BOARD OF DIRECTORSAGENDA PACKET

Monday, March 9th, 2020 2:30 p.m.

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Regional Climate Protection Authority

411 King Street Santa Rosa, California

1

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA March 9, 2020 – 2:30 p.m.

SCTA/RCPA Board Room 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404

1. Call to order the meeting of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) and the SonomaCounty Regional Climate Protection Authority (RCPA)

2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda

3. Consent Calendar

A. SCTA/RCPA Concurrent Items 3.1. Admin – meeting notes from February 10, 2020 (ACTION)* 3.2. Admin – resolution of commendation for Aleka Seville (ACTION)* 3.3. Admin – Fair Political Practices filing reminder (REPORT)*

B. SCTA Items 3.4. Measure M – 2020 Bond Disclosure Reports - Series 2011 and 2015 (REPORT)*

4. Regular Calendar

A. SCTA Items <2:45PM estimated start time>4.1. SCTA Planning

4.1.1. MTC – Plan Bay Area 2050 proposed list of regional projects (ACTION)* 4.1.2. CTP – goals for the 2050 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (ACTION)*

4.2. SCTA Projects and Programming 4.2.1. Local Measure – November 2020 transportation sales tax ballot measure (ACTION)* 4.2.2. Mega-Measure – update on legislative effort for a regional transportation and/or

housing measure (REPORT)

5. Reports and Announcements <4:45PM estimated start time>5.1. Executive Committee report 5.2. Regional agency reports 5.3. Advisory Committee agendas* 5.4. SCTA/RCPA staff report

5.4.1. RCPA Activities (REPORT)* 5.4.2. Planning Activities (REPORT)* 5.4.3. SCTA/RCPA Community Affairs (REPORT)* 5.4.4. Highways – update on State Highway projects (REPORT)

5.5. Announcements

6. Adjourn

*Materials attached.

The next SCTA/RCPA meeting will be held April 13, 2020

2

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at http://scta.ca.gov/meetings-and-events/board-meetings/

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 the 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 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404, 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.gosonoma.org.

3

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2020

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 at 2:29 p.m. by Chair Susan Gorin.

Directors Present: Director Susan Gorin, Chair, Supervisor, First District; Director Logan Harvey, Vice-Chair, City of Sonoma; Director Melanie Bagby, City of Cloverdale; Sarah Gurney, City of Sebastopol; Director Mark Landman, City of Cotati Director Jake Mackenzie, City of Rohnert Park; Director Kathy Miller, City of Petaluma; Director Joe Naujokas, City of Healdsburg; Director David Rabbitt, Supervisor, Second District; Director Chris Rogers, City of Santa Rosa; Director Sam Salmon, Town of Windsor; Director Shirlee Zane, Supervisor, Third District.

Directors Absent: none

2. Public comment on items not on the regular agenda

N/A

3. Consent Calendar

A. SCTA/RCPA Items

3.1. Admin – meeting notes from January 13, 2020 (ACTION)*

3.2. Admin – resolution of commendation for Carolyn Glanton (ACTION)*

3.3. Admin – Q2 financial reports (ACTION)*

3.4. Admin – SCTA/RCPA 2019 Annual Report (ACTION)*

3.5. Admin – legislative principles for 2020 (ACTION)*

B. RCPA Items

3.6. BayREN – Contracts for 2020 with ABAG, Energy and Sustainability Division, and Frontier Energy (ACTION)*

3.7. EV – second amendment to agreement RCPA18004 with the Center for Climate Protection for outreach supporting the EV101 element of CEC grant (ACTION)*

C. SCTA Items

3.8. Caltrans – Project initiation Document list of projects for FY 20/21 (ACTION)*

3.9. Hwy 101 – Marin Sonoma Narrows (MSN) C2 – Amendment No. 3 to Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 04-2309 for Right of Way (ACTION)*

3.10. Funding – calls for projects for the competitive Local Partnership Program (CTC) and the Housing incentive Program (MTC) (REPORT)*

3.11. Measure M – FY 18/19 Annual report (ACTION)*

3.12. Active Transportation – bike share contract with Gotcha Mobility, LLC (ACTION)*

Director Salmon requested reporting on ridership related to the bike share contract (Item 3.12).

4

Director Naujokas commented on Healdsburg Bicycle Share program and offered to Staff to reach out to Healdsburg staff for any questions.

Chair Gorin opened for Public Comment.

Tom Conlon commented on the Measure M Annual Report, noting that the Citizen’s Advisory Committee has recommended approval of the report, and requested to see in future reports a cumulative table of the Measure M spending.

Director Naujokas moved for approval of the consent calendar, Director Miller seconded.

The Board of Directors unanimously approved the consent calendar.

Chair Gorin took a moment to appreciate the work done by Carolyn Glanton by read the Resolution of Commendation.

The Board of Directors followed and showed their appreciation for Ms. Glanton.

4. Regular Calendar

A. SCTA Items

4.1 SCTA Projects and Programming

4.1.1 Local Measure

Suzanne Smith presented on the measure reauthorization’s strawman expenditure plan.

The discussion on a reauthorization of Measure M started in late 2016 and Ms. Smith spoke on the work completed to this point – including the Call for Projects for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan update.

The strawman presented today is the first draft of percentages. Substantive details are still in development and will continue to be worked on, finalized, over the next two and half months.

Ms. Smith recalled the polling that was conducted last fall and cited polling questions that were used to help inform crafting the measure.

There was solid support for a quart-cent and general support for a half-cent measure; however, when opposition statements were read, the support declined a bit – 66% in support for a quarter-cent, and 59% for a half-cent tax.

Additionally, a 2/3 majority is required to pass a sales tax measure.

The result of the CTP call for projects were illustrated. Each jurisdiction were asked to prioritize the projects in their submittal. Staff then worked with the Ad Hoc on the needs from the CTP submittals. The needs are great across all modes.

This strawman proposal presented today doubles the amount of funding for local road funding, bus service, and bicycle/pedestrian projects are a local priority and can be done with the new measure.

Additionally, there are many benefits to have a sales tax measure for transportation. Regarded as being a “self-help” county with this measure, regional, state, and federal funding is more available; it is imperative to keep Sonoma County as a self-help county.

There are two buckets of funding proposed by the Ad Hoc: Improve transportation and Connect Communities. The intention is to focus on complete streets and connectivity.

Ms. Smith described the two funding buckets.

Staff is developing this proposal further. The formulas will remain the same as they are in Measure M for fixed roads and bus service programs.

5

Furthermore, Ms. Smith added that most counties in California have a half-cent measure for transportation.

The SCTA Advisory Committees were also presented with this strawman proposal.

The Citizen’s Advisory Committee expressed general support for the approach, however were less comfortable with “until removed by voters” language. The committee expressed preference for a 30-year measure.

The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee recommended to include pathways to the line items that refers to bikeways.

The City Mangers suggested the greatest need to fixing roads.

A packet of correspondence related to comments on the strawman recieved to date were provided.

Director Rogers commented on the interesting and informative data point about how expensive it would be to do free bus service throughout Sonoma, asked what percentage of the measure it would take, and how it polled.

Ms. Smith responded the idea of fare-free transit is one that Sonoma County Transit developed for its community connector programs. These are smaller iterations and to expand this program to all three operators would cost around $5 million annually.

For context, the sales tax for Measure M generated $26 million, so about 20% would be dedicated to a program like that if implemented.

In terms of polling, this was an item tested and one of the least popular of the transportation projects polled.

Director Rabbitt asked about requirements to backfill the farebox in order to be eligible for federal funding.

Ms. Smith responded there is a requirement for fare box recovery for certain types funds; however, transit operators can count the revenue from a local sales tax measure.

Director Miller commented on concerns about the Connect Communities, suggesting this category is almost like a catch all category.

Ms. Smith spoke on the challenge with starting a measure from scratch, wondering “how baked is it”, and that individuals are always interested in the numbers.

Ms. Smith highlighted an intersection project in Sebastopol that would fit nicely in this category. The intention is to focus on connectivity.

Director Miller further commented on the challenges of the public understanding what “Complete Streets” means.

Director Naujokas asked to the Ad Hoc on the rationale of a 75%/25% split between the buckets of funding.

Ms. Smith responded the Ad Hoc talked about intention, and the themes from the discussion was if it is framed in this way, we can truly and honestly talk about doubling local money for roadways and transit.

The strawman proposal closely aligns with the jurisdictions who submitted projects.

Director Naujokas further commented on the compelling story that will be required to explain the expenditures in a new measure, stating that we could do a better job with making this more concrete.

Vice Chair Harvey arrived at 3:02.

6

Director Landman commented on the free transit concept, asking what would that cost be and whether the measure would be able to fund this idea through a quarter-cent tax.

Ms. Smith responded that the cost would exceed what the measure would bring in and staff have been looking into this heavily with the transit operators.

Director Landman further asked where this idea landed in the polling.

Ms. Smith stated that traffic congestion and fixing potholes polled higher than free transit.

Director Landman then commented on a 30-year measure versus a measure “removed by voters,” noting that there probably is some benefit with a measure locked in.

Ms. Smith responded the thing about transportation funding is reliability and knowing there is a reliable funding source for project sponsors for operating funds and/or matching funds to secure a state grant are paramount.

Director Landman suggested to revisit the allocations at a 15 year increments, for example, through a public process to address the changing needs of the community.

Director Gurney commented on Sebastopol’s projects and the relationship to the measure’s categories: these projects address all the roadway, bicycle/pedestrian, transit access, and construction concerns. The buckets of funding overlap.

Chair Gorin discussed on how we can invest the money wisely to encourage individuals to use transit and asked staff if a decision to finalize, attempt to finalize, the categories is needed at this meeting, or can the members of Board ask for

more information to adjust the strawman expenditure plan.

Ms. Smith responded this is not meant to be a final decision at today’s meeting. Staff would like feedback on whether these are the categories wished to be seen in the plan so the expenditure plan itself can be written.

Vice Chair Harvey commented on the polling and the emphasis on climate change, expressing agreement with the arguments for increase funding for bus service.

Vice Chair Harvey added that the City of Sonoma is seeing an increase in ridership on their free shuttle and suggested more funding for transit allocated in the strawman plan.

Director Mackenzie commented on a crowded November 2020 ballot for potential measures, referencing SB 278 (Beall), FASTER, AB 1487.

Director Mackenzie asked about the consideration in the Ad Hoc related to the aforementioned measures.

Ms. Smith responded a representative from FASTER presented to the Board of Directors several months ago. Staff is diligently participating and tracking with the FASTER Technical Advisory Committee.

The potential impact to our measure is hard to poll, however is not optimal to have a second transportation measure in competition.

Director Mackenzie further added that Assembly member Chiu introduced AB 2057 that will look at further transit integrations in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Director Rabbitt appreciated the work by staff in crafting this measure. There are 1,368.84 miles of roads in unincorporated Sonoma County and the

7

Board of Supervisors approved more discretionary funding than any other county into road maintenance. Measure M is an important part of that and needed to be maintained.

In regards to transit side, Measure M had allocated a percentage which goes out to operations.

Director Rabbitt asked what is being received through this allocation, such as night service or an increase in headways, or whether it is placed in the overall budget. Electrifying the bus system is a major ordeal and is an unfunded mandate.

Director Zane asked for the percentage of the population that use public transport (bus) on a regular basis.

Ms. Smith responded somewhere around 5% uses bus transit.

Director Zane further commented that it seems the allocation should also fit needs and expressed concern at the lack of Latino and senior representation. Sonoma County is an aging population, and we have to keep thinking about seniors and how they are going to stay independent and mobile.

Director Salmon, speaking to bus fares, commented that many people have a hard time with meeting the exact $2.25 fare. As to the 5% riding the bus, there is just not enough people riding the bus, but in terms of equity, suggested to have bus fares be $1 for ease.

Director Salmon further suggested a more qualitative approach for the Connect Communities, stating it will be difficult selling this measure to Windsor, given no road projects were submitted as part of the wish list.

Director Bagby was interesting in hearing about the project needs from the public. The money

spent is best reflected in a Venn diagram given the complexity of projects, such as a road project including undergrounding utilities, adding bicycle lanes, etc.

Director Bagby added that we are not wordsmithing the expenditure plan yet, just understanding if the numbers and values are “about right.” In Cloverdale, it will be about putting streets on road diets – there is too much real estate for cars.

Lastly, in response to a 30-year measure versus “until removed by voters”, Director Bagby asked when will we not have transportation; we need this steady source of income to plan, bond, and be ready to address future technological changes.

Chair Gorin opened for public comment.

Leo Chyi spoke on behalf of Supervisor Lynda Hopkins and the emphasis on the climate emergency we are in currently.

A letter from Supervisor Hopkins with her comments on the measure was distributed to the Board of Directors.

Jeff Blakeslee commented on road maintenance and the importance to keep funding available for roads.

Woody Hastings stated the support of the measure and urged the Board of Directors to look through all of this through the climate lens, supporting electrification of the transit system and increasing bicycle/pedestrian priorities in low income areas.

Eris Weaver advocated for 20% allocated for bikes and requested more language prioritizing Class 1 and Class 4 bikeway. We want to encourage those who are too afraid to get on the bike; protected bikeways will encourage this mode shift.

8

Craig Harris commented on the concern by residents the need to fix roads. This measure looks like a Christmas tree with too many ornaments with a lot of specific projects that are expensive.

Amy Jolly asked where non-infrastructure projects fit into the equation, such as Safe Routes to School and suggested increasing funding to non-infrastructure projects. With the young people, the foremost barrier to walking/bicycling are concerns about safety.

Elif Myers commented there is student interest from Sonoma State University and would love to be included in further discussions when needed.

Additionally, Ms. Myers suggested later times and more frequent transit service for students.

Laura Worley read the signatories of the coalition letter sent to the Board of Directors.

Emmett Hopkins asked if 35% for low-carbon transportation modes reflect the climate emergency, make transit allocation close to 50%, and suggested building in a mechanism to evaluate the measure.

Pete Gang announced that as of January 14, 2020, 8 of 10 jurisdictions passed a Climate Emergency Resolution and highlighted climate and equity challenges.

Janice Cader Thompson spoke on climate change, stating that the City of Petaluma supported the climate emergency resolution, however the project list submitted does not reflect that support and projects submitted do not fix potholes nor add sidewalks (referencing Corona Road and the lack of sidewalks).

Ken Kushman commented on the SMART measure in 2008 passed because of the bicycle coalitions. A recent poll showed that the SMART measure in

March will fail, because SMART forgot the bicyclist – the Marin and Sonoma Bicycle Coalitions will not be supporting the measure.

Kevin Anderson commented on the need to drive less and the challenges with cheap, frequent, and accessible public transit.

Tom Conlon commented on the difficult to have this discussion absent of goals and noted concern with the Connect Community component, suggesting this is like a euphuism for delegating authority to local jurisdictions and the reduction of the match fund. This will take authority out of your hands, includes too much roads, and will be hard to support.

Teri Shore commented that this is the first opportunity for the public to comment on the measure’s strawman and recommended to host public workshops for more public dialogue; most discussion were held with the Ad Hoc in closed doors.

Ms. Shore further commented on increasing transit and to include a sunset of 30 years for this measure.

Steve Birdlebough commented on the fact that fixing roads leverages the voters and the funding we have needs to leverage other money. This must be used wisely and that will be the selling point.

Mr. Birdlebough suggested projects should be ranked on the VMT reduction as a prioritization mechanism.

Christine Hoex commented that 350 Petaluma would support and help educate the public on transportation solutions that respond to the climate emergency and the related resolutions. 350 Petaluma supports an equitable transportation, free transit, and will support the movement to a new visions.

9

Ms. Hoex expressed thanks for the work and efforts to move this forward.

Rachel Ede expressed appreciation for the increase of funding in the measure going to transit. The expansion of service is the most important thing we can do, and is by far the highest priority.

In regards to affordable access, Ms. Ede emphasized the priority adopt a consistent countywide system of transit fares to avoid rider confusion.

Amber Szoboszlai commented on the need for a connected, reliable, and affordable transportation network that meets the needs of low income residents.

Chair Gorin closed Public Comment and asked about the road projects comments heard during Public Comment. Although this measure will not list specific projects, Chair Gorin asked how will projects be decided and funded as the jurisdictions go forward.

Ms. Smith responded this is a new concept we are working on but the idea is that SCTA would have the control via issuing a Call for Projects and setting criteria.

Chair Gorin asked to speak a bit more on the criteria concept if looking for an outcome that is greener.

Ms. Smith added the idea would be to identify the infrastructure elements or programmatic types of projects related to transportation that we want to prioritize.

SCTA is hugely reliant on local jurisdictions and transit operators to deliver the projects; the projects generally come from them, not from SCTA. We cannot deliver projects in a jurisdiction unless they agree.

Chair Gorin asked to review the schedule in terms of public outreach.

Ms. Smith responded this effort is being done in conjunction with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan update which had has an extensive amount of outreach already. It will always be a challenge to get the amount of public attendance that one might want, however SCTA did go to a number of meetings at areas where people attend who would not traditionally come to SCTA.

Additionally, the SCTA Citizen’s Advisory Committee, Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee are opportunities to hear the discussions.

SCTA will be conducting a public forum in March and that would give the opportunity to give a public face on this measure.

Chair Gorin thanked the public for their comments and states that there will be more outreach.

Chair Gorin referenced the Measure M Annual Report and asked if this is how to report on the success when the new measure is reauthorized.

Ms. Smith responded that is up for discussion if the Board wishes to adjust. The Citizen’s Advisory Committee will be the venue to oversee the annual audit, the development of the annual report, and reviews the expenditure and strategic plans.

Director Landman suggested an advisory process that allows the opportunity to revisit the measure after a certain amount of time, for example 15 every 15 years.

Vice Chair Harvey noted concerns with Connect Communities and the difficulty to explain this to voters.

10

Director Rabbitt added the importance to look at it as a total with SMART and SCTA (Measure Q, Measure M). The measure in Contra Costa County, for example, is 50/50 split for roads/transit. If you take what we have, it is predominately transit. Roads will get this approved; this strawman presented is a great first step.

B. Joint SCTA/RCPA Items

4.2 Rail – Support for Measure I

Farhad Mansourian presented on SMART’s measure reauthorization, Measure I.

The SMART Board of Directors decided today is the right time to reauthorize the sale tax to refinance the debt service from $18 million to $6 million per year.

The difference will allow operating funding to Windsor, Healdsburg, and Cloverdale. This is important to note that including operating funding to these jurisdictions will further increase the chances when applying for outside funding.

In addition, SMART has promised the second Petaluma station and will further build out the multiuse pathway.

SMART awarded the first contract in 2012. In 2017, passenger service began. SMART was able to deliver passenger rail service in five year.

Ridership has increase since the opening of the Larkspur and Downtown Novato stations. Additionally, gaps during the commute hours have been closed and service increase.

Chair Gorin opened for comments from the Board of Directors.

Director Zane commented this train has been a game changer and we need to keep moving forward.

Director Rabbitt commented on looking back at a brand new rail system that is up and operating, and growing. It is important to refinance now. We have a $600 million investment and to walk away from that is throwing money away.

There is a total misconception by people that all public transit agencies should pay for themselves; transit agencies need a self-help measure to ensure you have a system that works.

Director Mackenzie added the State of California has recognized the accomplishments of SMART and was included in the state rail plan.

Chair Gorin asked when we should expect the train to Cloverdale and Schellville/Capitol Corridor.

Mr. Mansourian responded that transit is another form of public infrastructure. In order for it to be affordable, it needs to be reasonable and questions continue to be discussed on how to keep the affordable while maintaining the system.

SMART is only two and half years old in in operations, and is nine years in creation as an agency.

BART, after 45 years, is still trying to figure out to connect to San Jose. BART in its second year carried only 4% of what they carries today. It takes time to build and convince the residents it is an alternate to Highway 101.

If the measure is successful, it will fund operations to Cloverdale. Currently, SMART is working on the bridge need over the Russian River.

SMART is committed to passenger service to Cloverdale, no question. Regarding Highway 37, the railway exists and SMART owns the right-of-way to the Napa River. The State of California paid for a feasibility study, and if they help with going

11

north, the railway along Highway 37 can be up in five years.

Director Gurney suggested to have Sebastopol be included with SMART Board of Directors.

Director Landman stated support the measure and for communities who are not on the Board of Directors to join the Board.

Director Naujokas expressed respect for the agency and its accomplishments and is supportive of the measure to keep the investment.

Director Miller, echoing the previous comments, will support this measure and is looking forward to having the second Petaluma station.

Director Miller added her personal experience with using SMART to commute to San Francisco. Not only is SMART relaxing and better for the environment, work can be done while in transit.

There is a huge benefit in knowing the exact time one will arrive to their destination and there has been an uptick in ridership since Larkspur opened.

Chair Gorin opened for Public Comment.

Maddie Hirschfield commented on bicycle/pedestrian use, stating there has been over 170,000 passengers with bicycles, in addition to 6,500 passengers in wheelchairs.

We need to keep this going. The SMART conductors are good green, union jobs and need to be supported.

Dick Dowd recalled that Mr. Mansourian recently spoke at a Sonoma County Alliance meeting.

SMART is still young and still much more opportunity to grow, compared to BART, especially with the ability to go north or east.

The taxpayers have invested in around $600 million, let’s not waste this and explain to voters what will transpire as this moves forward.

Steve Birdlebough commented the costs to go east are known and there is an area between Blackpoint and Napa Junction that is within Sonoma County that should be included in the project list.

Barbara Frohlech commented on the challenges students at Sonoma State University experience in that there is no way students can travel from the station to the university. There is a large population who would benefit from this connection.

Sheila Baker commented on using a bicycle on SMART, noting there is a huge difference compared the three available slots for bicycles on busses.

Ms. Baker shared her experience with being left behind when the bicycle racks on a bus are full. Busses and trains complete the system.

Emmett Hopkins supports SMART and its value to the community and commented that the success of SMART is tied with the success of the local transit system, in that if we improve and enhance the local bus service, bicycle/pedestrian network, and create the links to SMART, it will be successful; we need to support both.

Kevin Anderson commented regarding the bicycle/pedestrian pathway, it is very difficult to go north or south given safety concerns.

Director Bagby commented on how she help SMART get to Cloverdale, expressing disappointment with the bicycle coalitions for their positions, and shared her experience being turned away with her bicycle on Caltrain.

12

Director Bagby moved to support Measure I, Director Zane seconded.

The motion was approved unanimously.

5. CLOSED SESSION

5.1. Public Comment

N/A

5.2. Public Employee Performance Evaluation

The Board of Directors adjourned for Closed Session at 4:45pm

5.3. Report Out on Closed Session

The Board of Directors reconvened at 5:50 with no reportable action, direction was given to staff.

6. Reports and Announcements

6.1 Executive Committee report

The Executive Committee did not meet this month.

6.2 Regional agency Report

N/A

6.3 Advisory Committee agendas*

Included in the agenda packet.

6.4 SCTA/RCPA staff report

6.4.1 RCPA Activities Report

Included in the agenda packet.

6.4.2 SCTA Planning Activities

Included in the agenda packet.

6.4.3 SCTA/RCPA Community Affairs Report

Included in the agenda packet.

6.4.4 Highways – update on State Highway projects

This is provided to the Board of Directors each month for their interest.

6.5 Announcements

N/A

7. Adjourn

The SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors meeting adjourned at 5:52 p.m.

13

Resolution No. 2020-002 Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority

Santa Rosa, California March 9, 2020

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL CLIMATE PROTECTION AUTHORITY, COUNTY OF SONOMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE YEARS OF SERVICE OF ALEKA SEVILLE AS THE DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE PROGRAMS

WHEREAS, Aleka Seville has served as staff to the RCPA since April 2018; and

WHEREAS, in her time at the RCPA, Aleka Seville has overseen the advancement of critical climate initiatives and facilitated organizational efforts to develop a needs assessment, strategic plan and staffing program; and

WHEREAS, Aleka Seville managed a small team that did big work including numerous efforts to advance programs and projects focused on energy efficiency, energy codes and standards, renewable energy, electric vehicles, community and city engagement and climate planning; and

WHEREAS, Aleka Seville consistently performs her work strategically and thoughtfully while continually pursuing excellent service to RCPA members, partners and Sonoma County residents; and

WHEREAS, as Director of Climate Programs, Aleka Seville has provided expert policy and communications support on three key fronts – de-carbonization, sequestration and resiliency; and

WHEREAS, Aleka Seville has served the RCPA with integrity and dedication and performed the abovementioned tasks and many more in a manner that instilled trust and solidified RCPA’s leadership position on climate issues; and

WHEREAS, Aleka Seville will be greatly missed by all of her co-workers who value her strategic thinking, professionalism, and dedication to equitable climate action; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority does hereby express appreciation for the years of service given by Aleka Seville as the Director of Climate Programs.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted by acclamation of the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority this ninth day of March, two thousand and twenty.

MELANIE BAGBY SUSAN GORIN SARAH GURNEY LOGAN HARVEY MARK LANDMAN JAKE MACKENZIE KATHY MILLER JOE NAUJOKAS DAVID RABBITT CHRIS ROGERS SAM SALMON SHIRLEE ZANE WHEREUPON the Chair declared the above and foregoing resolution duly adopted, and

SO ORDERED

14

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

FPPC Form 700 is due April 1, 2020, for all SCTA/RCPA Board Members and Alternates.

Recommendation

File FPPC Form 700 by April 2, 2020.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

Not applicable to this item.

Alternatives Considered

Not applicable to this item.

Executive Summary

As a designated position in the County of Sonoma Conflict of Interest code, members and alternates of the SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors are required to submit a Form 700. The form is filed annually, as well as when you are assuming or leaving office.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

Not applicable to this item.

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are:

Background

As a designated position in the County of Sonoma Conflict of Interest code, members and alternates of the SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors are required to submit a Form 700. The form is filed annually, as well as when you are assuming or leaving office.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Item Number: 3.3 Subject: California Fair Political Practices Commission: Form 700 Submittal

Consent Item: ☒ Regular Item: ☐ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

15

In an effort to streamline the submission of Form 700 filings, the County of Sonoma is providing an electronic solution through eDisclosure. eDisclosure offers the convenience and flexibility of filing the Form 700 electronically in the privacy, and security, of a preferred filing area. Through eDisclosure, the Form 700 can easily be filled out or amended, and is able to copy information from the prior year.

The system automatically checks for errors and omissions and allows the opportunity to submit the form electronically.

An email was sent to all listed members of the SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors on January 17, 2020 with instructions, providing a link to the eDisclosure web application and a temporary log in ID and password. If you did not receive an email, please contact Drew Nichols at drew.nichols@scta.ca.gov.

Please see the following website for information on the Form 700 (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Form700.html), or contact Drew Nichols for further assistance.

As Directors, you may use the same form you submit as an elected official in your jurisdiction but the report must cover any potential conflicts countywide, and not just within the city you represent.

16

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

What is the status of the Continuing Disclosure Annual Reports for the Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2011 and Bonds Series 2015?

Recommendation

None, this is an informational item only.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

Staff provides these reports to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee as an informational item.

Alternatives Considered

Not Applicable.

Executive Summary

These reports ensure SCTA complies with financial reporting requirements.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

None to report.

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are: N/A

Background

The Office of the County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector provides the attached Continuing Disclosure Annual Reports. The reports contain reference to the audited financial report of the SCTA, a debt service schedule, and Measure M sales tax revenues for fiscal years ended June 30, 2006 through June 30, 2018.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: James Cameron, Director of Projects and

Programs Item Number: 3.4

Subject: Measure M - 2020 Bond Disclosure Reports - Series 2011 and 2015

Consent Item: ☒ Regular Item: ☐ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

17

Series 2008 Bonds defeasance was completed in June of 2015, with the refunding issuance of Series 2015 Bonds; therefore, the 2008 Series Bonds no longer have a reporting requirement.

The Hwy 101 and Passenger Rail programs that benefited from the bond issuances pay the debt service.

The sales tax revenues for FY18/19 increased 8.12% compared to FY17/18 per audited financials.

SCTA staff prepared the FY19/20 Measure M budgets with anticipated sales tax revenue increasing 3% over actual FY18/19 Enterprise Financial System (EFS) revenues.

Sales tax revenue projections are currently at approximately 94% of the 2004 Expenditure Plan Estimates

Supporting Documents

Attachments: 2020 Disclosure 2011 Series, and 2020 Disclosure 2015 Series.

18

CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT

January 31, 2020

COUNTY OF SONOMA

$25,200,000 Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series 2011

19

County of Sonoma January 31, 2020 Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Page Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2011

2

CONTENTS OF REPORT (1) The comprehensive audited financial report of the Sonoma County Transportation

Authority for the period July 01, 2018 through June 30, 2019 is posted as a separate document on the DAC Website.

(2) Table “Debt Service Schedule” contained in the Official Statement, dated November 2, 2007. (See page 3.) (3) Measure C & Measure M Actual Sales Tax (See page 4)

20

County of Sonoma January 31, 2020 Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Page Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2011

3

DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE

The following table sets forth the annual debt service requirements for the Series 2008 Bonds and the Series 2011

Fiscal

Year Series 2008 Bonds Series 2011 Bonds Combined Ending Principal Interest Principal Interest Annual Debt

June 30 Amount Payment (1) Amount Payment (1) Service(1)

2011 $ - $ 2,207,350.00

$ 387,478.30 $ 2,594,828.30 2012 $ - $ 2,207,350.00 $ 350,000.00 $ 1,108,937.50 $ 3,666,287.50 2013 $ - $ 2,207,350.00 $ 360,000.00 $ 1,098,337.50 $ 3,665,687.50 2014 $ 2,880,000.00 $ 2,135,350.00 $ 365,000.00 $ 1,089,262.50 $ 6,469,612.50 2015 $ 3,025,000.00 $ 1,987,725.00 $ 380,000.00 $ 1,076,187.50 $ 6,468,912.50 2016 $ 3,185,000.00 $ 1,832,475.00 $ 1,915,000.00 $ 1,020,712.50 $ 7,953,187.50 2017 $ 3,345,000.00 $ 1,669,225.00 $ 2,015,000.00 $ 922,462.50 $ 7,951,687.50 2018 $ 3,515,000.00 $ 1,497,725.00 $ 2,110,000.00 $ 829,887.50 $ 7,952,612.50 2019 $ 3,700,000.00 $ 1,317,350.00 $ 2,190,000.00 $ 743,887.50 $ 7,951,237.50 2020 $ 3,890,000.00 $ 1,127,600.00 $ 2,290,000.00 $ 642,837.50 $ 7,950,437.50 2021 $ 4,085,000.00 $ 928,225.00 $ 2,410,000.00 $ 525,337.50 $ 7,948,562.50 2022 $ 4,295,000.00 $ 718,725.00 $ 2,530,000.00 $ 401,837.50 $ 7,945,562.50 2023 $ 4,515,000.00 $ 498,475.00 $ 2,650,000.00 $ 285,587.50 $ 7,949,062.50 2024 $ 4,725,000.00 $ 291,100.00 $ 2,760,000.00 $ 177,387.50 $ 7,953,487.50 2025 $ 4,915,000.00 $ 98,300.00 $ 2,875,000.00 $ 61,093.75 $ 7,949,393.75

Total $ 46,075,000.00 $20,724,325.00 $ 25,200,000.00 $ 10,371,234.55 $102,370,559.55

(1) Totals may not add due to rounding.

• There have not been any unscheduled redemptions, retirements or defeasances of the 2011 Bonds.

• On June 23, 2015, the Authority defeased the 2008 Bonds maturing annually through 2025 with proceeds from the issuance of $49,265,000 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series 2015.

• On June 23, 2015 the Authority closed the Series 2015 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds which were issued on parity with the 2011 Bonds.

• On January 26, 2011, the Authority closed the Series 2011 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds which were issued on parity with the 2008 Bonds. On June 23, 2015, the 2008 Bonds were defeased.

• Disclosure documents for the Series 2008 & 2015 Bonds are also available on the DAC website.

21

County of Sonoma January 31, 2020 Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Page Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2011

4

Sonoma County Open Space Authority Measure C Sales Tax Revenues

Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1997 through June 30, 2005 Sonoma County Transit Authority Measure M Sales Tax Revenues

Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2006 through June 30, 2019

Measure C

Measure M

%

Sales Tax

Sales Tax

Increase/

Fiscal Year

Revenues (1) Revenues

Decrease

1996-97

$ 11,316,594

n/a

1997-98

$ 12,304,491 (2) n/a

1998-99

$ 13,659,318

n/a

1999-00

$ 14,901,427 (3) n/a

2000-01

$ 17,838,335

n/a

2001-02

$ 16,707,842

n/a

2002-03

$ 16,399,538

n/a

2003-04

$ 16,589,626

n/a

2004-05

$ 17,482,449

n/a

2005-06

$ 18,915,434 (4)(5)

2006-07

$ 19,858,661

4.99%

2007-08

$ 18,864,061

-5.01%

2008-09

$ 16,923,047

-10.29%

2009-10

$ 15,268,289 (6) -9.78%

2010-11

$ 16,535,252

8.30%

2011-12

$ 17,444,645

5.50%

2012-13

$ 20,079,659

15.11%

2013-14

$ 21,044,133

4.80%

2014-15 $ 21,387,660 1.63% 2015-16 $ 22,066,336 3.17% 2016-17 $ 23,044,870 4.43% 2017-18 $ 24,785,653 7.55% 2018-19 $ 26,798,285 8.12%

(1) Receipts for existing one-fourth of one percent transactions and use tax within the County to

fund the acquisition of open space and parkland, net of State Board of Equalization fee.

(2) Excludes $409,164 which was misallocated to the Open Space Authority as sales tax

revenues. This amount was corrected in Fiscal Year 1998-99

(3) Excludes $528,270 which was misallocated during Fiscal year 1999-00. The

misallocation was corrected in Fiscal year 2000-01

(4) Figures for Measure M Sales Tax Revenue were not available prior to July 1, 2005. (5) Receipts are for April 1, 2005 thru June 30, 2006

(6) Restated in June 30, 2011 Audit Source: Office of the County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector

22

CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT

January 31, 2020

COUNTY OF SONOMA

$49,265,000 Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series 2015

23

County of Sonoma January 31, 2020 Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Page Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2015

2

CONTENTS OF REPORT (1) The comprehensive audited financial report of the Sonoma County Transportation

Authority for the period July 01, 2018 through June 30, 2019 is posted as a separate document on the DAC Website.

(2) Table “Debt Service Schedule” contained in the Official Statement, dated

June 11, 2015. (See page 3.) (3) Measure C & Measure M Actual Sales Tax (See page 4)

24

County of Sonoma January 31, 2020 Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Page Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2015

3

DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE

Upon the issuance of the Series 2015 Bonds, there will be two Series of Bonds Outstanding under the Indenture, the Series 2011 Bonds and the Series 2015 Bonds (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the “Outstanding Bonds”). The following table sets forth the annual debt service

requirements for the Series 2011 Bonds and the Series 2015 Bonds and annual debt service for all Outstanding Bonds. (1)

Fiscal

Year Series 2011 Bonds Series 2015 Bonds Combined Ending Principal Interest Principal Interest Annual Debt June 30 Amount Payment Amount Payment Service(1)

2015 $ 380,000(2) $ 1,076,188 $ -0- $ -0- $ 1,456,188 2016 $ 1,915,000 $ 1,020,713 $ 4,190,000 $ 2,018,364 $ 9,144,076 2017 $ 2,015,000 $ 922,463 $ 4,120,000 $ 2,088,950 $ 9,146,413 2018 $ 2,110,000 $ 829,888 $ 4,265,000 $ 1,941,125 $ 9,146,013 2019 $ 2,190,000 $ 743,888 $ 4,495,000 $ 1,722,125 $ 9,151,013 2020 $ 2,290,000 $ 642,838 $ 4,725,000 $ 1,491,625 $ 9,149,463 2021 $ 2,410,000 $ 525,338 $ 4,955,000 $ 1,249,625 $ 9,139,963 2022 $ 2,530,000 $ 401,838 $ 5,215,000 $ 995,375 $ 9,142,213 2023 $ 2,650,000 $ 285,588 $ 5,480,000 $ 728,000 $ 9,143,588 2024 $ 2,760,000 $ 177,388 $ 5,760,000 $ 477,000 $ 9,144,388 2025 $ 2,875,000 $ 61,094 $ 6,060,000 $ 151,500 $ 9,147,594 Total $ 24,125,000 $ 6,687,219 $ 49,265,000 $ 12,833,689 $ 92,910,907

(1) Totals may not add due to rounding. (2) Paid at maturity on December 1, 2014.

• There have not been any unscheduled redemptions, retirements or defeasances of the 2011 Bonds.

• On June 23, 2015, the Authority defeased the 2008 Bonds maturing annually through 2025 with proceeds from the issuance of $49,265,000 Sonoma County Transportation Authority Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Limited Tax Bonds), Series 2015.

• On June 23, 2015 the Authority closed the Series 2015 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds which were issued on parity with the 2011 Bonds.

• On January 26, 2011, the Authority closed the Series 2011 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds which were issued on parity with the 2008 Bonds. On June 23, 2015, the 2008 Bonds were defeased.

• Disclosure documents for the Series 2008 & 2011 Bonds are also available on the DAC website.

25

County of Sonoma January 31, 2020 Continuing Disclosure Annual Report for the Page Measure M Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2015

4

Sonoma County Open Space Authority Measure C Sales Tax Revenues

Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1997 through June 30, 2005 Sonoma County Transit Authority Measure M Sales Tax Revenues

Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2006 through June 30, 2018

Measure C

Measure M

%

Sales Tax

Sales Tax

Increase/

Fiscal Year

Revenues (1) Revenues

Decrease

1996-97

$ 11,316,594

n/a

1997-98

$ 12,304,491 (2) n/a

1998-99

$ 13,659,318

n/a

1999-00

$ 14,901,427 (3) n/a

2000-01

$ 17,838,335

n/a

2001-02

$ 16,707,842

n/a

2002-03

$ 16,399,538

n/a

2003-04

$ 16,589,626

n/a

2004-05

$ 17,482,449

n/a

2005-06

$ 18,915,434 (4)(5)

2006-07

$ 19,858,661

4.99%

2007-08

$ 18,864,061

-5.01%

2008-09

$ 16,923,047

-10.29%

2009-10

$ 15,268,289 (6) -9.78%

2010-11

$ 16,535,252

8.30%

2011-12

$ 17,444,645

5.50%

2012-13

$ 20,079,659

15.11%

2013-14

$ 21,044,133

4.80%

2014-15 $ 21,387,660 1.63% 2015-16 $ 22,066,336 3.17% 2016-17 $ 23,044,870 4.43% 2017-18 $ 24,785,653 7.55% 2018-19 $ 26,798,285 8.12%

(1) Receipts for existing one-fourth of one percent transactions and use tax within the County to

fund the acquisition of open space and parkland, net of State Board of Equalization fee.

(2) Excludes $409,164 which was misallocated to the Open Space Authority as sales tax

revenues. This amount was corrected in Fiscal Year 1998-99

(3) Excludes $528,270 which was misallocated during Fiscal year 1999-00. The

misallocation was corrected in Fiscal year 2000-01

(4) Figures for Measure M Sales Tax Revenue were not available prior to July 1, 2005. (5) Receipts are for April 1, 2005 thru June 30, 2006

(6) Restated in June 30, 2011 Audit Source: Office of the County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector

26

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

What is the status of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) project list that will be part of Plan Bay Area 2050?

Recommendation

Approve the list of regionally significant projects and the proposed investment strategy to submit to MTC for Plan Bay Area 2050.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

TAC to consider on February 27.

Alternatives Considered

Staff considered a variety of options to meet the needs of Sonoma County project sponsors within MTC’s framework.

Executive Summary

As part of the update to Plan Bay Area, MTC has estimated revenue available for the next 30 years and created a list of regional needs through calls for projects last summer and its own needs assessment. SCTA is required to work with the budget determined by MTC and assign forecasted revenues to projects and categories of projects. SCTA is also required to address any deficiencies in projects that were proposed and evaluated.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

SCTA policy focuses on a multimodal approach to addressing transportation needs. The proposed project list for the RTP follows that general guidance by providing significant levels of forecasted revenues in different modal options. This approach will maximize the opportunity for project sponsors to be able to deliver key projects.

Financial Implications

These projects are for inclusion in a planning document. There are no fiscal impacts at this time, although inclusion in Plan Bay Area as either regionally significant or in a programmatic category will make projects eligible for funding in the future.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Janet Spilman, Director of Planning Item Number: 4.1.1 Subject: Plan Bay Area - Regional Transportation Project (RTP) list investment strategy

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☒ Report: ☐

27

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☒

The funding source(s) to be used are: This is a planning exercise.

Background

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) assembles a list of transportation projects to include in each cycle of Plan Bay Area (PBA). Plan Bay Area is updated every four years.

The list is a combination of very large projects and categories of projects like road maintenance and transit operations. Last summer MTC requested submissions of very large (“Transformative”) projects and large (“Regionally Significant”) projects that cost over $250M to assess and test for air quality conformity.

SCTA submitted a list that included projects from the last cycle (adopted in 2017) and new projects. MTC assessed projects that they determined to be regionally significant: Enhanced Bus Service frequencies in Sonoma County, Resilient Highway 37 interim projects, and SMART to Cloverdale.

MTC requests that the project sponsors, SCTA and SMART, address performance deficiencies. SCTA has worked with the transit operators to revise costs downward for countywide service enhancements to a cost that will be adequate until we can make adjustments in the next PBA cycle in four years. The Highway 37 interim project sponsors are addressing cost and equity issues with means based fares derived from tolling. SMART is also working with MTC to address these issues.

All other projects will be included in the programmatic categories. The categories are groups of similar types of projects that may be named specifically or included generally by type.

Working within the County Budget

MTC has developed a 30-year forecast of discretionary revenues for each county. MTC engaged in a process of determining the long term needs of road rehabilitation and transit needs. These and other “regional” projects are netted out of the budget that SCTA is asked to work with.

The “county budget” for SCTA is $1,346 billion and is broken into two bins that represent two timeframes, roughly into 15 years each. This is the amount MTC determines to be available for most transportation projects, minus those that MTC assumes to be funded.

Transportation Needs

2017 RTP list

In the last RTP, adopted in 2017, the following projects were listed and all other projects were included in programmatic categories.

Project name Cost in $M

Santa Rosa Hearn Avenue Interchange $ 36

Cotati Cotati Highway 116 Cotati Corridor Improvements $ 20

28

Windsor Arata Lane Interchange $ 4

Cotati Cotati US 101/Railroad Avenue Improvements (incl. Penngrove) $ 56

Windsor Shiloh Road Interchange Reconstruction $ 27

Petaluma Petaluma Crosstown Connector and Rainier Interchange $ 123

SCTA US 101 Marin/Sonoma Narrows (Sonoma) $374

Santa Rosa Farmers Lane extension between Bennett Valley Rd and Yolanda Avenue $72

Petaluma Road Diet Extension - Petaluma Boulevard South $3

SMART SMART Petaluma Infill Station $11

SCTA Enhance bus service frequencies in Sonoma County $409

SMART SMART Rail Extension to Windsor + Environmental to Cloverdale + Bike Path $49

2019 SCTA Transportation Needs

SCTA released a call for projects to assess transportation needs for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and develop priorities for a new transportation measure. Below is a summary of the needs and their costs by category.

SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS BY PROJECT TYPE Project Type Cost $M

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities $ 846.3

Emission Reduction Technologies $ 5.9 Highway Improvements $ 785.0 Intersection Improvements $ 122.9 ITS & New Technologies $ 80.1 Multimodal Streetscape Improvements $ 162.2 Roadway Improvements $ 2,914.0

Transit Capital Projects $ 876.1

Transit Improvements - Non Capital $ 4,220.1 Travel Demand Management (annual) $ 2.5

Total ($M) $ 10,015.1 Proposed Investment Strategy

Given the high level of need and the relative lack of funding, staff proposes to make as many projects as possible eligible for funding in MTC’s process and reassess in the next cycle (starting around 2023).

This involves maintaining the flexibility of programmatic categories so that any project within the category would be eligible.

29

The amount of funds invested in the programmatic categories is based on a general estimate of what could be spent in the proposed timeframes.

Costs are in $millions Projects Bin 1 Bin 2 Total Hearn Avenue Interchange $ 36 $ 36

Petaluma Crosstown Connector and Rainier Interchange $ 115 $ 115

US 101 Marin/Sonoma Narrows (Sonoma) $ 30 $ 30

Farmers Lane extension $ 72 $ 72

Road Diet Extension - Petaluma Boulevard South $ 3 $ 3

Enhance bus service in Sonoma County $ 145 $ 145 $ 290

Highway 37 interim projects $ 5 $ 5

SMART to Healdsburg $ 105 $ 18 $ 123

Projects Subtotal $ 324 $ 350 $ 674

Programs Bin 1 Bin 2 Total Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities $ 50 $ 50 $ 100 Emission Reduction Technologies $ 5 $ 17 $ 22 Highway Improvements $ 32 $ 75 $ 107 Intersection Improvements $ 50 $ 50 $ 100 ITS & New Technologies $ 5 $ 5 $ 10 Multimodal Streetscape Improvements $ 5 $ 5 $ 10 Roadway Improvements $ 25 $ 75 $ 100 Transit Capital Projects $ 25 $ 80 $ 105 Transit Improvements - Non Capital $ 25 $ 83 $ 108 Travel Demand Management $ 5 $ 5 $ 10

Programs subtotal $ 227 $ 445 $ 672 Grand Total $ 551 $ 795 $ 1,346

County Share $ 551 $ 795 $ 1,346 Delta $ - $ - $ -

Supporting Documents

For a better understanding of the Performance Analysis please see Chapter Four of MTC’s Futures Final Report. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Horz_Futures_Report.web_.pdf

30

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

SCTA is updating the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) including the revision of the Vision and Goals. What are the proposed goals for the 2021 Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Moving Forward 2050?

Recommendation

Review and approve the vision, goals and guiding principles for the 2021 Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Moving Forward 2050.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

The CTP ad hoc committee reviewed and edited updated versions of the vision, goals and guiding principles following the Board workshop in January and recommend approving the revised version.

Alternatives Considered

The discussions to date have considered a variety of goals and targets.

Executive Summary

As part of 2021 Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Moving Forward 2050 the Board determined that the Vision and Goals needed updating. At the January workshop, the SCTA Board provided input resulting in a draft that the ad hoc committee then further edited.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

The item before the Board today will establish the vision, guiding principles and goals for the 2021 Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Moving Forward 2050.

The ad hoc recommends the following:

Vision 2050

Connecting people and places as we transition our transportation network to zero-emissions by 2050.

Our guiding principles are to improve safety, equity, and quality of life.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Janet Spilman, Director of Planning Item Number: 4.1.2 Subject: SCTA Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Goals refresh

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☒ Report: ☐

31

Our transportation system should be:

Goal 1 - Connected and Reliable

Deliver a seamless network that allows people to use a variety of transportation types easily, affordably and dependably.

● Provide a robust and well-coordinated local and regional transit system.

● Create a high quality bike and pedestrian network.

● Optimize roadway operations to allow efficient movement of people.

● Ensure effective transportation options for youth and older adults.

● Guide innovation to the transportation system.

Goal 2 - Safe and Well-Maintained

Provide safe and well-maintained transportation infrastructure.

● Employ Vision Zero policies and strategies.

● Use maintenance dollars efficiently and effectively.

● Design infrastructure for all ages and abilities.

● Deploy innovative technologies and best practices.

Goal 3 - Community Oriented and Place-Based

Implement place-based transportation projects, tailored to urban, suburban, and rural communities that will improve local mobility.

● Target high-traffic areas with right sized solutions to improve access.

● Focus on strategies that support high density, walkable and transit oriented communities.

● Prioritize resilient infrastructure in areas at risk for flooding, fire and other environmental challenges.

● Employ Complete Street policies and strategies that support a diversity of uses.

Goal 4 - Zero-Emissions

Provide zero-emission transportation opportunities that meet diverse community needs, improve health and enhance quality of life.

● Prioritize transportation funding for zero-emissions strategies.

● Emphasize strategies that incentivize transit and shared mobility.

● Take bold steps to achieve a zero-emission transportation network.

● Support climate-friendly land use practices through ongoing coordination and alignment.

● Implement the Shift Sonoma County Low Carbon Transportation Plan.

32

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are: N/A

Background

Goals have been added incrementally over the nearly 20 years of CTPs resulting in the 2016 Goals:

• Maintain the System

• Relieve Traffic Congestion

• Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• Plan for Safety and Health

• Promote Economic Vitality

Performance Measures have been developed to measure progress over the years.

While progress can be measured quantitatively for some of the goals (i.e. maintain roads to a high pavement condition index (PCI), GHG reduction) other Goals are difficult to measure. All of the Goals are aspirational and beyond the traditional scope of authority and funding.

The CTP has traditionally listed transportation projects prioritized by the jurisdictions who then are responsible for implementation. SCTA has implemented some projects, but generally has taken a support position to the member jurisdictions.

33

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

How shall the SCTA Board proceed with a new sales tax measure for transportation? How will the transition between the current measure and a new measure be addressed?

Recommendation

Consider adopting the ad hoc committee recommendation to place on the ballot in November 2020, a ¼-cent transportation sales tax measure that will remain in place until removed by voters. Provide direction to staff regarding value, term and content of a new transportation sales tax measure for the November 2020 ballot and on the transition plan between current and new measures.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

There were no consensus recommendations from the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) on February 24, 2020 though there was lengthy discussion about term of the measure and possible expenditure plan modification that would go back to the voters at a regular interval.

Alternatives Considered

The ad hoc committee discussed a ½-cent option and deliberated on numerous possibilities for the expenditure plan strawman.

Executive Summary

The Measure M ¼-cent transportation sales tax will expire in 2024. In order to maintain our status as a self-help county and deliver critical transportation projects, the SCTA is considering a sales tax extension for the November 2020 ballot. The expenditure plan development for the proposed measure is under way; the ad hoc committee recommends a strawman proposal related to the distribution of funds that will provide more than double the amount of local funds dedicated to local roads, bus transit and bikeways. The strawman proposal will help drive reductions in GHG in the transportation sector. It aligns very closely with the project list categories submitted by project sponsors and the data related to pavement and transit needs.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

The SCTA currently manages a ¼-cent sales tax dedicated to a multi-modal expenditure plan known as Measure M. The strawman proposal maintains the ¼-cent tax until removed by voters, eliminates the Highway

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Suzanne Smith, Executive Director Item Number: 4.2.1 Subject: November 2020 transportation sales tax ballot measure

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☒ Report: ☐

34

101 and SMART programs, and allocates the funds to the other program categories thereby more than doubling the funding that will be available to local roads, bus transit and bike and pedestrian pathways.

If voters do not renew Measure M by 2024, the SCTA and its member jurisdictions will no longer have a local funding source to leverage State and federal dollars for transportation projects. By putting a measure on the ballot in 2020, the SCTA will be able to fund new projects sooner.

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☒ No ☐

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☒

The funding source(s) to be used are: The cost of the election may need funds if the measure is unsuccessful. If voters approve the measure, the new measure funds can pay the election costs.

Background

The ad hoc proposes the following strawman with several thoughts in mind:

1. The needs are great across the board but doubling the amount of local funding available for local roads, bus transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects is a priority and will help drive GHG emissions reductions in the transportation sector.

2. The structure of two “buckets” of project types reflects the importance of:

a. Improving the backbone of the transportation system across all modes of road maintenance, active transportation and bus service, and

b. Connecting communities through infrastructure projects, both big and small, that help people move safely and reliably wherever they need to go.

3. Local jurisdictions will receive funds directly to fix roads and run bus service based on the formulas in use under Measure M.

4. SCTA will manage the other programs in a competitive manner. The content of the Expenditure Plan will include sample projects derived from the list of priority projects submitted by each jurisdiction.

5. Measure M has demonstrated that with local funds self-help counties can leverage significate amounts of federal, State and regional funds.

6. The polling suggests a measure that does not have a set expiration date is preferable. However, there have been concerns raised by some – including the CAC – that there should be some ability for future voters to have a say in the content of the measure over time. To that end, staff proposes including language in the new measure that requires the SCTA to update the expenditure plan with a ballot measure a minimum of every 15 years.

In addition to establishing the structure of the new measure, staff has been working on the transition from the current measure to the new measure. This requires modeling the financial commitments that will exist through March 31, 2025 and identifying what programming may still be available from Measure M after the new measure begins on April 1, 2021. The attached tables show how staff proposed to address

35

the transition, including the list of not yet completed Measure M projects. The new measure off the top amounts for Measure M Highway 101 and passenger rail programs are less than what the projected Measure M revenue would have been for those programs over the full 20-year term. The new measure will allow SCTA to implement new projects sooner than waiting until the expiration of Measure M.

Due to the 2008 recession and the proposal to end the Measure M program early, we are forecasting that Measure M will actually recognize 70% of the originally anticipated revenues. The original Measure M forecast was $470M in anticipated revenues over the 20-year life and we are now projecting $329M over a 16-year life.

Measure M operates on a first come, first served basis for the bike/ped and local street projects (LSP) categories. The bike/ped program has routinely been over-subscribed and been very successful. There will not be any funding left in that program. The LSP program has delivered on about half of the proposed projects in terms of costs, and there will be some funding – approximately $17M – left in that program in 2025. Those funds will still be governed by Measure M. That means the projects eligible to spend that amount is limited to the existing list of LSP projects on a first come, first served basis.

Supporting Documents

SCTA Ad Hoc Strawman Expenditure Plan

Estimate of Measure M commitments, revenue allocations and forecasts, and bike/ped and LSP programming

36

DISCU

SSION DRA

FTDISCU

SSION DRA

FT

Year 1 Rev. Est. 1/4 cen

t26

,000

,000

$                          

Improve tran

sportatio

n: preserving an

d en

hancing ou

r qua

lity of life th

rough 

conven

ient, reliable an

d accessible tran

sportatio

n75

%19

,500

,000

$                          

Fix roads (1)

40%

10,400

,000

$                          

Add bu

s service (2

)18

%4,68

0,00

0$                            

Affordable access for se

niors, you

th, veterans a

nd peo

ple living with

 disa

bilities

2%52

0,00

0$                                

Provide clean transportatio

n with

 zero emission bu

ses a

nd car charging

2%52

0,00

0$                                

Enhance transportatio

n op

tions and

 last m

ile con

nections

2%52

0,00

0$                                

Build

 new

 bikew

ays a

nd pathw

ays (3)

11%

2,86

0,00

0$                            

Conn

ect C

ommun

ities:  transpo

rtation projects and

 program

s tha

t will help pe

ople 

seam

lessly get whe

re th

ey need to go safely and

 on tim

e25

%6,50

0,00

0$                            

Complete corridor im

provem

ents (4

) for all mod

es with

 projects like:

23%

5,98

0,00

0$                            

 ‐ Infrastructure im

provem

ents

 ‐ Co

mplete streets

 ‐ Supp

ort h

ousin

g in dow

ntow

n areas

 ‐ Access to

 transit

 ‐ Increase sa

fety

 ‐ Im

prove evacuatio

n routes

Use te

chno

logy to

 move traffic

2%52

0,00

0$                                

Off th

e top

Roads

Admin 1% 

Transit

Measure M

 com

mitm

ents th

rough 20

25Bike

Multi‐mod

al15

% m

atch re

quire

men

t across a

ll projects

New

 tech

(1) Sim

ilar to Measure M

 Local Streets and

 Roads app

ortio

nmen

t program

; req

uires M

OE

(2) Sim

ilar to Measure M

 Local Bus Transit appo

rtionm

ent p

rogram

(3) Sim

ilar to the Measure M

 Bicycle and

 Ped

estrian Projects program

(4) Som

ewhat sim

ilar to the Measure M

 Local Street P

rojects p

rogram

SCTA

 Ad Hoc Com

mittee's Straw

man

 Expen

diture Plan

S:\SCT

A\15

.Measure M

\Reautho

rization Inform

ation\20

20 ideas\Straw M

an Notes.xlsx

2/20

/202

0

37

Bond

 Deb

t Service Hwy 101, Bon

d De

bt Service Rail, Hw

y 101 and Bike/Ped

estrian Co

mmitm

ents

Fiscal Year E

ndMeasure M

 Co

mmitm

ents

Prog

ram Category

2025

 End

ing Ba

lance

2021

2,400,000

$          

Local Street R

epairs

‐$                             

2022

9,900,000

$          

Local Street P

rojects

17,200,000

$               

2023

9,900,000

$          

Highway 101

‐$                             

2024

9,900,000

$          

Transit

‐$                             

2025

9,900,000

$          

Passen

ger R

ail

600,000

$                    

Total

42,000,000

$        

Bike/Ped

estrian

‐$                             

Administratio

n‐

$                             

Total

17,800,000

$               

2021

2025

*Cash flo

w m

odel estim

ates; 4

 years of reven

ue re

moved

 and

 replaced

 with

 Measure M

 com

mitm

ents

Measure M

M Com

mitted

 Fun

ds ≈ $9.9m

 Ann

ual

Available Fund

s ≈ $16

.1m Ann

ual

New

 Measure

Off th

e top estim

ates from

 new

 measure to

 Measure M

New

 Measure

Off th

e To

p Needs

Fund

s Rem

aining

 in M

easure M

*

S:\SCT

A\15.M

easure M

\Reautho

rization Inform

ation\2020

 ideas\Overla

p\Re

authoriza

tion Off the Top.xlsx    Deb

t Service Sched

ule

38

Estimated impact by program

Total Revenue Allocation

Program Category AllocationOriginal Measure ‐ 2004 Estimate*

2020 Forecast ‐ 20 years *

2020 Forecast ‐ 16 years*

Local Street Repairs 20% 94,000,000$              88,421,636$              65,750,693$             

Local Street Projects 20% 94,000,000$              88,402,494$              65,736,459$             

Highway 101 40% 188,000,000$           176,735,169$           131,421,001$          

Transit 10% 47,000,000$              44,203,496$              32,869,902$             

Passenger Rail 5% 23,500,000$              22,103,154$              16,435,996$             

Bike/Pedestrian 4% 18,800,000$              17,681,422$              13,147,978$             

Administration 1% 4,700,000$                4,421,076$                3,287,530$               

Total 100% 470,000,000$           441,968,447$           328,649,561$          

Percent of 2004 Forecast 94% 70%*Total forecast revenues excludes interest earned on pooled cash

Measure M Program Revenue Allocations and Forecasts

Measure M Policy 19 address revenues failing to meet projected levels by programming projects on a first come, first served basis.

4.19 Policy 19 - Amendments to Measure M Projects...If overall revenues fail to meet projected levels, the projects in the program categories will be funded on a first come, first served basis, using the following criteria for selecting projects ready to receive available funding: • Program those projects that have advanced local funds in accordance with Policy 4.8 and have already been constructed, first; • Keep commitments in previous Strategic Plans, unless requested by project sponsor; • Assess Project deliverability through construction; • Weigh whether M funds are being used to leverage other fund sources; and • Consider past delivery performance of project sponsor...

S:\SCTA\15.Measure M\Reauthorization Information\2020 ideas\Overlap\Remove4Years\Remove-4-years-Total-MeasureM_Revenue.xlsx ProgramTotals39

Measure M Projects - Programming TotalsSpecific Project Impacts

Measure M Project  2004 $  Total 

Programmed   Unprogrammed Penngrove 19,000,000$          200,000$               18,800,000$        Airport Blvd 15,000,000$          15,000,000$          ‐$                       SR 121/116* 7,000,000$            7,000,000$            ‐$                       Forestville Bypass 2,000,000$            ‐$                        2,000,000$           Old Redwood Hwy IC 10,000,000$          10,000,000$          ‐$                       Hearn Avenue 9,000,000$            9,000,000$            ‐$                       Farmers Lane Ext 10,000,000$          437,000$               9,563,000$           Mark West Springs 1,000,000$            ‐$                        1,000,000$           River Road 1,000,000$            ‐$                        1,000,000$           Fulton Road 19,000,000$          8,700,000$            10,300,000$        Bodega Hwy 1,000,000$            ‐$                        1,000,000$           

Total LSP 94,000,000$         50,337,000$         43,663,000$        

Santa Rosa Creek Trail 1,450,000$            1,450,000$            ‐$                       Old Redwood / Mendo/SR 500,000$               157,000$               343,000$              Central Sonoma Valley Trail 1,900,000$            183,000$               1,717,000$           Sonoma Schellville Trail 650,000$               650,000$               ‐$                       Arnold Drive* 2,000,000$            2,000,000$            ‐$                       Petaluma River Trail 2,000,000$            2,000,000$            ‐$                       Copeland Creek Trail 350,000$               350,000$               ‐$                       Street Smart Sebastopol 2,000,000$            2,000,000$            ‐$                       West County Trail 500,000$               ‐$                        500,000$              McCray Road 250,000$               ‐$                        250,000$              Hwy 1 in Bodega Bay 950,000$               950,000$               ‐$                       Foss Creek Trail 3,250,000$            3,250,000$            ‐$                       NWPRR (various) 1,000,000$            1,000,000$            ‐$                       Access Across 101 1,000,000$            750,000$               250,000$              Bike Safety and Education 1,200,000$            1,137,000$            63,000$                

Total Bike / Ped 19,000,000$         15,877,000$         3,123,000$           

Grand Total 113,000,000$       66,214,000$         46,786,000$        

* Includes April 2020 planned programming

Programmed

S:\SCTA\15.Measure M\Reauthorization Information\2020 ideas\Overlap\Reauthorization Off the Top.xlsx M Projects 40

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Planning Advisory Committee Thursday, February 20, 2019 – 9:00 a.m.

SCTA Large Conference Room 411 King Street

Santa Rosa, California 95404

ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Administrative 2.1. Approval of the agenda – changes, additional discussion items- (ACTION) 2.2. Review Meeting Notes from December 19, 2019 * – (ACTION) 2.3. Election of Chair - (ACTION) 2.4. SCTA Planning Activities*

3. Updates from group – DISCUSSION

4. Funding – Local Partnership Program(CTC) and the Housing Incentive Program (MTC) Local Partnership Program(CTC) and the Housing Incentive Program (MTC) *

5. Regional Housing Needs Allocation - DISCUSSION 5.1. MTC/ABAG Housing Methodology Committee meeting – standing item

6. Travel Behavior and VMT – Chris Barney - DISCUSSION 6.1. Sonoma Travel Behavior Study* 6.2. SB743/Vehicle Miles Traveled

6.2.1. VMT Summaries by Jurisdiction* 6.2.2. Online map available at: https://arcg.is/0evjK9 6.2.3. Adopted VMT Thresholds Summary* 6.2.4. Final SB743 White Paper <- link to be provided prior to meeting. 6.2.5. VMT Briefing Presentation*

7. SCTA Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Update* – (DISCUSSION) 7.1. Vision, Goals, Metrics*

8. Plan Bay Area update – https://mtc.ca.gov/whats-happening/news/mtc-and-abag-release-futures-final-report-highlighting-resilient-and-equitable (INFORMATION)

9. Other Business 9.1. 2020 SCTA/RCPA Committee Meeting Calendar

10. Public Comment

11. Adjourn -(ACTION) *Attachment ** Materials will be handed out at meeting

The next SCTA meeting will be March 9, 2020 The next PAC meeting will March 19, 2020

41

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Citizens Advisory Committee MEETING AGENDA

February 24, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

411 King Street Santa Rosa, California 95404

ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Public Comment

3. Administrative

a. Approval of January 27, 2020 Meeting Minutes* - ACTION

b. Election of Chair and Vice Chair – ACTION

c. CAC Administrative Code*

4. Measure M – DISCUSSION/ACTION

a. Measure M Project Presentation

i. Central Sonoma Valley Trail – Sonoma County Regional Parks

ii. Sonoma Schellville Bike Trail – Sonoma County Regional Parks

iii. Bodega Bay Trail – Sonoma County Regional Parks

b. Measure M Financial Statements*

c. Measure M – 2020 Bond Disclosure Reports – Series 2011 and 2015*

d. Measure Reauthorization

5. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) – DISCUSSION

a. Revised Vision and Goals

6. Travel Behavior Study

7. Highway Updates – DISCUSSION

8. Announcements

9. Adjourn

*Materials attached ** Materials to be handed out

The next SCTA meeting will be March 9, 2020 The next CAC meeting will be March 30, 2020

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 411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 during normal business hours.

42

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Technical Advisory Committee

MEETNG AGENDA SCTA Headquarters Office

February 27, 2020 – 1:30 p.m. Sonoma County Transportation Authority

Large Conference Room 411 King Street, Second Floor Santa Rosa, California 95404

ITEM

1. Introductions

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes, January 23, 2020* DISCUSSION/ACTION

4. TFCA/TDA3

4.1 TFCA FYE 2021 Call for Projects*

4.2 TDA 3 Call for Projects*

5. SB743/VMT Update* - DISCUSSION

6. Travel Behavior Study* - DISCUSSION

7. Long Range Planning ACTION / DISCUSSION

7.1 Comprehensive Transportation Plan/Regional Transportation Plan – Update **

8. SB-1 Local Partnership Program – Implementation Schedule*

9. Measure M DISCUSSION

9.1 Measure M Invoicing/Obligation Status*

9.2 Maintenance of Effort annual reporting*

9.3 Maintenance of Effort Policy Update*

9.4 Measure Reauthorization Update**

9.5 Measure M LSR/LBT Annual Allocation Estimates

10. Regional Information Update DISCUSSION / ACTION

10.1 Inactive Federal Obligation Status*: project sponsors should be prepared to address status of inactive obligations at the meeting: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/projects/inactive-projects

Currently Inactive: Petaluma, County of Sonoma, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit and Rohnert Park; Cotati and Cloverdale pending

10.2 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP 10) Next Steps*

43

11. SCTA/RCPA DRAFT Board Agenda, March 9, 2020*

12. Other Business / Comments / Announcements DISCUSSION

13. Adjourn ACTION *Materials attached. **Materials distributed separately

The next S C T A meeting will be held March 9th, 2020 The next TAC meeting will be held on March 26th 2020

Copies of the full Agenda Packet are available at www.scta.ca.gov

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 Technical Advisory Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Sonoma County Transportation Authority office at 411 King St, Santa Rosa, during normal business hours.

TAC Voting member attendance – (6 Month rolling 2019) Jurisdiction August September October Nov/Dec January February

Cloverdale Public Works

Cotati Public Works

County of Sonoma DHS*

County of Sonoma PRMD*

County of Sonoma Regional Parks*

County of Sonoma TPW* (by phone) (by phone)

Healdsburg Public Works

Petaluma Public Works & Transit

Rohnert Park Public Works (by phone)

Santa Rosa Public Works**

Santa Rosa Transit**

Sebastopol Public Works (by phone)

SMART

Sonoma County Transit*

Sonoma Public Works

Windsor Public Works

*One Vote between all **One Vote between all NB: No meeting held in July 2019

44

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

Information Only.

Recommendation

Information Only.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

Not applicable to this item.

Alternatives Considered

Not applicable to this item.

Executive Summary

RCPA is sponsoring the upcoming Urban Land Institute (ULI) Resilience Advisory Panel in March 2020, which will bring ULI experts to Sonoma County to assess land use, development, and local energy grid strategies in relation to community preparedness and wildfire resilience. The panelists will be briefed on past and current relevant planning efforts and will visit sites impacted by recent fires and power shut downs. Panelists will also interview community stakeholders to better understand how these events have impacted our residents, businesses and communities.

Following the briefing and interviews, panelists will develop recommendations to help Sonoma County ensure that our planning and emergency response efforts lead to equitable, resilient outcomes that allow us to protect our communities while still meeting our ambitious climate goals.

RCPA coordinated with USDN to hold an orientation for County staff in late February to explain the network benefits and opportunities for Sonoma County to engage.

RCPA continues to coordinate with Zero Waste Sonoma and the Ag and Open Space District to outline carbon sequestration opportunities for RCPA member jurisdictions.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

All activities support RCPA policies and goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% 1990 levels by 2050.

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Aleka Seville, Director of Climate Programs Item Number: 5.4.1 Subject: RCPA Activities Report

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

45

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☒ No ☐

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☒ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are:

RCPA operational funding and various grants including BayREN, California Energy Commission Shift Implementation Grant and funding through Sonoma Clean Power for technical assistance to support EV infrastructure expansion.

Background

Planning and Coordination

Urban Land Institute Resilience Advisory Panel

With support from the Kresge Foundation, the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority, City of Santa Rosa, and County of Sonoma have invited the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to assemble a Sonoma County Resilience Advisory Panel. The purpose of the advisory panel is to assess land use, development, and local energy grid strategies in relation to community preparedness and wildfire resilience. The panelists will be briefed on past and current relevant planning efforts and will visit sites impacted by recent fires and power shut downs (see Figure 1 for proposed site tour route).

Figure 1: ULI Site Tour

46

Panelists will also interview 80-100 community stakeholders to better understand how these events have impacted our residents, businesses and communities. Following the briefing and interviews, panelists will develop recommendations to help Sonoma County ensure that our planning and emergency response efforts lead to equitable, resilient outcomes that allow us to protect our communities while still meeting our ambitious climate goals. Panel Schedule

The Sonoma County Resilience Advisory Panel will take place the week of March 15, 2020 with the final public panel presentation of recommendations taking place on Friday, March 20 from 8:30 – 10:30 am.

Project Background Wildfires are an increasing concern across California. The state has recently experienced longer periods of low humidity and high temperatures, which increase vulnerability to wildfires. At the same time that the threat of wildfires is impacting energy grid reliability, the County and its nine cities are striving to meet state and local climate mitigation goals. To meet these goals, they are shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, and enacting policies and programs to increase electrification of buildings and transportation.

The frequency and magnitude of wildfires and power shut off events are negatively affecting Sonoma County’s economy. The county and cities are investing more of their limited budgets in emergency management and response. Key industries such as tourism are experiencing declines in consumer demand. Power shut off events are affecting local schools by forcing them to close, reducing the number of educational hours provided to students and straining local budgets.

Given current and forecasted climate conditions, wildfires will continue to be a significant risk for Sonoma County. Buildings and transportation systems must become more resilient to wildfires. Power shut offs as a wildfire prevention strategy will continue to pose threats to human health and safety if we do not create a more resilient energy grid. As we shift away from fossil fuel use, we will become more dependent on electricity to power our buildings and transportation systems. Sonoma County needs a comprehensive strategy to plan, fund, and implement effective responses to these increased risks.

Through the Resilience Advisory Services Panel, ULI will address the following key questions:

Land Use and Development for Wildfire Resilience • How can land use and development strategies and policies address current wildfire risks and set the

foundation to meet the predicted increased lengths of fire season and power shut offs?

47

• What land use and development policies/programs can Sonoma County use to support successful, efficient and equitable recovery after wildfire events and support longer-term regional economic development and housing access?

Energy and Economic Resilience • How can Sonoma County advance energy grid resilience and improve reliability and economic

resilience in the face of future extreme heat, power shut offs, and wildfire events? • What investments in public infrastructure can occur to better prepare us for future increased

electricity loads as we transition from fossil fuels to electricity? • What land use and development strategies and incentives should we adopt to make it easier to

prioritize energy efficiency, develop local renewable energy, and add storage in new and existing buildings?

Equitable Governance, Partnerships, and Funding

• How can we ensure that infrastructural investment decisions are transparent and equitable? What examples of other communities’ engagement, coordination, and decision-making can we learn from and apply?

• Recognizing that energy and wildfire risks are regional in nature, what best practices can Sonoma County implement and coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that the resilient land use and development changes we implement enable better outcomes?

• How can we initiate or expand existing partnerships (especially with the private sector) to implement the above resilience strategies?

• What can we do now and in the near-term future to establish a) revenue sources to dedicate to this grid and wildfire resilience work and b) to maximize the impact of that funding?

Program Coordination

RCPA staff coordinated with Zero Waste Sonoma and the Ag and Open Space District to convene community based organizations, RCDs and the California Climate & Agricultural Network (CalCAN) to discuss carbon sequestration opportunities in Sonoma County. RCPA will convene a policy subcommittee of this group on February 27, to prioritize near term policy actions and consider potential funding sources for this work.

RCPA staff coordinated energy program implementation with County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Division staff on the following programs:

• Bay Area Regional Energy Network • Sonoma County Energy Independence

Program

• Sonoma County Energy Watch • Sonoma County Green Business

Program RCPA staff met with Sonoma Clean Power staff to leverage resources and advance implementation of programs including:

• EV 101 • Electrify America collaboration • EverGreen outreach • Lead Locally

• Municipal solar and storage • Sonoma Climate Challenge • Transit Electrification Study

48

Implementation

California Energy Commission Grant: Shift Sonoma County Implementation

With a grant from the California Energy Commission, RCPA staff are collaborating with The Climate Center (formally known as the Climate Protection Campaign) to boost electric vehicle (EV) awareness within Sonoma County through EV101, an EV concierge service to serve as a one-stop-shop for consumers to find information on EVs and charging. EV101 launched alongside SCP’s Drive EV program in August 2018 providing information to Sonoma County Residents. Over the next year, RCPA and Climate Center staff will be adding new content to EV101, sharing testimonials of EV drivers, increasing online advertisements and providing member jurisdictions collateral to help further encourage EV conversations. RCPA will also be tracking countywide progress in accelerating EV adoption in Sonoma County, connecting EV101 outreach to identified goals.

Bay Area Regional Energy Network

The Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) implements effective energy saving programs on a regional level and draws on the expertise and experience of local governments to develop and administer successful climate, resource, and sustainability programs. BayREN is a collaboration of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area. The RCPA represents Sonoma County in BayREN and partners with the County of Sonoma Energy and Sustainability Division to implement the single family, multifamily, and codes and standards programs. More information at www.bayren.org

Single Family Home+

BayREN Home+ offers cash rebates for single-family home improvements, plus certified contractors and support every step of the way. Bay Area single-family residents can choose from a menu of single measure upgrades to save energy and improve their home. More information at www.bayrenresidential.org

Table: Sonoma County Home+ Participation January 1, 2019-September 1, 2019

Number of households 353

Number of submitted rebates 1,170

Total amount of rebates $477,430

Energy Efficiency Kits Delivered

11

Green House Calls Completed 140

Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancement Program Supports Housing Affordability

The Bay Area Multifamily Building Enhancement (BAMBE) supports housing affordability by lowering energy costs at apartment complexes, making them more affordable for tenants. Heating, cooling, domestic hot-water equipment, lighting fixtures and appliances are among the areas where energy savings can be found during free inspections of multi-family units. The program also provides a $750 per unit rebate to help pay for upgrades. More information at www.bayareamultifamily.org.

Table: Sonoma County BAMBE Participation (as of November 6, 2019)

49

In Technical Assistance

In Construction

Completed Projects 2019

Total Completed 2013-2018

5 properties (569 units)

3 properties (408 units)

- 12 properties (728 units)

Codes and Standards

RCPA staff continue to work with BayREN to support our member cities in exploring the benefits of and the process to establish reach codes to reduce energy use and increase use of renewable energy for new construction. RCPA is pleased to provide letters of support for jurisdictions considering energy reach codes.

Status of energy reach codes in Sonoma County:

• Town of Windsor passed an all-electric reach code on October 16th 2019requiring low-rise (three stories and below) residential new construction to be all-electric

• City of Santa Rosa passed an all-electric reach code on November 19th 2019 requiring low-rise residential new construction to be all-electric

• City of Healdsburg passed a reach code requiring electric space and water heating for low-rise residential and commercial new construction and major renovations and significant remodels on December 16th 2019

• City of Petaluma directed staff to investigate an all-electric reach code for low-rise residential and commercial new construction and bring recommendations to Council for consideration in Q1 2020.

• City of Cloverdale held a Builder’s Roundtable on October 15th 2019 to discuss energy reach codes and are currently exploring different options

More information on BayREN Codes and Standards work at www.bayrencodes.org.

Water Bill Savings Program

RCPA staff continued to develop the Water Bill Savings regional program (WBSP), in collaboration with Partner Utilities from Town of Windsor, City of Hayward, and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and WBSP Committee members representing BayREN’s single family, multifamily, and codes and standards programs.

During December-February, the RCPA program team:

• Met with representative of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) (February 13), which represents “the interests of 24 cities and water districts, and two private utilities, in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San Francisco Regional Water System (SF RWS).” BAWSCA administers water conservation programs for its member utilities; the program is seeking an ally relationship.

• Selected “Water Upgrades $ave” as the new program brand name and documented branding research in a Branding Recommendations memo (February 4). The name selection included input from participants in the December 12 Branding Workshop convened by consultant BluePoint Planning, to initiate brand development process, clarify program marketing goals and audiences, and receive feedback on brand name ideas. Attendees included representatives from the three WBSP

50

pilot programs, BayREN program managers, BayREN member representatives, program technical and research consultants, pilot program contractor, and RCPA.

• Met with RCPA Director Sarah Gurney and City of Sebastopol staff to introduce the WBSP services, benefits, and agreements, and discuss how the program can support Sebastopol goals for water conservation and community services (January 22). Sebastopol has asked for a program presentation at its March 17 City Council meeting in anticipation of including program enrollment in the City’s a budgeting process set for this spring.

• Met with Sonoma County Energy and Sustainability Division to coordinate Sonoma County–specific BayREN program marketing efforts for WBSP, single family, multifamily, codes and standards, and green labeling programs (January 14).

• Met with Windsor Efficiency PAYS® manager and Town of Windsor Acting Public Works Director to discuss next steps to enroll Windsor in the regional program (December 18). Windsor is very interested; the program team will coordinate with the Acting Public Works Director to present the program opportunity to electeds and staff in coordination with a rate study process set for this spring.

• Met with GREEN Hayward PAYS® and City of Hayward Sustainability Manager to discuss next steps to enroll Hayward in the regional program (December 5).

• Continued development of the Master Agreement packet including ABAG/utility agreement, exhibits, and forms, and document review process with pilot utilities and legal consultant Michael Colantuono of Colantuono, Highsmith, and Whatley, PC, a leading water law expert and RCPA consultant for Senate Bill 564 ― Water Bill Savings Act (2017).

• Reviewed program documents to ensure full compliance with Senate Bill 564 in conjunction with legal consultant.

• Began preparation of a Request for Proposal for a Water Upgrades $ave third-party Program Operator.

Supporting Documents

Attached: ULI Final Project Scope

51

Project Scope With support from the Kresge Foundation, the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority, City of Santa Rosa, and County of Sonoma have invited the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to assemble a Sonoma County Resilience Advisory Services Panel. The purpose of the advisory services panel (ASP) is to assess land use, development, and local energy grid strategies in relation to community preparedness and wildfire and economic resilience.

Wildfires are an increasing concern across California. The state has recently experienced longer periods of low humidity and high temperatures, which increase vulnerability to wildfires. The average fire season has increased by 78 days over the last 40 years, with “fire season” taking up most of the year in some parts of the state. More than 25 million acres of California wildlands are classified under very high or extreme fire threat, and approximately 25 percent of the state’s population—11 million people—lives in that high-risk area. Development patterns are also exacerbating the problem. The number of homes in the wildland urban interface (WUI) has increased by about 70% since 1960. Land use and circulation plans do not always include effective evacuation plans—some communities in California have only one or two means of escape with as many as 800 households per exit point.

Over the last few years, wildfires have caused tremendous damage to life, infrastructure, and property in Sonoma County. The October 2017 Northern California Wildfires caused more than $9.4 billion in damages and killed forty-four people. After the 2017 wildfires, Sonoma County residents and agencies undertook a significant recovery effort that focused on rebuilding to meet critical housing needs and improving emergency notification and response procedures.

In the fall of 2019, PG&E de-energized the grid through widespread power shut offs to decrease the risk of wildfires. These efforts were not enough to prevent the ignition of the Kincade Fire on October 23, 2019. This wildfire burned 76,825 acres by October 30 and destroyed 206 structures, including the loss of 94 homes. Almost 200,000 Sonoma County residents were under mandatory evacuation orders during the Kincade Fire.

At the same time that the threat of wildfires is impacting energy grid reliability, the County and its nine cities are striving to meet state and local climate mitigation goals. To meet these goals, they are shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, and enacting policies and programs to increase electrification of buildings and transportation. The 2014 launch of Sonoma Clean Power, the county’s community choice aggregator, was a significant step toward this shift. It enabled a majority of local homes, businesses, and municipalities to move to clean, renewable energy. In response to the severe impacts of recent power shut off events and growing public pressure for alternatives to PG&E ownership of the energy grid, Sonoma Clean Power’s board in November 2019 authorized staff to explore municipalization, co-op, or other forms of customer ownership of the distribution grid infrastructure, either locally or across all PG&E’s territory.1

Finally, the frequency and magnitude of wildfires and power shut off events are negatively affecting Sonoma County’s economy. The county and cities are investing more of their limited budgets in emergency management and response. Key industries such as tourism are experiencing declines in

1 https://sonomacleanpower.org/uploads/documents/2019.11.14-Signed-BOD-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

52

consumer demand. Power shut off events are affecting local schools by forcing them to close, reducing the number of educational hours provided to students and straining local budgets.

Given current and forecasted climate conditions, wildfires will continue to be a significant risk for Sonoma County. Buildings, energy systems, and transportation systems must become more resilient to wildfires. Power shut offs as a wildfire prevention strategy will continue to pose threats to human health and safety if we do not create a more resilient energy grid. As we shift away from fossil fuel use, we will become more dependent on electricity to power our buildings and transportation systems. Sonoma County needs a comprehensive strategy to plan, fund, and implement effective responses to these increased risks.

Through the Resilience Advisory Services Panel, ULI will address the following key questions:

Land Use and Development for Wildfire Resilience • How can land use and development strategies and policies address current wildfire risks and

set the foundation to meet the predicted increased lengths of fire season and power shut offs? • What land use and development policies/programs can Sonoma County use to support

successful, efficient, and equitable recovery after wildfire events and support longer-term regional economic development and housing access?

Energy and Economic Resilience • How can Sonoma County advance energy grid resilience and improve reliability and economic

resilience in the face of future extreme heat, power shut offs, and wildfire events? • What investments in public infrastructure can occur to better prepare us for future increased

electricity loads as we transition from fossil fuels to electricity? • What land use and development strategies and incentives should we adopt to make it easier

to prioritize energy efficiency, develop local renewable energy, and add storage in new and existing buildings?

Equitable Governance, Partnerships, and Funding • How can we ensure that infrastructural investment decisions are transparent and equitable?

What examples of other communities’ engagement, coordination, and decision-making can we learn from and apply?

• Recognizing that energy and wildfire risks are regional in nature, what best practices can Sonoma County implement and coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions to ensure that the resilient land use and development changes we implement enable better outcomes?

• How can we initiate or expand existing partnerships (especially with the private sector) to implement the above resilience strategies?

• What can we do now and in the near-term future to establish a) revenue sources to dedicate to this grid and wildfire resilience work and b) to maximize the impact of that funding?

53

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

Planning Activities Report

Recommendation

Information only

Advisory Committee Recommendation

Not applicable to this item.

Alternatives Considered

Not applicable to this item.

Executive Summary

Update on activities of planning staff that are not on the regular agenda.

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

Not applicable to this item.

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are:

Background

DATA MANAGEMENT AND FORECASTING

• Travel Behavior Study – The Travel Behavior Study Final Report is now available on the SCTA website:

https://scta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Sonoma_TBS_2-7-2020_web.pdf

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Janet Spilman, Director of Planning Item Number: 5.4.2 Subject: Planning Activities Report

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

54

Fehr & Peers and SCTA staff continue to work on formatting source data and background tables that were used to assemble the report. This information will be available on the SCTA website or be available upon request.

• Modeling and analysis support – SCTA staff continued to debug and update the revalidated travel model for local project analysis work. Model documentation has been updated based on the most recent validation work. The updated travel model is now available for project level analysis.

Data and analysis from the Sonoma County Travel Behavior Study is now being used to implementation a series of enhancements to the Sonoma County Travel Model. This work includes:

o Developing a weekend model – Travel behavior study and weekend traffic count data is being employed to develop weekend modeling capability. This work includes developing weekend trip generation rates, making mode share adjustments, and updating peaking factors based on weekend travel patterns.

o Implementing Visitor and tourism travel model improvements - Consultant is using data collected as part of Task 1 to add a new visitor/tourism trip purpose to the travel model.

o Winery and Agricultural model improvements – Travel behavior study data and other available data are being used to add new land use categories and trip generation estimates specific to agricultural and winery related land uses to the travel demand model.

o SB743/VMT analysis implementation support – Consultant and staff are providing support and recommendations on SB 743 implementation. Work is focused on setting thresholds, calculating VMT, analyzing induced demand, accounting for entire trip lengths, and SB 743 reporting. Completed work includes SB 743 implementation workshop, SB 743 implementation white paper, draft VMT summaries, and draft VMT maps.

o Expanding model gateways - Consultant is using information collected as part of the Travel Behavior Study to provide more accurate estimates of trip lengths and VMT for travel entering and exiting Sonoma County.

SCTA staff continued work on the Downtown Specific Plan analysis using the updated model.

• SB 743/Vehicle Miles Traveled Support – Staff continues to work with local planning and engineering staff to prepare for SB 743 compliance, and to produce VMT summaries at various levels of geography (countywide, jurisdictional, traffic analysis zone). Continued work includes:

o Refinement of VMT summary tables, which include summaries for different types of VMT summarized at the jurisdiction and countywide level, and include per capita and per employee estimates.

o Refinement of VMT maps summarizing current average VMT by traffic analysis zone for travel originating at residential locations (or home-based VMT), or for travel ending at employment locations. Current focus is on developing maps and resources that could be used for VMT screening.

55

• Vision Zero Sonoma County -

o Staff reviewed proposals and conducted interviews for consulting services to assist in the development and implementation of the Vision Zero Data Dashboard. Staff plans to complete the selection process and bring a contract to the board for approval at the April or May board meeting.

PLANS

• Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)

o Featured in current agenda.

• Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050)

o Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Staff continues to investigate the state-wide impacts of recent housing legislation on the current cycle of RHNA that is ultimately tied to each jurisdictions housing elements. The primary issues are:

Review new housing regulations for RHNA. Statewide there is concern that they are extremely difficult if not impossible to meet.

Investigate the pros and cons of the jurisdictions of Sonoma County forming a sub-region to determine a local methodology, taking that task over from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Planners and housing staff in Sonoma County have chosen to participate in the regional methodology committee to determine and influence the outcomes, and to delay recommendation to form a sub-region or not, as the situation becomes more clear.

O Plan Bay Area Draft Project Performance Results – Staff have met with MTC staff to review and provide comments on Plan Bay Area Draft Project Performance results.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT – MOBILITY INITIATIVES

• Regional Bike Share Pilot Program – Staff continues coordination and planning work with Gotcha, the Transportation Authority of Marin, and local jurisdictions. With an approved contract, Gotcha can move forward with a technical analysis and participation in monthly TAC meetings. Planning and coordination in February included:

o Compiled and sent data to Gotcha for technical analysis. o Reviewed and revised draft Coordination Agreement with local jurisdiction staff input. o Reviewed next steps and agenda for March TAC meeting with Gotcha. o Participated in regional working group call.

• Emergency Ride Home Program – Staff continues to manage and promote the program. The

Emergency Ride Home program will reimburse rides home in cases of a qualifying emergency for anyone who works in Sonoma County and gets to work using an alternative transportation option, such as carpooling, vanpooling, public transit, bicycling, or walking. Program rules, restrictions, and reimbursement forms are available online. scta.ca.gov/ERH

o In February, staff developed a program marketing toolkit for transit agencies.

56

• Sonoma County Clean Commute Pilot Program – Staff continues to work with County staff to promote and monitor the program. The Sonoma County Clean Commute Pilot Program allows County employees to set aside pre-tax income to pay for SMART Eco-Passes, e-Cash on Clipper, and Commute with Enterprise Vanpools through My Commuter Check. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/HR/Benefits/Clean-Commute/

ADMINISTRATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

• Transportation for Clean Air Fund, County Program Manager (TFCA, CPM) funds may be used for cost-effective projects that reduce on-road motor vehicle emissions within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) jurisdiction. Eligible project types include trip reduction, clean air vehicles and infrastructure, arterial management, and bicycle projects. Staff has participated in BAAQMD working group discussions on revised program guidelines.

o The FY 20/21 call for projects was released on February 11 and applications are due by March 9, 2020. http://scta.ca.gov/projects/funding/

• Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA3) funds may be used for bicycle lanes, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and related planning and marketing efforts. Sonoma County’s cities/towns and the County of Sonoma are eligible to apply.

o The FY 20/21 call for projects was released on February 18 and applications are due on March 16, 2020. http://scta.ca.gov/projects/funding/

COORDINATION & OUTREACH

Local Activities

• Spare the Air Resources Team meeting with local and regional agencies, non-profit advocacy groups, and citizens.

• Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging Advisory Council: Transportation and Mobility Committee, Steering Committee for Connected Communities Transportation Needs Assessment.

• Safe Routes to School Alliance meeting with program coordinators, local public works staff and law enforcement.

Regional Coordination

• MTC/ABAG committees: Regional Advisory Working Group, Regional Modeling Working Group; Transit Finance Working Group, Active Transportation Working Group, Transportation Demand Management Working Group

• CTA Planners meetings

• Bay Area County Transportation Authority meeting

Supporting Documents

None

57

411 King Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | 707.565.5373 | scta.ca.gov | rcpa.ca.gov

Staff Report

Issue

Update on Sonoma County community affairs related to transportation and climate change.

Recommendation

No recommendation.

Advisory Committee Recommendation

No advisory committee recommendation.

Alternatives Considered

No alternatives considered.

Executive Summary

The March 2020 Community Affairs Update covers the following subjects:

a. Moving Forward 2050 Forum b. Letters of Interest for SCTA Citizens Advisory Committee c. Caltrans Removing Trees Along Hwy 101 in Petaluma d. Discussion on Improving our Transportation System for Older Adults and Residents with Disabilities e. Upcoming Events f. Social Media g. Related News

Policy Impacts / Nexus to Agency Goals

No policy impacts.

Financial Implications

Is there a fiscal impact? Yes ☐ No ☒

Is there funding in the current budget? Yes ☐ No ☐

The funding source(s) to be used are:

To: SCTA/RCPA Board of Directors Meeting Date: 3/9/20 From: Brant Arthur, Community Affairs Specialist Item Number: 5.4.3 Subject: SCTA/RCPA Community Affairs

Consent Item: ☐ Regular Item: ☒ Action Item: ☐ Report: ☒

58

Background News

Moving Forward 2050 Forum, Wednesday, March 25

You are invited to join us for the Moving Forward 2050 Forum on Wednesday, March 25 from 9am-12pm at the Finley Center in Santa Rosa. The SCTA updates Sonoma County’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan, called Moving Forward 2050, every five years to ensure that the plan is relevant, useful, and represents the community’s needs for transportation.

This is your chance to hear from local experts on how our current transportation system performs and how it can better connect people and places as we transition our transportation network to zero-emissions by 2050. To register for the free forum, and find more information on the plan, visit: https://scta.ca.gov/2050

Letters of Interest for SCTA Citizens Advisory Committee

The SCTA is seeking letters of interest from members of community groups who would like to be represented on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The primary function of the CAC is to review projects, policy statements, funding programs, and any other items that may be acted on by the SCTA and to provide input and recommendations for the SCTA’s decision-making process. The CAC also serves as the independent oversight committee for Measure M. The CAC meets at the SCTA office in Santa Rosa on the last Monday of each month.

Interest groups that would like to join the CAC may submit a letter of interest by completing the form on the Advisory Committees page (individuals interested in joining the CAC may submit a letter of interest to their County Supervisor to fill one of the vacancies for those seats): https://scta.ca.gov/about-scta/advisory-committees/

Caltrans Removing Trees Along Hwy 101 in Petaluma

Caltrans will begin removing trees during nighttime lane closures on Highway 101 between Lakeville Street/Highway 116 and Corona Road in Petaluma. The tree removal will provide space for Caltrans to build sound walls.

The closures will begin Monday, February 24, and will continue for eight weeks. Work crews will start just south of the East Washington Street and work northerly. During the closures, crew will close the right lane along with adjacent on-off ramps to provide safe working room.

Northbound closures will run from 10pm until 6am. Southbound closures are scheduled from 7pm until 4am.

The tree removal and sound wall construction is part of the Marin-Sonoma Narrows (MSN) project to add carpool lanes between Windsor and Novato on Highway 101. The MSN project is separated into individual construction contracts, allowing work to proceed while funding is appropriated.

59

Currently, Caltrans is working between Lakeville Street/Highway 116 and Corona Road. Work on the $78.8 million project includes adding a carpool lane in each direction, constructing a new bridge over the SMART corridor railroad tracks, and adding sound walls. Construction began in October 2019 and is scheduled for completion in summer 2023.

Partner News

Discussion on How to Improve Sonoma County’s Transportation System for Older Adults and Residents with Disabilities

How easy is it for older adults and residents with disabilities to get around in Sonoma County? How often do they forgo important trips because they lack transportation? What are the local transportation challenges, successes and gaps in services?

Older adults and residents with disabilities are invited to discuss these questions and share their experiences, adding their input to the Sonoma County Connected Communities Transportation Study. Upcoming discussions:

• Wednesday, March 25, 1:30-3:30 p.m., Rohnert Park Senior Center, 6800 Hunter Drive, Rohnert Park

• Thursday, March 26, 10 a.m.-Noon, RRA/West County Senior Resource Center, 15010 Armstrong Woods Road, Guerneville

To register for a group, call (707) 565-5903 or email aaa@schsd.org. The discussion is hosted by the Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging (AAA), which received a grant from Caltrans, the state Department of Transportation, to study how well local transportation systems serve older adults age 60+ and residents with disabilities.

Upcoming Events

• 2/29 - Eco-Grief and Emotional Resilience Workshop, Sebastopol, 1-5pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/824876941264481/

• 3/6, 4/2, 5/1 - About Town Bicycle Rides, Santa Rosa, https://www.facebook.com/events/2464035973724640/

• 3/4 - Roseland Creek Community Park Master Plan Dinner and Meeting, Santa Rosa, 5:30-7:30pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/202931047485877/

• 3/13 - 2020 Industry Resiliency Session, Cloverdale, 8:30am-12pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/1120054348165199/

• 3/15 - Sonoma County Climate Activists Community Summit, Santa Rosa, 1:30-6pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/895959717487236/

• 3/16 - Sonoma County Resilience Advisory Panel Public Reception, Santa Rosa, 5:30-6:30pm, https://www.eventbrite.com/e/sonoma-county-resilience-advisory-panel-public-reception-registration-93405980803

60

• 3/20 - Sonoma County Resilience Advisory Panel Presentation of Recommendations, Santa Rosa, 8:30-10:30am, https://www.eventbrite.com/e/sonoma-county-resilience-advisory-panel-presentation-of-recommendations-registration-93432746861

• 3/25 - Discussion on How to Improve Sonoma County’s Transportation System for Older Adults and Residents with Disabilities, Rohnert Park Senior Center, 1:30-3:30pm, https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Human-Services/Adult-and-Aging/Area-Agency-on-Aging/

• 3/26 - Discussion on How to Improve Sonoma County’s Transportation System for Older Adults and Residents with Disabilities, West County Senior Resource Center, Guerneville, 10am-12pm, https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Human-Services/Adult-and-Aging/Area-Agency-on-Aging/

• 4/12 - Reimagining Eldridge: Walking in Place, Eldridge, 10am-12pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/163895351619290/

• 5/7 - Sustainable Enterprise Conference of Sonoma, Rohnert Park, 8am-5pm, https://www.facebook.com/events/2529824550677699/

Social Media / Community Outreach

Facebook activity, 9/22-10/19/19 SCTA RCPA CA37

Page Likes (change from last month) 621 (0%) 603 (0%) 682 (0%)

People reached last month 608 (+25%) 208 (+8%) 273 (+992%)

Post engagements last month 123 (-25%) 76 (+36%) 42 (+1300%)

Newsletter:

• Monthly newsletters for SCTA and RCPA were sent on February 7, 2020 • The SCTA newsletter was sent to 308 recipients with a 28% open and 7% click rate • The RCPA newsletter was sent to 257 recipients with a 39% open and 15% click rate

61

Related News

Elder Residents with Disabilities Invited to Discuss How to Improve County Transportation January 29, 2020 – Sonoma County Gazette https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/sonoma-county-news/county-transportation-improvements-forum-for-elderly-with-disabilities Julia Jackson’s Grounded Summit 2020 Brings Climate ‘Solutionists Under One Roof’ January 29, 2020 – Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillbarth/2020/01/29/julia-jacksons-grounded-summit-2020-brings-climate-solutionists-under-one-roof/#64d7682253c3 City of Sonoma ready to renew Urban Growth Boundary February 3, 2020 – Sonoma Valley Sun https://sonomasun.com/2020/02/03/city-of-sonoma-ready-to-renew-urban-growth-boundary/ Electric bike-share system en route for SMART stations in Sonoma and Marin counties February 11, 2020 – The Press Democrat https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10697524-181/electric-bike-share-system-en-route Santa Rosa City Council skeptical of Faster Bay Area sales tax hike February 11, 2020 – The Press Democrat https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10679967-181/santa-rosa-city-council-skeptical In Measure I tax renewal, SMART train faces critical test with voters February 15, 2020 – The Press Democrat https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10667315-181/in-measure-i-tax-renewal Beyond the Valley: Lane closures, climate talks, and homeless encampments February 24, 2020 – Sonoma Index-Tribune https://www.sonomanews.com/news/10746765-181/beyond-the-valley-lane-closures?sba=AAS Toll road proposed on Highway 37 February 24, 2020 – Sonoma Index-Tribune https://www.sonomanews.com/news/10747535-181/toll-road-proposed-on-highway Plans for new east Santa Rosa 7-Eleven store with gas pumps run into opposition February 24, 2020 – The Press Democrat https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/10693433-181/plans-for-new-east-santa

62