9.13 steering committee agenda packet .pdf - south bay cities

South Bay Cities Council of Governments

Steering Committee

AGENDA Monday, September 9, 2013

12:00 pm SBCCOG Environmental Services Center

20285 Western Avenue, Suite 100 Torrance, Ca. 90501

I. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA

n ACTION: Receive and file

II. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - 12:05 pm A. Steering Committee – August 12, 2013 meeting minutes attached

n ACTION: Approve B. SCAG Regional Council Districts

n SCAG reviews the Regional Council district boundaries every 5 years and solicits comments – see attached letter

n ACTION: Send attached response letter to SCAG

C. Video Conference Use report for January through August - attached

D. SBCCOG Appointments n Commitment letters for those appointed to outside agencies - Outstanding from: Zerunyan

E. Dues and Assessment Payments outstanding: Hawthorne, Lomita. All others paid in full except for Lawndale and Rolling Hills, which did not pay the assessment.

F. Strategic Plan Proposal n Request for Proposal is circulating and proposals due September 20.

V. ITEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL ADMINISTRATION

G. Social Media Report – attached – 12:15 pm n ACTION: Direct staff to initiate a meeting with member cities and the county to assess the interest and value of establishing an ongoing social media working group.

H. General Assembly - 12:30 pm n Working Title: Why Must We Care: The Cost of the Changing Environment to the

South Bay n Program status attached n Lisa Rodriguez will be present to discuss sponsorships n ACTION: Provide direction with sponsorships and program

I. Personnel - 12:45 pm

n Information to be distributed at the meeting

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/2_8%2012%2013_SC%20Final%20minutes_0.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/3_SBCCOG.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/4_9.13%20response%20re%20district%20evaluation%20process.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/5_Videoconference%20Use%20Report%20.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/6_9.13%20Social_Media_Next_Steps_Memo.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/7_9.13%20GA%20draft%20program%20status.pdf

2

J. Approval of Invoices – available at the meeting - 1:00 pm n ACTION: Approve invoices for payment

WORK PROGRAM

K. Sustainable South Bay Strategy Updates - 1:05 pm n SCAG Sustainable Communities Strategy – Delegation – memo attached

n ACTION: Direct staff to prepare a letter for Board approval to be sent to SCAG declining to take responsibility for producing a subregional SCS for the 2016 RTP.

n Summary of Comments to California Energy Commission requested by CEC Commissioner Janea Scott n Summary of Neighborhood Oriented Development Feasibility Study Final Report funded by SCAG as part of the COMPASS Program n BEV demonstration program update

L. Transportation Issues – 1:20 pm

n Monthly transportation update from Steve Lantz – attached n Measure R meeting time

n ACTION: Recommendation at the meeting from the Measure R Oversight Committee n Response to Antonovich/DuBois request for projects for a future sales tax – memo attached

n ACTION: Recommend approval to the Board n Request to Opt out of Metro Measure R Acceleration Initiative - attached

n ACTION: Recommend that the SBCCOG Board of Directors approve and transmit the letter in Exhibit 1 requesting that the South Bay Highway Program not be accelerated consistent with adopted Metro Board policy at this time n Permanent waiver of the maintenance fee on the 1-110 and I-10 ExpressLanes for LA County residents – Metro Board item in October

n ACTION: Recommend Board approval for a letter supporting the permanent waiver for LA County residents to be sent to Metro and to request letters to Metro from member cities and South Bay Chambers of Commerce

M. South Bay Environmental Services Center – 1:35 pm

n Memo on SBESC programs to be available at the meeting. Some highlights: n ELP staff recognition lunch – September 26; officers invited n Lending Library – more books from WBMWD ($1000) n HERO/Figtree status n VIP visits – 9/6/13 – CPUC Commissioner Carla Peterman 9/24/13 – CPUC Commissioner Jeremy Battis

N. Legislative Advocacy - 1:50 pm

n Matrix attached n October 10 – next Legislative Briefing and Breakfast n ACTION:

O. Special Events – 1:55 pm

n SMRBC 25th Anniversary – October 17 n SBCCOG/SBACC October 30 joint mixer/meeting

AGENDA DEVELOPMENT – 2:00 pm P. Board Meeting – September 26, 2013

n Future Board topics n October - Proposition 13 – The Legacy n City Dock Project, Port of Los Angeles

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/9_9.13%20SCS%20declaration%20letter.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/10_September%202013%20Transportation%20Update%20-%20v1.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/11_9.13%20Attachment%20B%20-%20Revised%20Response%20to%20Antonovich%20Sales%20Tax%20Project%20Request%20v5.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/12_9.13%20Request%20to%20Opt%20Out%20of%20Measure%20R%20Acceleration%20Plan%20v2.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/13_9.13%20legislative%20matrix.pdf

http://www.southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/steering_committee/14_9.26.13_COG_agenda.pdf

3

NEXT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING – Regular dates are holidays: n Monday, October 14, 2013 @ 12:00 pm – RECOMMEND keeping the regular date n Monday, November 11, 2013 - @ 12:00 pm – RECOMMEND November 12

ADJOURN

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Steering Committee

Minutes August 12, 2013

Attendees: Dan Medina (Chair, Gardena), Jim Goodhart (1st Vice Chair, Palos Verdes Estates), Jim Osborne (Lawndale), Jim Knight (Rancho Palos Verdes), David Lesser (Manhattan Beach), Ralph Franklin (Inglewood), Suzy Seamans (Rolling Hills Estates), Jacki Bacharach, Kim Fuentes, Catherine Showalter, Steve Lantz, Wally Siembab, and Natalie Champion (SBCCOG)

I. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA

n ACTION: Received and Filed

II. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ADD - GA sponsorship amounts and entitlements & Measure R Committee meeting time n Jacki reported on receipt of a letter from Southern California Edison on July 24

thanking the SBCCOG for opposing undergrounding of power lines in Chino Hills and explaining that the PUC decision was not in SCE’s favor.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT - None

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Steering Committee – July 8, 2013 meeting minutes attached

n ACTION: Approved (Goodhart/Knight)

B. Dues and Assessment Payments outstanding: Carson, Hawthorne, Lomita, Los Angeles City, and Palos Verdes Estates. All others paid in full except for Lawndale and Rolling Hills, which have not paid the assessment.

V. ITEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL ADMINISTRATION

C. SBCCOG Appointments Commitment letters for those appointed to outside agencies – All letters have been received.

n SCAG CEHD & EEC Stephen Sammarco, Redondo Beach, has expressed interest in the EEC. Frank Zerunyan willing to sit on the SCAG CEHD. n MOTION: Select Stephen Sammarco for the SBCCOG representative on the EEC and

Frank Zerunyan for the CEHD n ACTION: Approved (Knight/Osborne)

D. Strategic Plan Proposal – 12:15 pm

n COMMENTS: The Evaluation committee will be the Strategic Plan Subcommittee that will conduct interviews on October 1. Recommended that the RFP will not include payment for travel. Additionally, familiarity with the SBCCOG is desirable and language should be in the RFP. Also, encourage the City Managers to participate in the evaluation committee.

n MOTION: Recommend to the Board the scope, process, budget, and schedule and release the RFP and take action to extend the date of Jacki Bacharach & Associates contract to at least February 2014.

n ACTION: Approved (Goodhart/Lesser)

2

E. General Assembly n Kim presented the Sponsorship levels n Recommendation: Get approval of the Sponsorship levels and guidance for a

non profits special fee n COMMENTS: There should be a minimum of $1,000 fee for non-profits for exhibit

space. Add Tesoro to the sponsorship and provide a Save the Date flyer available at the Aug., 22, 2013 Board meeting.

n ACTION: Approved

WORK PROGRAM F. Sustainable South Bay Strategy Updates

n Report on July 29 LUV Final Report event n Wally presented the purpose of the LUV presentation and disseminating research findings to policy organizations n RECOMMENDATION: Present the LUV Presentation findings at COG member City Council meetings to disseminate the information to the public, Council, and staff. Share the progress made as an accomplishment, especially with cities and their respective City Managers. Attend the City Managers' Meeting and share work conducted on behalf of the COG. Respond to the Daily Breeze articles on electric vehicles as a way to encouraging the goals of the SBCCOG, specifically as it relates to EV/LUV. Consider the Lawndale Cable, "The Watch," as a venue to show a PSA regarding the LUV program, which can be in continual rotation. Encourage legislation to honor what the SBCCOG is trying to accomplish and use the SBCCOG member cities' websites and the SBCCOG website to share findings of the LUV program and EV. Advertise the Awards from the American Planning Association and the AQMD on the COG website.

J. Transportation Issues

n Monthly transportation update from Steve Lantz - handout n Steve discussed the Highway Trust Funds and transit agencies having $2 billion in

frozen funds for Metro and other agencies. Road usage tax tied to car mileage was discussed, as well as meter ticketing provisions, gas taxes, Mayor Garcetti appointments to Metro, and the Express lanes. Regarding Express lanes, Metro feels that they are successful.

n RECOMMENDATION: Have Stephanie from Metro come to talk about revenue, maintenance fee, and determinants of success for the Express lanes. The committee should take a timely position on the Express lanes maintenance fee. Consider that infrequent users are not being measured to see how the removal of the maintenance fee has affected transponders.

n Purpose of Measure R Oversight Committee and roles and responsibilities of its members

n Memo attached n Steve recapped the Measure R committee's discussion on its authority. Further

discussion focused on the meeting time and there was an exchange on availability for meetings.

n ACTION: Staff to come back with recommendations for a meeting time change to 10:30 am, first Wednesday starting in October 2013

n Response to Antonovich request for projects for a future sales tax – memo with

draft letter distributed n Steve discussed the letter, specifically $20-$40 billion in unfunded Measure R for the expansion of projects such as the Green Line to Long Beach. n ACTION: Incorporate the changes for the Letter from the Steering Committee and the Measure R Oversight Committee into the cover letter. Additionally, revise the letter based on the comments received and bring it

3

back to the Board, including the issue of funding the LAX connector with the regional transit funds with the current alternatives.

K. Approval of Invoices – available at the meeting n ACTION: Approved invoices for payment (Franklin/Goodhart)

L. South Bay Environmental Services Center

n Memo on SBESC programs attached n The “Lunch and Learn” Training for Gardeners held on August 6, 2013 in

Spanish had an attendance of 35 people. The AQMD agreed to sponsor and made a $1000 contribution. Backpack leaf blower from AQMD approved list was used as a prize drawing. n RECOMMENDATION: Workshops should also be conducted in English, Japanese, and Spanish. Consider sharing information on safety, specifically robbery, and vandalism and bringing local police to speak on this issue.

n The Lending Library books have been marked and a letter is being sent to our partners requesting donations and a press release has been prepared.

n Updates on new contracts n Strategic Plan Strategies Contract with SCE -- The contract with SCE is

moving forward and is almost finalized. n New 2013-2014 WBMWD contract to WBMWD Board on August 26, 2013 n Water Leak Detection Program with SCE – SBCCOG proposal awarded!!

n ACTION: Agreed that contract can go the Board once available n Joline Munoz has resigned and the position is being assessed strategically in

order to find assess the skills that are needed.. n HERO & Figtree presentations are being scheduled – 7-8 council presentations

have been scheduled on the HERO program and SBCCOG staff has sent all the information to the cities that they need for council approval for both programs.

M. SCAG Update

n Jacki reported on the Sub regional Coordinator’s Meeting, the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, and Wally’s efforts to get policies in the plan and highlight the SBCCOG interests on the committees. Jacki mentioned that the SBCCOG works with SCAG on behalf of member cities and reports information back to the planners of the respective cities.

n RECOMMENDATION: Continue to use this platform to gain the SBCCOG more recognition for our South Bay Sustainable Strategy.

N. Legislative Advocacy n Matrix attached n Comments on July Legislative Breakfast

n COMMENTS: Possible themes for next breakfast can include, MAP 21 and realignment, PV Transit, and SB 556. Goodhart reported on the Assembly Member Muratsuchi’s Aerospace meeting and that the Assembly passed a bill on business capital expenditures recuperation. Knight stated that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 556. Franklin shared that Federal and State legislators were on point re: our issues of concern and the military dogs left abroad was an interesting issue. He also discussed AB 277 and signatures needed by October 1, 2013 for a referendum.

n Mayors’ meeting with new LA Mayor Eric Garcetti n COMMENTS: Goodhart stated 63 cities were represented and said that the discussion included how partnering between Los Angeles cities could attract more state and federal funds to the region. Lesser shared how the meeting provided an opportunity to talk to other cities. Goodhart stated that he will follow-up with the organizer to get the official meeting summary comments.

4

O. SBCCOG/SBACC meeting n October 30 joint mixer/meeting with speaker. The mixer will be held in the

Theatre and Joe Ahn has a speaker to discuss the aerospace industry in the South Bay with a preview of the economy by LA Economic Development Corporation. The format would be a mixer followed by the speakers and Q&A. Northrop Grumman is funding the meeting. The start time of the event will be 5:30 pm and a save the date will be sent out.

n Discussion focused on determining the goals of the meeting. We already partner with SBACC on advocacy items and this event is meant to strengthen the relationship. Involve the Inglewood Chamber. Include in the flyer and program that there will be an opportunity to learn about the SBCCOG and the SBACC.

AGENDA DEVELOPMENT P. Board Meeting – August 22, 2013 – draft agenda attached

n Jacki shared information that the September meeting will present the LAWA rehabilitation and expansion.

n Future Board topics n Proposition 13 – The Legacy

n Include overview of Proposition 55 n City Dock Project, Port of Los Angeles

Other Medina shared that James Osborne and the Lawndale Blue Boys will be playing at the Lawndale LA County Library to celebrate the City’s 100th year anniversary.

NEXT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING – Monday, September 9, 2013 @ 12:00 pm ADJOURN at 2:56 pm (Lesser/Medina)

August 16, 2013 Jacki Bacharach Executive Director South Bay Cities Council of Governments 5033 Rockvalley Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: 2013 SCAG District Evaluation Process Dear Ms. Bacharach: As you may be aware, the Bylaws of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) requires that in years ending in 3 and 8, the Regional Council review the current composition of the Regional Council Districts based upon geographic community of interest and approximately equal population. The Regional Council has recently delegated this task to the District Evaluation Subcommittee. At its meeting held on August 14, 2013, the District Evaluation Subcommittee began the evaluation process and established a desired population range of 200,000 to 300,000 people per Regional Council District which was also the same population range used during the last SCAG District Evaluation process held in 2008. There are currently 67 Regional Council Districts with the SCAG Bylaws providing for a maximum of 70 Districts. In accordance with the SCAG Bylaws, the agency now seeks your input regarding any recommended changes to the Districts in the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) subregion. The District Evaluation Subcommittee has requested that you provide your recommendations as soon as reasonably possible, and therefore, we request that you provide this information to SCAG by the close of business on Monday, September 9, 2013. Enclosed with this letter are two tables that may be helpful with your review. Table 1 lists the current composition of the 67 Regional Council Districts along with their population data based upon the most recently available data from the State Department of Finance. Table 2 lists the current composition and population figures for the Regional Council Districts in the SBCCOG subregion (i.e., Districts 28, 39 and 40). As you can see, all of the Districts in the SBCCOG subregion are within the target population range. As additional background information, please note that SCAG records show that during the 2008 SCAG District Evaluation process, the Districts in the SBCCOG were also within the population range and no changes were made to the composition of these Districts.

SCAG District Evaluation process August 16, 2013 Page 2 of 2

Finally, a map of the SCAG region identifying the cities within the different Regional Council Districts is available for viewing at http://maps.scag.ca.gov/web/RCdistrict_2013.pdf. This link allows users to view the map while not having to download the PDF. We appreciate your prompt review of this matter request again that you inform SCAG of any recommended changes related to the Districts in the SBCCOG subregion by September 9, 2013. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact myself at (213) 236-1928 or Mark Butala, Manager of Regional Services, at (213) 236-1945. Sincerely, Joann Africa Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Mark Butala, Manager of Regional Services, SCAG

Table 1

Subregion

1 Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC)BrawleyCalexicoCalipatriaEl CentroHoltvilleImperialWestmorland

2 Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)Cathedral CityDesert Hot SpringsIndian WellsPalm DesertPalm SpringsRancho Mirage

3 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)BanningBeaumontCalimesaMoreno ValleyPerris

4 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)EastvaleJurupa ValleyNorcoRiverside

5 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)HemetMurrietaSan JacintoTemecula

6 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)ColtonGrand TerraceLoma LindaRedlandsYucaipa

7 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)HighlandSan Bernardino

8 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)FontanaRialto

9 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)MontclairRancho CucamongaUpland

10 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)ChinoChino HillsOntario

11 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)BarstowBig Bear LakeNeedlesTwentynine PalmsYucca Valley

12 Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)

2013 Population by Regional Council District, City, and Subregion

August 2013

Regional Council Districts by City 2013 Population*

142,468

25,906

198,546

52,33727,8285,08149,94945,712

40,4937,13444,3276,15116,1482,309

70,963

493,078

57,25197,24626,626311,955

17,639

347,132

30,17039,776)8,094

198,129

52,95612,27023,47669,81352,549

266,565

336,805

80,877105,83245,217104,879

211,064

37,311171,05874,907

322,772

79,87376,033

53,926212,639

302,249

200,974101,275

283,276

21,030

270,373

Aliso Viejo 49,477Dana Point 33,863

166,866

80,305

23,1685,1114,91226,084

San Juan Capistrano 35,321

Laguna Beach 23,105Laguna Niguel 64,065San Clemente 64,542

1

SubregionRegional Council Districts by City 2013 Population*











23 Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)




27 201,523 Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)35,78342,43712,93524,01358,62427,610

121

28 256,211 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG)59,56685,474111,171

29 233,823 Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)233,823

269,078

Laguna Hills 30,703Laguna Woods 16,500

231,117

Irvine 231,117

253,974

Costa Mesa 111,358

Lake Forest 78,501Mission Viejo 94,824Rancho Santa Margarita 48,550

222,675

Orange 138,792Tustin 77,983Villa Park 5,900

Fountain Valley 56,180Newport Beach 86,436

329,915

Santa Ana 329,915

346,161

Anaheim 346,161

166,046

Los Alamitos 11,626

237,440

Cypress 48,547Garden Grove 173,075La Palma 15,818

220,204

Buena Park 81,953Fullerton 138,251

220,809

Seal Beach 24,487Stanton 38,764Westminster 91,169

Yorba Linda 66,437

186,619

Artesia 16,681Cerritos 49,470

Brea 41,394La Habra 61,202Placentia 51,776

Lakewood 80,781Paramount 54,624Signal Hill 11,218

Hawaiian Gardens 14,375Norwalk 106,093

223,912

Bellflower 77,289

Compton 97,549Lynwood 70,645

BellBell Gardens

207,876

Downey 112,761South Gate 95,115

168,194

HawthorneInglewood

Long Beach Regional Council District 29

CommerceCudahyHuntington ParkMaywoodVernon

Gardena

2


30 237,620 Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)3,797

233,823

31 220,752 Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)5,37948,93063,53416,81686,093

32 189,212 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG)114,43654,46420,312

33 224,378 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG)47,58676,31548,35750,6661,454


35 216,811 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG)56,8661,07421,55436,94340,15313,24611,02335,952


37 233,953 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG)56,099

43740,22229,947107,248

38 252,418 San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG)35,74932,041150,94233,686


40 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG)

41 Westside Cities Council of Governments (WCCOG)

42 Arroyo Verdugo Subregion

AvalonLong Beach Regional Council District 30

La Habra Heights

South El Monte

AzusaBaldwin ParkCovinaGlendoraIrwindale

La MiradaPico RiveraSanta Fe SpringsWhittier

El MonteRosemead

MonroviaSan GabrielSan MarinoSierra MadreTemple City

La Canada Flintridge

AlhambraMontebelloMonterey Park

ArcadiaBradburyDuarte

West Covina

ClaremontLa VernePomonaSan Dimas

Carson

PasadenaSouth Pasadena

Diamond BarIndustryLa PuenteWalnut

Lawndale 33,058Manhattan Beach 35,423Palos Verdes Estates 13,589

LomitaTorrance

238,062

El Segundo 16,804Hermosa Beach 19,653

Rolling Hills Estates 8,141

199,597

Beverly Hills 34,494Culver City 39,210

Rancho Palos Verdes 42,114Redondo Beach 67,396Rolling Hills 1,884

Glendale 193,652

Santa Monica 91,040West Hollywood 34,853

298,634

Burbank 104,982

3


43 North Los Angeles County Subregion

44 Las Virgenes Malibu Council of Governments (LVMCOG)

45 Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG)



48 City of Los Angeles Subregion















63 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)Canyon LakeCoronaLake ElsinoreMenifeeWildomar

64 Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)Huntington Beach

313,165

Lancaster 158,630Palmdale 154,535

Malibu 12,767Westlake Village 8,341

289,307

Camarillo 66,428

67,313

Agoura Hills 20,516Calabasas 23,802Hidden Hills 1,887

Simi Valley 125,558Thousand Oaks 128,143

160,970

Fillmore 15,175

Oxnard 200,855Port Hueneme 22,024

288,605

Moorpark 34,904

246,531

Los Angeles City Council District 1 246,531

257,291


Ojai 7,548San Buenaventura 108,294Santa Paula 29,953

251,856


258,926


259,045


250,511


249,728


249,305


259,008


246,597


246,566


246,509


257,182


259,073


55,43082,29233,174

193,616

193,616

254,493


338,487

10,768156,823

4


65 San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)AdelantoApple ValleyHesperiaVictorville

66 Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)BlytheCoachellaIndioLa Quinta

67 North Los Angeles County SubregionSan FernandoSanta Clarita

* (Los Angeles City Council Districts) reflects totals from the 2010 census, as it is the most reliable estimate for sub‐city level data

Sources: SCAG, DOF E‐1 Population Estimates, 2010 Census

313,493

42,78481,39338,401

229,030

24,079204,951

31,28970,43691,400120,368

182,184

19,606

5

Table 2

Subregion



40 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG)

Gardena

2013 Population by Regional Council Districts for South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Subregion

August 2013

Regional Council Districts by City 2013 Population*

Hermosa Beach 19,653

Carson

HawthorneInglewood

LomitaTorrance

238,062

El Segundo 16,804

Lawndale 33,058Manhattan Beach 35,423Palos Verdes Estates 13,589

Rolling Hills Estates 8,141

Rancho Palos Verdes 42,114Redondo Beach 67,396Rolling Hills 1,884

Page 1 of 1

L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T S I N A C T I O N

Carson El Segundo Gardena Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood Lawndale Lomita Los Angeles Manhattan Beach Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills

Rolling Hills Estates Torrance Los Angeles District #15 Los Angeles County

20285 Western Avenue, Suite 100 Torrance, California 90501

(310) 371-7222 [email protected]

www.southbaycities.org

September 9, 2013 Joann Africa, Chief Counsel Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 Re: 2013 SCAG District Evaluation Process Dear Ms. Africa, The SBCCOG Steering Committee, as well as the South Bay’s three Regional Council representatives, reviewed the 2013 SCAG District Evaluation Process and we have no comments or requested changes. Sincerely, Jacki Bacharach SBCCOG Executive Director


DATE: September 9, 2013

TO: Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG Executive Director

FROM: Chandler Sheilds, Administrative Assistant, Communications

SUBJECT: Video Conferencing Equipment Report: January 2013 – August 2013

SCAG’s video conferencing equipment was available in the SBESC office since the end of January. Since that time it has been used on 13 different occasions by an average of 4 attendees for an average duration of 2 hours. Between isolated use of the monitors for presentation/display purposes to conducting full-scale video conferences, the equipment has functioned without flaw or error. SBCCOG has provided adequate staff support in each instance, aiding others in their interaction with the equipment. Additionally, SBCCOG staff has communicated cooperatively with SCAG staff prior to SCAG-hosted video conferences so as to ensure:

• no scheduling conflict in regards to room availability • agendas are available in-office 72 hours ahead of time • a reliable connection with correct IP address • proper function of the equipment

Overall, the equipment’s use has not hindered the everyday comings and goings in the office and has been utilized by both SBCCOG staff and Board Members alike.

Date Subject Principal0User(s) Attendees VC0Duration0(hours)Equip0Used Errors0w/VC0Equip Support0Provided0by1/30/13 Sabrina+and+David+ 6 1.5 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG2/26/13 Catherine 4 1.5 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG4/9/13 Marcy+and+Steve+Lantz 6 4 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG

4/16/13 Judy+Mitchell 1 1.5 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

4/25/13

LGC+Webinars:+CAP+&+Trade+&+Proposition+39:+What+Local+Governments+Need+to+Know SBESC+Staff+W+Catherine 6 1 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG

5/9/13

Wasted+Food:+Innovation+Life+Cycle+Approaches+for+Reducing+Food+Waste CS,+JM,+ML,+Ao,+JA+W+SBESC+Staff 5 1.5 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG

5/14/13

SCAG+Sustainability+Program+(Best+Practices) Erika+Graves,+Jim+Hannon,+Maria+Majcherek,+Julian+Katz 4 2.5 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

6/4/13

Sub.+Reg.+Exec.+Director+&+Coordinator+Meeting Jacki+Bacharach+ 1 2 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

6/12/13

Measure+R+Subcommittee+Meeting Marcy+and+Steve+Lantz 8 1.5 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG

6/25/13 SCAG+Toolbox+Tuesday Erika+Graves,+Wally+Siembab 2 3 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

7/16/13

SCAG+Legislative/Communication+&+Membership+Committee Judy+Mitchell 1 1.5 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

7/25/13

Smart+Mobility+Framework+Implementation+Study WS+&+SL 2 2 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

8/20/13

Legislative/Communication+&+Membership+Committee Judy+Mitchell 1 1 VC+equipment+(all) N SBCCOG

8/26/13Battery+E.V.+Project+Progress+Meeting David+Magarian 5 4 Just+monitor+display N SBCCOG

Column0Subject0Key:0+Date:+ +the+date+the+VC+took+place++Principle ,,,User(s):+ +Who's+responsible+for+organizing+use+of+equipment++A2endees:+ +number+of+people+pardcipadng+in+the+use+of+equipment++VC,Dura7on:+ +how+long+did+the+VC+last++Equip,Use:+ +what+was+the+equipment+used+for+(i.e.+VC,+webinar,+presentadon,+

+other)++Errors,,w/VC,Equip:++ +if+there+were+no+errors,+malfuncdons+or+any+other+discrepancies+with+any+of+

+the+equipment,+simply+mark+"N",+otherwise+mark+"Y"+++Descrip7on:+ +if+an+error+occurred,+describe+what+went++wrong+and+if+you+were+

+able+to+resolve+ +the+problem++Support ,,Provided,by: +did+SBCCOG+or+SCAG+staff+provide+support+for+administering+ +equipment+use?+++Comments: +mendon+anything+(not+to+do+with+funcdonality+of+the+equipment)+

+that+happened+ +during+the+VC+of+note+(i.e.+issues+with+the+layout+of++the+room,+scheduling+conflict,+overall+impression+of+VC+ +exerience,+

etc.)++


DATE: September 9, 2013 TO: Steering Committee FROM: Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director SUBJECT: Social Media: Update & Next Steps

Background On July 8, 2013, the Steering Committee directed staff to review social media options for the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) and report recommendations. This memo provides an update on staff’s progress with primary recommendations. Currently, the SBCCOG uses social media to send messages regarding major programs and events of the South Bay Environmental Services Center and the Electric Vehicle program, as well as the programs and events of our partners. For these programs, our social media audience is primarily South Bay residents. One of the first items considered for review by staff was if and how social media could be expanded. The social media field is dynamic and it can be difficult to track all the technology changes and potential uses. To address these issues, staff reached out to member cities to assess:

• How social media is used in cities • What social media tools and services are used • What their experience has been • What resources are required including budget and staff time • What policies have been developed • How do they measure success

Findings In summary, staff found that of the 16 cities and the county, only 6 do not have a conventional social media presence (i.e. maintaining either a Facebook page and/or Twitter account - the 2 most popularly used social media platforms).. Of those that do, most do not have social media account(s) that are wholly representative of the municipality. Rather, various departments representing police, parks and recreation, public library, and economic development for example, open their own social media platforms, delegating online-savvy staff to maintain and contribute content specific information to the department’s function. For the most part, there is no budgeting or specific time allocated for staff to oversee their department’s social media and no schedule for monitoring or posting content Posts are done on an “as needed” basis. Most popularly used social media services among the municipalities are Facebook with several also present on Twitter and YouTube. Some use platforms that broadcast city council meetings or sell merchandise designed for the city. Others communicate with members of their communities through “listserv” email notification, specifically with Nixle.

Regarding policies, a couple of the municipalities have a line or two about social media within their staff media policies, while the City of Torrance and Los Angeles County have separate, detailed social media policies for staff to follow. Los Angeles County has a protocol for all of its 38 departments to follow when opening a social media account while the City of Torrance talks about the pros and cons of opening a group versus creating a page in Facebook. Both policies outline some of the main social media channels and what information should be present in an account’s description for the public to view. Staff is also given advice on using their personal accounts when representing the municipality as well as how to handle feedback from the public, particularly when it is controversial or potentially damaging to municipal reputation. Overall, the South Bay municipalities maintain a similar social media philosophy to that of SBCCOG’s, one that is compartmentalized within specific departments/programs and serves to contact community members through email distribution. It appears that many of these social media accounts perpetuate one directional streams of communication—only as a means to notify, not interact. There not only seems to be lack of interaction between the municipalities and their constituents, but also an absence of social media strategy coordination between the municipalities themselves. Such disparities provide grounds for discussion and potential growth for both SBCCOG and its member communities in the social media realm. Conclusion After reviewing feedback from the outreach efforts, it has been determined that it may be premature to establish a comprehensive social media plan at this stage, but instead work with the cities and the county to discuss social media strategies and flush out ideas for those who have or are interested in having a social media presence. Most cities expressed interest in collaborating on social media via a working group that would be hosted by the SBCCOG. Participants would include cities, partners (i.e. the utilities) and agencies, discussing subject matter ranging from how they contact the public for community events, emergency notification, general messaging, and other timely matters to what social media resources are most cost effective and receptive. An initial meeting to assess pertinent topics and discuss how often the group should meet is suggested. The agenda may include:

• What are the best and most affordable email notification /listserv services? • What social media services would anyone like to learn more about? • How can South Bay cities coordinate their social media strategies?

This kind of working group could provide cost savings, enhance our visibility, build our reputation and add value to member cities and partners. Possible coordinated efforts could include not only sharing knowledge between agencies by expanding the scope of the social media outreach, but also enhance recognizing each other in social media via retweeting, tagging, sharing posts, liking, etc.

Recommendation Direct staff to initiate a meeting with member cities and the county to assess the interest and value of establishing an ongoing social media working group.

Prepared with input from Kim Fuentes, Deputy Executive Director, Administration and Chandler Sheilds, Administrative Assistant, Communications.


Why Must We Care? The Cost of the Changing Environment to the South Bay – cost of electricity, transportation, water, temperature rise, health care. The domino effect.

Juanita Millender-McDonald Community Center 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM – Registration and Exhibits 9:30 AM – Welcome – SBCCOG Chair Dan Medina DISCUSS PROJECT LIST AND OUR PRIORITIES

& Mayor Jim Dear, Carson – WELCOME TO CARSON

9:40 AM – 10:00 AM – Kickoff Speaker – (30 MINUTES) – Matthew Kahn, Environmental Economist - CONFIRMED

10:05 AM – 11:15 AM Panel - Our Regional Needs for Water, Energy and the Environment

1. UCLA Overview – 2016 emphasis 2. Panel - Climate Change and Adaptation strategies

a. Water – sea rise; Energy – renewables; effect on the economy b. Transportation – alternative mobility strategies; cost of gas c. Air Quality d. Health – Jonathan Fielding - CONFIRMED

11:15 AM – 11:30 AM Break 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM Panel – Opportunities to Respond to New Challenges – Local Actions are Important

a. Any changes needed to emergency preparedness? Public Safety b. Fire Chief = Brian Humphrey?? – has LA County experienced

more structural fires c. Edison – power reliability

12:30 PM – 1:00 PM – Exhibits 12:30 PM – 1:00 PM – Lunch 1:00 PM – 1:30 PM – Luncheon speaker - Invite Governor, Gavin Newsom 2:00 PM – Adjourn by Chair Dan Medina

a. Other possible speaker considerations 1. Demographic effects to young, old, different ethnicities

Other:

a. Retrospective - 14 years of GA’s for posters -??? b. Annual report?


DATE: September 9, 2013 TO: Steering Committee FROM: Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director SUBJECT: Sustainable Communities Strategy – SBCCOG position

Background SB 375, also known as California’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Climate Protection Act, is a state law that calls for the integration of transportation, land use, and housing planning and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission as one of the main goals for regional planning. The law requires SCAG as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), working together with subregional councils of government and county transportation commissions (CTCs) to prepare a SCS as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Subregional COGs, along with their respective county transportation commission have the option of accepting the responsibility of preparing their own subregional SCS as outlined in the July 2013 Policy Principles for Subregional SCS Development (which is not yet available but will be incorporated into the formal Subregional SCS Framework and Guidelines and MOU for developing a Subregional SCS for the 2016 RTP). Every subregional COG must submit a letter to SCAG by January, 2014 declaring its intention to either accept or not accept responsibility for producing an SCS for its subregion. This was also a requirement for the 2012 RTP. Orange County and Gateway were the only councils of government who accepted responsibility for producing a subregional SCS for the 2012 RTP. The cost of sub-regional SCS was $400,000 for Gateway (paid for through a special assessment charged to their member cities) and $500,000 for Orange County COG (paid for by federal grant). These funds were used for consultant fees exclusive of COG staff time. The SBCCOG, in its declaration letter of December, 2010, requested a “hybrid” relationship with SCAG. In other words, the SBCCOG wanted to describe the strategy for integrating transportation, land use and housing planning that best fit the conditions in the South Bay (referred to as the Sustainable South Bay Strategy or SSBS), but did not intend to take responsibility for producing the actual SCS. While SCAG tacitly agreed to this arrangement, the proposed collaboration did not occur. The absence of transportation models that could incorporate the Sustainable South Bay Strategy was the primary barrier. For 2016 staff recommends that SBCCOG once again decline to take responsibility for producing a subregional SCS. The SBCCOG has neither the funds nor the staff to assume this responsibility. However, this time SBCCOG will not propose a “hybrid” model. The primary reason for this is that SCAG is in the process of developing what is referred to as the Scenario Planning Model (SPM) that will allow COGs to independently plan and evaluate their own development scenarios. The SPM will be a concrete tool for demonstrating the SSBS and its impact on GHG emissions without relying on an undefined “hybrid” collaboration with SCAG.

The challenge is to ensure that the SPM is calibrated to address the relatively high density – transit poor conditions in the South Bay. That is why staff will be assigned to participate in the SPM’s development over the next 6 months. The SPM is expected to roll out to cities and COGs in the spring of 2014. We will demonstrate it at the Livable Communities Working Group and work with any cities interested in evaluating the impact of planned developments on GHG emissions. Being able to use the SPM is essential to maintaining the viability of the South Bay Sustainable Neighborhoods Strategy for subsequent use by cities interested in doing so; for educating SCAG, Metro and South Bay cities planning staff; and for building the South Bay brand. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare a letter for Board approval to be sent to SCAG declining to take responsibility for producing a subregional SCS for the 2016 RTP.

1

TO: Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG Executive Director

FROM: Steve Lantz, SBCCOG Transportation Consultant

RE: SBCCOG Transportation Update – September 2013

Federal Update:

Labor Secretary Increases Heat on Governor Brown Regarding Pension Reform US Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez on August 8th gave California Governor Jerry Brown just two weeks to fashion a legislative fix to an impasse over implementation of the pension reform bill that’s now threatening the delivery of federal transit funds to 85 transit districts throughout the state. The Labor Department certifies (and decertifies) transit employee protections, including the right to collective bargaining, before the Federal Transit Administration can issue grants. The grant funding at risk includes $530 million in FTA grants awaiting certification as of the end of June, and an additional $1.1 billion for 99 grants still under development The dispute centers on a California law passed last year that put limits on the pensions that public agencies can offer their new hires. Labor unions claim that their collective-bargaining rights protected under a 1964 federal law known as 13-C were violated when California voters approved the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) of 2013. The labor unions claim benefits for future employees were decreased without negotiation. Perez notified Brown that the Department of Labor remained “concerned” the reform bill “diminishes the substantive rights of transit employees under current collective bargaining agreements and narrows the future scope of collective bargaining over pensions.” Because of that concern, the Department of Labor declined to approve the release of federal transit funds but took no action and issued no formal ruling. In the letter to Brown,  Perez suggested that California could exempt transit workers from the newly enacted pension reform as was recently done in other states in the same situation, such as Wisconsin, New Jersey, Ohio, and Massachusetts.

Perez warned that if Brown did not act by August 16th, he would respond by issuing actual rulings, first for LA Metro and then for transit agencies of lesser size. However, the U. S. Department of Labor announced on August 16th that it would delay ruling on whether California's new pension law violates a 49-year-old federal statute that ties the funds to collective bargaining rights while it continues to work with Governor Brown to resolve the issue.

AB 160 was introduced in January 2013 to exempt transit agencies targeted by the Dept. of Labor. However, as of the end of August 2013, the bill is still in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

On August 14th, Moody's Investors Service placed the credit ratings of 15 California transit agencies on review for downgrade, affecting $6.5 billion of rated debt noting the federal funding grants on average comprise approximately 13% of their operating revenue and 40% of their capital funding.

2

Sacramento Update:

Governor Signs Bill Banning Cities From Ticketing at Broken Parking Meters Governor Brown signed AB 61 on August 12th that prohibits cities across California from ticketing motorists who park at meters reported broken that the city failed to fix. Existing law authorizes parking at an inoperable parking meter for up to the posted time limit if no ordinance or resolution has been adopted to prohibit it.

Third Version of Three-foot Passing Law Sent To Governor The State Senate approved AB 1371, the Three Feet for Safety Act on August 30th. This is the third attempt at creating a minimum three-foot distance to pass a cyclist on California streets, after Governor Brown vetoed the two previous attempts. Twenty-one other governors have already signed similar legislation; Pennsylvania mandates a minimum of four feet.

The bill would replace the current requirement that drivers pass bicyclists at an unspecified “safe distance”. AB1371 would require a minimum three-foot cushion between any part of the vehicle and the bike or its rider for any motor vehicle traveling in the same direction as the bike it’s passing whether the bicycle is in a through lane, bike lane or turn lane.

The 2013 version of the bill allows drivers to pass at less than three feet if they decide that the three-foot margin isn’t safe or practical and if the driver slows to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and passes only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.

Southern California Update:

Metro Considers New Express Lane Route Alternatives Metro staff reported on August 19th that the alternatives being considered for a potential Express Lane on the I-405 have been broadened. In addition to exploring the feasibility of an I-405 Express Lane from the Orange County Line to LAX, Metro staff announced it is studying an Express Lane route from the Orange County Line to the 605 freeway to the I-105 freeway to connect to the existing I-110 Express Lanes. In addition to the existing direct HOV connectors at the I-105 / I-110, an option being evaluated would add direct HOV connectors between the I-605 and I-105 if sufficient new toll revenues are projected to pay for the connectors. Staff justified the new alternative because of its potential to generate significantly higher ridership and revenue than the I-405 alternative. Staff also noted that I-405 is significantly more congested than the alternate route and has limited right of way available to add the Express Lanes north of the I-110. Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit to Resume Ridgecrest Shuttle Now that summer has ended, Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority introduced a new bus line August 27th to serve Ridgecrest Intermediate School in Rancho Palos Verdes. The Ridgecrest Shuttle, which operates between Palos Verdes Drive North and the school makes one morning trip

3

weekdays, one afternoon trip Mondays and two afternoon trips Tuesdays through Fridays. The fare is $2.50, and there are multiple types of passes available.

L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti Launches Sustainability Team, Initiatives Mayor Eric Garcetti on August 2nd named Matt Petersen the city's first-ever Chief Sustainability Officer, assigned to oversee the city's environmental practices. Petersen will be tasked with making the city's departments greener and neighborhoods healthier, and fulfilling Garcetti's goal of creating 20,000 new green jobs. The new mayor recently asked city general managers to outline ways they will make their departments more environmentally friendly, and said he will review that information when deciding whether to re-hire them.

Petersen said he expects to closely look at practices at the port, Planning Department, Department of Water and Power, and Bureau of Sanitation, among other departments. Curiously, he did not name the L. A. City Transportation Department.

L. A. Citywide Street Repair Financing Plan Sent To City Council A 10-year, $3 billion proposal to repair all the streets in Los Angeles was revived by a city council committee on August 8th, with a call for a detailed study on how such an ambitious plan could be financed. Sidewalk repairs were not included in the proposal because there is no real inventory of the L. A. City sidewalks. There have been estimates it would cost up to $10 million for a sidewalk inventory. If the proposal does become a bond issue, it would need two-thirds voter approval. If adopted, it would add an estimated average of $28 a year to L. A. City property taxes.

Terranea Shuttle Schedule Update When Terranea announced it would start a shuttle service to Riviera Village last month, it did not include the schedule. The shuttle leaves Terranea daily at 10 am, 2 pm, 6 pm, 10 pm. The shuttle leaves Riviera Village daily at 10:30 am, 2:30 pm, 6:30 pm, 10:30 pm. The Riviera Village shuttle stop is located at 1799 S. Catalina Ave. in front of the Soil kiosk.

1

South Bay Cities Council of Governments September 9, 2013 TO: SBCCOG Steering Committee

FROM: Jacki Bacharach, Executive Director

Steve Lantz, SBCCOG Transportation Consultant SUBJECT: Revised Response to Metro Request for Future Sales Tax Projects

BACKGROUND Supervisor Mike Antonovich, in one of his last actions as Chairman of the Metro Board, sent a letter to the each of the LA County Councils of Governments requesting their subregion’s priority projects to be considered for inclusion in a potential sales tax measure for transportation in 2014. Supervisor Antonovich’s letter asks the Councils of Governments to provide their responses to Metro by September 4, 2013. New Metro Chair DuBois has since extended the submittal deadline to October 4, 2013 and added a request for local jurisdictions to provide information on their unfunded transit operating and capital needs. In developing a draft, the SBCCOG staff and consultants deliberated with the Westside Council of Governments and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments to determine whether there are shared concerns and mutually-beneficial programs and projects that could be proposed. Staff has prepared a draft response that includes broad concerns and potential projects and programs (see Exhibit 2). The attached draft reflects minor changes in the previous list. However, it does not reflect a request to delete paragraph 3 that was discussed at the August 22, 2013 SBCCOG Board meeting. Concern was expressed that some other equity concept be used rather than “return to source”. At this point in the measure development process, staff believes it may be sufficient to recommend that the measure consider the needs of those subregions that are originating the sales tax when developing the allocations of these new funds. In addition, it does not address requests for new local transit and highway projects requested by Diane DuBois, the current Metro Chair, in a letter sent to the mayor of each L. A. County city on August 21, 2013. The SBCCOG has sent a letter to our member cities requesting this transit-related information so that it can be incorporated into a sub-regional response. RECOMMENDATION The Steering Committee recommends that the SBCCOG Board of Directors approve and transmit the letter in Exhibit 2 responding to the two letters sent by 2012/13 Metro Chairman Michael Antonovich and 2013/14 Metro Chair Diane DuBois.

2

Exhibit 2 September 27, 2013 Diane Dubois Chair Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Chair Dubois: In response to the June 20, 2013 letter from Immediate Past Chair Mike Antonovich and your August 21,2013 letter, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) has discussed our concerns and potential regional, sub-regional, and local programs /projects that we would like considered for inclusion in a potential future Los Angeles County transportation sales tax measure and the next Metro Long Range Transportation Plan and SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy. We have several overarching concerns and have attached a list of potential South Bay projects and programs. We encourage Metro to continue the collaborative measure development process initiated by Supervisor Antonovich. We strongly believe that a successful measure requires a transparent and inclusive process that puts “Neighborhoods First” and builds from the neighborhood up to the region rather than the region-down focus of previous sales tax measures. South Bay cities are committed to developing sustainable mobility programs that address local and sub-regional congestion issues, achieve emissions reductions by dramatically growing the zero emission vehicle fleet and integrating active transportation corridors where appropriate. We understand the urgency of improving the quality of life in our suburban neighborhoods while improving the connectivity of our sub-region to the regional highway, bus and rail networks. We believe that a first priority of a future ballot measure must be a program that provides a more equitable consideration of all areas of the county. While we understand that there are regional needs that are not necessarily dispersed throughout the entire county, a more thoughtful attempt should be made to consider the needs of those subregions that are originating the sales tax when developing the allocations of these new funds. We also understand that a future ballot measure should ensure that Metro’s current transit and highway commitments made in Proposition A, Proposition C, and Measure R are fully funded including changes in projected lifecycle operations, maintenance and rehabilitation costs related to the recently-approved Metro Acceleration Plan. We believe that a measure that is principally used to complete prior commitments is not sufficient for success, therefore, it must also include new programs and projects which must have reasonable life-cycle cost estimates, and be highly cost effective. And, because a new local sales tax will need to be leveraged to fund even a few new priorities, a new sales tax measure must be built on sound technical justifications for

3

projects and programs that attract investment by other public and private transportation project partners and will energize strong voter support.

At this early stage of deliberations, we need to make clear that incorporation of these initial suggestions does not constitute nor imply support for any potential sales tax measure to be developed. The SBCCOG would need to review the provisions and projects in the proposed measure to determine our position. We expect a comprehensive and collaborative development process will take more than two years to complete and do not believe a successful measure should be presented to the voters before 2016.

Realizing that this is only the first step in what appears to be a lengthy process, the SBCCOG has compiled the attached listing of programs and projects that we believe are important to South Bay voters. Thank you for this opportunity to express our initial concerns and to identify our needs. The SBCCOG looks forward to working closely with the other partners and stakeholders in any design of a new ballot measure.

Sincerely,

Dan Medina Chairman South Bay Cities Council of Governments

Cc: Metro Board of Directors SBCCOG Board of Directors Arthur Leahy, Metro CEO

Attachment

4

South Bay Programs and Projects for a potential transportation sales tax (updated8/8/13)

Regional Projects • Fully fund Transit and Highway regional projects promised in Measure R

o Crenshaw -‐ LAX Transit Corridor Project to Hollywood Red Line o Green Line -‐ LAX Connector o Preventive Maintenance / Rehabilitation of Transit (Bus & Rail)

• Capacity / Operational Improvements: o SR 91 Freeway improvements west of I-‐110 o I-‐405 improvements between the eastern boundary of Carson and the northern

boundary of Inglewood) o SR-‐105 between SR 110 and western terminus of Imperial Blvd. o SR-‐110 Interagency Corridor Management, Interchanges, Connector Ramps, and

auxiliary lane o La Cienega Corridor from I-‐10 to Manchester Ave. o Pacific Coast Highway / Sepulveda / Lincoln Corridor

• Green Line: Southern extension to Torrance or Long Beach Blue Line • Fixed guideway transit facility improvements including Metro Green Line, Harbor Gateway

Transitway (Metro Silver Line) • Metro/or South Bay Municipal operator “Rapid” lines for regional connectivity • Rehabilitate State Highways (non-‐freeway routes) and major arterials • Highway Bridge rehabilitation / seismic retrofit program • Countywide ITS / Traveler Information Systems Operation and Maintenance • South Bay Goods movement projects related to Port of Los Angeles and LAX

Sub-‐Regional Programs (possibly funded through the creation of a sub-‐regional program within the measure under which cities could determine within their COGs the most appropriate sub-‐regional uses of their proportionate share of the Sub-‐regional Program funds.)

• Local Return Program allocated for entire term of sales tax measure to fund neighborhood transportation and sustainability improvements, street and transit maintenance and rehabilitation selected at the discretion of each South Bay local jurisdiction

• South Bay Plug-‐in Electric Vehicle Public Infrastructure Program • High Quality Transit service to Rail and Express Bus Stations

o Start with High Quality Transit Analysis • "First/Last-‐mile" connections for transit (@O&D) walkability, bike, shuttle services to:

o Fixed guideway transit facility improvements including Metro Green Line, Harbor Gateway Transitway (Metro Silver Line)

o Metro/or South Bay Municipal operator “Rapid” lines for regional connectivity o Transit hubs for ease of transfers

• Establish “Neighborhood-‐Oriented Development” Program • Implement a Sub-‐Regional Traffic Management Center • Develop “complete streets” designed to accommodate Neighborhood Electric Vehicles • Mobility and traffic safety projects • Focused Circulation/parking improvements at major commercial /shopping centers • Expanding traveler information to add more locally-‐oriented information (transit/multi-‐

modal/alternative energy stations and charging station status) • Car and bike sharing programs • Streetscape improvements that enhance transportation capacity and safety

5

• Safe Routes to School implementation • Flooding/erosion-‐related roadway geometric/safety improvement projects • Illuminated Street Name Signs (LED) • Beach access/circulation improvements and parking visitor information/way-‐finding

1


DATE: September 9, 2013 TO: SBCCOG Measure R Oversight Committee

SBCCOG Steering Committee

FROM: Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG Executive Director Steve Lantz, SBCCOG Transportation Consultant

SUBJECT: SBCCOG Request to Opt out of Metro Measure R Acceleration Initiative

BACKGROUND The South Bay Highway Program is one of three Measure R Highway Operational Improvement Programs (HOIPs) established in Measure R as 30-year programs of discreet, small highway and arterial operational improvement projects. Unlike major Freeway programs, the HOIPs are structured to evolve over the 30 years with projects implemented by local jurisdictions based on project readiness, funding leverage and other benefit and cost factors. As such, the project prioritization and delivery processes do not lend themselves to a major project approach that accelerates the entire program using bonding rather than reserving cost-escalation contingency funding. In response to SBCCOG concerns, the Metro Board approved a motion as permanent Board Policy on June 27, 2013 by Directors O’Connor, Najarian, DuBois, and Knabe known as the Highway Capital Subfund Protection Policy of 2013. This policy allows Measure R sub-regional highway programs to opt out of the Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan at this juncture and to use it on an “as needed” basis in the future if and when needed without potentially penalizing a sub-region whose highway needs do not lend themselves to the acceleration strategy at this time. The approved recommendations read: “Metro will focus on transit project acceleration and provide flexibility to allow a subregion the choice to opt out of highway-related acceleration:

A. Concurrently protecting the Sub-region’s share of Highway Contingency/Escalation Funds (as reflected in Line 39, Measure R Highway Expenditure Plan) used for acceleration in proportion to the sub-regional share of Measure R funds Comparison – Highway Projects FY 2010-2039; and

B. If (in 2019) a Subfund Transfer (from Highway to Transit, or vice versa) is approved, the proportionate amount of the subregion’s Subfund Contingency/Escalation funding will also be available for transfer and allocated to the project being funded; and

C. Having originally set forth in 2011 the policy protections contained in the O’Connor/Molina/Dubois Measure R Fiscal Responsibility Policy, i.e. Highway Capital Project Contingency/Escalation funds will have equal access to Measure R Contingency funds in later decades; Staff is hereby directed to conform those provisions to reflect the above updated policy amendments.

2

SBCCOG representatives met with Metro staff on August 22, 2013 to determine the procedure for “opting out” of the Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan. It was determined that the SBCCOG should submit a letter to Metro requesting that the South Bay Highway Program not be accelerated consistent with the adopted permanent Metro Board policy at this time. The draft letter is attached (see Exhibit 1). RECOMMENDATION The Measure R Oversight Committee and Steering Committee recommend that the SBCCOG Board of Directors approve and transmit the letter in Exhibit 1 requesting that the South Bay Highway Program not be accelerated consistent with adopted Metro Board policy at this time.

3

Exhibit 1 September 27, 2013 Mr. Arthur Leahy Chief Executive Officer Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gate Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Leahy: The South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) is seeking to have our sub-regional highway program removed from inclusion in the Measure R Finance Acceleration Plan at this time consistent with the Metro Board motion passed on June 27, 2013 - Item 11: The Highway Capital Subfund Protection Policy 2013. The South Bay Cities Council of Governments hereby requests that the Measure R Highway Program (officially known as line item 33 of the 2009 Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) – “Interstate 405, I-110, I-105, and SR-91 Ramp and Interchange improvements – South Bay”) be allowed to opt out of the Measure R Project Finance Acceleration Plan at this time. We also request that 2009 LRTP highway contingency funds in Line 39 proportionate to the South Bay Highway Program funding not be encumbered by bonding or other commitments that would preclude availability of these contingency funds over the life of the South Bay Highway Program for cost escalation or other eligible contingency needs related to the SBHP program. Please respond with a written approval of the SBCCOG request or let us know if there is anything further we need to do to effect the “opt out” provision. Sincerely, Dan Medina, SBCCOG Chair Mayor Pro Tem, City of Gardena c.c.: Metro Board Member O’Connor Metro Board Member Najarian Metro Board Member DuBois Metro Board Member Knabe Metro Board Member Ridley-Thomas Martha Welbourne Michael Bohlke Julie Moore David Riccitiello

South Bay Cities Council of Governments September 9, 2013 TO: Steering Committee FROM: Jacki Bacharach, SBCCOG Executive Director RE: Bills to Monitor and for Action ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AB 66

(Muratsuchi) Economic development. This bill would require the commission to require an electrical corporation to publish and maintain on the electrical corporation's Web site a report describing local level system reliability problems. The bill would require the report to be updated at least quarterly.

SUPPORT & SPONSOR (3/28/13)

(Ltr to Asm Comm.

4/10/13)(Ltr to Sen Comm 6/11/13)

9/3/13 Senate 2nd Reading

SB 470 (Wright)

Community Development. Economic Opportunity: This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to promote economic development on a local level so that communities can enact local strategies to increase jobs, create economic opportunity, and generate tax revenue for all levels of government. The bill would define economic opportunity to include certain types of agreements, purposes, and project's, and declare that it is the policy of the state to protect and promote the sound development of economic opportunity in cities and counties, and the general welfare of the inhabitants of those communities through the employment of all appropriate means. This bill would revise the definition of agency as used in the Polanco Redevelopment Act to include a city, county, or city and county, and authorize a city, county, or city and county to exercise authority under these provisions to remedy or remove the release of hazardous substances from property within its jurisdiction that previously was within the jurisdiction of a former redevelopment agency, consistent with state and federal laws, as specified.

SUPPORT (5/23/13) (Letter to

Assembly sent 5/29/13)

9/3/13 Assembly 2nd Reading

2

TRANSPORTATION SB 556

(Corbett) Agency: ostensible: nongovernmental entities. This bill would prohibit a person, firm, corporation, or association that is a nongovernmental entity and contracts to perform labor or services for a public entity from displaying on a vehicle or uniform a seal, emblem, insignia, trade, brand name, or any other term, symbol, or content that reasonably could be interpreted as implying that the labor or services are being provided by employees of the public agency, unless the vehicle or uniform conspicuously displays a disclosure, as specified.

OPPOSE (8/22/13)

(Ltr sent 8/23/13)

9/3/13 Assembly Third Reading

SCA 4 (Liu)

Local government transportation projects: special taxes: voter approval. This measure would provide that the imposition, extension, or increase of a special tax by a local government for the purpose of providing funding for local transportation projects requires the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition. Vote: 2/3.

MONITOR

8/29/13 Senate Appropriations Committee

OTHER SB 594

(Hill) Use of Public Resources. This bill would prohibit a nonprofit organization or an officer, employee, or agent of a nonprofit organization from using, or permitting another to use, public resources, including but not limited to, public resources received in exchange for consideration, from a local agency for campaign activity, as defined and not authorized by law. This bill would define, among other terms, “public resources” to include, but not be limited to, cash, lands, buildings, funds, and facilities owned by a local agency, and “nonprofit organization” to mean an entity incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Law or a nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt status under the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except as specified. This bill would authorize a civil cause of action for a violation of these prohibitions and damages that include, but are not limited to, 3 times the value of the unlawful use of the public resources. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, and a

OPPOSE (8/22/13)

(Ltr sent 8/23/13)

8/30/13 Assembly Appropriations Committee

Per LCC, amendments to be added which will remove their

opposition

3

city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000 to seek these civil remedies.

NOTE: The previous legislative matrix included bills that are now 2 year bills. No further action will be taken on them this session. They have been removed and will be brought back if and when they start moving again next year. They are: AB 5 – Homeless AB 690 -‐ Jobs and infrastructure financing districts: voter approval AB 810 - Law Enforcement. Data Sharing AB 1147 – Massage Therapy AB 1214 – Southern California Regional Occupational Center

New Law – AB 277 – Tribal Gaming; compact ratification

STATE LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE

n SEPT 13: End of Session (all bills must be passed by this date or they become 2-‐year bills) n OCT 13: Governor’s Deadline to sign/veto all bills on his desk

FEDERAL

HR 456 (Schiff) & S 208

(Feinstein)

Los Angeles Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2013. This Act would direct the FAA to exercise its legal authority to set guidelines on flight paths and minimum altitudes for helicopter operators in residential areas in Los Angeles County within 12 months of being signed into law. Exemptions would be provided for law enforcement, emergency responders and the U.S. military.

SUPPORT (5/23/13)

(Letter sent to Senators &

Congressmembers 5/29/13)

HR 456: 2/4/13 Referred to House Subcommittee on Aviation S. 208 2/4/2013 Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


SBCCOG Board of Directors’ Meeting Thursday, September 26, 2013 @ 6:00 pm

South Bay Environmental Services Center 20285 Western Avenue

Torrance, California 90501

To assure a quorum, if you or your alternate representative cannot attend the meeting, please contact SBCCOG Executive Director Jacki Bacharach @ 310-377-8987.

PLEASE NOTE: YOU CAN ALSO FIND SBCCOG AGENDAS ON OUR WEB SITE - www.southbaycities.org

The Board of Directors, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items. Written materials distributed to the Board within 72 hours of the Board meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the SBCCOG/SBESC office at 20285 Western Avenue, Torrance, CA90501, during normal business hours. Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on SBCCOG related business that is within the jurisdiction of cities and/or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Comment portion of the meeting (Item #V). The time limit for comments is three (3) minutes per person. Before speaking to the Board, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence and the organization you represent, if appropriate.

DRAFT AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER & SALUTE TO THE FLAG (6:00 PM) Dan Medina, Chair II. INTRODUCTIONS III. CONFIRM POSTING OF THE AGENDA BY TORRANCE CITY CLERK IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA V. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (6:05 pm) Matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote.

There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. A. August Board Meeting Minutes (attachment) – Approve

B. Letter to SCAG Declining Delegation of the Regional Sustainable Communities Strategy for the

South Bay subregion (attachment) - Approve

C. Legislation (attachment) – Receive and file

VII. PRESENTATIONS A. LAX Rehab Project (6:10 pm)

VIII. TRANSPORTATION REPORTS

A. Metro Report by Board member Pam O’Connor (6:40 pm) B. Service Council report by Ralph Franklin, Chair (6:45 pm) C. Measure R Oversight Committee Report (Jim Goodhart & Steve Lantz) (6:50 pm)

1. Letter to Metro with Potential List of Projects for Possible Sales Tax (attachment) - Approve

2

2. SBHP Contract reallocation recommendations (attachment) - Approve 3. Deobligation Policy (attachment) - Approve

D. Monthly Transportation Report from Steve Lantz (attachment) – Receive and file (7:10 pm)

IX. SOUTH BAY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER UPDATES (7:15 pm) A. Update on programs and activities – Kim Fuentes

X. SBCCOG ISSUES AND REPORTS – Jacki Bacharach (7:25 pm)

XI. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:35 pm)

XII. AGENCY REPORTS (8:00 pm)

A. League of California Cities (Jim Goodhart & Jeffrey Kiernan) B. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Judy Mitchell & Stan Myles)

1. Local Government and Business Advisory Group (Jacob Haik) C. SCAG & Committees (Matt Horton)

1. Energy and Environment (Judy Mitchell, Stephen Sammarco) 2. Transportation (John Addleman, Dan Medina) 3. Community, Economic, & Human Development (James Gazeley & Frank Zerunyan) 4. Regional Council (Judy Mitchell, Dan Medina, James Gazeley) D. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Jeff Duclos/Ellen Perkins/Jim Knight) E. South Bay Cities City Managers’ Association (Artie Fields) F. South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce (Valentine)

XIV. UPCOMING EVENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS XV. SEPTEMBER SBCCOG COMMITTEE MEETINGS & WORKING GROUPS October 14 Measure R Oversight Committee Steering Committee Consult web site for specific times and places for other meetings – www.southbaycities.org XVI. ADJOURNMENT TO OCTOBER 24, 2013

9.13 steering committee agenda packet .pdf - south bay cities

Documents