2015 06 18 governing_bd agendapkt

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the SGVCOG office at (626) 457-1800. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the SGVCOG to make reasonable arrangement to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

AGENDA AND NOTICE OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS GOVERNING BOARD JUNE 18, 2015 - 6:00 P.M.

Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Office 602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B, Monrovia, California 91016

SGVCOG Officers

President Gene Murabito

1st Vice President Vacant

2nd Vice President Vacant

3rd Vice President Vacant

Members

Alhambra

Arcadia

Azusa

Baldwin Park

Bradbury

Claremont

Covina

Diamond Bar

Duarte

El Monte

Glendora

Industry

La Cañada Flintridge

La Puente

La Verne

Monrovia

Montebello

Monterey Park

Pasadena

Pomona

Rosemead

San Dimas

San Gabriel

San Marino

Sierra Madre

South El Monte

South Pasadena

Temple City

Walnut

West Covina

First District, LA County Unincorporated Communities

Fourth District, LA County Unincorporated Communities

Fifth District, LA County Unincorporated Communities

SGV Water Districts

Thank you for participating in tonight’s meeting. The Governing Board encourages public participation and invites you to share your views on agenda items.

MEETINGS: Regular Meetings of the Governing Board are held on the third Thursday of each month at 6:00 PM at the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Office (602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B, Monrovia, California 91016). The Governing Board agenda packet is available at the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government’s (SGVCOG) Office, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Suite 10210, Alhambra,

CA, and on the website, www.sgvcog.org. Copies are available via email upon request ([email protected]). Documents distributed to a majority of the Board after the posting will be available for review in the SGVCOG office and on the SGVCOG website. Your attendance at this public meeting may result in the recording of your voice.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Your participation is welcomed and invited at all Governing Board meetings. Time is reserved at each regular meeting for those who wish to address the Board. SGVCOG requests that persons addressing the meeting refrain from making personal, slanderous, profane or disruptive remarks.

TO ADDRESS THE GOVERNING BOARD: At a regular meeting, the public may comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Board during the public comment period and may also comment on any agenda item at the time it is discussed. At a special meeting, the public may only comment on items that are on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak are asked to complete a comment card or simply rise to be recognized when the Chair asks for public comments to speak. We ask that members of the public state their name for the record and keep their remarks brief. If several persons wish to address the Board on a single item, the Chair may impose a time limit on individual remarks at the beginning of discussion. The Governing Board may not discuss or vote on items not on the agenda.

AGENDA ITEMS: The Agenda contains the regular order of business of the Governing Board. Items on the Agenda have generally been reviewed and investigated by the staff in advance of the meeting so that the Governing Board can be fully informed about a matter before making its decision.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Board member or citizen so requests. In this event, the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered after the Consent Calendar. If you would like an item on the Consent Calendar discussed, simply tell Staff or a member of the Governing Board.

http://www.sgvcog.org/

mailto:[email protected]

SGVCOG Governing Board Meeting June 18, 2015 6:00 PM

PRELIMINARY BUSINESS 5 MINUTES

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Public Comment (If necessary, the President may place reasonable time limits on all comments)

5. Changes to Agenda Order: Identify emergency items arising after agenda posting and requiring action prior to next regular meeting

PRESENTATIONS 10 MINUTES

6. Recognition of Former SGVCOG 1st Vice President Tim Spohn Recommended Action: For information.

CONSENT CALENDAR 10 MINUTES (It is anticipated that the SGVCOG Governing Board may take action on the following matters)

7. Governing Board Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Adopt May 21, 2015 Governing Board minutes.

8. Monthly Cash Disbursements/Balances/Transfers Recommended Action: Approve Monthly Cash Disbursements/Balances/Transfers.

9. ACE Board of Directors Minutes Recommended Action: Receive and file.

10. Cancellation of July Meeting Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-17 to cancel the July 2015 Governing Board meeting.

11. San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative Recommended Action: Appoint Liz Reilly (Duarte) to serve as the SGVCOG’s second representative on the San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative and appoint Denis Bertone (San Dimas) to serve as the SGVCOG’s alternate.

12. Alameda Corridor-East FY 2015-16 Budget Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-18 adopting the ACE Project’s FY 2014-15 budget.

13. SB 461 (Hernandez) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-19 supporting SB 461 (Hernandez).

14. FY 2014-15 Meeting Attendance Recommended Action: Receive and file.

15. City Managers’ Steering Committee Appointments Recommended Action: Appoint representatives to the City Managers’ Steering Committee for FY 2015-16.

16. Meeting Dates & Times Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-20 updating the committee meeting dates and times for FY 2015-16.


17. Gold Line Recommended Action: Appoint Gene Murabito to serve as the SGVCOG’s alternate on the Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority Board of Directors.

18. Committee Appointments Recommended Action: Appoint the city of Monterey Park to the Transportation Committee and appoint the city of West Covina to the Public Works Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

19. Strategic Plan Update Recommended Action: Receive and file.

ACTION ITEMS 45 MINUTES

(It is anticipated that the SGVCOG Governing Board may take action on the following matters)

20. AB 1335 (Atkins) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-21 supporting AB 1335 (Atkins) if amended.

21. Stormwater Outreach Consultant Contract Recommended Action: Authorize Executive Director to execute contract with Kennedy Communications, as recommended by Water Policy Committee, for an amount not to exceed $28,750.

22. SR-710 (North) Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) Recommended Action: Provide direction to staff regarding submittal of comments to Metro/Caltrans regarding the SR-710 North EIR-EIS pending recommendation from the Transportation Committee.

23. Salary and Classification Resolution Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-22 updating the SGVCOG salary and classification system to include the position of Management Analyst.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 10 MINUTES

24. Oral Report Recommended Action: For information.

25. San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Update Recommended Action: For information.

GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

COMMITTEE REPORTS 10 MINUTES Transportation Committee Housing, Community, and Economic Development Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee Water Committee


PROJECT REPORTS 10 MINUTES The ACE Project MS4 Permit Implementation and Funding Efforts San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership California HERO

LIAISON REPORTS 5 MINUTES Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District

BOARD MEMBER ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION 30 MINUTES (It is anticipated that the SGVCOG Governing Board may take action on the following matters)

26. Public Employment – Executive Director pursuant to Government Code section 54957.

27. Public Employment – Assistant to the Executive Director and Senior Administrative Analyst pursuant to Government Code section 54957.

28. Labor Negotiations – Assistant to the Executive Director (unrepresented) and Senior Administrative Analyst (unrepresented) pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6.

29. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation – Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1) – San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments v. Allied World National Assurance Company (U.S.) Inc.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ADJOURN

San Gabriel Valley Council of GovernmentsGoverning Board

Jurisdiction Delegate Alternate

Alhambra Barbara Messina Steven PlacidoArcadia Sho Tay John WuoAzusa Angel Carrillo Uriel MaciasBaldwin Park Susan Rubio Cruz BacaBradbury Monte Lewis Richard HaleClaremont Joseph Lyons Sam PedrozaCovina Kevin Stapleton Jorge MarquezDiamond Bar Nancy Lyons Carol HerreraDuarte John Fasana Margaret FinlayEl Monte Norma Macias Bart PatelGlendora Gene Murabito Judy NelsonIndustry Jeff ParriottLa Canada Flintridge Terry Walker Dave SpenceLa Puente Charlie Klinakis Valerie MunozLaVerne Tim Hepburn Robin CarderMonrovia Becky ShevlinMontebello Jack Hadjinian William MolinariMonterey Park Hans LiangPasadena Terry Tornek Margaret McAustinPomona Elliott RothmanRosemead Margaret Clark Steven LySan Dimas Denis Bertone Jeff TemplemanSan Gabriel Juli Costanzo Kevin SawkinsSan Marino Eugene Sun Allan YungSierra Madre John Harabedian John CapocciaSouth El Monte Joseph Gonzales Hector DelgadoSouth Pasadena Diana Mahmud Michael CacciottiTemple City Cynthia Sternquist Nanette FishWalnut Nancy Tragarz Eric ChingWest Covina Fredrick Sykes James TomaLA County Supervisorial District #1 Rachel Barbosa Javier HernandezLA County Supervisorial District #4 Dickie Simmons Mike HughesLA County Supervisorial District #5 Kathryn Barger Leibrich Brian MejiaSan Gabriel Valley Water Districts Bryan Urias Carlos Goytia

Unapproved Minutes

SGVCOG Governing Board Unapproved Minutes Date: May 21, 2015 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (USGVMWD)

Offices (602 E. Huntington Drive; Monrovia, CA 91016)

PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

1. Call to Order President Gene Murabito called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

2. Pledge of Allegiance Former SGVCOG President Mary Ann Lutz led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. Roll Call A quorum was in attendance.

Governing Board Members Present Absent Alhambra Barbara Messina Bradbury Arcadia Sho Tay El Monte Azusa Angel Carrillo La Puente Baldwin Park Susan Rubio Pasadena Claremont Joe Lyons, Sam Pedroza* Pomona Diamond Bar Carol Herrera* San Marino Duarte John Fasana Glendora Gene Murabito Industry Tim Spohn La Canada Flintridge Terry Walker La Verne Tim Hepburn Monrovia Becky Shevlin* Montebello Jack Hadjinian Monterey Park Hans Liang Rosemead Margaret Clark, Steven Ly* San Dimas Denis Bertone San Gabriel Juli Costanzo Sierra Madre John Harabedian South El Monte Joseph Gonzales South Pasadena Diana Mahmud, Michael Cacciotti* Temple City Cynthia Sternquist Walnut Nancy Tragarz West Covina Fredrick Sykes LA County Supv. District 1 Rachel Barbosa, Javier Hernandez* LA County Supv. District 4 Mike Hughes* LA County Supv. District 5 Brian Mejia* SGV Water Districts Bryan Urias Staff Executive Director Francis M. Delach

Item #7 Page 1 of 11

Unapproved Minutes

Asst. to the Executive Director Marisa Creter Jones & Mayer Dick Jones SGVCOG Staff Caitlin Sims

4. Public Comment

There was no public comment.

5. Changes to Agenda Order: Identify emergency items arising after agenda posting and requiring action prior to next regular meeting

Item 13 and Item 23 were pulled from the Consent Calendar.

PRESENTATIONS

6. Recognition of Former SGVCOG President Mary Ann Lutz

Representatives from Senator Carol Liu’s Office, Assemblymember Chris Holden’s Office, Senator Judy Chu’s Office, Los Angeles County Supervisorial Districts 1, 4, and 5, the City of Alhambra, Senator Bob Huff’s Office, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and Congresswoman Grace Napolitano presented proclamations to Mary Ann Lutz for her years of service to the San Gabriel Valley.

CONSENT CALENDAR

7. Governing Board Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Adopt April 16, 2015 Governing Board minutes.

8. Monthly Cash Disbursements/Balances/Transfers Recommended Action: Approve Monthly Cash Disbursements/Balances/Transfers.

9. ACE Board of Directors Minutes Recommended Action: Receive and file.

10. ACE Monthly Report Recommended Action: Receive and file.

11. FY 2014-15 Meeting Attendance Recommended Action: Receive and file.

12. Copier Contract Recommended Action: Direct Executive Director to execute a five-year contract with Image IV Systems in an amount not to exceed $266.89 per month plus tax for copier/scanner/printer lease services; additional per copy costs of $0.0067 for black & white copies and $0.043 for color copies will be charged on an as-used basis.

14. Rivers & Mountains Conservancy (RMC) Representative – Rivers Recommended Action: Appoint Margaret Clark as the Rivers cities representative on the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) Board of Directors.


Unapproved Minutes

15. SGVCOG Committee Appointments Recommended Actions: Confirm appointments to the SGVCOG Policy Committees (Transportation; Energy, Environment & Natural Resources (EENR); Water; and Housing, Community & Economic Development (HCED)).

16. Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities Recommended Action: Appoint Sam Pedroza (Claremont) to serve as the SGVCOG representative to the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities.

17. Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority Board of Directors Recommended Action: Appoint Sam Pedroza (Claremont) to serve as the SGVCOG’s representative on the Metro Gold Line Construction Authority Board of Directors.

18. AB 857 (Perea) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-10 supporting AB 857 (Perea).

19. AB 45 (Mullin) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-11 opposing AB 45 (Mullin).

20. AB 551 (Nazarian) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-12 supporting AB 551 (Nazarian).

21. Destruction of Records Recommended Action: Authorize destruction of certain records pursuant to the SGVCOG’s Records Retention policy.

22. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cities for Online Permitting Recommended Action: Authorize the Executive Director to execute an MOU with participating cities for reimbursement of costs associated with online permitting.

24. Legislative Platform Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution 15-14 adopting the SGVCOG Federal and State Legislative platform for 2015-16.

25. Combined FY 2013-14 Financial Audit Recommended Action: Receive and file.

26. FY 2014-15 Third Quarter Financial Report Recommended Action: Receive and file.

27. Strategic Plan Update Recommended Action: Receive and file.

28. Correspondence Recommended Action: Receive and file. There was a motion to approve consent calendar items 7-12, 14-22, and 24-28 (M/S: K. Stapleton/J. Harabedian).

[Motion Passed]

AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia,


Unapproved Minutes

Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts

NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino

13. SGVCOG Representatives on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Policy Committees

There was consideration of including additional nominations for the SCAG Transportation Committee that were received after the deadline.

There was a motion to appoint representatives for the SGVCOG representatives on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as follows: • Community, Economic and Human Development Committee (3 Positions): Becky

Shevlin (Monrovia), Joe Lyons (Claremont), and Paula Lantz (Pomona); • Transportation Committee: Teresa Real Sebastian (Monterey Park) and Carol Herrera

(Diamond Bar) • Energy & Environment Committee (2 Positions): Denis Bertone (San Dimas) and Diana

Mahmud (South Pasadena) (M/S: J. Hadjinian/B. Messina).

[Motion Passed]

AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts


23. Salary and Classification Resolution

There was discussion on the proposed salary range and the minimum salary for the Executive Director. There was a request to complete a salary survey of the Executive Directors of other Councils of Government. Executive Director F. Delach indicated that he would also include a salary survey of the city managers in the region.

There was a motion to adopt Resolution 15-13 updating the SGVCOG salary and classification system for FY 2015-16 (M/S: J. Gonzales/J. Hadjinian).

[Motion Passed]


Unapproved Minutes



ACTION ITEMS

29. Election of Officers

Executive Director F. Delach provided an overview of the COG’s election process for Board Officers. He reported that due to the fact that two of the candidates that had served as a COG officer were no longer on the Governing Board, the nomination period had been reopened for one week, to allow additional candidates to submit their names. Additional nominations had been received for the 2nd Vice President and 3rd Vice President positions. Because only one nomination had been received for both the President and for the 1st Vice President position, elections would not be held. An election would be held for the 2nd Vice President and the 3rd Vice President position.

There was a motion to elect Gene Murabito (Glendora) as President of the SGVCOG (M/S: D. Bertone/J. Fasana).

[Motion Passed]



There was a motion to elect Tim Spohn (Industry) as 1st Vice President of the SGVCOG (M/S: D. Bertone/J. Gonzales).

[Motion Passed]

AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County


Unapproved Minutes

Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts


An election was held for 2nd Vice President. John Harabedian (Sierra Madre) removed his name from contention for the 2nd Vice President position. The candidates – Joe Lyons (Claremont) and Kevin Stapleton (Covina) – provided brief statements. The following votes were received: Joe Lyons (Claremont) Claremont, La Verne, Monrovia, San Dimas, South El Monte,

South Pasadena, LA County Supv. District 1, SGV Water Districts Kevin Stapleton (Covina)

Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, Temple City, Walnut, West Covina, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5

Absent Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino

By a 20-8 vote, Kevin Stapleton (Covina) was elected 2nd Vice President of the SGVCOG. There was a motion to certify Kevin Stapleton (Covina) as 2nd Vice President of the SGVCOG (M/S: J. Lyons/H. Liang).

[Motion Passed]



An election was held for 3rd Vice President. The candidates – Joe Lyons (Claremont), John Harabedian (Sierra Madre), and Cynthia Sternquist (Temple City) – provided brief statements. The following votes were received: Joe Lyons (Claremont) Claremont, San Dimas, LA County Supv. District 1 John Harabedian (Sierra Madre)

Arcadia, Azusa, Covina, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, Montebello, Monterey Park, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, LA County Supv. District 4

Cynthia Sternquist (Temple City)

Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Diamond Bar, La Verne, Monrovia, Rosemead, San Gabriel, Temple City, Walnut, West Covina, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts

Absent Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino


Unapproved Minutes

None of the candidates received a majority of votes, as required by the SGVCOG bylaws. A runoff election was held between the two candidates that had received the most votes – John Harabedian (Sierra Madre) and Cynthia Sternquist (Temple City). The following votes were received: John Harabedian (Sierra Madre)

Arcadia, Azusa, Covina, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, Monterey Park, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, LA County Supv. District 4

Cynthia Sternquist (Temple City)

Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Diamond Bar, La Verne, Monrovia, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Temple City, Walnut, West Covina, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts

Absent Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Montebello, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino

By a 15-12 vote, Cynthia Sternquist (Temple City) was elected 3rd Vice President of the SGVCOG. There was a motion to certify Cynthia Sternquist (Temple City) as 3rd Vice President of the SGVCOG (M/S: C. Herrera/J. Fasana).

[Motion Passed]

AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts

NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Montebello, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino

30. FY 2015-16 Budget

Executive Director F. Delach provided an overview of the SGVCOG’s draft 2015-16 Budget. There was a question on the purpose of a line item that provided funding to ACE. Executive Director Delach reported that that funding was to reimburse ACE staff for its time spent on COG work.

There was a motion to adopt Resolution 15-15 adopting the FY 2015-16 Budget (M/S: J. Fasana/J. Harabedian). [Motion Passed] AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar,

Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts


Unapproved Minutes


31. FY 2015-16 Strategic Plan Update

Executive Director F. Delach provided an overview of the SGVCOG’s draft FY 2015-16 Strategic Plan Update. Following the January Strategic Planning Session, all of the recommendations were presented to the COG Policy Committees for feedback, who made no substantial changes. There was a discussion on when the next Strategic Planning Session would be scheduled. Executive Director Delach reported that Strategic Planning Sessions were now being held once a year. There was a motion to approve the Strategic Plan Update for FY 2015-16 (M/S: D. Bertone/T. Spohn). [Motion Passed] AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar,

Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts


32. SB 16 (Beall)

Executive Director F. Delach provided an overview of SB 16 (Beall), which would raise the gas tax, providing up to $3.3 billion in additional funding for local road projects.

There was a motion to adopt Resolution 15-16 supporting SB 16 (Beall) (M/S: J. Fasana/D. Mahmud). [Motion Passed] AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar,

Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts

NOES: ABSTAIN: Monrovia ABSENT: Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Montebello, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT


Unapproved Minutes

33. Oral Report

There was no Executive Director Report.

34. San Gabriel National Monument Update

SGVCOG Representative Joe Lyons reported that the San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative had decided to allow alternates and also to allow the COG an additional seat on the Collaborative. Executive Director Delach reported that consideration of additional appointees would be on the next Governing Board agenda.

35. Summer Meeting Schedule

There was discussion on the summer meeting schedule. There was a motion to go dark for the July Meeting (M/S: M. Hughes/C. Herrera). [Motion Passed] AYES: Alhambra, Arcadia, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, Covina, Diamond Bar,

Duarte, Glendora, Industry, La Canada Flintridge, La Verne, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Dimas, San Gabriel, Sierra Madre, South El Monte, South Pasadena, Temple City, Walnut, LA County Supv. District 1, LA County Supv. District 4, LA County Supv. District 5, SGV Water Districts

NOES: ABSTAIN: Monrovia ABSENT: Bradbury, El Monte, La Puente, Montebello, Pasadena, Pomona, San Marino

GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT

General Counsel reported that there would be a presentation from the attorneys working on the litigation against the insurance carrier at the June Governing Board meeting. . PRESIDENT’S REPORT

President Murabito congratulated the newly-elected officers for FY 2015-16.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Transportation Committee

Transportation Committee Chair John Fasana reported that Metro was slowing the process of project prioritization, to allow the new CEO and Metro staff an opportunity to review the project cost estimates.

Housing, Community, and Economic Development (HCED) Committee

There was no report.

Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR) Committee



Unapproved Minutes

Water Committee

Water Committee Chair Diana Mahmud reported that the Water Committee had moved its meeting time to the 3rd Wednesday of the month at 10:00 a.m. at the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices in Monrovia. She reported that at the last meeting, there had a presentation on the status of the drought. She also reported that the Office of Administrative Law had approved the State Water Board’s regulations, so they would go into effect on June 1, 2015.

PROJECT REPORTS

The ACE Project


MS4 Permit Implementation and Funding Efforts


San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership


California HERO

SGVCOG staff reported that the LA County Residential PACE program would be launching and would allow residents in all cities that had adopted the LA County PACE Resolution to utilize PACE financing. LA County had selected 2 vendors to offer the program: California HERO and CaliforniaFIRST. The LA County PACE program would provide additional protections not included in the existing residential PACE programs.

LIAISON REPORTS

Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority

President Murabito reported that a tour of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Operations Campus would be held on Saturday, May 23, at 9:30 a.m. at the Operations Campus.

San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC)

RMC Executive Director Mark Stanley reported on the status of the Water Bond funding. He reported that the RMC is developing draft guidelines and would be holding staff workshops in early July. He reported that the RMC was expected approximately $80 million funding in total, including a $30 million direct allocation and an allocation that would be split with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. He reported that a Call for Projects was expected in fall 2015.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)


South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)

AQMD Boardmember and South Pasadena Alternate Michael Cacciotti provided an overview of the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) funding that would be available for cities.


Unapproved Minutes

BOARD MEMBER ITEMS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. BOARD APPROVED _____________________________ Date _____________________________ Francis M. Delach, Secretary


SGVCOG

Check RegisterMay 2015

Check

Date Num Name Description Paid

05/05/2015 EFT Anthem Blue Cross Medical Benefits 794.00

05/09/2015 EFT Paychex Federal Taxes 1,552.92

05/09/2015 EFT Paychex Payroll‐Staff 6,181.87

05/09/2015 EFT Paychex Paychex Fees 71.14

05/15/2015 EFT Paycheck Section 125 40.00

05/19/2015 8859 ACE Construction Authority Tech Support for Transportation 3,938.65

05/19/2015 8860 Alliant Insurance 950.00

05/19/2015 8861 Athena Parking (Alhambra) Parking 380.00

05/19/2015 8862 Bolt Temporary Employees 4,355.40

05/19/2015 8863 CBE Office Solutions Printer Toner 42.01

05/19/2015 8864 Fran Delach Reimbursement: SCAG General Council Assembly 134.13

05/19/2015 8865 Jones & Mayer Legal Services 2,083.33

05/19/2015 8866 Kelly Associates Services for F. Delach 13,000.00

05/19/2015 8867 Mary Ann Lutz Reimbursement for Sacramento Trip 518.60

05/19/2015 8868 Platinum Consulting Group Accounting Services 2,660.00

05/19/2015 8869 Vasquez & Co., LLP Audit FY14 10,000.00

05/20/2015 EFT Paychex Federal Taxes 1,205.96

05/20/2015 EFT Paychex Payroll‐Staff 5,369.77

05/20/2015 EFT Paychex Paychex Fees 71.14

05/21/2015 8870 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents Retirement 40.00

05/22/2015 EFT Charter Communications Internet 115.00

53,503.92

Item #8 Page 1 of 2

SGVCOG

Month Total Checking Metals 2766 MS4 Petty Cash LAIF

Jul 704,873.01$ 66,267.82$ 55,395.83$ 1,582.77$ 54,631.88$ 380.42$ 526,614.29$

Aug 965,261.76 326,656.57 55,395.83 1,582.77 54,631.88 380.42 526,614.29

Sep 988,218.49 349,613.30 55,395.83 1,582.77 54,631.88 380.42 526,614.29

Oct 929,846.79 290,920.73 55,395.83 1,582.77 54,631.88 380.42 526,935.16

Nov 831,138.76 192,212.70 55,395.83 1,582.77 54,631.88 380.42 526,935.16

Dec 750,998.57 112,052.93 55,395.83 1,582.77 54,631.88 400.00 526,935.16

Jan 616,659.57 177,334.79 55,409.79 1,582.77 54,659.42 400.00 327,272.80

Feb 556,504.43 117,179.65 55,409.79 1,582.77 54,659.42 400.00 327,272.80

Mar 499,201.10 159,835.20 55,437.43 1,582.77 54,672.90 400.00 227,272.80

Apr 529,284.65 189,918.75 55,437.43 1,582.77 54,672.90 400.00 227,272.80

May 488,372.92 149,007.02 55,437.43 1,582.77 54,672.90 400.00 227,272.80

June ‐

Month Checking 2766 Metals MS 4 Petty Cash LAIF

Jul ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$

Aug ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Sep ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Oct ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Nov ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dec ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Jan 200,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (200,000.00)

Feb ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Mar 100,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (100,000.00)

Apr ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

May ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

June

FY 2015 Bank Balances (per Books)

Savings

FY 2015 Transfers

Item #8 Page 2 of 2

Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority

4900 Rivergrade Rd. Ste. A120 Irwindale, CA 91706 (626) 962-9292 fax (626) 962-3552 www.theaceproject.org

ACE Construction Authority Board of Directors Meeting April 27, 2015 Minutes

Chairman Hadjinian called the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority to order at 2:03PM at the Montebello Council Chambers. 1. Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Fran Delach, Executive Director of the San Gabriel

Valley Council of Governments led the pledge of allegiance.

2. Roll Call – In attendance was: Jack Hadjinian, Chair Tim Spohn Barbara Messina Norma Macias

Staff Mark Christoffels, Chief Executive Officer Greg Murphy, Legal Counsel Deanna Stanley Amy Hanson Paul Hubler Cecilia Cardenas Phil Balmeo Genichi Kanow Charles Tsang Victoria Butler Ricky Choi

Guests Andrea Roldan, AECOM Fadi Rassam, Citadel CPM Keith Gillfillan, Moffatt Nichol Charlie Nakamoto, Jacobs Robert Williams, RailPros Kenny Tang, Cathay Bank Angela Chang, Cathy Bank Allen Ude, LA County Hank Fung, LA County Fran Delach, SGVCOG

3. Public Comments – There were no public comments.

1Item #9

Page 1 of 7

ACE Board of Directors Meeting April 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes Page 2

4. Approval of March 16, 2015 Meeting Minutes – A motion was made by member

Spohn and seconded by member Macias to approve the March 15, 2015 Board meeting minutes.

M/S/C/Spohn/Macias/Passed Abstentions: Messina, Rothman

5. Chairman’s Remarks – With the arrival of Supervisor Antonovich Chairman

Hadjinian extended his appreciation to the Supervisor for the public art installation of the 100th anniversary of Armenian genocide at the Music Center and Grand Park in Downtown Los Angeles April 24 through May 31st. He reported that a photo of his grandfather was a part of the exhibit which features first hand witness survivors of the genocide, an important historical depiction of human rights atrocities. He invited the Board, staff and audience to visit the exhibit. He reminded the Board that the legislative advocacy day was planned in Sacramento on Wednesday, April 29th. Chairman Hadjinian reminded the Board that the Finance Committee was meeting would be held at the ACE offices on Friday, May 1 at 11AM.

6. Board Comments – Member Spohn reported that Senator Bob Huff held a press conference earlier to introduce a Senate Constitutional Amendment that will stop the State’s diversion of transportation tax dollars into the general fund and away from road, highway and bridge funding. He reminded the Board that Senator Huff’s amendment was the only transportation infrastructure plan that did not include a tax increase.

7. Chief Executive Officer’s Report – Mr. Christoffels reminded the Board of the successful Fairway Drive groundbreaking ceremony. He also reported that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments approved the project changes to include the Montebello Corridor project.

8. Project Construction Progress Reports – Genichi Kanow reviewed construction project photos that depicted Charles Tsang reviewed the progress of the construction of the Nogales Street grade separation. He reported that he was exceptionally pleased with how quickly and efficiently the team worked through the temporary the closure of Nogales and San Jose and thanked the City, County, the contractors and the ACE outreach team. Member Spohn thanked staff for their efforts. Phil Balmeo reviewed the girder installation and cast in drill hole pile drive installation.

9. Hearing on Resolution of Necessity No. 15-02, 1320 Fullerton Road, City of Industry – Greg Murphy reviewed the purpose and process of the three hearings on the Board agenda. He reminded the Board that staff would present a report for

2Item #9

Page 2 of 7


each Resolution and the public will be given the opportunity to comment The Board will be given the opportunity to ask questions of staff. Thereafter the Board will be asked approve the Resolution of Necessity if it is found that the project is for the public’s interest, planned in the most efficient manner for public good and the right of way being acquired is necessary for the project. Mark Mendoza, Paragon Partners presented information on the property at 1320 Fullerton Road in the City of Industry. He reported that the affected property was a Shell gas station and car wash and ACE required two permanent roadway easements and a six month temporary construction easement, necessary due to the grading of the roadway to accommodate the grade separation at Fullerton and Gale in the City of Industry. The Chair opened the hearing for public comment. There were no public comments. The hearing was closed and a motion was made by member Messina and seconded by member Macias to approve the Resolution of Necessity No. 15-02 for the Fullerton Road grade separation project. The Resolution was unanimously approved.

10. Hearing on Resolution of Necessity No. 15-03, 1101-1121 Fullerton Road, City of Industry – Mr. Mendoza reported that the affected properties were that of two industrial buildings owned by Ann Carter, Trustee of the Pace Bypass Trust, occupied by Astro Spar. He indicated the project required two non exclusive permanent utility easements and an 18 month temporary construction easement necessary for the Fullerton Road project. The Chair opened the hearing for public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment period was closed. The hearing was closed and a motion was made by member Messina and seconded by member Rothman to approve Resolution of Necessity No. 15-03 for the Fullerton Road grade separation project. The Resolution was unanimously approved.

11. Hearing on Resolution of Necessity No. 15-04, 1250 Fullerton Road, City of Industry – Mr. Mendoza reported that the affected property was owned and occupied by Cathay Bank. He indicated the property required was a permanent roadway easement, a permanent footing easement, an 18-month temporary easement and two three month temporary construction easements. He indicated an offer was tendered and negotiations have been cooperatively ongoing and staff expected negotiations to conclude soon. He indicated representatives were present. The Chair opened the hearing for public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment period was closed. The hearing was closed and a motion was made by member Spohn and seconded

Item #9 Page 1 of 5

Item #9 Page 3 of 7


by member Messina to approve Resolution of Necessity No. 15-04 for the Fullerton Road grade separation project. The Resolution was unanimously approved.

12. Approval of Contract Amendment for Final Design to Biggs Cardosa Associates for the Fullerton Road Grade Separation Project – Mr. Christoffels indicated as the Fullerton project’s design moved forward and third parties were asked for comments the Union Pacific required several significant changes which would require extra effort from the designer, Biggs Cardosa Associates. He indicated changes also unplanned were modifications to utility relocations, affected property and additional street lights. He indicated staff has negotiated a cost of $802,414 and the final design should be complete by this summer.

A motion was made to approve authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute the fourt amendment to the design and engineering services contract with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $802,414 for a new contract value of $9,391, 733 to complete final engineering of the Fullerton Road grade separation project. M/S/C/Spohn/Messina/Unanimous

13. Approval to Terminate the Contract with Parsons Transportation Group for Construction Management Services for the Puente Avenue Grade Separation Project – Mr. Christoffels reported that changes in key personnel had become an issue for the construction management team on the Puente Avenue grade separation project. He indicated the key staff originally proposed by Parsons Transportation Group has left the firm and after several attempts Parsons was unable to compile a substitute team acceptable to ACE project management. He reported that after a series of meetings both parties have mutually agreed to terminate the contract with ACE to provide construction management services for the Puente Avenue grade separation project. He stressed that this should not discourage Parsons Transportation Group from bidding on future ACE projects. Further, he indicated Parsons has been working harmoniously with staff to prepare for a seamless transition to the new team and commended them for their efforts. The Board discussed this matter at length. Chairman Hadjinian indicated he would have preferred the Board provided confirmation from Parsons Transportation of their agreement to terminate the contract. Mr. Christoffels assured the Board that documentation from Parsons’ management was on file confirming the agreement. After discussion a motion was made to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute a contract amendment with Parsons Transportation Group to provide for a mutually agreed termination of the contract for construction management services for the Puente Avenue grade separation project. M/S/C/Messina/Spohn/Unanimous

Item #9 Page 2 of 5

Item #9 Page 4 of 7


14. Approval to Enter Into a Contract for Construction Management Services with

AECOM for the Puente Avenue Grade Separation Project – Mr. Christoffels indicated as soon as it became apparent that the construction management services could be at risk, staff examined the procurement for these services which was done in February 2013. He outlined the procurement and selection process. He indicated that once terminating the contract was evident staff began discussions and negotiations with AECOM, who ranked third during the construction management services procurement. He indicated this was done in an effort to keep the project moving forward. He reported that AECOM volunteered their time to work with Parsons in order to begin the transition. He reaffirmed how appreciative staff was with the level of cooperation by all parties. The Board discussed this matter. Andre Roland, AECOM addressed the Board. He indicated AECOM has had a long history with ACE, having provided services on the Nogales, Baldwin and Brea Canyon Road projects. He also commended the Parsons team for their level of professionalism and assured the Board that with their help the AECOM team was ready to begin work and understood the expectations of ACE. A motion was made to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute a contract with AECOM for construction management services for the Puente Avenue grade separation project in the amount of $4,208,823.

M/S/C/Spohn/Messina/Unanimous

15. Approval of Close-out of the Contract for Design and Engineering Services with AECOM for the Hamilton Blvd. Project in the City of Pomona – Mr. Christoffels reminded the Board that the originally planned Hamilton Blvd. Grade separation project in Pomona was recently eliminated as a viable project and revised to a safety improvement project. He indicated that decision has resulted in the need to formally close out the design and engineering services contract with AECOM, the firm assigned to the Hamilton project. A motion was made to accept the design contract with AECOM for the Hamilton Blvd grade separation project as satisfactorily complete.

M/S/C/Macias/Spohn/Unanimous

16. Approval of Contract with Railpros for Engineering Services for the At-Grade Safety Improvements in the City of Pomona – Mr. Christoffels indicated as a result of the change of a grade separation project to safety improvements in Pomona, design and engineering services were procured. The Board approved the selection of RailPros at the March meeting and directed staff to negotiate the contract. He reported staff has concluded negotiations and the scope of work is outlined in the agenda.

Item #9 Page 3 of 5

Item #9 Page 5 of 7


A motion was made to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute a design services contract with RailPros and issue a task order for conceptual design services for $625,554 for the at-grade crossing safety improvement project in the City of Pomona. M/S/C/Macias/Messina/Unanimous

17. Receive and File Settlement Agreement with Sammy Maloof – Greg Murphy indicated on October 27, 2014 the Board directed staff to reach a settlement with Sammy Maloof to avoid potential litigation. He explained that in order to satisfy Brown Act requirements the terms of the final agreement must be made public. Discussion ensued regarding the need for providing the several elements outlined in the agreement. Member Rothman asked the record to reflect that he was not a part of the closed session where this matter was discussed. Chairman Hadjinian reminded the Board that Sammy Maloof was to begin filming a reality show and the Board did not want to impede on the filming. A motion was made to receive and file the settlement agreement with Sammy Maloof. M/S/C/Messina/Spohn Naye: Rothman

18. Approval of ACE Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program – Mr. Christoffels indicated that a condition of receiving federal funds Caltrans requires compliance with disadvantaged business programs. He indicated periodically the programs are updated and reviewed the revisions in the agreement. He reminded the Board that the Durfee Avenue project will have a DBE requirement. A motion was made to approve the Disadvantage Business Enterprise Implement Agreement for Local Agencies.

M/S/C/Spohn/Rothman/Unanimous

19. Receive and File Quarterly Financial Reports – Mr. Christoffels reviewed the current project cost estimates and sources of funding. He indicated the current program estimate is $1.632B. A motion was made to receive and file the Quarterly Financial Reports. M/S/C/Messina/Spohn/Unanimous

20. Receive and File Quarterly Project & Mitigation Monitoring Reports – Mr. Christoffels reviewed the major activities completed during the past quarter. Major construction activities continued at the San Gabriel Trench and Nogales Street projects and the Baldwin Avenue grade separation was completed. Preconstruction activities were underway at Fairway and Puente. Design proceeded and right of way acquisition was underway at the Fullerton Road and Durfee projects. A request for proposal was issued for engineering and design of the Montebello corridor project.

Item #9 Page 4 of 5

Item #9 Page 6 of 7


A design firm was selected for the at-grade safety improvements in Pomona. A motion was made to receive and file the project mitigation monitoring reports. M/S/C/Rothman/Messina/Unanimous

21. Closed Session – The Board adjourned to closed session in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.8 to discuss real property negotiations. The Board returned to open session and legal counsel indicated there was no reportable action taken by the Board.

22. Adjournment – Chairman Hadjinian announced the next meeting of the ACE Board would be held June 1st and adjourned the meeting in memory of Michael Messina.

XDeanna Stanley

Clerk of the Board

Item #9 Page 5 of 5

Item #9 Page 7 of 7

REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015

TO: Governing Board Representatives and Alternates

FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director

RE: CANCELLATION OF THE JULY MEETING

RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution 15-17, taking the following actions cancelling the SGVCOG July 2015 Governing Board meeting.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

It is customary for the Governing Board to cancel its Regular Meeting for the months of July or August. Between the regular Governing Board meetings, there may be actions that must be undertaken on behalf of the SGVCOG. Resolution 14-29, approved in November 2014, authorizes the President to undertake such actions as may be necessary, and which cannot be delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting, after consulting with the other Officers. Additionally, the President retains the discretion to call a Special Meeting of the Governing Board as identified in Article III, Section B of the Bylaws.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Resolution No. 15-17


Attachment A

RESOLUTION NO. 15-17

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CANCELLING THE REGULAR JULY 2015 GOVERNING BOARD MEETING

WHEREAS, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments holds regular meetings to evaluate matters of importance to the SGVCOG and the San Gabriel Valley; and

WHEREAS, Governing Board Representatives and Alternate Governing Board

Representatives perform essential duties for the SGVCOG by their attendance at the regular scheduled meetings of the Governing Board; and

WHEREAS, regular meetings of the Governing Board are held on the third Thursday of

every month at 6 PM at the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices (602 E. Huntington Drive, Monrovia, California 91016); and

WHEREAS, Resolution 14-29 authorizes the President, in consultation with the other

officers, to act on the Governing Board’s behalf by undertaking all actions that are necessary for the proper administration and operation of the SGVCOG and that cannot be delayed until the next Regular Meeting of the Governing Board.

.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board hereby cancels the SGVCOG July 2015 Governing Board meeting.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, County of Los Angeles, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the 18th day of June, 2015.

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments __________________________________ Gene Murabito, President


Resolution No. 15-17 Page 2 of 2

Attest:

I, Francis M. Delach, Executive Director and Secretary of the Board of Directors of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, do hereby certify that Resolution 15-17 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Governing Board held on the 18th day of June, 2015, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________

Francis M. Delach, Secretary


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015



RE: SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE

RECOMMENDED ACTION Appoint Liz Reilly (Duarte) to serve as the SGVCOG’s second-appointed representative on the San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative and appoint Denis Bertone (San Dimas) to serve as the SGVCOG’s alternate.

BACKGROUND

The San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative was formed by the National Forest Foundation – the non-profit arm of the United States Forest Service – to bring diverse partners and residents together in order to identify, prioritize and advocate for investments, management objectives, and values that sustainably benefit the Angeles National Forest, the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, and all communities throughout the region. There are approximately 40 representatives representing different interests, including academia, environmental groups, local government, recreation, transportation, water, and businesses. The entire list is attached (Attachment 1). The Collaborative has been meeting since March 2015. The SGVCOG has one seat on the Community Collaborative. At its March 2015 meeting, the Governing Board appointed Joe Lyons (Claremont) as the SGVCOG’s delegate and Liz Reilly (Duarte) as the SGVCOG’s alternate. In May 2015, the SGVCOG received an invitation to select another representative to serve on the Community Collaborative. The Executive Committee discussed this at its June 2015 meeting and recommended that Liz Reilly, who currently serves as the alternate for the SGVCOG’s seat and who has attended at least one of the Collaborative meetings, be appointed as the SGVCOG’s second delegate. The Executive Committee also proposed that the Chair of the SGVCOG’s Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR) Committee – Denis Bertone (San Dimas) – be appointed as the alternate for both seats. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative Membership List


Interest Category Name Affiliation/Organization Title Geography1 Academia (Art & Culture) Vacant

2 Academia (Science) Chris Solek (Tentative) Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Biologist

3 Business Cliff Hamlow San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers Chair San Gabriel Valley

4 Business Adam Lane Los Angeles Business Council Legislative Coordinator Los Angeles/West Side5 Conservancies Margaret Clark Rivers & Mountains Conservancy Board Member San Gabriel Valley6 Conservancies Ann Croissant San Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy President Eastern San Gabriel Valley

7 Conservation Corps Daniel Oaxaca San Gabriel Valley Conservation Corps Founder San Gabriel Valley

8 Environment Belinda Faustinos San Gabriel Mountains Forever Coalition Chair San Gabriel Valley

9 Environment Daniel Rossman The Wilderness Society Senior Regional Representative All

10 Environment Nidia Erceg The Sierra Club Conservation Coordinator All

11 Environment Tim Brick Arroyo Seco Foundation Managing Director Pasadena

12 Environmental Justice and Ethnic Diversity Omar Gomez Consejo de Federaciones Mexicanas en Norteamérica (COFEM) Director of Programs and Public Policy South

13 Environmental Justice and Ethnic Diversity Mark Masaoka Asian Pacific Policy & Planning Council (A3PCON) Policy Director South

14 Environmental Justice and Ethnic Diversity Robert Garcia City Project Founding Director and Counsel South

15 K-12 Education/Youth Jeff Seymour El Monte City School District Former Supervisor San Gabriel Valley

16 Local Government Brent Tercero Gateway Council of Governments Board President and Pico Rivera Councilmember Gateway Community

17 Local Government TBD (Tentative) San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments

18 Local Government Joseph Lyons San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments City of Claremont, Council Member San Gabriel Valley

19 Local Government Andy Silva San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors (Rutherford) Government Relations Analyst East

20 Local Government Javier Hernandez LA County Board of Supervisors – 1st District (Solis) Transportation Deputy South

21 Local Government Kathryn Barger LA County Board of Supervisors – 5th District (Antonovich) Chief Deputy North/South

22 Local Government Jacqueline Ayer Association of Rural Town Councils (Antelope Valley) and Acton Town Council Town Council Member North

23 Local Government/Water Armond Ghazarian Los Angeles Department of Public Works Senior Civil Engineer, Watershed Management Division All

24 Native America Tribes (Local, Non-Federally Recognized) TBD (Tentative) Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation

25 Other/Community Jack Sahl Friends of the Angeles Executive Director All

26 Other/Community Claire Robinson Amigos de los Rios Managing Director San Gabriel Valley

27 Other/Community Alfredo Gonzalez Resources Legacy Fund Program Officer South

28 Other/Community Shawn Troeger Community of Wrightwood Citizen North

29 Other/Community Judy Nelson City of Glendora Mayor Eastern San Gabriel Valley

30 Public Health Dan Rosenfeld Community Partners, Trust for Public Land Director of Land Use Advisory Services South

31 Public Safety/First Responder Henry Herrera CalFire Forester, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Bernardino Unit All

32 Recreation Vacant

33 Recreation Vacant

34 Recreation Dianne Erskine Hellrigel Community Hiking Club Director West

35 Recreation Linda Wucherpfennig California Off-Road Vehicle Association (CORVA) Assistant Southern Regional Director All/North

36 Recreation Steve Messer Concerned Off-Road Bicyclists Association (CORBA) President All/South

37 Special Use Permits/Land Lease Holders Chuck Myers National Forest Homeowners Director National Forest

38 Special Use Permits/Land Lease Holders Ron Ellingson Mt. Baldy Lodge Owner Eastern San Gabriel Valley

39 Transportation Dale Benson California Department of Transportation, District 7 Senior Transportation Engineer All

40 Utilities Michelle Nuttall Southern California Edison Sr. Project Manager, Environmental Policy & Affairs All

41 Water Mike McNutt Palmdale Water District Public Information Officer/Environmental Manager North

42 Water Grace J. Kast Gateway Water Management Authority Executive Officer South

43 Water Greg Galindo San Gabriel Valley Water Association Board Member & General Manager of La Puente Valley Water Company South44 Youth Vacant

San Gabriel Mountains Community Collaborative

Attachment A


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015



RE: ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST (ACE) PROJECT FY 2015-16 BUDGET

RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution 15-18 adopting ACE’s 2015-16 Budget.


Attached is the proposed ACE Project FY 2014-15 budget. The ACE Project’s proposed budget was reviewed by the ACE Board of Directors and City Managers’ Steering at their June meetings, and both recommended approval by the SGVCOG Governing Board. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Resolution No. 15-18 and ACE Project FY 2015-16 Budget.


Attachment A

RESOLUTION NO. 15-18 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG) ADOPTING THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST (ACE) PROJECT FY

2015-16 BUDGET WHEREAS, the SGVCOG Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and Bylaws direct that the

SGVCOG Governing Board adopted adopt a Budget for the ACE Project prior to July 1 of every year;

WHEREAS, the ACE Project Budget serves as the basis for the ACE Project’s programs and activities;

WHEREAS, the ACE Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is responsible for the development and implementation of the ACE Project Budget;

WHEREAS, there are funds within this budget document that are for specific purposes and appropriations of those funds will comply with accounting principles and governing rules of the funding sources.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board adopts the ACE Project’s FY 2015-16 Budget, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.





Attest:


AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________



TRENCH

S A N G A B R I E L

PROJECT

N O G A L E S S T .

PROJECT

P U E N T E A V E .

City of Industry

City of San Gabriel

City of Industry

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget

P R O P O S E D

Attachment A Exhibit A


Completed

B A L D W I N A V E

City of El Monte

City of Industry

Groundbreaking

F A I R W A Y D R .



ORGANIZATION

Board of Directors

Mayor Jack Hadjinian

City of Montebello

Chair

Councilwoman Juli Costanzo

City of San Gabriel

Vice Chair

Mayor Michael D. Antonovich

LA County Board of Supervisors

Councilwoman Norma Macias

City of El Monte

Councilwoman Barbara Messina

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, City of Alhambra

Mayor Elliott Rothman

City of Pomona

Mayor Tim Spohn

City of Industry

Mayor Paul Eaton

Ex-Officio City of Montclair

Mark Christoffels

Chief Executive Officer

Office

ACE Construction Authority

4900 Rivergrade Road Suite A210

Irwindale, CA. 91706

Phone: (626) 962-9292

Fax: (626) 962-9393

www.theaceproject.org

San Gabriel Valley Council Of Governments

1000 S. Freemont Ave Unit 42 Suite Alhambra, CA 91803

Phone: (626) 547-1800 Fax: (626) 547-1285

www.sgvcog.org

Fran Delach, Interim Executive Director



http://www.theaceproject.org/


Contents

BUDGET MESSAGE .................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 3

PROJECT STATUS ..................................................................................................... 4

Grade Separations.......................................................................................... 4

FY 2015 FUNDING STATUS ........................................................................................ 6

COMMITTED FUNDING & SOURCES (in millions) ......................................................... 7

FY 2015 BUDGET STATUS ......................................................................................... 8

FY 2015 PROJECT GOALS ........................................................................................ 10

Project Implementation ................................................................................. 10

Funding/Financial Administration .................................................................... 10

Outreach ...................................................................................................... 11

2016 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 12

2016 PROPOSED BUDGET ....................................................................................... 13

Indirects ....................................................................................................... 14

Directs ......................................................................................................... 15

PROJECT FINANCING .............................................................................................. 16

FY 2016 PROJECT GOALS ........................................................................................ 17

Project Implementation ................................................................................. 17

Funding/Financial Administration .................................................................... 17

Outreach ...................................................................................................... 17

BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL ............................................................................ 18

APPENDICES........................................................................................................... 19

Project Cost Estimates ............................................................................................. 26

Organizational Chart ............................................................................................... 27



Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority Proposed FY 2016 Budget Page 1

BUDGET MESSAGE

As expected, Fiscal Year 2015 proved to be an exceptionally demanding year for ACE,

as projects moved from conceptual design, into the design queue and into construction.

Those already in construction met project milestones and one project was completed.

As a result, increased level of activity was felt in all areas from outreach, procurement,

right of way, finance and accounting, auditing and of course, project management.

During this time, open houses unveiled plans for the Fullerton Road grade separation

project in Industry and Durfee Avenue grade separation project in Pico Rivera. ACE

participated in or provided information for community meetings held to discuss project

options for the Cities of Montebello and Pomona. As a result, both Cities ultimately

agreed for ACE not to move forward with the originally planned projects. The City of

Pomona agreed that the grade separation at Hamilton Avenue was not an acceptable

construction option but rather at-grade safety improvements should be done instead. A

series of community meetings held in Montebello ended a 15-year debate on a

preferred project for the City. In March 2015 the Montebello Council agreed for ACE to

proceed with design for two grade separations – one at Montebello Blvd. and another at

Maple Ave along with safety improvements at Vail and Greenwood Aves.

The Baldwin Avenue grade separation project in El Monte is now complete and a ribbon

cutting celebration was held in January 2015. This project was constructed ahead of

schedule and under budget. The anticipated $4M savings will be transferred to other

ACE projects. The completion of this project concludes all of the planned projects for

the City of El Monte.

Major construction activity continued on the Nogales Street grade separation and San

Gabriel Trench projects. Both teams are diligently working to keep each of the projects

on schedule. Ground breaking ceremonies were held for the Puente Avenue grade

separation and the Fairway Drive grade separation projects, with both projects now

under construction. The Durfee Avenue, and Fullerton Road projects are in final design




and it is anticipated that construction contracts will be awarded for both of these

projects in 2016.

The concept of the ACE Project seemingly stayed a topic of discussion this fiscal year

due to unfortunate news media coverage on several train versus vehicle accidents. It

remains clear that grade separations are the obvious answer to avoiding these

encounters. However, both state and federally funding for projects such as ours is

scarce and continues to be our most challenging effort. Nevertheless, during this period

we were able to secure several commitments through various state programs. The

California Transportation Commission (CTC) voted to allocate $71 million in Prop 1B

Trade Corridor Funds to the Fairway Drive project in Industry. The CTC also approved

$18.3 million from the Highway Railroad Crossing Safety account for the Fullerton Road

grade separation project also in the City of Industry.

Finally, after several years of extensive discussions by the ACE and SGVCOG Governing

Boards regarding separating ACE from the SGVCOG, both Boards agreed to keep the

entities as one and continue collaborative efforts toward common goals. I firmly

believe that with the talents of both staffs working together this will prove to be a wise

decision.

Mark Christoffels

Chief Executive Officer




BACKGROUND

The planning for the ACE Project, done in the late 1990s, was based on increases in

train traffic through the San Gabriel Valley from the then current level of approximately

55 trains per day, to approximately 160 by 2020. Until the recession and its effect on

international trade activity through the San Pedro Bay ports, growth in train traffic was

tracking close to estimates. Current forecasts are showing a significant re-bound in

activity at the ports and rail traffic has also increased significantly.

The originally adopted ACE Project included safety improvements at 39 grade crossings

located throughout the San Gabriel Valley and 22 grade crossing eliminations. The

original project estimate from 1998 was updated to take into account inflation over the

last 15 years, higher than anticipated right-of-way requirements, and increased railroad

and utility relocation costs. In late 2007 ACE increased the project cost estimate from

$910 million to $1.404 billion (without an allowance for escalation over time), which

remained fairly consistent until the remaining project scope was restudied in 2010-11.

Subsequently in 2013, the scope of the adopted grade separation program was

amended by changing several project locations and adding two additional grade

separations. The scope was again amended in 2015 deleting the originally proposed

grade separations at Hamilton Drive (Pomona) and Greenwood Avenue (Montebello).

Replacing the Hamilton Drive project is a series of at-grade safety improvements in the

same vicinity. Montebello has chosen ACE to build two grade separations (Montebello

Blvd. and Maple Ave.) along with at-grade safety improvements to create a Quiet

Corridor. With the adoption of these project changes the overall ACE program cost

stands at $1.728 billion.

To date ACE has implemented 39 crossing safety improvements and completed eight

grade separations. There are four projects in construction (Nogales St., San Gabriel

Trench, Puente Ave. and Fairway Dr.) for a total of eight grade separations underway.

Nogales is expected to be completed by the end of the 2015 calendar year. Two grade




separation projects (Fullerton Rd. and Durfee Ave.) are nearing final design. The

Pomona at-grade safety improvements as well as the Montebello Quiet Corridor projects

will begin preliminary design in fiscal year 2016. ACE’s final grade separation planned

(Turnbull Canyon Rd) is also expected to begin preliminary design this fiscal year.

PROJECT STATUS

The following is a summary of the status of the active project components:

Grade Separations

Three grade separation projects in heavy construction (San Gabriel Trench, Nogales

Street, Puente Avenue)

One grade separation awaiting completion of UPRR work (Temple Avenue);

One grade separation project in pre-construction activities (Fairway)

Two grade separation projects in final design (Durfee, Fullerton)

One project in preliminary design (Pomona At Grade Crossing Improvements)

One project out for bids for design and engineering services (Montebello)

One project preparing to release requests for proposals for design and engineering

services (Turnbull Canyon)




The ACE project area map depicts eight completed projects to date and updated

activities for the projects in construction, in design and approved future projects.




FY 2015 FUNDING STATUS

The current cost estimate for all completed or active projects is $1.633 billion. A

detailed listing of the completed and currently active projects as well as proposed future

projects is shown in the appendix under Project Cost Estimates. Shown on the page

following is the total funding sources and commitments to the ACE program since its

inception. Matching these funding commitments of $1.652 billion against the projected

expenditures of $1.633 billion plus $11.2 million in start up and administrative costs

shows that the ACE program currently has $7.4 million in funding available for the one

remaining project in the adopted ACE program that is not fully funded (Turnbull Canyon

Grade Separation). Design of this project will be initiated in FY 2016, however right of

way or construction activities will not begin unless or until ACE can secure funding for

this project which is estimated to be $70 million.

Federal 14.8%

State 38.9%

MTA 41.7%

Other 4.1% Unallocated 0.4%

ACE PROJECT AUTHORIZED FUNDING SOURCES $1,652.7M




COMMITTED FUNDING & SOURCES (in millions)

Federal

Federal TEA-21 Highway Demonstration Earmark (FY 1999-2003) $132.556

Federal SAFETEA-LU (FY 2005-2009) 67.346

FY 2000 FHWA Discretionary Sec. 118 (c) Trade Corridor Funds 1.240

FY 2001 FHWA Highway Fund Transportation Appropriation 1.497






2009 Surface Transportation Program 0.570

2009 Federal Railroad Administration Grade Crossing Program 2.544

2010 Surface Transportation Program Appropriation 1.849

Railway-Highways Crossing (Section 130) Program 10.000

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Funds 6.936

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funds 6.347

Total $244.690

State

1998 State ITIP Discretionary Funds (FY 2000-2004) $38.982

State Transportation Congestion Relief Program Funds 130.300

Section 290 Public Utility Commission Funds 10.000

Prop. 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Funds 420.497

Prop 1B Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Account 43.906

Total $643.685

MTA

MTA 17% Local Match Commitment $259.891

MTA Call for Projects Funding 28.849

MTA Measure R 400.000

Total $688.740

Other

City/County/MWD Funds $12.123

Railroad Contribution to Active Projects 33.939

Betterments 26.274

Estimated proceeds from sale of excess property 3.224

Total $75.560

Total Funds Committed $1,652.675

Less Project Costs (1,645.239)

Remaining Funds Available $7.436




FY 2015 BUDGET STATUS

The Board of Directors adopted the Fiscal Year 2015 budget in June 2014.

Page 20 in the appendices compares the FY 2015 Budget to the estimated actual

expenses as of June 30, 2015.

As in the past, ACE’s annual budget is broken down into two categories – indirect

project expense and direct project expense.

Indirect Project Expense

Indirect expenses (such as salaries, rent, office supplies, etc.) that cannot easily be

charged to specific project activities are billed to grants based on an annual indirect rate

plan approved by Caltrans. The FY 2015 rate was approved by Caltrans and includes

adjustments for over or under spending in prior years. ACE anticipates indirect

expenses for FY 2015 will be $93,000 under budget (approximately 3%). Conversely,

annual budget underruns generally mean slower progress and can result, depending on

where the under run occurs, in under collection of indirect costs until a later date. For

FY 2015 ACE will collect all of the indirect costs.

Direct Project Expense

Direct expenses are those than can be readily associated with specific projects such as

staff or program management time, engineering or construction management contracts,

property acquisition, construction, and miscellaneous support costs. As a general rule,

annual budget overruns in direct annual costs are a positive sign of faster than

assumed progress, if total project costs aren’t increasing.




Our FY 2015 budget was based on assumptions that fell short of our expectations. This

fiscal year we experienced delays in right of way acquisitions and third party utility work

that affected our aggressive budget goals. Overall, direct expenses will be under budget

by $49.051 million, or 28%. The most significant projected direct cost under runs will

occur in construction and right of way acquisitions. Construction third party utility work

progressed at a slower pace than anticipated and this in turn caused related

construction activity to be delay. It should be noted that with every project we are

reliant on third parties responsible for utility relocations to be accommodating to our

project schedules which is one of the most common causes of delays to our projects.

Anticipated expenses in right of way acquisitions were more challenging to consummate

either through delayed court proceedings or settlement agreements. While we cannot

easily project how smoothly we can complete property transactions, we will continue

forward with this effort and expect transactions which were to conclude in FY 2015 to

certainly be resolved in FY 2016.

Surprisingly, despite these unanticipated hurdles general construction continued and

the delays seemed to have little effect on the overall project schedule. In most cases

goals were met and in some cases were even exceeded. The ability to adjust field work

and continue on schedule reflects well of talents of the project management teams.




FY 2015 PROJECT GOALS

Last fiscal year’s budget set forth a number of goals for FY 2015. The following is the

anticipated status of each goal as of June 30, 2015:

Project Goal Status

Nogales Street Construction 65% complete Construction expected to be at 70%

San Gabriel Trench Construction 45% complete Construction expected to be at 50%

Baldwin Avenue Construction 100% complete Complete.

Fairway Drive Construction 10% complete Construction expected to be at 10%

Puente Avenue Construction 20% complete Construction expected to be at 20%

Durfee Avenue Design 65% complete Expected to be 70% completed by June 30

Fullerton Road Design 100% complete Expected to be 99% completed by June 30

Hamilton Drive Design 40% complete This project was removed from the ACE

Program and replaced with at-grade

improvements. The Hamilton project is being

closed out.

Goal Status

Ensure ACE’s interest in Federal National Freight

Program

Accomplished and ongoing—ACE Board

supported two freight funding bills and

Administration proposed $18 billion freight

funding program

Timely completion of ‘clean’ financial & single audits Completed and adopted by the Board in

February 2015

Complete 16 professional services contract audits Exceeded goal - 20 contracts audits

completed.

Complete 5 quality control/quality assurance audits Completed.

Project Implementation

Funding/Financial Administration




Outreach

Goal Status

Conduct environmental, community, school effort for

five projects in construction & three in design

Completed

Complete one groundbreaking ceremony Groundbreaking ceremonies were held for

Puente Avenue and Fairway Drive projects.

Complete one ribbon cutting ceremony The ribbon cutting ceremony was held for the

Baldwin Avenue grade separation project in

January 2015

Complete ACE website design The new ACE website was launched in July

2014.




2016 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

ACE has developed and implemented budgeting, accounting and project control

systems that meet generally accepted accounting standards with the goal of delivering

a project that accomplishes its intended purposes as expeditiously and cost effectively

as possible. The budget for FY 2016 (July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016) was

developed in two parts: anticipated project related direct expenses and general indirect

expenses.

The proposed FY 2016 direct expense budget assumed four projects in construction,

two projects completing design and land acquisition, and three projects in design. For

the active construction projects (San Gabriel Trench, Fairway, Puente and Nogales) staff

used the approved construction schedules to determine the rate of construction and

determine the anticipated contractor expenditures. For the two projects in design

(Durfee and Fullerton) staff included in the project budget the final design as well as

the current estimated cost of land acquisition. Finally, for the three new projects

anticipated to be in design, (At-grade safety improvements, Montebello and Turnbull

Canyon) staff accounted for the design costs. It should be noted that the pace and

cost of land acquisition is the most speculative part of the budget estimates and may

change if cost settlements require court action.

The indirect budget is developed by line item, based on past experience and changed

levels of effort anticipated in FY 2016 The ratio of all indirect costs to direct labor and

fringe benefit cost is used to calculate the Indirect Cost Allocation Plan (ICAP) that is

submitted to Caltrans for approval, and becomes the basis for billing indirect costs in FY

2016.

The FY 2016 budget does not request Board approval for new contracts amendments to

existing contracts. Each contract authorization will be brought to the Board for

necessary action.




2016 PROPOSED BUDGET

The proposed FY 2016 budget is presented on page 21 of this document. However, it is

also important to report information for fiscal year 2015. A summary of the 2015 fiscal

year end estimate versus the adopted budget is shown on page 20. Page 22 returns to

outline the details of the proposed 2016 budget and depicts all proposed direct

expenditures by project. Page 23 reflects estimates for revenues, expenses and income

from our cash flow financing. Page 24 compares the estimated actual budget for FY

2015 to the proposed budget for FY 2016. Page 25 compares the adopted budget for

FY 2015 to the proposed budget for FY 2016. Finally, page 26 is an updated cost

estimate of all of our projects underway or adopted as well as the projects which have

been completed.

The pace of active projects is the major factor in the annual budget projection. For FY

2016 we have made the following assumptions about the projects having the biggest

impact on our spending estimates:

Nogales Street (Industry/LA County) – Construction 100% complete.

San Gabriel Trench (San Gabriel) – Construction 70% complete.

Puente Avenue (Industry) – Construction 50% complete.

Fairway Drive (Industry/LA County) – Construction 35% complete.

Durfee Avenue (Pico Rivera) – Design 100% complete.

Fullerton Road (Industry) – Construction contract awarded

At-Grade Safety Improvements (Pomona) – Design 35% complete.

Montebello Corridor (Montebello) – Design 35% complete

Turnbull Canyon Road – Design 5% complete




Indirects

Personnel – Salary & Wages/Fringe Benefits – The FY 2016 budget includes 24 full time

positions and one part time position as authorized and shown on the organizational

chart on page 27. Staff is not proposing any additions to number of staff; however one

position has been reclassified. Staff is also proposing not to fill two vacant positions at

this time. The budget does provide for a 3% merit pool to be allocated based on

performance evaluations. There is no CPI or fixed percentage salary adjustments

included in the budget.

The following addresses significant line item changes proposed for FY 2016 compared

to the FY 2015 budgeted. It should be noted that when compared to the overall FY

2015 budget, there is very little increase in the proposed FY2016 budget ($173 million

vs $185 million).

Program Management ($7,000/35% Increase) – This increase reflects an increase in

project activity such as design support and right of way acquisitions.

Insurance (-$47,000/45% decrease) – This reflects an accounting change whereby

project related insurance premiums are shown as direct expenses, charged directly to

project budgets.

Training ($7,000/19% increase) – This reflects required training for ACE staff working

on labor compliance, contract compliance, and the general accounting system.




Directs Program Management (-$569,000/14% decrease) – This decrease is due to most of the

environmental work completed on several projects. In addition, this reflects a change

in the level of support for right of way acquisition activities needed for the projects

going into final design and preparing to be put out to bid.

Legal (+$466,000/42% increase) – This increase reflects the legal support that will be

required as ACE completes the land acquisitions on Durfee and Fullerton, as well as

handling ongoing court actions related to properties acquired by eminent domain for

Puente and Fairway.

Right of Way Acquisition (-$22.5 million/56% decrease) – This reflects the fact that

most of the purchase costs associated with the land acquisition for Puente and Fairway

have been incurred as well as a majority of the costs for Fullerton.

Construction Management (+$1.39 million/19% increase) – This increase reflects

continued full scale construction activities on the San Gabriel Trench and Puente

Avenue projects, completing the Nogales Street grade separation as well as the addition

of construction activities on Fullerton Road and Fairway Drive projects.

Construction (+$37.8 million/48% increase) – This increase reflects continued full scale

construction activities on the San Gabriel Trench and Puente Avenue projects,

completing the Nogales Street grade separation as well as the addition of construction

activities on Fullerton Road and Fairway Drive projects.




PROJECT FINANCING

In 2012 after retiring the GAN Program, ACE began to utilize funds from a $45 million

working capital loan from the the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation

Authority (Metro). Based on past and projected cash flows, ACE will be able to fund

the interest expenses on the working capital loan from the proceeds on ACE’s short

term investments.

Because the ACE Construction Authority continues to have no meaningful sources of

revenue other than grants and contributions from funding agencies, ACE staff continues

to make every effort to ensure that all other expenditures are reimbursable by federal,

state or local grants. Staff is making every effort it can to operate in this stringent

financial environment, but the Board needs to be aware of the practical difficulties of

recovering every expense. We use this Budget submittal to annually advise the Board of

the cumulative exposure for unreimbursed costs the Authority is incurring. As of this

date, we have incurred the following unreimbursed or unreimbursable expenses, dating

back to the beginning of the ACE Construction Authority:

FY 1998 $71,185 Expenses incurred by SGVCOG prior to 6/30/98 not

reimbursed by MTA

FY 2000 11,298 Net interest cost of loan from City of Industry

FY 2001 2,738 Net interest cost of loan from City of Industry

FY 2006 105,529 Payment to SGVCOG for claimed unreimbursed

expenses

$190,750 Estimated total – project-life-to-date

Based on experience to date, we expect the cumulative surpluses from railroad

contributions will be sufficient to pay for our cumulative unreimbursed expense.




FY 2016 PROJECT GOALS

Staff proposes to accomplish the following by June 30, 2016 (unless otherwise noted):

Nogales Street (Industry/LA County) – Construction 100% complete.

San Gabriel Trench (San Gabriel) – Construction 70% complete.

Puente Avenue (Industry) – Construction 50% complete.

Fairway Drive (Industry/LA County) – Construction 35% complete.

Durfee Avenue (Pico Rivera) – Design 100% complete.

Fullerton Road (Industry) – Construction contract awarded.

At-Grade Safety Improvements (Pomona) – Design 35% complete.

Montebello Corridor (Montebello) – Design 35% complete

Turnbull Canyon Road – Design 5% complete

Ensure ACE’s interests are represented in Federal National Freight Program

Pursue additional funding for remaining grade separation project or potential

shortfall on existing projects

Timely completion of “clean” financial and single audits

Maintain at least 25% of borrowed funds invested

Complete 18 professional services contract audits

Complete 4 quality control/quality assurance audits

Conduct environmental, community and school outreach effort for five projects in

construction (San Gabriel Trench, Nogales Street, Puente Avenue, Fairway Drive

and Fullerton Road)

Project Implementation

Funding/Financial Administration

Outreach




Conduct community and school outreach efforts to four projects in design

(Durfee Avenue, At Grade Crossing Safety Improvements Project, Montebello

Corridor and Turnbull Canyon Road)

Conduct groundbreaking ceremony for the Fullerton Road grade separation

project

Conduct ribbon cutting ceremony for the Nogales Street grade separation project

Conduct media outreach event for San Gabriel Trench project

BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL

The proposed budget will be presented to the ACE Board and to the public for

consideration at the June 1, 2015 ACE Board Special meeting. Any changes will be

incorporated into the approved budget and submitted to the San Gabriel Valley Council

of Governments (SGVCOG) for consideration at their next meeting.

Staff will continue to provide both the ACE And SGVCOG Governing Boards with project

status and budget updates on a quarterly basis. The Finance Committee is also

provided a more comprehensive discussion of the financial state of the ACE Program at

quarterly meetings.

Finally, a mid-year review of the upcoming fiscal year will be done in January and

proposed revisions, if any, will be submitted for ACE and San Gabriel Valley Council of

Governments Boards for approval at that time.




APPENDICES

FY 2015 Budget vs Estimated Actuals

FY 2016 Proposed Budget

FY 2016 Direct Cost Budgets by Project

FY 2016 Proposed Revenue and Expenditure Budget

FY 2015 Estimated Actuals vs FY 2016 Proposed Budget

FY 2015 Approved Budget vs FY 2016 Proposed Budget




Expenditures

Year End

Estimate

FY 2015

Budget

Under/

(Over)

Indirect

Personnel

Salaries and Wages 1,395$ 1,435$ 40$

Fringe Benefits 692 659 (33)

Board/Employee Expense

Auto/Travel 26 32 6

Training/Memberships 30 30 -

Board Expense 21 21 -

Professional Services

Auditing/Accounting 41 45 4

Legal-Agency Support 30 40 10

Program Management 43 20 (23)

State/Federal Advisory Services 252 252 -

Risk Management 65 65 -

Insurance 103 150 47

Equipment Expense 68 91 23

Office Expense 236 237 1

Office Operations 64 79 15

Other 8 11 3

Total Indirect 3,074 3,167 93

Direct

Salaries and Wages 1,347 1,297 (50)


Auto Allowance Allocated to Projects 22 25 3

Program Management 2,169 4,181 2,012

Legal 769 1,102 333

Design 4,787 8,835 4,048

ROW Acquisition 21,066 51,187 30,121

Utility Relocation 6,001 7,700 1,699

Construction Mgt 8,132 7,210 (922)

Railroad 3,775 6,720 2,945

Construction 72,162 80,776 8,614

UPRR Invoice Review 18 18 -

Third Party Review 683 899 216

Utilities (Site) 4 28 24

Advertising 10 38 28

Total Direct 121,490 170,541 49,051

Total Expenditures 124,564$ 173,708$ 49,144$

FY 2015 Budget vs. Estimated Actual

($ in thousands)




Expenditures

FY 2016

Proposed

Indirect

Personnel

Salaries and Wages 1,457$

Fringe Benefits 768


Auto/Travel 28

Training/Memberships 37

Board Expense 21


Auditing/Accounting 50

Legal-Agency Support 25

Program Management 27

State/Federal Advisory Services 252

Risk Management 65

Insurance 103

Equipment Expense 75

Office Expense 237

Office Operations 71

Other 9

Total Indirect3,225

Direct

Salaries and Wages 1,376

Fringe Benefits 534

Auto Allowance Allocated to Projects 27

Program Management 3,662

Legal 1,568

Design 8,178

ROW Acquisition 28,669

Utility Relocation 4,762

Construction Mgt 8,600

Railroad 5,280

Construction 118,600

UPRR Invoice Review 13

Third Party Review 994

Utilities (Site) 2

Advertising 28

Total Direct 182,293

Total Expenditures185,518$

FY 2016 Proposed Budget

($ in thousands)




Expenditures

FY 2016

Proposed Baldwin Temple SG Trench

Puente

Avenue

Fairway

Drive Fullerton Durfee

Montebello

Corridor

Turnbull

Canyon

AT-Grade

Crossing

Nogales

(LA)

Direct

Salaries and Wages 1,376$ 11$ 6$ 206$ 253$ 214$ 158$ 145$ 92$ 85$ 80$ 126$

Fringe Benefits 534 4 2 80 98 83 62 56 36 33 31 49

Auto Allowance Allocated to Projects 27 - - 7 4 4 3 4 0 1 0 3

Program Management 3,662 110 - 345 275 596 755 962 55 29 37 496

Legal 1,568 - - 12 250 368 450 401 5 - 5 77

Design 8,178 - - 200 100 150 844 1,950 2,000 1,500 1,400 33

ROW Acquisition 28,669 - - 637 1,856 6,377 1,029 12,970 - - - 5,800

Utility Relocation 4,762 - - - 1,000 1,500 2,112 - - - - 150

Construction Mgt 8,600 - - 4,000 1,500 1,200 350 450 - - - 1,100

Railroad 5,280 - - 2,000 1,000 1,500 110 90 50 - 30 500

Construction 118,600 100 - 50,000 25,000 22,000 1,500 - - - - 20,000

UPRR Invoice Review 13 - - 1 2 - 3 1 2 1 2 2

Third Party Review 994 5 - 200 60 60 125 339 120 5 30 50

Utilities (Site) 2 - - - 2 - - - - - - -

Advertising 28 - - - - - 5 1 - - 2 20

Total Direct 182,293$ 230$ 8$ 57,690$ 31,402$ 34,051$ 7,507$ 17,369$ 2,360$ 1,653$ 1,617$ 28,407$

FY 2016 Direct Cost Project Budgets

($ in thousands)




Expenditures

FY 2016

Proposed

Revenues

Federal 20,064$

State 112,220

Local 53,234

Total Revenue 185,518

Operating Expenditures

Direct

Design 9,844

ROW Acquisition 37,252

Construction 123,128

Construction Mgt 11,421

Betterment 648

Total Direct 182,293

Indirect

Personnel 2,225

Board/Employee Expense 86

Professional Services 419

Insurance 103

Equipment Expense 75

Office Expense 237

Office Operations 71

Other 9

Total Indirect 3,225

Total Operating Expenditures 185,518

Excess of Revenue over Expenditures

before Financing -

Financing Income

Investment Revenue 424

Interest and Related Expense (324)

Net Financing Income/Expense 100

Excess of Revenues over Expenditues 100

Fund Balance Beginning of Period 6,815$

Fund Balance End of Period 6,915$

FY 2016 Proposed Revenue and Expenditure Budget

($ in thousands)




Expenditures

FY 2015

Estimate

FY 2016

Proposed

Incr/

Decr

Indirect

Personnel


Fringe Benefits 692 768 76


Auto/Travel 26 28 2

Training/Memberships 30 37 7




Legal-Agency Support 30 25 (5)

Program Management 43 27 (16)


Risk Management 65 65 - -

Insurance 103 103 -

Equipment Expense 68 75 7

Office Expense 236 237 1

Office Operations 64 71 6

Other 8 9 1


Direct

Salaries and Wages 1,347 1,376 29



Program Management 2,169 3,662 1,493

Legal 769 1,568 799

Design 4,787 8,178 3,391

ROW Acquisition 21,066 28,669 7,603

Utility Relocation 6,001 4,762 (1,239)

Construction Mgt 8,132 8,600 468

Railroad 3,775 5,280 1,505

Construction 72,162 118,600 46,438

UPRR Invoice Review 18 13 (5)


Utilities (Site) 4 2 (2)

Advertising 10 28 18

Total Direct 121,490 182,293 60,803


FY 2015 Estimated Actuals vs. FY 2016 Proposed Budget

($ in thousands)




Expenditures

FY 2015

Approved

FY 2016

Proposed

Incr/

Decr

Indirect

Personnel




Auto/Travel 32 28 (4)

Training/Memberships 30 37 7




Legal-Agency Support 40 25 (15)

Program Management 20 27 7


Risk Management 65 65 -

Insurance 150 103 (47)

Equipment Expense 91 75 (16)

Office Expense 237 237 -

Office Operations 79 71 (8)

Other 11 9 (2)


Direct

Salaries and Wages 1,297 1,376 79



Program Management 4,181 3,662 (519)

Legal 1,102 1,568 466

Design 8,835 8,178 (657)

ROW Acquisition 51,187 28,669 (22,518)

Utility Relocation 7,700 4,762 (2,938)

Construction Mgt 7,210 8,600 1,390

Railroad 6,720 5,280 (1,440)

Construction 80,776 118,600 37,824

UPRR Invoice Review 18 13 (5)


Utilities (Site) 28 2 (26)

Advertising 38 28 (10)

Total Direct 170,541 182,293 11,752


FY 2015 Approved vs. FY 2016 Proposed

($ in thousands)




Project Cost Estimates

($ in millions)

*Excludes $11.9 million for start up/misc. agency costs

PROJECTS UNDERWAY/COMPLETED COST

GRADE CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS:

39 Crossings Corridor Safety Upgrade IRRIS At-Grade Crossing Safety Improvements Project

$27.8 $6.4

$19.8

GRADE SEPARATIONS:

Nogales St. (Alh) (Industry/West Covina) $49.8

East End Ave./Reservoir St. (Pomona) $79.0

Ramona Blvd. (El Monte) $53.1

Temple Ave. and Temple Ave. 4th Track (Pomona) $92.1

Brea Canyon Rd. (LA) (Industry/Diamond Bar) $73.9

Sunset Ave./Orange Ave. (Industry) $93.8

Baldwin Ave. (El Monte) $76.7

Nogales St. (LA) (Industry/LA County) $118.0

San Gabriel Trench (Ramona St., Mission Rd., Del Mar Ave., San Gabriel Blvd.) (San Gabriel)

$336.9

Fullerton Rd. (LA) (Industry/LA County) $145.2

Fairway Dr. (LA) (Industry/LA County) $141.8

Puente Ave. (Alh) (Industry/LA County) $98.1

Durfee Ave. (LA) (Pico Rivera) $78.4

Montebello Corridor (LA) (Montebello) $142.0

Turnbull Canyon Rd. (Industry/LA County) $96.0

TOTAL $1,728.8*




Organizational Chart

VACANT – NOT REQUESTED TO FILL RECLASSIFIED – FORMERLY CLASSIFIED AS RECEPTIONIST




Indirect Expenses

Personnel

Salaries and Wages Salaries for employees and temporary

help (charged both as indirect and direct

expenses).

Fringe Benefits Paid benefits such as health insurance,

life insurance and pension.

Board/Employee Expenses

Auto/Travel Employee travel for business purposes.

Includes registration fees and local

mileage reimbursement or auto

allowance.

Training/Memberships Authority and professional

memberships; ongoing professional

training.

Board Related Expenses Per diem and Board travel.


Auditing/Accounting Financial auditing and accounting

services.

Legal - Agency Support General counsel, construction legal and

any other legal services not directly

chargeable to specific construction

projects.

Program Management Contracted project administration

support which cannot be charged to

specific projects. Consists primarily of

special studies, community relations,




and those activities of our support

contractors which address general

agency needs.

State/Federal Advisory Services State & Federal legislation research,

monitoring and funding application

services.

Risk Management Administrative fee for analyzing

insurance requirements, reviewing ACE

and contractor policies and obtaining

insurance.

Insurance Annual insurance premiums

Equipment Expense Purchase/lease and maintenance of

office equipment such as copiers, fax

machines and computers.

Office Expense Rent on ACE office space, including

maintenance and miscellaneous

expense.

Office Operations Office supplies, postage,

printing/copying and telephones.

Other General advertising, subscriptions,

payroll service fees, etc.

Direct Expenses

Betterments City funded work that City desires to have

ACE construct concurrently with project

(e.g. street modifications, beautifications)

Program Management The portion of overall program

management expenses which can be

directly charged to projects; consists




primarily of design and utility relocation

support, land acquisition related services

and office support.

Legal Legal expenses which can be directly

charged to specific projects for land

acquisition activities.

Design Preparation of project plans, specifications

and estimates and support during

construction.

Right of Way Acquisition Property acquisition costs, closing costs,

appraisals, surveys, miscellaneous

acquisition support costs.

Utility Relocation Costs of relocating utilities, including

design.

Construction Management Field oversight of construction.

Railroad Railroad (UPRR and Metrolink) charges to

projects for project support, design,

procurement and construction.

Construction Payment to construction contractors.

Third Party Review Payment to outside agencies (e.g., UPRR,

Cities, LA County) for their costs to review

and approve project designs and

submittals.

UPRR Invoice Review Use of an outside contractor to review

UPRR billings for errors, mischarges,

questionable costs, etc.

Advertising Cost of advertising construction contracts.

Utilities (Site) Cost of utilities service to construction sites.



REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015



RE: SB 461 (HERNANDEZ)

RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution 15-19 supporting SB 461 (Hernandez).


SB 461 (Hernandez), which is being sponsored by the County of Los Angeles, would authorize the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish to Los Angeles County a 2.6 mile portion of SR 164 (Rosemead Boulevard) from Gallatin Road near Pico Rivera to the southern city limits of South El Monte, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC. It provides that the relinquishment will become effective immediately following the county recordation of the relinquishment resolution. The County is seeking relinquishment in order to implement a Complete Streets corridor project. Complete Streets projects are intended to accommodate all types of users, especially vulnerable users such as people with disabilities, seniors, youth, pedestrians, and cyclists. This project is also intended to enhance regional opportunities to access the Whittier Narrows Park. The County would receive one-time funding for improvements along the corridor, in an amount which would be negotiated during the relinquishment process, and would be responsible for all maintenance and liability in the future. Temple City has previously been granted relinquishment of the portion of Rosemead Boulevard within its city limits and implemented a highly successful complete streets project, which includes the region’s first cycle-track. Rosemead Boulevard is one of the SGVCOG’s adopted priority corridors, and the County’s proposed project, which would be made possible upon approval of SB 461, would be in keeping with the goals and priorities included in the SGVCOG’s mobility matrix. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Resolution No. 15-19 Attachment B – SB 461 (Hernandez) Attachment C – SB 461 Bill Analysis

Attachment A


RESOLUTION OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 461 (HERNANDEZ)

WHEREAS, would authorize the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to

relinquish to Los Angeles County a 2.6 mile portion of SR 164 (Rosemead Boulevard) from Gallatin Road near Pico Rivera to the southern city limits of South El Monte, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC; and

WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles is seeking relinquishment in order to implement

a Complete Streets corridor project; and WHEREAS, Complete Streets projects are intended to accommodate all types of users,

especially vulnerable users such as people with disabilities, seniors, youth, pedestrians, and cyclists; and

WHEREAS, the County intends to enhance regional opportunities to access the Whittier

Narrows Park through local control of this corridor; and WHEREAS, Rosemead Boulevard was identified as priority regional corridor by the San

Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Gabriel Valley Council of

Governments adopts a position of SUPPORT for Senate Bill 461 (Hernandez).



Attachment A

Attest:


AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________


AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 2015

SENATE BILL No. 461

Introduced by Senator Hernandez

February 25, 2015

An act to amend Section 30304 464 of the Streets and HighwaysCode, relating to transportation. highways.

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 461, as amended, Hernandez. Toll bridges and facilities: funds.State Highway Route 164: relinquishment.

Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has fullpossession and control of all state highways. Existing law describesthe authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes aprocess for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by theCalifornia Transportation Commission. Existing law authorizes thecommission to relinquish certain state highway segments to localagencies.

This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish the portion ofState Highway Route 164 from Gallatin Road near Pico Rivera to thesouthern city limits of South El Monte in the vicinity of Rush Street inthe County of Los Angeles to that county, under specified conditions.

Existing law, the California Toll Bridge Authority Act, makes theCalifornia Transportation Commission, together with the Departmentof Transportation, responsible for building and acquiring toll facilitiesand related transportation facilities. Under existing law, all tolls or otherrevenue received from the operation of toll bridges and related facilitiesthat were acquired or constructed with bond funding are deposited intoa special fund designated for the particular toll bridge or facility thatproduced the toll or revenue.

98

Attachment B

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the provisionspecifying deposit of this particular revenue into the designated specialfund.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes.State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. Section 464 of the Streets and Highways Code is line 2 amended to read: line 3 464. (a)��Route 164 is Rosemead Boulevard from: line 4 (1)��Gallatin Road near Pico Rivera to the southern city limit of line 5 Temple South El Monte in the vicinity of Rush Street. line 6 (2)��The southern city limit of South El Monte in the vicinity of line 7 Rush Street to the southern city limit of Temple City in the vicinity line 8 of Grand Avenue. line 9 (2)

line 10 (3)��Route 210 to Foothill Boulevard in the City of Pasadena. line 11 (b)��The relinquished former portions of Route 164 within the line 12 County of Los Angeles and the City of Temple City are not state line 13 highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For line 14 the relinquished former portions of Route 164, the County of Los line 15 Angeles and the City of Temple City shall maintain within their line 16 respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation line 17 of Route 164. line 18 (c)��(1)��Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may line 19 relinquish to the County of Los Angeles that portion of Route 164 line 20 described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), pursuant to the line 21 terms of a cooperative agreement between the county and the line 22 department, upon a determination by the commission that the line 23 relinquishment is in the best interests of the state. line 24 (2)��A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become line 25 effective immediately following the recordation by the county line 26 recorder of the relinquishment resolution containing the line 27 commission’s approval of the terms and conditions of the line 28 relinquishment. line 29 (3)��On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both line 30 of the following shall apply: line 31 (A)��The portion of Route 164 relinquished under this subdivision line 32 shall cease to be a state highway.

98

— 2 —SB 461

Attachment B

line 1 (B)��The portion of Route 164 relinquished under this subdivision line 2 may not be considered for future adoption under Section 81. line 3 (4)��For the portion of Route 164 that is relinquished under this line 4 subdivision, the County of Los Angeles shall maintain within its line 5 jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route line 6 164. line 7 SECTION 1. Section 30304 of the Streets and Highways Code line 8 is amended to read: line 9 30304. All tolls or other revenues received from the operation

line 10 of any toll bridge or other highway crossing, transportation line 11 facilities, or additional transportation facilities acquired or line 12 constructed with the proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant line 13 to this chapter shall be paid by the department at least monthly to line 14 the State Treasurer who shall deposit them forthwith in a depositary line 15 or depositaries authorized by law to receive deposits of state funds, line 16 to the credit of a special fund to be designated as the toll revenue line 17 fund of the particular toll bridge or other highway crossing, line 18 transportation facilities, or additional transportation facilities line 19 producing the tolls or revenue. The fund shall at all times be kept line 20 segregated and set apart from all other funds.

O

98

SB 461— 3 —

Attachment B

6/4/2015 SB 461 Senate Bill Bill Analysis

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1516/bill/sen/sb_04510500/sb_461_cfa_20150531_141934_sen_floor.html 1/3

BILL ANALYSIS Ó

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 461| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651‐1520 Fax: (916) | | |327‐4478 | | ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

THIRD READING

Bill No: SB 461 Author: Hernandez (D) Amended: 4/6/15 Vote: 21

SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10‐0, 4/21/15 AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7‐0, 5/28/15 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen

SUBJECT: State Highway Route 164: relinquishment

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to relinquish to Los Angeles County a segment of State Route (SR) 164 south of Temple City.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1)Identifies the California state highway system through a description of segments of the state's regional and interregional roads that are owned and operated by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Technically, a state highway is any roadway that Caltrans is legislatively

SB 461 Page 2

authorized to acquire, lay out, construct, improve, or maintain.

2)Specifies that it is the intent of the Legislature for the routes of the state highway system to connect the communities and regions of the state and that they serve the state's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation.

3)Provides a two‐step process for the state to expand or delete a section of the state highway system that begins with the Legislature amending existing law and then CTC making findings that it is in the best interest of the state to include or delete a specified portion of roadway from the system. This is known as the state highway relinquishment process.

This bill:

1)Authorizes CTC to relinquish to Los Angeles County the portion of SR 164 from Gallatin Road near Pico Rivera to the southern city limits of South El Monte, upon terms and conditions approved by CTC.

2)Provides that the relinquishment will become effective immediately following the county recordation of the relinquishment resolution.

3)Specifies that following the effective date of relinquishment, the relinquished segment will no longer be a state highway and may not be considered for future adoption as a state highway.

4)Requires Los Angeles County to maintain signage directing motorists to the continuation of SR 164.

Attachment C



Comments

Purpose. According to the author, the goal of this bill is to relinquish a 2.6‐mile segment of SR 164, also known as Rosemead Boulevard, to the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of realizing a community‐driven vision for a Complete Streets corridor project. This corridor project fully accommodates safe and convenient travel for all users of the road, especially vulnerable roadway users such as people with disabilities,

SB 461 Page 3

seniors, youth, pedestrians, and cyclists. This project also aims to compliment the surrounding Whittier Narrows Recreational Area ‐ the largest park in the region ‐ by enhancing recreation opportunities and access to the park.

Relinquishments. Each session, the Legislature passes and the governor signs numerous bills authorizing CTC to relinquish segments of the state highway system to local jurisdictions. Relinquishment transactions are generally preceded by a negotiation of terms and conditions between the local jurisdiction and Caltrans. Once an agreement has been established, CTC typically approves the relinquishment and verifies its approval via a resolution. That is the case with this bill; Caltrans has negotiated an agreement with Los Angeles County for this segment of SR 164, and this bill authorizes CTC to relinquish the road to the county. Of interest, the administration proposed budget trailer bill language this year intending to streamline the state's relinquishment process. According to the governor's budget summary, a number of routes are still part of the state highway system that no longer serve an interregional purpose, and instead serve primarily regional or local purposes. The proposed trailer bill language broadens and streamlines the state process for relinquishing these portions of the statewide system that primarily serve regional or local purposes. This could be a win‐win proposal, with both locals and the state benefiting. On one hand, shifting ownership of these segments, many of which run through a downtown area, will increase local flexibility to add stoplights and make better use of valuable real estate to support transit‐oriented development. Meanwhile, additional relinquishments reduce the state's long‐term costs for ongoing maintenance and repair of the state system. There is merit in a proposal streamlining the relinquishment process; however, it seems that such a proposal should be considered through the policy bill process and not as an add‐on to the state's annual budget.

SR 164 history. The Legislature originally designated SR 164 a state highway in 1963 as a roughly 10‐mile segment of road from Route 605 near Pico Rivera to Route 210 near Pasadena. At some point this state highway became known as Rosemead Boulevard, and the Legislature has relinquished portions of it to local jurisdictions through a number of bills. If this bill were to

SB 461 Page 4

become law and the CTC relinquished the segment of SR 164 described in this bill, the remaining segments of the highway would amount to a 0.1‐mile stub between SR 210 and Foothill Boulevard and a roughly two‐mile segment between Temple City and South El Monte. This seems to be an excellent example of the need for a streamlined relinquishment system, as it is unclear why these small highway segments are of state importance and therefore the state's responsibility to operate and maintain.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee unknown one‐time costs ranging from minor up to several million dollars to the Department of Transportation prior to the relinquishment of the designated segment of SR 164 to L.A. County (State Highway Account). These costs would be offset in future years due to avoided maintenance costs on the relinquished segment.

Attachment C



SUPPORT: (Verified5/29/15)

Bike San Gabriel Valley Day One

OPPOSITION: (Verified5/29/15)

None received

Prepared by:Eric Thronson / T. & H. / (916) 651‐4121 5/30/15 10:41:18

**** END ****

SB 461 Page 5

Attachment C

Governing BoardFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec JanJan 29 Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Alhambra D D D D D D D DArcadia A A A A D A A DAzusa D D D D D D DBaldwin Park D A D D DBradbury DClaremont D D D, A D,A A D D,ACovina A D D D A D D D D Diamond Bar D, A A A D A A D ADuarte D D D D D D D DEl Monte D A DGlendora D D D D D D D DIndustry D D D D D D D DIrwindale

La Canada Flintridge D D D D D D DLa Puente D D D ALa Verne D D D D D D DMonrovia D D D D D D D D AMontebello D D D DMonterey Park D D D D D D D DPasadena D D D D DPomona DRosemead D D D D D D D D D,A San Dimas D D D D D D D DSan Gabriel D D D D D DSan Marino A D D D D D DSierra Madre D, A D D D, A D D D DSouth El Monte D D D D DSouth Pasadena D D D D D D,A D D,A D,A Temple City D D D D D DWalnut D D D D D D DWest Covina D D D D D D DLA County District 1 A D,A LA County District 4 A A A A A A A ALA County District 5 A A A A A A A A ASGV Water Agencies D D D D, A D D D

D- Delegate

A- Alternate

Major Action Items and Presentations

July

2014 2015

Conflict of Interest Biennial Renewal

FY 2014-15 Investment Policy

No

Quo

rum



Contract with Bolt Staffing for Temporary Staffing

FY 2014-15 SGVCOG Strategic Plan Update

September

Civic Spark Program

CalTrans Sustainable Transporation Planning Grant

Contract for Professional Services - Strategic Planning Facilitation

Salary and Classification Study

FY 2014-15 Budget Amendment #1

November

2015 San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership Contract - SCE & SCG

ACE Phase II Program Modifications

ACE Project Transfer Agreement

January 12

Strategic Planning Session

CEESP Contract Amendment #1

EPIC Letter of Support

LGC CivicSpark MOU Amendment #1

ACE Transportation Program Assistance and ATP Administration

Urban Runoff RFP

USGVMWD IRRP Letter of Support

January 29

Interim Executive Director Contract

February

Coordinated Entry System/Homeless Family Solutions System

San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership Recognition

Interim Executive Director Agreement


March

ACE Mid-Year Budget Revision

ACE FY 2013-14 Financial Audit

HR 5101 (Hahn)

HR 5624 (Lowenthal)

SB 485 (Hernandez)

SB 143 (Stone)

Copier/Scanner/Printer Request for Proposals

San Gabriel Valley Mobility Matrix


Formation of Transportation TAC & Water Policy Committee

SGVCOG Employee Handbook

Amendment #1 to Contract with Terra Nova Planning and Research

City Managers' Steering Committee and FY 2014-15 Appointments



April

ACE Phase II

CEESP Phase 3 Contract

MTA Service Sector Appointment

Letter to SGV Caucus Re: FCA

SB 47 (Hill) - Oppose

AB 1455 (Rodriguez & Gomez) - Support

Letter re: Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grant

FY 2013-14 Financial Audit

210 Connected Corridors Project Charter

May

Copier Contract

SGVCOG Outside Agency Appointments (SCAG, RMC, LA County League of Cities, Gold Line Foothill)

AB 857 (Perea) - Support

AB 45 (Mullin) - Oppose

AB 551 (Nazarian) - Support

Memorandum of Understanding with Cities for Online Permitting

Salary and Classification Resolution

Legislative Platform

Combined FY 2013-14 Financial Audit

Election of Officers

FY 2015-16 Budget

FY 2015-16 Strategic Plan Update

SB 16 (Beall) - Support

Cancel July Meeting


Transportation Committee AttendanceFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunAlhambra Claremont Covina Diamond Bar Duarte GlendoraIndustry La Canada Flintridge La Puente LA County District 1 LA County District 5 Rosemead South El Monte South Pasadena Walnut

Agenda TopicsAugust

Metrolink Corridor September

Transportation Goals & ObjectivesEast Side Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft EIR

OctoberEast Side Transit Corridor Phase 2 Draft EIRSGVCOG Mobility Matrix

DecemberStrategic Plan Update

FebruarySANBAG I-10 ExpressLanes ProjectHR 5101 (Hahn)HR 5624 (Lowenthal)

MarchMobility Matrix

AprilProject Prioritization

MayMTA Ballot Measure PollingLegislative Platform

2014 2015

Reminder: If a member agency misses more than three consecutive committee meetings, the agency must request reappointment by the Governing Board.


EENR Committee AttendanceFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunClaremont Duarte Monrovia Rosemead San Dimas Sierra Madre South Pasadena

Agenda TopicsJuly

Recycled Water ProjectsState Water Quality Control Board Water Conservation Measures2014 Water Bond

September

San Gabriel River Discovery CenterLA County Park Bond Measure

October

SCAG Open Space Planning EffortsNovember/December (Joint Meeting with Water Committee/TAC)

National Monument DesignationStrategic Plan Update

January

Cap and Trade FundingFebruary

San Gabriel Mountains Community CollaborativeSouth Bay CCA Presentation

March

Emerald Necklace Feasibility Study & Implementation Plan SGVCOG Energy Wise Programs

April

LA County Parks Needs AssessmentMay

Energy MappingRiver Wilderness Park Front Entry Improvements

2014 2015


Water Policy Committee2014-15 Attendance

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunClaremont Glendora Monrovia Rosemead Sierra Madre South Pasadena

Agenda TopicsSeptember (Joint Meeting with Water TAC)

IRWMP OverviewNovember (Joint Meeting with Water TAC)

USGVMWD IRRPStormwater Funding Alternatives Discussions

December (Joint Meeting with EENR, Water TAC)National Monument DiscussionStrategic Plan Update

February (Joint Meeting with Water TAC)Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)County Sanitation Districts Stormwater Management Authority LegislationStormwater Request for Proposals

March (Joint Meeting with Water TAC)SB 485 (Hernandez)Stormwater Request for Proposals SB 143 (Stone)

April (Joint Meeting with Water TAC)Stormwater Permit Financial Capability Assessment FY 2015-16 SGVCOG WorkplanSGV Legislative Platform

May (Joint Meeting with Water TAC)Drought UpdateBay Delta Conservation Plan Update

2014 2015


HCED Committee AttendanceFY 2014-2015

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunClaremont Monrovia Pasadena

Agenda TopicsSeptember

Pasadena Real Change MovementSB 743 Update

November/DecemberStrategic Plan Update

JanuaryUnion Station Coordinated Entry System (CES)/Homeless Family Solutions System (HFSS)

FebruaryCES Outreach and Education

MarchEnergy Wise Partnership Targeted Low-Income Outreach SGV Legislative Platform

AprilSGVCOG Strategic Plan

2014 2015


City Managers' Steering Committee AttendanceFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunArcadia Claremont Covina Diamond Bar Duarte El Monte Glendora La Canada Flintridge La Verne Monterey Park Pomona Rosemead San Gabriel

Agenda TopicsJuly

November

Strategic Plan Update

3rd Quarter Financial Report

Chair and Vice-Chair Elections

CivicSpark Presentation

Emergy Preparedness Presentation

SGV Dues Update

January

2014 2015

December

SGV Regional Airport Update

ACE Project Transfer Agreement

San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership Contract Extension

FY 2013-14 Year End Financial Report

San Gabriel Airport

Water Supply Update

FY 2014-15 First Quarter Financial Report

April

FY 2013-14 Financial Audit

FY 2015-16 Draft Budget

February

SGVCOG Member Dues

SGVCOG Strategic Plan Update

FY 2014-15 Mid-Year Budget Revision

FY 2014-15 Quarterly Investment Report

Stormwater FCA Presentation

Federal and State Legislative Platform

May

Mobility Matrix Presentation


City Managers' Steering Committee AttendanceFY 2014-15

June

ACE Budget

Executive Director Recruitment


Planning TAC AttendanceFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunAlhambra Arcadia AzusaBaldwin Park Claremont Diamond Bar Duarte El Monte Glendora Irwindale La Canada FlintridgeLaVerne Monrovia Monterey Park Pasadena Pomona San Dimas San Gabriel Sierra MadreSouth El MonteSouth Pasadena Temple City WalnutWest Covina


Pasadena Real Change MovementSB 743 Update

NovemberSGV Mobility MatrixInfrastructure Financing Districts & Measure X

January Metro Sustainability Demonstration ProjectsImplementation of AB 2188 (Solar Rights Act) & AB 1147 (Massage Therapy Law)

February

CAL FIRE Land Use Planning Program

Residential Motels/Hotels

March

LA County Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories

SGVCOG Legislative Platform

April

AB 1335 (Atkins)

Update on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireless Infrastructure Order

MayDrought Tolerant Measures

2014 2015

No

Quo

rum

No

Quo

rum


Public Works TAC AttendanceFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunAlhambra Arcadia Azusa Claremont Covina Diamond Bar Duarte Glendora Industry IrwindaleLa VerneMonrovia Pasadena Pomona San Dimas San Gabriel Sierra MadreSouth El MonteSouth PasadenaWest Covina LA County


Emergency PreparednessCaltrans Local Assistance

October210 Connected Corridors

NovemberMetro's 1/2 cent Sales Tax710 Status Update

JanuaryCountywide Strategic Truck Arterial Network- MetroTraffic Signal Power Outage: Place Stop Signs or Not and Who is Responsible

February Certificate of Compliance and Lot Line AdjustmentsMarch Countywide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Inventory Data CollectionApril

Enhanced Watershed Management PlansDrought Update

MayDig AlertI-10 Prjroject Overview

2014 2015


Water TAC AttendanceFY 2014-15

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunAlhambra Arcadia Covina Monrovia Sierra Madre LA County DPW Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District

Foothill MWDLA County Sanitation Districts Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster

Agenda TopicsSeptember (Joint Meeting with Water Committee)

IRWMP OverviewNovember (Joint Meeting with Water Committee)

USGVMWD IRRPStormwater Funding Alternatives Discussions

December (Joint Meeting with Water Committee,EENR)National Monument DiscussionStrategic Plan Update

February (Joint Meeting with Water Committee)Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)County Sanitation Districts Stormwater Management Authority LegislationStormwater Request for Proposals

March (Joint Meeting with Water Committee)SB 485 (Hernandez)Stormwater Request for Proposals SB 143 (Stone)

April (Joint Meeting with Water Committee)Stormwater Permit Financial Capability Assessment FY 2015-16 SGVCOG WorkplanSGV Legislative Platform

May (Joint Meeting with Water Committee) Drought UpdateBay Delta Conservation Plan Update

2014 2015

Ex-Officio


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015



RE: CITY MANAGERS’ STEERING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

RECOMMENDED ACTION Appoint FY 2015-16 representatives to the City Managers’ Steering Committee. BACKGROUND The SGVCOG Bylaws provide for the creation of technical advisory committees (TACs) and policy committees to provide technical support and policy recommendations to the Governing Board. The Bylaws also provide for the creation of a City Managers’ Steering Committee, to provide assistance and support to the full City Managers’ TAC, the Governing Board, and/or the Executive Committee. In July 2014, the Governing Board approved Resolution 14-18 which outlines the process for appointing members to the City Managers’ Steering Committee (Attachment A). In May, a call for nominations was held for the Chair and Vice-Chair positions as well as for the open regional appointment positions. The nominations are as follows:

• Chair: Chris Jeffers (City of Glendora) • Vice-Chair: Paul Talbot (Monterey Park) • Past-Chair: Mark Alexander (La Canada Flintridge) • Northeast Representatives: Tony Ramos (City of Claremont); Bob Russi (City of La

Verne) • Southeast Representatives: Jim DeStefano (City of Diamond Bar); Linda Lowry (City of

Pomona) • Central Representatives: Tony Ybarra (South El Monte); Shannon Yauchzee (Baldwin

Park) • Southwest Representatives: Sergio Gonzalez (South Pasadena); Bryan Cook (Temple

City) • Northwest Representatives: Dominic Lazzaretto (City of Arcadia); Darrell George (City

of Duarte) The City Managers’ TAC are considering approving these recommendations at their June 10, 2015 meeting. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Resolution No. 14-18


Attachment A


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: MEETING DATES AND TIMES RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution 15-20 updating the committee meeting dates and times for FY 2015-16. BACKGROUND In 2013, the Governing Board adopted a practice of annually reaffirming Governing Board, Policy Committee and TAC meeting dates, times and locations. This was done to increase transparency and make it easier for members of the public to attend meetings. Table 1 provides an updated list of regularly scheduled meeting dates, time, and locations for SGVCOG Governing Board, Policy Committees, and TACs. Attachments Attachment A – Resolution No. 15-20


REPORT

Meeting Date Time Location

Governing Board 3rd Thursday 6:00 p.m. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices 602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B Monrovia, CA 91016

Executive Committee 1st Monday 4:00 p.m. SGVCOG Office 1000 S. Fremont Ave. Building 10 Suite 10210, Alhambra, CA 91803

Transportation Policy Committee

3rd Thursday 4:00 p.m. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices 602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B Monrovia, CA 91016

Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR) Policy Committee

4th Wednesday 3:30 p.m. Monrovia Public Works Yard 600 S. Mountain Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016

Housing, Community, and Economic Development (HCED)

4th Monday 12:00 noon Monrovia Community Center 119 W. Palm Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016

Water Committee 3rd Wednesday 10:00 a.m. Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices 602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B Monrovia, CA 91016

City Managers TAC 3rd Wednesday 12:00 noon The Monrovian Restaurant 534 S. Myrtle Ave. Monrovia, CA 91016

City Managers Steering Committee

1st Wednesday 12:00 noon El Monte City Hall 11333 Valley Blvd. El Monte, CA 91731

Public Works TAC 3rd Monday 12:00 noon Capistrano's Restaurant 211 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91006

Planning and Community Development TAC

4th Thursday 12:00 noon Monrovia Community Center 119 W. Palm Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016

Transportation TAC 1st Thursday 9:00 a.m. The ACE Project Offices 4900 Rivergrade Road Irwindale, CA 91706

Table 1. Regular Meeting Locations.


Attachment A


RESOLUTION OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CONFIRMING MEETING DATES, TIME, AND LOCATIONS FOR THE SGVCOG GOVERNING BOARD, POLICY COMMITTEES, AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES.

WHEREAS, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments holds regular meetings to evaluate matters of importance to the SGVCOG and the San Gabriel Valley; and

WHEREAS, Governing Board Representatives and Alternate Governing Board

Representatives perform essential duties for the SGVCOG by their attendance at the regular scheduled meetings of the Governing Board and Policy Committees; and

WHEREAS, City staff representatives perform essential duties for their respective cities

by their attendance at the regular scheduled meetings of SGVCOG’s Policy and Technical Advisory Committees; and

WHEREAS, to ensure regular attendance at these meetings, SGVCOG wishes to confirm

the meeting dates, time, and locations for the SGVCOG Governing Board, Policy Committee, and Technical Advisory Committees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board hereby confirms

the regularly scheduled meetings for the Governing Board, Policy Committees, and Technical Advisory Committees as follows:

1. Governing Board on the third Thursday of every month at 6:00 p.m. at Upper San Gabriel

Valley Municipal Water District Offices (602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B, Monrovia, California 91016).

2. Executive Committee on the first Monday of every month at 4:00 p.m. at the SGVCOG Office (1000 S. Fremont Ave., Building 10, Suite 10210, Alhambra, California 91803)

3. Transportation Policy Committee on the third Thursday of every month at 4:00 p.m. at Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices (602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite B, Monrovia, California 91016).

4. Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR) Policy Committee on the fourth Wednesday of every month at 3:30 p.m. at Monrovia Public Works Yard (600 S. Mountain Avenue, Monrovia, California 91016).

5. Housing, Community, and Economic Development (HCED) Policy Committee on the fourth Monday of every month at 12:00 p.m. at Monrovia Community Center (119 W. Palm Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016).



6. Water Policy Committee on the third Wednesday of every month at 10:00 a.m. at Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Offices (602 E. Huntington Dr., Monrovia, California 91016).

7. City Managers Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on the third Wednesday of every month at the Monrovian Restaurant (534 S. Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, California 91016).

8. City Managers’ Steering Committee on the first Wednesday of every month at 12:00 p.m. at El Monte City Hall (11333 Valley Boulevard, El Monte, California 91731).

9. Public Works Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on the third Monday of every month at 12:00 p.m. at Capistrano's Restaurant (211 E. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91006).

10. Planning and Community Development Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on the fourth Thursday of every month at 12:00 p.m. at Monrovia Community Center (119 West Palm Avenue, Monrovia, California 91016).

11. Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on the first Thursday of every month at 9:00 a.m. at The ACE Project Offices (4900 Rivergrade Road, Irwindale, California 91706).

This resolution supersedes Resolution No. 14-28 in its entirety.


San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments

__________________________________ Gene Murabito, President



Attest: I, Francis M. Delach, Executive Director and Secretary of the Board of Directors of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Governing Board held on the 18th day of June, 2015, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________ Francis M. Delach, Secretary


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS RECOMMENDED ACTION Appoint the city of Monterey Park to the Transportation Committee and appoint the city of West Covina to the Public Works Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). BACKGROUND The SGVCOG Bylaws provide for the creation of technical advisory committees (TACs) and policy committees to provide technical support and policy recommendations to the Governing Board. There are currently 4 policy committees (Transportation, Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR), Water, and Housing, Community, and Economic Development (HCED) and 3 TACs: the City Managers’ TAC, the Planning TAC, and the Public Works TAC. The Bylaws also provide for the creation of a City Managers’ Steering Committee, to provide assistance and support to the full City Managers’ TAC, the Governing Board, and/or the Executive Committee. The SGVCOG Bylaws allow for the creation of additional TACs and policy committees as needed. Each May, the Governing Board affirms the appointments received from member agencies for participation on the policy committees and TACs. In June 2015, SGVCOG staff received requests from the cities of Monterey Park and West Covina to be appointed to Transportation Committee and Public Works TAC respectively.


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: SGVCOG APPOINTMENT TO METRO GOLD LINE CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDED ACTION Appoint Sam Pedroza (Claremont) to serve as SGVCOG’s alternate on the Metro Gold Line Construction Authority Board of Directors for the term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. BACKGROUND In 1999, SB 1847 (Schiff) was passed, forming the Metro Gold Line Construction Authority. The Authority was charged with overseeing the design and construction of a 38-mile light rail line between downtown Los Angeles to Montclair. The first phase of the project (13.6 miles), from Los Angeles to Pasadena, opened to the public on July 26, 2003. This segment was fully funded with state and local money and was completed on time and under budget. The Foothill Extension of the Metro Gold Line is now focused on the second phase of the project which includes the design and construction of the light rail system from its current terminus in East Pasadena through the cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair. There has also been discussion to extend the project out to the Ontario Airport. GOVERNANCE The legislation provided for a Board of Directors to oversee this project. This Board was comprised of stakeholders from the project’s geographic included following five voting members:

• 1 representative of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments • 1 representative of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority • 1 representative of the City of Pasadena • 1 representative of the City of Los Angeles • 1 representative of the City of South Pasadena

Once the first phase of this project (Los Angeles to Pasadena) was completed, this governance structure was modified to allow for the representation of the new Phase 2 cities. This change centered around the cities of Pasadena and South Pasadena’s seats. SGVCOG was a key agency in getting this legislation enacted, and this Agency’s representative seat has been in place since the Board’s creation in 1999.


REPORT

APPOINTMENT In May 2015, the SGVCOG Governing Board re-appointed Sam Pedroza to serve as the SGVCOG’s delegate. The position of alternate was previously held by former SGVCOG President Mary Ann Lutz. Staff is recommending that the current SGVCOG President, Gene Murabito, be appointed to serve as the SGVCOG’s alternate.


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015

TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates


RE: STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE

RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file. BACKGROUND In October 2013, the SGVCOG Strategic Plan adopted by the Governing Board. It was updated in July 2014. It is COG policy to review progress on the Strategic Plan on a monthly basis. The attached matrix reviews major accomplishments associated with the strategic plan as well as any proposed revisions to the objectives.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A –Strategic Plan Update


Transportation Work Plan FY 2014-2015

Issue Area Near-Term Action Schedule Current

Progress Work Completed

to Date Next Steps

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

General

Complete Mobility Matrix.

⋆ ⋆ 100% Mobility Matrix was

approved by Governing Board on Mar. 19.

Transportation Committee will prioritize projects at an upcoming meeting

Regularly report on status of potential MTA 2016 sales tax measure.

⋆

90%

MTA CEO Art Leahy provided an update at the SGVCOG/SANBAG summit in Oct.

Transportation Committee received an update at its April meeting and began development of subregional priorities.

Highways Complete 60/605 PSR.

⋆ 50%

ACE CEO continues to participate on the project oversight committee for this project.

Goods

Movement

Meet at least quarterly with Gateway Cities COG (GCCOG) and SANBAG to review goods movement projects and programs.

⋆

⋆

⋆ 80%

Joint SANBAG/SGVCOG meeting held in Oct. 2014.

SGVCOG and GCCOG executive staff met in Oct. to review mobility matrix.

SANBAG staff presented on its I-10 and I-15 ExpressLanes projects at the Feb. Trans. Cmte. meeting.

Active

Transportation

Pursue funding for San Gabriel Valley Bicycle Plan and Waterway Network.

⋆

90%

SGVCOG received $644,000 in funding from SCAG for regional planning efforts in Oct. 2014. The project will begin in FY 2015-16.

Attachment A


Transportation Work Plan FY 2014-2015



to Date Next Steps


Regional

Corridors &

Arterials

Reaffirm San Gabriel Valley priority regional corridors and contact cities along corridors to collect information on any current or planned projects.

This work will initiate in FY

2015-16.

Reconvene regional corridor working groups to assess current status and develop strategies to address mobility and planning issues.

This work will initiate in FY

2015-16.

Prepare report on funding opportunities for regional corridors.

This work will initiate in FY 2015-16.

Attachment A


Environment Work Plan FY 2014-2015



to Date Next Steps


General Convene Environmental TAC to provide technical input to EENR Committee.

⋆

10% Solicited volunteers for

Environmental TAC to discuss solid waste issues.

Air Quality Develop scope of work, secure funding for and conduct regional PEV infrastructure plan.

5% Participated in SCAG Zero-

Emission Vehicle (ZEV) funding webinar.

Work with RMC and other agencies to develop priority list of multi-benefit, multi-jurisdictional open space projects and present to EENR and Governing Board.

⋆ 10%

Staff met with RMC/WCA staff to develop a strategy to fund this effort in Oct.

Staff planning to submit application to SCAG’s Green Region Initiative Grant program when available.

Open Space

Track legislation related to proposed NRA in the San Gabriel Valley and provide regular updates to Governing Board.

⋆ ⋆

⋆

90%

Staff tracked NRA legislation and provided information on President Obama’s National Monument designation for areas of the Angeles National Forest.

National Forest Foundation staff presented an update on the National Monument at the Feb. EENR meeting.

The SGVCOG is represented on San Gabriel Mtns. Community Collaborative.

Foothill cities met w/ National Forest Service in May 2015.

Prepare report on existing education, literacy and stewardship programs in the San Gabriel Valley.

0%

COG staff is working with WCA staff to identify funding source.

Attachment A


Environment Work Plan FY 2014-2015



to Date Next Steps


Manage SGVEWP.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ 90%

Participated in 3 community events to promote EE programs.

Hosted 12 LED Holiday Light Exchanges.

EAP and ClearPath Training held in Sept. 2014; Procurement and Emerging Tech. workshop held in Oct. 2014; and programs update workshop in May 2015.

Launched Go Green Business Challenge in May 2015.

Awards Luncheon held in Dec. 2014.

Held Pomona Gold Level recognition in Feb. 2015.

Energy

Efficiency

Manage SCE CEESP.

⋆

100%

Submitted Final Report in Dec. 2014.

Manage SCE CEESP Phase 3

⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ 50%

Completed initial outreach to cities re: online permitting.

Developed Green Building Guidebook and held city training.

Launched home assessment program in Mar. 2015.

Initiated MOUs with cities participating in online permitting

Attachment A


Economic Development Work Plan FY 2014-2015



to Date Next Steps


General

Staff has been working with the SGVEP to recruiting members for the Committee.

This work will commence in FY 2015-16.

Convene Economic Development Policy

Committee and TAC.

Economic

Vision ⋆


Coordinate with the SGVEP to analyze

opportunities, advantages and potential

disadvantages to developing a regional

economic development strategy and vision.

Workforce

Development ⋆


Coordinate with existing agencies to

identify gaps in the workforce development

system and the resources, needed to

address the gaps, and prepare a report to

the Governing Board.

Attracting &

Supporting

Businesses


Disseminate information to agencies and

stakeholders on programs that are

currently offered by the SGVEP, LAEDC, and

SBDCs.

⋆ This work will

commence in FY 2015-16.

Assist the SGVEP and LAEDC in updating

the “Business Assistance Toolkit.”

⋆ ⋆


Host quarterly workshops on post-

redevelopment funding strategies and other

innovative economic development efforts.

Attachment A


Water Work Plan FY 2014-2015



to Date Next Steps

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Oct Sep Jul Aug

General Track and report on IRWMP funding opportunities. ⋆ 10%

Presentation given to Water Committee/TAC about IRWMP and upcoming IRWMP funding opportunities in 2014.

SGVCOG staff planning IRWM funding workshop, in coordination with USGRH Steering Committee Chair.

Water

Quality/

NPDES

Assist in collection of water costs survey. ⋆ 100%

Surveys have been sent to all SGV cities, as well as numerous cities in Southern California.

Conference of Mayors released report in Dec. 2014.

⋆ ⋆

Host semi-annual educational workshop on relevant water quality and stormwater issues for elected officials and staff.

⋆ ⋆

Tour of Diamond Valley Lake held on March 26, 2015.

COG staff working with Water Districts staff to coordinate next workshop.

Water

Conservation

Research and report on opportunities to fund water conservation projects as part of the Statewide Water-Energy nexus efforts.

Water

Reliability

Present information regarding status of Bay Delta Conservation Plan and potential State bond measure and provide recommendations.

100%

An updated bond proposal was signed by the Governing in August. This will be included on the Nov. 2014 ballot. The proposal included $30M in funding for the RMC.

Water Bond Workshop planned for July 2015, in partnership with RMC.

⋆

Wastewater Collect information on current funding obstacles and regulatory issues.

Attachment A


Housing Work Plan FY 2014-2015



to Date Next Steps

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Oct Sep Jul Aug

General Convene Housing TAC to provide technical input and analysis to Housing Committee.


Affordable,

Senior, &

Workforce

Housing

Participate in SCAG’s RHNA subcommittee.

Members of the Planning Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have been attending the meeting and have been providing updating to the Planners TAC.

Prepare report on development plans at all of the new Gold Line TODs and submit to Housing Committee.

This work will

commence in FY 2015-16.

Prepare report on member agencies’ needs related to homeless services. ⋆ 30%

Responses from 17 cities have been collected.

Staff will present the survey results at the next HCED meeting.

Homelessness

Research and report on existing regional homeless service delivery models and pursue funding to implement selected model.

⋆ ⋆

Staff has been working with Union Station Homeless Services to advertise the coordinated entry system (CES)/Homeless Family Solutions System (HFSS)

Staff is working with Union Station Homeless Services to schedule Coordinated Entry System (CES)/Homeless Family Solutions System (HFSS) workshops in July 2015.

Attachment A


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: AB 1335 (ATKINS) RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution 15-21 supporting AB 1335 (Atkins). BACKGROUND Assembly Bill 1335 (Atkins) would impose a $75 fee on the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law. The maximum fee per single transaction per single parcel of real property is not to exceed $225. The fees collected would be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Fund, which would be managed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Legislature would appropriate these funds, with 20% required to be expended for affordable home ownership activities and 10% required to be expended for housing purposes related to agricultural workers and their families. The remainder of the funds for activities that support affordable housing, home ownership opportunities, and other housing-related programs. AB 1335 (Atkins) would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop a Building Homes and Jobs Investment Strategy every five years, to identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes for housing and should include targets for the total number of affordable homes created and preserved. The Investment Strategy should provide for the geographically balanced distribution of funds, create opportunities for residents making up to 120% of the area median income, and prioritize investments for those making less than 60% of the area median income. AB 1335 (Atkins) was recently amended to include a fifty percent direct allocation of funds to local governments, provided that the local government

1. Submits a plan to HCD detailing how allocated funds will be used in accordance with the requirements of the bill;

2. Has a compliant housing element with the state and submits annual reports; and 3. Submits an annual report to HCD providing ongoing tracking and expenditures of the

allocated funds.

It is estimated that the bill would create between $300 and $500 million a year in funding for affordable housing. ANALYSIS California has a shortage of affordable housing. According to a report issued by the independent Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (Attachment D), more than one-third of mortgaged homeowners and nearly half of renters are spending more than 30% of their household incomes


REPORT

on housing. Homeowners with mortgages have median monthly housing costs that are 43.4% higher than those nationwide, and median rents are 35.2% higher, yet median household incomes in California are just 14% higher than those nationwide. California is home to 12% of the nation’s population but 20% of the homeless population – approximately 134,000 Californians. The State has 12% of the nation’s homeless veterans and one-third of the nation’s chronically homeless. Thirty percent of the nation’s homeless children and youth are in California. Because of the high cost of land and construction and because of the subsidy needed to keep housing affordable to residents, developers typically use multiple sources of financing, including voter-approved housing bonds, state and federal low-income housing tax credits, private bank financing, and local matching dollars. There has not been a voter-approved bond passed since 2006, and the funding has been largely exhausted. Community redevelopment law required redevelopment agencies to set aside 20% of all tax increment revenue to increase, improve, and preserve low- and moderate-income housing. However, since the end of redevelopment at the end of 2011, there has not been a long-term source of affordable housing funding. AB 1335 (Atkins) would create an estimated $300 to $500 million annually for affordable housing to be deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Fund. This will help to leverage significant additional federal, local, and private investment for affordable housing. This bill is similar to SB 391, which was supported by the SGVCOG, but differs in a couple of important ways:

• Sets a cap of $225 on fees charged per parcel per transaction • Requires 50% of funding to go directly to local governments, provided that they submit

a plan as to how these funds will be allocated to HCD

The Planners Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed this legislation and was supportive of the concept of providing a permanent source of long-term funding for affordable housing; however, they recommended the COG support the legislation if it provided a non-competitive, direct funding allocation for local governments. The COG’s Housing, Community, and Economic Development (HCED) Committee also reviewed the legislation and, while they did not make a formal recommendation to the Governing Board, also felt that any legislation must include a non-competitive, direct funding allocation for local governments. AB 1335 (Atkins) was recently amended and now includes this non-competitive direct funding allocation. Fifty percent of the funding will be directly allocated to local governments in this non-competitive process, provided that the local government submits a plan detailing how allocated funds will be used. The legislation does not provide any additional guidance as to how this funding will be allocated amongst local governments, so SGVCOG staff will continue to monitor this process. Attachments Attachment A – Resolution No. 15-21 Attachment B – AB 1335 (Atkins) Bill Text Attachment C – AB 1335 (Atkins) Bill Analysis Attachment D – Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) California Futures: Housing


Attachment A


RESOLUTION OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SUPPORTING ASSEMBLY BILL 1335 (ATKINS)

WHEREAS, there is a shortage of affordable housing in the State of California; and WHEREAS, there is currently no long-term permanent funding source for affordable

housing; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 1335 (Atkins) would impose a $75 fee on the recording of

every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law, that would not exceed $225 for any single transaction on a single property; and

WHEREAS, AB 1335 (Atkins) will create an estimated $300 to $500 million annually in

funding for affordable housing; and WHEREAS, AB 1335 (Atkins) will allocate fifty percent of this funding directly to local

jurisdictions, provided that they submit a plan detailing how the funding will be used.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments adopts a position of SUPPORT for Assembly Bill 1335 (Atkins).




Attachment A

Attest:


AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________



AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 3, 2015

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 14, 2015

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2015

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2015

california legislature—2015–16 regular session

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1335

Introduced by Assembly Member Atkins(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Chau, Chiu, and Gordon)(Coauthors: Assembly Members Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,

Cooper, Gonzalez, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Mullin, Rendon,Santiago, Mark Stone, Ting, and Weber)

(Coauthor: Senator Hill)

February 27, 2015

An act to add Section 27388.1 to the Government Code, and to addChapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 50470) to Part 2 of Division 31of the Health and Safety Code, relating to housing, and declaring theurgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

legislative counsel’s digest

AB 1335, as amended, Atkins. Building Homes and Jobs Act.Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for,

among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing,farmworker housing, home ownership homeownership for very lowand low-income households, and downpayment assistance for ®rst-timehomebuyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds inspeci®ed amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law.Existing law requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used

95

Attachment B


to ®nance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related toin®ll development, brown®eld cleanup that promotes in®ll development,and housing-related parks.

This bill would enact the Building Homes and Jobs Act. The billwould make legislative ®ndings and declarations relating to the needfor establishing permanent, ongoing sources of funding dedicated toaffordable housing development. The bill would impose a fee, exceptas provided, of $75 to be paid at the time of the recording of every realestate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to berecorded, per each single transaction per single parcel of real property,not to exceed $225. By imposing new duties on counties with respectto the imposition of the recording fee, the bill would create astate-mandated local program. The bill would require that revenuesfrom this fee, after deduction of any actual and necessary administrativecosts incurred by the county recorder, be sent quarterly to theDepartment of Housing and Community Development for deposit inthe Building Homes and Jobs Fund, which the bill would create withinthe State Treasury. The bill would, upon appropriation by theLegislature, require that 20% of the moneys in the fund be expendedfor affordable owner-occupied workforce housing housing, 10% of themoneys for housing purposes related to agricultural workers and theirfamilies, and would authorize the remainder of the moneys in the fundto be expended to support affordable housing, home ownershiphomeownership opportunities, and other housing-related programs, andadministrative costs, as speci®ed. The bill would impose certain auditingand reporting requirements and would establish the Building Homesand Jobs Trust Fund Governing Board that would, among other things,review and approve recommendations made by the Department ofHousing and Community Development for the distribution of moneysfrom the fund.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislationthat would create the Secretary of Housing within state government tooversee all activities related to housing in the state.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse localagencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this actfor a speci®ed reason.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as anurgency statute.

95

— 2 —AB 1335

Attachment B


Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. This act shall be known as the Building Homes line 2 and Jobs Act. line 3 SEC. 2. (a)��The Legislature ®nds and declares that having a line 4 healthy housing market that provides an adequate supply of homes line 5 affordable to Californians at all income levels is critical to the line 6 economic prosperity and quality of life in the state. line 7 (b)��The Legislature further ®nds and declares all of the line 8 following: line 9 (1)��Funding approved by the state's voters in 2002 and 2006,

line 10 as of June 2014, has ®nanced the construction, rehabilitation, and line 11 preservation of over 14,000 shelter spaces and 149,000 affordable line 12 homes. These numbers include thousands of supportive homes for line 13 people experiencing homelessness. In addition, these funds have line 14 helped tens of thousands of families become or remain line 15 homeowners. Nearly all of the voter-approved funding for line 16 affordable housing was awarded by the beginning of 2015. line 17 (2)��The requirement in the Community Redevelopment Law line 18 that redevelopment agencies set aside 20 percent of tax increment line 19 for affordable housing generated roughly $1 billion per year. With line 20 the elimination of redevelopment agencies, this funding stream line 21 has disappeared. line 22 (3)��In 2014, the Legislature committed 10 percent of ongoing line 23 cap-and-trade funds for affordable housing that reduces greenhouse line 24 gas emissions and dedicated $100 million in one-time funding for line 25 affordable multifamily and permanent supportive housing. In line 26 addition, the people of California thoughtfully approved the line 27 repurposing of $600 million in already committed bond funds for line 28 the creation of affordable rental and permanent supportive housing line 29 for veterans through the passage of Proposition 41. line 30 (4)��Despite these investments, the need in the state of California line 31 greatly exceeds the available resources, considering 36.2 percent line 32 of mortgaged homeowners and 47.7 percent of all renters are line 33 spending more than 35 percent of their household incomes on line 34 housing.

95

AB 1335— 3 —

Attachment B


line 1 (5)��California has 12 percent of the United States population, line 2 but 20 percent of its homeless population. California has the highest line 3 percentage of unsheltered homeless in the nation, with 63 percent line 4 of homeless Californians not having shelter. California has 24 line 5 percent of the nation's homeless veterans population and one-third line 6 of the nations' chronically homeless population. California also line 7 has the largest populations of unaccompanied homeless children line 8 and youth, with 30 percent of the national total. line 9 (6)��Furthermore, four of the top 10 metropolitan areas in the

line 10 country with the highest rate of homelessness are in the following line 11 metropolitan areas in California: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, line 12 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Fresno, and Stockton. line 13 (7)��California continues to have the second lowest line 14 homeownership rate in the nation, and the Los Angeles line 15 metropolitan area is now a majority renter area. In fact, ®ve of the line 16 eight lowest homeownership rates are in metropolitan areas in line 17 California. line 18 (8)��Los Angeles and Orange Counties have been identi®ed as line 19 the epicenter of overcrowded housing, and numerous studies have line 20 shown that children in crowded homes have poorer health, worse line 21 scores on mathematics and reading tests, and higher rates of line 22 depression and behavioral problemsÐeven when poverty is taken line 23 into account. line 24 (9)��Millions of Californians are affected by the state's chronic line 25 housing shortage, including seniors, veterans, people experiencing line 26 chronic homelessness, working families, people with mental, line 27 physical, or developmental disabilities, agricultural workers, people line 28 exiting jails, prisons, and other state institutions, survivors of line 29 domestic violence, and former foster and transition-aged youth. line 30 (10)��Eight of the top 10 hardest hit cities by the foreclosure line 31 crisis in the nation were in California. They include the Cities of line 32 Stockton, Modesto, Vallejo, Riverside, San Bernardino, Merced, line 33 Bakers®eld, and Sacramento. line 34 (11)��California's workforce continues to experience longer line 35 commute times as persons in the workforce seek affordable housing line 36 outside the areas in which they work. If California is unable to line 37 support the construction of affordable housing in these areas, line 38 congestion problems will strain the state's transportation system line 39 and exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions.

95

— 4 —AB 1335

Attachment B


line 1 (12)��Many economists agree that the state's higher than average line 2 unemployment rate is due in large part to massive shrinkage in the line 3 construction industry from 2005 to 2009, including losses of nearly line 4 700,000 construction-related jobs, a 60-percent decline in line 5 construction spending, and an 83-percent reduction in residential line 6 permits. Restoration of a healthy construction sector will line 7 signi®cantly reduce the state's unemployment rate. line 8 (13)��The lack of suf®cient housing impedes economic growth line 9 and development by making it dif®cult for California employers

line 10 to attract and retain employees. line 11 (14)��To keep pace with continuing demand, the state should line 12 identify and establish a permanent, ongoing source or sources of line 13 funding dedicated to affordable housing development. Without a line 14 reliable source of funding for housing affordable to the state's line 15 workforce and most vulnerable residents, the state and its local line 16 and private housing development partners will not be able to line 17 continue increasing the supply of housing after existing housing line 18 bond resources are depleted. line 19 (15)��The investment will leverage billions of dollars in private line 20 investment, lessen demands on law enforcement and dwindling line 21 health care resources as fewer people are forced to live on the line 22 streets or in dangerous substandard buildings, and increase line 23 businesses' ability to attract and retain skilled workers. line 24 (16)��In order to promote housing and homeownership line 25 opportunities, the recording fee imposed by this act shall not be line 26 applied to any recording made in connection with a sale of real line 27 property. Purchasing a home is likely the largest purchase made line 28 by Californians, and it is the intent of this act to not increase line 29 transaction costs associated with these transfers. line 30 SEC. 3. Section 27388.1 is added to the Government Code, to line 31 read: line 32 27388.1. (a)��(1)��Commencing January 1, 2016, and except as line 33 provided in paragraph (2), in addition to any other recording fees line 34 speci®ed in this code, a fee of seventy-®ve dollars ($75) shall be line 35 paid at the time of recording of every real estate instrument, paper, line 36 or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded, except those line 37 expressly exempted from payment of recording fees, per each line 38 single transaction per parcel of real property. The fee imposed by line 39 this section shall not exceed two hundred twenty-®ve dollars line 40 ($225). ªReal estate instrument, paper, or noticeº means a

95

AB 1335— 5 —

Attachment B


line 1 document relating to real property, including, but not limited to, line 2 the following: deed, grant deed, trustee's deed, deed of trust, line 3 reconveyance, quit claim deed, ®ctitious deed of trust, assignment line 4 of deed of trust, request for notice of default, abstract of judgment, line 5 subordination agreement, declaration of homestead, abandonment line 6 of homestead, notice of default, release or discharge, easement, line 7 notice of trustee sale, notice of completion, UCC ®nancing line 8 statement, mechanic's lien, maps, and covenants, conditions, and line 9 restrictions.

line 10 (2)��The fee described in paragraph (1) shall not be imposed on line 11 any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in connection line 12 with a transfer subject to the imposition of a documentary transfer line 13 tax as de®ned in Section 11911 of the Revenue and Taxation Code line 14 or on any real estate instrument, paper, or notice recorded in line 15 connection with a transfer of real property that is a residential line 16 dwelling to an owner-occupier. line 17 (b)��The fees, after deduction of any actual and necessary line 18 administrative costs incurred by the county recorder in carrying line 19 out this section, shall be remitted quarterly, on or before the last line 20 day of the month next succeeding each calendar quarterly period, line 21 to the Department of Housing and Community Development for line 22 deposit in the California Homes and Jobs Trust Fund established line 23 by Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, to be expended line 24 for the purposes set forth in that section. In addition, the county line 25 shall pay to the Department of Housing and Community line 26 Development interest, at the legal rate, on any funds not paid to line 27 the Controller before the last day of the month next succeeding line 28 each quarterly period. line 29 SEC. 4. Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 50470) is added line 30 to Part 2 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code, to read: line 31 line 32 Chapter 2.5. Building Homes and Jobs Act

line 33 line 34 Article 1. General Provisions line 35 line 36 50470. (a)��(1)��There is hereby created in the State Treasury line 37 the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. All interest or other line 38 increments resulting from the investment of moneys in the fund line 39 shall be deposited in the fund, notwithstanding Section 16305.7 line 40 of the Government Code.

95

— 6 —AB 1335

Attachment B


line 1 (2)��Moneys in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund shall line 2 not be subject to transfer to any other fund pursuant to any line 3 provision of Part 2 (commencing with Section 16300) of Division line 4 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code, except to the Surplus Money line 5 Investment Fund. Upon appropriation by the Legislature: line 6 (A)��Twenty percent of moneys in the fund shall be expended line 7 for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing. line 8 (B)��Ten percent of the moneys in the fund shall be expended to line 9 address affordable homeownership and rental housing

line 10 opportunities for agricultural workers and their families. line 11 (B) line 12 (C)��The remainder of the moneys in the fund may be expended line 13 for the following purposes: line 14 (i)��The development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation line 15 of rental housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low, line 16 low-, and moderate-income households, including necessary line 17 operating subsidies. line 18 (ii)��Affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the line 19 needs of a growing workforce up to 120 percent of area median line 20 income. line 21 (iii)��Matching portions of funds placed into local or regional line 22 housing trust funds. line 23 (iv)��Matching portions of funds available through the Low and line 24 Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) line 25 of Section 34176 of the Health and Safety Code. line 26 (v)��Capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation line 27 of new permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited line 28 to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and line 29 Homelessness Prevention Program. line 30 (vi)��Emergency shelters, transitional housing, and rapid line 31 rehousing. line 32 (vii)��Accessibility modi®cations. line 33 (viii)��Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant line 34 homes. line 35 (xi) line 36 (ix)��Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited line 37 to, down payment assistance. line 38 (xii)��To the department for the administration of housing line 39 programs that receive an appropriation from the fund. Moneys

95

AB 1335— 7 —

Attachment B


line 1 expended for this purpose shall not exceed 5 percent of the moneys line 2 in the fund. line 3 (3)��A state or local entity that receives an appropriation or line 4 allocation pursuant to this chapter shall use no more than 5 percent line 5 of that appropriation or allocation for costs related to the line 6 administration of the housing program for which the appropriation line 7 or allocation was made. line 8 (b)��Both of the following shall be paid and deposited in the line 9 fund:

line 10 (1)��Any moneys appropriated and made available by the line 11 Legislature for purposes of the fund. line 12 (2)��Any other moneys that may be made available to the line 13 department for the purposes of the fund from any other source or line 14 sources. line 15 (c)��If a local government does not expend the moneys allocated line 16 to it, pursuant to this chapter, within five years of that allocation, line 17 those moneys shall revert to and be paid and deposited in, the line 18 fund. line 19 50470.5. For purposes of this chapter: line 20 (a)��ªDepartmentº means the Department of Housing and line 21 Community Development. line 22 (b)��ªGoverning Boardº means the Building Homes and Jobs line 23 Trust Fund Governing Board. line 24 50470.7. (a)��The Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund line 25 Governing Board is hereby established. The governing board shall line 26 include one representative from the department, one representative line 27 from the California Housing Finance Agency, and one line 28 representative from the Of®ce of the Treasurer. The governing line 29 board shall consist also include no fewer than two real estate line 30 licensees, one from northern California and one from southern line 31 California, each with not less than 10 years of real estate experience line 32 and membership in a real estate trade organization with not less line 33 than 20,000 licensees. The governing board shall include a local line 34 government of®cial from northern and southern California, and a line 35 representative from the northern and southern California home line 36 building industry, all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor. line 37 (b)��(1)��The governing board also shall include six public line 38 members. Two of the public members must be representative of line 39 nonpro®t affordable housing development, one appointed by the line 40 Speaker of the Assembly and one appointed by the President pro

95

— 8 —AB 1335

Attachment B


line 1 Tempore of the Senate. Two of the public members must be line 2 representative of for-pro®t affordable housing development, one line 3 appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and one appointed by line 4 the President pro Tempore of the Senate. The Speaker of the line 5 Assembly and the President pro Tempore of the Senate shall each line 6 appoint one additional public member who shall be representative line 7 of, or have experience in, one or more of the following areas: line 8 (A)��Private sector lending. line 9 (B)��For-pro®t affordable housing development.

line 10 (C)��Nonpro®t affordable housing development. line 11 (D)��Working with special needs populations, including persons line 12 experiencing homelessness. line 13 (E)��Architecture. line 14 (F)��Housing development consultation. line 15 (G)��Housing issues related academia. line 16 (2)��Overall public membership shall contribute to a balance line 17 among geographic areas and between rural and urban interests. line 18 50471. (a)��In order to maximize ef®ciency and address line 19 comprehensive needs, the department, in consultation with the line 20 California Housing Finance Agency, the California Tax Credit line 21 Allocation Committee, and the California Debt Limit Allocation line 22 Committee, shall develop and submit to the Legislature, at the time line 23 of the Department of Finance's adjustments to the proposed line 24 2015±16 ®scal year budget pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section line 25 13308 of the Government Code, the Building Homes and Jobs line 26 Investment Strategy. Notwithstanding Section 10231.5 of the line 27 Government Code, commencing with the 2020±21 ®scal year, and line 28 every ®ve years thereafter, concurrent with the release of the line 29 Governor's proposed budget, the department shall update the line 30 investment strategy and submit it to the Legislature. The governing line 31 board shall review and advise the department regarding the line 32 investment strategy prior to its submission to the Legislature. The line 33 investment strategy shall do all of the following: line 34 (1)��Identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes line 35 for housing for a ®ve-year time period. Goals should include targets line 36 of the total number of affordable homes created and preserved line 37 with the funds. line 38 (2)��Promote (A)��Provide for a geographically balanced line 39 distribution of funds funds, including consideration of a 50 percent line 40 direct allocation of funds to local governments.

95

AB 1335— 9 —

Attachment B


line 1 (B)�� In order to receive an allocation a local government shall: line 2 (1)��Submit a plan to the department detailing how allocated line 3 funds will be used by the local government in manner consistent line 4 with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 50470. line 5 (2)��Have a compliant housing element with the state, submit line 6 annual reports pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code, line 7 and submit an annual report to the department that provides line 8 ongoing tracking of the uses and expenditures of any allocated line 9 funds.

line 10 (3)��Emphasize investments that serve households that are at or line 11 below 60 percent of area median income. line 12 (4)��Meet the following minimum objectives: line 13 (A)��Encourage economic development and job creation by line 14 helping to meet the housing needs of a growing workforce up to line 15 120 percent of area median income. line 16 (B)��Identify opportunities for coordination among state line 17 departments and agencies to achieve greater ef®ciencies, increase line 18 the amount of federal investment in production, services, and line 19 operating costs of housing, and promote energy ef®ciency in line 20 housing produced. line 21 (C)��Incentivize the use and coordination of nontraditional line 22 funding sources including philanthropic funds, local realignment line 23 funds, nonhousing tax increment, the federal Patient Protection line 24 and Affordable Care Act, and other resources. line 25 (D)��Incentivize innovative approaches that produce cost savings line 26 to local and state services by reducing the instability of housing line 27 for frequent, high-cost users of hospitals, jails, detoxi®cation line 28 facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and emergency shelters. line 29 (b)��Before submitting the Building Homes and Jobs Investment line 30 Strategy to the Legislature, the department shall hold at least four line 31 public workshops in different regions of the state to further inform line 32 the development of the investment strategy. line 33 (c)��Expenditure requests contained in the Governor's proposed line 34 budget shall be consistent with the Building Homes and Jobs line 35 Investment Strategy developed and submitted pursuant to this part. line 36 Moneys in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund shall be line 37 appropriated through the annual Budget Act. line 38 (d)��The Building Homes and Jobs Investment Strategy and line 39 updates required by this section shall be submitted pursuant to line 40 Section 9795 of the Government Code.

95

— 10 —AB 1335

Attachment B


line 1 (e)��The governing board shall have the authority to review and line 2 approve department recommendations for all funds distributed line 3 from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. line 4 line 5 Article 2. Audits and Reporting line 6 line 7 50475. The California State Auditor's Of®ce shall conduct line 8 periodic audits to ensure that the annual allocation to individual line 9 programs is awarded by the department in a timely fashion

line 10 consistent with the requirements of this chapter. The ®rst audit line 11 shall be conducted no later than 24 months from the effective date line 12 of this section. line 13 50476. (a)��In its annual report to the Legislature pursuant to line 14 Section 50408, the department shall report how funds that were line 15 made available pursuant to this chapter and allocated in the prior line 16 year were expended, including efforts to promote a geographically line 17 balanced distribution of funds. The report shall also assess the line 18 impact of the investment on job creation and the economy. With line 19 respect to any awards made speci®cally to house or support persons line 20 who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness, the report shall line 21 include an analysis of the effectiveness of the funding in allowing line 22 these households to retain permanent housing. The department line 23 shall make the report available to the public on its Internet Web line 24 site. line 25 (b)��(1)��In the report, the department shall make a determination line 26 of whether any of the moneys derived from fees collected pursuant line 27 to Section 27388.1 of the Government Code are being allocated line 28 by the state for any purpose not authorized by Section 50470 and line 29 shall share the information with the county recorders. line 30 (2)��If the department determines that any moneys derived from line 31 fees collected pursuant to Section 27388.1 of the Government line 32 Code are being allocated by the state for a purpose not authorized line 33 by Section 50470, the county recorders shall, upon notice of the line 34 determination, immediately cease collection of the fees imposed line 35 by Section 27388.1 of the Government Code, and shall resume line 36 collection of those fees only upon notice that the moneys derived line 37 from fees collected pursuant to Section 23788.1 of the Government line 38 Code are being allocated by the state only for a purpose authorized line 39 by Section 50470.

95

AB 1335— 11 —

Attachment B


line 1 SEC. 5. (a)��The Legislature ®nds and declares that the housing line 2 market plays a critical role in the functioning of the California line 3 economy. line 4 (b)��The Legislature further ®nds and declares all of the line 5 following: line 6 (1)��The need for housing is something every Californian line 7 encounters. line 8 (2)��Adequate and stable housing is a crucial component of all line 9 Californians' quality of life.

line 10 (3)��The expenditure for housing is one of the largest expenses line 11 all Californians undertake in their day-to-day lives. line 12 (4)��Housing and housing-related activities are of such signi®cant line 13 importance to the state that it warrants a clear and uni®ed voice line 14 in state government. line 15 (c)��It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that line 16 would create a Secretary of Housing within state government to line 17 oversee all activities related to housing in the state. In creating this line 18 position, it is the intent of the Legislature that all professional line 19 entities that play a role in the housing market would be authorized line 20 to be incorporated in order to have a clearer and more uni®ed line 21 approach to housing in California. line 22 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 23 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 24 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 25 charges, fees, or assessments suf®cient to pay for the program or line 26 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 27 17556 of the Government Code. line 28 SEC. 7. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the line 29 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within line 30 the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into line 31 immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: line 32 In order to provide affordable housing opportunities at the earliest line 33 possible time, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.

O

95

— 12 —AB 1335

Attachment B


AB 1335 Page 1

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1335 (Atkins) As Amended June 3, 2015 2/3 vote. Urgency

Committee Votes Ayes Noes Housing 5-1 Chau, Burke, Chiu, Lopez,

Mullin Beth Gaines

Appropriations 12-4 Gomez, Bonta, Calderon, Daly, Eggman, Eduardo Garcia, Gordon, Holden, Quirk, Rendon, Weber, Wood

Chang, Gallagher, Jones, Wagner

SUMMARY: Establishes the Building Homes and Jobs Act of 2015 (the Act) to provide funding for affordable housing. Specifically, this bill:

1) Includes legislative findings.

2) Defines "Department" to mean the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

3) Defines "Governing Board" to mean the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund Governing Board.

4) Establishes the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund (the Trust Fund) within the State Treasury.

5) Beginning January 1, 2016, imposes a $75 fee on every real estate instrument, paper, or notice that is required or permitted by law per each single transaction per parcel of real property, excluding real estate instruments, papers, or notices recorded in connection with a transfer subject to a documentary transfer tax.

6) Defines real estate instrument, paper, or notice as a document relating to real property, including but not limited to the following: deed, grant deed, trustee's deed, deed of trust, conveyance, quit claim deed, fictitious deed of trust, assignment of deed of trust, request for notice of default, abstract of judgment, subordination agreement, declaration of homestead, abandonment of homestead, notice of default, release or discharge, easement, notice of trustee sale, notice of completion, Uniform Commerical Code financing statement, mechanic's lien maps, and covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

7) Requires the fee, minus any administrative cost to the county recorder for collection, to be transferred quarterly to HCD and deposited into the Trust Fund.

8) Requires any moneys appropriated by the Legislature to be deposited into the Trust Fund as well as any other moneys made available to HCD for the purposes of the Trust Fund from any other sources.

9) Requires a county to pay HCD any interest, at the legal rate, on any funds that are not transferred within 30 days of the end of a quarter.

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 2

10) Requires any interest or other increment resulting from the investment of money in the Trust Fund to be deposited into the Trust Fund.

11) Prohibits the transfer of any money in the Fund to any other fund except for the Surplus Money Investment Fund.

12) Requires 20% of the money deposited into the Trust Fund to be used for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing.

13) Requires 10% of the money deposited into the Trust Fund to be used to address affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities for agricultural workers and their families.

14) Allows the remaining 80% of money in the Trust Fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be expended for the following purposes:

a) Development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households including necessary operating subsidies;

b) Affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce up to 120% of area median income (AMI);

c) Matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds;

d) Matching portions of funds in the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds of former redevelopment agencies retained by successor agencies;

e) Capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program;

f) Emergency shelters, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing services;

g) Accessibility modifications;

h) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant, or blighted homes;

i) Homeownership opportunities, including but not limited to down payment assistance; and

15) Allows a state or local entity that receives an appropriation from the Trust Fund to use up to 5% for administrative costs.

16) Provides that if a local government does not expend the moneys allocated to it within five years of the allocation than those moneys shall revert back to the Trust Fund.

17) Establishes the Governing Board made up of the following members:

a) A representative from California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA);

b) A representative from HCD;

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 3

c) A representative from the Treasurer's Office;

d) No fewer than two real estate licensees one from northern California and one from southern California with not less than 10 years of real estate experience and membership in a real estate trade organization with not less than 20,000 licensees;

e) A local government representative from northern California, appointed by the Governor;

f) A local government representative from southern California, appointed by the Governor;

g) A representative from the home building industry from northern California, appointed by the Governor;

h) A representative from the home building industry from southern California, appointed by the Governor;

i) Six public members including:

i) One nonprofit affordable housing developer, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly;

ii) One nonprofit affordable housing developer, appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate;

iii) One for-profit affordable housing developer, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly;

iv) One for-profit affordable housing developer, appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate;

v) Two additional members, one appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly and the other by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, that represent or has experience in one or more of the following areas:

(1) Private sector lending;

(2) For-profit affordable housing development;

(3) Nonprofit affordable housing development;

(4) Working with special needs populations, including persons experiencing homelessness;

(5) Architecture;

(6) Housing development consultation; and

(7) Housing issues related academia.

18) Requires the overall public membership of the Governing Board to contribute to a balance among geographic areas and between rural and urban interests.

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 4

19) Gives the Governing Board the authority to review and approve recommendations from HCD for all funds distributed from the Trust Fund.

20) Requires HCD, in consultation with the CalHFA, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, and the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, to develop a Building Homes and Jobs Investment Strategy (investment strategy).

21) Requires HCD to submit the first investment strategy to the Legislature as part of the Governor's May Revise of the Budget Act in 2015-16 and every five years thereafter as part of the Budget Act beginning in 2020-21.

22) Requires the investment strategy to do all of the following:

a) Identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes for housing for a five-year time period;

b) Requires the goals to include targets of the total number of affordable homes created and preserved with the funds;

c) Provides for a geographically balanced distribution of funds including that 50% of monies in the Trust Fund must be allocated directly to local governments;

d) Emphasize investments that serve households that are at or below 60% of AMI; and

e) Meet the following minimum objectives:

i) Encourage economic development and job creation by meeting the housing needs of a growing workforce up to 120% of AMI;

ii) Identify opportunities to coordinate among state departments and agencies to achieve greater efficiencies; increase the amount of federal investment in housing production, services, and operating costs; and promote energy efficiency in housing produced;

iii) Incentivize the use and coordination of nontraditional funding sources, including philanthropic funds, local realignment funds, non-housing tax increment, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act funds, and other resources; and

iv) Incentivize innovative approaches that produce savings to local and state services by reducing the instability of housing for frequent high-cost users of institutions such as hospitals, jails, detoxification facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and emergency shelters.

23) Requires local governments to comply with the following in order to receive a direct allocation from the Trust fund:

a) Submit a plan to HCD detailing how the local government will allocate funding consistent with the allowable uses listed in the bill; and

b) Have a compliant housing element with the state, submit the annual housing element report required by Government Code Section 65400, and submit an annual report to HCD detailing the use of the allocated funds.

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 5

24) Requires HCD to hold at least four public workshops in different regions of the state to inform development of the investment strategy.

25) Requires the Governing Board to review and advise HCD regarding the investment strategy prior to its submission to the Legislature.

26) Requires expenditure requests contained in the Governor's proposed budget to be consistent with the investment strategy.

27) Requires moneys in the Trust Fund to be appropriated through the annual budget act.

28) Requires the State Auditor to conduct periodic audits to determine if HCD is awarding the annual allocation to individual programs in a timely manner and consistent with the Act.

29) Requires HCD to provide the following information in its annual report to the Legislature:

a) How funds were allocated in the prior year;

b) Efforts to promote geographic balance when distributing the funds;

c) An assessment of the impact of the Trust Fund on job creation and the economy;

d) The effectiveness of programs directed toward persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness at keeping those persons housed; and

e) A determination as to whether any moneys derived from the recording fee are being allocated by the state for any purpose not authorized by the Act and this information must be provided to the county recorders.

30) Provides that if HCD determines that any moneys collected from the recording fee are being allocated by the state for any purpose not authorized by the Act, the county recorders will immediately cease collection of the fees and only resume collection of the recording fee after receiving notice that the fees are being allocated by the state for the purposes of the Act.

31) Declares the Legislature's intent to enact legislation to create a Secretary of Housing to oversee all activities related to housing and that all professional entities that play a role in the housing market would be authorized to be incorporated in order to have a clearer and more unified approach to housing in the state.

32) Includes an urgency clause.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee

1) On-going recording fee revenues in the range of $300 and $500 million annually (Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund).

2) Onetime costs to HCD of approximately $230,000 (General Fund (GF)), for three positions for six months, to develop the investment strategy, including holding public workshops, forming an advisory committee, and establishing the Governing Board.

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 6

3) On-going, intermittent costs of approximately $200,000 (GF) for consultations necessary for the required five-year updates to the investment strategy.

COMMENTS:

Background: California is facing a housing affordability crisis on many fronts. According to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), as of February 2015, roughly 36% of mortgaged homeowners and approximately 48% of all renters are spending more than one-third of their household incomes on housing. California continues to have the second lowest homeownership rate in the nation and the Los Angeles metropolitan area is now a majority renter region. In fact, five of the eight lowest homeownership rates in the nation are in California metropolitan areas.

California has 12% of the United States population, but 20% of its homeless population – 63% of these homeless Californians are unsheltered (the highest rate in the nation). At any given time, 134,000 Californians are homeless. California has 24% of the nation's homeless veterans and one-third of the nation's chronically homeless. The state also has the largest numbers of unaccompanied homeless children and youth, with 30% of the national total.

Purpose of this bill: According to the author, "increased and ongoing funding for affordable housing is critical to stabilize the state's housing development and construction marketplace. If developers know that there is a sustainable source of funding available, they will take on the risk that comes with development – and create a reliable pipeline of well-paying construction jobs in the process. The Building Homes and Jobs Act will utilize a pay as you go approach and generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for affordable housing through a $75 fee on real estate recorded documents, excluding those documents associated with home sales. Funds generated will leverage an additional $2 to $3 billion in federal, local, and bank investment. "

Previous state funding for housing: Historically, the state has invested in low- and moderate-income housing primarily by providing funding for construction. Because of the high cost of land and construction and the subsidy needed to keep housing affordable to residents, affordable housing is expensive to build. Developers typically use multiple sources of financing, including voter-approved housing bonds, state and federal low-income housing tax credits, private bank financing, and local matching dollars.

Voter-approved bonds have been an important source of funding to support the construction of affordable housing. Proposition 46 of 2002 and Proposition 1C of 2006 together provided $4.95 billion for affordable housing. These funds financed the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of 57,220 affordable apartments, including 2,500 supportive homes for people experiencing homelessness, and over 11,600 shelter spaces. In addition, these funds have helped 57,290 families become or remain homeowners. Nearly all of these funds have been awarded.

Until 2011, the Community Redevelopment Law required redevelopment agencies to set aside 20% of all tax increment revenue to increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing. In fiscal year 2009-10, redevelopment agencies collectively deposited $1.075 billion of property tax increment revenues into their low- and moderate-income housing funds. With the elimination of redevelopment agencies, this source of funding for affordable housing is no longer available.

California has reduced its funding for the development and preservation of affordable homes by 79% – from approximately $1.7 billion a year to nearly nothing. According to the California Housing

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 7

Partnership, California has a shortfall of 1,465,884 affordable units for extremely low- and very-low income households.

Funding mechanism: Although an important source of funding in the past for affordable housing, voter-approved bonds are not a permanent or reliable source. To provide for a stable and permanent source of funding for affordable housing, several states have set up state housing trust funds funded by a document recording fee. This bill would establish the Building Homes and Jobs Act, to be funded by a $75 fee on recorded real estate documents, excluding those recorded in connection with the sale of a property. Estimates suggest that the recording fee would generate an average between $300 and $500 million a year for affordable housing. This bill caps the amount of fees that could be charged per single transaction to $225. This means that an individual will only be charged on three documents recorded in a transaction. The fee would be charged on a "real estate instrument, paper, or notice." This bill includes a list of possible documents on which the fee could be charged, however, this is not an exhaustive list and there may be others.

How the Trust Fund can be used: This bill authorizes funds in the Trust Fund to be appropriated for a variety of uses. Twenty percent of the Trust Fund is set aside for affordable homeownership activities. The remaining 80% can be used for the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of low- and moderate-income housing; affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce up to 120% of AMI, match funds in local housing trust funds and funds in the Low and Moderate-Income Housing Asset funds of former redevelopment agencies; capitalize the reserves for services for new permanent supportive housing including developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Program; emergency shelters, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing; accessibility modifications; efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed and vacant homes, and for homeownership opportunities including down payment assistance. Unlike voter-approved bond funds, the Trust Fund could be used to support services and operating expenses for supportive and transitional housing.

Investment strategy: This bill gives the Legislature the authority to appropriate funds that are deposited into the Trust Fund. In order to direct that investment through an informed and strategic process, the bill requires HCD, in consultation with other relevant state housing agencies and committees, to develop an investment strategy for the Trust Fund. HCD would be required to submit the first investment strategy to the Legislature as part of the May revision to the Governor's proposed budget in 2015-16. Every five years after, beginning in 2020-21, HCD would be required to revise the investment strategy. To inform the investment strategy, HCD must hold four public hearings throughout the state. HCD is already required to develop a Statewide Housing Plan every four years to identify the statewide needs, goals, objectives, and outcomes for housing, which would inform the investment strategy.

In preparing the investment strategy, HCD would be required to identify the statewide needs and goals for housing for the next five years and to attach targets of the total number of affordable homes created and preserved with the funds. HCD would also be required to promote a geographically balanced distribution of the funds, including some consideration of providing funds directly to local governments. In addition, the investment strategy would have to emphasize investments in housing affordable to households at or below 60% of AMI, generally referred to as low-, very low- and extremely low-income households. This bill also sets out minimum objectives that must be met in the investment strategy.

Attachment C


AB 1335 Page 8

Local funding allocation: This bill would require a geographically balanced distribution of 50% of the Trust Fund directly to local governments. In order to qualify, local governments would need to provide HCD with a plan detailing how they would spend the funds consistent with the allowable uses provided for in the bill. Local governments would have to have a compliant housing element and have submitted an annual report on their progress in meeting their regional housing needs to qualify for funding. They would also be required to provide HCD with ongoing tracking of the use of the funds. If a local government does not spend their allocation within five years then those funds would revert back to the Trust Fund.

Related Legislation: Last session, SB 391 (DeSaulnier) of the 2013-14 Regular Session, would have imposed a $75 fee on every real estate instrument, paper, or notice that is required or permitted by law, excluding real estate instruments, papers, or notices recorded in connection with a transfer subject to a documentary transfer tax. The bill was held in Assembly Appropriations Committee.

This bill differs from SB 391 in the following ways:

1) Sets a cap of $225 on fees charged on a per parcel per transaction basis;

2) Creates a 20% set aside of funding for homeownership programs;

3) Creates a 10% set aside for affordable homeownership and rental housing for agricultural workers and their families.

4) Requires 50% of funding go directly to local governments provided that the local government provide HCD with a plan for how they will spend the funds consistent with the uses allowed in the bill and meet other reporting requirements.

5) Requires the creation of a Governing Board to review and approve recommendations from HCD for all funds distributed from the Trust Fund and to advise and approve the Investment Strategy that HCD must develop for the Trust Fund.

6) Directs the county recorders to stop collecting the fee if HCD determines that the funds are not being used to support the purposes authorized by the Building Homes and Jobs Act; and

7) Declares the intent of the Legislature to create a Secretary of Housing to oversee all of the housing activities related to the state and to have a clearer and more unified approach to housing in the state.

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000894

Attachment C


Housing

THE RECOVERY CONTINUES—AND SO DO CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING CHALLENGESCalifornia’s housing market is on the mend. Although home values in most of the state remain lower than they were at the peak of

the housing boom, values have increased substantially since the nadir of the housing bust. Statewide, median home values have

increased 39 percent to $430,700 (as of August 2014) from their post-boom low of $310,500 in January 2012 (according to Zillow).

Moreover, vacancy rates are low compared to the rest of the United States, and rents have continued to increase. Finally, the pace

of new housing construction continues to pick up, although levels remain far lower than during other recoveries.

Despite the recovery, California is still experiencing the aftereffects of the most recent housing bust, and the long-term challenges

of housing California’s population haven’t gone away. The housing bubble, which popped in 2008, left the state with a foreclosure

problem and large losses of construction jobs. About 652,000 California homeowners remain “underwater”—their mortgages are

higher than the market value of their homes (CoreLogic, 2014 second quarter). Paradoxically, a housing recovery for some is a

housing problem for others, as high rents and increasing prices place housing out of reach for many Californians.

MEDIAN HOME VALUES: BOOM, BUST, AND RECOVERY

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$175,600

$430,700

$310,500

U.S.

California$538,300

$196,400

$152,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20142013

SOURCE: Zillow.

NOTE: Values are in nominal dollars from August 2002 to August 2014.

In both the short and the long term, California’s economic performance and livability depend on its housing market. The perennially

high cost of housing in coastal California reflects the fact that people and businesses are willing to pay more to be there, but it is

also a consequence of geographic and policy-related barriers to building new housing in those regions. In the state’s inland areas,

continued economic recovery could further ameliorate the foreclosure problem. Throughout the state, balancing new housing

construction with environmental goals will be a challenge.

CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE

FEBRUA RY 2 015

Attachment D


http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp

P P I C .O RG

THE HOUSING RECOVERY IS WELL UNDER WAY• HomevaluesarerisingthroughoutCalifornia.

Gains have been uneven across the state, but all of the most populous counties have experienced increases of at least 28 percent

from their lows during the housing bust. Some of the sharpest increases have occurred in counties that experienced the worst

busts, including San Joaquin (57%), San Bernardino (51%), Sacramento (50%), and Riverside (49%). Even with these remarkable

increases, values in these counties remain lower than they were at the peak of the housing boom. Other counties, all in the

Bay Area, have experienced sharp increases even though their housing busts were less severe. In three of those counties

(San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara), home values are now higher than they were during the previous boom.

MEDIAN HOUSING VALUES HAVE RISEN IN CALIFORNIA’S MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES

Peak (2006 or 2007)

Low (2011 or 2012)

Current (August 2014)

Peak to current

Low to current

Alameda $637,200 $403,300 $607,000 -5% 51%

Contra Costa $623,200 $308,800 $469,500 -25% 52%

Fresno $295,500 $134,400 $181,500 -39% 35%

Kern $272,500 $119,600 $163,800 -40% 37%

Los Angeles $568,500 $360,500 $485,500 -15% 35%

Orange $721,300 $485,000 $625,900 -13% 29%

Riverside $422,700 $200,100 $298,800 -29% 49%

Sacramento $402,000 $187,300 $281,300 -30% 50%

San Bernardino $379,900 $171,100 $258,600 -32% 51%

San Diego $538,500 $347,000 $471,400 -12% 36%

San Francisco $822,600 $667,700 $993,100 21% 49%

San Joaquin $415,100 $148,500 $233,800 -44% 57%

San Mateo $819,600 $614,200 $864,100 5% 41%

Santa Clara $747,600 $565,700 $821,300 10% 45%

Ventura $638,000 $381,900 $488,500 -23% 28%

California $538,300 $310,500 $430,700 -20% 39%

SOURCE: Zillow.

NOTE: Housing values are in nominal dollars. For most counties, the boom peak occurred in 2006 or 2007, and the bust low occurred in 2011 or 2012. Counties listed are the 15 most populated counties in the state.

• Thenumberofhomeownerswithnegativeequityhasdeclinedsharply.

According to CoreLogic, 11.2 percent of California homeowners with mortgages were underwater in the first quarter of 2014.

This represents a dramatic decline since the fourth quarter of 2009, when 37 percent of mortgaged homeowners were under-

water. For the first time since the housing bust, California’s rate is actually lower than the rate in the rest of the nation (12.7%).

• Foreclosurerateshavefallentothelowestlevelinyears.

California appears to be over the worst of the foreclosure crisis. The number of foreclosures has declined by 67 percent over the

past two years (August 2012 to August 2014, according to RealtyTrac). The total number of foreclosures is lower than it has been

in at least six years.

Attachment D



P P I C .O RG

• Newhomeconstructionisincreasing.

Low vacancy rates, rising prices, and low interest rates are leading to increases in housing starts. New residential construction

permits are on a pace to reach more than 80,000 this year, up from only 33,000 in 2009 but still far lower than the 200,000 new

units built annually from 2003 to 2005 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau). For the first time in more than 25 years, permits for

multifamily units exceed those for single-family units. Over the past three years, construction employment has grown much faster

than employment in most other sectors. Between August 2011 and August 2014, construction employment grew at an average

annualized rate of 5.8 percent, while total nonfarm employment grew at 2.4 percent.

AFTER A SHARP DECLINE, NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION IS RECOVERING

0

20,000

60,000

40,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

Single-family

Total

Multifamily

Ann

ualiz

ed p

erm

its

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Database.

NOTE: Data extends from August 1998 to August 2014.

• Housingismoreaffordableininlandareas.

Despite recent price increases, overall employment gains and low interest rates make housing affordable in many inland areas

of California, home to one-third of the state’s population. In the second quarter of 2014, more than 60 percent of households

could afford the median-priced home in the metropolitan areas of Hanford-Corcoran, Madera, Chico, and Redding. In the

Inland Empire and Sacramento, about half of households could afford the median-priced home (NAHB Wells Fargo).

HOUSING REMAINS EXPENSIVE FOR MOST OWNERS AND RENTERS• Californiansspenddisproportionatesharesoftheirincomesonhousing.

Monthly housing costs are substantially higher in California than in the nation as a whole. For homeowners with mortgages,

median monthly housing costs are 43.4 percent higher than nationwide, and, for renters, median rents are 35.2 percent higher

than nationwide. Yet household incomes in California are only 14 percent higher than incomes nationwide, according to the

2013 American Community Survey (ACS). This means that the share of Californians with excessive housing costs is quite high:

32.6 percent of mortgaged homeowners and 47.7 percent of renters spend more than 35 percent of their total household

incomes on housing (compared with 24.1% and 42.5%, respectively, nationwide).

Attachment D



P P I C .O RG

• Housingisespeciallyunaffordableincoastalareas,wheretwo-thirdsofCalifornia’spopulationlives.

For a seventh consecutive quarter, the San Francisco metropolitan area (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties)

was the nation’s least affordable major housing market. The coastal metropolitan areas of Orange County, Los Angeles, and

San Jose were also among the six least affordable nationwide. In the second quarter of 2014, less than one-fifth of households

could afford the median-priced home in these areas (NAHB Wells Fargo). The five most unaffordable small housing markets in

the nation were all in California: Santa Cruz–Watsonville tops the list, followed by Napa, Salinas, Santa Rosa–Petaluma, and

San Luis Obispo–Paso Robles.

• Rentsarehighandrising.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), six of the 12 most expensive large metropolitan rental

markets in the U.S. are in California: San Francisco is most expensive, followed by San Jose, Oakland, Orange County, Los

Angeles, and San Diego. In these expensive metropolitan areas, HUD’s estimated median rent for a two-bedroom apartment

ranges from $1,512 in San Diego to $2,263 in San Francisco. And, unlike housing prices, typical rents were higher in 2014 than

in 2006 in nearly all metropolitan areas, in nominal terms.

• Vacanciesarelow,relativetomoststates.

Despite sharply falling prices in recent years and increases in vacancy rates, the residential vacancy rate in California remains

among the lowest in the country. In 2013, the homeowner vacancy rate was 1.3 percent in California and 1.9 percent nationwide.

Meanwhile, the rental vacancy rate in California was 4.2 percent versus 6.5 percent nationwide. In many states, foreclosure often

leads to abandonment, whereas in California it often means turnover. (Vacancy rate data are from ACS.)

• Homeownershiprateshavefallen.

Between 2006 and 2013, homeownership rates, already much lower in California than in the rest of the nation, have declined

more sharply in the state than elsewhere in the country, falling to 53.8 percent of all occupied housing units in 2013 (compared

to 64.7% in the rest of the nation). The number of owner-occupied housing units fell by almost 300,000 in California, while the

number rented increased by about 800,000. Much of the increase in rental units has occurred among formerly owned single-

family detached housing units. By 2013, California’s homeownership rate was at its lowest level in more than a dozen years.

HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES HAVE FALLEN SHARPLY IN CALIFORNIA

50

55

60

65

70

Hom

eow

ners

hip

rate

(%

)

58.6%

53.8%

68.3%

64.7%

California

Rest of U.S.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

SOURCE: American Community Survey.

Attachment D



P P I C .O RG

LOOKING AHEADDemand for housing in California appears to be on the upswing. The Great Recession and ensuing economic uncertainty lowered

household-formation rates, especially among younger adults, many of whom are now living with their parents rather than on their

own. By inducing a drop in domestic and international migration, the recession also led to slower population growth. But household

formation among younger age groups is likely to recover as more jobs are added to the economy, unleashing a significant amount

of pent-up demand. In the future, as residents form new households and as the state’s population grows, housing demand will

continue to increase. Because the “echo boomers” are much more racially and ethnically diverse than previous generations, a larger

share of tomorrow’s young households will be Latinos and Asians. The biggest unknown is the contribution of migration to overall

population growth.

An increase in housing demand will require an increase in the supply of new housing. California needs to address both immediate

and long-term housing challenges with policies that improve affordability, remove unnecessary barriers to expanding the supply of

housing in high-cost areas, and meet the state’s environmental goals.

• Thestateandlocalauthoritiesshouldpursuepoliciesthatincreasethesupplyofaffordablehousing.

The construction of affordable housing in California is funded partly through state housing bonds, but the state has not passed

a housing bond in eight years. The elimination of redevelopment areas has also led to a reduction in the development of low-cost

housing. To encourage construction of affordable housing, state and local governments need to establish funding mechanisms

and policies—possibly including new housing bonds, development fees, and inclusionary zoning—that lead directly to more

affordable housing.

• Stateandlocalgovernmentsshouldlookcarefullyatregulationsthatcontributetohighprices.

The supply of new housing is often constrained by geography, as most of populated California is nestled against natural barriers

to construction—ocean, bay, and mountains. But it is also a result of policy choices and regulations. The state and many local

governments have strong land-use and building regulations that curtail construction and keep prices high. Height restrictions,

setback requirements, parking requirements, and outdated zoning that discourages new housing all serve to limit supplies and

increase costs. Some argue that inclusionary zoning and rent control also restrict the supply of new housing.

• Balancingenvironmentalgoalswithhousingdevelopmentwillbeachallenge.

As part of its ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gases, California has passed legislation to encourage local land-use

planning that reduces the need to drive. The goal is to coordinate new housing development with current and planned trans-

portation networks so that emissions (especially from cars) are reduced. Infill (new construction in built-up areas) is one way

to achieve this goal, but there is a trade-off. In the past, much of California’s most affordable new housing was built on vacant

land at the edge of urbanized areas. Infill housing is often more expensive and of smaller magnitude (in terms of units built)

than exurban development.

Contact a PPIC expert:

Hans Johnson

[email protected]

Marisol Cuellar Mejia

[email protected]

Attachment D



The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan

research. We are a public charity. We do not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor do we

endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.

Public Policy Institute of California

500 Washington Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94111

T 415 291 4400 F 415 291 4401

ppic.org

PPIC Sacramento Center

Senator Office Building

1121 L Street, Suite 801

Sacramento, CA 95814

T 916 440 1120 F 916 440 1121

Read more:

Hans Johnson

[email protected]

Marisol Cuellar Mejia

[email protected]

Contact a PPIC expert:

This series is funded by PPIC’s Donor Circle and the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation.

CLIMATE CHANGE

HEALTH CARE

CORRECTIONS

HIGHER EDUCATION

ECONOMY

HOUSING

K–12 EDUCATION

POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

POPULATION

SOCIAL SAFETY NET

WATER

Attachment D




http://www.ppic.org/main/bio.asp?i=132


http://www.ppic.org/main/bio.asp?i=394


http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=897











REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: STORMWATER OUTREACH CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED ACTION Authorize Executive Director to execute contract with Kennedy Communications, as recommended by Water Policy Committee, for an amount not to exceed $28,750. BACKGROUND At its January 2015 meeting, the Governing Board appointed the Water Committee and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to release a request for proposals (RFP) for assistance related to stormwater and stormwater runoff advocacy efforts, review responses to the RFP, and make a recommendation to the Governing Board to consider award of a contract. This RFP is intended to identify an individual or firm to assist the SGVCOG in gaining a better understanding of the challenges that the region’s cities will be facing as they implement projects and programs to meet the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MS4 NPDES) Permit requirements and in educating the region’s elected officials about these stormwater challenges. This includes collecting information about the estimated project costs for cities implement their Watershed Management Plans, Enhanced Watershed Management Plans, and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs), consolidating information about the related efforts of other groups (i.e. U.S. Conference of Mayors, League of California Cities, California Contract Cities Association, the LA Permit Group). The consultant will also conduct educational workshops to increase knowledge of stormwater compliance challenges and to collect feedback on members’ impression of these challenges to identify common ground and create talking points for elected officials, as well as a SGVCOG Policy Statement. Finally, the consultant would engage in advocacy efforts as requested by the SGVCOG. The entire scope of work can be found below: Technical Assistance

Develop surveys and collect information from all member cities on the estimated costs to implement the Water Management Plans, Enhanced Watershed Management Plans, and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs), including what funding sources cities expect to use to implement projects and the impact of these costs on the city’s overall budget.

Create report summarizing survey findings, potential impact on cities, and the efforts being undertaken by the LA Permit Group, the California Contract Cities Association, the League of California Cities, the Southern California Water Committee – Stormwater Task Force, the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.


REPORT

SGVCOG staff will provide consultant with information about the efforts of these above-mentioned groups and any others that should be incorporated into the report.

Outreach and Consensus Building

Conduct 2 educational workshops with the SGVCOG Governing Board and San Gabriel Valley city staff to increase knowledge of stormwater compliance challenges and to collect feedback on members’ impressions of these challenges in order to identify common ground.

Develop talking points for elected officials and city staff outlining cities’ responsibilities in meeting stormwater water quality requirements.

Draft an SGVCOG policy statement that outlines the SGVCOG’s position on stormwater compliance.

Advocacy

Advocate on a state and federal level, as directed, on issues related to stormwater compliance challenges.

The contract will be funded using the money remaining from the SGVCOG’s second contract with Larry Walker Associates, which developed materials to assist the cities in meeting the requirements of the LA MS4 Permit within the short timeframe that was required. There is approximately $30,000 remaining. The Water Committee directed staff to release the RFP in March 2015, and responses were due on May 4, 2015. The RFP is included as Attachment A. The SGVCOG received 4 responses to the RFP:

Council for Watershed Health John L. Hunter Associates Kennedy Communications S. Groner Associates

A synopsis of the 4 proposals is included as Attachment B.

At its May 2015 meeting, the Water Committee/TAC appointed 2 members of the Water Policy Committee and 2 members of the Water TAC to conduct a more comprehensive review of the proposals and to make a recommendation to the full Water Committee/TAC. The members were as follows:

Water Policy Committee: Margaret Clark, City of Rosemead; Diana Mahmud, City of South Pasadena

Water TAC: David Dolphin, City of Alhambra; James Carlson, City of Sierra Madre These individuals reviewed and scored the four proposals and discussed the proposals in a conference call. The Proposal from the Council for Watershed Health was deemed nonresponsive because it did not include a cost-estimate and did not include the workplan for 2 of the tasks included in the Scope of Work.


REPORT

The Proposal Review Committee recommended Kennedy Communications for the contract. They were pleased with the personnel that would be working on the contract, who had had significant involvement in MS4 and other water-related issues in the San Gabriel Valley. They thought this firm had the technical expertise and outreach expertise to create the best work product. The proposal from Kennedy Communications was also the lowest bid – at $28,750 – and the only bid to fall within the project budget. The other proposals had bids that were more than 20% higher than the project budget. The proposal from Kennedy Communications is included as Attachment C. NEXT STEPS The Water Policy Committee/TAC will be considering the Proposal Review Committee’s recommendation at its meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 2015. It is expected that the Water Policy Committee/TAC will make a recommendation and recommend the Governing Board enter into a contract with a firm for an amount not to exceed $28,750. Should the Governing Board approve the staff recommendation, the Executive Director will enter into a contract with the designated firm. A sample contract, showing the anticipated terms and conditions, is included as Attachment D. Attachments Attachment A – Request for Proposals Attachment B – Proposal Response Analysis Attachment C – Kennedy Communications Proposal Attachment D – Sample Contract



Technical Consulting Services Related to the Stormwater Education & Outreach

Request for Proposals

No. 15-01

Release Date: March 30, 2015

Submittal Deadline: May 4, 2015

Attachment A


OFFICERS

President Mary Ann Lutz

1st Vice President Gene Murabito

2nd Vice President Teresa Real Sebastian

3rd Vice President Tim Spohn MEMBERS

Alhambra

Arcadia

Azusa

Baldwin Park

Bradbury

Claremont

Covina

Diamond Bar

Duarte

El Monte

Glendora

Industry

Irwindale

La Cañada Flintridge

La Puente

La Verne

Monrovia

Montebello

Monterey Park

Pasadena

Pomona

Rosemead

San Dimas

San Gabriel

San Marino

Sierra Madre

South El Monte

South Pasadena

Temple City

Walnut

West Covina

First District, LA County Unincorporated Communities

Fourth District, LA County Unincorporated Communities

Fifth District, LA County Unincorporated Communities

SGV Water Districts

.

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments 1000 S. Fremont Ave., Unit #42 Suite 10-210 Alhambra, CA 91803 March 30, 2015 RE: Stormwater Education & Outreach Request for Proposals Dear Sir or Madam: Attached please find a copy of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) Request for Proposals (RFP) for education and outreach services to assist the SGVCOG in educating elected officials from its member agencies about the challenges municipalities face in complying with stormwater and water quality regulations. The SGVCOG is a joint-powers authority created by the 31 cities within Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Supervisorial Districts 1, 4 and 5, and the San Gabriel Valley’s water agencies to serve the interregional interests of the 2 million residents living in the incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in the San Gabriel Valley. Founded in 1994, the organization’s mission is to serve as “a unified voice to maximize resources and advocate for regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley.” Due to the complexity of the issue and the diversity of the cities in the San Gabriel Valley, the SGVCOG is seeking a qualified individual or firm to work with the SGVCOG to undertake a stormwater education and outreach strategy. The firm(s) or individual(s) applying should have significant experience in working with municipal governments and elected officials, preferably in the San Gabriel Valley, in the areas of education and outreach, and be extremely familiar with municipal stormwater management and enforcement issues. All responses to this RFP are due to the SGVCOG offices by Monday, May 4, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. Sincerely,

Francis M. Delach Executive Director

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit #42 ♦ Alhambra, California 91803

Attachment A


REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS


Table of Contents

1.0 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 2

4.0 QUESTIONS AND ADDENDA ....................................................................................... 3

5.0 SUBMITTAL OF RESPONSES ....................................................................................... 4

6.0 VENDOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................. 4

7.0 SCOPE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 4

8.0 RESPONSE FORMAT ...................................................................................................... 5

9.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 6

10.0 SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................... 7

11.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................... 7

1.0 Overview

The San Gabriel Council of Governments (SGVCOG) is a Joint Powers Authority created by the 31 cities within Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Supervisorial Districts 1, 4 and 5, and the San Gabriel Valley’s water agencies to serve the interregional interests of 2 million residents living in the incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in the San Gabriel Valley. Founded in 1994, the organization’s mission is to serve as “a unified voice to maximize resources and advocate for regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley.” Please visit the SGVCOG’s website (www.sgvcog.org) for additional information. SGVCOG is soliciting proposals from qualified and experienced firms (hereafter referred to as “Consultant” or “Firm”) to assist in the development and implementation of a stormwater education and outreach strategy by gathering information on regional needs, educating elected officials and city staff, and identifying common regional interests.

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments 1

Attachment A



Proposals must be submitted electronically in Adobe Printable Document Format (PDF) and identified as “Response to Technical Consulting Services Related to Stormwater Education and Outreach,” to Francis Delach, Executive Director, at [email protected]. Proposals must be received by May 4, 2015, at 4:00 p.m.

2.0 Background

Since December 2012, cities across Southern California have been developing plans and strategies and identifying projects to meet the water quality requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) Permit. The costs of implementing these activities to meet the standards of the NPDES MS4 Permit are high, and cities are struggling to identify the resources to fund these projects and programs. Several local, state, and national agencies have been working to identify possible strategies and funding sources to help cities comply with the NPDES MS4 Permits and other State and Federal water quality standards. These include the League of California Cities, Los Angeles Division; the California Contract Cities; the United States (U.S.) Conference of Mayors; and the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts. These agencies have been working both in concert and separately to identify technical and legislative alternatives that address the “stormwater problem.” Before the San Gabriel Valley can mobilize to identify solutions to the stormwater challenges faced by cities in the region, the state, and the nation, it is important to have an understanding of the cities’ water quality needs and a baseline level of awareness and education amongst decision makers. Because of the complexity of the issue and the diverse interests represented in the San Gabriel Valley, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) is seeking technical assistance in identifying regional needs and educating elected officials about the fiscal, legal, regulatory, and community challenges created by stormwater compliance. 3.0 General Requirements

3.1 All firms are bound by the deadline and location requirements of this RFP. 3.2 Firms electing to respond to this RFP are responsible for all costs incurred in the

preparation and submission of the proposals; demonstrations; interviews; preparation of responses to questions and requests for additional information; for contract discussions; or for anything in any way related to this RFP. SGVCOG is not liable for any costs incurred by the firm in response to this RFP and the firms, including all related parties, disclaims and voluntarily and knowingly waives any and all rights to reimbursement for any such costs.

3.3 Late proposals will not be considered.


Attachment A



3.4 SGVCOG reserves the right to reject any or all responses or any portion thereof and

to select the response(s) which, in its sole discretion, it judges to be in the best interest of the cities.

3.5 SGVCOG reserves the right to cancel or modify this RFP. There is no guarantee that

the SGVCOG will place the requested service under contract. 3.6 SGVCOG reserves the right to investigate the qualifications of any firm under

consideration including proposed subcontractors and parties otherwise related to the firm and require confirmation of information furnished by a firm, or require additional evidence of experience and qualifications to provide the services or otherwise discharge the obligations required by this RFP.

3.7 SGVCOG is subject to the Public Records Act and reserves the right to disclose

information contained in proposals to the public, subject to exemptions for certain records.

3.8 SGVCOG reserves the right to approve or disapprove of particular subcontractors,

joint venture partners, or other proposed team members. 3.9 SGVCOG reserves the right to evaluate responses in terms of the best interests of the

cities, applying criteria provided in this RFP and any other criteria SGVCOG, in its sole discretion, deems pertinent.

3.10 SGVCOG reserves the right to accept other than the lowest cost proposal based upon

an evaluation of all aspects of the response.

3.11 By the submission of a proposal, each firm accepts and agrees to execute a written agreement.

3.12 All responses must remain valid for a minimum period of one hundred and eighty

(180) days after the response due date. Responses may not be modified or withdrawn by the firm during this period of time except in accordance with this RFP and with written permission granted by SGVCOG.

3.13 Firms may withdraw their proposal prior to the date and time set for receipt of

proposals provided a written request is submitted to SGVCOG prior to the date and time set for receipt of proposals.

4.0 Questions and Addenda

4.1 All questions or requests for clarification shall be submitted via email to Francis

Delach, Executive Director, at [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2015. All questions received by this deadline will be addressed posted on the SGVCOG website (www.sgvcog.org) by Thursday, April 9, 2015.


Attachment A




4.2 If it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, an amendment will be posted

on the SGVCOG website at www.sgvcog.org. It shall be the sole responsibility of the firm to check for any amendments to the RFP that may be issued by SGVCOG.

5.0 Submittal of Proposals

5.1 Proposals should be simply developed and include the information requested in

Section 7.0.—Scope of Services. All proposals must be submitted electronically in Adobe Printable Document Format (.pdf) format. When submitting a proposal via email, it must be identified as “Response to Technical Consulting Services Related to the Development of the LA NPDES MS4 Permit.” File size shall be limited to no larger than 5 MB. Proposals not meeting these criteria will not be accepted or considered.

5.2 Proposals must be submitted electronically no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 2015, to Francis Delach, Executive Director at [email protected]. Hard copy submittals will not be accepted.

Proposals received after that time will not be accepted.

5.3 After the due date of the proposals, a firm may not correct, modify, or withdraw the price or any other provision of its response in a manner prejudicial to the interests of SGVCOG or fair competition. SGVCOG may waive minor informalities or allow the firm to correct them.

6.0 Firm’s Responsibilities

6.1 It is presumed that each firm has read and is thoroughly familiar with the scope of

services to be performed under this RFP. 6.2 The firm agrees that, if a contract is executed with SGVCOG, the firm shall make no

claim against SGVCOG because of any estimate or statement made by any employees, agents, or consultants of SGVCOG which may prove to be erroneous in any respect.

7.0 Scope of Service SGVCOG is seeking a qualified individual or firm to work with the SGVCOG to collect information on member agencies’ stormwater needs, summarize and create reports on findings, and conduct educational workshops for elected officials in the San Gabriel Valley to identify commonalities of interests. The firm(s) or individual(s) applying should have significant experience working with municipal governments and elected officials, have a strong background in education, outreach, and


Attachment A



consensus building strategies, and have a strong understanding of the stormwater challenges that municipalities face and the laws and regulations with which they must comply. 1. Technical Assistance

1.1. Develop surveys and collect information from all member cities on the estimated costs to implement the Water Management Plans, Enhanced Watershed Management Plans, and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs), including what funding sources cities expect to use to implement projects and the impact of these costs on the city’s overall budget.

1.2. Create report summarizing survey findings, potential impact on cities, and the efforts being undertaken by the LA Permit Group, the California Contract Cities Association, the League of California Cities, the Southern California Water Committee – Stormwater Task Force, the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. SGVCOG staff will provide consultant with information about the efforts of these above-mentioned groups and any others that should be incorporated into the report.

2. Outreach and Consensus Building – 2.1. Conduct 2 educational workshops with the SGVCOG Governing Board and San Gabriel

Valley city staff to increase knowledge of stormwater compliance challenges and to collect feedback on members’ impressions of these challenges in order to identify common ground.

2.2. Develop talking points for elected officials and city staff outlining cities’ responsibilities in meeting stormwater water quality requirements.

2.3. Draft an SGVCOG policy statement that outlines the SGVCOG’s position on stormwater compliance.

3. Advocacy – 3.1. Advocate on a state and federal level, as directed, on issues related to stormwater

compliance challenges. Note: For this task, list a maximum blended hourly rate for any staff that would be working on this task. Do not include an estimate of hours.

8.0 Proposal Format All proposals must be submitted electronically in Adobe Printable Document Format (.pdf) format. All proposals shall include the following information and comply with the associated page limit restrictions. Note that 1 page includes the front side of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper and the cover does not constitute a page.

1) Cover Letter – 1-page cover letter signed by an officer of the firm, binding the firm to all of the commitments made in the submittal

2) Firm Background – 1-page background on the firm and its associated specialties. An additional 1-page may be included to highlight the background of any proposed sub-consultants.


Attachment A


3) Previous Experience – 5-page summary of the firm’s and each individual proposed to work on the project's experience in working in outreach and consensus building with elected officials and experience with the municipal stormwater management issues in Southern California and the San Gabriel Valley. References should be included. Additionally, the firm must indicate whether it has ever been terminated from a contract. If yes, the firm will be required to describe the facts and circumstances.

4) Project Approach – Maximum 7-page summary of the proposed approach to completing

the scope of work.

5) Proposed Personnel – 1-page resumes for each of the 3 leading staff members that will be performing the majority of the work on the project. Resumes for corporate leadership should not be included unless said individuals will be performing substantial work on this project.

6) Schedule – 1-page schedule detailing how the tasks will be completed within the required timeframe.

9.0 Cost Estimate 1-page cost estimate. This contract will be based on a time and materials basis (which shall include all overhead and profit) subject to an overall contract cap. All proposals must include with a clearly identified hourly rate schedule for the proposed staff. Firm rates for clerical, reproduction, and any proposed reimbursables shall also be included. Proposals should include a breakdown of hourly rates for each position, showing base salary, fringe benefits, overhead and profit. For Tasks 1 and 2, the proposal must include a breakdown of the costs by proposed task, including an estimate of the number of hours per staff member. For Task 3, the proposal must include a maximum blended hourly rate for any staff that would be working on this task. Do not include an estimate of hours.

10.0 Evaluation Criteria

Each firm’s response will be evaluated upon the following criteria:

1) Experience & Staffing (45%) – The firm’s previous experience with similar work in similar fields and qualifications and depth of the staff that will perform the work on this project;

2) Project Approach (25%) – The firm’s responsiveness in addressing the requests of the proposal; and

3) Cost (30%) – The firm’s fees and expenses for proposed level of effort


Attachment A


11.0 Selection Process

The SGVCOG’s Water Policy Committee and Water Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will review the proposals. Proposals will be ranked on qualifications and the selection committee may choose to interview several of the top ranked firms. However, at its sole discretion, the selection committee may dispense with interviews and select a firm to perform the work. Contract negotiations will occur subsequent to firm selection. Should SGVCOG be unable to successfully negotiate a contract with the highest qualified proposer, SGVCOG shall enter into negotiations with the next highest qualified proposer (and so on) until an agreement is reached. Each prospective contractor is expected to review the general terms and conditions and acknowledge their acceptance, or material exceptions, in the proposal cover letter. It is anticipated that the SGVCOG Governing Board will consider a recommendation of award of contract at its May 2015 Governing Board meeting. 12.0 Period of Performance It is anticipated that all work on this project will be completed by June 30, 2016.


Attachment A


Attachment B

Proposing Firm: Council for Watershed Health Non-Responsive – did not include budget and did not include project approach for Task 1.2 and Task 2.3 Project Understanding Staffing/Personnel Project Approach Relevant Experience Schedule Cost Proposal addresses the purpose of the project to collect water quality compliance data, educate elected officials, and identify regional commonalities.

Council for Watershed Health (CWH): • Project manager: 25 years of

experience in project management, 6 years developing surveys, 26 years developing custom publications, and 20 years writing proposals and technical reports

• Research Analyst: GIS background and experience in stormwater capture modeling and analysis

Center for Urban Water Resilience, Cal State-Northridge: • Director: Leads organization

that attempts to shed light on and address issues related to water in an urban environment; previously oversaw all programmatic and policy activities at CWH

Task 1.1: Survey design specialist will design digital questionnaire – including costs about planning to date, projected costs, and ratio of costs to annual budget. Surveys distributed via email – with phone or in-person follow-up if needed

Task 1.2: Does not address

Task 2.1: 2 engagement sessions will be conducted with basic information about stormwater (Stormwater 101), the Permit, current regional operations, and the drought, including survey findings. Will collect feedback from elected officials

Task 2.2: Will collect feedback from elected officials at engagement sessions to draft talking points and other outreach materials

Task 2.3: Does not address

Task 3: Can attend meetings in Sacramento or Washington but as a 501(c)3, cannot lobby

• Serves on 12 advisory committees (including MS4 Technical Advisory Group, the Reasonable Assurance Assessment workgroup, the Greater Los Angeles County IRWM, SGVCOG Water TAC) and has participated in numerous regional studies

• Holds 6-8 workshops/symposia annually, hosting over 600 stakeholders, including 2 previous workshops about the implications of the MS4 stormwater permit

• Completed neighborhood stormwater demonstration project to capture and infiltrate stormwater

• Developed Groundwater Augmentation Model Stormwater Potential Dataset that helps identify and prioritize projects

• Led the San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program in 2005 and has led the Los Angeles River Watershed-wide Monitoring Program since 2007

• Developed Southern California Watershed Assessment Framework

Survey Development & Data Collection:

4 months (proposed 6/20/15-10/15/15)

Outreach & Consensus Building:

1.5 months to prepare workshop materials (proposed 11/1/15-12/15/15)

Workshops held January-February 2016

Final Report drafted 3 months after workshop (proposed 5/15/16)

Policy Statement:

Completed at end of grant period (proposed 6/1/16)

Unknown

Hourly Rate: Unknown


Attachment B

Proposing Firm: John L. Hunter Associates Project Understanding Staffing/Personnel Project Approach Relevant Experience Schedule Cost Shows understanding of the project goal to collect data on water quality compliance costs and pull together resources from different agencies to educate elected officials and inform COG policy statements

• John L. Hunter: 30 years of experience in municipal environmental programs; oversees the 30-city NPDES program including watershed management, TMDL implementation, and public outreach

• Cameron McCullough: 11 years of experience in environmental management, specializing in stormwater and watershed management; worked on 3 WMPs (Watershed Management Plan) and an EWMP (Enhanced WMP)

• Julian Brickey: 9 years of experience in municipal environmental programs, specializing in stormwater and watershed management; assisted in the development of WMPs, EWMPs, and a Master WMP; specializes in the development of stormwater structural control/low impact development (LID) programs

Task 1.1: Will review WMPs, EWMPs, and CIMPs (through the Watershed groups) for potential cost impacts – has already done some of this work. Will also develop a survey and contact individual stormwater coordinators (have contact info already). Will gather information, where available from individual and watershed reports that summarize activities from the previous fiscal year

Task 1.2: Will assemble and review data collected above to provide information on the costs of the MS4 compliance projects and where the funds are coming from. Are already engaged with most of the groups identified

Task 2.1: Will do the set-up work for 2 workshops at locations identified/provided by the SGVCOG. Member impressions from workshop will be incorporated into the report

Task 2.2: Has experience in doing this. Open-ended task depending upon future direction from the SGVCOG; conducted on a time

• Has 30 NPDES MS4 clients, including 6 in the San Gabriel Valley

• Held MS4 Permit-related stakeholder meetings for Los Angeles River, Lower Los Angeles River, Lower San Gabriel River Watershed Committees

• Presented at council meetings and special study sessions on NPDES MS4 Permit compliance, LID ordinances and green streets policies, TMDL compliance, and financial strategies to achieve Permit compliance

• Put together surveys and collected data for the preparation of the WMPs and EWMPs

Survey Development: Month 2

Data Collection: Month 3

Analyze & prepare report: Month 4

Preliminary Report & conduct 1st workshop: Month 8

Final presentation & second workshop: Month 12

Policy statement preparation: Month 14

Task 1: $48,900 Task 2: $13,445 Total: $72,345 Hourly Rate: Principal: $200 Compliance Manager: $165 Project Engineer: $135 Funding Resource Subcontractor (Richard Watson Associates): $200 Total number of hours: 452 hours Advocacy: $165/hr No additional charges for mileage in or around city or administrative copying.


Attachment B

and material basis (budget included)

Task 2.3: Iterative process incorporating input from SGVCOG members and surveys; will present and lead discussions at 2 meetings; prepare 2 drafts.

Task 3: Can assemble team experienced in stormwater advocacy on a state and federal level.


Attachment B

Proposing Firm: S. Groner Associates Project Understanding Staffing/Personnel Project Approach Relevant Experience Schedule Cost Shows understanding of the project goal to collect data on water quality compliance costs and pull together resources from different agencies to educate elected officials and inform COG policy statements

• S. Groner Associates (Stephen Groner): 25 years in stormwater management, including working on LA County’s first NPDES permits; more than 16 years experience communicating complex stormwater and environmental issues to a range of stakeholders and building towards consensus; participated on Statewide Stormwater Taskforce

• RBF Consulting (Daniel Apt): Has been extensively involved in Best Management Practices (BMP) research, TMDL development and implementation, NPDES stormwater permit compliance

• Estolano LeSar Perez Advisors (Katherine Perez-Estolano): Provides fresh solutions to complex problems with expertise in sustainability, community engagement, housing, and economic development.

Will begin project with strategic planning meeting to develop a master workplan Task 1.1: Will develop survey that is distributed to WMP/EWMP Group Managers with Survey Monkey. Will follow up with phone call after survey is distributed.

Task 1.2: Will begin work simultaneously with survey collection and draft annotated report outline. Will then be updated to reflect survey findings.

Task 2.1: Workshop content will be influenced by survey results. Workshops could include framing presentations, breakout sessions, and hands-on scenario planning sessions. Will incorporate many opportunities for feedback/comments from participants

Task 2.2: Will prepare talking points that are tailored towards different audiences (business leaders, community organizations). Could prepare sample FAQs, 1-page background

• Project Manager on Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission project to address onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Malibu Creek Watershed – brought together stakeholders to develop and implement the 4 point plan (S. Groner)

• Completed strategic planning coordination for the California Stormwater Quality Association (S. Groner)

• Provides Executive Director services for Westside COG (ELP Advisors)

• Prepared Implementation Report for Economic Development Plan in Pasadena, Sustainable Little Tokyo Vision for Little Tokyo Services Center, and General Plan Update for El Monte (ELP Advisors)

• Prepared EWMPs and CIMPs for Malibu Creek Watershed (RBF Consulting)

• Managing program to remove local barriers to Low Impact Development (RBF Consulting)

Strategic Planning Meeting/Master Workplan Development: Week 2-3

Survey Development: Weeks 3-5

Data Collection: Weeks 8-10

Analyze & prepare report: Weeks 4-16

Prepare for & conduct first workshop: Weeks 18-23

Prepare for & conduct second workshop: Weeks 26-27

Talking points preparation: Weeks 30-34

Policy statement preparation: Weeks 16-18; 23, 27 (with workshops); 30

Task 1: $36,650 Task 2: $44,650 Total: $81,300 Hourly Rate: Project Director (SGA): $213 Project Manager (SGA): $178 Project Coordinator (SGA): $159 Principal (RBF): $215 Environmental Specialist: $120 Technical Editor: $115 Member (ELP): $250 Principal (ELP): $195 Senior Associate: $150 Associate: $100 Research Analyst: $60 Total number of hours: 445 hours


Attachment B

• Kadesh & Associates:

founded in 2007; based in Washington, DC; government-relations and federal advocacy firm specializing in California and California-related issues

• Shaw/Yoder/Ahtwih, Inc.:

more than 38 years of providing legislative & regulatory advocacy and association management services to corporate and public clients

sheets and media preparedness training on request

Task 2.3: Will be developed based on survey results and report; will be introduced for feedback at the workshops and updated for presentation to Water Committee and Board

Task 3: Includes 1 federal and 1 state lobbying firm

Develop support materials as directed by COG: Week 34

Advocacy: Kadesh & Associates: $350/hr Shaw/Yoder/Antwih: $250/hr


Attachment B

Proposing Firm: Kennedy Communications Project Understanding Staffing/Personnel Project Approach Relevant Experience Schedule Cost Shows understanding of the project goal to collect data on water quality compliance costs and pull together resources from different agencies to educate elected officials and inform COG policy statements

• Kennedy Communications (Maria Kennedy): Serves as co-chair of the Disadvantaged Community/Environmental Justice Caucus; works closely with the US EPA Region 9 through her work on the National Drinking Water Advisory Council; worked with Assemblymember Rendon to ensure there was funding for disadvantaged communities in Proposition 1

• Laser, LLC (Wendy La): Nearly 20 years of hands-on multi-faceted experience in groundwater administration, stormwater capture/conservation, water resources planning, watershed management, flood control/protection; urban run-off pollutants control and discharges; water quality and supply monitoring and reporting; regional capital improvement program development and

Task 1.1: After kick-off meeting and review of existing documents and information provided, prepare draft survey and distribute electronically (and follow-up with email and phone calls); could include unincorporated areas of LA County on request

Task 1.2: Will review existing documents and information provided by COG and Water Committee to prepare draft report and final report (with comments incorporated)

Task 2.1: Draft workshop content (for workshop 1 and workshop 2) for review by staff and Water Committee; 2nd workshop will be for SGVCOG Governing Board; will provide summary of feedbacks and identify common ground

Task 2.2: Will prepare talking points that incorporate existing documents/information from COG staff and Water Committee/TAC and prepare draft and final talking points (with comments incorporated)

• Worked on non-source point pollution education program around the Port of Los Angeles (Kennedy Communications)

• Undertook award-winning public engagement and participation project to educate residents of Perris, CA about the need to convert failing septic tanks into a municipal water system to improve water quality in the Santa Ana River Watershed (Kennedy Communications)

• Provides technical assistance to small, disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley to help them apply for State funding to address wastewater and drinking funding (Kennedy Communications)

• Assisted in pilot studies for the Upper Rio Hondo Watershed and Upper San Gabriel Watershed to bring together stakeholders to adopt best management practices and MOUs to comply with the MS4 Permit (Laser LLC)

Survey Development: June – December 2015

Data Collection: June – December 2015

Analyze & prepare report: September – December 2015

Prepare and conduct workshops: January – March 2016

Talking points preparation: February – March 2016

Policy statement preparation: February – March 2016

Task 1: $16,250 Task 2: $8,225 Total: $28,750 Hourly Rate: $125/hr Total number of hours: 220 hours Advocacy: $125/hr


Attachment B

consensus/partnership cultivation

Task 2.3: Will review existing documents and existing information and prepare draft and final policy statement (with comments incorporated)

Task 3: Advocate on a state and federal level on issues related to stormwater compliance


Attachment C


!

Maria Elena Kennedy Kennedy Communications

9042 Camellia Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737

May 4, 2015

Fran Delach Executive Director San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit #42 Alhambra, CA 91803 Dear Mr. Delach:

It is with pleasure that we submit our proposal for consideration for the Technical Consulting Services Related to Storm water Education and Outreach RFP.

Kennedy Communications has been involved in many high profile public outreach and education programs throughout the state of California. Our work produces results for our clients.

In this project, we are proud to team with La Solutions for Engineer Resources, LLC (LASER) to provide a robust and cost effective stormwater education and outreach strategy program to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. LASER is well known in the San Gabriel Valley for their expertise on urban runoff and stormwater solutions and technical assistance.

We believe that by partnering a well-known public outreach firm with a technical firm, our team will bring the results that the SGVCOG needs: educating the stakeholders so that they can speak with one voice as a region while retaining their individual identity.

I am authorized to bind Kennedy Communications as the prime bidder as well as LASER as the sub-consultant to all of the commitments in the submittal. Our firms have years of experience in crafting public outreach programs and providing technical assistance to many agencies together in the past. We are excited about the prospect of working with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments in the development and implementation of a stormwater education and outreach strategy by gathering information on regional needs, educating elected officials and city staff, and identifying common regional interests.

Sincerely,

/s/

Maria Elena Kennedy

Attachment C


!

2. Firm Background

Kennedy Communications is well regarded in the area of water resources for their innovative approaches to educating stakeholders on a variety of issues. The firm is best known for our work in disadvantaged communities, helping agencies access funding through the State Water Resources Control Board, Proposition 84 and other funding sources.

The firm’s principal, Maria Elena Kennedy is heavily involved in many aspects of water resources. Recently, Ms. Kennedy Co-Chair, the Disadvantaged Community/Environmental Justice Caucus for the California Water Plan Update 2013. In this capacity, Ms. Kennedy helped to write the “Californians Without Safe Water and Sanitation” This report advises the California Department of Water Resources on ways to manage California’s water resources with regards to disadvantaged communities. Ms. Kennedy works very closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, both in Region 9 and Headquarters. Ms. Kennedy’s work with EPA started when she was appointed to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council in 2010. In this capacity, she was an advocate for California’s water resources on the national level. Ms. Kennedy has a particular emphasis on ensuring that Washington, D.C. understood California’s unique needs with regards to all aspects of water resources and not just drinking water.

Creative and cost effective stakeholder engagement is a high priority area for Kennedy Communications. Currently the firm is working with California University System’s Water Resources and Policy Initiative, a center that is sponsored by the Chancellor’s office which engages diverse stakeholders including local, state and federal officials to help the state resolve the water resources challenges we find ourselves in. To this end, the firm coordinated a conference on April 23rd at CalEPA which brought together leading experts and government officials from agencies such as US EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, USDA, the Regional Boards, the academic community and the Governor’s office. This forum is an outcome of work that Kennedy Communications is undergoing in the Central Valley with CSU faculty and students. The project, sponsored by USDA, seeks to find Best Management Practices of providing technical assistance to disadvantaged communities who are seeking funding from various sources. Ms. Kennedy serves as the outreach liaison to the project.

In Sacramento, Ms. Kennedy is an advocate for more funding for Southern California. Working closely with Assemblyman Anthony Rendon D-Lakewood when he was crafting Prop 1, Ms. Kennedy ensured that there is funding set-aside for disadvantaged communities to address their water quality issues. Ms. Kennedy is now working with State Board staff to find ways of equitably allocating the funding.

In summary, Kennedy Communications is a tireless advocate helping to ensure that clients are given the tools they need to succeed.

!!!!!!!!Kennedy!Communications!!Attachment C


Firm Background for LASER!

La Solutions for Engineering Resources LLC (L.A.S.E.R.), San Dimas, California

September 2013 - Present

Wendy La is the founder of LASER and a principal water resources engineer with near 20 years of experience in urban runoff, stormwater, watershed management and groundwater administration. Ms. La's career has focused on the development of multi-benefit and environmentally sensitive solutions. Ms. La specializes in strategic planning, integrated multi-use project development, disadvantaged communities outreach, and grant funding. Ms. La continues expanding relationship with senior management, key decision makers, and technical staff at the US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, various cities, water agencies and companies, chambers of commerce, and environmental groups.

AWARDS and CERTIFICATES of RECOGNITION:

• 2013 Women of Year Award from the 24th Senate District Office of Senator Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D.

• Certificate of Congressional Recognition for Environmental Protection and Justice in 2013 from the 27th District Office of Congresswoman Judy Chu, Ph.D.

• Certificate from the City of El Monte in recognition of the prestigious selection as the 2013 Woman of Achievement as designated by the 24th Senate District Office of Senator Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D.

• State of California Senate Certificate of Recognition from the 24th Senate District Office of Senator Dr. Ed Hernandez, O.D. for the 2013 IMAGINE Your STEM Future Workshop presenter to empower young women of the Cities of El Monte and South El Monte to consider excitement careers in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Attachment C


3. Previous Experience

We believe that a perfect blend of a well-known public outreach firm and a technical firm is a recipe for success in the development and implementation of a stormwater education and outreach strategy for the San Gabriel Valley region. Kennedy Communications has worked closely with Ms. La on project development and funding through the Greater Los Angeles Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). In this capacity, Ms. Kennedy and Ms. La collaborated on the Upper San Gabriel River/Rio Hondo Sub-region to ensure that the IRWMP process had robust participation by disadvantaged communities which gave the entire project suite extra points towards funding. A good example of the creative and collaborative approach to project creation taken by Kennedy and La was the Peck Water Conservation Improvement project, which had been submitted for consideration for funding by the Los Angeles Flood Control District. Although initially there was skepticism by some stakeholders as to the validity of claiming that the project was a disadvantaged community project, Kennedy and La went ahead and researched the project. Kennedy sat in the park for days on end talking to the park visitors in Spanish to ascertain who was utilizing the project area. Meanwhile La was poring over technical reports to ascertain if the project would truly benefit a disadvantaged community. Additionally Kennedy and La organized stakeholder meetings with the city of Arcadia, the County of Los Angeles, the city of El Monte, the City of Monrovia and other stakeholders to ensure there was broad support for the project. In spite of the initial skepticism, Kennedy and La were able to show the California Department of Water Resources that the project met the criteria for disadvantaged communities. The project was awarded $4M in grant funding. This brief summary of a successful teaming between Kennedy Communications and LASER, LLC that produced not only collaboration among stakeholders but also resulted funding for the project. Below is a brief description of the lead personnel for this RFP. Resumes for each of the lead from both firms are included in Section 5. Both Firms have never been terminated from a contract. Qualifications of Lead Personnel for Kennedy Communications

Under the Storm Drain: An Elementary Non-Source Point Pollution Program Elementary Education.

Reference: Monica Fiello, Principal Avalon High School

Problem: the Port of Los Angeles has struggled with water quality issues for many years. The communities surrounding the port are very diverse and some residents are often not engaged with the larger community. This is especially true of the community of Wilmington, which is primarily Latino and non-English speaking. The port has been trying to engage this community

Attachment C


for years. Kennedy Communications was hired by the port to provide a public engagement and education program aimed at helping the residents understand the need to eliminate the non-point source pollution, which was polluting the San Pedro Bay. The public participation and engagement program, which Kennedy Communications crafted for the port, involved working with Avalon Continuation High School to train at-risk students about non-point source pollution and watershed management. Although environmental science is not a traditional subject for continuation high schools, Kennedy Communications saw the potential in training the students at Avalon Continuation High School to give presentations on non-point source pollution prevention to elementary school children. The students at Avalon became eager advocates for the stormwater pollution prevention program once they started the training and giving presentations to the elementary school children. The program provided wet lab science equipment to the school so the students were able to conduct lab work, which showed them the effects of stormwater pollution on the environment. The two year program made a lasting impression on not only the elementary school students, many of them who had not thought about stormwater pollution and the need to keep our watersheds clean but more importantly it gave the continuation school students the opportunity to see potential career opportunities in Environmental Sciences.

Enchanted Heights Sewer Project

Reference: Ron Carr, Assistant City Manager, City of Perris

The Enchanted Heights Sewer project is an award winning public engagement and participation project, which educated the residents about the need to convert failing septic tanks to a municipal sewer system in order to improve water quality in the Santa Ana River Watershed. The City of Perris had struggled for many years trying to find a solution to failing septic tanks in a remote area of the city. The residents were primarily Spanish speaking and were culturally and linguistically isolated. When the opportunity came to have the state pay for the septic conversion, the residents were less than enthusiastic about the proposed project as many were undocumented and feared government. The city leaders were at a loss on how to communicate with the residents in a manner they could understand so that they would cooperate with the legal requirements of the grants, which had been secured from the State. Kennedy Communications was hired to help the city not only communicate with the residents but to make them active partners with them on the project. Ms. Kennedy worked to ensure that not only the residents worked collaboratively but also the agencies involved in the project also worked collaboratively. Two state agencies, the State Water Resources Control Board and the then California Department of Public Health who funded the project, wanted to make sure that the entire project was a collaborative effort among all stakeholders. Kennedy gave numerous presentations to the city council as well as briefed the state agencies on the progress of the project. Because of the innovative collaboration among the stakeholders, the project was awarded the prestigious Helen Putnam award in 2012. The Enchanted Heights Sewer Project also won the National League of Cities’ Showcase Cities award in 2012 as well as the Municipal Management Association of

Attachment C


Southern California’s award for the “Outreach to a Disadvantaged Community”. The project also received two Public Relations Society of America’s Polaris awards in 2012.

Technical Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities in California’s Central Valley Reference: Karl Longley, PE, Professor, and CSU Fresno

Through a United State Department of Agriculture grant, CSU Fresno has created a program to deliver technical services to disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is home to numerous small communities who face many wastewater and drinking water challenges. Too often these communities are not able to access the technical assistance they need to apply for funding to solve their problems. The CSU program provided four communities in the Central Valley with technical assistance to apply for funding from Prop 84, the State Revolving Fund and other funding pots to see what types of assistance would be most useful to these communities. Kennedy Communications is the community liaison that interacts with the communities and provides them with the technical assistance they need to apply for funding. In addition to working with CSU’s engineering faculty to help these communities prepare funding applications, Kennedy Communications also served as an advocate for them in Sacramento as the state is preparing to release the Prop 1 funding. The CSU’s Chancellor’s office has recently approved the creation of system-wide Center for Disadvantaged Communities which will systematize the work which was performed under the USDA pilot study. Ms. Kennedy has been intimately involved in the creation of the center as an advisor to the CSU system.

Qualifications of Lead Personnel for LASER

Wendy La, PE

Ms. La is a "Registered Professional Civil Engineer" with a strategic and business vision; served in both large and small organizations with near 20 years of hands-on multi-faceted experience in groundwater administration, stormwater capture/conservation, water resources planning, watershed management, flood control/protection, urban run-off pollutants control and discharges, water quality and supply monitoring and reporting, federal/state/regional grant funding administration (e.g. secured over $60 million), flood protection and drainage system design, hydraulic and hydrology modeling, regional capital improvement program development (e.g. $70 million annual budget), and consensus/partnership cultivation.

Attachment C


The Upper Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River Watersheds - Essential CENSWDs Pilot Study (2012-2013)

Reference: Dr. David Eugene Kimbrough, Ph.D., City of Pasadena Water and Power

The 2012 Los Angeles County MS4 NPDES Permit has special provisions for “Essential Conditionally Exempt Non-Storm Water Discharges” (Essential CENSWDs). These cover discharges from Community Water Systems (CWSs), Fire Departments (FDs), and C-16 Contractors. MS4 Permittees can accept Essential CENSWDs and if they cause the Receiving Water Limitation to be exceeded, the MS4 Permittee is not found to be in violation of the MS4 Permit. Without these provisions, MS4 Permittees would be put in danger of violating the MS4 Permit by accepting non-storm water discharges. The provisions are based upon the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) by CWSs but enforced by the MS4 Permittee.

The key making these provisions work is for CWSs and MS4 Permittees is to work together to coordinate the provisions of the MS4 Permit as they apply to the Essential CENSWDs. Ms. La was instrumental in assisting Dr. Kimbrough in conducting two pilot studies in the Upper Rio Hondo Watershed and the Upper San Gabriel River Watershed. Ms. La facilitated workshops, and in a collaborative effort due to Ms. La's creditability and good relations with all the stakeholders, Ms. La was successful in building consensus from the County and cities to participate in the these pilot studies. All of the CWSs and MS4 Permittees in the these two watersheds got together (separately) and used a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with an associated BMP Manual and put them into practice as if they were for compliance. After the pilot study period both groups met and assessed what worked and what did not work and changes were proposed to the MOU and BMP Manual based those studies.

National Park Service – San Gabriel Region National Recreational Area Task Force

Consensus Building Experience (2012-2013)

Reference: Mayor Judy Nelson, City of Glendora, Dr. Ann Croissant, San Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy

Ms. La led, facilitated, and collaborated with numerous stakeholders, such as the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor, US Army Corps of Engineers, San Gabriel Valley cities (elected officials and staff), water agencies, and chambers of commencers, SANBAG, San Gabriel Mountains Regional Conservancy, San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountain Conservancy, Sierra Club, Friends of the River, The Wilderness Society, Amigo de Los Rios, and many other local stakeholders) in forming the National Park Service – San Gabriel Region National Recreational Area Task Force.

The primary goal was in search of common grounds among the diverse group of stakeholders to strike an ultimate balance between local and federal control, water supply and quality protection and recreational, and many other concerns and challenges. This group cultivated numerous valuable discusses. The initial meeting was only between two stakeholders, and within a year

Attachment C


there were 65 attendees (Federal, State, local elected officials and agencies, business community, non-profit organizations, national and local environmental groups, and water agencies).

Urban Runoff, Stormwater, Watershed Management Experience

Reference: Ms. Terri Grant, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

Watershed Manager (2001 - 2006)

Ms. La developed coalitions with the different watershed stakeholders; established and implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) for compliance with National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES); implemented outreach efforts for NPDES programs; coordinated strategy development toward complying with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Trash and Bacteria; coordinated with various agencies in developing groundwater projects to enhance water supply and reliability; selected and managed consultant contracts; developed project concepts and funding strategies. Examples of duties and accomplishments include:

Chair: North Santa Monica Bay Watersheds Task Force – Advisory and Implementation Committees; Jurisdictional Groups 1 and 4 Committee (for the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Wet Weather TMDLs); Malibu Creek Watershed Management Committee (for the Malibu Creek and Lagoon Bacterial TMDLs).

Member: Santa Monica Bay Executive Ad Hoc Committee; Jurisdictional Groups 5 and 6 Committee (for the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Wet Weather TMDLs); Malibu Creek Watershed Advisory Council; Topanga Creek Watershed Committee; On-site Wastewater Treatment System Task Force; Malibu Lagoon Task Force; Ballona Creek Watershed Task Force.

• Worked closely with the Los Angeles County Supervisorial Board – District 3 office on forming a stakeholder group of approximately 170 members including representatives from elected officials (State and local), US EPA, Caltrans, Regional Water Quality Control Board, the North Santa Monica Bay Watersheds Task Force, Ventura County, local cities, other Los Angeles County Departments, various environmental groups and stakeholders to address NPDES, TMDLs, and Assembly Bill 885 (regulation on septic systems).

• Conducted presentations at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and various stakeholder groups and developed and implemented outreach activities, including various community Earthday events and educational programs.

• Oversaw grant administration activities and successfully obtained over $5 million in grants (e.g. $2.15 million for the San Gabriel River Rubber Dams, $1 million for the North Santa Monica Water Quality Improvements project, $1.1 million for the Ballona Litter Monitoring projects, $300,000 for the Ballona Prioritizing Structural BMPs Methodology Plan, $350,000 for the Manhattan Beach Low Flow Diversion, and $220,000 for the Ballona Creek Watershed Management Plan).

Attachment C


4. Project Approach

Background

SGVCOG Spearheaded the Way

In 2007, the Los Angeles Stormwater Quality Partnership was formed, when eight cities representing areas throughout Los Angeles County decided to partner to find opportunities to collaborate. This partnership expanded in 2011 to form the LA Permit Group, which had a clear goal of negotiating a NPDES permit with a united voice. The SGVCOG member cities spearheaded this effort and to a large extent, the LA Permit Group (approximately 70 members strong) was successful in accomplishing this mission.

Current Los Angeles NPDES MS4 Permit

With the adoption of the current MS4 permit for the Los Angeles Region (Order No. R4-2012-0175) on November 8, 2012, the Los Angeles Permittees face a daunting task of implementing and complying with one of the most complex and sophisticated permits ever developed for stormwater agencies. The duel compliance standards of reducing pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) while also complying with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) waste load allocations (WLAs). The challenges are numerous and place significant financial and personnel resource burden on individual municipalities, watershed groups, and regional groups such as the SGVCOG, LA Permit Group, and the League of California Cities.

The 2012 MS4 permit has three new compliance options, from which permittees must choose. They are as follow:

• First Option - Permittees can choose to implement Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) and be subject to strict compliance with numeric limits.

• Second Option - Permittees may develop Watershed Management Programs (WMPs), which provide a best management practices (BMPs), or BMP-based, compliance alternative to meet interim deadlines and TMDL milestones.

• Third Option - Permittees may prepare an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP), which provides additional time for permittees to evaluate opportunities for multi-benefit regional projects that retain all non-stormwater runoff and retain a specified “design storm.” Areas that drain to the multi-benefit regional projects are automatically deemed in compliance with the permit and the final TMDL limits.

By June 28, 2013, permittees were required to notify the Regional Board of their choice. Permittees could choose individual applications or to group together to prepare the WMPs or the EWMPs. Within the SGVCOG boundary, only five Cities decided to file individual WMPs (El Monte, Irwindale, South El Monte, Walnut, and West Covina). The remaining cities have formed regional groups to implement either WMPs or EWMPs. The WMPs were submitted to

Attachment C


the Regional Board by either December 28, 2013 or June 28, 2014, depending on meeting specified LID and Green Streets Policy requirements. EWMPs are due by June 28, 2015.

The cost for the preparation of the WMPs and the EWMPs is estimated at nearly $16 million (countywide).

Clean&Water,&Clean&Beaches&Measure&

During the preparation and negotiation of the current MS4 permit, Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) was crafting AB 2554 as a new consistent source fund to finance compliance plans and projects. The legislation envisions the creation of nine regional Watershed Area Groups (WAGs) responsible for developing and implementing plans to reduce pollutant loads in the impaired waters of their respective watersheds. The legislation specifies that fee revenues must be split between municipalities, WAGs, and the LACFCD in specified percentages.

As part of the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure (CWCBM), the County funded the development of a draft fee implementation ordinance, draft project criteria guidelines, an engineer’s report outlining the rationale for the proposed fee, and other documents, working with a large number of stakeholders. Throughout 2011 and 2012, the CWCBM heavily influenced the final adopted language, requirements, and built in incentives of the 2012 MS4 permit. The current watershed groups and TACs are very similar to the WAGs and “Oversight Board.” Due to numerous protests at the January and March 2013 CWCBM public hearings, the County Board of Supervisors requested for more studies and placed the CWCBM on hold. This created even more pressure and financial burden on the Permittees (especially those with disadvantaged communities).

Present (Transitioning from the Planning Phase to Implementation Phase)

The SGVCOG member cities are to be applauded for accomplishing and meeting the deadlines and requirements set so far. By June 28, 2015, all the final pieces of this complex puzzle will be available to be analyzed from a capital improvement program and cost estimate standpoint. This is a pivotal point in which the regional estimates and a more clear financial and personnel resources picture can be developed. Waiting! Waiting! It is not going to be a pretty picture! The Permittees may get a sticker stock of the total cost in the tens billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 20 years. Sticker stock may not be the case for those who are working in the trenches at staff level. A very high percentage of elected officials will be surprised with the high price tag that their city and/or county cannot afford. This will be especially true for the cities with disadvantaged communities.

Future (One time Capital Improvements and Enhancements vs. On-going Program Administration and O&M Costs)

Attachment C


In looking ahead, there will be short-term costs such as initial plan development (approximately $16 million already just on the WMPs and EMPs), capital project costs (from concept to design to construction) to consider as well as long-term on-going program administration, monitoring, future plan updates and O&M costs. The MS4 permit has built in "Reopeners" to add more TMDLs as they get adopted. Therefore, this is a dynamic situation to say the least. How does one try to hit multiple moving targets with a limited amount of arrows?

Due to the complexity of the 2012 MS4 permit and uncertainties of a steady funding stream, San Gabriel Valley member cities along with the rest of the Los Angeles region faces an underfunded stormwater and urban runoff water quality challenges. The County and the Cities cannot follow a "one size fits all" approach and "multi-pronged" approach to address urban runoff funding issues.

This requires proactive management and a high degree of organization among all stakeholders as well as streamline communications and seamless data sharing by cities and county. Funding solutions may require cooperative and collaborative efforts between water, wastewater, stormwater entities, and beyond.

SGVCOG leading the way once again with this RPF

In order to move forward in a united way, everyone must be on the same page and have a common understanding of the complexity and the challenges facing the region.

Our team understands the complexity and the multi-dimensional challenges that the Permittees faced during the permit development and negotiations and choosing from the three compliance options (MCM, WMP, or EWMP); are currently facing a transitional period as Permittees move from a planning mode to an implementation mode; and will face a glooming future without a consistent and reliable funding source in meeting the escalating costs of compliances.

We believe our team is best qualified to assist the SGVCOG in leading the way and reaching the desire outcomes as set forth by this RPF. Our detailed approach to the RFP scope of services is described below.

Task 1 - Technical Assistance

In one sense, the scope of services and products identified in the RFP are relatively straight forward and builds upon previous products. However, the work has its challenges and these may be characterized as follows:

• In any survey, the possibility of obtaining 100% reply from the cities is low. We will do our very best to aim for the 100%. The State standards calls for 80%.

Attachment C


• Information may not be complete and/or consistent; therefore, assumptions may have to be made in order to move forward.

• We may need assistant from SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee Chair to encourage all member cities to respond to the survey and in a timely manner.

• Task 1.1 Develop Survey(s) and Collect Information We envision the following steps: o Kick-off Meeting with the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC, o Review existing documents and information provided by the SGVCOG staff and/or

Water Committee TAC, o Prepare draft survey and instructions, provide draft to the SGVCOG staff and/or

Water Committee TAC for review, o Incorporate comments, send out survey and instructions, o Collect information, as needed follow up emails or phone calls to those not

responding. Task 1.1 Deliverable: o Develop survey(s) o Collect information from all member cities and may extend the data collection task to

include the Los Angeles County (County) pertaining to Unincorporated Areas and Flood Control District within the SGVCOG boundary upon request from the SGVCOG staff.

o Required information from the RFP ! Estimated costs to implement the Water Management Plans (WMPs),

Enhanced Water Management Plans (EWMPs), and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs).

! What funding sources the cities and County expect to use to implement projects

! The impacts of these costs on the city's overall budget.

• Task 1.2 Create a Summary Report We respect the member cities' individuality while understand the need to have a regional assessments of the situation. We want this data to be useful at all levels. We envision showcasing the data collected for each individual cities, group them by WMP and EWMP, and overall summary highlighting SGVCOG as a whole with a section on significant impacts to DACs. We envision the following steps:

• Review existing documents and information provided by the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC,

• Prepare draft report summarizing survey findings and potential impact on cities from Task 1.1. and provide draft report to the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC for review,

Attachment C


• Incorporate comments, send revised draft to the all cities members for review and comment,

• Incorporate comments, and finalize the Summary Report.

Task 1.2 Deliverable: o Create report summarizing survey findings and potential impact on cities from Task

1.1. o The said report will also include but not limited to the efforts being undertaken by the

LA Permit Group, the California Contract Cities Association, the League of California Cities, the Southern California Water Committee - Stormwater Task Force, the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Assuming that the SGVCOG staff will provide the information about the efforts of these above-mentioned groups and any others that should be incorporated into the report.

Task 2 - Outreach and Consensus Building Kennedy Communications and LASER have significant and relevant experience in this arena.

• Task 2.1 - Conduct 2 Educational Workshops Assuming that SGVCOG will provide the locations for the two Workshops at no cost to the firms. We envision the following game plan:

o Review existing documents and information provided by the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC;

o Prepare draft educational workshop material; provide draft educational workshop material to the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC for review;

o Incorporate comments; and finalize the Educational Workshop #1 for San Gabriel Valley city staff;

o Conduct Educational Workshop #1, collect feedback, o As needed modify or update the Educational Material from Workshop #1 to tailored

made it for the Educational Workshop #2 - SGVCOG Governing Board; o Provide revised draft educational workshop material to the SGVCOG staff and/or

Water Committee TAC for review; o Incorporate comments; and finalize the Educational Material Workshop #2 for

SGVCOG Governing Board; o Conduct Educational Workshop #2, collect feedback and o Provide a summary of feedbacks and identify common ground.

Attachment C


Task 2.1 Deliverable: o Conduct 2 educational workshops with the SGVCOG Governing Board and San

Gabriel Valley city staff to increase knowledge of stormwater compliance challenges and to collect feedback on members' impressions of these challenges in order to identify common ground.

• Task 2.2 - Develop Talking Points We envision the following game plan:


o Prepare draft talking points, provide draft talking points to the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC for review,

o Incorporate comments, and finalize the Talking Points. Task 2.2 Deliverable:

o Develop talking points for elected officials and city staff outlining cities' responsibilities and challenges in meeting stormwater water quality requirements.

• Task 2.3 - Draft an SGVCOG Policy Statement We envision the following game plan:


o Prepare draft policy statement, provide draft policy statement to the SGVCOG staff and/or Water Committee TAC for review,

o Incorporate comments, and finalize the SGVCOG Policy Statement. Task 2.3 Deliverable:

o Draft an SGVCOG policy statement that outlines the SGVCOG's position on stormwater compliance.

Task 3 - Advocacy • Task 3.1 - Advocate on a State and Federal Level

o Advocate on a state and federal level, as directed, on issues related to stormwater compliance.

o As needed $125 per hour

Attachment C


5. Proposed Personnel

Kennedy Communications

Maria Elena Kennedy is well know for her award winning work on behalf of disadvantaged communities throughout the state. For the past eight years, Ms. Kennedy has been working on behalf of disadvantaged communities starting with the first round of Prop 84. In Prop 84, Maria was one of the first to recognize that disadvantaged communities have unique needs, which requires a specialized methodology in public outreach. The state of California now recognizes that stakeholder collaboration is the key to successful project. Maria has worked closely with State and Federal agencies to help them create these synergies, which create collaborative approaches to funding strategies. Projects:

Under the Storm Drain Avalon Continuation High School

This program addresses the Public Outreach requirement in the Los Angeles Regional Board’s MS4 permit before the 2012 permit. The City of Los Angeles and the Port of Los Angeles worked together to increase participation by the disadvantaged communities in their respective service areas. The Port of Los Angeles has not been successful in engaging these communities. Kennedy Communications found a collaborative process to engage the stakeholders though the educational community resulting in positive comments on the program by members of the Los Angeles Regional Board.

Enchanted Heights Sewer Project City of Perris

The Enchanted Heights Sewer project is a model of collaboration among five agencies; three local and two state wide. The project resulted in 446 homes converting from septic tanks to sanitary sewer systems. Although the project had many challenges because of the language and cultural barriers by the residents, the project was successfully built. The project won the Helen Putnam award from the League of California Cities for collaboration among stakeholders.

Technical Assistance to Disadvantaged Communities in California’s Central Valley Reference CSU Fresno

This project has proven to be a collaborative process among the 23 campuses of the California State University System. Under the guidence of Fresno State, two of the system’s premier engineering schools, Cal Poly Pomona and Cal Poly SLO have provided technical assistance to disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley. The program has been so successful that the Chancellor’s office has approved a system wide Disadvantaged Community Center to provide technical asssistance to disadvantaged communities.

Ms. Kennedy has an ABA approved Paralegal Certificate from Cal State Los Angeles. She majored in Classics at UCLA

Attachment C


La Solutions for Engineering Resources LLC (L.A.S.E.R.), San Dimas, California

Wendy La is the founder of LASER and a principal water resources engineer with near 20 years of experience in urban runoff, stormwater, watershed management and groundwater administration. Ms. La's career has focused on the development of multi-benefit and environmentally sensitive solutions. Ms. La specializes in strategic planning, integrated multi-use project development, disadvantaged communities outreach, and grant funding. Ms. La continues expanding relationship with senior management, key decision makers, and technical staff at the US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, various cities, water agencies and companies, chambers of commerce, and environmental groups.

REGISTRATION: Registered Civil Engineer, California (C 058542)

EDUCATION: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona - Master in Business Administration; California State University, Los Angeles - Business Management Certificate; and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona - Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster

As the Engineer, Ms. La regularly participated/coordinated with the Los Angeles MS4 Permit Group, Peck Park Task Force, LA Basin Study - Technical Advisory Committee, and Southern California Water Committee- Storm Water Task Force. Ms. La served as the Chair of the Upper San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo sub-region steering committee, responsible for Prop 84 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) plan development and grant funding administration ($5.2 million for Round 1 funding and $6 million for Round 2 funding with $4 million towards the Peck Water Conservation Improvement Project) for the sub-region. In addition, as part of the preparation of the Salt Nutrient Management Plan, Ms. La collaborated with basins stakeholders, and worked closely with the L.A. Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works - Watershed Division

• Ms. La developed coalitions with the different watershed stakeholders; established and implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) for compliance with National Pollutants Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES); implemented outreach efforts for NPDES programs; coordinated strategy development toward complying with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Trash and Bacteria. Worked closely with the Los Angeles County Supervisorial Board – District 3 office on forming a stakeholder group of approximately 170 members including representatives from elected officials (State and local), US EPA, Caltrans, Regional Water Quality Control Board, the North Santa Monica Bay Watersheds Task Force, Ventura County, local cities, other Los Angeles County Departments, various environmental groups and stakeholders to address NPDES, TMDLs, and Assembly Bill 885 (regulation on septic systems).

Attachment C


6. Schedule !

Task%1%Technical%Assistance June to December 2015

Task 1.1 Develop Survey(s) and Collect Information June thru December 2015

Task 1.2 Create a Summary Report September thru December 2015

Task%2%Outreach%and%Consensus%Building%January'thru'March'2016'

!

Task 2.1 Conduct 2 Educational Workshops January thru March 2016

Task 2.2 Develop Talking Points February thru March 2016

Task 2.3 Draft a SGVCOG Policy Statement February thru March 2016

Task%3%Advocacy%on%a%State%and%Federal%Level%March'thru'May'2016%

!

&&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

Attachment C


7. Cost Estimate for Kennedy Communications

Task 1 Technical Assistance

1.1 Develop Survey(s) and Collect Information 35 hours @$125/hour Total: $4,375 1.2 Create a Summary Report 30 hours @125/hour Total: $$3,750

! Total: $8,125

Task 2 Outreach and Consensus Building

2.1 Conduct 2 Educational Workshops 25 hours @$125/hour Total: $3,125

2.2 Develop Talking Points 10 hours @ $125/hour Total: $1250

2.3 Draft a SGVCOG Policy Statement 15 hours @$125/hour Total: $1,875

Total: $6,250

Task 3 Advocacy

3.1 Advocate on the State and Federal Level Hours TBD @$125/hour Total: TBD

7. Cost Estimate for LASER

Task 1 Technical Assistance

1.3 Develop Survey(s) and Collect Information 35 hours @$125/hour Total: $4,375 1.4 Create a Summary Report 30 hours @125/hour Total: $$3,750

Total: $8,125

Task 2 Outreach and Consensus Building

2.1 Conduct 2 Educational Workshops 25 hours @$125/hour Total: $3,125

2.2 Develop Talking Points 10 hours @ $125/hour Total: $1250

2.3 Draft a SGVCOG Policy Statement 15 hours @$125/hour Total: $1,875

Total: $6,250

Task 3 Advocacy

3.1 Advocate on the State and Federal Level hours TBD @$125/hour Total: TBD

Total Project Cost: $28,750

Both Kennedy Communications and LASER are small businesses with very little overhead coats. The cost savings will be passed on to our clients. We propose to fully burden out billing rates at $125/hour. Direct expenses such as reprographics will be charged at cost without mark ups. Note: In addition to the above, mileage will be invoiced at the IRS rate in effect. Additional services such as advocacy will be charged at the above hourly rate.

Attachment C


Attachment C


Attachment D

-1-

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES

WITH ___________________________________

This Agreement for Consultant Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of ____ ____, by and between the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (“SGVCOG”) and _________ (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. Term of Agreement. Subject to the provisions of Section 17, the term of this Agreement shall be for a period of __ years from the date of execution of this Agreement. Such term may be extended for up to ___ upon the request of the SGVCOG, by written amendment to this Agreement signed by both parties.

2. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the SGVCOG consultant services in accordance with the Request for Proposals attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” both incorporated herein by reference. In the event of any conflict between the Request for Proposals and the Proposal, the terms of the Request for Proposals shall govern. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to or outside of those described in this section unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the SGVCOG. Consultant shall be compensated for any such additional authorized services in the amounts and in the manner agreed to in writing by the SGVCOG.

3. Compensation and Method of Payment.

(a) Consultant shall be compensated in the manner and in the amounts specified in Exhibit B.

(b) Each month Consultant shall furnish to SGVCOG an original invoice for all work performed and expenses incurred during the preceding month. SGVCOG shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. In the event that no charges or expenses are disputed, the invoice shall be approved and paid according to the terms set forth in subsection (c). In the event any charges or expenses are disputed by SGVCOG, SGVCOG shall withhold that portion of the invoice that is in dispute and remit the remainder.

(c) Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant to the extent disputed by SGVCOG, SGVCOG will use its best efforts to cause Consultant to be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of Consultant's invoice.

4. Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all documents and records demonstrating or relating to Consultant's performance of services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain any and all


Attachment D

IMAGE IV SYSTEMS, INC.

-2-

ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, or other documents or records evidencing or relating to work, services, expenditures and disbursements charged to SGVCOG pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be sufficiently complete and detailed so as to permit an accurate evaluation of the services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Any and all such documents or records shall be maintained for three years from the date of execution of this Agreement and to the extent required by laws relating to audits of public agencies and their expenditures.

5. Ownership of Documents All original maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, survey, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents prepared, developed or discovered by Consultant in the course of providing any services pursuant to this Agreement shall be the sole property of the SGVCOG and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the SGVCOG without the permission of the Consultant. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of expiration, termination, suspension, or abandonment of this Agreement, Consultant shall turn over to SGVCOG all such maps, models, designs, drawings, photographs, studies, surveys, reports, data, notes, computer files, files and other documents which Consultant may have temporarily retained for use by Consultant staff. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to the SGVCOG, upon reasonable written request by the SGVCOG, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.

6. Status of Consultant.

(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain a wholly independent contractor and not an officer, employee or agent of SGVCOG. Consultant shall have no authority to bind SGVCOG in any manner, nor to incur any obligation, debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against SGVCOG, whether by contract or otherwise, unless such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in writing by SGVCOG.

(b) The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither SGVCOG, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, members or agents of SGVCOG, shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees or agents are in any manner officials, officers, employees, members or agents of SGVCOG.

(c) Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by SGVCOG, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of SGVCOG and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by SGVCOG for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.

(d) PERS Eligibility Indemnification: In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of SGVCOG, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless


Attachment D


-3-

SGVCOG for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of SGVCOG.

7. Deficient Services. Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience and facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent and professional manner. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. In meeting its obligations under this Agreement, Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing services similar to those required of Consultant under this Agreement. SGVCOG may disapprove services that do not conform to these standards and practices and may withhold or deny compensation for deficient services. Upon disapproval of services by SGVCOG, Consultant shall immediately re-perform, at its own costs, the services that are deficient. SGVCOG must notify Consultant in writing of the existence of such deficient services within a reasonable time, not to exceed sixty (60) days after its discovery thereof, but in no event later than one (1) year after the completion of such deficient services. No approval, disapproval, or omission to provide approval or disapproval shall release Consultant from any responsibility under this Agreement.

8. Compliance with Applicable Laws; Permits and Licenses. Consultant shall keep itself informed of and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations and rules in effect during the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall obtain any and all licenses, permits and authorizations necessary to perform the services set forth in this Agreement. Neither SGVCOG, nor any elected or appointed boards, officers, officials, employees, members or agents of SGVCOG, shall be liable, at law or in equity, as a result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.

9. Nondiscrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate in any way against any person on the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, physical handicap, pregnancy, medical condition or marital status in connection with or related to the performance of this Agreement.

10. Unauthorized Aliens. Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against SGVCOG for such use of unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse SGVCOG for the cost of all such liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by SGVCOG.


Attachment D


-4-

11. Conflicts of Interest Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, (but not including ownership of stock in a publicly traded company), which would conflict in any manner with the interests of SGVCOG or which would in any way hinder Consultant's performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor without the express written consent of the SGVCOG. Consultant agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of SGVCOG in the performance of this Agreement.

12. Confidential Information; Release of Information.

(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such information or work product to persons or entities other than SGVCOG without prior written authorization from the SGVCOG, except as may be required by law. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not, without prior written authorization from the SGVCOG or unless requested by the General Counsel of SGVCOG, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives SGVCOG notice of such court order or subpoena. If Consultant, or any officer, employee or agent or subcontractor of Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then SGVCOG shall have the right to reim-bursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant's conduct.

(b) Consultant shall promptly notify SGVCOG should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. SGVCOG retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with SGVCOG and to provide SGVCOG with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by SGVCOG to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

13. Indemnification.

(a) SGVCOG and its respective elected and appointed boards, officials, officers, agents, employees, members and volunteers (individually and collectively, “Indemnitees”) shall have no liability to Consultant or any other person for, and Consultant shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless Indemnitees from and against, any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements (collectively “Claims”), which Indemnitees may suffer or incur or to which Indemnitees may become subject by reason of or arising out of any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss or otherwise occurring as a result of or caused by the Consultant's performance of or failure to perform any services under this Agreement or by the


Attachment D


-5-

negligent or willful acts or omissions of Consultant, its agents, officers, directors, subcontractors or employees, committed in performing any of the services under this Agreement.

(b) If any action or proceeding is brought against Indemnitees by reason of any of the matters against which Consultant has agreed to indemnify Indemnitees as provided above, Consultant, upon notice from SGVCOG, shall defend Indemnitees at Consultant's expense by counsel acceptable to SGVCOG, such acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. The insurance required to be maintained by Consultant under Section 14 shall ensure Consultant's obligations under this section to the extent that the Claims suffered or incurred by SGVCOG arise out of any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss or otherwise occurring as a result of negligent action or omissions of Consultant, but the limits of such insurance shall not limit the liability of Consultant hereunder. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.

14. Insurance.

(a) Consultant agrees to obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement the insurance policies set forth in this section. All insurance policies shall be subject to approval by SGVCOG as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the SGVCOG. Consultant agrees to provide SGVCOG with copies of required policies or certificates evidencing the required policies upon request.

(b) Consultant shall provide and maintain insurance acceptable to the SGVCOG in full force and effect throughout the term of this Agreement, against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Consultant, its agents, representatives or employees. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII. Consultant shall provide the following scope and limits of insurance:

(1) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

A. Insurance Services Office form Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 0001).

B. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, including code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025, or equivalent forms subject to the written approval of the SGVCOG.

C. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of State of California and Employer's Liability insurance and covering all persons providing services on behalf of the Consultant and all risks to such persons under this Agreement.

(2) Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits of insurance no less than:

A. General Liability: $1,000,000 per claim and $3,000,000 for public liability, bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.

B. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.


Attachment D


-6-

C. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.

(c) Other Provisions. Insurance policies required by this Agreement shall contain the following provisions:

(1) All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this section shall be endorsed and state the coverage shall not be cancelled by the insurer or Consultant except after 30 days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to SGVCOG. Consultant shall provide to SGVCOG notice of suspension or voiding of coverage, or reduction in coverage, or limits below those required in this section.

(2) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages.

A. SGVCOG, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, members and employees are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities Consultant performs; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to SGVCOG, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, members or employees.

B. Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to SGVCOG, and its respective elected and appointed officials, its officers, members and employees. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by SGVCOG, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, members or employees, shall apply in excess of, and not contribute with, Consultant's insurance.

C. Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

D. Any failure to comply with the reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to SGVCOG, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, members or employees.

(3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage. Unless the SGVCOG otherwise agrees in writing, the insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against SGVCOG, and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, members and employees for losses arising from services performed by Consultant.

(d) Other Requirements. Consultant agrees to deposit with SGVCOG, at or before the effective date of this Agreement, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy SGVCOG that Consultant has complied with the insurance provisions of this Agreement. Such insurance certificates shall be attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” SGVCOG's general counsel may require that Consultant furnish SGVCOG with copies of original endorsements effecting coverage required by this section. The certificates and endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. SGVCOG reserves the right to inspect complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.


Attachment D


-7-

(1) Consultant shall furnish certificates and endorsements from each subcontractor identical to those Consultant provides.

(2) Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by SGVCOG, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.

(3) The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit Consultant's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions and requirements of this Agreement.

15. Assignment. The expertise and experience of Consultant are material considerations for this Agreement. SGVCOG has an interest in the qualifications of and capability of the persons and entities who will fulfill the duties and obligations imposed upon Consultant under this Agreement. In recognition of that interest, Consultant shall not assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement or the performance of any of Consultant's duties or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the SGVCOG. Any attempted assignment shall be ineffective, null and void, and shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling SGVCOG to any and all remedies at law or in equity, including summary termination of this Agreement.

16. Continuity of Personnel. Consultant may not replace key staff, set forth in Consultant’s Proposal, unless their employment is terminated or their replacement is agreed upon by the SGVCOG. The SGVCOG must approve replacement staff before the replacement staff are assigned to perform services under this Agreement. SGVCOG reserves the right to request that Consultant replace a staff person assigned to perform services under this Agreement in the event the SGVCOG, in its sole discretion, determines such a replacement is necessary. Replacement staff in every case is subject to SGVCOG approval prior to assignment to perform services under this Agreement.

17. Termination of Agreement SGVCOG may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice of termination to Consultant. In the event such notice is given, Consultant shall cease immediately all work in progress. Consultant may terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty (30) days’ written notice of termination to SGVCOG. If either Consultant or SGVCOG fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either Consultant, or SGVCOG may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish to SGVCOG a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by Consultant, prepared as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. This final invoice shall be reviewed and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement.

18. Default In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, SGVCOG shall not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and may terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. For purposes


Attachment D


-8-

of this section only, “date of default” shall be deemed to be the date that SGVCOG personally delivers or transmits by facsimile a Notice of Default to the person(s) at the address or facsimile number as set forth in Section 19 of this Agreement. “Default” shall mean the failure to perform the terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement.

19. Notices All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered, or sent by facsimile or certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed as follows: To SGVCOG: Executive Director San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments The Alhambra 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit #42 Building A-10, Suite 10220 Alhambra, CA 91803 with a copy to: Richard D. Jones, General Counsel San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Jones & Mayer 3777 N. Harbor Blvd Fullerton, CA 92835 To Consultant: Notice shall be deemed effective on the date personally delivered or transmitted by facsimile or, if mailed, three (3) days after deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service.

20. Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant represents and warrants that he/she/they has/have the authority to so execute this Agreement and to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

21. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.

22. Waiver. Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any


Attachment D


-9-

subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement. Acceptance by SGVCOG of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement.

23. Law to Govern; Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed according to the laws of the State of California. In the event of litigation between the parties, venue in state trial courts shall lie exclusively in the County of Los Angeles. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in Los Angeles.

24. Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses. In the event litigation or other proceeding is required to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation or other proceeding shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.

25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the exhibits attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by this reference, is the entire, complete, final and exclusive expression of the parties with respect to the matters addressed therein and supersedes all other agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, or entered into between Consultant and SGVCOG prior to the execution of this Agreement. No statements, representations or other agreements, whether oral or written, made by any party which are not embodied herein shall be valid and binding. No amendment to this Agreement shall be valid and binding unless in writing duly executed by the parties or their authorized representatives. Any attempt to waive the requirement for a written amendment shall be void.

26. Order of Precedence.

In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced.

27. Section Headings. The section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and identification only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the contents to which they relate.

28. Severability. If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is declared or determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and the Agreement shall be read and construed without the invalid, void or unenforceable provision(s).


Attachment D


-10-

29. Time is of the Essence.

Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

30. Excusable Delays. Consultant shall not be liable for damages, including liquidated damages, if any, caused by delay in performance or failure to perform due to causes beyond the control of Consultant. Such causes include, but are not limited to, acts of God, acts of the public enemy, acts of federal, state or local governments, court orders, fires, floods, epidemics, strikes, embargoes, and unusually severe weather. The term and price of this Agreement shall be equitably adjusted for any delays due to such causes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. “CONSULTANT” By______________________________________ Title____________________________________ SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS By______________________________________ Francis M. Delach Title: Interim Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________ Richard D. Jones, General Counsel


Attachment D

EXHIBIT A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS


Attachment D

EXHIBIT B

PROPOSAL


Attachment D

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE CERTIFICATES


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: SGVCOG Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: 710 NORTH DRAFT EIR-EIS RECOMMENDED ACTION Provide direction to staff regarding submittal of comments to Metro/Caltrans regarding the SR-710 North Draft EIR-EIS. BACKGROUND On March 6, 2015, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) released a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) on proposals regarding the 4.5 mile gap between the I-210 Freeway in Pasadena and the end of the I-710 freeway in East Los Angeles. The five alternatives proposed in the Draft EIR/EIS are:

• No Build option that would leave conditions as they are • A traffic management system to upgrade and synchronize signal and improvements to local

street intersections to more quickly move traffic that exits the dead end freeway • A rapid bus line featuring high frequency service with minimal stops and potentially a

dedicated bus lane • Light rail to carry passengers between East Los Angeles and Pasadena, and • A freeway tunnel that would extend the SR-710

Attachment A provides a summary of the major findings from the EIR. All of the documents related to the EIR, including the technical appendices, can be accessed here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-eis/. Public comments are due to Caltrans by July 6, 2015. BEYOND THE 710 ALTNERATIVE Beyond the 710 is a coalition of cities and community groups that support an alternative to closing the 710 gap via a freeway tunnel. Member agencies include the cities of Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, Pasadena, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and No 710 Action Committee. In May 2015, the group released a report outlining an alternative strategy for addressing the traffic congestion in the region. This proposal includes a combination of transit improvements, active transportation investments, and demand management strategies. This proposal was not an alternative that was evaluated as a part of the 710 Draft EIR/EIS and is being included for information only. Attachment B provides a copy of this report.


http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-eis/

REPORT

SGVCOG POSITION Closure of the 710 gap has been one of the SGVCOG’s transportation priorities since its formation in 1994. Attachment C provides a copy of the SGVCOG’s most recently adopted priority project list, which was adopted in January 2013. Prior iterations of the priority list had specifically identified the project as a freeway and/or tunnel. However, modifications were made during the most recent approval to use mode-neutral terminology. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – 710 EIR/EIS Project Summary Attachment B – Beyond the 710 “New Initiative for Mobility and Sustainability” Attachment C – SGVCOG Transportation Priority Projects (Adopted January 2013)


Project Purpose and NeedState Route 710 North Study

Dra Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement - 2015

PurposeThe purpose of the proposed ac on is to e ec vely and e ciently accommodate regional and local north-south travel demands in the study area of the western San Gabriel Valley and east/northeast Los Angeles, including the following considera ons:

• Improve the e ciency of the exis ng regional freeway and transit networks;• Reduce conges on on local arterials adversely a ected due to accommoda ng regional tra c volumes;• Minimize environmental impacts related to mobile sources

Need

The need for the SR 710 North Study is based on considera on of the following factors: • Capacity, Transporta on Demand, and Safety - Lack of north-south transporta on facili es and overall conges on within the region • Modal Interrela onships and System Linkages - SR 110 and I-710 terminate within the study area without connec ng to other freeways • Social Demands or Economic Development - SR 710 is included in the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, FTIP and Metro’s LRTP • Environmental Factors - E ects related to mobile sources associated with conges on

Congestion on Local Streets Transit System Efficiency

Regional Transportation System

• Over half of the freeway system has LOS D or worse performance• The opera ons of the north-south freeways are worse than the east-west freeways• There will be even more LOS E/F (red) segments in 2035

• Freeway speeds are low and highly variable in LA County• The graph shows variability in speed along I-5

• The heaviest tra c (thick red lines) is almost all on north-south streets• The volume of tra c will further increase by 2035

• “Cut-Through Tra c” uses local streets for longer trips• Trips that both started and ended outside the study area were counted as “cut-through”• The analysis looked at tra c on 13 loca ons (see map) from LA to Duarte• About 1 in 8 trips is cut-through• Cut-through tra c will increase 15% by 2035

• Transit travel mes are high - even for rela vely short trips• The map shows travel mes on transit to Pasadena• The red areas are reasonably close to Pasadena but s ll can take 30 to 60 minutes or more on transit

Direc on of Tra c

North-South Freeways Level of Service (Exis ng)

East-West FreewaysLevel of Service (Exis ng)

LOS C or be er40% LOS D

23%

LOS E or F37%

LOS C or be er53% LOS D

24%

LOS E or F23%

The map shows the intensity of tra c on local streets

SR 710 North Study Area

Freeway System Efficiency

Attachment A


Alterna ves OverviewState Route 710 North Study


MILES210 4 6 N

Existing Freeway

Metro Rail

Class III Bike Routes

Existing Road

Railroad/Metrolink

City Boundary

Legend

1. No Build 2. Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)

3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 4. Light Rail Transit (LRT) 5. Freeway Tunnel

MILES210 4 6 N

Existing Freeway

Metro Rail

Signal Optimization

Transit Signal Priority

Traffic Signal Synchronization

Existing Road

Railroad/Metrolink

City Boundary

Legend

MILES210 4 6 N

• Signal synchroniza on• Signal op miza on

• Transit signal priority• Arterial changeable message signs

• Speed data collec on system

• 17 intersec on improvements• 7 local street segments

• Modify Fair Oaks/SR 110 Interchange• Extend St. John from Del Mar to California

• Valley to Mission Connector

• Pedestrian and bike facility enhancements to support access to transit

• Consistent with local agency plans

• Expanded peak period exis ng bus service• 10 minutes headway during peak hours

The No Build Alterna ve includes transporta on improvement projects inside and outside the Study Area, including all projects in the Southern California Associa on of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transporta on Plan (RTP) programmed to be completed by 2035. Including these projects is required by state and federal laws to demonstrate that the SR 710 North Study need s ll exists even if these projects are completed. For detailed informa on on proposed projects under the SCAG RTP, go to h p://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov.

• Preliminary Cost Es mate: $105 M (in 2014 dollars)

See display maps for more details

Local Street and Intersec on Improvements

ITS Improvements Transit Re nement

Legend

Ac ve Transporta on

• High-speed, high-frequency service between East Los Angeles and Pasadena• 12-mile corridor; 17 stops• Mixed- ow and exclusive lanes (single and both direc ons)• 10 minutes during peak hours and 20 minutes during o -peak• Replaces exis ng Route 762• Ameni es included to a ract riders• Two bus feeder services - Connects to El Monte Bus Sta on - Connects to Commerce and Montebello Metrolink Sta ons• Preliminary Cost Es mate: $241 M (2014 dollars) - Includes $102 M for TSM/TDM improvements

• Between East Los Angeles and Pasadena• 7.5-mile passenger rail line on dedicated guideway - Includes 3 miles of aerial segment and 4.5 miles of tunnels - 3 aerial and 4 underground sta ons• The tunnels are expected to be constructed using pressurized-face Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) - Two approximately 20-foot diameter tunnels - Tunnels would be advanced from south end• Design including safety elements follows Metro guidelines• Two bus feeder services - Connects to El Monte Bus Sta on - Connects to Commerce and Montebello Metrolink Sta ons• Preliminary Cost Es mate: $2,420 M (2014 dollars) - Includes $52 M for TSM/TDM improvements

• 6.3-mile route connec ng I-10 and I-210 - 4.2 miles of bored tunnel - 0.7 mile of cut-and-cover tunnel - 1.4 miles of at-grade segments - Approximately 60-foot tunnel diameter(s)• The tunnels are expected to be constructed using pressurized-face TBMs• Design and safety elements based on Caltrans and Na onal Fire Protec on Associa on guidelines• Ven la on structures provided near north and south portals - No intermediate ven la on structures• Opera ons and Maintenance Control (OMC) Building provided at both portals - Will house rst responders 24/7• Preliminary Cost Es mate: - Single Bore: $3,150 M (2014 dollars) - Dual Bore: $5,650 M (2014 dollars) - Includes $50 M for TSM/TDM elements

Attachment A


Tunnel Design Considera onsState Route 710 North Study


Many large-diameter tunnels have been excavated successfully around the world. Many of these shown have used similar tunneling and excava on technologies as those proposed on the tunnels being considered in this study.

The Tunnel Systems Fire Life Safety (FLS) components in both the Freeway and LRT Alterna ves will comply with all federal, state and local requirements including but not limited to the Na onal Fire Protec on Associa on Codes 101, 130 and 502 as well as Caltrans and Metro standards. These systems are installed to provide convenient and safe opera on of the tunnel environment, especially for re protec on in case of emergencies. Some examples of the tunnel systems as well as the FLS considera ons are shown below.

Pressurized-face Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) are rou nely used to reduce the risk of ground loss during excava on. These TBMs provide ac ve ground control at the face of the excava on, which controls face losses. To control shield losses, pressure can be maintained over the length of the shield by injec ng bentonite grout. Back ll grout injected into the annular space between the excavated ground and the lining will control tail losses. Ac ve real- me monitoring consis ng of an onboard monitoring system as well as geotechnical instrumenta on is typically used to monitor ground movements during excava on. If necessary, addi onal mi ga on measures may be required such as compensa on grou ng to control se lement.

Opera ons and Maintenance Control (OMC) Buildings and Communica on Systems• Co-loca on of rst responders• Voice communica on: phone, radio, public address system• Tra c detec on (Freeway Alt)• Train loca on (LRT Alt)• Ligh ng

Ven la on System• Jet fans• Exhaust fans• Air ltering• Air monitoring• Fire detec on and suppression system

Fire Life Safety Systems• Fixed re gh ng system• Standpipes and hoses• Fire ex nguishers

The LRT and Freeway tunnel alterna ves cross poten ally ac ve faults. Depending on the magnitude of fault o set, there are various approaches to address fault crossing design such as u lizing an oversize vault or a exible lining to accommodate expected fault o set/movement. A similar approach was used on Metro’s Red Line tunnels traversing the Hollywood Fault in the Hollywood Hills.

SEE NOTE 1

DETAIL

Note 1:One feasible concept is to use a robust composite steel lining in the an cipated fault zone, allowing for addi onal space for the fault o set to be accommodated.

Tunnel Name Country Approximate Diameter (feet)

Brisbane Legacy ,ailartsuAyaW Brisbane 40

Brisbane Clem Jones ,ailartsuAlennuT Brisbane 40

Brisbane Airport Link East-West Tunnel Australia, Brisbane 41

New Lower Inn Valley ,airtsuAyawliaR Münster 43

,airtsuAgnilhcsreP Vienna 43

Niagara ,adanaClennuT Ontario 47

Qianjiang Under River ,anihClennuT Hangzhou 51

Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link China, Hong Kong 43

Jinping-II Hydropower Sta on Tunnels China, Jinping 41

Nanjing Yangtze River Crossing China, Nanjing 49

Weisan Road ,anihClennuT Nanjing 49

Bund ,anihClennuT Shanghai 47

Yingbinsan Road ,anihClennuT Shanghai 47

Shangzhong Road Subaqueous Tunnel China, Shanghai 49

Jungong Road Subaquueous Tunnel China, Shanghai 49

Hongmei Road ,anihClennuT Shanghai 49

Shanghai Changjiang/Chongming Yangtze River Tunnel China, Shanghai 51

4th Elbe River ,ynamreGlennuT Hamburg 47

Galleria ,ylatIovrapS Sparvo 51

Valsugana Trento ,ylatIdroN Trento 40

Trans Tokyo Bay Highway Tunnel Japan, Tokyo 46

Tokyo ,napaJorteM Tokyo 47

Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART) Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 43

Groene Hart 94sdnalrehteNlennuT

Waterview Connec on Auckland New Zealand, Auckland 47

Slowacki Tunnel ,dnaloPksnadG Gdansk 41

Silver Forest Tunnel (Silberwald) Russia, Moscow 47

Tunnel Name Country Approximate Diameter (feet)

Sochi Road Tunnel No. ,aissuR3 Sochi 43

Barcelona Metro Line ,niapS9 Barcelona 40

Tuneles Urbanos de ,niapSanoriG Girona 40

M-30 By-Pass Sur ,niapSetroNlenúT Madrid 50

Seville SE-40 Highway ,niapSslennuT Seville 46

Adler ,dnalreztiwSlennuT Basel 41

Biel East ,dnalreztiwShcnarB Biel 41

Tunnel de ,dnalreztiwSeruB Bure 41

Zurich-Thalwil Zimmerberg Base Tunnel Switzerland, Zurich 40

Eskisehir Köseköy / Tunnel ,yekruT62 Basköy 45

Istanbul Strait Road Tube Crossing Turkey, Istanbul 45

Port of Miami ,ASUlennuT Miami 42

to the two

Global Large Diameter Tunnels Fault Crossing Concepts

Tunnel Systems & Fire Life Safety Considerations Settlement Control

Loca on Tunnel

Loca on Map showing area faults in rela on to the two Tunnel Alterna ves

TYPICAL SECTION

SPECIALSEISMIC SECTION

SHADED AREA CANACCOMMODATE HORIZONTALAND VERTICAL OFFSET

Metro Red Line Tunnel through Hollywood Fault Zone.

Emergency Exits/Evacua on• Emergency egress walkways• Motorist/passenger aid sta on• Cross passages (LRT and Dual Bore only)

TBM ShieldTBM ShieldTBM Shield Tunnel LiningTunnel LiningTunnel Lining

When necessary, provisions forcompensa on grou ng understructures

Control Tail Losses:Immediate Installa onof Gas and Waterproof

Lining with Back llGrou ng of any Voids

Control Face Losses:Ac ve Face SupportPressure to MaintainExcava on Stability

Con nuous On-Board Monitoring of Data inside TBM

Real TimeGround andStructureMonitoring

Grout Supply Line

TBM Shield Back ll Grout

Water pressureand earth load

Tunnel LiningTunnel LiningTunnel Lining

Attachment A


Tra c Analysis OverviewState Route 710 North Study


DEIRSec on

3.5

• Regional (6 coun ver g San Bernar o rang Ventura)

rea

• Northea n reewa etworkv ne rea

nterca

f terna ve f na ect r

Regional and Study Area Pa erns (Travel Forecas

System• VMT • Thr• Trav (art reewa• Thr o n

Highway• V rv• Tra ver to local art

t f• Trav rov nt

Transit• New tr• Tr re

r r• Tr

Freeway and Inter ysis(Tra ra y

vel of Service ( a nterv reewa n

• De teria (2 t c rea re v

Multiple Traffic Analysis Study Areas

Two Types of Traffic Analysis

TTRSec on

4

TTRSec ons

5/7

Attachment A


Comparison of Alterna ves: Travel Forecas ngState Route 710 North Study


Addi onal roadway capacity a racts tra c from local streets(served by freeways).

Alternative/Variation

Loweris

better

Change in VMT (Study Area) vs. 2035 No BuildRegional VMT changes are near zero, as tra c is redistributed.

Loweris

better


Toll values ($4 and $1) are preliminary, based on those used for tra c analysis. These tolls were set to achieve op mized tra c volumes at high speeds, to maximize person-throughput. Re ned tolls (and revenues) would have to be determined in a future, formal “Tra c and Revenue” study.

Change in VMT (Region) 2035 No BuildStudy area travel me (VHT) drops as more roadway capacity is added,

even though VMT increases.


Loweris

better


Change in VHT (Study Area) vs. 2035 No Build

All alterna ves serve more north-south travel.


Person Trips Passing East-West Screenline

Arterial tra c volume is reduced with the freeway tunnel compared to transit alterna ves.


Loweris

better

Volume Crossing Screenline (Arterials)

Addi onal freeway capacity serves more vehicle trips.



Higher is better

Volume Crossing Screenline (Freeways)Arterial VMT is reduced when freeway capacity is increased.



Loweris

better

Change in Arterial VMT (Study Area) vs. 2035 No Build

The percent of long (cut-through) trips on local streets is reduced up to half when freeway capacity is increased.



Loweris

better

Use of Study Area Arterials for Long Trips

Linked transit trips (a measure of addi onal use of transit) is highest for the LRT.The bus service improvements with the TSM/TDM provide bene ts for all alterna ves.


Higher is better

Change in Linked Transit Trips (Study Area) vs. 2035 No Build

North-south transit travel in the study area is approximatelythe same for all alterna ves.



Higher is better

Transit Travel Across the Screenline

VMT/

VHT

Arte

rials

North-South Travel

Tran

sit


Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the total of all vehicle trips on all roads in the area of interest. It captures the total amount of travel by cars, trucks, and other vehicles on the road. It is important for assessing tra c, air quality, noise, and energy impacts.

“Linked transit trips” is the way to determine the addi onal number of new transit riders – people who elect to use transit services instead of another way to travel.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the total of all vehicle trips on all roads in the area of interest. It captures the total amount of travel by cars, trucks, and other vehicles on the road. It is important for assessing tra c, air quality, noise, and energy impacts.

Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) is the total me spent on the road by vehicles on all roads in the area of interest. It captures the me spent by the drivers (not passengers) of cars and trucks. It is important for assessing tra c, air quality, noise, and energy impacts.

The tra c model was used to es mate how many “long trips” in the study area are cu ng through on arterials (local streets in Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Pasadena). “Long trips” both start and end outside of the study area.

The project Purpose and Need focuses on north-south travel in the SR 710 corridor. To assess north-south travel, the model used a de ned east-west screenline, illustrated in the map below. The graphs around the map provide data on the number of person trips (in cars and transit vehicles), tra c volumes, and transit passengers crossing the screenline.

Attachment A


Key Findings - Community Impact AssessmentState Route 710 North Study

• Incons General Plans; amendments required

•

•

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single) FWY (dual)

Business Acquisitions

PartialAcquisitions

FullAcquisitions

Bu

sin

ess

Acq

uis

itio

ns

Land Use

• Adverse impacts to community character and cohesion from the displacement of 15 neighborhood-oriented businesses along Mednik Avenue

• No adverse impacts to community character and cohesion

Community Character and Cohesion

Environmental Justice

• The study area is largely built out• No new access to undeveloped or underdeveloped areas

Property or sales tax losses would occur as a result of property

Growth

Property and Sales Tax

Property Acquisition

Relocations and Displacements

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000


Reve

nue

Loss

Property and Sales Tax Revenue Loss

Annual Property TaxRevenue Loss

Annual Sales TaxRevenue Loss

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single) FWY (dual)Em

ploy

ee D

ispl

acem

ents

Busi

ness

Rel

oca

Business Reloca s and Employee Displacements

BusinessReloca ns

EmployeeDisplacements

Cascades Park - Monterey Park

Attachment A


Key Findings - Community Impact AssessmentState Route 710 North Study


Employment / Fiscal Impacts

Parking Impacts

Construc on of the Build Alterna ves would result in the crea on of construc on jobs and the genera on of employment earnings:

The opera on and maintenance of the Build Alterna ves would result in the crea on of jobs and the genera on of annual employment earnings:

The poten al temporary and permanent parking losses for each of the Build Alterna ves are displayed below:

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


Operation/Maintenance Jobs

Operation/Maintenance Jobs

Nu

mb

er

of

Jo

bs

(Pers

on

Years

)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000


Construction Jobs

ConstructionJobs

Co

ns

tru

cti

on

Jo

bs

(Pers

on

Years

)

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50


Annual Operation/Maintenance Employment Earnings

Annual Operation/MaintenanceEmploymentEarnings

Em

plo

ym

en

t E

arn

ing

s(M

illi

on

s)

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000


Construction Employment Earnings

ConstructionEmploymentEarnings

Em

plo

ym

en

t E

arn

ing

s(M

illi

on

s)

0

50

100

150

200

250


Num

ber o

f Par

king

Spa

ce L

osse

s

Temporary Parking Space Loss

Temporary

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Num

ber o

f Par

king

Spa

ce L

osse

s

Permanent Parking Space Loss

Permanent(All Hours)

Permanent(Peak Period)

Attachment A


Key Findings - Visual, Noise and Vibra onState Route 710 North Study


Visual

Visual Simulations

Noise

Ground-borne Noise and Vibration

TSM/TDM Alterna ve:• Minor physical changes or visible impacts to the environment• A minimal increase in ligh ng in exis ng business and residen al areas• Limited changes in glare from changes in tra c control cycles and addi onal travel lanes• No shade or shadow e ects• Approximately seven recommended noise barriers that may result in a low to high visual impact

LRT Alterna ve:• Noise barriers may result in a low to moderate visual impact• Moderately low permanent visual impacts on key views• Low permanent impacts related to light, glare, and shade and shadows

• FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and FTA Criteria used to determine when a noise e ect would occur

Receptors approaching and exceeding NAC or FTA criteria prior to abatement:• 27 receptors (TSM/TDM Alterna ve)• 9 receptors (BRT Alterna ve)• 12 moderate impact receptors (LRT Alterna ve)• 5 severe impact receptors (LRT Alterna ve)• 66 receptors (Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve [Single-Bore])• 75 receptors (Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve [Dual-Bore])

LRT Alterna ve:• Poten al opera onal ground-borne noise and vibra on impacts to 450 residen al buildings and 1 commercial o ce building• No ground-borne noise and vibra on impacts with implementa on of standard vibra on control measures

Other Alterna ves:• No impacts associated with ground-borne noise and vibra on from the opera on of the other Build Alterna ves

BRT Alterna ve:• Minimal increase in ligh ng and glare• Minor new shade and shadow e ects at new bus stops and signage• Low permanent visual impacts on key views• Approximately three recommended noise barriers may result in a moderate to moderately high visual impact

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve:• Moderately low to moderate visual impacts on key views• Minimal vehicle headlight glare from new non-tunnel segments built below the exis ng grade level• Minimal shade and shadow impacts• Approximately ve recommended noise barriers for the dual-bore design varia on may result in moderate to high visual impacts• Approximately three recommended noise barriers for the single-bore design varia on may result in moderate to high visual impacts

See display maps for exhibits of visual simulations.

See display maps for locations of recommended noise barriers.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


sreirraB esioN fo reb

muN

Recommended Noise Barriers

RecommendedNoise Barriers forthe BuildAlternative*

*IncludesRecommendedNoise Barriers for the TSM/TDM Improvements

Proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lane at 245 Fair Oaks Avenue in South Pasadena

Light Rail Transit crossing the I-10 Freeway LRT maintenance yard at Valley Blvd. Freeway Tunnel proposed northern portal Freeway Tunnel proposed southern portal

Attachment A


Key Findings - Cultural Resources and PaleontologyState Route 710 North Study

• No adverse e ect




limits. The loss of paleontological resources depending on the type of TBM used would be considered a permanen cant,

• Minor ground disturbance•

• • Fossil recovery during tunnel boring would be limited

Paleontology

Cultural Resources

4777 Cesar E. Chavez AvenueFair Oaks Avenue

Rialto Theater, South Pasadena 330 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena

Sequoyah School, Pasadena 4777 S. Cesar Chavez, Los Angeles

Attachment A


Key Findings - Natural Environment StudyState Route 710 North Study


Natural Communities Wetlands

Animal Species

Threatened and Endangered Species

Plant Species

TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alterna ves:• No permanent impacts on sensi ve natural communi es

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve:• Permanent direct impacts to ~1.09 acres of riparian habitat

TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alterna ves:• No impacts to wetlands or other waters

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve impacts to non-wetland waters:• ~0.06 acres of permanent impacts (single-bore)• ~0.5 acres of permanent impacts (dual-bore)

All Build Alterna ves:• Disturbed/developed community - Poten al suitable habitat for the San Bernardino ring-necked snake

TSM/TDM, BRT, and Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore) Alterna ves:• Nonna ve grasslands - Poten al habitat for milkweed plants required for monarch bu er y breeding - Poten al suitable habitat for western spadefoot toad and San Bernardino ring-necked snake

LRT and Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore) Alterna ves:• Nonna ve woodlands (LRT and Freeway Tunnel) - Poten al to contain eucalyptus trees with winter roos ng aggrega ons of adult monarch bu er ies

All Build Alterna ves:• Townsend’s big-eared bats Temporary indirect impacts through habitat loss at bridge widenings Temporary indirect impacts to foraging bats during nigh me construc on

LRT and Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore) Alterna ves:• Riparian obligate bird species Limited indirect temporary impacts due to proximity of poten al nonbreeding riparian habitat to construc on ac vi es

TSM/ TDM BRT LRT

Trees protected by local tree ordinances

No impact 136 removed 21 removed 84 removed

Southern California black walnut

No impact No impact No impact Permanent impact to 1 tree located ~4 feet from the permanent impact area

Impacts to one Coulter’s goldfields population

No impact No impact Indirectpermanent edge effects

Permanent direct impacts

Freeway Tunnel(Single and Dual-Bore)

Townsend’s big-eared bats

Riparian system under overpass

San Bernardino ring-necked snake

Del Mar Pump Station

Attachment A


Key Findings - Floodplains, Water Quality, Energy, Hazardous Waste, Geology and SoilsState Route 710 North Study


All of the Build Alterna ves would poten ally:• Encounter hazardous materials during disturbance of soils and demoli on of exis ng structures• Result in impacts from hazardous materials associated with a number of proper es that require Phase II Site Inves ga ons

Compared to 2035 No Build Condi on in study area:TSM/TDM Alterna ve• Opera on: No change• Maintenance: 0.3% increase

BRT Alterna ve• Opera on: No change• Maintenance: 0.3% increase

LRT Alterna ve• Opera on: 0.7% decrease• Maintenance: 0.2% increase

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve• Opera on: 0.7-1.0% decrease (Single-Bore)• Opera on: No Change (Dual-Bore)• Maintenance: 0.6-1.6% increase (Single and Dual-Bore)

TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT Alterna ves:• No oodplain encroachments

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve:• Encroachment in the Laguna Regula ng Basin oodplain (Single and Dual-Bore) - Nominal reduc on of the oodplain boundary - No increase in water surface eleva on• Encroachment in the Dorchester Channel oodplain (Dual-Bore) - Nominal reduc on of the oodplain boundary - Minor increase in water surface eleva on

SubjectProperty No.

Facility Alternative(s) Affected

1 BRT

2 BRT, LRT, TSM/TDM (I-10)

3TSM/TDM

(Other Road Improvement T-1)

4 BRT, LRT

5 LRT

6

Hazardous Waste

Energy

TSM/TDM

BRT LRT FreewayTunnel

construction

LowPotential

LowPotential

Low to ModeratePotential

Low to ModeratePotential

Yes Yes Yes Yes

above and adjacent to tunnel

N/A N/A LowPotential

LowPotential

TSM/TDM

BRT LRT

Freeway Tunnel

Single-bore Dual-bore

3.8 ac 1.12 ac 16.5 ac 1.7 ac 13.5 ac

Area treated by BMPs 12.0 ac 37.0 ac 16.5 ac 90.0 ac 95.0 ac

Increase in impervious surface

Floodplains

Water Quality

Geology and Soils

Former Circle K Stores

Fashion Master Cleaners

Railroad ROW

Elite Cleaners

Blanchard Landfill

Mercury Die/ Mission Corrugated

LRT, Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore), TSM/TDM

(Other Road Improvement T-1)

Potential for naturally occurring oil or gas encountered during

Potential to experience fault rupture, seismically-induced ground motion, liquefaction, and/or landslides

Potential for ground settlement and differential settlement

ac=acres

Attachment A


Key Findings - Air QualityState Route 710 North Study


2020/2025 Opening Year• The regional criteria pollutant emissions for the No Build and all of the Build Alterna ves are lower than the Exis ng (2012) condi on emissions. The reduc on ranges from 4 percent for PM10 to 59 percent for carbon monoxide (CO).• When compared to the 2020/2025 No Build condi ons, the change in regional criteria pollutant emission is very small. The change in emission ranges from decrease of 1.9 percent for reac ve organic gases (ROG) to an increase of 1.4 percent for PM10.

2020/2025 Opening Year

2035 Horizon Year• With the excep on of PM10 for the dual-bore tunnel alterna ve varia ons, the regional criteria pollutant emissions for the No Build and all of the Build Alterna ves are lower than the Exis ng (2012) condi on emissions. The reduc on ranges from 0.6 percent for PM10 to 66 percent for CO. The largest increase in PM10 is 0.3 percent.• When compared to the 2035 No Build condi ons the change in regional criteria pollutant emission is very small. The change in emissions ranges from a decrease of 1.7 percent for ROG to an increase of 1.7 percent for PM10.

2035 Horizon Year

• The Build Alterna ves would not result in any exceedance of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards• The maximum PM2.5 and PM10 concentra ons within the project area are associated with the No Build Alterna ves• Through interagency consulta on, the TSM/TDM, LRT, and BRT Alterna ves were determined not to be Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC)• Addi onal PM analyses will be conducted for the Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve if it is iden ed as the preferred alterna ve

Air Quality

Transportation Conformity

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2012 Existing No Build (2020) TSM/TDM BRT

2020 Opening Year

CO

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2012 Existing No Build (2025) LRT FWY (single)with Tolls

FWY (single)with Tolls and

No Trucks

FWY (single)with Tolls andExpress Bus

FWY (dual) NoTolls

FWY (dual) NoTrucks

FWY (dual)With Tolls

CO

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2012 Existing No Build(2035)

TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single)With Tolls

FWY (single)With Tolls

and NoTrucks

FWY (single)With Tolls

and ExpressBus

FWY (dual)No Tolls

FWY (dual)No Trucks

FWY (dual)With Tolls

2035 Horizon Year

CO

ROG

NOx

PM10

PM2.5

2025 Opening Year

Pro

ject

Stu

dy

Are

a (l

bs/

day

)

Pro

ject

Stu

dy

Are

a (l

bs/

day

)

Pro

ject

Stu

dy

Are

a (l

bs/

day

)

Attachment A


Key Findings - Health Risk Assessment and Climate ChangeState Route 710 North Study

future years

Build vs No Build Cancer Risk Impact Overview

• Localized cancer risk increases in small areas

TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT:

of vehicle travel routes

highways, when compared to TSM/TDM, BRT, and LRT• Localized impacts are mostly near SR 710/I 210 and SR 710/I-10 interchanges and the portals

Small decrease in regional carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during

Climate Change

Health Risk Assessment

Freeway Tunnel (Single-Bore) with Express Bus

Freeway Tunnel (Single-Bore) with Toll without trucks

Freeway Tunnel (Single-Bore)

Freeway Tunnel (Dual-Bore)

Freeway Tunnel (Dual-Bore) Freeway Tunnel (Dual-Bore) without tolls without trucks

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

0 5000 10000 15000 20000(meters)

-360

-100

-50

-10

0

10

100

Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore)

TSM/TDM, BRT, LRT

8,400

8,600

8,800

9,000

9,200

9,400

9,600

9,800

10,000

10,200

10,400

2012 Existing 2035 No Build TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single)with Tolls

FWY (single)with Tolls and

No Trucks

FWY (single)with Tolls andExpress Buses

FWY (dual)No Tolls

FWY (dual) No Trucks

FWY (dual)with Tolls

2035 GHG Emissions (CO )2

CO2

Pro

ject

Stu

dy

Are

a (m

etri

c to

ns/

day

)

Attachment A


Construc on ac vi es have a poten al to spread invasive species

Temporary indirect energy impacts result from the manufacture of vehicles that operate on the project and project construc on.

Energy

Invasive Species

All Build Alterna ves:• Construc on-related e ects on exis ng land uses - Business and neighborhood disrup ons - Disrup on of local tra c pa erns - Disrup on of access to homes and businesses - Increased tra c conges on, noise, vibra on• Use of privately owned proper es for temporary construc on easements (TCEs)

Haul Routes

Poten al haul routes for the LRT tunnel and sta on excava ons

Poten al haul route for the Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve North Portal (Single and Dual-Bore)

Short-term degrada on of air quality may occur due to the release ofpar culate emissions (airborne dust) from construc on ac vi es such as excava on, grading, and hauling

All Build Alterna ves:• Temporary noise and ground-borne vibra on impacts associated with construc on

LRT and Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore) Alterna ves: • Short-term ground-borne noise and vibra on from: - Tunnel excava on - Supply and muck train movements - Excava on and construc on of tunnel portal and underground sta ons

• Temporary impacts to community character and cohesion from air quality, noise, tra c/access, and/or parking e ects to community facili es within 500 feet of the Build Alterna ves• Construc on tra c impacts would include minor temporary lane restric ons to overnight closures and detours• Hauling excavated materials from tunnel boring using freeways and/or rail - LRT sta on excava on would use local streets• Increase in person-year jobs and employment earnings

Temporary Construc on Easements (TCEs):

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve (Single and Dual-Bore):• Construc on ac vi es would encroach in the Laguna Regula ng Basin • Land and vegeta on would be cleared, exposing soil to the poten al for erosion and downstream transport of sediments to occur

Freeway Tunnel Alterna ve (Dual-Bore):• Construc on ac vi es would encroach in the Dorchester Channel

Poten al for previously undocumented cultural resources or humanremains to be unearthed during site prepara on, grading, or excava on

• Low poten al for soil se lement• Poten al for naturally occurring gas to be encountered• Dewatering required for the LRT and Freeway Tunnel (Single and Dual-Bore) Alterna ves

• Poten al release of hazardous materials such as lead and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) during soil disturbance and demoli on• Phase II Site Inves ga ons required for 6 proper es

Land Use

Community Impacts

Cultural Resources

Geology and Soils/Hydrology

Hazardous Waste/Materials

Air Quality

Noise and Vibration

TSM/TDM BRT LRT Freeway Tunnel Single-Bore Dual-Bore

TCEs 16 parcels 36 parcels 13 parcels 52 parcels 47 parcels

Construc on energy in Bri sh Thermal Units (BTUs) in billions:

TSM/TDM BRT LRT Freeway Tunnel Single-Bore Dual-Bore

BTUs 33,600 55,300 422,000 523,000 926,000

Key Findings - Construc on Impacts


State Route 710 North Study

Hydrology and Floodplain

Attachment A


1

Transit – Building out the area’s rapid transit network (particularly some missing north-south options) will make car ownership an option rather than a necessity – potentially improving life quality and household finance.

Active Transportation – Every trip starts by walking, and the people of this community deserve to be able to walk safely and comfortably. What better use of dollars is there than those spent to reduce injuries and deaths while taking cars off our congested roads?

Managing Demand – Sometimes it costs less to convince people not to drive than it does to accommodate driving with more road construction. Five-Hundred Million well spent dollars can take more cars off the roads than could be carried on a comparably priced new facility.

Congestion – While spending to create more choice, we can’t lose sight of the fact that sometimes you just need to drive. Dollars spent smartly can help make those drives less miserable without encouraging the development sprawl that can result from less focused projects.

The San Gabriel Valley is an area of diverse cities and neighborhoods that trace the history of Southern California. New homes mingle with historic downtowns and educational institutions to create a lively sub-region. All of that activity, however, creates demand for ever-increasing mobility and access. The economic might of our region means we will continue to have opportunities to invest in transportation. Doing so in ways that serve our economy and environment, while supporting our health and quality of life, will require sound decisions. This initiative is a starting point that changes the conversation to focus on the transportation needs of the area and the opportunities that may be explored by the local community as they develop their vision for community mobility.

SUMMARY

NEW INITIATIVE FORMOBILITY AND

COMMUNITYwww.nelsonnygaard.com

Attachment B


2

For many years, the idea of a 710 freeway connection has been misleadingly touted as a solution to the transportation woes of the San Gabriel Valley. The publication of the 710 Environmental Impact Report has made clear, however, that this 50-year old project is no solution. It does not help a community craving transit access. It does not address east-west mobility problems. It prohibits trucks, bikes, pedestrians and charges tolls for cars. Perhaps most importantly, it will consume all of the available financial resources for this area. Problems with the tunnel proposal include:• The tunnel does not “pay for itself” through

tolls as some have asserted.• According to the EIR, the tunnel does not

address congestion issues in Alhambra.• The tunnel bypasses the very destinations

people want to go to.

The San Gabriel Valley is a community of diverse people, with widely varying commute patterns. Employees need to make short commutes to Pasadena and long commutes to Burbank (Metro has found that 70 percent of study area vehicle trips start and end within the San Gabriel Valley). Students attending Cal State LA and East LA College need ways to make short commutes to school. Communities need to be able to walk safely to transit and want to be able to invest in ways that can improve air quality.

The set of ideas outlined in the pages that follow are intended as a starting point for the development of a real, community-based transportation vision. This is a compilation of many good ideas that have emerged from community and agency processes over the years. This diverse set of solutions should be refined based on community input and community needs in order to accommodate community aspirations. A community-based solution represents the best investment of our transportation dollars to connect and create community in the San Gabriel Valley.

DIVERSE COMMUNITY, DIVERSE SOLUTIONS

Analysis by Metro indicates the greatest population growth in the San Gabriel Valley will be in Pasadena - a community that has passed a resolution against 710 tunnel.

The addition of a 710 freeway linkage could bring the same level of environmental risk to local residents as that faced by residents in corridors such as I-605.

It strains credibility that, despite holding scores of public open houses filled with community comment, no changes of substance have been made to any of the alternatives under evaluation. The 710 tunnel is not a community solution.

Attachment B


3

This vision of reconnected streets supporting redevelopment would bridge the gap between downtown and West Pasadena.

THE NORTH STUB

OPTION A: FILL THE DITCH

OPTION B: RETAIN CURRENT GRADES

QUICK COMPARISON

East-West Connections

Reducing Traffic Impacts

Developable Land

Grade Issues for Buildings

Grade Issues for Access

Maintaining Bridges

Front/Back/Servicing

Civic Open Space Plan

Costs

MORE VALUE

X

+++++

++? ?

For fifty years this community has been held hostage to the wrong-headed idea of a freeway extension – an idea which has precluded all sensible solutions. Allowing these “complete street” connections to happen would improve access and reconnect neighborhoods as the land relinquished by Caltrans is put back into productive use.

As an example of the kind of solution that can be developed from the grass roots community, this vision of Pasadena’s future stands in stark contrast to the 710 tunnel envisioned by planners (not influenced by community input).

Attachment B


4

The 710 freeway stub north of the 10 is over-scaled, and dumps all its traffic onto Valley Blvd, creating a congestion bottleneck. Converting the freeway into a boulevard allows us to solve its traffic problems by providing direct access to Cal State LA, and a 2-lane complete street connection to Alhambra Ave/Mission Rd, allowing traffic to be distributed into the arterial grid while protecting residential neighborhoods. A complete street connection through the emerging “Biotech Triangle” can reduce traffic at Fremont/Mission and cut-though along Concord Ave.

These changes also allow the restoration of Arroyo Rosa de Castilla, the year-round creek that runs alongside and under the 710, and the creation of over 30 acres of new parklands, three regular soccer fields, and a 2.5 mile bike path connecting Alhambra, El Sereno, and South Pasadena.

The boulevard also allows the creation of a new front door for Cal State LA, including 6.7 acres of flat, developable campus land.

Changing the disconnected south 710 Freeway stub into a connected boulevard would free up space for Cal State LA campus expansion, more efficiently disperse area traffic, provide space for premium transit including the opportunity to expand Dash service to El Sereno and Cal State LA. Perhaps more importantly it would connect communities, provide needed greenspace.

Campus Gateway : 15.5 AcresNet New Campus Land:6.7 Acres

South Park : 15.4 Acres

Middle Park : 9.8 Acres

North Park : 6.9 Acres3 Regular Soccer Fields

1.0 Mile Creek Daylighting1.8 Miles Creek Restoration

New street connection to Fremont St

2.5 Mile Bike Path from Fremont St to Cal State LA Metrorail

New Rapid Bus:- Pasadena- South Pas - Alhambra- Cal State LA - East LA College - Atlantic - 3 Metrolink Lines - Gold Line - Green Line- El Monte Busway

THE SOUTH STUB

New Rapid Bus

Restored Aroyo Rosa de Castilla

Golden Eagle Boulevard Complete Street

Bike Path

LEGEND

Attachment B


5

CONGESTION RELIEFDISAPPEARING TRAFFIC By replacing the freeway stub with a connected local street, “Golden Eagle Boulevard” would allow drivers to reach their destinations sooner – reducing traffic on the northern connector so much that a two-lane complete street (potentially ending in a traffic calming roundabout) could handle the reduced traffic. Measure R tax money was set aside for improvements to this corridor, but has gone unused so that the idea of a tunnel wouldn’t be harmed. The citizens have already paid the taxes – it’s time to get the benefit.

SCALE OF GOLDEN EAGLE BLVD/ MISSION RD

Cal State LA Traffic

Forced onto Valley Blvd Many circuitous movements create unnecessary congestion

CAL STATE LA TRAFFIC

SCALE OF GOLDEN EAGLE BLVD 45,000 VEHICLES PER DAY

Currently, a query to Google would send a driver on a round about trip to Cal State LA, adding miles to the roads and congestion to local streets.

Changing the Freeway stub to a connected street and adding a complete street link to Mission Road is the real solution to area congestion.

10

MISSION RD

VALLEY BLVD

CAL STATE LA

5,000

5,000

10,000

35,0

00

45,

00

0

10

MISSION RD

VALLEY BLVDVALLEY/ ALHAMBRA COMPLETE

STREET

CAL STATE LA

5,000

25,00

0

5,000

10,000

35,0

00

45,

00

0

VALLEY/

ALHAMBRA

COMPLETE STREET

Attachment B


6

Rebuilding the stub as a complete street would allow the restoration of the Arroyo Rosa de Castilla – a natural waterway that was piped and channelized to make room for the freeway stub. North Park :

6.9 Acres3 Regular Soccer Fields

1.0 Mile Creek Daylighting1.8 Miles Creek Restoration

Golden Eagle Blvd Connec-tion to Fremont

South Fremont

Biotech Triangle

The new street connection will provide a link between the University and the emerging “Biotech Triangle.” Connecting these minds to the investment outcomes of their thinking allows this cycle of creativity to happen in the San Gabriel Valley. The new network along “Golden Eagle Boulevard” can reduce traffic at Fremont/Mission and cut-through traffic along Concord Ave. The resulting complete street intersection on Mission will have such an manageable level of traffic entering that it could likely be handled by a single lane roundabout.

BIOTECH TRIANGLE

RESTORATION

Restoration of the Arroyo Rosa de Castilla will provide local residents with increased open space, beautiful vistas, opportunities for active mobility, areas for community gatherings and overall improved quality of life.

Attachment B


7

WALKING

700 estimated pedestrians are killed in California every year, the most of any state.

200 of those fatalities are in Los Angeles County alone.

5,000 collisions involving pedestrians, in an average year in LA. County

SUPPORTED BY ENHANCED PRIORITY CROSSINGS

23% California 14%

NationalIn 2014, 23% of those killed in car crashes in California were pedestrians – well above the national average of 14%.

This budget could improve safety for pedestrians throughout the San Gabriel Valley. Crossings of major arterials, accessibility improvements to intersections and dignified transit stops could all be achieved.

CAR CRASHES AND PEDESTRIANS IN CALIFORNIA

PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES IN CALIFORNIA COLLISIONS IN LA

23%

$25 M

Attachment B


8

This option would be different from the transit alternative shown in the EIR. Rather than a disruptive aerial structure, this would be a fast, surface, community-serving alternative.

This area’s great east-west transit connectivity could be supplemented by a north-south corridor that would connect both legs of the Gold Line, MetroLink’s San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange County Lines, the El Monte Busway, the Green Line and the Blue Line. In addition to all those transit linkages, activity centers along the line such as Huntington Hospital, Cal State LA, East LA College, St. Francis Medical Center and the communities of Bell, Maywood and Southgate and Long Beach would all become better connected. As ridership continues to grow, the community may explore the possibility of a light rail option that could further enhance the existing transit network.

NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTIONS

The community supports an enhanced, surface transit solution that connects to employment centers, recreational opportunities and educational institutions, not a disruptive aerial structure as proposed in the EIR.


This area’s great east-west transit connectivity could be supplemented by a north-south corridor that would connect both legs of the Gold Line, MetroLink’s San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange County Lines, the El Monte Busway, the Green Line and the Blue Line. In addition to all those transit linkages, destinations along the line such as Huntington Hospital, Cal State LA, East LA College, St. Francis Medical Center and the communities of Bell, Maywood and Southgate and Long Beach would all become better connected.

NORTH-SOUTH CONNECTIONS


Activity Centers

LEGEND

Attachment B


9

DEMAND MANAGEMENTCAN TDM SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

YESCOST

$500 M

VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION ESTIMATE

20%33,600 TRIPS SAVED PER DAY

302,400 TRIPS SAVED PER YEAR

$73.00COST PER YEAR PER RIDER - MARGINAL

30 YEAR COST AT MARGINAL COST RATE

0 500000000 1000000000 1500000000 2000000000 2500000000

$498,960,000

CASE STUDY: CAL STATE LONG BEACH

RESULTS

LONG BEACH TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 07-08

TOTAL 84,000

CAL STATE LA STUDENTS

23,000

EAST LA COLLEGE

STUDENTS 35,000

PASADENA CITY COLLEGE

STUDENTS 26,000

CASE STUDY: Cal State Long Beach has offered unlimited free rides on Long Beach Transit to all faculty, staff and students since 2008, achieving great results.

98,860

1,114,709 LONG BEACH TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 09-10

1,015,849 ANNUAL RIDERSHIP INCREASE

COST PER AVOIDED TRIP

PER YEAR $0.52

ANNUAL PROGRAM COST

$525,000

Attachment B


10

WHAT CAN HAPPEN NOW?

Rosemead Boulevard is the main north-south street in the San Gabriel Valley, connecting the City of Rosemead to Temple City, East San Gabriel and East Pasadena. It is also served by Metro Lines 266 and 489, and a segment in Temple City features the region’s first protected bike lanes.

Remove the South Stub and build “Golden Eagle Boulevard,” including a connection to Mission Road, as a “complete street.” (bus lanes and separated bike path included)

$200 M

Rebuild street connections to stitch together the North Stub $95 M

Expanded DASH service to CalState LA $15 M

Add 30 safe, pedestrian arterial crossings, 10 miles of new sidewalks and build the planned network of bike lanes and paths within one mile of either side of the 710 alignment

$25 M

Deliver real Rapid Bus (Improved Route 762) north-south service to include greater frequency, longer hours, weekend service and some dedicated bus lanes

$170 M

$200 M

Transit passes for 10 years for students of Pasadena City Collage, Cal State LA and East LA Collage $170 M

FUTURE PHASES: Moving forward the sale of surplus Caltrans properties could generate up to an additional $250 million to fund effective approaches such as student transit passes in the corridor:

Attachment B


11

With an initiative such as Measure R2, the following projects can address the regional transportation issues throughout the area.

WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH MORE FUNDING

Premium Transit to connect the network. Pasadena-Hollywood BRT and Valley Boulevard BRT.

$13 M

Metrolink upgrades to Burbank Airport and San Bernardino. Providing 30 minute all day service.

$400 M

Gold Level Active Transportation. Safe and comfortable bike and pedestrian networks throughout the Valley. $275 M

Extension of the Foothill and Eastside Gold Line. $2.3 B

Attachment B


12

NOHO-PASADENA

VALLEY

MISSING LINK

• North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT (including Burbank and Glendale)

• Valley Boulevard BRT (Downtown LA to El Monte Transit Center)

Rapid Bus Transit along the sub-region’s key corridors can connect communities that are a bit farther from the rail network. These corridors involve more than just buses. Improvements to transit stops/stations can assure that all riders have a safe and dignified experience. Improvement of sidewalk connectivity and quality can assure people can get to the system and safely cross streets at stations. Once the sidewalks are improved, consolidating stations can make the ride much faster and more reliable.

$13 M

PREMIUM TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY

As illustrated in this 1990 Metro Rail Plan, there has always been a “V” shaped missing link in rail planning that bypasses Glendale and Burbank. The time has come to bridge the missing link and connect communities.

Attachment B


13

VALLEY

The long-planned completion of the Gold Line will connect the eastern San Gabriel Valley into the rest of the region’s rapidly expanding transit network.

GOLD LINE COMPLETIONPremium Transit Access for the east end of the San Gabriel Valley will connect many more residents to jobs throughout Los Angeles County.

ATLANTIC

EAST LOS ANGELES

PASADENA

UNION STATION

HIGHLAND PARK

LAKE

DOWNTOWNASUZA

MONTCLAIRMETROLINK

EL MONTE BUSWAYTO EL MONTE BUS STATION

RED LINE TO NORTH HOLLYWOOD

PURPLE LINE TO WILSHIRE/ WESTERN

WHITTIER

EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE

2 (Remaining Alternatives)

FOOTHILL EXTENSION PHASE 2A FOOTHILL

EXTENSION PHASE 2B

SOUTH EL MONTE

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

$1.2 B

Attachment B


14

BURBANK AIR

PORT

CAL STATE LA

SAN BERNARDINO

LA UNIO

N STATIO

N

Upgrades to service on the Ventura County Line could provide 30 minute all day (and evening) service to the Burbank Airport. Improvements to the San Bernardino Line could provide hourly reverse commute and mid-day service. Both would represent a tremendous improvement to the usability of these valuable existing systems.

$400 M

METROLINK UPGRADES

All day, frequent service to Burbank Airport, San Bernardino and points between will represent a significant improvement to quality of life.

Attachment B


15

GOLD LEVEL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

SGV ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK

BIKING

NETWORK PRINCIPLES

SEPARATED BACKBONE - EVERY 1 MILE

D

IRECT

LE

GIB

LE

EXPERIENTIA

L

COMFORTABLE

SAFE

CONNECTED

AN “ALL AGES

ABILITIES” ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

NETWORK

NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAYS EVERY 1/2 MILE

This budget would be enough to create a premier, nationally-competitive bike network connecting the entire San Gabriel Valley. This system would focus on “low-stress” facilities that are comfortable to a wide range of potential users.

Major pathwayDedicated bikewayNeighborhood greenway

SGV Node

LEGEND

$275 M

75%

In its first year, a protected bike lane increases bicycle traffic on a street by an average of 75% 96%

Most people riding in protected bike lanes feel safer on the street because of the lanes

Attachment B


Category Project Description Cost Status

Goods Movement ACE Project The ACE Construction Authority is a single purpose construction

authority created by the SGVCOG in 1998 to mitigate the impacts of 70

miles of mainline railroad in the San Gabriel Valley. The ACE Project

consists of multiple construction projects including near-term, low

cost mobility improvements that encompass safety upgrades and

grade separations. The project components are as follows:

(1) Safety improvements at 39 crossings; and

(2) Grade separations at 22 rail crossings, including the 2.2 mile San

Gabriel Trench project.

Safety improvements and grade

separations - $1.61 billion.

The ACE Project is included in the Baseline Section of the 2009 LRTP. ACE has

completed Jump Start safety improvements at 39 crossings. Construction is

complete for the first seven grade separations, and underway or funded for

the next 6 grade separation projects. In addition, five projects are in design or

will be beginning design in the near future.

Highway - Carpool Lane

Completion

I-605 Carpool Lanes This project is intended to provide a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

Lane in each direction along the I-605 Freeway from I-10 to the I-210

(approximately 5.5 miles).

To be determined This project is in the Strategic (Unfunded) section of the 2009 LRTP, and is in

the pre-planning stage. A Project Study Report is yet to be initiated on this

project.


Completion

SR 60 Carpool Lanes

(US-101 to I-605)

This project is intended to close a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane

Gap along the SR-60 Freeway and provide continuous HOV lanes from

downtown Los Angeles to SR-57. The project widens the freeway to

construct one HOV lane in each direction. The project length is

approximately 12.0 centerline miles.

To be determined. This project is included in the Strategic (Unfunded) Section of the 2009 LRTP.

The project is in the preplanning phase, and Project Study Report is yet to be

completed. There may be consideration to phase the project in two segments

(US-101 to SR-710 and SR-710 to I-605) to accelerate delivery of a segment.


Completion

SR-57 Carpool Lanes This project is intended to provide a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

Lane in each direction along the SR-57 Freeway from SR-60 to the I-

210 (approximately 7.1 miles).

TBD. This project is in the Strategic (Unfunded) section of the 2009 LRTP, and is in

the pre-planning stage. A Project Study Report is yet to be initiated on this

project.


Completion

I-10 Carpool Lanes

(I-605 to Puente Avenue)

This project is intended to close the 11 mile High Occupancy Vehicle

(HOV) Lane Gap along the I-10 Freeway and provide continuous HOV

lanes from downtown Los Angeles to the San Bernardino County Line.

168.6 Million

This project is included in the 2009 LRTP Constrained list, and the project has

been in construction. Caltrans is scheduled to open the HOV lanes to traffic in

January 2013.


Completion

I-10 Carpool Lanes

(Puente Avenue to Citrus

Avenue)




$182.8 Million This project is included in the 2009 LRTP Constrained list and is in design.

Construction is scheduled to begin mid 2013 and continue for about three

years.


Completion

I-10 Carpool Lanes

(Citrus Avenue to SR-57)




$170 Million This project is included in the 2009 LRTP Constrained list and is in design

Construction is scheduled to begin in mid 2015 and continue for about three

years.

SGV Transportation Priority List (Adopted January 2013)

Page 1 of 5

Attachment C



Highway - Congestion Relief SR-710 Transportation

Improvement Options

The I-710 freeway serves as a major north-south link in the Los

Angeles County transportation network. Currently, this freeway

extends from its southern terminus in the City of Long Beach to Valley

Boulevard, just north of the Interstate 10 (I-10) freeway. Beyond this

northern terminus is a 4.5 mile unconstructed segment, referred to as

State Route (SR) 710, until the freeway resumes at Del Mar Boulevard,

in the City of Pasadena.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA), the Southern California Association

of Governments (SCAG), Metro and SGVCOG support the completion of

Route 710 to relieve regional and local traffic congestion and to

improve regional air quality. Over the past forty years, alternative

concepts have been proposed and evaluated to complete the I-710

freeway. In order to address both, regional mobility needs and

community/environmental concerns, Caltrans and Metro are currently

considering a subterranean freeway tunnel concept, Light Rail Transit

(LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Transportation Systems

Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM), and

surface freeway and highway options. The failure to implement a

transportation improvement project has contributed to growing

congestion on nearby freeways and local arterials.

The more recent geotechnical studies conducted by Los Angeles

County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to address the

problem found tunneling to be a viable option, subject to appropriate

mitigation measures and funding.

To be determined. At its June 2010 meeting, the Metro Board of Directors accepted previous

tunnel study findings and adopted motions to initiate the environmental

review phase of the project, with the understanding that a full range of multi-

modal alternatives and mitigation measures would be studied. Scoping, the

first step in the process was completed in 2011. In October 2011, the Metro

Board approved staff’s recommendation to approve CH2MHILL as the prime

technical contractor to conduct engineering and environmental studies

leading to a DEIS/DEIR by winter 2013 and a FEIS/FEIR by winter 2014. In

January 2012, Metro Board approved staff recommendation to approve

Consensus, Inc. as the prime contractor for public outreach efforts.

Highway - Gap Closure SR-71 Completion -

(Interstate 10 to Mission

Boulevard)

Beginning at its northern terminus at the Kellogg Interchange complex

in San Dimas to a short distance south of Holt Avenue in Pomona, SR-

71 is a traditional four-lane freeway. From that point and through

most of Pomona (for approximately 1.8 miles), it becomes a four-lane

expressway with at-grade intersections, which are signalized. Just

north of the Rio Rancho Road exit, all aspects of the highway return to

freeway standards in its alignment, lane width, pavement, barriers,

access, etc. This project is intended to close this existing gap in the

freeway system by converting this section of SR-71 to a traditional

freeway.

To be determined. The LRTP includes a

total budget of $115 Million (escalated).

This project is in the Constrained (Funded) section of the 2009 LRTP. The

project is in the design phase but design has been suspended when it was

determined that construction funds were scheduled for the later years of the

2001 LRTP. Metro is supportive of City of Pomona’s efforts for Caltrans to

revise the project report with an alternative that could save costs and possibly

advance the project schedule. The project is scheduled for opening in 2027

per the 2009 LRTP. To advance the project schedule, the project is included in

the Highway Goods Movement Public Private Partnership Bundle Project. A

request for qualifications is scheduled to be released in early 2012 with the

start of contract in mid 2013.

Highway - Gap Closure SR-71 Completion -

(Mission Boulevard to Rio

Rancho Road/State Route

60)

Beginning at its northern terminus at the Kellogg Interchange complex

in San Dimas to a short distance south of Holt Avenue in Pomona, SR-

71 is a traditional four-lane freeway. From that point and through

most of Pomona (for approximately 1.8 miles), it becomes a four-lane

expressway with at-grade intersections, which are signalized. Just

north of the Rio Rancho Road exit, all aspects of the highway return to

freeway standards in its alignment, lane width, pavement, barriers,

access, etc. This project is intended to close this existing gap in the

freeway system by converting this section of SR-71 to a traditional

freeway.

To be determined. The LRTP includes a

total budget of $330 Million (escalated).

This project is in the Constrained (Funded) section of the 2009 LRTP. The

project is in the design phase but design has been suspended when it was

determined that construction funds were scheduled for the later years of the

2001 LRTP. Metro is supportive of City of Pomona’s efforts for Caltrans to

revise the project report with an alternative that could save costs and possibly

advance the project schedule. The project is scheduled for opening in 2029

per the 2009 LRTP. To advance the project schedule, the project is included in

the Highway Goods Movement Public Private Partnership Bundle Project that

is in the development stages. A request for qualifications is scheduled to be

released in early 2013 with the start of contract in mid 2014.

Page 2 of 5

Attachment C



Highway - Interchange

Improvements

SR-60 / I-605 Mixed Flow

and HOV Direct Connectors

The project proposes improvements to the mixed-flow connectors and

two sets of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) direct connectors

Westbound SR-60 to Southbound I-605 (and reverse move) and

Westbound SR-60 to Northbound I-605 (and reverse move). HOV

Direct connectors would lessen the mainline weaving moves of

vehicles that have to transfer from one freeway to another helping

lessen congestion in the vicinity of freeway to freeway interchanges.

The total project cost is yet to be

determined.

The Project Study Report (PSR) that was

completed in 2003 estimated the

Westbound to Northbound (and reverse

move) HOV direct connectors at $130-280

million depending on the alternative

configuration that would be selected.

The Westbound SR-60 to Southbound I-

605 HOV direct connectors have not been

studied but are likely to be even costlier as

the existence of one set of connectors will

require more complicated and longer

structures for the second set of HOV

connectors.

The HOV direct connector projects are included in the Strategic (Unfunded)

section of the 2009 LRTP. The mixed flow connector improvements have not

been identified and are not included in the 2009 LRTP. While funding has not

been identified for these projects, this interchange was included in the

Gateway COG’s study of “605 Hotspots.” As part of Measure R, $590 million

has been identified to address these “605 Hotspots”; however, the specific list

of projects to be funded through this program is yet to be determined. A new

PSR which takes into account all the potential improvements at this

interchange should be produced.


Improvements

SR-57 / SR-60 Interchange Routes 57 and 60 share a common alignment for a distance of about 2

miles and within this shared alignment area is the Grand Avenue

Interchange. Severe congestion occurs in the confluence area and cut

through traffic on local roads is evident. The Grand Avenue

interchange, situated in the middle of the confluence area, reduces the

freeway lane capacities due to lane drops when Route 57 traffic

merges with Route 60 traffic at the connectors and significant weaving

of freeway traffic to ingress or egress Grand Avenue.

To be determined based on the design

alternative that is selected. The LRTP

includes a budget of $475 Million

(escalated) for this project.

This project is included in the Constrained (Funded) section of the 2009 LRTP.

The 57/60 interchange Improvements Feasibility Study evaluated three

alternatives for improving the interchange. A system of collector roads with

freeway to freeway HOV and mainline connectors appears to be the consensus

alternative. The project will move to the Project Study Report phase at the

appropriate time. The LRTP has $475 million in escalated dollars for the

project however if all elements of the collector road project alternative are

constructed, the project budget will have to be increased.

In order to satisfy environmental mitigation issues associated with

development north of the freeway and adjacent to Grand Ave, the City of

Industry has proposed a project that improves Grand Ave and the 57/60

interchange operations. Their project is a subset of the collector road concept

in the Study. The 2009 LRTP scheduled this interchange project to be

completed in 2029.


Improvements

I-10/I-605 (Southbound

(SB) I-605 to Eastbound

(EB) I-10 Transition

Connector (mixed flow))

The project will construct a flyover connector from Southbound I-605

to the Eastbound I-10 which would replace the existing shared at-

grade connector.

$71.0 Million. This project is being funded by State Transportation Improvement Program

(STIP) and State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds.

State may bond the SHOPP revenues via Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles

(GARVEE) bonds to deliver the project faster than if the SHOPP funds are not

bonded. The project will be constructed through a design-build contract and

is anticipated to begin construction in mid 2012. This schedule minimizes

duo contractor work in the same work area as the I-10 carpool lanes project

currently in construction should be complete before this contract begins.


Improvements

I-10/I-605 Interchange

(Southbound I-605 to

Eastbound I-10 Transition

Connector - Mixed Flow)

The existing I-10 / I-605 interchange has congestion levels and

accidents rates that are significantly above average when compared to

comparable interchanges, due to the configuration of this interchange.

This two-level interchange lacks two flyover connectors and traffic

utilizing the interchange weaves in short distances to move from one

freeway to another as the connectors share common alignments. This

weaving over the joint segment results in queuing on the outer lanes of

the freeways and weaving and congestion-related accidents in the

vicinity of the interchange. Also, while HOV lanes exist on I-10 and I-

605 and additional lanes will be constructed on I-10 to close the HOV

gap between I-605 & SR-57, HOV traffic has to weave out of the HOV

lanes across mixed flow lanes and then back into the HOV lanes to

switch freeways.

$71.0 Million (1) This project is being funded by State Highway Operations and Protection

Program (SHOPP) funds. The State may bond the SHOPP revenues via Grant

Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to advance project delivery.

The project will be constructed using a design-build contract that began

construction in mid 2012. This schedule minimizes duo contractor work in

the same work area as the I-10 carpool lanes project currently in construction

should be complete in this area before this contract begins.

Page 3 of 5

Attachment C




Improvements

I-10/I-605 Interchange

Northbound (NB) I-605 to

Westbound (WB) I-10

Transition Connector

(Mixed flow)













switch freeways.

Up to $230 Million depending on

alternative configurations.

This project is not currently included in the 2009 LRTP. A Project Study

Report for this project was completed in 2008.


Improvements

I-10/I-605 Interchange -

(Partial HOV connector -

from Westbound to

Southbound and Eastbound

to Southbound)













switch freeways.

To be determined. This project is in the Strategic (Unfunded) section of the 2009 LRTP. A Project

Study Report that was completed in 2003 estimated the eastbound to

southbound (and reverse move) connectors at $130-210 Million depending

on the alternative configuration that would be selected. However, the

estimates are dated. The westbound to southbound connectors have not been

studied but are likely to be even costlier as the existence of one set of

connectors will require more complicated and longer structures for the

second set of HOV connectors. A new PSR which takes into account all the

potential improvements should be produced.

Rail Regional Connector The Metro Regional Connector is an approximate 2 mile light rail

project that will connect the Metro Gold, Metro Blue and Metro

Exposition light rail transit systems through downtown in Los Angeles,

providing through service across Los Angeles County. In October

2010, Metro Board designated the fully underground alternative as its

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The LPA would add three

underground stations located in Little Tokyo/Arts District

(1st/Central), Broadway (2nd/Broadway) and Bunker Hill

(2nd/Hope).

The project Cost for the Regional

Connector is estimated to be $1.3 billion

(Year of Expenditure). Measure R provides

$160 million for the project.

The Final EIS/EIR was completed and released for public review in January

2012. The Federal Transit Administration authorized the Regional Connector

to begin Preliminary Engineering (PE) in January 2011. PE is anticipated to

be completed in October 2012. The Record of Decision (ROD) was received

on June 29, 2012. This project has been included in the American Fast

Forward program, which was initiated by the City of Los Angeles and is

intended to accelerate LA County Metro rail and highway projects. The

Regional Connector is included in the Constrained (Funded) section of the

2009 LRTP. This project is scheduled to be completed in 2019.

Rail Gold Line Foothill Extension

- Phase 2A

The project will extend the Gold Line’s double track light rail line from

Sierra Madre Villa Station in the City of Pasadena to the City of Azusa, a

distance of 11.34 miles, with 6 new stations (Cities of Arcadia,

Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa Downtown and Azusa Citrus). The

projected ridership when completed to Azusa is estimated to be 9,004

by 2025 per the EIR.

$741 Million This project is included in the Constrained (Funded) section of the 2009 LRTP.

Measure R provides $810.5 Million (escalated) with a $32 Million local match

to fund the Project. A light rail maintenance facility will also be constructed in

Monrovia as part of the project. Construction of the I-210 bridge in Arcadia is

currently underway and is expected to be completed by the end of 2012. This

phase is currently projected to begin revenue operations in 2016.

Rail Gold Line Foothill Extension

- Phase 2B

This project would extend the Gold Line Foothill extension double

track light rail line from the City of Azusa Citrus station to Montclair

Station, a distance of 12.57 miles, with 6 new stations (Cities of

Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair).

The projected ridership when completed from Azusa to Montclair is

estimated to be 17,770 per day in 2035 per the EIR.

$764 Million This project is included in the Strategic (Unfunded) section of the 2009 LRTP.

A draft EIR for this project was released for a 45 day public comment period

on August 21, 2012.

Rail Gold Line Eastside Phase 2

Transit Corridor

This project proposes to extend the Gold Line Eastside Extension via a

double track light rail line from its current terminus at Atlantic

Boulevard /Pomona Boulevard Station to either the City of South El

Monte via an alignment mostly adjacent to State Route 60, or to the

City of Whittier via Washington Boulevard.

When completed, the projected ridership to the City of South El Monte

or the City of Whittier is estimated to be 18,300 to 20,800 average

weekday daily boardings.

$1.3 billion to $1.7 billion (2010 dollars),

depending on which alignment is selected

and other variables.

This project is included in the Constrained (Funded) section of the 2009 LRTP.

Measure R provides $1.27 billion to fund the project, which would be

available beginning FY 2022-2024. This project is not expected to be

completed until FY 2035, and matching funds could be required to fully fund

this extension. The administrative DEIR/DEIS is currently under review by

the Federal Transit Administration and three Cooperating Agencies. If

Measure J passes, the completion date of the project can be accelerated to FY

2022.

Page 4 of 5

Attachment C



Regional Corridor Studies Arrow Highway Arrow Highway traverses 53 miles of Los Angeles and San Bernardino

counties. The demonstration project focused on the 8.5-mile stretch of

Arrow Hwy within the Valley, through the cities of Baldwin Park,

Irwindale, Azusa, Covina, and Glendora, and County unincorporated

communities of Charter Oak, the Covina Islands, and East Irwindale.

Located at the edge of several cities, and often functioning as a

jurisdictional boundary, the north and south sides of Arrow Hwy are

often subject to different policies concerning zoning and streetscape

design. The planning and development of properties along the

highway are considered a low priority within each jurisdiction,

including some of the unincorporated area. For these reasons, the land

along Arrow Hwy is largely underutilized and suffers from a high level

of blight.

Since the initial study was completed, the corridor working group has created

a database consisting of parcel information for the properties within a ¼-mile

radius of Arrow Highway. In May 2010, the participating agencies were given

a Compass Blueprint Award by SCAG for the initial 2008 study effort.

Previously, Supervisors’ offices and the LA County CEO’s office were

researching the feasibility of creating a multi-jurisdictional redevelopment

project area in order to improve this area and have hired special legal counsel

to assist with this effort. However, future efforts related to this corridor are

on hold due to the Statewide dissolution of redevelopment agencies.

Regional Corridor Studies Ramona-Badillo This study focuses on an approximately 10-mile stretch along Ramona

Blvd. and Badillo St. that begins at the El Monte Bus Transit Station

and runs through the cities of El Monte, Baldwin Park, West Covina,

and Covina and unincorporated neighborhoods in Los Angeles County.

A major feature of the project area is the concentration of major

regional transportation hubs. The El Monte Bus Transit Station is the

busiest metropolitan bus station west of Chicago, with approximately

5,700 average daily boardings. In addition, the nearby El Monte,

Baldwin Park, and Covina stops along Metrolink’s San Bernardino line

provide additional opportunities to better link the corridor to the

region’s transit network.

The cities of Baldwin Park, Covina, El Monte, West Covina, and the County of

Los Angeles partnered to complete a study that explores the need for a Bus

Rapid Transit line along the Ramona-Badillo corridor and recently received

MTA Call for Projects Funding for Bus Signal Priority. Building upon the

findings and recommendations of that study, the cities received funding from

SCAG’s Compass Blueprint Program to complete a corridor study to develop a

vision for future land use and transportation investments, exploring land use,

traffic circulation, and design changes that could be used to improve the

image, function, and economic performance of the corridor.

Regional Corridor Studies Valley Boulevard Valley Boulevard has a great deal of regional significance in the San

Gabriel Valley, especially the eastern portion of the Valley. It is the

primary east-west corridor in the south East San Gabriel Valley, and is

used daily by an overwhelming number of commuters and residents,

as it serves as an arterial alternative to SR-60. Currently, the cities of

La Puente, Industry, West Covina, Walnut, and Pomona, as well as the

County of Los Angeles are engaged in joint planning efforts focused on

improving mobility along this corridor.

This Corridor Working Group is focused on prioritizing transportation

investments and creating a cohesive vision for the corridor. A study is

planned in the near future to create an initial planning document for this multi-

jurisdictional effort. The scope of work for this study includes an analysis of

the corridor’s function, its relationship to adjacent land use, and the impact of

the land uses within the corridor. This study will result in a comprehensive

list of transportation projects and investments to be implemented along the

corridor, as well as criteria for ranking and prioritizing projects.

Regional Corridor Studies Rosemead Boulevard Rosemead Boulevard is a former State highway that reaches from the

San Gabriel Mountains in the North to Long Beach. This corridor study

area includes the portions of Rosemead Boulevard in the cities of

Pasadena, Temple City, Rosemead, El Monte, and South El Monte, as

well as LA County Unincorporated. One of the overarching issues

affecting potential planning projects along Rosemead Boulevard is the

ongoing divestment by Caltrans. Currently, only the County of Los

Angeles and the City of Temple City have accepted relinquishment.

Divestment issues notwithstanding, jurisdictions along Rosemead

Boulevard are working to develop a corridor-wide vision that

incorporates pedestrian and retail-friendly planning, while addressing

capacity needs.

Currently, the working group for this corridor is reviewing options related to

mobility, beautification and other enhancements to improve this important

North-South Corridor. Currently, the group is reviewing options to fund an

initial assessment study, including grant applications, SCAG funding and self-

assessment. The County of Los Angeles has completed improvements along

the northern section of the corridor, and the City of Temple City is currently

finalizing a plan for their section of the corridor.

State Routes Highway 39 State Route 39 (SR-39) was a state highway, traversing Orange and Los

Angeles Counties. Caltrans had relinquished all of SR 39 in LA County

to local jurisdictions except this last segment within the US Forest

Service. In January 2009, Caltrans approved the Environmental

Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for SR-39 (SR-39

San Gabriel Canyon Road) Rehabilitation/Reopening Project SR-39, in

the Angeles National Forest, from just south of Snow Spring to State

Route-2 (Post mile 40.0 to 44.4). This portion has been closed to the

public since 1978 due to a massive rock and mudslide caused by heavy

rains and floods.

In September 2009, the CTC approved for future consideration of funding this

project, which was described as a “project in Los Angeles County that will

rehabilitate, re-open, and construct roadway improvements on Route 39

within the Angeles National Forest north of the city of Duarte.” However, in a

letter to the US Forest Service dated August 31, 2011, Caltrans stated that it

had determined it is “not realistic or cost effective to continue pursuing the

implementation of this reopening project.” In February 2012, the SGVCOG

took a position to oppose any efforts by Caltrans to abandon State Route-39

and to request that Caltrans continue their efforts to complete the reopening

Project.

Page 5 of 5

Attachment C


REPORT

DATE: June 18, 2015 TO: Governing Board Delegates and Alternates FROM: Francis M. Delach, Executive Director RE: SALARY AND CLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt Resolution 15-21 updating the SGVCOG salary and classification system for FY 15-16. BACKGROUND In May 2015, the Governing Board adopted an updated salary and classification resolution for FY 2015-16. That resolution includes the following three classifications for full-time employees:

• Executive Director • Assistant to the Executive Director • Senior Administrative Analyst/ Senior Management Analyst

The SGVCOG’s organization chart includes a total of four full-time positions and one part-time position (Executive Director, Assistant to the Executive Director, Senior Administrative Analyst (2), and project assistant (part-time)). Currently, one of the Senior Administrative Analyst positions is vacant, and the SGVCOG is contracting with a firm for part-time temporary staff to fill that position. Due to the departure of SGVCOG staff, it is anticipated that the other Senior Administrative Analyst position will be vacant by July 1, 2015. Staff anticipates initiating recruitment for this position in late June. In order to allow for flexibility in the recruitment process, staff is recommending that an additional classification, Management Analyst, be added to the SGVCOG’s classification system. This classification would be similar to that of the Senior Management Analyst Position, but would require less work experience (minimum one year of experience as opposed to minimum of three years of experience). Resolution 15-21 (Attachment A) includes the proposed salary range for this position. In order to develop the proposed salary range for the Management Analyst position, staff gathered salary data from SGVCOG members for equivalent positions within the cities (i.e. Assistant to the City Manager, Senior Management Analyst, and Management Analyst). Attachment B provides that data. Note, not all cities had equivalent positions. However, staff was able to gather data from a minimum of nine cities for each position. Using that data, staff then compared the variance between the SGVCOG’s minimum and maximum salaries for its two existing classifications (Assistant to the Executive Director and Senior Management Analyst) with the average of the city equivalent positions. That information is shown below in Table 1.


REPORT

SGVCOG Salary

Range City Average Variance Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Assistant to the Executive Director

$5,303.00 $7,424.00 $7,276.58 $9,189.78 -37.22% -23.78%

Senior Management Analyst $4,363.00 $6,108.00 $5,487.61 $7,097.50 -25.78% -16.20% Table 1.

Comparison of SGVCOG Salary Ranges vs. Member Agency Average Ranges (Monthly Salary).

Compared to the average salary ranges of member agencies, the SGVCOG’s minimum and maximum salaries ranged from 16.2% - 37.22% lower, or an average of 25.74%. Based on this information, staff developed the proposed salary range for the management analyst position by taking the city average and reducing both the minimum and maximum ranges by 25%. The proposed range for the Management Analyst position is shown in Table 2 below.

City Average Proposed Min Max Min Max

Management Analyst $4,718.77 $5,999.31 $3,539.08 $4,499.48 Table 2.

Proposed Salary Range for Management Analyst Position (Monthly Salary).

Pending approval of this additional classification, staff will initiate recruitment for the anticipated vacancy. The draft job flyer is included as Attachment C. Adding this additional classification to the SGVCOG’s classification system does not increase the number of budgeted positions, does not change the salary ranges for the existing classifications, and does result in any salary adjustments for any current SGVCOG staff. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A- Resolution 15-21 Attachment B – Salary Data

Attachment C – Draft Job Flyer


Attachment A


A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SGVCOG) REGARDING EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND SALARY RATES FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT

WHEREAS, in 2013, the Governing Board restructured the SGVCOG organization and added administrative employees who are assigned to the traditional Council of Governments functions including completion of the goals and objectives adopted in the SGVCOG’s Strategic Plan and annual work plan, administration of grant programs, and coordination of the various policy and technical advisory committees; WHEREAS, given the changes to the organization, the Governing Board is reviewing current practices and developing systems that reflect best industry practices and afford the greatest level of transparency and protection to the SGVCOG, its member agencies, the communities, and the employees including practices and policies related to the administrative and financial functions of the organization; WHEREAS, on May 29, 2014, the Governing Board adopted Ordinance No. 100 which established an Administrative Code that created a personnel system; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2014, the Governing Board adopted an Employee Policy and Procedures Manual that established a comprehensive set of rules, regulations and policies and a classification system designed to afford the greatest protection to the SGVCOG and its employees by clearly defining the expectations of employment, establishing a system for addressing and resolving areas of concern, and creating opportunities to mentor, train and develop personnel; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 2014, the Governing Board adopted Resolution No. 14-23 establishing the employment benefits and salary rates for all classes of employment. NOW, THEREFORE, the Governing Board of the SGVCOG does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows, which supersedes Resolution No. 14-23 and 15-13 in their entirety: SECTION 1. The following bi-weekly salary schedules are assigned to the full-time classes of employment. Annual compensation is equal to 26 bi-weekly pay periods.

Range Minimum Range Maximum Range Position Title Monthly

Salary Bi-Weekly

Salary Monthly Salary

Bi-Weekly Salary

Management Analyst $3,539.08 $1,633.42 $4,499.48 $2,076.68 22 Senior Management Analyst $4,363.00 $2,013.70 $6,108.00 $2,819.08 26 Assist to the Executive Director $5,303.00 $2,447.54 $7,424.00 $3,426.46 40 Executive Director $14,583.33 $6,730.77


Resolution No. 15-21 Page 2 of 10 SECTION 2. The following table designates the full-time position titles as non-exempt or exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). All hourly position listed in Section 4 of this Resolution are designated as non-exempt. Position titles listed as non-exempt are compensated overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Position titles designated as exempt are not eligible for overtime compensation under the FLSA and will not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Position Title Exempt/Non-Exempt Status Position Category Management Analyst Non-Exempt Supv/Professional Senior Management Analyst Non-Exempt Supv/Professional Assist to the Executive Director Non-Exempt Supv/Professional Executive Director Exempt Executive

SECTION 3. The SGVCOG shall provide the following benefits:

A. Retirement. 1) The SGVCOG shall provide a tax-qualified governmental defined benefit plan

through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) for all full- time miscellaneous classes of employees, in accordance with the following provisions:

a. Employees of the SGVCOG shall pay seven percent (7%) the normal member contributions to CalPERS.

b. The period for determining the average monthly pay rate when calculating retirement benefits shall be the 36 highest paid consecutive months.

c. For full-time employees hired before July 1, 2012, the period for determining the average monthly pay rate when calculating retirement benefits shall be the 12 highest paid consecutive months.

d. All full-time employees will be covered by the Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits.

e. The lump sum death benefit paid to beneficiaries of retired CalPERS members will be $500.

2) The SGVCOG shall provide a retirement plan for all hourly employees. The SGVCOG will contribute 2.5% of the employee’s salary into an Internal Revenue Code 457 (b) qualified defined contribution plan. Additionally, employees contribute 5.0% of salary towards this program on a pre-tax basis. Upon separation from the SGVCOG, hourly employees will receive 100% of both the SGVCOG and the employee’s contributions, plus any accrued interest.

B. Insurances.



1) The SGVCOG will contribute $700 per month for medical, dental, and vision care for all active full-time employees and their family members. 2) The SGVCOG shall provide a short-term disability program for all full-time employees. The SGVCOG shall also provide a long-term disability program for full-time employees to work in concert with the short-term disability program. 3) The SGVCOG shall contribute $350 per month for medical, dental, and vision care

for all part-time employees who have completed a 90-day waiting period and average no less than 25 hours per week (Monday – Sunday).

4) The SGVCOG shall provide a medical insurance rebate program for full-time employees who are currently enrolled under a medical insurance program through a spouse or other source. Qualifying employees can exchange their SGVCOG medical benefit for a cash rebate equal to the amount of the benefit.

5) In accordance with the California Labor Code, the SGVCOG pays the premium for

unemployment insurance for employees. 6) Under the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Law of California, any employee

injured on the job in the course of employment is entitled to disability compensation and medical care. Full-time employees may utilize sick leave during the period of absence due to a work-related illness or injury. However, when payment of workers’ compensation benefits is received by the employee:

a. He/she must endorse the check over to the SGVCOG; b. The SGVCOG will convert the dollar amount of the check to sick leave hours

(Total amount of the check divided by the hourly wage); and c. The SGVCOG will credit the employee’s sick leave account by that number of

hours. Employees who do not wish to cover this absence with sick leave or who lack adequate sick leave hours may keep the check from workers’ compensation.

C. Vacation.

1) Full-time employees accrue vacation according to the following schedule:

Years of Service Annual Rate (Hours)

0 to 5 years (0 to 60 months) 80 5 years 1 month + (61 months +) 120

Vacation will be credited bi-weekly on a prorated basis proportionate to a full working month. Upon separation, termination, or retirement, full-time employees shall be compensated at their current rate of pay for their accrued vacation up to a maximum number of 240 hours.



2) An employee who has reached the maximum vacation accrual based on years of service will stop accruing vacation hours and will resume accruing vacation hours only when the number of accrued vacation hours falls below the maximum. No employee shall carry forward more than the maximum vacation accrual beyond the last full pay period in June of a fiscal year into a succeeding fiscal year. Accrued vacation may be used for time off following a written notice of resignation or retirement with prior written approval of the Executive Director. New full-time probationary employees are eligible to use accrued vacation during the probationary period with prior approval of the Executive Director.

D. Holidays.

1) The SGVCOG will provide full-time employees 96 hours a fiscal year for holidays.

Employees must use holiday hours for fixed holidays observed by the SGVCOG. Employees who do not use the full 96 hours during the fixed holidays when the SGVCOG is closed due to professional commitments approved by the Executive Director may use any remaining time as floating holidays. These remaining hours may be used any time throughout the fiscal year with the proper approval of the Executive Director. All holiday hours must be used by the last full pay period in June of each fiscal year and cannot be credited or carried over to the succeeding fiscal year. New full-time probationary employees are eligible to use paid holiday leave hours upon hire with prior approval of the Executive Director.

2) The SGVCOG will observe twelve (12) holidays a year during which the office will be closed. These include:

New Year’s Day Martin Luther King Day Presidents’ Day Memorial Day (last Monday in May) Independence Day Labor Day (first Monday in September) Veterans’ Day Thanksgiving Holiday (fourth Thursday and Friday in November) Christmas Eve and Christmas Day (two days determined by the Executive

Director) New Year’s Eve

If any holiday should fall on a day the SGVCOG office is scheduled to be closed, the Executive Director shall determine the date the holiday will be observed.

3) The COG offices will be closed from December 24 through January 1 of each year.

Employees may use vacation, holiday, or other accrued time to be compensated for those days.

E. Leaves of Absence.



1) Full-time employee sick leave with pay shall accrue at the rate of six (hours) for

each calendar month of service or any portion thereof prorated in proportion to a full working month for a maximum of 72 hours per calendar year. New full-time probationary employees are eligible to use accrued sick leave during the probationary period.

2) Accrued sick leave does not have any cash value, and employees will not be compensated for the value of accrued sick leave upon separation, termination, or retirement. Accrued sick leave may be used for time off following written notice of resignation or retirement if the employee or employee’s immediate family member is ill. This includes any relative by blood or marriage that is an actual member of the employee’s household, and/or any parent, grandparent, parent-in-law, grandparent-in-law, spouse, registered domestic partner, child, step-child, sibling or siblings-in- law of the employee regardless of residence

3) Bereavement leave of up to three (3) days leave with pay will be granted to full-

time employees in the event of the death of an immediate family member. This includes any relative by blood or marriage that is an actual member of the employee’s household, and/or any parent, grandparent, parent-in-law, grandparent- in-law, spouse, registered domestic partner, child, step-child, sibling or siblings-in- law of the employee regardless of residence. Sick leave, vacation, or holiday hours may be applied to a bereavement period for bereaving a family member not included in the SGVCOG’s bereavement policy.

4) The Executive Director shall have the discretion to provide up to 20 hours executive

leave in a fiscal year for exempt employees required to work significantly more hours on a regular basis due to operational demands. Executive leave shall not accrue from one fiscal year to the next, and therefore, if granted, the executive leave must be used during the fiscal year beginning with the pay period including July 1 and terminating the last full pay period in June of that same fiscal year. Approved executive leave shall be added to the employee’s leave time effective the beginning of the pay period including July 1. Employees will not be compensated for the value of unused executive leave upon separation, termination, or retirement.

5) Any employee holding a full-time position who is ordered to active duty in the

United States Armed Forces shall be entitled to military leave in accordance with federal and state law, including but not limited to, reinstatement with no loss of seniority rights and full reimbursement for up to 80 hours per year. Prior to the use of any military leave, an official copy of the military orders must be provided and remain on file in the office of the Executive Director.

6) Employees called to serve jury duty will be granted a leave of absence for the period

of service required. Full-time employees will receive up to 40 hours of jury duty pay per calendar year while performing this service. Payment of salary to FLSA- exempt employees during jury duty shall be carried out in accordance with the



FLSA. At the discretion of the Executive Director, full-time employees who are required to serve extended jury service beyond 40 hours in any one calendar year may receive additional jury service pay.

7) A female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions

will be granted Pregnancy Disability Leave up to four (4) months in a twelve (12) month period in accordance with California Law (California Government Code section 12945, as may be amended from time to time). An eligible employee shall be required to use, or may elect to use, accrued leave during any portion of unpaid Pregnancy Disability Leave in accordance with state law. The SGVCOG will continue health care coverage under any employer group health plans for up to four (4) months of the Pregnancy Disability Leave under the same terms as if the employee had continued to work. Any eligible female employee who takes Pregnancy Disability Leave shall have the right to reinstatement to her former job or a comparable position, with no loss of seniority. Should an eligible female employee also qualify for Family and Medical Leave, discussed below, the maximum amount of Pregnancy Disability Leave and Family and Medical Leave shall be governed by subsection 8 below.

8) In compliance with the California Moore-Roberti Family Rights Act of 1991

(CFRA), the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), and the California Military and Veteran Code, or as may be amended from time to time, the SGVCOG will provide eligible employees with up to twelve (12) work weeks in any twelve (12) month period, unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons, and up to 26 work weeks in a single twelve (12) month period for unpaid, job-protected caregiver leave. Employees are eligible if they have worked for the SGVCOG for at least one year, and for 1,250 hours over the previous 12 months. Unpaid leave must be granted to any eligible employee for the following reasons:

a. The birth of the employee’s child and in order to care for the child; b. The placement of a child with the employee for adoption or child care; c. To care for a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition; d. A serious health condition that renders the employee unable to perform the

essential functions of his or her position; e. Treatment of substance abuse of the employee or his/her covered family

member; f. A qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that a covered military member is

on active duty or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty in the federal Armed Forces in support of a contingency operation; or

g. To care for a spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin who is a covered service member, because the covered service member suffered a serious injury or illness while on active duty that may render said person unable to perform the duties of the service member’s office, grade, rank or rating.



An eligible employee shall be required to use, or may elect to use, accrued leave during any portion of unpaid Family Medical Leave in accordance with federal and state law. For the duration of the Family and Medical Leave, the SGVCOG will continue health care coverage under any employer group health plans under the same terms as if the employee had continued to work. The SGVCOG will provide the employee with a guarantee of employment in the same or an equivalent job with equivalent pay, benefits, and other employment terms and conditions upon returning from the Family and Medical Leave except that the SGVCOG may deny reinstatement to a key employee, in accordance with state and federal law. An employee’s use of Family and Medical Leave will not result in the loss of any employment benefit that the employee earned or was entitled to before using Family and Medical Leave. If the employee cannot be returned to their original job, he/she shall be returned to a substantially similar job, unless there is no substantially similar job position available or filling the substantially similar position would substantially undermine the SGVCOG’s ability to operate safely and efficiently. An employee shall have no greater rights to reinstatement, benefits, and other conditions of employment than if the employee had been continuously employed during the leave period. Should an employee also qualify for Pregnancy Disability Leave pursuant to section 7 above, the maximum amount of Pregnancy Disability Leave and Family and Medical Leave shall be governed by this Subsection (subsection 8).

9) If an employee is eligible for Family and Medical Leave under FMLA, and is also

eligible for Pregnancy Disability Leave, but is not eligible for CFRA Leave under state law, any available FMLA Leave and any available Pregnancy Disability Leave shall run concurrently. The maximum amount of time that an eligible employee may take for FMLA Leave and Pregnancy Disability Leave is twelve (12) workweeks. If an employee is eligible for CFRA Leave and is also eligible for Pregnancy Disability Leave at the time of request for CFRA Leave, the four (4) months of Pregnancy Disability Leave authorized by subsection 7 shall be in addition to the twelve (12) workweeks of CFRA Leave. The maximum amount of time that an eligible employee may take for CFRA Leave and Pregnancy Disability Leave is twelve (12) workweeks plus four (4) months, or a total of seven (7) months.

10) The SGVCOG may, at the discretion of the Executive Director, grant an employee a leave of absence for up to three (3) months without pay. At the discretion of the Executive Director, an employee’s leave of absence without pay may be extended in three (3) month increments up to a total maximum unpaid leave of absence of one (1) year. Leave without pay is intended for unusual circumstances and the request will be evaluated based upon the impact to the SGVCOG operations and work force levels. Leave without pay will only be granted upon the complete use of accrued sick leave, vacation, and holiday time.

F. Work Hours.



1) Full-time and hourly employees working 8 hours or more in a workday shall take a one hour scheduled lunch break and two 15-minute breaks daily. Lunch breaks are unpaid; however, the 15-minute breaks are paid.

2) Hourly employees working a 6 to 7 hour workday are entitled to a 30-minute unpaid lunch and two 15-minute breaks. Hourly employees working a 4 to 5 hour workday are entitled to a 15-minute break; and those hourly employees working less than a 4-hour workday are not entitled to a break. Two 15-minute breaks may not be combined to replace any part of an unpaid lunch break.

G. Additional Compensation.

1) Employees classified as exempt, as defined in Section 2 of this Resolution, are not

eligible for overtime compensation. Employees classified as non-exempt, as defined in Section 2 of this Resolution, will receive compensation for approved overtime work as follows: Hours worked by non-exempt staff in excess of 40 hours in a seven day workweek are considered overtime. All eligible employees shall be compensated for authorized overtime at the rate of one and one-half times his/her equivalent hourly rate of pay or shall be allowed to accumulate one and on-half hours of compensatory time (of up to 30 hours) for each overtime hour worked, at the SGVCOG’s option. Compensatory time must be taken by the end of the fiscal year in which it was earned.

2) After the last full pay period in any given month, full-time employees shall have the opportunity to sell to 80 hours of accrued vacation provided they have met the following:

a. During the current year, up to the last full pay period in June 30 of the fiscal

year, the employee has used 40 hours of vacation.

b. The employee must maintain a minimum of 80 accrued hours after buyback. Because the employee must approve disbursements from accrued vacation in writing, it is the employee’s responsibility to request the buyback in writing seven days in advance of the impacted payroll period.

H. Miscellaneous Benefits.

1) Automobile allowance shall be provided on a monthly basis to the Assistant to the

Executive Director in the amount of $350 and to the Executive Director in the amount of $400.

2) For those employees not provided with an automobile allowance, the SGVCOG shall reimburse the an employee the current Internal Revenue Service mileage rate in effect per mile driven for authorized use of an employee’s private vehicle on SGVCOG business. Employees that receive an automobile allowance are not



eligible for mileage reimbursement and must have a private vehicle available for use of SGVCOG business.

SECTION 4. Hourly employees shall be compensated at a fixed rate pursuant to the following schedule:

Position Title Hourly Rate Office Assistant $25 Project Assistant $18 Intern (Graduate Student) $18 Intern (Undergraduate Student) $16

The Executive Director may hire, on an hourly basis, positions identified as full-time according to the current salary resolution. Such positions shall only be hired when filling in temporarily for an existing full-time position. SECTION 5. The SGVCOG reserves the right, in its sole discretion, at any time and from time to time, and upon a non-discriminatory basis, to amend or rescind any provision of this Resolution or any salary of benefit provisions, or to terminate any benefits or salary provisions. Such changes may apply to current and/or future employees. All salary and benefits in this Resolution are subject to meet and confer guidelines and shall be reviewed at least annually in their entirety. SECTION 6. The Governing Board hereby authorizes the Executive Director to incorporate into the FY 2015-16 fiscal year budget sufficient funds, not to exceed the amounts identified in this Resolution, to ensure that the salaries and benefits shown herein are funded. SECTION 7. The Executive Director shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall enter this Resolution into the official book of resolutions.





Attest:


AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_________________________________



City Salary Data(Monthly Salary)

Attachment B

AlhambraArcadia $5,716.00 $7,139.00 $6,309.00 $7,880.00 Azusa $4,623.07 $4,778.84 $5,085.38 $6,356.72 Baldwin ParkBradburyClaremont $5,656.00 $6,833.00 $7,822.00 $9,450.00 Covina $4,462.57 $5,841.87 $5,339.65 $6,989.22 $6,852.38 $8,969.03 Diamond Bar $4,667.36 $6,254.70 $5,412.81 $7,253.68 $7,102.07 $9,517.45 Duarte $7,644.00 $9,017.00 El MonteGlendora $4,576.74 $5,298.15 IndustryIrwindale $5,806.00 $7,058.00 La Canada Flintridge $5,062.00 $6,787.00 $5,861.00 $7,856.00 La PuenteLaVerneMonrovia $4,658.00 $5,945.00 $5,961.00 $7,608.00 Montebello $4,447.00 $5,447.00 $4,939.00 $6,005.00 Monterey ParkPasadena $4,548.13 $6,275.00 $5,845.13 $8,389.92 $8,632.87 $10,791.06 Pomona $4,726.00 $5,745.00 $5,618.00 $6,830.00 $6,845.92 $8,322.50 Rosemead $4,259.00 $5,762.00 $4,685.00 $6,338.00 San Dimas $4,415.00 $5,332.00 San Gabriel $5,506.00 $6,693.00 San MarinoSierra MadreSouth El MonteSouth Pasadena $4,087.00 $4,968.00 Temple City $4,787.00 $6,057.00 $8,042.00 $10,176.00 Walnut $4,538.00 $5,792.00 $5,679.00 $7,248.00 $6,463.00 $8,249.00 West Covina $4,053.00 $6,814.00 $4,948.00 $6,680.00 $6,085.00 $8,216.00 Average $4,718.77 $5,999.31 $5,487.61 $7,097.50 $7,276.58 $9,189.78

$56,625.25 $71,991.71 $65,851.36 $85,170.04 $87,318.98 $110,277.39

Management AnalystSenior Management

AnalystAssistant to the City

Manager


Attachment C

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

1000 S. Fremont Ave., Unit #42 Suite 10-210

Alhambra, CA 91803

INVITES APPLICANTS FOR THE POSITION OF MANAGEMENT ANALYST/ SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST – NON-

EXEMPT

SALARY:

Management Analyst: $3,539- $4,499 per month depending on qualifications. Senior Management Analyst: $4,363-$6,108 per month depending on qualifications. A standard array of benefits, including public employee retirement pension, will also be provided in an employment contract to the successful candidate. OPENING DATE: 06/22/2015 CLOSING DATE: 7/9/2015 BACKGROUND The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) was founded in 1994 as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The current membership includes the 31 incorporated cities in the San Gabriel Valley, three Supervisorial Districts representing the unincorporated areas in the San Gabriel Valley, and the Valley’s three water agencies. Collectively, those agencies represent the Valley’s two million residents living in 31 cities and numerous unincorporated communities. The primary focus of the SGVCOG are Transportation; Energy, Environment and Natural Resources; and Housing, Community, and Economic Development.

The Mission “The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments will be recognized as the leader in advocating and achieving sustainable solutions for transportation, housing, economic growth and the environment.”


Attachment C

More information about the SGVCOG can be viewed at www.sgvcog.org. THE POSITION: Works independently to performs a wide variety of professional, administrative, fiscal and analytical support within assigned program areas, including budget preparation, financial management, and grant coordination; conducts research; supervises assigned functions with emphasis on professional administrative methods; may serve as a project manager working closely with the Assistant to the Executive Director, Executive Director, and the Governing Board members; performs other related duties as required. Responsible for communicating with all levels of government including regional government agencies; assists in the implementation the SGVCOG Governing Board’s Strategic Plan, goals and priorities of the JPA. Position reports to the Assistant to the Executive Director and will be responsible for assigned functions on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Region for programs and funds benefiting the 31 cities, the County unincorporated areas, and the water service areas. MAJOR DUTIES

• Plans, develops and coordinates the implementation of programs and projects of a large scope or complexity.

• Prepares, monitors and oversees the grant budgets. • Negotiates and administers contracts, agreements, leases and services. Develops agreements

and contract terms and monitors compliance. • Researches grant programs, prepare grant applications and monitors compliance with

applicable terms. • Conducts research and analyzes statistical and related data. Reviews and makes

recommendations. • Prepares comprehensive technical reports, and correspondence, as well as maintains

records. • Prepares and presents reports to Governing Board, Policy Committees, and Technical

Advisory Committees. • Serves as staff liaison to the Water Committee; Energy, Environment and Natural

Resources Committee; Housing and Economic Development Committee; and Planners Technical Advisory Committees including preparation of agendas, minutes, and reports and coordination of presentations.

• Coordinates and presents at community meetings and events as assigned. • Prepares the agency’s monthly newsletter. • Maintains the agency websites. • Performs related duties, as assigned.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

• Bachelor’s degree in public administration, business administration, economics, or related field

o Management Analyst: One year of professional experience in administrative analysis and research, policy development, fiscal administration and budget and/or management responsibilities.



Attachment C

o Senior Management Analyst: Three years of professional experience in administrative analysis and research, policy development, fiscal administration and budget and/or management responsibilities.

• A master’s degree is desirable and may be substituted for one year of experience. KNOWLEDGE SKILLS & ABILITIES Knowledge of:

• Principles and practices of public administration. • Principles and practices of organization, administration and management. • Program and project development, implementation and evaluation. • Fiscal analysis and budget preparation and administration. • Grant application and monitoring. • Data collection and analysis. • Report writing techniques and editing. • Quantitative and management analysis technique. • Methods and techniques of effective supervision. • Principles of energy efficiency, water conservation, and stormwater management.

Ability to:

• Develop, implement, and administer projects and programs. • Develop and implement goals, objectives, policies and procedures. • Analyze legislation. • Prepare analytical and financial reports. • Prepare and deliver effective public presentations. • Communicate effectively both orally and in writing. • Analyze and recommend solutions to problems and issues. • Plan, develop and manage programs and projects. • Exercise independent judgment and initiative within established guidelines. • Establish and maintain effective and cooperative working relationships with officials of

public and private agencies, City Council, commissions, community groups, and the general public.

• Supervise, train and evaluate staff. Skill in:

• The use of computers and related word processing and spreadsheet application software. APPLICATION PROCESS Send resume and letter of interest to Mr. Francis M. Delach, e-mail: ([email protected]) by 5:00 p.m.; PST, Thursday, July 9, 2015. Additionally, include responses to the following supplemental questions:

1. Please describe the most complex project you have managed from start to finish as it relates to this position.

2. What is the most difficult data-intensive project you worked on? What analysis was required and what analytic tools were employed?



Attachment C

Each answer should be included on a separate page and not exceed one-page single-spaced. Applicant’s name should be included in the top right-hand corner of each page. Questions, please call 626-457-1800. Your inquiries and application will be handled with the utmost confidentiality.


2015 06 18 governing_bd agendapkt

Documents

Transcript of 2015 06 18 governing_bd agendapkt