/10) – Within their respective SRTP’s, Sonoma ounty Transit, Santa Rosa ityus and Petaluma Transit review their fare structures and farebox recovery ratios to determine if any future fare changes are necessary. However, while fare changes are ultimately recommended by each operator and approved by their respective policy boards, there is an ability to implement fare changes on all three of the transit systems simultaneously. Such coordinated fare changes would simplify the passenger experience and allow for a smoother shared-transfer policy. In 2008, Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus worked together to coordinate similar base fares and implementation dates. In 2010, Petaluma Transit increased their fares to match the base fares charged by Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus. The Clipper card, MT’s universal fare card, is a fare instrument designed to operate on all of the different transit modes in the San Francisco Bay Area to pay fares for both inter-operator and intra-operator services. The Clipper card is currently available for use on Golden Gate Transit and is anticipated to be made available to all transit operators in Sonoma County within the next few years. When this happens, all Sonoma County transit operators, including SMART, will have the opportunity to develop a coordinated marketing campaign to promote the multioperator benefits of the Clipper card. Coordination of Customer Service Information – In addition to transit information made available through MT’s regional 511 telephone and web-based transportation information system, implementation of the One Call/One Click Sonoma Access call center/website will significantly improve the availability of transit operator service information in Sonoma County. Coordination of Schedule Changes (Sonoma County Transit 5/13) - As with the coordination of fare changes, the coordination of schedule changes among Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit will help to simplify the passenger experience on all three systems. In conjunction with the ST!’s Transit Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, all of the fixed-route public transit providers in Sonoma County should meet to discuss their respective upcoming proposed schedule changes, if any. Such communication between transit

57

operators is essential to ensure that existing transfers between routes are preserved and to avoid the unnecessary duplication of service along specific corridors. Also, when such opportunities arise, every effort will be made to coordinate the exact dates of respective schedule changes. Coordination of Inter-Operator Transfers - There have been many discussions between Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus on strategies to enable communication between operators to facilitate passenger requests for transfers. One strategy is to consider utilizing the Santa Rosa CityBus Transit Service Representatives at the Santa Rosa Transit Mall as intermediaries for communication between the drivers of different transit operators. If determined feasible, this could help facilitate smoother passenger transfers among the various transit operators that serve the Santa Rosa Transit Mall. Coordinated Marketing Opportunities (Sonoma County Transit 5/13) - Joint marketing opportunities between Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit exist in several areas, including a multi-operator transit pass, travel training, real-time information, and the Santa Rosa Free Ride Trip Reduction Incentive program. These programs are outlined in more detail below. Sonoma County Transit sells a multi-operator pass, the SuperPass. With this pass patrons can purchase monthly travel on Sonoma County, Santa Rosa CityBus and/or Petaluma Transit. The pass is the same cost as the individual monthly passes, however, it provides the convenience of only purchasing and carrying one pass. Since 2010, Petaluma Transit and Sonoma County Transit have collaborated in the development of the Summer Youth Bus Pass. While varying slightly each year in details, the Summer Youth Passes offer deeply discounted travel for passengers 18 and younger during the months of June, July and August. In the summer of 2011 Santa Rosa CityBus, Petaluma Transit, and Sonoma County Transit produced a joint youth Summer Pass that was available for purchase from any of the operator’s offices. Based on an assessment of its success, a joint Summer Youth Pass could be implemented, once again, in a similar fashion or with new parameters. Compatibility between real-time bus information systems for Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit is an area where the three operators can work together. Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus are both currently in the process of procuring real-time bus information system, and there will likely be some components common to both information systems that would benefit the passengers of both transit operators. Petaluma Transit is also seeking funding to purchase and install a real-time bus information system within

58

the next couple of years, and will be interested in integrating with Sonoma County Transit’s information system at their many shared bus stop locations in the Petaluma area. Sonoma County Transit currently provides free wireless internet (Wi-Fi) access on-board most of its fixed-route buses. Free access to Wi-Fi could also be established at the Santa Rosa Transit Mall and the Petaluma Transit Mall, in cooperation with Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit. In addition, Wi-Fi access could be established at several other major transit hubs located throughout Sonoma County, in cooperation with respective local jurisdictions. Such a network of Wi-Fi “hot spots” would complement the real time information systems soon to be established for Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus. The ity of Santa Rosa’s Free Ride Trip Reduction Incentive Program has been a successful program to encourage people to get out of their cars and use alternative transportation modes such as public transit. Funded with air district grants, the program has been administered by Santa Rosa Transit for over 12 years. Through this program, Santa Rosa CityBus also sells subsidized Sonoma County Transit monthly passes. Should funding become available, the County of Sonoma and City of Petaluma could consider implementing similar trip reduction programs for their respective jurisdictions that would be compatible with the City of Santa Rosa’s Free Ride program. Both Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit have robust travel training programs that provide hands-on travel training to anyone, including existing paratransit riders who may wish to also utilize the fixed route systems. The classes and individual training sessions are free and participants receive complimentary monthly Santa Rosa CityBus or Petaluma Transit passes to encourage them to continue riding the bus. Petaluma Transit’s travel trainer trains Petaluma Transit riders on how to ride Sonoma County Transit and Golden Gate Transit, as she organizes fun group trips on existing regional fixed route buses to locations as far and varied as Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, and San Francisco. Sonoma ounty Transit’s travel training services are also available to the general public but are especially tailored for senior citizens, persons with physical disabilities, and persons with hearing or visual impairments. ST’s travel training service includes teaching public transit skills as well as accompanying passengers on trips to help familiarize them with the system. Joint Procurement Efforts - The joint procurement of bus stop amenities such as passenger waiting shelters, benches, trash receptacles and bicycle racks should be explored between Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit. Marin Transit has also expressed interest in a joint procurement of bus stop amenities with transit operators in

59

Sonoma County. Economies of scale could provide substantial saving on the purchase of jointly procured bus stop amenities. New passenger waiting benches have been purchased by Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit through the same manufacturer over the past couple of years. The three transit operators should work together toward specifying a standard passenger waiting bench for installation throughout Sonoma County. Combining such bus stop amenity purchases among multiple transit agencies would potentially offer substantial savings in the cost per bench and reduce shipping expenses. Bus Route Connectivity with SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit 6/10) – In 2008, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) district completed a white paper entitled Making the Transit Connection. During the preparation of that report, Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit worked with SMART to discuss various service coordination issues that would need to be addressed as SMART implements commuter rail service in Sonoma County. The report offers a look at the options currently available for getting to and from SMART using existing bus routes, and an understanding of how routes might be modified when rail service begins. Providing feeder bus service to and from SM!RT’s stations is not expected to require major modifications to the Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus or Petaluma Transit fixed-route networks. More recently, SMART and Marin County and Sonoma County bus operators have collaborated on the requirements for bus drop-offs at and adjacent to SMART’s stations. Such inter-operator discussions have informed the conceptual engineering designs for SM!RT’s station sites. SMART’s initial operating segment will include service between the cities of Santa Rosa and San Rafael. However, SMART and North Bay transit operators have discussed and analyzed a new express bus service that would also serve the future SMART stations located in Windsor, Healdsburg and Cloverdale, providing connections to the downtown Santa Rosa SMART station. SMART could potentially contract with North Bay transit operators to provide this proposed express bus service between northern Sonoma County cities and SMART. More detailed schedule coordination between the North Bay transit operator’s feeder and connector bus routes and SM!RT’s commuter rail schedule will become essential as the implementation of SM!RT’s service comes closer to fruition. Standardized Hub Wayfinding Signage – The goal of MT’s ay !rea Hub Signage Program is to make it easier for passengers to transfer between connecting transit operators at regionally significant transit hubs by providing consistently designed signage with consistent information. The Santa Rosa Transit Mall will install wayfinding signage that is consistent with MT’s

60

program as part of the revitalization project. In addition, following the initiation of SM!RT’s commuter rail service in Sonoma County it is anticipated that such a standardized wayfinding signage strategy will carry over to all of SM!RT’s commuter rail stations.

Conclusion Sonoma County Transit, Santa Rosa CityBus and Petaluma Transit, while operating as separate and distinct transit agencies, continue to work collaboratively in areas that show potential for efficiencies, customer satisfaction, standardization of customer interaction, multi-modal coordination, customer training, level of information availability and ease of accessibility. At this point, these three transit operators, along with other regional operators providing transit service in the North Bay, are either already engaged or are in the process of implementing coordinated programs that are recommendations in MT’s Transit onnectivity Plan and Transit Sustainability Project. It is anticipated that the following transit coordination projects in Sonoma County will have been completed within the next two years: 

New Countywide Call-Center and Website



Consolidation of Multi-Agency Bus Stops



Introduction of Real Time Bus Information Systems



Free Access to Wi-Fi at Various Transit Hubs



Coordination of Feeder Bus Connections to SMART



Joint Procurement of Bus Stop Amenities

This appendix of inter-operator coordination efforts will continue to serve as the foundation for ongoing and proposed transit coordination projects in Sonoma County.

61

Staff Report

To:


From:


Item:

4.3.1 – Transit Coordinated Claim for FY13/14

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) adopt the FY13/14 Coordinated Claim for transit funding from TDA/STA/Measure M for submittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)? Background: Each year a Coordinated Claim for Transportation Development Act (TDA), State Transit Assistance (STA), and Measure M funds is developed by the jurisdictions of Sonoma County. These funds are the primary source of operating revenue for all of Sonoma County’s transit operators. Because the service areas of transit operators in Sonoma County cross jurisdictional boundaries, MTC requires that a Coordinated Claim for these funds be prepared and adopted annually by the SCTA. Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues are derived from sales tax receipts (one quarter of 1% of the state sales tax) State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are derived from a portion of sales tax revenues collected from the sale of vehicle fuels. They are allocated from three subcategories: i)

Population Formula Funds go to local operators for transit projects.

ii) Regional Paratransit Funds are available from MTC for paratransit services by Sonoma County Transit, Petaluma Transit & Santa Rosa CityBus. iii) Revenue Based Funds are allocated to operators eligible for TDA Article 4: Sonoma County Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus Measure M revenues are also derived from sales tax receipts (one quarter of 1%) with bus transit receiving 10% of the incoming revenue. Measure M is administered by SCTA. Measure M funds are generally used by local operators to support fixed-route and paratransit operations. The revenue streams from all of these sources are affected by changes in the economy, as well as changes in legislation and programs; thus operators must deal with funding instability as a constant condition. Population is another variable since it is used as a method of distribution of funding. From the 06/07 Coordinated Claim until now, the Sonoma County Transit service area population percentage (i.e., 100% minus Santa Rosa & Petaluma) has decreased from 55.44% to 53.38%; Santa Rosa has risen from 32.74% to 34.67%; Petaluma has increased from 11.82% to 11.94%, of total county population.

62

What is the Coordinated Claim? The Coordinated Claim documents existing inter-jurisdictional funding agreements for transit services in Sonoma County as they relate to the distribution of TDA, STA and Measure M funds. The process of developing the Coordinated Claim each year is the primary mechanism for establishing contribution amounts for services provided by transit operators to local jurisdictions. The funding amounts displayed in the Coordinated Claim are estimates based on the latest fund estimates prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the County Auditor’s office. While the fund estimates are subject to fluctuation over the course of the fiscal year, the Coordinated Claim serves as the basis from which transit operators base their annual TDA & STA funding requests to MTC. Generally transit operators make their annual claims to MTC in May and June, so that funding is received prior to the start of the new fiscal year. Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Funding Coordination: In general, most jurisdictions provide TDA funding to Sonoma County Transit for a variety of contract transit services. For a complete listing of all contracted services, please refer to the Coordinated Claim. Based on a contribution formula established in FY 1996/1997, all Sonoma County entities contribute to Golden Gate Transit (GGT). Collectively, as required by MTC resolution 2858, these contributions provide an amount equal to 25% of Sonoma County’s TDA funds each fiscal year. In order to fund complementary paratransit services required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, each entity that contracts with Sonoma County Transit contributes an additional 20% of their fixed-route contributions to support ADA required paratransit services. Currently, Sonoma County Transit contracts with Volunteer Wheels to provide its ADA paratransit service. Petaluma Transit and Santa Rosa CityBus contract with MV Transportation to provide paratransit services within their respective service areas. TDA funds can also be used for non-transit purposes if MTC makes a finding that “all transit needs which are reasonable to meet are being met” in those jurisdictions claiming funds for other purposes. Recognizing the increased need for paratransit services and continuing unmet transit needs, the SCTA determined that use of TDA funds for non-transit purposes be phased out by 2002 (Resolution 2001 008). Fiscal Impacts: The combined total from the three funding sources is estimated at $24,429,456. Staff Recommendation: The Draft FY13/14 Coordinated Claim has been reviewed and approved for recommendation by the Transit Technical Advisory Committee (T-TAC) on March 20, 2013, and the Transit Paratransit Coordinating Committee (TPCC) on March 19, 2013. Staff recommends the Board review the attached Draft FY13/14 Coordinated Claim for Sonoma County and consider adopting Resolution No. 2013-013.

63

Sonoma County

TDA Coordinated Claim Fiscal Year 2013-14

TDA

Transit TAC Recommended Draft - 03-25-13

Updated 03-25-13

I. TDA Funds Available

FY 2013-14 $19,510,000

TDA Forecast Less:

1.7

MTC Administration MTC Planning County Administration

Subtotal: Less:

Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Funding (2.0%)

Total:

Article 4 and 8 available

SCTA Adopted Coordinated Claim Distribution FY 2012-13 $18,500,000

97,550 585,300 15,000 18,812,150

92,500 555,000 15,000 17,837,500

376,243

356,750

$18,435,907

$17,480,750

Population*

Percent

County Auditor's Estimate for FY 2013-14 reflects a 5.46% change over FY 2012-13 Coordinated Claim distribution.

II. Distribution of TDA Funds A. Distribution by Apportionment Area Area

FY 2013-14 Apportionment

FY 2012-13 Apportionment

Difference

Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor County

8,629 7,276 11,442 58,165 40,846 168,841 7,405 10,665 27,003 146,739

1.7718% 1.4940% 2.3494% 11.9433% 8.3871% 34.6688% 1.5205% 2.1899% 5.5446% 30.1305%

$326,653 275,435 433,139 2,201,849 1,546,234 6,391,513 280,318 403,726 1,022,204 5,554,837

$310,948 262,252 411,787 2,092,810 1,478,269 6,059,491 266,378 384,370 966,613 5,247,831

$15,705 13,183 21,352 109,039 67,965 332,022 13,940 19,356 55,591 307,006

Total

487,011

100.0000%

18,435,907

17,480,749

955,158

* California Department of Finance - January 1, 2012 - Based on published population by entity - Table E-1.

B. Funds allocated to Golden Gate Transit for regional transit services: Area Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor County Total

Distribution

FY 2013-14 Allocation

FY 2012-13 Allocation

10.0056% 28.8605% 10.0056% 28.8605% 28.8605% 25.0000% 10.0056% 10.0056% 10.0056% 28.8605%

$32,684 79,492 43,338 635,464 446,250 1,597,878 28,047 40,395 102,278 1,603,151

$31,095 75,686 41,179 603,985 426,629 1,514,873 26,638 38,437 96,661 1,514,524

4,608,977

4,369,707

25.00% of County TDA

Sonoma County TDA Coordinated Claim

Page 1 of 4

Sonoma County

TDA Coordinated Claim

TDA


Fiscal Year 2013-14 Updated 03-25-13

1.7

C. Contribution to Sonoma County Transit for intercity services between Petaluma and Santa Rosa: (Sonoma County Transit Routes 44 & 48) FY 2013-14 Percent of Route Budget*

Area Petaluma

14.64%

Fixed-Route Allocation

Paratransit Allocation**

184,410 (1)

36,882

* Cotati and Rohnert Park contributions to Sonoma County Transit Routes 44 & 48 are included in Section D.

(1) - includes contribution for maintenance of the

** Assumes 20% of fixed-route contribution for ADA complementary paratransit services.

Petaluma Transit Mall.

D. Funds allocated to support intercity Sonoma County Transit/Paratransit services: FY 2012-13 Total Contribution

80%

20%

Fixed Route

Cotati Sebastopol Healdsburg Cloverdale Windsor Rohnert Park Sonoma

$148,513 116,910 246,033 190,799 621,492 399,925 165,027

Total

1,888,699

Area

Total Contribution

80%

20%

Paratransit

FY 2013-14 Percent of TDA

Fixed Route

Paratransit

$118,810 93,528 196,826 152,639 497,194 319,940 132,022

$29,703 23,382 49,207 38,160 124,298 79,985 33,005

Remainder Remainder Remainder* Remainder* Remainder Remainder Remainder

$155,812 122,735 243,182 200,052 657,902 412,688 172,548

$124,650 98,188 194,546 160,042 526,322 330,150 138,038

$31,162 24,547 48,636 40,010 131,580 82,538 34,510

1,510,959

377,740

1,964,919

1,571,935

392,984

* Remaining TDA funds less support for City operated transit services.

E. Other contract services between apportionment areas:

Area

FY 2013-14 Contribution

Cloverdale

$93,917

County County

77,200

Cotati Total FR * PT Cotati* Cotati**

Claiming Agency

Purpose

County

Cloverdale Transit local service (reimbursement)

Santa Rosa

Support for Santa Rosa Transit Mall Operations

FY 2012-13 Contribution 89,055 ---

$40,130 32,104 8,026

County County County

Local Routes 10 & 11 Local Paratransit Contribution**

$146,619

County

Healdsburg Transit local service (reimbursement)

146,619

Rohnert Park FR & PT Total Rohnert Park* Rohnert Park**

687,296 549,837 137,459


Local Routes 10,11,12,14 Local Paratransit Contribution**

651,716 521,373 130,343

Sebastopol FR & PT Total Sebastopol* Sebastopol**

129,536 103,629 25,907


Local Route 24 Local Paratransit Contribution**

122,830 98,264 24,566

Sonoma FR & PT Total Sonoma* Sonoma**

190,782 152,626 38,156


Local Routes 32 & 34 Local Paratransit Contribution**

180,906 144,725 36,181

Windsor FR & PT Total Windsor* Windsor**

262,025 209,620 52,405


Local Route 66 *** Local Paratransit Contribution**

248,460 198,768 49,692

Healdsburg

* Contributions assume a

38,053 30,442 7,611

5.46% change over FY 2012-13 (from page 1).

** Assumes 20% of fixed-route contribution for ADA complementary paratransit services. *** Includes contribution for maintenance of the Windsor Intermodal Facility.


Page 2 of 4

65

Sonoma County

TDA Coordinated Claim Fiscal Year 2013-14

TDA


Updated 03-25-13 1.7

F. Paratransit Contributions See paratransit contributions detailed in Section II, C,D,E and summarized in Section III column F.

Prior-Year Revenue Adjustment* *Prior year revenue adjustments are reflected in "Prior Year TDA Funds Available" on page 4. Balances are in accordance with MTC's Draft Regional Fund Estimate dated February 27, 2013.

IV. Distribution of TDA Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Funds FY 2013-14 Funds Available

Area

Population

Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor County

1.7718% 1.4940% 2.3494% 11.9433% 8.3871% 34.6688% 1.5205% 2.1899% 5.5446% 30.1305%

$6,666 5,621 8,840 44,936 31,556 130,439 5,721 8,239 20,861 113,364

$6,666 5,621 8,840 44,936 31,556 130,439 5,721 8,239 20,861 113,364

100.0000%

376,243

376,243

Total

Apportionment

Article 3 Summary Projected

FY 2013-14

Apportionment

$376,243

Projected Prior-Year Fund Balance*

760,141

Total Article 3 Funds Available

1,136,384

* Per MTC Draft Regional Fund Estimate 2-27-13.

Article 3 claimants should verify their prior-year balance with SCTA prior to submitting a claim to MTC.


Page 3 of 4

66

Sonoma County

TDA Coordinated Claim


Fiscal Year 2013-14

TDA

Updated 03-25-13

III. Summary of TDA Fund Activity

Agency

1.7

A. FY 2013-14 TDA Apportionment

B. FY 2013-14 Contributions to GGT

C/D. FY 2013-14 Contributions to SCT

E. +/FY 2013-14 Contract Services

F. FY 2013-14 Contributions to SC Paratransit

Projected FY 2013-14 TDA Entitlement

$326,653 275,435 433,139 2,201,849 1,546,234 6,391,513 280,318 403,726 1,022,204 5,554,837 ----

($32,684) (79,492) (43,338) (635,464) (446,250) (1,597,878) (28,047) (40,395) (102,278) (1,603,151) 4,608,977

($160,042) (124,650) (341,165) (184,410) (330,150) ---(98,188) (138,038) (526,322) 1,902,964 --

($93,917) (32,104) ------(549,837) 77,200 (103,629) (152,626) (209,620) 1,064,533 --

($40,010) (39,188) (48,636) (36,882) (219,997) ---(50,454) (72,666) (183,985) 691,820 --

$0 0 0 1,345,093 (0) 4,870,834 (0) 0 0 7,611,003 4,608,977

Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor County GGT Total

18,435,907

$18,435,907

* From MTC's Regional Fund Estimate dated 2-27-13. Claimants should confirm prior-year balances with MTC prior to submitting a claim for prior-year funds.

Projected Prior-Year TDA Funds Available* $0 0 0 385,677 0 1,559,909 (1) 0 0 0 4,505,347 87,148 $6,538,081

Projected Total TDA Funds Available $0 0 0 1,730,770 (0) 6,430,743 (0) 0 0 12,116,350 4,696,125 $24,973,989

(1) - $7,115,252 Regional Fund estimate (2-27-13) less FY 2013 Claims processed 2-2013 $5,371,543 - A4 Operations + $183,800 A4 Capital - totaling $5,555,343).

Measure M Transit Distribution FY 2013-14 TDA Forecast Measure M Adjustment Factor:

$19,510,000 99.5000%

FY 2013-14

$19,412,450

Measure M Forecast

Measure M Distribution to Transit (19%)

$3,688,366

- Distribution for Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects (4%) - Distribution to SMART (5%) - Distribution to Transit Operators (10%)

776,498 970,623 1,941,245

Distribution to Transit Operators based on TDA Population Percentages Distribution Petaluma Transit Santa Rosa CityBus Sonoma County Transit Total


11.9433% 34.6688% 53.3879%

231,848 673,007 1,036,390

100.0000%

1,941,245

Page 4 of 4

67

Sonoma County

STA Coordinated Claim


per MTC estimate dated 02-27-13

STA

Updated 02-15-13

Projected FY 2014 STA Funds Available for Allocation - By Operator (subject to change by MTC)

1.1

Total FY 2014 Funds

Distribution

Available for Entity Cotati Petaluma Transit Healdsburg Santa Rosa CityBus Petaluma Sonoma County Transit Golden Gate Transit Total

STA Population

Regional Paratransit

207,168 751,708 1,209,884 ---

55,289 160,493 247,257 51,449 **

$2,168,760

$514,488

Revenue Based STA

Allocation

21,093 111,826 162,134 ---

283,550 1,024,026 1,619,276 51,449

$295,053

$2,978,301

* Estimated funds available. Fund availaility subject to SCTA/MTC process, to be determined.

Distribution of Prior-Year Funds Available for Allocation - By Operator Distribution

Entity

STA Population


Petaluma Transit Santa Rosa CityBus Sonoma County Transit Golden Gate Transit

0 0 0 ---

764 2,217 3,416 711

Total

$0

$7,108

Revenue Based STA 42 48,177 15,935 * --$64,112

Total Prior-Year Funds Available Available for Allocation 764 50,394 19,351 711 71,220

* includes $12,669 in prior year Revenue-Based STA from the City of Healdsburg apportionment area

Sonoma County STA Coordinated Claim

Page 1 of 2

68

Sonoma County

STA Coordinated Claim


STA

per MTC estimate dated 02-27-13 Updated 02-15-13

Projected FY 2014 STA Funds Available

1.6

Distribution Population*

% Population

STA Population


Petaluma Transit Santa Rosa CityBus Sonoma County Transit Golden Gate Transit

Entity Operator

58,165 168,841 260,119 ---

11.9405% 34.6607% 53.3988% ---

258,960 751,708 1,158,092 ---

61,432 178,325 274,731 ---

Total

487,125

100.0000%

$2,168,760

$514,488

Revenue Based STA 21,093 103,278 162,134 * ---$286,505

* includes $4,565 from the City of Healdsburg apportionment area

STA Population Based Fund Summary Distribution by Operator Total FY 14

Funds Available

FY 14

Allocation to Sonoma County Transit

FY 14

Total Funds Available

$2,168,760 $2,168,760

Petaluma Transit

Santa Rosa CityBus

Sonoma County Transit

$258,960

$751,708

$1,158,092

(51,792)

---

$207,168

$751,708

$1,209,884

51,792

FY 2014 Multi-Jurisdictional STA Project List (Population Formula Funds) Distribution by Operator

ADA Implementation

Claimant

Total

Petaluma Transit

Santa Rosa CityBus


SCT

$51,792

$51,792

---

$51,792

$51,792

$51,792

---

$51,792

Petaluma Transit

Santa Rosa CityBus


$514,488

$61,432

$178,325

$274,731

(51,449)

(6,143)

(17,833)

(27,473)

$463,039

$55,289

$160,493

$247,257

Total

STA Regional Paratransit Fund Summary Distribution by Operator Claimant FY 14

Funds Available

FY 14

Regional ADA Support*

FY 14

Total Funds Available

Sonoma County STA Coordinated Claim

GGT

Total

Page 2 of 2

69

SCTA Resolution No. 2013-013 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 8, 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2013/2014 SONOMA COUNTY COORDINATED CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA), STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE (STA) AND MEASURE M FUNDS WHEREAS, the Cities and County of Sonoma are eligible for Transportation Development Act (TDA), State Transit Assistance (STA), and Measure M funds; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has adopted rules and regulations governing the administration of these funds; and WHEREAS, consistent with the adopted rules and regulations the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is required to adopt a Sonoma County Coordinated Claim for Transportation Development Act (TDA), State Transit Assistance (STA) and Measure M funds developed in coordination with all the Cities and the County; and WHEREAS, consistent with the adopted rules and regulations of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Transit Paratransit Coordinating Committee (TPCC) has endorsed the Coordinated Claims. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority does hereby adopt the attached Sonoma County TDA/STA Coordinated Claims Fiscal Year 2013/2014, THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced by Director _________, who moved its adoption, seconded by Director __________, and adopted by the following vote: Director Allen Director Carlstrom Director Chambers Director Gallian Director Gurney Director Harris Ayes:


Absent:

Abstain:

I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on April 8, 2013. SO ORDERED

Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority 70

Staff Report

To:


From:


Item:

4.3.2 – FY 2013/2014 TDA Article 3 Program of Projects

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) Board of Directors approve a “Program of Projects” for submittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the FY2013-2014 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA3) funding? Background: Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are generated from a statewide ¼ cent sales tax. Article 3 of TDA is a set-aside of approximately 2% of those monies. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) administers TDA3, which is distributed based on population. Each year, an annual fund estimate or “entitlement” is developed for each jurisdiction. Unused “entitlement” is accumulated as credit. A jurisdiction’s claim in any given year cannot exceed the sum of their accumulated credit plus their projected entitlement for the following two years. Sonoma County’s cities/towns and the County of Sonoma are eligible to apply. TDA3 funds may be used for bicycle lanes, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and related planning and marketing efforts. There are no matching requirements with this funding source. TDA 3 projects are required to meet Caltrans safety design criteria and CEQA requirements; be completed within three years; be maintained; be consistent with adopted bicycle plans; and be authorized by a governing council or board. A “Call for Projects” was issued on January 16, 2013, with an application deadline of March 13, 2013. In addition to the application, project sponsors were requested to deliver an authorizing governing-body resolution to SCTA staff, as well as documentation of environmental clearance and maps/documents showing project locations and design parameters. Our final submissions are due to MTC at the end of April 2013. Applications for seven (7) projects have been received: one (1) from Sebastopol, two (2) from Sonoma, and four (4) from Santa Rosa. Please see project information below: (1) Applicant: Sebastopol Contact: Susan Kelly Project: Class II Bikes Lanes on State Route 116 in the City of Sebastopol Project Description: This project includes engineering, design, environmental and permitting for approximately 3.25 miles of Class II Bike Lanes along State Route 116 in the City of Sebastopol.

71

Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: 1. Traffic Impact Fund (City)

All Prior FYs

Totals

Application FY13/14 $59,439

Totals $59,439

$60,561

$60,561

$120,000

$120,000

(2) Applicant: Sonoma Contact: Wendy Watkins Project: Napa Road Class II Bike Lanes Project Description: The project will complete a proposed Class II bike lane identified in the 2008 Sonoma Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. It would restripe Napa Road to include Class II bike lanes from Broadway to the eastern city limits (west of Fifth Street East) within the City of Sonoma. Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: 1. CDGB 2. City General Fund

All Prior FYs


Totals $5,000

$70,000

$68,000 $2,000

$138,000 $2,000

Totals

$145,000

(3) Applicant: Sonoma Contact: Wendy Watkins Project: Class I Bike Path through Depot Park Project Description: This project consists of improvements to the Class I Bike Path through Depot Park. These improvements include replacing the bike path with an 8-foot wide and 1.5-inch thick hot mix asphalt overlay, construction of ADA ramps at each end of the bike path, and installation of warning signage, bollards, and striping/markings. Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: 1. One Bay Area Grant 2. City General Fund Totals

All Prior FYs


Totals $65,000

$250,000 $298,000

$250,000 $298,000 $613,000

72

(4) Applicant: Santa Rosa Contact: Nancy Adams Project: Class III Bike Signage Program Project Description: Update existing signs to designate Class III Bike Facilities City-wide Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: Totals

All Prior FYs

Application FY 13/14 Totals $20,000 $20,000 $20,000

$20,000

(5) Applicant: Santa Rosa Contact: Nancy Adams Project: Pedestrian Enhancements Citywide – To be determined (TBD) Project Description: This project would construct pedestrian pavement markings, signs, electronic warning devices, and/or medians within existing City right of way at crossing locations on arterial and collector streets Citywide. Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: Totals

All Prior FYs


$100,000

(6) Applicant: Santa Rosa Contact: Nancy Adams Project: Class II bike lanes – 7thSt./A St./6th St., between Morgan & B Street Project Description: This project will restripe segments of roadway to include bike lanes, which will connect to the existing Class II bike lanes on Morgan Street and continue east to B Street connecting to the existing Humboldt Street Bike Boulevard. Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: Totals

All Prior FYs


$55,000

(7) Applicant: Santa Rosa Contact: Nancy Adams Project: Third Street Traffic Signal

73

Project Description: Project includes installation of a traffic signal at Santa Rosa Avenue at Mill Street, and restriping Third Street between Morgan and B Street, which includes class II bike lanes and pedestrian enhancements. Funding Source TDA Article 3 list all other sources: Totals

All Prior FYs


$93,000

Fiscal Impacts:

The proposed “Program of Projects” will provide $397,439 of benefit to Sonoma County.

Action Requested: Recommend passing the associated resolution, approving the FY 2013/2014 TDA3 Program of Projects as listed in Attachment A.

74

ATTACHMENT A

TDA Article 3 – FY 2013/2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project List TDA3 Funds Requested

Jurisdiction

Contact Person

Project Title

1

Sebastopol

Susan Kelly

Class II Bike Lanes on SR116

$59,439

2

Sonoma

Wendy Watkins

Napa Road Class II Bike Lanes

$65,000

3

Sonoma

Wendy Watkins

Class I Bike Path Through Depot Park

4

Santa Rosa

Nancy Adams

Class III Bike Signage Program

5

Santa Rosa

Nancy Adams

Pedestrian Enhancements Citywide

6

Santa Rosa

Nancy Adams

Class II bike lanes – 7th St. / A St. / 6th St., between Morgan & B Street

$55,000

7

Santa Rosa

Nancy Adams

Third Street Traffic Signal

$93,000

$5,000 $20,000

Total:

$100,000

$397,439

75

SCTA Resolution No. 2013-014 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 8, 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A PROJECT LIST FOR THE FY 2013/2014 ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 3, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FUNDS FOR SONOMA COUNTY WHEREAS, the cities and County of Sonoma are eligible for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has adopted Resolution No. 875 establishing procedures and project evaluation criteria for these funds; and WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority requires the appointment of local bicycle advisory committees and has established the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee with representatives from each jurisdiction in Sonoma County; and WHEREAS, City and County bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees have been appointed, have met and have reviewed bicycle and pedestrian projects submitted for TDA Article 3 funds and recommended them for consideration by the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee is required to recommend a TDA Article 3 project list to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority for their approval; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee finds these projects to be consistent with those requirements and criteria set forth for TDA Article 3 projects by the SCTA; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee endorses the TDA Article 3 project list for Fiscal Year 2013/2014 attached hereto as “Attachment A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority does hereby find the projects attached hereto as “Attachment A” suitable for funding under TDA Article 3; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority does hereby authorize the distribution of TDA Article 3 funds to the above projects and directs the Executive Director to submit these projects to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for TDA Article 3 funding.

76

SCTA Resolution No. 2013-014 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Santa Rosa, California April 8, 2013

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was introduced by Director __________, who moved its adoption, seconded by Director __________, and adopted by the following vote: Director Allen Director Carlstrom Director Chambers Director Gallian Director Gurney Director Harris Ayes:


Absent:

Abstain:

SO ORDERED I, the undersigned, certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority held on April 08, 2013:

__________________________________ Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Clerk, Sonoma County Transportation Authority

77

ATTACHMENT A TDA Article 3 – FY 2013/2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project List Project Sponsor

TDA3 Funds Requested

Project Title

1

Sebastopol

Class II Bike Lanes on SR116

$59,439

2

Sonoma

Napa Road Class II Bike Lanes

$65,000

3

Sonoma

Class I Bike Path Through Depot Park

4

Santa Rosa

Class III Bike Signage Program

5

Santa Rosa

Pedestrian Enhancements Citywide

6

Santa Rosa

Class II bike lanes – 7th St. / A St. / 6th St., between Morgan & B Street

$55,000

7

Santa Rosa

Third Street Traffic Signal

$93,000

TOTAL:

$5,000 $20,000 $100,000

$397,439

78

Staff Report

To:


From:


Item:

4.3.3 – Proposed projects for Priority Conservation Area

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: What projects shall SCTA propose to MTC as part of the pilot program to fund Priority Conservation Area (PCA) related projects with regionally available federal transportation funds? Background: In 2012 as part of the discussion surrounding the Bay Area’s first Sustainable Communities Strategy, the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding and the role of Priority Development Areas (PDA) in absorbing planned growth in the Bay region over the next 30 years the four North Bay Counties suggested that counties striving to protect and address Priority Conservation Areas (PCA) should be eligible for a different, additional source of funding for projects. This discussion ultimately resulted in a commitment from MTC of $5M in federal transportation funds to the four North Bay counties and the PCA Pilot Program. The SCTA reached out to eligible recipient and interested parties on the pilot program and discussed eligible projects and priorities. This was an evolving process as the passage of MAP-21 altered some of the discussion in terms of what was eligible to be funded with the federal funds. In addition, the MTC Commissioners from the North Bay have met several times to discuss their expectations of the pilot program and one of the fundamental principles was that the $5M would be split equally among the four counties so each County has a target of $1.25M. After much discussion with and among local partners two projects emerged as excellent candidates for PCA funds: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District submitted a $250,000 request for funds to create an Urban Footprint model that will allow for an integrated approach to evaluating greenhouse gas emissions in Sonoma County from a variety of sectors. It does so by building a spatially explicit modeling tool that will allow decision makers to assess various policy and development scenarios and understand their implications on emissions, energy use, water use, air quality, public health, land consumption, and fiscal impacts. Sonoma County Transportation and Public Works submitted at $1,000,000 request for the West Sonoma County Scenic Farm to Market Access Project – on Bodega Highway west of Sebastopol. This project is significant to providing access to open space and recreation as well as for agricultural farm to market connectivity. Bodega Hwy is one of three key transportation corridors in Sonoma County that provides access to the County's coastal resource areas and parks and also serves as the primary farm to market access in western Sonoma County.

79

Copies of the applications are attached. Policy Impacts: This is the first PCA programming exercise the SCTA will have undertaken but it is consistent with the SCTA roles and policies to participate in this type of programming activity and it is consistent with our agreement with MTC to do so. Fiscal Impacts: In taking the proposed action the SCTA is recommending funding for two new projects, including one that will utilize SCTA and RCPA staff time to examine conservation planning. This will be a fiscal benefit to the SCTA and RCPA budgets of approximately $15,000 and $10,000 respectively over a two year period. Staff Recommendation: Consider recommending the proposed projects to MTC for funding via the Priority Conservation Area pilot program available to the North Bay.

80

SONOMA

COUNTY

AGRI CULTURAL PRESERVATIO N A ND O PEN SPAC E DISTR I CT

March 15, 2013

Mrs. Suzanne Smith Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 490 Mendocino Ave, Suite 206 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 RE: One Bay Area Grant - Priority Conservation Area Application Dear Mrs. Smith, The purpose of this letter is to transmit the application for the One Bay Area Grant - Priority Conservation Area Program on behalf of the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District (SCAPOSD), Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA), and County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works. Attached is the application for: •

Sonoma County Urban Footprint Analysis

The application is for a modeling effort that will help Sonoma County fully represent and integrate Priority Conservation Areas in decisions related to land use and transportation. As the project is for a modeling effort, the application does not include a project map or complete streets checklist. The application does include the Sonoma County General Plan Circulation Element for Complete Streets and the Housing and Community Development Certification letter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me at (707) 565-7348.

Bill Keene General Manager, SCAPOSD CC:

Seana Gause - SCTA Susan Klassen - TPW

747 Mendocino Avenue. Suite 100 • Santa Rosa. Californ ia 95401-4850 707.565.7360 • Fax 707.565.7359. www.sonomaopenspace.org

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application Required Attachments: FOR INTERNAL SCTA USE ONLY General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Amendment or Complete Streets Policy Resolution Housing &Community Development (HCD)Certification for General Plan Housing Element Complete Streets Checklist Project Map (including Priority Development Area (PDA) boundaries) Transit District: GP and HCD Exempt Project on Tribal Lands: GP and HCD Exempt Please complete the requested fields below: Project Sponsor:So Co Trans. & Public Works Single Point Contact: Karen Gaffney Email/Phone: [email protected]/707.565.7344 Project Title:Sonoma County Urban Footprint Analysis Project Location/Description: The project is located in Sonoma County. TPW will work with the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District and the Regional Climate Protection Authority to create an integrated approach to analyzing GHG emissions in Sonoma County from a variety of sectors - including transportation, water supply, built environment, agricultural and natural landscapes. We will develop a spatially explicit modeling tool that integrates GHG analyses from multiple sectors, develops scenarios for policy and management decisions. The analysis, scenario building and reporting elements of this tool are expected to support Sonoma County agencies and the public in effectively complying with the goals of SB 375 and AB 32, and may place the County in a good position to attract outside funding from these and other programs. Specifically, the development of this tool will include the enhancement of conservation elements to ensure that Priority Conservation Areas (as outlined in SB 375) are fully represented and integrated into the model. The result is a modeling tool that helps Sonoma County understand and illustrate the impact of various land use and transportation decisions on Priority Conservation Areas.

Project Type: Check all that apply; indicate percentage of each if there is more than one element Transit Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements1 Local Streets and Roads Preservation2 Safe Routes to Schools or Transit1 Transportation for Livable Communities1

June 25, 2012

% % % % %

Page 1 of 4 82

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application 1

2

Priority Conservation Areas (Pilot Program) Is project within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)? Roads must be eligible for federal aid.

100% Y

N

See Attachment A of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Resolution 4035 Cycle 2 Program Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy for details on the above.

RTP ID#: Transportation for Livable Communities: 21011 Regional Bicycle Program: 22247 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance: 230700 Other: 230550 RTP Goals: Please describe the relationship of project to meeting goals of the MTC Proposed Regional Transportation Plan(RTP):Urban Footprint analysis in Sonoma County will serve nearly all of the goals of the RTP: 1. Climate Protection - Urban Footprint will help decision makers in Sonoma County assess the GHG impacts of various transportation, land use, land conservation, and other policy decisions. 2. Reduce Premature Death from Particulate Matter - Urban Footprint will help illustrate the human health implications of various development scenarios. 3. Increase average daily walking and biking for Transportation - Urban Footprint will allow for the ability to assess the impacts of transportation investments and land use decisions on biking and walking at a finer scale than is currently possible. 4. Equitable Access - Urban Footprint will allow for an analysis of the impacts of various transportation and land use decisions on different demographics, and for the ability to compare relative levels of service and access across income levels and communities. 6. Adequate Housing - Urban Footprint will help identify areas of the County that may be under served from a housing perspective based on current plans and future trends. 8. Open space and agricultural preservation - Urban Footprint will help decision makers understand how preservation of Priority Conservation Areas fit within a broader land use context in Sonoma County, and help Sonoma County meaningfully address the requirement in SB 375 to incorporate PCAs into a Sustainable Communities Strategy. 9. Economic Vitality - agriculture and tourism are the foundations of Sonoma County's economy; being able to illustrate the impact of planning decisions on these industries is essential in preserving and

June 25, 2012

Page 2 of 4 83

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application bolstering local economic vitality, while at the same time demonstrating that land conservation, agriculture and tourism are mutually reinforcing.

Check which goals apply: Climate Protection Reduce Premature Death from Particulate Matter Increase Average Daily Walking and

Biking for Transportation by 60% Equitable Access Decrease Average Per Trip Travel Time

Adequate Housing Reduce # of Injuries and Fatalities from Collisions

Open Space and Agricultural Preservation

Economic Vitality Maintain the Transportation System in a State of Good Repair Please answer the following questions regarding the proposed project:

1. Does Sponsor have Complete Streets Act of 2008 compliant General Plan (GP)? (attach reference or resolution) 2. Does Sponsor have a Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified GP Housing Element? (attach certification letter, or see below) In order to waive the above requirement GP Housing element must already be submitted to HCD for consideration. Date submitted to HCD: 3. Is there a Complete Streets Checklist attached to this application? 4. Has the sponsor failed to comply with regional or state delivery

milestones in the past 3 years?

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

5. Is there a Project Map attached to the current application? Y N 6. Is the proposed project inside the boundaries of an approved Priority Y N Development Area (PDA)? 7. Is the project directly connected to a PDA? Y N 8. Does the project provide proximate access to a PDA? Y N 9. If the project provides proximate access to a PDA, please explain how:a county wide model and tools will serve all PDAs located in Sonoma County. 10. Does the project serve a Community of Concern? Y N 11. Did sponsor do public outreach to develop this project specifically? Y N Please provide documentation of the public outreach process including dates and times of meetings held, number of participants and notification process: The RCPA Board - including the County of Sonoma and the nine incorporated cities - publicly vetted the Sonoma County Greenhouse Gas Reduction

June 25, 2012

Page 3 of 4 84

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application Implementation Program (GRIP) and approved the development of tools to integrate conservation and land use in climate action planning. Public Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District Board of Directors meetings discussed and approved the development of climate action plans that integrated conservation into the suite of strategies to address climate change. The RCPA Board meetings are held second Monday of every month and public notification occurs via the RCPA/SCTA website and written noticing. The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has weekly Board meetings on Tuesdays and these are publicly noticed in compliance with the Brown Act.

12. Funding Estimates: Round to nearest thousand for programming purposes Project Cost:283,000 Grant Request:250,000 Total Project Cost: 283,000 Phase FFY 13/14 FFY 14/15 FFY 15/16 Federal Fund

Preliminary Engineering Right-of-Way Construction Construction Engineering

$200,000 $ $ $

Local Match

Federal Fund

$33,000 $ $ $

$500

Local Match

Federal Fund

Local Match

$

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$

$

$

$

Indicate source(s) of matching funds here: Source Amount

SCAPOSD $33,000

$

13. Complete Streets Components: Please indicate all the complete streets elements proposed as part of this project:

June 25, 2012

Page 4 of 4 85

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application 11a. Choose an item. 11c. Choose an item. 11e. Choose an item. 11g. Choose an item. 11i. Choose an item.

11b. Choose an item. 11d. Choose an item. 11f. Choose an item. 11h. Choose an item. 11j.

14. Schedule: Please provide project development schedule: Phase Scoping ENV PSE R/W CON

Begin MO/YR

End MO/YR

4/13

10/14

Please indicate the dates sponsor anticipates achieving the following milestones: 14a. Resolution of Local Support for project:5/13 14b. FMS Application:6/13 14c. Field Review:6/13 14d. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Local Assistance Procedures Manual Form 9-B:6/13 14e. Request for Authorization: (Please indicate both PE and CON phases if seeking funding for both):

6/13

14f. Receipt of Authorization (E-76):7/13

15. If a Local Streets and Roads Preservation (LSRP) project, please indicate the federal aid classification of each road proposed: 16. If a LSRP, please indicate the number of lane miles to be improved (include street name, length and Pavement Condition Index [PCI] of each segment):

June 25, 2012

Page 5 of 4 86

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application 17. If LSRP project, what type?

Pavement Rehabilitation (70 PCI),

Non-Pavement

18. Does sponsor have a current, certified Pavement Management Program?

18a.Please indicate the date of last certification:

June 25, 2012

Y

N

Page 6 of 4 87

COUNTY OF SONOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TION AND PUBLIC WORKS 2300 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE B 100 SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95403

Susan R. Klassen, Interim Director

AREA CODE (707) ROADS .............................................. 565-2231 TRANSIT ..........................................585-7516 REFUSE ............................................565-7940 AIRPORT .........................................565-7243 AIR POLLUTION ............................433-5911 FAX ...................................................565-2620

www.sonoma-county.org/tpw

February 28,2013

Mrs. Suzanne Smith Executive Director Sonoma County Transportation Authority 520 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa CA, 95401

RE:

One Bay Area Project - Priority Conservation Area Application ,.,.:;

/"

DearMr~ The purpose of this letter is to transmit the County of Sonoma Department of Transportation and Public Works application for the One Bay Area Grant - Priority Conservation Area Program. Attached is the application for: •

West Sonoma County Scenic Farm to Market Access Project

The application includes a project location map and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Complete Streets Checklist for the project, the Sonoma County General Plan Circulation Element for Complete Streets and the Housing and Community Development Certification letter. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact me at (707) 565-3884.

Pavement Preservation Manager

CC:

Seana Gause - SCTA Tom O'Kane, TPW Susan Klassen, TPW SCTA Director Rabbit SCTA Director McGuire SCTA Director Zane

Attachments

88

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application Required Attachments: FOR INTERNAL SCTA USE ONLY General Plan (GP) Circulation Element Amendment or Complete Streets Policy Resolution Housing &Community Development (HCD)Certification for General Plan Housing Element Complete Streets Checklist Project Map (including Priority Development Area (PDA) boundaries) Transit District: GP and HCD Exempt Project on Tribal Lands: GP and HCD Exempt Please complete the requested fields below: Project Sponsor:County of Sonoma Single Point Contact: Stephen Urbanek Email/Phone: [email protected] / 707.565.3884 Project Title:West Sonoma County Scenic Farm to Market Access Project Project Location/Description:This project is significant to providing access to open space and recreation as well as for agricultural farm to market connectivity. Bodega Hwy is one of three key transportation corridors in Sonoma County that provides access to the County's coastal resource areas and also serves as the primary farm to market access in western Sonoma County. Bodega Hwy is the central access corridor to many of the State and County parks, Agricultural and Open Space Disctrict resources and coastal areas in Sonoma County. They include: Doran Regional Park, Bodega Head, Stillwater Cove Regional Park, Spud Point Marina, Porto Bodega Sport Fishing Center, Bird Walk Coastal Access Trail, Ragel Ranch Regional Park. Open space and agricultural resources that Bodega Hwy provides access to are: The Estero American Preserve, Gilardi Ranch, Bianchi Dairy, Ielmorini Dairy, Carringtion Coast Ranch, Colliss Ranch, Rigler Ranch, Sonoma State Beach Additions. In addition there are numerous grape growers and family farmers that use Bodega Hwy as their main access from the coastal area into Sebastopol, Santa Rosa and the Hwy 101 corridor. The project is located on Bodega Hwy, beginning at the intersection of Sexton Lane and ending at the Sebastopol City Limits. The Project length is approximately 2 miles (Post Mile 17.3 to 19.6). The scope of the proposed construction work will include conform grinding, removal and replacement of failed asphalt in localized areas (digouts), striping removal, installation of thermoplastic striping, installation of ADA compliant curb ramps, cross walks, pedestrian and bicycle signage, shoulder backing, guard rail improvments, utility adjustments and traffic control. Pavement management techniques like cold in place recycling that minimize the generation of green house gas production will be evaluated in the project development phase and used where feasible.

June 25, 2012

Page 1 of 4 89

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application This project will complete mobility and access improvements along with other plannned projects from coastal Hwy 1 to the City of Sebastopols city limits that DTPW has completed or is constructing during the summer of 2013. Combining these efforts will provide a safe and reliable access for farm to market needs and Open Space, as well as County and State park resources for Sonoma County residents and vistors.

Project Type: Check all that apply; indicate percentage of each if there is more than one element

1

2

Transit Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements1 Local Streets and Roads Preservation2 Safe Routes to Schools or Transit1 Transportation for Livable Communities1 Priority Conservation Areas (Pilot Program) Is project within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)?

Roads must be eligible for federal aid.

% % % % % 100% Y

N

See Attachment A of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Resolution 4035 Cycle 2 Program Project Selection Criteria and Programming Policy for details on the above.

RTP ID#: Transportation for Livable Communities: 21011 Regional Bicycle Program: 22247 Local Streets and Roads Maintenance: 230700 Other: RTP Goals: Please describe the relationship of project to meeting goals of the MTC Proposed Regional Transportation Plan(RTP): 1. Open Space and Agricultural Preservation & Economic Vitality - Roads provide connectivity to local and regional destinations and are the center piece of a vital and vibrant agricultrual and tourism ecomony. This project supports this goal along a critical corridor by maintaining access to working farms, dairys, vineyards and supporting tourism and providing access to County Open Space, parks and conservation areas. 2. Climate Protection - Smooth roads conserve energy and can reduce the amount of fuel consumption (and thereby GHG emissions) by up to 5%. This is achieved by reducing the rolling resistance of vehicles and reducing the friction between the tire and pavement. Improving the ridability for bicyclist is an important componet that will see increased bicycle use when pavements are smooth which adds another GHG reduction component to this project.

June 25, 2012

Page 2 of 4 90

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application 3. Equitable Access to Mobility -The project will rehabilitate curb ramps that are currently non-ADA compliant to the most current accessibility standards. 4. Reduce the Number of Fatalities from Collisions - Clear road markings are essential for safe driving, particularly at night. New pavement striping, signage, and guard rail improvements that will be constructed with the project will provide clear deliniation of the travelway, guardrail improvments will help keep vehicles from leaving the roadway in key locations, all of which help to keep to all users of the road safer, particularly given the truck traffic, RV traffic and tourist traffic that uses this roadway to access farms, parks and conservation areas. 5. Maintain the Transportation in a State of Good Repair - By keeping our "existing" transportation system in good repair the county is committed to the regions "fix-it-first" policy.

Check which goals apply: Climate Protection Reduce Premature Death from Particulate Matter Increase Average Daily Walking and

Biking for Transportation by 60% Equitable Access Decrease Average Per Trip Travel Time

Adequate Housing Reduce # of Injuries and Fatalities from Collisions

Open Space and Agricultural Preservation

Economic Vitality Maintain the Transportation System in a State of Good Repair Please answer the following questions regarding the proposed project:

June 25, 2012

1. Does Sponsor have Complete Streets Act of 2008 compliant General Plan (GP)? (attach reference or resolution) 2. Does Sponsor have a Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified GP Housing Element? (attach certification letter, or see below) In order to waive the above requirement GP Housing element must already be submitted to HCD for consideration. Date submitted to HCD: 3. Is there a Complete Streets Checklist attached to this application? 4. Has the sponsor failed to comply with regional or state delivery

milestones in the past 3 years?

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

5. Is there a Project Map attached to the current application? 6. Is the proposed project inside the boundaries of an approved Priority Development Area (PDA)?

Y Y

N N

Page 3 of 4 91

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application 7. Is the project directly connected to a PDA? Y N 8. Does the project provide proximate access to a PDA? Y N 9. If the project provides proximate access to a PDA, please explain how:Bodega Hwy connects to the PDA associated with the City of Sebastopol 10. Does the project serve a Community of Concern? Y N 11. Did sponsor do public outreach to develop this project specifically? Y N Please provide documentation of the public outreach process including dates and times of meetings held, number of participants and notification process:The Board of Supervisors through publicly noticed board hearings has discussed the state of repair and funding of the County road network and providing for access to markets for County Agricultural rescources as well as toursim and open space areas. At all of these meetings public comment was heard and project locations and approaches discussed. The meetings also included discussion about all the need of the different mode uses of the roads. Board Meetings with the following main themes and dates: Preservation of the County Road Network - October 25, 2001 Road Infrastructure Investment Implementation Plan - February 7, 2012 Ad Hoc Committee on Roads - June 19, 2012 Ad Hoc Committee on Roads One Time General Fund Alloction October 23, 2012

12. Funding Estimates: Round to nearest thousand for programming purposes Project Cost:$1,130,000 Grant Request:$1,000,000 Total Project Cost: $1,130,000 Phase FFY 13/14 FFY 14/15 FFY 15/16 Federal Fund

June 25, 2012

Local Match

Federal Fund

Local Match

Federal Fund

Local Match

Page 4 of 4 92

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application Preliminary Engineering Right-of-Way Construction Construction Engineering

$ $ $ $

$ $ $ $

$

$60,000

$ $

$ $ $

$

$ $ $1,000,000 $

$ $ $ $70,000

Indicate source(s) of matching funds here: Source

Road Funds $130,000

Amount

$

$

$

$

$

13. Complete Streets Components: Please indicate all the complete streets elements proposed as part of this project: 11a. ADA ramps 11c. bike lanes 11e. signage 11g. crosswalks 11i. Choose an item.

11b. truck routes 11d. bus routes 11f. Choose an item. 11h. Choose an item. 11j.

14. Schedule: Please provide project development schedule: Phase Scoping ENV PSE R/W CON

Begin MO/YR 5/13 10/13 2/14 6/14 5/15

End MO/YR 10/13 3/14 8/14 8/14 11/15

Please indicate the dates sponsor anticipates achieving the following milestones: 14a. Resolution of Local Support for project:5/13

June 25, 2012

Page 5 of 4 93

Sonoma County Transportation Authority One Bay Area Grant Application 14b. FMS Application:6/13 14c. Field Review:7/13 14d. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Local Assistance Procedures Manual Form 9-B:10/13 14e. Request for Authorization: (Please indicate both PE and CON phases if seeking funding for both): PE -8/13, CON -8 /14 14f. Receipt of Authorization (E-76):PE 10/13, CON 10/14 15. If a Local Streets and Roads Preservation (LSRP) project, please indicate the federal aid classification of each road proposed: Artierial 16. If a LSRP, please indicate the number of lane miles to be improved (include street name, length and Pavement Condition Index [PCI] of each segment):Bodega Hwy, Post Mile 17.30 to 19.26, Current PCI = 55 17. If LSRP project, what type? Pavement Rehabilitation (70 PCI),

Non-Pavement

18. Does sponsor have a current, certified Pavement Management Program? 18a.Please indicate the date of last certification:2010

June 25, 2012

Y

N

Page 6 of 4 94

West Sonoma County Scenic Farm to Market Access Project

Willow Creek

SONOMA COAST STATE BEACH

Camp Meeker

Oc

d G raton R Wright Hill Ranch

RAGLE RANCH REGIONAL PARK

n Hwy

ro u

Bode g

B o

Bodega Head

d

e

PINNACLE GULCH TRAIL

g

Es

ld om Ielmorini

Dai ry

Tremari Ranch

Valley Ford

Bloomfield

mericano oA ter

Maffi a Ranch

Val le

B

a

y

Open Space Public Land Rural Investment Area

E s te r

e San An

od

Priority Development Area

C O U N T Y

y Fo

CA Hwy 1

a

Proposed Overlay Project

M A R I N

d

Bordessa

Ranch

DORAN BEACH REGIONAL PARK

fie

Rob lar R

Berkeley Oakland San Francisco

CA

Quinlan

Ranch

Gilardi Ranch

Hw y 1

arbor

Richmond

aH eg

Spud Point Marina

To be Constructed 2013

Bodega

Porto Sport Fishing Center

Bodega Bay

a Hw y

Blo

SONOMA COAST STATE BEACH

Bo d

San Rafael

Rd

Rd

Pac i fi c Oc ea n

Novato

gh

Laguna Farms

Completed 2011

Carrington Ranch

Santa Rosa

SEBASTOPOL

Wat e r t

mi a

Rd

e Bo h

Meyers

Ranch

Project Location

no Ll a

Occidental

Laguna

Farms

l Rd enta ci d

to n io

Azevedo

Ranch

Community of Concern

Roblar Ranch

rd R

d

lon Fal

City / Outside County

Author: Transportation and Public Works, County of Sonoma Data Source: County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2010 US Census Date: February, 2013

°

0

1

2 Miles

Rd

Page 1 of5

e

Complete Streets

Project:

West Sonoma County Scenic Fa r m to Mark et Access Project

Checklist:

West Sonoma County Scenic Farm to Market Access Project CREATED 2013-02-28 (less than a minute ago)

UPDATED 2013-02-28 (less than a minute ago)

City Sonoma County Status Submitted Description This project is significant to providing access to open space and recreation as well as for agricultural farm to market connectivity. Bodega Hwy is one of three key transportation corridors in Sonoma County that provides access to the County's coastal resource areas and also serves as the primary farm to market access in western Sonoma County. Bodega Hwy is the central access corridor to many of the State and County parks, Agricultural and Open Space Disctrict resources and coastal areas in Sonoma County. They include: Doran Regional Park, Bodega Head, Stillwater Cove Regional Park, Spud Point Marina, Porto Bodega Sport Fishing Center, Bird Walk Coastal Access Trail, Ragel Ranch Regional Park. Open space and agricultural resources that Bodega Hwy provides access to are: The Estero American Preserve, Gilardi Ranch, Bianchi Dairy, lelmorini Dairy, Carringtion Coast Ranch, Coli iss Ranch, Rigler Ranch, Sonoma State Beach Additions. In addition there are numerous grape growers and family farmers that use Bodega Hwy as their main access from the coastal area into Sebastopol, Santa Rosa and the Hwy 101 corridor. The project is located on Bodega Hwy, beginning at the intersection of Sexton Lane and ending at the Sebastopol City Limits. The Project length is approximately 2 miles (Post Mile 17.3 to 19.6). The scope of the proposed construction work will include conform grinding, removal and replacement of failed asphalt in localized areas (digouts), striping removal, installation of thermoplastic striping, installation of ADA compliant curb ramps, cross walks, pedestrian and bicycle signage, shoulder backing, guard rail improvments, utility adjustments and traffic control. Pavement management techniques like cold in place recycling that minimize the generation of green house gas production will be evaluated in the project development phase and used where feasible. Contact Name Steve Urbanek Contact Email [email protected]

96

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/checklists/print/475

2/2812013

Page 2 of5

Contact Phone 707.565.3884 Contact Address 2300 County Center Dr. Ste. B100 Santa Rosa, CA 95405

Ia

What accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians are now included on the current facility and on facilities that it intersects or crosses? Class III bicycle routes Other

Please provide specifics of any items checked above. There are existing Class III bike lanes Ib

If there are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities, how far from the proposed project are the closest parallel bikeways and walkways? None selected Other

Ic

Please indicate any particular pedestrian uses or needs along the project corridor that you have observed or have been informed of. Intersection improvements Other

Id

What existing challenges could the proposed project improve for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit travel in the vicinity of the proposed project? ADA compliant facilities Other

2a

What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the proposed project that might attract walking or bicycling customers, employees, students, visitors or others?

97

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gOY!checklists!print!4 7 5

212812013

Page 3 of5

Transit stations Shopping areas Parks

Other County Open Spaces, Coastal Area interests such as beaches and marina. Dairys, vineyards, ranches all require access to transportaion facilities.

3a

Have you considered collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians along the route of the facility? Yes

If so, what resources have you consulted? SWTR Reports

4a

Do any adopted plans call for the development of bicycle or pedestrian facilities on, crossing or adjacent to the proposed facility / project? Countywide bicycle plan Countywide pedestrian plan Regional transportation Plan Sales tax expenditure plan

Other

Is the proposed project consistent with these plans? Yes

Sa

Do any local, statewide or federal policies call for incorporating bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities into this project? Caltrans Deputy Directive 64

Other

If so, have the policies been followed? Yes

Sb

If this project includes a bicycle and / or pedestrian facility, have all applicable design standards or guidelines been followed?

98

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/checklists/printl475

2/2812013

Page 4 of5

Yes 6a

If there have been BPAC, stakeholder and/or public meetings at which the proposed project has been discussed, what comments have been made regarding bicycle and pedestrian accommodations? Include bike and ped accommodations

7a

What accommodations, if any, are included for bicyclists and pedestrians in the proposed project design? Class III bicycle routes High visibility crosswalks ADA-compliant ramps

Other

8a

Will the proposed project remove an existing bicycle or pedestrian facility or block or hinder bicycle or pedestrian movement? No

If yes, please describe situation in detail.

8b

If the proposed project does not incorporate either bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or if the proposed project would hinder bicycle or pedestrian travel, list reasons why the project cannot be re-designed to accommodate these facilities. N/A

What would be the cost of the bicycle and/or pedestrian facility?

o What is the bicycle and/or pedestrian facility's proportion of the total project cost?

o Right - of-way. (Did an analysis lead to this conclusion?) N/A

9a

How will access for bicyclists and pedestrians be maintained during project construction? None selected

99

http://completestreets.mtc.ca. gov/checklists/print/475

2/2812013

Page 5 of5

Other

Access to will be required for bicycles and peds in the traffic control plans during construction lOa

What agency will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the facility?

Sonoma County lOb

How will ongoing maintenance be budgeted?

Through the Road Maintenance Budget

100

http://completestreets.mtc.ca.gov/checklists/print/475

2/28/2013

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT IS ACORRECT COpy OF

THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE

ATTEST"

#39 Resolution No.1 0-0636

AUG 2 6 2010

VERONICAA. FERGUSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors e County of Sonoma.

DEPUTY

County ·of SOIloma Santa R{);sa~ CA 95403

Date: 8/24/2010 GPAl 0-0002 Gary Helfrich

Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California, Adopting The 2010 Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Amending The Circulation And Transit And Open Space And Resource Conservation Elements Of The Sonoma County General Plan To Incorporate The Goal, Objectives, And Policies Of The 2010 Sonoma County Bicycle And Pedestrian Plan, And Adopting a Negative Declaration.

Whereas, The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and amendments of the Sonoma County General Plan Circulation and Transit Element and the Open Space and Resource Conservation . Elements that would incorporate the goal,objectiyes, and policies of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan into the Sonoma County General Plan are internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, including: GOAL CT-1: Provide a well integrated and sustainable circulation and transit system that supports a city and community centered growth philosophy through a collaborative effort ofall the Cities and the County. Objective OSRC-14.4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2015. Objective CT-1.4: Where alternate modes of travel are available, reduce the need for future automobile use by a combination of improvements and incentives that favor alternate modes over aJ1.tomobile use. Objective CT-1.5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing future increase in VAfT. Objective CT-2.9: Develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities in urban communities in order to promote cycling and wcilking as transportation modesto connect neighborhoods and community services. Policy LU-lla: Encourage reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including alternatives to use of gas-powered vehicles. Such alternatives include public transit, alternatively fueled vehicles, bicycle and pedestrian routes, and bicycle and pedestrian friendly development design. Policy CT-2w: In unincorporated communities, provide for pedestrian, bicycle, and other alternative transportation mode connections among commercial, service, public (such as schools, libraries, etc.), and transit uses where compatible with community character and consistent with the Vehicle Code.

; and

101

.

/;.

Resolution # 10-0636. Date: 8124/2010 Page 2 . Whereas, The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and incorporation of the Plan's goal, objectives, and policies into the Sonoma County General Plan would serve to carry out mitigation measures identified in the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 EIR; and Whereas, the goal, obj ectives, and policies of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are consistent with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Sonoma County Local Coastal Program, and is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 ofthe California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30200); and Whereas, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority conducted four public workshops in September of 2007 throughout the County to solicit public input on an update to the 1997 Bikeways Plan; and Whereas, the Sonoma County Bicycle and. Pedestrian Advisory Committee, under authority of Resolution No. 93-0136, conducted a series of 15 public meetings from 2008-2009 to solicit additional public input and prepared a draft of the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that incorporates input received from Sonoma County cities, state agencies, adjoining counties, various County departments, and the public during these meetings; and Whereas, a Negative Declaration was prepared and posted on May 15, 2010 for the project in accordance with the appropriate law and guidelines; and Whereas, the Sonoma County Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan at its regularly scheduled May 17, 2010 and recommended its adoption with a 5-0 vote; and Whereas, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 1, 2010, recommended with a 5-0 vote that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Negative Declaration and 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and approve the proposed amendments to the Circulation and Transit and Open Space and Resource Conservation Elements of the Sonoma County General Plan.; and Whereas, development of a safe, convenient and comprehensive transportation network is an essential element in the overall strategy to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals established by Objective OSRC-14.4; and Whereas, the amendments of the General Plan Circulation and Transit Element will bring the Sonoma County General Plan into compliance with provisions of the Complete Streets Act of 2008, which requires the Circulation and Transit Element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways; and Whereas, adoption of the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan allows Sonoma County to remain eligible for state and federal funding related to improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of law, the Board held a public hearing on August 24, 2010, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard on the Proposed Project; and 102

Resolution # 10-0636 Date: 8124/2010 Page 3 Whereas, the amendments of the General Plan Circulation and Transit Element and the Open Space and Resource Conservation Element are the first amendments to these elements for 2010.

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors certifies that the Negative Declaration has been completed, reviewed and considered, together with cOnllnents received during the public review process, in compliance with CEQA and State and County CEQA Guidelines, and finds that the Negative Declarationreflects the independent judgment of the Board of Supervisors. Be It Further Resolved that the Board of Supervisors makes the following findings:

1. The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and incorporation of the Plan's goal, objectives, and policies into the Sonoma County General Plan is internally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, including Goal CT-1, Objectives OSRC-14.4, CT-1.4, CT-1.5, and CT-2.9, and Policies LU-1Ia and CT-2w. 2. The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and incorporation of the Plan's goal, objectives, and policies into the Sonoma County General Plan would serve to carry out mitigation measures identified in the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 EIR. 3. The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is consistent ,with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the Sonoma County Local Coastal Program, and is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30200). 4. The recommended amendments to the General Plan Circulation and Transit and Open Space and Resource Conservation Elements are internally consistent with other elements of the General Plan and brings the Sonoma County General Plan into compliance with the provisions of the Complete Streets Act of 2008. 5. Development of a safe, convenient bicycle and pedestrian transportation network that provides a viable alternative to motorized travel is a necessary component of an overall strategy for Sonoma County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Global Warming Solutions Act of2006 (AB32) and SB375. 6. The 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan maintains the County's eligibility for local, state and federal funding ofbicyc1e and pedestrian improvements. 7. Adoption of20l0 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and related amendments to the Sonoma County General Plan are program level projects and will not result in any direct environmental impacts. Impacts related to the updates of the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan have already been considered and addressed as part of the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 BIR. Development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be subject to further environmental review, with impacts and potential mitigation measure to be identified at the project level.

103

Resolution # 10-0636 Date: 8/24/2010 Page 4 Be It Further Resolved that the Board of Supervisors herby adopts the Negative Declaration,adopts the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and amends the General Plan to incorporate the changes as outlined in Attachments D through G on file with the clerk as attachments to the Board memo. Be It Further Resolved that the Board of Supervisors designates the Clerk of the Board as the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision hereIn is based. These documents may be found at the office of the Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration Drive, Room lOa-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403.

Supervisors:

Kerns: Aye

Zane: Aye

Kelley: Aye

Carrillo: Aye

Ayes: 5

Noes: a

Absent: 0

Abstain: a

Brown: Aye

So Ordered.

104

STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BlJSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOlJSING AGENCY

ARNOLD SCHWARZ EN EGGER Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 P. O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3177 FAX (916) 327-2643

June 26, 2009

Mr. Pete Parkinson, Director Permit and Resource Management Department County of Sonoma 2550 Ventura Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Dear Mr. Parkinson: RE: Review of the County of Sonoma's Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the County of Sonoma's housing element adopted on May 5, 2009 and received for review on June 24, 2009. The Department is required to review adopted housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(h). The review was facilitated by various communications with Ms. Jane Riley, Housing Planner. The adopted element addresses the statutory requirements described in the Department's April 3,2009 review. Therefore, the Department is pleased to find Sonoma County's adopted element in compliance with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). Among other things, the element now includes analyses of the County's land inventory and potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. The Department commends Sonoma County's many efforts and success in addressing its housing and community development needs. Programs such as the bunkhouse ordinance, affordable housing combining district, density bonus and fee deferral are laudable and will facilitate development. The Department also recognizes the County for modifying development standards to facilitate second units, housing for farmworkers and single-room occupancy units and targeting financial resources to assist in the development of housing for extremely low-income households. The County's housing and land-use strategies will facilitate development of an adequate supply of housing affordable to the workforce and families, maximize existing land resources and stimulate the local economy. The County now meets specific requirements for several State funding programs designed to reward local governments for compliance with State housing element law. For example, the Infill Incentive Grant Program, authorized by Proposition 1C, Local Housing Trust Fund and the Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN), and Housing Related Parks Programs include housing element compliance either as a threshold or a competitive factor in rating and ranking applications. More specific information about these and other programs is available on the Department's website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/plan/he/loan grant hecompI011609.pdf. 105

Mr. Pete Parkinson, Director Page 2

The Department wishes the County of Sonoma success in implementing its housing element and looks forward to following its progress through the General Plan annual progress reports pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. We are particularly thankful of the hard work and cooperation of Ms. Riley. If the Department can provide assistance in implementing the housing and land-use strategies, please contact Paul McDougall, of our staff, at (916) 322-7995. Sincerely,

. Creswell Director

106

Staff Report

To:


From:

Lauren Casey, Climate Protection Program Manager

Item:

4.4.1 – Sonoma County Energy Independence Program (SCEIP) Proposed Financing Marketplace

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Information only. Background: The Sonoma County Energy Independence Program (SCEIP) currently provides two energy efficiency and renewable energy financing services: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) funding is provided by the Sonoma County Public Financing Authority who issues bonds to the Sonoma County Treasury ($45 million limit) and the Sonoma County Water Agency ($15 million limit); and secondly, funds are provided by the Windsor Pay As You Save (PAYS) pilot through SCEIP’s role as certification agent. The County is pursuing the concept of an expanded and readily accessible pool of funding resources (“financing marketplace”) to maximize funding options available for retrofit customers in Sonoma County. Attached is a draft proposal that outlines: • • • • •

Factors driving pursuit of a financing marketplace, A summary of PACE activity in Sonoma County to date, The process to adding a new provider, A summary of current market participants, and A timeline of next steps.

Liz Yager, County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Program Manager, will provide a brief overview of the proposal which received support from the County Board of Supervisors on March 26th. Policy Impacts: None. Fiscal Impacts: None. Staff Recommendation: Information Only.

107

February 26, 2013 To the Executive Leadership of the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program Proposal for the Expansion of the Energy Independence Program Financing Marketplace A. Proposal Energy Independence Program staff recommends the expansion of Program financing services to integrate the new and additional Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) funding providers currently in play in the PACE financing marketplace. Currently the Program delivers 2 project funding services: PACE funding is provided by the Sonoma County Public Financing Authority who issues bonds to the Sonoma County Treasury ($45 million limit)and the Sonoma County Water Agency ($15 million limit); and secondly, funds are provided by the Windsor Pay As You Save (PAYS) pilot. The concept of developing an expanded and readily accessible financing marketplace (pool of funding resources) that maximizes funding options for retrofit customers has long been a goal of the Program. Such a model reflects the direction that retrofit and PACE programs will follow as the secondary financial market for PACE funding matures and becomes more competitive. An example of a prototype program is currently operating in the City of San Diego and could serve as a template for our expanded vision. Beyond providing more financing choices, an expanded funding marketplace also brings collateral benefits to meet higher and evolving customer expectations. Such benefits include streamlined processes for upgrade and generation projects, reduced consumer confusion, providing choices to consumers, and supporting local contractors with additional tools for business growth. B. Factors: 1. Facilitating energy conservation and renewable energy projects that help meet the County’s and cities’ green-house gas reductions targets is a core goal of the County’s Energy Independence Program. As a point of reference, the amount of money needed to pay for the upgrades required to retrofit 80% of the County’s building stock to meet climate action goals is nearly $3 billion. Therefore, the County would need access to a much higher level of funding to meet County goals. The authorized capacity of the Sonoma County Public Financing Authority is $60 million; $47 million of which is currently extended leaving only $13 million remaining for project work. Identifying alternative and sustainable funding, preferably by way of tapping directly or indirectly into the public marketplace, is critical to the Program’s sustainability and continued success. 2. As a mechanism to facilitate retrofits, PACE delivers a local economic development tool that empowers local property owners to improve property values, stimulate cash flow, create local jobs and reduce emissions using no public dollars. The positive economic and workforce impacts realized by the delivery of PACE financing through the Energy Independence Program have become a very strong secondary motivator of the Program. Providing additional financing options for property owners will create a robust, competitive marketplace to drive innovation and help reduce capital costs. Transitioning to the public marketplace and engaging additional stakeholders will expand the attainment of these benefits

108

Page 1 of 4

3. PACE financing allows commercial property owners to realize improvements off balance sheet and does not encumber their ability to borrow from conventional sources to fund other business needs. By virtue of the PACE structure, this feature will not be compromised by expanding the funding marketplace. 4. The use of additional funding providers will not mean a weakening of Program underwriting elements. The County retains full control of Program participation eligibility requirements. Changes to such requirements should only be made to safeguard Program sustainability and competiveness. C. PACE Financing Impact Summary: (Program Activity through December 31, 2012) Residential Projects Commercial Projects Job - years Residential solar PV Non-residential solar PV

1760 58 730 by ARRA formula 1068 systems 44 systems

$49.2 million $10.7 million 77 local construction 6.1MW 2.1 MW

$28k avg. $185k avg. 5317 GHG eTons/yr 1864 GHG eTons/yr

D. Process to add a funding provider – How will this work? • • • • • • • • • •

Review the compatibility between any new funding option and our local goals and Program requirements Review process, impacts, and cost recovery of addition of the new tax assessment item for the new funding provider Confirm the addition of the new funding provider is low or no cost to the Program operating budget; addition of a new funding provider may contribute revenue to Program operations for activities including and mot limited to education, outreach and technology tools Present and discuss with local Program officials and participating entity leadership Integrate addition of new funding provider into existing Program website, processes, and documents Implement contractor training plan as provided by new funding provider; communicate through existing contractor forums and Program community engagement Provide information required by the new funding provider for their performance of a utility notification and validation action as required Execute the participation vehicle where necessary, typically by way of a joining the Joint Powers Authority, with relevant action on opt-in resolutions by City Councils and the County Board of Supervisors Develop an agreement with funding providers (Memorandum of Understanding or equivalent) regarding requirements, brand integration and implementation Launch the new consumer option as an element of the expanded financing marketplace

E. Current Available Marketplace Participants and Key Program Elements: Comparison Chart Financing Organization Law Residential Commercial Audit Required Secured

Sonoma County PACE AB811 Yes Yes Residential - No Commercial - Yes Yes

HERO PACE

CA First PACE

Ygrene PACE

Figtree PACE

AB811 Yes Yes

AB811 No Yes

Residential - No

Commercial - Yes

Yes

Yes

SB555 Yes Yes Residential - No Commercial - Yes Yes

AB811 Yes Yes Residential – No Commercial - Yes Yes

109

Page 2 of 4

Interest Rate

7% simple

a) 5 yr – 5.95% b) 10 yr – 6.95% c) 15 yr – 7.75% d) 20 yr – 8.25 %

Fees

Market valuation $12 Annual asmt admin $41 Title $125 Recordation $66

5.35% of project cost Annual asmt admin No application fee $25 Recordation $90

APR

7.20%

Est. annual payment of 20 year, $2410 $25,000 assessment Credit Check No

Varies

Market dependent Currently 6.95%

6% – 9%

$50 Application fee 3-5% processing fee integrated into financing

Application fee $495, closing 4%, annual admin 3% annual payment

9.02%

Depends on the cost of capital provided by the lender and 6.95% (?) on-going program fees

6% - 10%

$2944

n/a

$2629

$3011

No

No

No Up to 20 years, Property Owner Determines the Term

No Up to 20 years determined by the useful life of improvements Energy Efficiency, Water, Renewable

Terms

10 or 20 years

5, 10, 15 or 20 years 5 to 20 years

Eligible Upgrades

Energy Efficiency, Water, Renewable


Amounts

$50,000 minimum, maximum dependent on property value; all $2,500 minimum for $2,500 minimum, $5,000 minimum, liens, debts and CA residential and/or up to 10% property up to 10% property commercial, up to FIRST financing value value must be less than 10% property value property value + the value of financed projects



$5,000 minimum, up to 10% net taxable value at lowest available rate, up to 20% at Tier 1 interest rate (higher)

F. Timeline for Next Steps Task 1. Concept review and direction to proceed from Steering Committee and Program Administrator

Who

2. This paper - proposal for expansion of the financing marketplace

Liz Yager

2/26/2013

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Steering Liz Yager Jane Elias Liz Yager Jane Elias

3/11/2013 3/15/2013 3/26/2013 3/26/2013 4/__/2013

Review by Steering Committee and Program Administrator Communication with County Administrator Communication with Supervisors Communication with RCPA Discussion with Contractor Forum Communication with City Managers Communication with City Councils Memorandum of Understanding with each provider

Liz Yager

By When 12/5/2012 through 2/4/2013

110

Page 3 of 4

11. County and Cities join JPA’s as a cohesive group – Energy Independence Thank you for your consideration and response to this proposal. Sincerely, Liz Yager County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Program Manager 2300 County Center Drive, Suite A200, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 707-565-6167

111

Page 4 of 4

Staff Report

To:


From:


Item:

4.5.1 – Agreements to implement the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) programs

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: Shall the Board approve the proposed agreements to deliver services related to the Bay Area Regional Energy Network? Background: Bay Area Regional Energy Network: In November 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued Final Decision (D.) 12-11 015 approving 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets. The Decision created the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) and approved over $26 million for programs including singleand multi-family Energy Upgrade California, financing programs, an expansion of the Pay As You Save (PAYS®) water efficiency pilot, and improvement to codes and standards. Each county in the ninecounty region will be responsible for the local implementation of regional programs; the county specific scopes for overall BayREN programs are still under development. In addition, BayREN has selected the RCPA to lead the regional expansion of the PAYS® pilot. The two agreements before the RCPA Board will allow for the implementation of the PAYS® pilot. Agreement with ABAG: The first is an agreement between the RCPA and ABAG to implement the Program Implementation Plan (PIP) and deliver the scope of work assigned to the RCPA by the BayREN coordination committee. This agreement will provide for the local implementation of regional programs across single family and multi-family programs, codes and standards and financing. At this time, the only PIP element assigned to the RCPA is the BayREN PAYS® Pilot. The agreement will need to be amended to include other elements when finalized by the coordination committee. Agreement with BKi: The second agreement is between the RCPA and Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc. (BKi) to provide professional services related to the design and implementation of the PAYS® pilot. BKi and their subcontractor Energy Efficiency Institute, Inc. (EEI) were selected by the RCPA because of their unique ability to deliver an expanded PAYS® program that leverages (to the maximum extent possible) the tools, resources, and lessons learned from the Windsor PAYS® program.

112

Policy Impacts: Participation in BayREN is key to the achievement of the GHG goals related to energy efficiency outlined in the RCPA’s Mission Goals and Objectives. Fiscal Impacts: The total authorized budget for services to be provided by the RCPA for BayREN PAYS® is $620,000 (under a contract cap of $650,000 which was the total amount authorized in the PIP), of which $46,000 will support RCPA staff time. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to negotiate and the Chair to execute the proposed agreement with ABAG for BayREN activities and specifically the regional work related to the PAYS® program. The total contract amount for the PAYS® component will be not exceed $650,000. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize staff to negotiate and for the Chair to execute the proposed contract with BKi in an amount not to exceed $559,000 pending final review and comment by County Counsel.

113

Staff Report

To:


From:

Misty Mersich, Climate Protection Program Analyst

Item:

4.5.2 – Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Program (GRIP)

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: At the February 4, 2013, Board meeting, staff was directed to return within 60 days to provide an update on the GRIP progress and follow up on requests for more information. Background: The GRIP is a collaborative effort among all 9 cities and the County of Sonoma to take further actions in reducing GHG emissions community-wide. Building upon the climate protection efforts and goals established in 2008 Community Climate Action Plan created by the Climate Protection Campaign, the goal of the GRIP is to update community-wide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventories, evaluate GHG emission’s targets, and create an implementation plan to reduce GHG emissions in order to reach the target. The GRIP looks to establish measures that can be achieved by sector to reach Sonoma County goals as well as the statewide goals. The City of Santa Rosa has recently adopted a Climate Action Plan and subsequent CEQA document for their community, but will participate with this program to ensure collaboration among all jurisdictions and to further the implementation of their CAP and sustainable communities planning efforts. Funding for the GRIP is from a Sustainable Communities planning grant from the Strategic Growth Council with County of Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) as Grant Administrator and the RCPA as Project Manager. The main work products and outcome of the GRIP will be: o Climate Action Plans adopted in each jurisdiction (except Santa Rosa) o Monitoring and Implementation Tracking Tools o Model Policy/Code/Practices Implementation Toolkit o Programmatic Environmental Impact Report o Communications Plan and Public Outreach Coordination with City Council members and local press outlets: A communications and public outreach plan will be created. This will be written by the lead consultant in coordination with jurisdiction planning staff, SCTA and RCPA staff. This will outline the plan for brand development, online presence, outreach materials creation, stakeholder engagement, public outreach workshops and social media. To ensure clear communication to the public, staff will make sure that the use of acronyms will be kept to a minimum whenever possible. Staff will update the Board on the communications plan and public outreach timeline as soon as these are created. With respect to public outreach, the scope of work currently outlines two public outreach meetings or workshops to be held in each jurisdiction. The communication, format and content of these workshops 114

will be determined in collaboration with jurisdiction planning staff, and their corresponding City/County managers/administrators, as well as elected officials, as they know their communities best. Update on individual meetings with Directors and jurisdiction staff: RCPA staff has met with Directors from City of Cloverdale, City of Healdsburg and the County. Meetings are being scheduled with Directors and staff from all the other jurisdictions in April. These meeting have been informative for discussing the unique issues that face each jurisdiction, identifying key stakeholders in each community, and for an overall understanding of the vision for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Program. At these meetings, RCPA staff has provided jurisdiction staff with information on grant reimbursement procedures and how the coordination between PRMD as the grant administration and with RCPA as the project manager will work. Contracts: City contracts and a cooperative agreement with PRMD are currently being circulated with jurisdiction staff. A kick-off meeting for all staff level participants on the GRIP grant is anticipated to be held in May. EIR Process: The lead consultant, ICF, will prepare a Program EIR that evaluates the environmental impacts of GRIP implementation in Sonoma County. The RCPA will be the CEQA Lead Agency and the cities and the County will be Responsible Agencies. Projects consistent with the GRIP will be able to rely on the programmatic cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions contained in the certified GRIP EIR as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. ICF will develop criteria and a process that the jurisdictions will use to determine if a future project is consistent with the GRIP. The EIR process will rely heavily on incorporation by reference of the technical documents, GHG emission reduction and adaptation standards, and emission reduction targets produced for the GRIP itself. In addition to the normal role of a Responsible Agency under CEQA (e.g., commenting on the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR and utilizing the Program EIR in the jurisdiction’s adoption process), jurisdiction staff will have an opportunity to participate in preparation of the EIR. This will occur through the tasks outlined above as well as an opportunity to review administrative draft EIR sections that are particularly relevant to individual jurisdictions. The goal of this process is to produce a Program EIR that fully meets the needs of each Responsible Agency in their respective adoption process. GRIP Budget: Below is a breakdown of funding available for all entities including the non-profit partners and consultants. For a further breakdown of the Lead Consultant ICF’s scope of work and budget by Task, please see Attachment A. Entity

GRIP Grant

Sonoma County

$85,000

Cloverdale

$35,000

Cotati

$20,000

Healdsburg

$35,000

Petaluma

$35,000

Rohnert Park

$23,552

Santa Rosa

$35,000

Sebastopol

$35,000

Sonoma

$35,000

Town of Windsor

$35,000

SCTA

$30,000

115

RCPA North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative

$145,000

Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma State University Center for Sustainable Communities

$20,000

ICF- Lead Consultant Model Code/Policy Toolkit/ Other Work- TBD Total

$20,000

$20,000 $330,866 $60,582 $1,000,000

The GRIP budget provides money for planning staff time for each jurisdiction. The RCPA and County of Sonoma will provide project management and grant administration. Rohnert Park and Cotati have expressed that they have limited staff resources and will need to have more consultant involvement to help them in the development process. Therefore, they have a reduced budget for staff time, and the remainder has been added to the ICF budget and scope of work. The line item for “model code book/other work - TBD” contains approximately $30,000 to be spent on the Model Policy/Code/Practices Implementation Toolkit and the remainder is to be allocated as needed for additional work to complete the tasks, subject to the approval of the PRMD Planning Director. For example more public outreach meetings or additional local adoption hearings may be needed. Coordination with Air Districts: Staff has scheduled a meeting with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) staff in May, to inform them of the GRIP project, seek their input and discuss possible funding for the EIR. Additionally, staff from the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPD) has been engaged on the project to date. There have also been discussions on the possibility of NSCAPCD contributing funding for the EIR. Balancing short and long term costs: RCPA staff will work with ICF and each jurisdiction to identify and evaluate the economic impacts of strategies included in the GRIP to the extent possible. For example, the Reduction Planning Tool proposed by ICF includes the ability to assess the net present value of reduction measures being considered by a city, including costs to implement and cost savings achieved. For more information on ICF’s proposal for assessing the economic impacts of measures, see their proposed scope in Attachment 4.5.2.A. Policy Impacts: Participation in the GRIP is key to achieving the GHG goals outlined in the RCPA’s Mission Goals and Objectives. Fiscal Impacts: This project is funded by a 2-year grant from the Strategic Growth Council. RCPA staff time will be covered under the $145,000 allocated to RCPA for Project Management. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board receive a progress update report at a minimum of every 60 days to keep the Board informed of the on-going activities and to provide guidance for this important multijurisdictional effort aimed at reducing GHG emissions county-wide.

116

Regional Climate Protection Authority- 4.5.2- Attacment A- ICF Scope of Work

Exhibit B

Scope of Work

Sonoma County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Program

Task 2: Develop Multi-Jurisdictional Community-wide GRIP Task 2.1—Update Local and Regional GHG Inventories and Prepare Forecasts ICF will provide a consistent GHG accounting framework as the foundation on which the reduction planning and tracking will be built, helping to ensure that GHG reductions are aligned with the inventory and forecast and that one community can compare to other communities in the region and also accurately summed across the region. The City of Santa Rosa adopted a CEQA compliant Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) for their community on June 5, 2012, and are currently in the process of writing a Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan. It is not the intention of the GRIP to change or alter the City of Santa Rosa Community wide or Municipal CAP as it stands today. ICF will not prepare a new GHG inventory or Climate Action Plan for the City of Santa Rosa. The remaining 9 jurisdictions of Sonoma County are seeking to develop a CEQA compliant, communitywide GHG reduction program., In order for projects in each jurisdiction to tier from the common reduction plan, GHG inventories and reduction plans for each of the 9 Sonoma jurisdictions, are needed for the same baseline year. While, some jurisdictions have completed community wide GHG inventories and an aggregated county inventory is available, there are significant advantages to preparing new inventories including the following:    

Preparation of individual city inventories as the basis to aggregate into a regional inventory; Use of an origin-destination approach for on-road GHG emissions to be consistent with SB 375 approaches; Use of consistent methodology with a common baseline year to allow for comparability; and Inventories consistent with the new (October 2012) ICLEI Community Inventory Protocol.

Existing inventory and forecast data for Grant Sub-Recipient Committee (GSRC) jurisdictions are shown in the table below. Existing GHG Inventories for GSRC Jurisdictions Jurisdiction City of Cloverdale City of Cotati City of Healdsburg City of Petaluma City of Rohnert Park City of Santa Rosa City of Sebastopol City of Sonoma County of Sonoma Town of Windsor

Community GHG Inventory — — 1990, 2007, 2025 1990, 2005, 2025 — 2007, 2015, 2020, 2025 — — 1990, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015 —

Municipal GHG Inventory — — — 2000, 2008 2000 FY 1992, FY 1995, 2000, FY2000, 2008 — 2000, 2008 — —

ICF will work with the RCPA and the GSRC to select the base year based on a consideration of advantages and disadvantages. The base year will be consistent for all cities and will be a recent year with robust data.

Page B-1

117


For the GRIP, ICF will build GHG inventories for all jurisdictions for 1990 and the base year (2008, 2010 or as determined with the GSRC) and projections for 2015, 2020, and 2035 and 2050 using consistent methods and data sources. The current year inventory will calculate emissions from on-road vehicles, off-road vehicles and equipment, electricity and natural gas, solid waste, water supply and wastewater systems, and municipal operations (where stand-alone data exists and can be included without double-counting issues), and agriculture and forestry (to the extent that existing data is available). Other emissions sources may be included in the inventory to ensure compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.Proposed methods and data sources used for all GHG inventory and forecasts are shown in the table below. In addition to a standard BAU scenario for 2020, ICF will prepare two more future scenarios (for 2035 and 2050) as part of Task 2.1.  A regulated future scenario will roughly account for all known state and federal regulations at this time (shown in table).  A modified growth scenario will allow jurisdictions to adjust growth rates for population, jobs and housing in their communities to slower or higher rates relative to BAU which will allow for a sensitivity analysis to see the influence of economic and population growth on emissions forecasts.  As shown below, the 1990 inventories and future year projections (2015, 2020, 2035, and 2050) will use socioeconomic metrics to scale the base year data. A unified set of socioeconomic data (population, jobs (potentially jobs by type), and households) is thus required. ICF will work with the Sonoma jurisdictions as a key first step to establish socioeconomic parameters for all jurisdictions for all years, and will consider supplementing with MTC RTP socioeconomic dataset and California Finance Department data where appropriate. ICF will work with jurisdictions to make any needed adjustments to this dataset prior to beginning inventory work and this set of socioeconomic data will be used for the traffic modeling, inventories, reduction plan, and the tracking tool. Proposed Data Sources and Methods for GHG Inventories and Forecasts Sectors Residential Electricity Use Residential Natural Gas Use Commercial/Industrial Electricity Use Commercial/Industrial Natural Gas Use On-Road Transportation Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Waste Generation

Wastewater Generation Water Consumption

Agriculture

1

1

Backcast 1990 Population

Utility Providers

Regulated BAU 2015 2020 2035 2050 Population + RPS Population + RPS (2020)

Population

Utility Providers

Population

Jobs

Utility Providers

Jobs

Utility Providers

Traffic Model (SCTA)

Traffic Model (SCTA)

Population, Housing or Jobs, Depending on Equipment Type Residential = Population; Commercial = Jobs Population UWMP Historical Data USDA Ag Census for 1990; County Ag Commissioner Report for 1990

Baseline

Off-Road Model

Jobs + RPS

Jobs + RPS (2020) Jobs

Traffic Model (SCTA) + Pavley, LCFS, ACC, SB 375 Population, Housing, or Jobs Depending on Equipment Type +LCFS

Consultation with SCTA

Population, Housing, or Jobs Depending on Equipment Type +LCFS (2020)

CalRecycle

Residential = Population; Commercial = Jobs + Increased Landfill Capture

Per Capita Using Plant Specific Factors

Population

UWMPs

UWMP + 20x2020

USDA Ag Census and County Ag Commissioner

Population + 20x2020

Consultation with County

Note: ICF will also produce the following forecasts in addition to the Regulated BAU forecast described above: 1) standard Business as Usual (BAU) forecast for all future years that does not account for known state regulations and is derived from the standard socioeconomic dataset established at the beginning of the project and 2) adjusted growth BAU forecast for all future years that does not account for known state regulations and is derived from socioeconomic parameters that each jurisdiction adjusts to reflect low or high growth scenarios (also established at the beginning of the project).

Page B-2

118


Forestry Stationary Sources Municipal GHG Inventories

Not Included Not Included Employees and/or Service Population

Best Available land Cover Data BAAQMD

Industrial Employment (if available)

Existing

Employees and/or Service Population

Not Included

The deliverables build on each other towards the final GHG inventory. At each point, Sonoma jurisdictions will have the chance to ask questions and understand each step. This approach will allow smaller cities with limited staff to stay up to speed with minimal time commitments at each step. As some jurisdictions have developed community level data and reduction policies and others have not, ICF will tailor our approach to assisting the cities based on their individual needs. ICF will complete the following tasks:    

GSRC Kickoff Meeting Questionnaire to GSRC Data and Methods Memo (draft and final) GHG Inventory and Forecast v1.0, including inventories/forecasts for all milestone years and the region as a whole (MS Excel)  GHG Inventory and Forecast v2.0, addressing feedback from GSRC jurisdictions (MS Excel). Additionally, ICF will conduct a meeting and/or webinar between the draft and final GHG inventory and forecast Excel deliverables. ICF will explain the data and the Excel workbook architecture so that Sonoma jurisdictions can review on their own and share with other city staff. Cities will have the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback at the webinar, GSRC meeting and via e-mail following review of the Excel workbook. The goal is that cities become familiar with their own inventories prior to the reduction planning step and prior to sharing inventory information with the public. For draft and final GHG inventory Excel deliverables, jurisdictions will receive a single Excel workbook containing a tab for each jurisdiction and one for the region as a whole. Each tab will show GHG data for all sectors and scenarios. Municipal GHG data will be retained from previous efforts and also shown as available. Tables and charts from this deliverable flow directly to the document and calculations flow directly to the reduction planning tool and tracking tool. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) will do the VMT analysis for the inventories. The Sonoma County travel model (SCTA model) was recently updated and calibrated to year 2010 conditions, and also contains future year conditions for 2040. The latest available travel model will be used by SCTA to develop the inventories and forecasts for the 10 jurisdictions in Sonoma County. ICF will work with SCTA to help complete the VMT analysis and the GHG analysis for the transportation sector as follows:  Selection of Base Year: ICF will work with the RCPA and the GSRC to select the base year which is consistent for all cities and for which robust data is readily available.  Verify Land Use: An important step to conduct prior to using the model is to verify the land use assumptions, transportation network, and traffic analysis zones in the model for each of the 10 jurisdictions for the base year. SCTA will do this verification.  VMT Allocation: According to the current state-of-the-practice, it is important to distinguish the source of the VMT on the ity’s roadway network. ased on recommended reporting protocols, VMT will be reported for all trips traveling between origins and destinations within the jurisdiction, and for 50% of the VMT generated by trips traveling between the jurisdiction and other destinations. Note that trips where the origin and destination are both located outside of the jurisdiction, otherwise known as “through” trips, will be excluded from the VMT calculations.  Base Year VMT analysis: SCTA will run the model and provide daily VMT by speed bins to ICF so that ICF can use EMFAC to calculate transportation emissions.

Page B-3

119


 2015, 2020, 2035 VMT analyses: ICF will work with SCTA to determine whether direct travel demand model outputs and/or interpolation and scaling will be necessary in order to determined VMT outputs by city. Since the SCTA model is validated for 2010 and 2040 years, it is expected that interpolation may be used for 2015, 2020, and 2035. The VMT by speed bin estimates will be provided to the project team in a format suitable for input into the EMFAC emissions model to estimate GHG emissions for each scenario.  2050 Analysis: As the SCTA model currently only has a future year of 2040, ICF will work with SCTA to derive a method for forecasting.  1990 Backcast: ICF and SCTA will consult about the method to backcast 1990 VMT. Creating and validating the current SCTA model back to 1990 conditions is likely to be challenging for SCTA to complete, but this can be explored. It is likely that the backcast method will instead use socioeconomic data supplemented by data that SCTA may have concerning average VMT in 1990. Population and economic growth roughly correlate with VMT growth, provided one can account for gross changes in driving activity and vehicle technology. Once VMT estimates are provided by SCTA (by whatever method is determined to be used), ICF will use best estimates of fleet miles per gallon and EMFAC factors to estimate 1990 transportation GHG emissions. IF’s scope will include emissions data for individual jurisdiction’s municipal operations where available (such as data related to emissions related to water, wastewater, and landfills), but ICF’s scope does not include generating a separate inventory for municipal operations. ICF will instead prepare community inventories for each jurisdiction that will include municipal operations emissions data as available. For sectors with readily available disaggregated municipal operations emissions data, such as wastewater treatment, landfill emissions, and water use, ICF will flag these emissions as municipal sources in the Community GHG inventories. ICF will also provide standard data collection templates to the RCPA in the event that the RCPA wants to collect emissions data for municipal operations from the jurisdictions on their own.

Task 2.1 Deliverables    

City/County Questionnaire (electronic) Data and Methods Memo (electronic ) Draft and Final Socioeconomic Assumptions (electronic) Draft County-Wide Community GHG inventory and Forecast, including 10 jurisdictional inventories and forecasts (in Excel format only)  Final County-Wide Community GHG inventory and Forecast including 10 jurisdictional inventories and forecasts (in Excel format) (in Excel format only)

Task 2.2—Policy Gap Analysis The gap analysis will identify current policies, programs, and efforts related to sustainability and climate change within each jurisdiction, identify regional inconsistencies, and suggest areas for improvement and further coordination. The gap analysis will also identify barriers to sustainable development within general plans, and municipal building and zoning codes. RCPA will be responsible for data collection using an MS Excel spreadsheet (designed by ICF) to track existing policies and programs. The spreadsheet will be set up with rows organized by sector (e.g., building energy) and sub-sector (e.g., retrofits, solar) with the cities across the top. RCPA will coordinate with the GSRC jurisdictions to gather policy documents in order to capture as many existing programs as possible. Programs will be organized consistently so that similar policies across multiple jurisdictions can be easily compared. RCPA will compile all relevant existing actions, policies, and programs working with the jurisdictions and provide to ICF. ICF will then review the collected policies, programs, and actions and complete a draft gap analysis as follows:

Page B-4

120


 identify consistencies (e.g., similar actions or policies) and inconsistencies (e.g., actions or policies that conflict) between jurisdictions;  identify barriers to sustainable development within general plans and municipal building and zoning codes. Such barriers may include general plan requirements (e.g., land use densities), zoning, solar panel installation, and building codes;  propose recommendations for streamlining, combining measures, and reducing or eliminating inconsistencies between jurisdictions;  propose recommendations for areas for improvement and further coordination; and  identify opportunities for countywide consistency. The RCPA, jurisdictions, and SCTA will then review the draft gap analysis, provide feedback and identify areas for improvement. Based on the feedback on the draft analysis, the final gap analysis will be presented in a memo summarizing each jurisdiction and will be incorporated into the Climate Action Plan and Model Toolkit as necessary.

Task 2.2 Deliverables  Draft Policy Gap Analysis by Jurisdiction and County-wide (electronic)  Final Policy Gap Analysis by Jurisdiction and County-wide (electronic)

Task 2.3—GHG Reduction Analysis Using the Policy Gap Analysis completed in Task 2.2, ICF will identify all existing quantifiable measures and prepare a list of new quantifiable measures to include in the CAP. ICF will work with jurisdictions to make sure there is regional consistency in the new measures; for example, some jurisdictions may already be implementing a program that others are not. ICF will quantify the GHG reductions and the costs/savings for all quantifiable measures consistent with established protocol (such as ICLEI) and the new GHG inventories and forecasts created under Task 2.1. In addition to GHG and cost/savings quantification, ICF will conduct a preliminary screening of potential environmental impacts as this will be important to jurisdictional evaluation of which measures should be advanced as part of their individual CAP. The screening will identify potential environmental impacts covering the following areas: aesthetics; agriculture/farmland; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and recreation; mineral resources; noise; public services and utilities; and transportation. The screening will be in the form of a checklist table by potential impact with limited narrative explanation. The screening will not include detailed documentation of environmental setting or impact analysis, which will be done in Task 4 during the EIR. ICF will also identify and assess a range of community targets for the jurisdictions for the years 2020, 2035, and 2050. This involves coordination with jurisdictions to seek feedback on the targets, to determine which targets are feasible. ICF will compare the results of our quantification to see how the County is on track to meet its 2015 target. Based on the results of Task 2.2, ICF and Fehr & Peers will develop reduction strategies for consideration by the jurisdictions. For each strategy, ICF will do the following:  Define the measure (what it is, how it works, etc.)  The implementing party (e.g., directly done by the City/County or through City/County development approvals),  Range of expected GHG reductions,  Costs and savings, and  Any caveats/ limitations.

Page B-5

121


Measures will be organized by inventory sector for the following categories:         

Land Use and Transportation (such as transit-oriented strategies) Vehicle Use and Fuel Consumption (such as supporting alternative fuel vehicles) Energy Efficiency and Conservation (such as building retrofits and green building standards) Renewable Energy (such as solar heating, rooftop solar) Waste Reduction and Diversion (such as construction and demolition waste programs; or kitchen waste composting) Water Use and Conservation (such as building retrofits and landscape efficiency) Agricultural and Open Space Conservation (such as promoting soil conservation methods) Education and Economic Vitality (such as community engagement) Forestry (such as urban and rural reforestation and restoration projects)

Measure development will also include consideration of whether measures can/should be voluntary or mandatory or whether performance-based approaches should be employed. The ultimate choice of whether to make a measure voluntary or mandatory (or performance-based) will be up to the individual jurisdiction. ICF will develop three versions of a custom GHG Reduction Planning Tool for the cities. This tool will be an interactive MS Excel spreadsheet model, where the jurisdictions can make selections and see the consequences of their choices. ICF will complete the tasks shown below:  Reduction Tool v.1.0 – creates a list of existing and proposed measures in an interactive GHG reduction planning tool (MS Excel)  Target Setting Exercise – provides target options and pros/cons of each along with recommendations  GHG/Cost Quantification – quantifies GHGs and associated costs of implementing each measure  Reduction Tool v.2.0 – allow jurisdictions to select different combinations of measures to work toward a future 2020 target; allows limited adjustment of parameters for 2035 and 2050 scenarios (MS Excel)  Reduction Tool v.3.0 – Incorporates jurisdictional selections made in V2.0 and calculates final GHG reduction and cost totals, creates charts and plots, included inventories for all milestone years, 2020 measures and 2035 and 2050 scenarios.

GHG Reduction Planning Tool v1.0 Tool v1.0 will contain all existing policies and programs along with a list of new reduction strategies. V1.0 will organize the measures into unquantifiable and quantifiable measures. Jurisdictions will review v1.0 to identify the new measures that are most applicable them. This will allow jurisdictions to provide feedback to ICF on the most attractive and feasible new measures in order to streamline the GHG and cost quantification.

Target Identification Each jurisdiction adopted a target of 25% below 1990 levels by 2015. Because the adoption of the GRIP may not occur until 2015, and it is highly unlikely this target could be met in such a short time frame, this date will be used for comparison purposes only. ICF will provide recommendations for 2020, 2035, and 2050 targets for jurisdictions. ICF will identify a suite of potential feasible targets that are consistent with AB 32, S-03-05, and other relevant regulations. As part of this task, ICF will review the current progress of jurisdictions to see how they are on track to meet the 2015 goal and how this relates to a 2020 target. Because significant uncertainty is present when planning for 2035 and 2050, ICF will also provide its evaluation of uncertainties in the targets , including the relationship of the 2015 target to other years, the relationship of 2035 and 2050 targets relate to AB 32 and other state and national goals, and the path of state and federal actions beyond 2020.

Page B-6

122


GHG Reduction Tool V2.0 ICF will quantify GHG reductions and cost/savings for 2020 using ICLEI protocol supplemented with CAPCOA and other sources. Tool v2.0 will include the GHG reductions and cost analysis for all existing and new quantifiable measures that the cities have selected in v1.0. It will also include the GHG inventories and forecasts so that cities can compare the emission reductions to their BAU emissions. Our cost/benefit analysis will be specific in nature to provide dollar estimates of costs and savings. 2035 and 2050 projections of reductions and costs will be uncertain, because there are no established protocols to estimate reductions beyond 2020 and there is limited information for what the state/federal government will do beyond 2020. For 2035 and 2050, ICF will prepare two scenarios for State and Federal action: 1) State/federal actions continue to meet trend line from 2020 to 2050 and will provide the equal percentage of GHG reductions as for 2020; 2) State/federal actions cease in 2020. ICF proposes using a scenario analysis for 2035 and 2050 that can reflect the wide range of uncertainty of projecting the effects of actions beyond 2020. Some sectors, such as transportation and water, will be more readily forecasted to 2035 (the transportation planning model and the Urban Water Management Plans have a 2035 scenario), but other sectors will have more limited data projections. Consequently, the 2035 and 2050 quantification will be based on broad emission reduction “scenarios” that involve fewer parameters than the 2020 quantification. This is an appropriate approach as the 2020 analysis can be more precise than the 2035 and 2050 analyses, while the 2035 and 2050 analyses can appropriately acknowledge a greater range of possible futures. All quantification will be consistent with the inventories prepared; quantification methods will be documented in an appendix to the Regional CAP (Task 2.5). With v2.0, the cities can choose a target for each year and select the measures that they want to implement for each year. Seeing the GHG reductions and costs of each measure will allow jurisdictions to select targets in a more informed manner. Jurisdictions can adjust participation rates to optimize their actions necessary to meet their selected goals and see the immediate GHG and cost effects of their choices. For example, one city may choose to retrofit 25% of existing single-family homes, while another city may choose to retrofit 35% of existing homes. This interactive feature will allow jurisdictions to customize their actions to tailor the CAP to their local conditions, and choose the most efficient and cost-effective path to meet their target. Each jurisdiction’s 2035 and 2050 selections will help inform their measure selections for the year 2020. For example, once a city sees what path is necessary to meet 2035/2050 target, they may have a better sense of what needs to be done by 2020. ICF will provide support and guidance to jurisdictions regarding the use of the v2.0 tool.

Transportation Strategies Evaluation for GHG Reduction Tool v2.0 A subsection of the tool will be developed by Fehr & Peers as a high-level planning spreadsheet tool (based on the final list of strategies) for each jurisdiction to evaluate the transportations strategies they will consider for implementation as part of the CAP. The tool will provide the jurisdictions with initial estimates of effectiveness for individual strategies and strategies in combination based on their urban context and degree of implementation. The tool may also provide high-level cost estimates to allow jurisdictions to compare implementation costs amongst strategies.

Economic Analysis for Reduction GHG Tool v2.0 As part of this task, ICF will conduct economic analysis of the GHG reduction scenarios to enable a comparison of the relative cost-effectiveness of different options. As a first step, ICF will consult with the RCPA and the GSRC to ensure that the quantitative outputs of the analysis will meet the jurisdictions’ needs. The net cost in dollars to implement the GHG strategy per ton of GHG emissions reduced (often referred to as cost-per-ton) is a standard output of our economic tool, but jurisdictions may also be interested in other financial metrics, such as net present value, annualized cost, payback periods, or return on investment. Jurisdictions may also have interest in the distribution of costs and savings across different

Page B-7

123


entities, such as businesses, residents, utilities, and local governments. GHG reduction measures can result in operational costs and savings, as well as administrative and programmatic costs, to a variety of entities, and the distribution of these costs/savings can be important element to understand when preparing to present the GHG plan to the public. In general, for each of the selected measures, ICF plans to conduct a quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis that estimates upfront capital investments (e.g., purchase and installation of technology) and annual cost savings (associated with reduced energy usage and reduced operating and maintenance costs) over the lifetime of the measure. To allow for side-by-side comparison of the cost of each measure, ICF will also calculate net present value and cost-per-ton values. This approach adjusts for the significant variation in the lifetime of individual GHG reduction measures (e.g., from energy efficient household appliances that last 10 years to solar panels that could last up to 30), as well as variation in capital costs and annual cost savings. Simple payback periods will also be estimated, where appropriate. ICF will quantify costs and savings for as many measures as is feasible. ICF will seek out data specific to the cities, County, region, or State of California regarding cost estimates, and will use and prioritize the data that is most locally applicable to Sonoma County. Local cost data can often be found in master plans, feasibility studies, utility reports, and other cost evaluations. Where such local cost data are not available, national cost data or other proxies will be employed. The majority of data used will be from publicly available data, and many sources are available for California. ICF will also provide a qualitative co-benefits analysis for each measure. These benefits generally include reductions in criteria pollutants, job growth, economic growth, and public health improvements. Regarding health benefits, ICF will use the work ICF completed for EPA Region 9, where ICF assessed the health co-benefits of San Francisco’s !P within the ay !rea, to determine a range of public health costs and savings from potential reduced particulate matter emissions associated with the GRIP GHG reduction measures. This will not be a detailed analysis specific to Sonoma ounty’s regional meteorology and local health costs; it will be a proxy analysis using Bay Area ranges to inform decision-making.

GHG Reduction Tool v3.0 ICF will incorporate feedback from the cities on v2.0 to prepare tool v3.0. Tool v3.0 will allow jurisdictions one additional round of review for their measure selections. This additional round of review will allow ICF to incorporate any new information, methods, and recommendations from the cities/stakeholders. ICF will incorporate feedback from v3.0 into the GHG and cost quantification for the CAP document.

Task 2.3 Deliverables  Draft and Final GHG Reduction Target Recommendations (electronic only)  GHG Reduction Tool (v1.0,v2.0, and v3.0 in MS Excel only) including – Reduction strategies – Cost/benefit analysis – Strategy prioritization

Task 2.4—Evaluate and Analyze Adaptation and Resiliency Strategies The GRIP will include a section creating strategies for climate adaptation specific to Sonoma County. RCPA has teamed with the North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative (NBCAI) to prepare the adaptation analysis for the GRIP. NBCAI will work with local stakeholders and experts to develop an adaptation component of the GRIP to address impacts due to climate change on human and natural populations including, but not limited to: an increased risk of wildfire, loss of land to sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, flooding, reduction in agricultural productivity, increased occurrence of heat waves, and a decrease in water supply due to drought.

Page B-8

124


ICF will support and coordinate with NBCAI to integrate their findings in the CAP document. ICF will provide this support through an early scoping meeting (via conference call) with NBCAI to review their proposed scope and approach, and through reviewing their draft materials and providing comment and suggestions. ICF will also identify if there are any existing tools and/or readily available references that may help NBCAI to estimate potential costs of adaptation or to estimate assets at risk (ICF will not perform any analysis of cost; this support is limited to identification of resources for N!I’s use). ICF will work with NBCAI to best integrate their work into the CAP document in Task 2.5.

2.4 Deliverables (all electronic only)  Review of NBCAI Scope  Review of NBCAI early outputs  Review of NBCAI Draft Adaptation Analysis and Strategies Document

Task 2.5—Develop Community-wide Multi-jurisdictional Climate Action Plan (CAP) In this task, ICF will create a single CAP document that combines and presents all technical components of the project (GHG inventories, GHG forecasts, GHG reduction measure quantification, GHG reduction measure cost analysis,) as well as adaptation strategies and implementation checklists and is the basis for the CEQA analysis. The CAP document will have a separate dedicated chapter for each of the Sonoma jurisdictions that will describe the jurisdiction, present the jurisdiction’s inventory, forecasts, reduction target, selected GHG reduction measures and costs and savings for the selected measures and other relevant information. The CAP will include the following:  An introduction to climate change science and regulations.  A summary of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, forecast, and targets for the entire County and each local jurisdiction (prepared by ICF).  Community-wide energy use, transportation, land use, agriculture, water, and solid waste reduction strategies and measures, their cost-effectiveness analysis, implementation time frames, prioritization, and funding sources, including a “road map” for adapting these community-wide measures at the jurisdiction level (prepared by ICF).  A summary of existing municipal reduction strategies and measures, cost-effectiveness analysis, implementation time frames, prioritization, and funding sources (based on existing information; not developed as part of this scope).  Adaptation and resiliency policies for anticipated climate change impacts, including strategies, implementation time frames, delegation of responsibility, and finance mechanisms (prepared by NBCAI).  Standards for monitoring and assessment, mechanisms for annual evaluation, and strategized primary and intermediate reduction targets to facilitate attainment of overall objectives to reduce emissions to target levels (prepared by ICF).  ! compliance checklist for use by local agency planning staff to assist in determining a project’s consistency with the GRIP (prepared by ICF). In describing the different GHG reduction measures, the CAP will identify the following:  The implementing agency (local agency, developer, site operators, etc.)  GHG reduction potential in metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)  Reductions in electricity (kWh), natural gas (therms), waste (tons), traffic (VMT), vehicle fuel (gallons), and water (gallons), as applicable  Cost, including: – Cost to the local agency – Cost to the private sector

Page B-9

125


   

– Potential cost savings Available funding (local agency sources, grants, rebates, low-interest financing, etc.) Co-benefits (e.g., Community health and higher property values) Implementation feasibility (including cost-effectiveness and qualitative assessment of short term and long term economic impact) Implementation actions

Working with the GSRC, ICF will develop a comparison matrix that will allow for easy comparison across all measures. ICF will develop a matrix for each jurisdiction that displays these considerations in a tabular format for the GHG reduction measures selected in the reduction tool v3.0. ICF will work the RCPA and GSRC to present all the factors clearly, discuss options for rating that may be used by individual jurisdictions, and provide decision support to the jurisdictions to help the communities do their own rating of the measures based on their own unique priorities. ICF will also include an Implementation section in the CAP, which will include a phasing schedule for each jurisdiction and the overall community-wide plan, to indicate the timeline for implementation of each measure based on measure priorities. For example, a wastewater treatment plant upgrade may not need to occur until 2018 in order to take effect by 2020, but energy retrofits should begin immediately after CAP adoption to maximize the number of buildings retrofit by 2020 (or any future target year). The CAP will use simple language, color, graphics, charts and other features to make the document easy-tocomprehend.

Task 2.5 Deliverables  Admin. Draft Community Climate Action Plan (Electronic only)  Public Draft Community Climate Action Plan (40 hard copies, 40 CDs, and electronic)  Final Draft Community Climate Action Plan (40 hard copies, 40 CDS, and electronic)

Task 2.6—Provide Support to the RCPA to Develop Model Policy/Code/Practices Book ICF will provide support to the RCPA as RCPA develops the Model Policy/Code/Practices Book. ICF assumes that ICF will input, decision support, and document review, as necessary.

Task 2.7—GRIP Implementation Tracker and Tools In order to track the effectiveness of the GRIP, jurisdictions need a central place to store program details, implementation milestones, and measure progress. This tool must be easy to use, intuitive, centrally located, and consistent with the inventories, projections, and reductions analysis. Since the local measures and actions may differ for each jurisdiction, maintaining consistent data entry and reporting will be challenging. Different jurisdictions will likely have different needs for tracking inputs and outputs; some may be able to report metrics that others cannot. The tool needs to cater to all jurisdictions and track all important indicators/metrics/ benchmarks for all measures without becoming too cumbersome or difficult to use. It must distill complex tracking data to the most useful and important information. The tool must also engage the public and show the progress of the GRIP. ICF will prepare a scoping memo to identify the key parameters to include in the tracking tool, present a timeline for city updates to the tracker, outline options for the look of the tracker interface, and discuss characteristics of the online public interface. ICF will incorporate feedback from jurisdictions on the memo into the development of the tracking tool to make sure that the tool contains all desired functions and capabilities.

Page B-10

126


ICF will convert v3.0 of the Reduction Planning tool into a tracking tool for the GRIP. Just like v3.0, the tracking tool will be interactive and easy to use. The tool will be excel-based and contain the GHG reduction and adaptation measures along with the metrics, checklists, benchmarks, timeline, goals, indicators, and other items identified by the scoping memo. Each measure will include a description, the responsible agency or department, the cost, potential or actual funding sources, measure priority, and the implementation timeframe. The tool will streamline report reviewing, data tracking, and measure verification. It will allow tracking so that adjustments to the GRIP can be made during implementation if something is off track and can be easily remedied. It will also allow for an annual assessment of progress toward GHG reduction goals and will project the region’s ability to meet its future GHG reduction goals. The tool will also help staff and the RCPA to evaluate future development projects for criteria consistent with the GRIP on an ongoing basis. The tracking tool will incorporate the sustainability benchmarks from the SGC grant application for which ICF will work with RCPA and GSRC in identify key metrics for tracking. ICF will also prepare a user manual for the GRIP tracker and train jurisdictional and RCPA staff on how to use the tool. ICF will complete the tasks shown below:  Scoping Memo – provides parameters and functionality of the tool and defines its appropriate use; includes timeline and options for interface appearances; discusses options for on-line public interfaces  Tracking Tool v.1.0 – building on reduction tool v.3.0 and includes checklists, benchmarks, timelines, goals and reference material database (MS Excel)  Tool Training 1 – provides training with v. 1.0  Tracking Tool v. 2.0 – incorporates feedback from jurisdiction’s trial use of v. 1.0  Tool Training 2 – provides jurisdiction training with v. 2.0  Public Online Interface – includes website (in html) for the GRIP including inventory data, reduction plans, timelines and goals; cities work with ICF to determine content. Components of the tool include:  All local and regional GHG reduction measures, sorted by sector/subsector. Additional sorting for implementation timing, responsible agency, and level of success/completion will be incorporated. Each proposed action and sub action included in the GRIP will be highlighted in the tool with information such as the following: – Program; – Responsibility; – Cost; – Potential Funding Sources; – Priority; – Time Frame.  All adaptation measures sorted in the same manner.  Indicators which may include reduced GHG emissions, air quality, water quality, public health, social equity/transportation, social equity/affordable housing, land use, open space, mobility, green infrastructure, recreational opportunities, water consumption, energy, economy  Database for storing and tracking reference/program documents, digital images, and maps Since the GRIP tracker will be on a MS Excel platform for ease of use, and MS Excel cannot store documents, it is proposed to use a platform such as Google Docs (or Project Solve or SharePoint, if RCPA chooses such platforms) for RCPA that can be used by the RCPA, the cities, and the County to store GRIP related documentation (please note that the ICF’s budget does not include software fees or licenses). Once the GRIP tracker has been developed, ICF will create an online public interface. Through this interface, the public will be able to download a report of GRIP progress and see key figures and graphics of progress, timeline,

Page B-11

127


and metrics/indicators/benchmarks. The online interface will engage the public, seek feedback, and keep communities up-to-date with latest progress and status on the GRIP.

Task 2.7 Deliverables    

Scoping Memo Admin Draft and Final GRIP Implementation Tracker Database Tool (electronic only) User Manual For Tracker GRIP Implementation Tracker online tool/site (electronic only)

Task 3: Conduct GRIP Community Public Outreach, Stakeholder Engagement and Local Adoption The goals of the public outreach task are to educate, inform, and engage stakeholders and the public.

The first task will be to prepare a comprehensive communication plan that guides the outreach process leading

to local adoption of the CAP. The communication plan will include a schedule; partnership, audience, and

stakeholder identification and methods of communication for various groups; goals and key messaging;

workshop and meeting format; outreach materials needed, such as fact sheets, web page, social media accounts.

The RCPA will review and provide input on the draft communication plan.

Our scope below articulates the assumed number of meetings for the purposes of preparing the project budget

cost estimate. However, the ICF Project Manager can present at any additionally requested workshops, GSRC

meetings, stakeholder meetings, or local adoption meeting at a cost of $1,250 per meeting, including

preparation, travel, and attendance at the meeting.

Task 3.1—Support Public Outreach Meetings and Create Online Presence RCPA will lead two (2) workshops to be held per jurisdiction. City staff will take a lead on coordinating the location and time of the workshops in their jurisdiction. ICF will support RCPA and the cities through the following tasks:  Communication Plan: ICF will develop a summary communication plan (likely in bullet points) listing key suggestions for communication throughout the GRIP development  Brand Development: ICF will develop a GRIP “brand” for all materials and the web presence—a “look and feel” (color, logo, text) that immediately identifies information as GRIP related.  Online Presence: ICF will establish an online presence, including web pages that can be added to the RCPA website (with links from local jurisdiction websites); RPCA will manage the updates of these pages. ICF will provide text/graphics/map to add to the Web pages at major milestones including after each of the public workshop, at the inventory stage, and at the release of the draft and final CAP documents. The web page(s) will be a centralized depository for GRIP-related information including purpose and goals, meeting information, event listings, contacts, links to research and reports, information on how community members can get involved, carbon calculator to measure individual impacts and suggestions for reducing carbon footprint, GHG, etc., and bilingual materials. The website will be created in html. RCPA or the County will host the website. ICF will also establish a Facebook page and email list serve. RCPA will maintain these two accounts for the duration of the project.  Stakeholder identification: ICF will assist RCPA in identifying key stakeholders and which can help RCPA communicate information about GRIP, inform the process, and begin to build support.  Fact Sheet/Materials/Translation: ICF will prepare a GRIP informational fact sheet and “F!Qs” (Frequently Asked Questions), translated into appropriate languages, to be posted on the web site and distributed at workshops and meetings.

Page B-12

128


 Workshops (2 per jurisdiction): ICF will support the workshops with development of the meeting format and supporting materials (meeting agenda, sign-in sheets, name tags, informational boards, and other materials as determined). This scope does not assume ICF will attend the workshops.  Website and Materials Updates – The website, the fact sheet, and the FAQ will be updated periodically.  Social Media: RCPA will prepare and post all social media updates. ICF will support this task through the preparation of the fact sheet and other materials noted above.

Task 3.1 Deliverables       

Communication Plan Brand Development Website Stakeholder list Fact Sheet and FAQ Workshop supporting materials agenda, presentation, hand-outs. Update of web-site materials, fact sheet and FAQ

Task 3.2—Attend Grant Sub-Recipient Committee Meetings The GSRC will consist of one representative from each of the grant sub-recipient groups. ICF will attend meetings of this Committee at key milestones to advise, gain input and present key work products. The GSRC will be a key resource for public involvement and outreach.      

Kickoff Meeting Draft GHG inventory and Forecast Reduction Tool v1.0 Target Setting Exercise Reduction Tool v2.0/Model Book Kickoff Draft Model Policies

     

Admin. Draft CAP Public Draft CAP/Pre-Draft EIR Coordination Admin. Final CAP Final CAP/Tracking Tool Training (in person) Tracking Tool Training (Webinar/Conference Call) Tracking Tool Online Interface (Webinar/Conference Call)

Meetings will be conducted at the following milestones (10 in person meetings and 2 Webinar/Conference Calls), and up to 6 additional 1-hour GSRC conference calls will be scheduled as needed. Preparation and facilitation of additional GSRC conference calls will be at a cost of $441 per conference call (1 hour prep and 1 hour call for ICF project Manager). The GSRC meeting agenda will be developed in partnership with the Committee itself to support the project’s needs. IF will use the following methods to facilitate these meeting: agendas, presentations, handouts, webinars, follow-on phone and email communications, polls of the participants, and other methods.

Task 3.2 Deliverables  Total of 10 meetings and 2 Webinars  Supporting materials, agenda, presentation, hand-outs,  Meeting notes

Task 3.3—Engage Stakeholder Advisory Group This task allows for a diverse stakeholder advisory group to have input in the GRIP process and documents created. The group may include representatives from environmental advocacy groups, energy providers, agricultural and tourism interests, the development and construction industry, and other governmental agencies that are not grant sub-recipients. ICF will work to identify diverse representation to the stakeholder group from different sectors throughout the county. Members could come from, but are not limited to disadvantaged communities, local business groups,

Page B-13

129


nonprofits, and environmental organizations . ICF will work with RP! to develop the advisory group’s role, meeting agendas and materials and ensure there are regular and meaningful opportunities for input to ensure the stakeholders’ continued commitment and involvement in the process, ultimately leading to local adoption of the GRIP. Advisory Group meetings will be conducted at the following milestones (4 in person meetings).    

Draft GHG Inventory and Forecast Reduction Tool v2.0 Public Draft CAP/ Draft EIR Final CAP/Final EIR

Task 3.3 Deliverables  Total of 4 meeting  Supporting materials, agenda, presentation, hand-outs,  Meeting notes

Task 3.4—Participate in Local Adoption Process The GSRC will determine the best option for presenting the GRIP to various councils and public bodies. The RCPA would work with each jurisdiction’s staff to ensure consistent adoption. ICF will support the local adoption process by preparing presentations, template staff reports and other materials that the jurisdictions can modify for their needs. In IF’s experience, local adoption meetings usually include one meeting with the Planning Commission and one with the City Council (or Board of Supervisors) for a minimum of two meetings per jurisdiction. Accordingly, this scope includes 20 meetings (two per jurisdiction, excluding Santa Rosa as they have already approved their CAP and two for the RCPA Board).

Task 3.4 Deliverables  Presentation of GRIP to local government boards; other materials as requested.

Task 4: Environmental Documentation (ICF) Task 4, and all of its sub-components, shall be commenced if and only if ICF receives a written Notice to Proceed from the Director of the ounty’s Permit & Resource Management Department. ICF recommends a Program EIR be prepared that evaluates the environmental impacts of GRIP implementation in Sonoma County. While the GHG reduction strategies proposed by each jurisdiction will help to reduce GHG emissions and may help to reduce air pollution, save energy, save water, reduce waste and provide other cobenefits, the physical improvements necessary to implement some of these measures may have secondary effects. For example, large-scale solar or wind installations can have impacts on land use, aesthetics, and biological resources. New transit facilities and transportation improvements may have localized noise impacts as well as construction impacts. Focusing development in transit-oriented infill areas may reduce traffic congestion on highways and regional arterials but may increase localized traffic in certain infill areas. The Program EIR will analyze these issues and will help meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 for subsequent tiering of project evaluation. Our approach to this task is described below. The EIR process will rely heavily on incorporation by reference of the technical documents, GHG emission reduction and adaptation standards, and emission reduction targets produced for the GRIP project. The CEQA review process will assess relevant substantial evidence in the record, including any applicable standards previously adopted by jurisdictions to reduce GHG’s.

Page B-14

130


The intent of the GRIP CEQA documents is to allow future projects to tier off the certified GRIP CEQA document in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Projects consistent with the GRIP will be able to rely on the programmatic cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions contained in the certified GRIP EIR. ICF will develop criteria and a process that the jurisdictions will use to determine if a future project is consistent with the GRIP, and if not alternative environmental review procedures. As relevant, ICF will consider and utilize the applicable guidance and information from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to the extent feasible . In consultation with the GSRC and its constituent members, ICF will determine appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence.

Task 4.1—Identify Detailed Scope of Work, Tasks, Appropriate Level of EIR, and Timeline ICF, in cooperation with the RCPA will develop a detailed scope of work for the Program EIR and a detailed schedule for the CEQA Process, consistent with the budget in this Scope of Work. ICF will identify the inputs needed from the RCPA, the cities, and the County to support the EIR. The CEQA document will likely be a standalone Program EIR that does not formally tier from any City or County CEQA document, but ICF will examine the potential for the EIR to in part or in whole tier from recent City and County documents, such as CEQA documentation for recent General Plan EIRs or the MTC/ABAG RTP/SCS EIR.

Task 4.1 Deliverables  CEQA Scope of Work  CEQA Schedule

Task 4.2—Issue Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting ICF will prepare an admin draft (for RCPA review) and a final draft of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR for review and approval. ICF will prepare a summary of potential environmental effects for the NOP based on initial environmental screen from Task 2.3 and a summary of the GRIP based on the administrative draft of the !P. IF will also briefly describe EQ!’s provisions for tiering and how they apply to this EIR and subsequent project review. ICF will submit the NOP to the State Clearinghouse. RCPA will be responsible for printing and distribution of the NOP to other parties as well as the placement of advertisements or other notices of the NOP, unless alternative arrangements are made by the parties.

Task 4.2 Deliverables  Draft and Final NOP

Task 4.3—Conduct EIR Scoping Meeting ICF will support RCPA in conducting one public EIR Scoping Meeting. ICF will prepare a presentation for use at the scoping meeting that will be attended by the ICF Project Manager. RCPA will be responsible for all aspects of the scoping meeting except the presentation and meeting summary, including meeting logistics and noticing.

Task 4.3 Deliverables  Presentation for the Scoping Meeting  Copies of NOP for the meeting  Summary of Scoping Meeting

Page B-15

131


Task 4.4—Prepare Programmatic EIR ICF will prepare an administrative draft EIR considering the responses to the NOP and focusing on those issues that would potentially result in significant impacts. GHG emissions will be a key analysis to be included in the EIR in order to set up tiering under CEQA guidelines 15183.5. ICF will present an overview of climate change science, predicted emissions, and impacts globally and within California, overview of the current regulatory regime in California and the U.S., and anticipated future actions of the state/CARB in regulation of GHG emissions. This background will also present the cumulative context for assessment of climate change by presenting an overview of the global, state, and regional emissions. ICF will rely on information prepared for the CAP/GRIP for this discussion. ICF will present the estimated city and ounty contributions of GHG emissions now and in the future under “business as usual” conditions, and a summary of the proposed GRIP. Although many GRIP reduction measures will reduce other environmental impacts (such as reduced criteria pollutant emissions with reduction in vehicle travel and use of some alternative fuels), some may have secondary impacts on the environment such as aesthetic impacts from increased rooftop solar power installations or localized noise and air quality emissions from new transit. These secondary effects will be qualitatively discussed in the EIR. As required by CEQA, alternatives will need to be identified and analyzed as feasible. ICF will work with City/County staff to design a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives. The qualitative differences in the impacts of the alternatives will be documented in the EIR. ICF will also qualitatively discuss potential impacts of climate change on the environment within the County including the potential changes in hydrology (precipitation, flooding events, etc.), public health (heat stress, increased ozone exceedances), and water supply (changes in Sierra snowpack, availability of Delta water, etc.). ICF will rely primarily on information from the GRIP Adaptation analysis prepared by NBCAI. For each identified significant environmental impact, ICF will identify relevant mitigation measures (if there is a feasible measure). Where the GRIP could be revised to adequately mitigate a significant environmental impact, ICF will identify potential policy changes or additions. Mitigation measures will be drafted in the form of GRIP policies or programs. ICF will provide an administrative draft EIR for the RP!’s review and comment. IF will then revise the administrative draft pursuant to the RP!’s comments in preparing the public review Draft EIR. IF will prepare an administrative draft and a final NOA for the RP!’s use in providing public notice of the Draft EIR and its 45day review period. RCPA will compile the mailing list of local responsible agencies and will be responsible for providing local notice, including newspaper notice. RCPA is responsible for distribution of the Draft EIR and any printing beyond the amounts shown below.

Task 4.4 Deliverables  Draft and Final Notice of Availability (electronic only)  Administrative Draft EIR (electronic version)  Public Draft EIR [20 hard copies of full document, 15 copies with hard copy of executive summary and 15CDs for Clearinghouse, 20 additional copies on CD (PDF format), one camera-ready printed copy)].

Task 4.5—Issue Notice of Completion and DEIR Review Period ICF will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) and will prepare for and attend one public meeting to take comment on the Draft EIR. RCPA is responsible for all aspects of the public meeting, except the presentation which will be prepared by ICF, including meeting logistics and noticing.

Page B-16

132


Task 4.5 Deliverables  Draft and Final Notice of Completion (electronic of draft; hard copies of final for NOC only)  Public meeting presentation

Task 4.6—Respond to Comments IF will review the comments received during the EIR’s review period and draft reasoned responses. If there are numerous comments on a single topic, and in consultation with the County and RCPA, ICF may elect to prepare a master response on that topic. As necessary, ICF will recommend revisions to the EIR and update the EIR’s references. ICF will respond to not more than 250 individual comments (a comment letter or e-mail may contain more than one comment).

Task 4.6 Deliverables  Draft and Final Responses to Comments (as part of Final EIR, see Task 4.8)

Task 4.7—Prepare Final EIR ICF will prepare an administrative final EIR that will include the comments, response to comments, any necessary revisions to the draft EIR, and any supporting references or appendices. The Final EIR will not include a full revision to the Draft EIR, but will include text revisions only. After RCPA review of the administrative draft ICF will incorporate the revisions to the administrative final EIR identified by the RCPA and prepare the Final EIR. ICF will prepare and provide to the RCPA an administrative draft Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP will be in the form of a table listing the applicable mitigation measures, the time of implementation, the agency responsible for monitoring and implementation, and the completion of monitoring or reporting. Responsible agencies could include RCPA, the individual cities, the County, or other agencies. ICF will finalize the MMRP based on one round of RCPA comments. ICF will include copies of the final MMRP with the Final EIR. ICF will also prepare an administrative draft of findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations (if an override is necessary) and revise the findings and statement per one round of RCPA comments. The Final EIR including responses to comments and the statement of overriding considerations will be bound separately from the Findings and MMRP document. RCPA is responsible for distribution of the Final EIR and any printing beyond the amounts shown below.

Task 4.7 Deliverables  Administrative Final EIR and MMRP (electronic only)  Final EIR (20 hard copies plus 20 CD-ROMs and one print-ready hard copy) and final MMRP (electronic only)  Findings and statement of overriding considerations (electronic only)

Task 4.8—Attend Meetings to Present Environmental Document During this task, ICF staff will present the environmental document for consideration and certification by the RCPA at two meetings, if required, not including the following: (1) Scoping and Draft EIR meetings were included in tasks above. (2) Meetings for local adoption of their part of the GRIP are included in Task 3.4. RCPA is responsible for any meeting logistics other than the presentation, which will be prepared by ICF.

Task 4.8 Deliverables  Presentation of EIR to RCPA for consideration and adoption.

Page B-17

133


Project Schedule A summary schedule is shown in the table below. ICF will provide RCPA with a more detailed schedule broken down by task and subtask, and showing relationships between tasks at the project kickoff meeting. Schedule 2013 M

A

M

J

J

A

2014 S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

2015 A

S

O

N

D

Task 2: GRIP Task 2.1: GHG Inventory Task 2.2: Policy Gap Analysis Task 2.3: Reduction Analysis Task 2.4 : Adaptation (NBCAI) Task 2.5: Climate Action Plan Task 2.6: Model Book (RCPA) Task 2.7 : GRIP Tracker Task 3: Outreach Task 3.1: Public Workshops Task 3.2: GSRC Meetings Task 3.3 : Stakeholder Meetings Task 3.4 : Local Adoption Mtgs. Task 4 : CEQA Task 4.1: Planning for EIR Task 4.2: NOP Task 4.3: EIR Scoping Task 4.4: Program EIR Task 4.5: DEIR Review Task 4.6: Comment Response Task 4.7: Prepare Final EIR Task 4.8 : Certification

Page B-18

134

J

F


Project Budget (Set forth on the following pages.)

Page B-19

135


Table 1. Cost for Sonoma County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (ICF, 03/08/12) Subcontractor

Consulting Staff

Employee Name

Walter Ric

Schuster Bri

Williams Mar

Project Role Project Manager Technical Lead Senior Analyst

Task Task 2 - GRIP

Labor Classification

Task 2.1 - GHG Inventories and Forecasts

Proj Dir 64 8

Sub-task 2.1.1 - Questionnaire to Cities

Chang Bre

Matsui Cor

GHG Analyst

Sr Consult I Sr Consult III Assoc Consult II 545 17 485 193

5

1

20

Sub-task 2.1.3 - Memo (Data, Methods and Survey of Previous Inventories)

1

24

2

8

1

Sub-task 2.1.4 - Socioeconomic Data Development Sub-task 2.1.5 - Data Request and Gathering

30

SubTask 2.3.2 - Target Analysis and Recommendations SubTask 2.3.3 - GHG Reduction, Cost Quantification, and Environmental Screening

0

Tech Dir 4 0

Asst Consult 112 0

Unyi Meg

Barnard Ala

Holcomb Val

Messick Tim

Rafferty Jen

Davis Sus

Fehr & Peers

Fehr & Peers

Outreach Specialist

Outreach Specialist

Outreach Specialist

Outreach Lead

Graphic Artist

Web Design

Database Support

Traffic Analysis

Traffic Analysis

Assoc Assoc Consult Assoc Consult II Sr Consult I Sr Consult III Consult I Sr Consult III III 60 36 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

Assoc Consult III 6 0

Assoc Consult II Sr Consult II 78 40 0

0

SubTask 2.3.6 - Reduction Planning Tool Version 3.0 Task 2.5 - Climate Action Plan SubTask 2.5.1 - Document Mock-Up SubTask 2.5.2 - Draft and Final Sector Strategies and Vision

8 142

4

16

8

52

$9,426

$26,723

$26,723

1 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$4,389

8

0

48

4

112

60

20

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

$78,079

30

30

$2,468

10

$1,464

100

44

8

40

4

100

48

6

6

6

6

30

0

2

6

16

2

12

2

2

1

30

140

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

$26,525

$8,910 $2,514

$993

530

$50,767

$50,767

$0

194

$26,525

$0

$0

$0

79

$7,919

$0

$0

20

$3,093

$3,093

$35,204

0

$0

$0

22

$5,112

393

$40,316

$40,316

6

$447

24

$2,246

$0

15

$1,629

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$0

$1,799

$0

$1,629

$0

$4,927

2

$1,040

0

0

0

0

0

6

60

16 0

0

$0

$0

18

6

$447

34

$3,556

$3,556

$0

8

$596

54

$5,522

$5,522

$0

2

$149

10

$1,189

$1,189

0

0

$0 $0

17

$3,309

$3,309

0

0

$0

276

$34,378

$34,378

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$3,309 $3,309

$0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

78

40

$34,378

$0

$0

40

17

$3,309

2

$2,509

$0

$0

22

$2,509

4

$4,540

$0

$0

28

$4,540

$4,540

6

12

$14,866

$0

$0

144

$14,866

$14,866

8

50

22

$12,463

$0

$0

82

$12,463

$12,463

21

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

89

70

88

63

0

0

0

$82,511

$0

0

0

$0

531

$82,511

$82,511

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

77

66

84

35

0

0

0

$28,428

$0

0

0

$0

262

$28,428

$28,428

1

$933

$0

$0

9

$933

$933

10

2

$1,555

$0

$0

12

$1,555

$1,555

30

4

$5,301

$0

$0

45

$5,301

$5,301

8

$2,784

$0

$0

26

$2,784

$2,784

8

$8,860

$0

$0

86

$8,860

$8,860

$0

$0

$0

0

$0

8 6 10

24

30

3.1.5. Fact sheet, meeting materials, and translation

24

3.1.6. Support for 9 community workshops (RCPA lead per Pre-Bid) 3.1.7. Workshop follow-up

20

3.1.8. Update website, project materials

12

8 20

20

$3,185

4

60

Task 3.3. Engage Stakeholder Advisory Group

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

3.3.1. Identify members

4

3.3.2. Develop meeting agenda and materials

8 40

4

4 4

0

0

0

$0

$0

$0

28 56

$0

0

$0

$0

$0

60

$13,700

$13,700

$0

88

$15,447

$15,447

$15,447

$0

2

$699

$0

$0

6

$699

$699

2

$1,586

$0

$0

14

$1,586

$1,586

0

$13,162

$0

$24,935

$0

$132,363

$0

4

4

4

$2,118

$0

$0

12

$2,118

32

4

$6,071

$0

$0

44

$6,071

21 8

0

0

0

0

12

Task 4.5: Prepare Programmatic EIR

50

Task 4.6: Issue NOC and DEIR Review Period (1 meeting)

24

Task 4.7: Respond to Comments

24 16

570

148

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

24

0

8

150

0

0

56

0

0

24 4 2 2

$5,346 80

$63,752

$0

40

4

$10,593

$0

100

40

$24,239

$0

70

32

16

24

$17,505

$0

$2,740 574

17

$100.04

$145.86

$94,532

$57,423

$2,480

366

30

754

172

0

48

4

112

60

36

89

70

88

63

62

78

40

$83.01

$77.61

$91.35

$108.57

$192.54

$85.09

$142.85

$284.76

$71.87

$92.01

$136.21

$97.22

$76.59

$124.51

$155.10

$123.77

$169.21

$124.79

$40,260

485

$28,406

$2,741

$81,862

$33,117

$0

$6,857

$1,139

$8,050

$5,520

$4,904

$8,652

$5,361

$10,957

$9,771

$7,674

$13,199

$4,992

$427,895

$0 72

60

$0

300

12 414 $228.34

$5,809

$5,809

$0 $0

Task 4.1: SOW, tasks, EIR type, timeline

100

$0 $3,185

$3,185

$0 $13,700

Task 4.3: NOP and Preparation for Scoping Meeting

Task 4.8: Prepare Final EIR

4

28

$0

$5,809

3.1.9. Social media postings Task 3.2. Attend Grant Sub-Recipient Committee Meetings (10)

Task 4.9 - Attend meetings to present environmental documents (2 meetings)

$2,509

2

8

Total hours

$3,309

2 20

200

5

Subtotals

$1,783 $3,084 $21,307

0

3.1.4. Partnership outreach & key stakeholder identification

Billing Rates

$1,629

$3,084 $21,307

0

3.1.3. Develop website & social media

Task 4.4: Conduct EIR Scoping Meeting (1 meeting)

$2,246

$1,783

30

0

3.1.2. Develop brand

Task 3.4 Participate in local adoption process (20 meetings)

$7,919

208

0

3.1.1 Communication Plan

Task 4: Prepare CEQA Document

$8,962

$8,962

$0

0

60

40

91

$3,474

0

16 8

$0

$0

24 0

$26,525

$26,525

$0

8 0

4

$26,525

0

$8,962

2

68

8

194

$7,919 $3,093

$0

0

$0 $3,932

$2,514

$3,109

0

$5,853

$8,910

6

2

$1,921 $105,597

$0 $3,932

20

$0

8

$5,853

98

$0

0

$1,921 $105,597

0

$0

$1,783

78

46 28

$0

$3,084

2

18 1,012

$0

$17,832

2

$0

$0 $0

$0

100

1

$0

$993

$8,910 $49,774

6

2

12

0

4

6

20 20

0

8

$1,464 $26,525

16

14

SubTask 2.5.8 - Administrative Final CAP

$1,464

$0 194

$2,514 $0 4

$1,464 $0

10

$1,921

4

SubTask 2.5.9 - Final CAP

3.3.3. Attend meetings and produce notes (4)

$889 $3,431

0

20

20

Task 3.1 - Conduct Public Outreach Workshop (9 Workshops)

$889 $3,431

0

16

2

Task 3 - Outreach

8 33

44

20

$946

$0

0

100

$4,157 $8,017

$0

0

16

SubTask 2.5.7 - Public Draft CAP

SubTask 2.7C - GRIP Implementation Tracker

$0

$1,241

$889

0

8

5

$3,431

166

2

8

$8,017

309

2

44

90

$0

24

2

$2,222

$4,157

$26,723

20

1

$55,810

$2,222

45

115

14

0

Total Price $248,355

$55,810

24

$0

115

3

118

Labor Total $248,355

628

$0

$946

3 13

Total Hours 2,392

$1,241

$9,426

10

5

Subtotal $7,346

9

8

10

Pub Spec 31

110

166

8

58

$0

6

$0

Editor

$0

4

4

SubTask 2.7D - Online Interface for GRIP Tracker

$0

Subtotal $27,989

$946

0

30

SubTask 2.5.4 - Draft and Final Checklists

SubTask 2.7B - Create Online Presence

0

Costs $27,989

$9,426

12

6

2

SubTask 2.5.3 - Questionnaire to Partners

Task 2.7 - GRIP Implementation Tracker SubTask 2.7A - Scoping

204

$0 6 18

SubTask 2.5.5 - Administrative Draft CAP

Task 2.6 - Model Policy/Code/Practices Book ICF Support

$54,569

Hours

$6,776

SubTask 2.3.4 - Transportation Analysis SubTask 2.3.5 - Reduction Planning Tool Version 2.0 Task 2.4 - Adaptation and Resiliency Strategies

Subtotal $213,021

Production Staff

40

1

0

Rogers Jen

24

15

14

Assoc Assoc Consult Consult III III 0 48

Adaptation

40

5

0

Spindler Dan Rodehorst Bet

24

15

8

24

Lindsay McAlpine

Cost Analyst Cost Analyst Cost Analyst

$4,157

3

SubTask 2.2.3 - Policy Gap Document

Proj Dir

Sussman Fra

$2,222

1

0

Cost Analyst

8

Sub-task 2.1.8 - Final GHG Inventory and Forecast (Excel)

SubTask 2.2.2 - Refine List and Identify Issues

Sr Consult I 184

Kyle Jes

Planner

12

Sub-task 2.1.7 - Webinar and/or Meeting Prep

0

Antin Eli

200

2

Task 2.3 - GHG Reduction Strategies SubTask 2.3.1 - Reduction Planning Tool Version 1.0

2

Assoc Consult III 30

Zeff Sal

12

Sub-task 2.1.6 - Draft GHG Inventory and Forecast (Excel)

Task 2.2 - Policy Gap Analysis SubTask 2.2.1 - Data Collection

75

Assoc Consult II 366

Mills Cas

CEQA Analyst / Planner Senior Planner

207

16

Sub-task 2.1.2 - Review of Existing Inventory Data

Yoon Lau

GHG Analyst GHG Analyst

40 16 16

40 10 10

$0

204

$27,989

$27,989

91 $74.45 $6,775

$13,162

$13,162

121

$24,935

$24,935

1,064

$143,084

$143,084 $2,118 $6,071

$0

36

$5,346

$5,346

$6,452

546

$70,204

$70,204

$0

68

$10,593

$10,593

$2,134

192

$26,373

$26,373

$2,134 $0

130 $86.86 $11,291

68

$0 $10,721

$18,066

154 12

3,987

$19,639

$19,639 $2,740

$2,740

$473,950

$473,950

Total price

$473,950

Total price for Tasks 2 and 3

$330,866

Total price for Task 4

$143,084

136

Staff Report

To:


From:


Item:

4.5.3 – RCPA activities report

Date:

March 11, 2013

Issue: Information Only Background: ENERGY EFFICIENCY Bay Area Regional Energy Network: See item 4.5.1 CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Plan: See item 4.5.2 Urban Footprint Analysis for Sonoma County The RCPA has partnered with Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District to submit an application for Priority Conservation Area funding as part of the SCTA’s One Bay Area Grant Program. The application is for funding needed to create an Urban Footprint model for Sonoma County that will allow for an integrated approach to evaluating greenhouse gas emissions in Sonoma County from a variety of sectors. The result of this project will be a spatially explicit modeling tool that will allow decision makers to assess various policy and development scenarios and understand their implications on emissions, energy use, water use, air quality, public health, land consumption, and fiscal impacts. The RCPA anticipates that the resulting tool will serve multiple RCPA objectives and projects including: strategy evaluation and local adoption during the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Plan; ability to illustrate coordinated efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that may enhance RCPA competiveness in seeking funding; and local development of a tool that is being promoted statewide by the Strategic Growth Council for Sustainable Community Strategy analysis and other planning efforts. For more information see item 4.3.3. Bay Area Joint Policy Committee: Climate Adaptation Needs Assessment The Bay Area JPC established the Bay Area Climate & Energy Resilience Project to support and enhance the local climate adaptation efforts of cities, counties, and other organizations. This entity recently completed a needs assessment to better understand how we can accelerate and strengthen regional climate adaptation planning in the Bay Area. The RCPA has been participating in a series of conversations about the results of the needs assessment, and about developing an action plan to

137

respond to identified needs. The results of the study can be found at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/projects.html CLIMATE POLICY AND SCIENCE Cap & Trade Revenues Last month RCPA Director Zane and Executive Director Smith issued comments on a draft Concept Paper issued to aid public discussion regarding development of the first investment plan for cap-and trade auction proceeds, expected to be roughly $200 million in 2012-13 and $400 million in 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Draft Investment Plan will be issued in early April; RCPA staff continues to monitor developments related to Cap & Trade revenues and will look for opportunities to support our 2013 legislative platform. More information, full reports and opportunities to comment can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/auctionproceeds.htm#proceedsworkshops LEGISLATION Last month staff presented a summary of legislation related to energy and emissions. Assembly Bill 416 (Gordon) is of particular interest to the RCPA because it establishes a Local Emissions Reduction Program that would provide grants and other financial assistance to develop and implement greenhouse gas reduction projects in the state. The Local Emissions Reduction Program could be eligible to receive funding from Cap & Trade Revenues or Prop 39, and would be overseen by the Strategic Growth Council. AB 416 sets forth the following criteria for determining priority emissions reduction projects by local governments:

(1) Regional implementation. (2) The ability to leverage additional public and private funding. (3) The potential for co-benefits or multi-benefit attributes. (4) The potential for the project or program to be replicated. (5) Consideration of geographic and socioeconomic issues. For more information, the bill as amended as of March 21, 2013 is attached as 4.5.3.a. Because AB 416 directly supports programs like those implemented by the RCPA and is in line with the RCPA Legislative Platform, staff issued the attached letter of support on March 14, 2013. RCPA OPERATIONS Community Outreach In March, RCPA staff presented to Leadership Santa Rosa. The prompt was what are we doing about Climate Change in Sonoma County and why (from a political perspective). Program Manager Lauren Casey presented a 10 minute overview of the policy framework for our current actions on climate change, utilizing the presentation viewable here: http://prezi.com/8bl18karsvoh/leadership-santa-rosa rcpa/?kw=view-8bl18karsvoh&rc=ref-34841303 If you are interested in hearing the presentation, or having staff present to stakeholders in your jurisdiction please let Lauren know. Staff Recommendation: Information Only.

138

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 21, 2013 california legislature—2013–14 regular session

ASSEMBLY BILL

No. 416

Introduced by Assembly Member Gordon February 15, 2013

An act to add Chapter 3.6 (commencing with Section 39680) to Part 2 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to greenhouse gases. legislative counsel’s digest

AB 416, as amended, Gordon. California State Air Resources Board: Local Emission Reduction Program. Existing law designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air quality management districts with the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources other than vehicular sources. This bill would create the Local Emission Reduction Program and would require money to be available from the general fund General Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of providing grants and other financial assistance to develop and implement greenhouse gas emission emissions reduction projects in the state. The bill would require the state board, in coordination with the Strategic Growth Council, to award moneys under the program to eligible recipients, as specified, and would permit the state board to give consideration to the ability of a project to, among other things, create local job training and job creation benefits and provide opportunities to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction in ways that increase localized energy resources administer the program, as specified. 98

139

AB 416

— 2 —

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5 line 6 line 7 line 8 line 9 line 10 line 11 line 12 line 13 line 14 line 15 line 16 line 17 line 18 line 19 line 20 line 21 line 22 line 23 line 24 line 25 line 26 line 27 line 28 line 29 line 30 line 31 line 32 line 33 line 34 line 35

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is critical to public health, safety, the economy, and the natural environment that California residents rely on. (b) State investments in local and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in this state help local communities thrive, support the state’s emission-reduction and clean-energy targets, lower the statewide unemployment rate, and spur new job growth. (c) Incentivizing Providing incentives to local governments to plan and implement their own greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts will assist the state to reach its emission-reduction targets faster and more efficiently. (d) Local greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives best recognize the particular reduction opportunities at the local level and provide an opportunity to enhance the environment and economy of local and regional places through multibenefit projects. (e) Local governments are well-suited well suited to coordinate and aggregate micro-, small-, community-, and regional-scale projects that will help the state reach its environmental targets while incentivizing providing incentives to investments and job growth at the local level. (f) It is the intent of the Legislature to promote investments in local and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction projects. SEC. 2. Chapter 3.6 (commencing with Section 39680) is added to Part 2 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, to read: Chapter 3.6. Local Emission Reduction Program 39680. (a) The Local Emission Reduction Program is hereby created. (b) Moneys shall be available from the general fund General Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying out this chapter. 98

140

—3—

line 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5 line 6 line 7 line 8 line 9 line 10 line 11 line 12 line 13 line 14 line 15 line 16 line 17 line 18 line 19 line 20 line 21 line 22 line 23 line 24 line 25 line 26 line 27 line 28 line 29 line 30 line 31 line 32 line 33 line 34 line 35 line 36 line 37 line 38 line 39 line 40

AB 416

(c) (1) The state board, in coordination with other state entities, as appropriate, shall establish the Local Emission Reduction Program to provide local assistance grants and other financial assistance to eligible recipients for the purposes of developing and implementing greenhouse gas emission emissions reduction projects in this state. (2) The state board, in coordination with the Strategic Growth Council, shall administer the Local Emission Reduction Program. (d) For purposes of this chapter chapter, “eligible recipient” means a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, metropolitan planning organization, regional climate authority, special district, joint powers authority, air pollution control and or air quality management district, regional collaborative, or nonprofit organization working in coordination with a local government. (e) The state board shall award local assistance grants on a competitive basis based on the potential for greenhouse gas emission reductions, including sequestration, projects that demonstrate innovation and that result in replicable models with consideration of geographic and socioeconomic context. Consideration may also be given to the ability of a project or projects to do any develop standards and guidelines for the distribution of funds to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to maximize the ability to achieve one or more of the following: (1) Create local job training and job creation benefits. (2) (1) Decrease air or water pollution. (3) (2) Reduce the consumption of natural resources or energy. (4) (3) Provide opportunities to achieve greenhouse gas emission emissions reductions in ways that increase localized energy resources. (4) Promote public-private partnerships to implement energy efficiency and clean energy projects with financing incentives for residential and commercial facilities. (5) Increase the reliability of local water supplies. (6) Increase solid waste diversion from landfills. (7) Increase electric vehicle infrastructure. (7) 98

141

AB 416 line 1 line 2 line 3 line 4 line 5 line 6 line 7 line 8 line 9 line 10 line 11 line 12 line 13 line 14 line 15 line 16 line 17 line 18 line 19 line 20 line 21 line 22 line 23 line 24 line 25 line 26 line 27 line 28 line 29 line 30 line 31 line 32 line 33 line 34 line 35 line 36

— 4 —

(8) Achieve greenhouse gas emission emissions reductions in ways that reduce vehicle miles traveled. (8) (9) Prevent conservation conversion of agricultural, forest, and open space lands to uses that result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. (f) In evaluating potential projects to be funded pursuant to this chapter, the state board and the Strategic Growth Council shall give priority to projects that demonstrate one or more of the following characteristics: (1) Regional implementation. (2) The ability to leverage additional public and private funding. (3) The potential for cobenefits or multibenefit attributes. (4) The potential for the project or program to be replicated. (5) Consideration of geographic and socioeconomic issues. (f) (g) The state board shall ensure that the Local Emission Reduction Program provides opportunities for both small and large population participants. (h) The state board, in coordination with the Strategic Growth Council, shall ensure funding is available pursuant to this chapter for both of the following: (1) The development and implementation of innovative projects that create new systems or technologies. (2) (A) The implementation of existing, proven greenhouse gas emissions reducing or sequestering projects, including, but not limited to, those projects and programs already adopted by local agencies. (B) Projects receiving funding pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall receive funding on a competitive basis. 39681. The state board, in coordination with other state agencies, as appropriate implementing a grant program pursuant Section 39680, shall develop standards and guidelines to ensure projects funded pursuant to this chapter maximize funds appropriated, provide environmental and economic benefits, and do not conflict with other areas of law.

O 98

142

March 14, 2013 The Honorable Rich Gordon California State Assembly California State Capitol Room 4126 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: AB 416 (Gordon) – SUPPORT Dear Assembly Member Gordon, On behalf of the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA) I am writing to express our strong support for AB 416 (Gordon). The RCPA is a legislatively created, countywide body of local government officials charged with coordinating and implementing climate change activities throughout Sonoma County. As the first agency of its type in the State, part of our charge is to advocate on issues relevant to the role of government and the reduction of GHG emissions. Your legislation proposing to create the Local Emission Reduction Program to allocate monies to local governments for grants and other financial assistance to develop and implement greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction projects is of great interest to us. Local governments are instrumental to meeting state climate and energy goals. As the closest level of government to Californians, we are able to make a significant impact by taking action in our communities and promoting public awareness. Local leadership enables cities, counties and special districts to work together with a number of partners to initiate projects that target the biggest GHG reductions, promote energy efficiency and water use efficiency, and create jobs, all of which will spur local economies as well as the state’s economy. A program dedicating funds for local governments to implement GHG reducing projects will best serve the state in its quest to achieve the goals set forth by AB 32. We should be funding both innovative projects that create new systems or technologies as well as implementing projects proven to reduce or sequester GHG emissions. We are especially pleased to see that eligible entities include local governments, special districts, joint power authorities, non-profits and regional partnerships working in partnership with local jurisdiction, and other appropriate regional entities. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Sincerely, Suzanne Smith Executive Director, SCTA/RCPA

143

Staff Report

To:


From:

Suzanne Smith via MTC Commissioner Jake Mackenzie

Item:

5.2 – MTC Report

Date:

April 8, 2013

Issue: What are recent issues of interest from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission? Background: The following link provides information regarding various transportation issues: •

MTC Executive Director’s Report o

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/ed_report.htm

Technical Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA March 28, 2013 1:30 PM Sonoma County Transportation Authority

SCTA Large Conference Room



ITEM 1. Introductions 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of Minutes, February 28, 2013* – DISCUSSION / ACTION 4. Sonoma County Travel Model: Model Sensitivity Testing* 5. FY13/14 TDA3 Program of Projects DISCUSSION* 6. MTC Update DISCUSSION / ACTION 6.1. HSIP Cycle 6 Training Webinar/Call for Projects: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/HSIP/training.html and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehsip.cfm 6.2. Local Streets and Roads Working Group Update: http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org/reports/2012/2012-FinalReport.pdf

7. Measure M DISCUSSION / ACTION 7.1 Measure M Invoicing Status* 7.2 Strategic Plan Update Schedule*

8. Rail Update DISCUSSION 9. Other Business / Comments / Announcements DISCUSSION 10. Adjourn - ACTION *Materials attached.

The next S C T A meeting will be held April 8, 2013

The next TAC meeting will be held April 25, 2013

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Title of Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

145

SCTA Citizens Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA 1B

March 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority




ITEM 1. Introductions 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of Minutes February 25, 2013* 4. Measure M – DISCUSSION/ACTION 4.1. Measure M Projects Presentation – City of Rohnert Park, Copeland Creek Trail 4.2. Monthly Financials*

5. Updates 5.1. Highway 101 5.2. SMART 5.3. Local roads report – County

6. Announcements 7. Adjourn *Materials attached.

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be April 8, 2013 The next CAC meeting will be April 29, 2013 Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Citizens Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

146

Planning Directors/Planning Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 28, 9:30 a.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority




ITEM 1. Introductions 2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes of February 28* - ACTION 4. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Implementation Program (GRIP) – update 5. Housing Element Discussion - review and discuss 6. One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) 6.1. OBAG PDA Investment and Growth Strategy* 7. Regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) - Plan Bay Area – Sonoma County Plan Bay Area Open House/Public Hearing, Monday, April 8, 2013 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. for more info www.onebayarea.org 8. Other Business / Comments / Announcements 9. Adjourn The next S C T A meeting will be held April 8, 2013

The next Planning Directors/PAC meeting will be held April 25, 2013

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org. DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

147

Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee

MEETING AGENDA

March 26, 2013 1:30-2:45 PM Sonoma County Transportation Authority




ITEM

1. Introductions 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of Minutes: January 22, 2013 – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 4. Review CBPAC Membership & Fact Sheet – DISCUSSION* 5. Roundtable Updates 5.1. Member Updates 5.2. Other Entities Updates

6. CBPAC Work Plan – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 7. Review and Approve TDA3 FY13/14 Program of Projects – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 8. MTC BikeMapper Demonstration (Kearey Smith) - DISCUSSION 9. 2013 Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Program – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 10. Articles of Interest – INFORMATION 10.1. Health Co-benefits and Transportation-Related Reductions in GHG Emissions in the SF Bay Area (American Journal of Public Health, Sean Co, from MTC, is co-author of report) 10.2. Counting Bicyclists and Pedestrians to Inform Transportation Planning, Active Living Research

11. Other Business / Comments / Announcements 11.1. Bikes Belong Community Partnership Grant*

12. Adjourn - ACTION *Materials attached.


The next CBPAC meeting will be held May 28, 2013

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

148

Transit Paratransit Coordinating Committee 1B

MEETING AGENDA

March 19, 2013 2:00-3:30 PM 2B1





ITEM 1. Introductions 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of Minutes: January 24, 2013* – DISCUSSION / ACTION 4. Review of Membership Roster* – DISCUSSION 5. Roundtable Updates 5.1. Transit / Paratransit Operators 5.2. Other Entities

6. Proposal to Move Meeting Start Time to 1:00 p.m. or 1:30 p.m. (Vaughn Held) – DISCUSSION / ACTION 7. Approve Sonoma County Coordinated Claim* (Bryan Albee) – DISCUSSION / ACTION 8. Other Business / Comments / Announcements – DISCUSSION 8.1. Plan Bay Area Meetings 8.2. FTA 5310

9. Adjourn – ACTION *Materials attached.


The next TPCC meeting will be held May 21, 2013

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Transit Paratransit Coordinating Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

149

Transit - Technical Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA March 20, 2013 10:00 AM Sonoma County Transportation Authority




ITEM 1. Introductions 2. Approval of Minutes: January 16, 2013 – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 3. Transit Operator Updates 3.1. Sonoma County Transit 3.2. Santa Rosa CityBus 3.3. Petaluma Transit 3.4. Golden Gate Transit 3.5. SMART

4. Transit TAC Work Plan – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 5. Approve Sonoma County Coordinated Claim (Bryan Albee) – DISCUSSION / ACTION* 6. Transit Operators Presentations to SCTA – DISCUSSION 7. Other Business / Comments / Announcements 8. Adjourn - ACTION *Materials attached.


The next T-TAC meeting will be held April 17, 2013

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.sctainfo.org. DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability that requires the agenda materials to be in an alternate format or that requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this meeting, please contact SCTA at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. SB 343 DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Transit-Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 490 Mendocino Ave., Suite 206, during normal business hours. Pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices should be turned off during the committee meeting to avoid electrical interference with the sound recording system.

150