cc16_004 1/6/2016

STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 12, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Cathy Capriola, Interim City Manager Sheri Hartz, City Clerk SUBJECT: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS REQUEST Consider assigning Councilmembers to various commissions, boards, authorities and other bodies upon which they serve. RECOMMENDATION Make assignments. DISCUSSION Assignments to the Committees listed below require a vote of the City Council:

Agenda Setting Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem Novato Watershed Policy Advisory Committee Member and Alternate Community Development Block Grant Member and Alternate

(CDBG/HOME Priority Setting) Marin Energy Authority Member and Alternate North Bay Watershed Association Member Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Member and Alternate Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Commission Commissioner

(Must be City’s representative on TAM) MCCMC Joint Services Authority Oversight Committee Member and Alternate MCCMC Legislative Committee Member and Alternate ABAG General Assembly Representative Member and Alternate These assignments, made by Council, are in effect until resignation or replacement: MERA Governing Board TBD on 1/26/16 Safe Routes to School (TAM) Pat Eklund (current) Other assignments are made by their respective governing bodies (see Attachment 1). FISCAL IMPACT None to the City of Novato.

922 Machin Avenue Novato, CA 94945

(415) 899-8900 FAX (415) 899-8213

www.novato.org

1

2

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Committee Assignments Roster 2. Chart of Regular Meeting Days/Times of Subject Bodies 3. Information on Various Bodies

2

NOVA/53; 1/7/2016 - 1 -

NOVATO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

City Council/Successor Agency Policy Manual Roster Information - Section 6.07

STANDING COMMITTEE Agenda Setting Jeanne MacLeamyPat Eklund (Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem) Pat EklundDenise Athas Ad Hoc COMMITTEE Hamilton Solar Panels Pat Eklund Eric Lucan

CITY APPOINTMENT Novato Watershed Policy Eric Lucan Advisory Committee Pat Eklund, Alternate

CITY APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS’ COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYWIDE Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Denise Athas Priority Setting (Designated by City) Madeline R. Kellner, Alternate Marin Energy Authority Denise Athas (Designated by City) MERA Governing Board Jeanne MacLeamy (apptd 8/21/12 Designated by City– serves at Council Madeline R. Kellner, Alternate discretion or until resignation) North Bay Watershed Association Eric Lucan (Associate Member since 8/05) Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Commission (SMART II) Madeline R. Kellner (Must be City’s representative on the TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Madeline R. Kellner Pat Eklund, Alternate Safe Routes to School (TAM) Pat Eklund (Open Term) (Designated by City)

3

NOVA/53; 1/7/2016 - 2 -

APPOINTMENTS BY MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF MAYORS AND COUNCILMEMBERS (MCCMC) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Pat Eklund (Expires 6/30/16) Executive Board (Elected by MCCMC and Ratified by City Selection Committee for a 2-year term) Joint Services Authority Oversight Committee Pat Eklund (Expires 1/16) (Designated by each individual City) Jeanne MacLeamy, Alternate Legislative Committee Madeline Kellner (Expires 1/16) (Designated by each individual City) Jeanne MacLeamy, Alternate MCCMC Vice President Denise Athas (Expires 9/1516) (Elected by MCCMC) Marin County School Boards Association Pat Eklund (Open Term) (Elected by MCCMC) Marin County Transit Board of Directors Madeline R. Kellner (Expires 1/16) (Elected by MCCMC) Major Crimes Task Force Oversight Committee Pat Eklund (Expires 1/1618) (Elected by MCCMC to a two-year term) ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Pat Eklund Assembly Representative (appointed by Council) Madeline Kellner, Alternate ABAG Regional Planning Committee Pat Eklund (Open Term) (Selected by MCCMC, ratified by ABAG Executive Board) APPOINTMENTS BY LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (LCC) Environmental Quality Policy Committee Pat Eklund (Expires 12/15) (Appointed by North Bay Division President) Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee Jeanne MacLeamy (Expires 12/15) (Appointed by North Bay Division President) Employee Relations Policy Committee Madeline R. Kellner (Expires 12/15) (Appointed by League President) Second Vice President of Mayors and Councilmembers Denise Athas (Expires 12/17) Department of League of Ca Board of Directors, At Large Member Madeline R. Kellner (Expires 12/16)

4

List provided for general information – subject to change

Novato Watershed Policy Advisory Committee

Meet 2-3 times per year as needed; each meeting will last approximately 2 hours

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Priority Setting

Thursday January 21, 2016 – 6:30pm

Last week of March 2016, TBD

Marin Energy Authority

Board Meetings are on the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m.

Technical Committee Meetings are on the first Monday of each month at 5:00 p.m.

Executive Committee Meetings are on the first Wednesday of each month at 10:00 a.m.

MERA Governing Board

WEDNESDAY, January 27, 2016 - 3:30pm

WEDNESDAY, February 24, 2016 - 3:30pm

WEDNESDAY, March 23, 2016 - 3:30pm

WEDNESDAY, April 27, 2016 - 3:30pm

WEDNESDAY, May 11, 2016 - 3:30pm

WEDNESDAY, June 22, 2016 - 3:30pm

North Bay Watershed Association

Generally meets the first Friday of every month from 9:30 am to 11:30am, but meeting dates

are subject to change.

Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Commission

Meet on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month at 1:30pm.

o 2016 Regular Board of Directors Meeting Schedule

Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM)

THURSDAY, January 28, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, February 25, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, March 24, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, April 28, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, May 26, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, June 23, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, July 28, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, August 25, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, September 22, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, October 27, 2016 – 7:00pm

5

THURSDAY, November 17, 2016 – 7:00pm

THURSDAY, December 15, 2016 – 7:00pm

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board

Usually meets the third Thursday of every other month

MCCMC Legislative Committee

Meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 8:00 AM

Marin County School Boards Association

2015-2016 MCSBA/ MAS Calendar

Marin County Transit Board of Directors

Monday, January 25, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, February 22, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, March 28, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, April 18, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, May 16, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, June 27, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, July 25, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, August 15, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, September 19, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, October 17, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, November 21, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Monday, December 19, 2016, 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Major Crimes Task Force Oversight Committee

Meets Quarterly

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly Representative

The General Assembly and Business Meeting is held annually in April.

ABAG Regional Planning Committee

First Wednesday; alternate months, 12:30 – 2:30 p.m.

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (LCC) Environmental Quality Policy Committee

6

Policy committees generally meet quarterly. Meetings begin at 10:00 a.m. and end by 3:00 p.m. The 2016 Environmental Quality Policy Committee meetings are as follows:

o Thursday, January 21 - Sacramento o Thursday, April 7 - San Diego o Thursday, June 2 – Sacramento

Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee

Policy committees generally meet quarterly. Meetings begin at 10:00 a.m. and end by 3:00 p.m. The 2016 Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee meetings are as follows:

o Thursday, January 21 - Sacramento o Thursday, April 7 - San Diego o Thursday, June 2 - Sacramento

Employee Relations Policy Committee

Policy committees generally meet quarterly. Meetings begin at 10:00 a.m. and end by 3:00 p.m. The 2016 Employee Relations Policy Committee meetings are as follows:

o Friday, January 22 – Sacramento o Friday, April 8- San Diego o Friday, June 3- Sacramento

Second Vice President of Mayors and Councilmembers Department of League of Ca

Meet at least annually, provided that the Annual Conference of the League is considered one such meeting of the Department

Board of Directors, At Large Member

The League of California Cities board of directors typically meets on a quarterly basis and is required by the bylaws to meet no fewer than four times per year.

7

1

Novato Watershed Program www.marinwatersheds.org

Purpose The purpose of the Novato Watershed Program is to identify opportunities to integrate flood protection goals with creek and wetland restoration elements. This process includes evaluating alternatives that would reduce flood protection maintenance costs and impacts and be resilient to sea level rise. This first phase of work would produce a unified hydrology and hydraulics model to evaluate alternatives and a Geographic Information Systems based database to identify restoration opportunities. Once the multi-benefit alternatives are identified, it is anticipated a revenue measure would be proposed to fund implementation. This work would also support efforts to secure grant funds. Background In 2006, the Marin County Flood Control District completed the final phase of a 15 year, multi-phase flood control project that provides protection from the 50-year storm event along the lower reaches of Arroyo Avichi, Warner, and Novato Creeks. The floods of 2006 revealed that additional work along lower Novato Creek could reduce potential flooding impacts to Nave Gardens and downtown Novato. During the 2006 floods, downtown Novato would have experienced flooding had the levee at Deer Island basin not been breached. Flood protection in downtown Novato is currently predicated on an expensive sediment removal program that must be performed every four years within a 1.2 mile reach of lower Novato Creek at a cost of $1M+. This approach is not economically or ecologically sustainable and this watershed program process seeks to reduce the scope and frequency of this sediment removal while maintaining the level of flood protection. This program seeks to provide the County and its partner agencies, City of Novato, North Marin Water District and the Novato Sanitary District, with alternatives that reduce sediment input from upstream sources and rely on the inherent ability of Novato Creek to scour its channel and transport more sediment to the Bay. Bank erosion along Novato Creek is extensive above Grant Avenue. This reach exhibits active erosion and many property owners are requesting a comprehensive approach to stabilization work. This study would provide the modeling tools to assess long term solutions that are consistent with work completed to date and that would improve habitat conditions.

8

2

Stakeholder Outreach The watershed program will utilize a collaborative, iterative process to develop an integrated flood protection and habitat restoration program. The Marin County Board of Supervisors recommended establishing stakeholder committees at three levels to support community outreach and to provide overall program direction (a complete list of committee members is included at end of this document). A broad community outreach program is also recommended. Community outreach will be developed around these key messages:

• Working at the watershed scale acknowledges the mutually dependent interactions and linkages between our ridgetops, the valley floor, creeks, wetlands and San Pablo Bay.

• The watershed approach acknowledges the need to work collaboratively to identify solutions to reducing flood hazards, maintain local water supply, recycled water operations, and improving fish and wildlife habitat.

• Implementation at the watershed scale takes time and is implemented in tandem with both public and private projects and the maintenance and rehabilitation of aged existing infrastructure.

Description of Watershed Stakeholder Committees Policy Advisory Committee - This group of elected officials is comprised of the District County Supervisor, two representatives from the participating city council and the Board of Directors of the participating agencies. This committee provides policy input on program direction and community issues and will meet 1-2 times per year. Operations and Finance Committee - The participating District managers and/or city manager and the Marin County Public Works director will use these meetings to evaluate progress and prioritize funding strategies and will meet 3-4 times per year. Technical Working Group (TWG) - This group will include staff of participating State, Federal and local regulatory and participating agencies and community members with a science and technical background. The group will be responsible for the review of watershed products and provide input on issues, needs and watershed priorities. This group will include conservation and watershed groups, homeowners’ associations and other technical experts within their respective watersheds. This group will meet at least quarterly to provide input and to review the development of work products Community Outreach Targeted community meetings, presentations at various local boards and homeowners associations and utilization of the watershed program website (www.marinwatersheds.org) will support communication to the community at large. The program website provides dedicated information about the watershed and is regularly updated with notices about workshops, meetings, proposals and projects. Project Description and Outcomes Novato is home to the Flood Control District’s largest flood control zone and the largest flood control project in the County was completed in 2006. In Novato, the District has commitment and financial support from all the agencies representing flood control, stormwater, water supply and recycled water as the County of Marin, the City of Novato, North Marin Water District, and the Novato Sanitary District have agreed to partner on this process. However, infrastructure in the lower reaches is aging, the lower channel must be dredged every four years at a cost of $1 million, bank erosion is extensive on the main stem of Novato Creek and the 1984 flood fee sunset years ago. Currently, the District collects maintenance fees ($9/parcel for single family homes) that generate about $250,000 annually. This fee was approved by the voters in 1984 and is scheduled to be collected in perpetuity.

9

3

This program will seek opportunities watershed wide to improve our operations and maintenance in a manner that is informed by sea level rise projections while we identify alternatives that would improve the creek’s ability to transport sediment to the bay. The process considers the restoration of watershed health and function as a basic tenet to ensure our projects are eligible for the broadest range of funding at the State and Federal levels. This phase of the program will produce planning tools to guide the development of viable flood reduction alternatives:

• Hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) study This deliverable will provide a unified hydrology and hydraulics model of Novato Creek and limited major tributaries, storm drain modeling for the Nave Gardens neighborhood, hydrologic modeling of the Novato Creek watershed and the development of conceptual project alternatives modeled for their benefits (including sea-level rise scenarios), Technical input will be provided via the technical work group. A RFP was released in October. We received 11 proposals and have short listed four. Status: Contract awarded to KHE (Kamman Hydrology & Engineering)

• Alternatives Analysis This deliverable will provide criteria and evaluation of three alternatives that support multiple benefits such as flood protection, water quality improvements and habitat restoration.

• GIS-based mapping and database development Staff will use existing GIS data (publicly-owned parcels, existing creek restoration sites, STRAW sites, stream data, fishery data) to develop a watershed-scale database and maps to assist with project prioritization. Status: Ongoing

Draft Schedule

2012

February: Consultant team

begins Novato Watershed

H&H Study work

March: Existing survey data

review begins

April: Data collection and

review; geomorphic and

sediment assessment to

support hydraulic model

development

June: TWG meeting #3 to

introduce consultant team

and scope of work

October: Hydrology model

development

November: TWG and

Advisory Board meetings

December: Hydrology

model developed

2013

February: TWG and

Advisory Board meetings

April: Nave Gardens Storm

Water Management

Model (SWMM)

developed; Opportunities

and Constraints memo

10

4

Expenditures Watershed Hydraulic Study and Alternatives Analysis $300,000 Surveying $100,000 HEC-HMS Hydrology Model $100,000 Creek habitat assessment $100,000 Outreach and Stakeholder process $80,000 Total $680,000 Revenue County of Marin $340,000 City of Novato $140,000 North Marin Water District $100,000 Novato Sanitary District $100,000

Total: $680,000 List of committee members Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Supervisor Judy Arnold Novato City Council: Jeanne MacLeamy North Marin Water District: Rick Fraites and Jack Baker Flood Zone 1 Advisory Board: Ernie Ganas and Dietrich Stroeh Novato Sanitary District Board members (tbd) Operations and Finance Committee Chris DeGabriele, General Manager, North Marin Water District Beverly James, Manager-Engineer, Novato Sanitary District Michael Frank, City Manager, Novato Craig Tackabery, Assistant Director of Public Works, County of Marin Technical Working Group City of Novato: Public Works Jason Nutt North Marin Water District: Drew McIntyre, Chief Engineer Novato Sanitary District: Sandeep Karkal Flood Zone #1 Advisory Board: Bill Long Marin County Flood Control District: Tracy Clay, Pat Balderama County of Marin Community Development Agency: Tom Lai State Coastal Conservancy: Tom Gandesbery Marin County Open Space District: Mischon Martin, Elise Holland Friends of Novato Creek: Sue Lattanzio Bel Marin Keys Community Service District: Carey Parent Marin Conservation League: Susan Stompe UC Cooperative Extension: David Lewis Marin Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District: Erik Hawk Novato Creek Homeowners: Gerry Godwin State and Federal Resource agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, Regional Board, Department of Fish and Game

Draft Schedule

2013

May: TWG and Advisory

Board meetings

June: Hydraulic model

developed; Proposed

Community Meeting

July: TWG meeting

August: Conceptual

alternatives development;

Advisory Board and

Community meetings

November: TWG and

Advisory Board meetings

December: Hydraulic

modeling of alternatives;

Draft Alternatives

Assessment Report;

Community Meeting

2014

January: Final Novato

Watershed Hydraulics Study

and Alternatives Analysis

11

5

Watershed staffing Roger Leventhal, Associate Engineer

• Project Manager, manages KHE (consultant) hydraulics study, develop hydrology model for Novato Creek Watershed. Responsible for review of hydraulic modeling products and for providing input into the development of alternatives.

Chris Choo, Senior Planner • Manage contracts and track consultant budget. Coordinate meetings with Technical Working

Group and public outreach through the website. Laurie Williams, Senior Planner

• Develop GIS database to support project planning and prioritization. Work with contractors to provide DPW data and to incorporate contractor datasets into Public Works databases. Prepare maps for website and stakeholder meetings.

Liz Lewis, Principal Planner • Manage overall schedule, deliverables, and budget and coordinate communication with partners

and County Departments. Coordinate financial strategy with partners.

12

DRAFT

1 August 8, 2012

Las Gallinas Watershed Program www.marinwatersheds.org

Purpose

The Board of Supervisors authorized the Department of Public Works to begin implementation of a County-wide Watershed Program on May 13, 2008. The purpose of the Watershed Program is to provide a framework to integrate flood protection and environmental restoration with public and private partners to protect and enhance Marin County’s watersheds. In the Las Gallinas Creek Watershed, this program would seek to identify opportunities that provide the following benefits:

• Develop cost effective solutions to reduce flooding damages that threaten communities, local economies, and public services

• Improve navigational access to lower Las Gallinas Creek • Protect, enhance and restore sensitive creek and wetland habitat and water quality • Identify multi-benefit type projects that will improve the County’s ability to compete for State and

Federal funding • Identify projects that are resilient to sea level rise • Evaluate the beneficial re-use of dredged material for wetland restoration, levee maintenance and

shoreline protection within lower Las Gallinas and Miller Creeks • Reduce ecological impacts of flood maintenance activities

The Las Gallinas watershed program would identify and describe the recommended watershed improvement measures and provide details on project feasibility, sequencing, preliminary costs and funding strategies. It is anticipated that some type of revenue measure will be required to implement the recommended measures.

13

DRAFT

2 August 8, 2012

Background The 5.6 square mile Gallinas Creek watershed has two main drainage basins. The north fork is the larger of the two drainages and flows from the ridgeline through Santa Margarita Valley and the community of Terra Linda to its confluence with South Gallinas Creek near McInnis Park. South Gallinas Creek is fed by several small tributaries that originate in the San Rafael Hills and San Pedro Ridge and flow through the communities of San Rafael Meadows, Los Ranchitos and Santa Venetia. Las Gallinas Creek – North Fork During the construction of the Terra Linda housing development in the late 1950s and 60s, portions of Gallinas Creek and its tributaries were channelized and lined with concrete. Prior to the construction of the concrete channel, the Freitas family reported steelhead using the large pools in the creek. No steelhead have been observed in the upper reaches of Gallinas Creek since the channel was straightened and lined with concrete. The concrete lining of Gallinas Creek generates high water temperatures, which leads to excessive algal growth and poor water quality entering the Gallinas Creek Slough. Moving downstream of Highway 101, development becomes progressively denser, with the lowland areas east of Highway 101 supporting neighborhoods, industrial and commercial development. Portions of these lowland areas are within FEMA’s mapped 100 year flood plain. While these areas may not have been impacted from the floods of 2005/06, sea level rise poses a potential threat to this area. There have been local efforts to restore wetlands in this area. Audubon completed a small wetland restoration project on State Lands during the 1990s. The north fork of Gallinas Creek joins the south fork at McInnis Park. Las Gallinas Creek – South Fork There are two designated County Flood Zones that drain to the south fork of Gallinas Creek: Flood Zone #6 and Flood Zone #7. Flood Zone #6 was established after construction of the San Rafael Meadows subdivision in the 1960s. This is a very small zone located just west of Highway 101 across from the County Civic Center. Houses were built in a low-lying area and experienced frequent flooding until improvements were made. In the early 2000s, during the construction of a new subdivision project a majority of the stormwater causing the flooding was rerouted around the community thereby eliminating a significant cause of flooding in the zone. Moreover, the Flood Zone #6 area was annexed by the City of San Rafael. The City now owns and is responsible for the maintenance of the Zone’s drainage facilities. Flood Zone #7 is comprised of the unincorporated community of Santa Venetia, east of 101 along San Pedro Road. Santa Venetia was one of the first developments in Marin County to be constructed on fill over bay mud and occurred in an era before the County had the authority to regulate or control development. Due to the low initial elevation of the fill and the compressible nature of the underlying bay mud, the area has subsided and is now below the high tide level. To protect themselves from tidal flooding of Las Gallinas Creek, the residents of Santa Venetia formed Flood Control Zone #7 in 1962. The annual maintenance program for facilities includes pump stations and levees, as well as other drainage facilities in the Zone. Though the Santa Venetia neighborhood did not flood during the 2005 New Year’s Eve storm, sea level rise, land subsidence and aging infrastructure remain key flood protection challenges. Stormwater is collected via pipes and discharged into Las Gallinas Creek via a series of five pump stations. Four million dollars of potential flood protection improvements have been identified within Santa Venetia alone. The most pressing identified infrastructure need in Santa Venetia is the replacement of Pump Station No.2. It is recommended that the

14

DRAFT

3 August 8, 2012

pump be rebuilt to improve its reliability and to increase its pumping capacity to handle the 100-year storm event (It currently can handle flows up to the 10-year event.) A special election was held in 2010 to fund flood protection improvements in Flood Control Zone 7 including the replacement of Pump Station No. 2, improvements to Estancia Ditch, and additional levee studies. The tax measure was not approved. The District is now investigating the feasibility of pursuing revenue sources for the replacement of Pump Station No. 2.

County Service Area No. 6 in the Las Gallinas Watershed Homeowners along the tidal reaches of Gallinas Creek also desire creek access and a navigable channel. The community formed CSA #6 (see figure above) in the 1960s to dredge the channel for navigation and flood protection. The community is working to raise the funds to perform another round of maintenance dredging. Preliminary plans and cost estimates have been developed. The estimated dredging construction costs exceed funds available and will require additional funds to implement. Mouth of Las Gallinas Creek The mouth of Las Gallinas Creek is bordered by County and State Park lands. The beneficial re-use of sediment from the dredging of Las Gallinas Creek could be used to restore diked baylands to functional tidal marsh. The Army Corps of Engineers prepared a preliminary restoration plan for the McInnis Park Wetland Restoration Project in 2001, under Section 206 WRDA 1996 as an element of the San Pablo Bay Watershed Restoration Plan. Suggested restoration actions include levee breaching, marsh plain and channel grading and invasive species removal.

Tidal marsh restoration in the Gallinas Creek system would restore ecosystem function and processes, as well as provide critical habitat for the endangered California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. The opportunity exists to evaluate alternatives that could improve any project’s resiliency to predicted sea level rise scenarios.

15

DRAFT

4 August 8, 2012

Miller Creek – Baylands The tidal reaches of lower Miller Creek, which shares it outlet to San Pablo Bay with Las Gallinas Creek will be considered as part of the Gallinas Creek Watershed Program study area. Historically, Miller Creek discharged out onto a large flood plain without a clear channel connection to the bay. In the 1920s, Miller Creek was rerouted, channelized, and leveed to provide space for agricultural fields. The current alignment rerouted the creek to the south and placed it into a narrow, leveed channel with two 90-degree bends before reaching San Pablo Bay. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District uses the creek as their discharge point during winter months at the downstream bend. Because these two creeks share a floodplain along San Pablo Bay, a concurrent planning effort to evaluate sediment movement, tidal prism and tidal marsh restoration is practical, sensible, and cost-

effective. Historical map of the wetlands at the mouths of Gallinas and Miller Creeks

Stakeholder Outreach The watershed program will utilize a collaborative, iterative process to develop an integrated flood protection and habitat restoration program. The Marin County Board of Supervisors recommended establishing stakeholder committees at three levels to support community outreach and to provide overall program

16

DRAFT

5 August 8, 2012

direction (a complete list of recommended committee members is included at end of this document). A broad community outreach program is also recommended. Community outreach will be developed around two key messages:

1) The watershed approach is the practical and desired alternative to identifying cost effective solutions for improving flood protection; and

2) Implementation at the watershed scale takes time and does not take precedence over the maintenance and rehabilitation of aged existing infrastructure.

Description of Gallinas Watershed Stakeholder Committees Policy Advisory Committee - This group of elected officials is comprised of the District County Supervisor, two representatives from the participating city council and the Board of Directors of the participating agencies. This committee provides policy input on program direction and community issues and will meet 1-2 times per year. Operations and Finance Committee- The participating District manager and/or city manager and the Marin County Public Works director will use these meetings to evaluate progress and prioritize funding strategies and will meet 3-4 times per year. Technical Working Group- This group will include staff of participating State, Federal and local regulatory and participating agencies and community members with a science and technical background. The group will be responsible for the review of watershed products and provide input on issues, needs and watershed priorities. This group will include conservation and watershed groups, homeowners associations and other technical experts within their respective watersheds. This group will meet at least quarterly to provide input and to review the development of work products Community Outreach Targeted community meetings, presentations at various local boards and homeowners associations and utilization of the watershed program website (www.marinwatersheds.org) will support communication to the community at large. The program website provides dedicated information about the watershed and is regularly updated with notices about workshops, meetings, proposals and projects. Program Description and Outcomes The Watershed Program will build upon existing studies and develop new analytical tools to evaluate and quantify the extent of flooding and to evaluate the range of proposed solutions. This process will be summarized in a final report. The final report will also include recommendations on how to leverage local funds to attract State and Federal grant funds. The final report will provide an assessment of and describe the type of local revenue measures that could support project implementation. The following is a description of the proposed tools and outcomes. An excellent overview of existing conditions and relevant studies is available at www.marinwatersheds.org. Analytical Tool Development The District has identified the general causes of flooding within the watershed but focused modeling and analysis will provide the ability to refine the engineering analysis required to develop conceptual designs for improvements and to get a better idea of the costs associated with implementation.

17

DRAFT

6 August 8, 2012

The following tools will assist with the identification and review of a range of alternatives: Hydrology and hydraulics models - An understanding of how much water is moving through the watershed (hydrology), how fast it moving and where it is going (hydraulics) is critical to quantifying flooding impacts and identifying solutions. The development and use of computer models to quantify stormwater runoff and channel flow are the industry standard used to describe flooding. These modeling tools will allow us to identify areas that need increased flood protection and to understand how channel and floodplain modifications will influence the ability of the channel to carry flood flows. Flood Zone 7 is actively engaged in a process with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to evaluate the levees that protect Santa Venetia. As part of this evaluation, the ACOE developed the following types of models:

• A hydrology model that develops flood flows from the watershed into the north and south forks of Las Gallinas Creek.

• A hydraulics model for the south fork of Las Gallinas Creek that evaluates both tidal and creek water surface elevations under flood flow conditions

• In addition, the Corps performed an evaluation of direct coastal flooding impacts under current and 50-year sea level rise conditions

Additional model refinements may be driven by the alternatives analysis. In addition to the creek channel models described above, there are also specific stormwater models to evaluate flow in low-lying developed areas where the majority of flow is routed via roads and a storm drain system to stormwater pump stations. This type of model could be useful for evaluating storm flows in Santa Venetia because flood control practices rely on an underground storm drain system, pump stations and three direct stormwater bypasses to deliver runoff to Las Gallinas Creek. A stormwater drainage system model for Flood Zone #7-Santa Venetia could improve the efficiency of pump operations by providing information on pumping capacity and to evaluate the optimal distribution of flows to the five pump stations. This type of modeling would also evaluate stormwater pipe capacity and identify constriction points. At the end of this phase, we will have a watershed based hydrology and hydraulics models of Las Gallinas Creek and limited tributaries that will allow us to review conceptual project alternatives for their benefits including an evaluation of sea-level rise scenarios.

Schedule

2012

Jan: Meeting with

Supervisor Adams to

present Outreach

Strategy

Staff begins to implement

outreach strategy

Meetings with

stakeholders

Feb: Flood Zone Advisory

Board meeting

SVNA community

meeting

May: Flood Zone Advisory

Board meeting

July: Initiate watershed

specific studies

Aug: Technical Work

group meeting #1

Technical work group

meetings and

watershed related work

thru Dec 2013

18

DRAFT

7 August 8, 2012

Geomorphic and Sediment Assessment in Tidal Areas - Levees bordering lower Las Gallinas and Miller Creeks have greatly reduced the tidal prism (volume of water that moves in and out on each tide cycle) thereby reducing the ability of the channels to transport sediment out of the system. This has resulted in sediment deposition in the tidal reaches of the creek and a loss of depth for boating access. This assessment will seek to identify a channel width and alignment that maximizes the creek’s ability to transport sediment to the Bay based upon geomorphic analysis of similar systems in the Bay. This information will used to inform future creek dredging needs and extent of dredging. It will also benefit management of sediment flow to better protect sewer plant infrastructure and outfalls. GIS-based mapping and database development- A geographic information system database will be developed to evaluate opportunities to restore creeks and wetlands. Existing data will be used to develop a watershed-scale database and maps to assist with project prioritization. Conceptual Alternatives Development One of the primary goals of this watershed program is to identify cost effective alternatives for maintaining or improving the level of flood protection. Utilizing the tools developed through the watershed program the District and the community will be able to evaluate a range of alternatives to identify practical and sustainable projects. The models will be used to analyze and develop the full range of feasible measures consistent with the program goals. Preliminary costs, flood protection benefits and habitat impacts and/or enhancements will be clearly identified through this process. The watershed approach considers the development of multi-benefit projects as a basic tenet to ensure that project priorities are eligible for the broadest range of funding at the State and Federal levels. Final Report This document will describe the identified alternatives and documentation for each. Maps and graphics will support this analysis and the report will include recommendations and process for pursuing implementation, establishing priorities and funding. Program Budget Expenditures Cost Calibration of USACE Hydrology Model $20,000 Surveying $45,000 GIS Mapping $10,000 Hydraulic modeling $40,000 Stormdrain modeling (Santa Venetia only) $60,000 Geomorphic/Sediment Study $40,000 Alternatives analysis $60,000 Final Report $45,000 Project Management $25,000 Stakeholder Outreach $27,500 Total $392,500

19

DRAFT

8 August 8, 2012

Revenue County of Marin $80,000 City of San Rafael (proposed) $80,000 Flood Zone 6 $12,500 Flood Zone 7 $80,000 CSA 6 $60,000 Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District $80,000 Total $392,500 Status of Local Agency Participation To date we have received commitment and financial support from the following agencies:

• County of Marin • Las Gallinas Sanitary District • County Service Area 6 • Flood Zone 6 • Flood Zone 7

We are still pursuing commitment and financial participation from the following agencies: • City of San Rafael

Recommended list of committee members Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Supervisor Susan Adams City of San Rafael council member: to be determined (tbd) Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District: tbd Flood Zone 7 Advisory Board: Michael Perani CSA 6: tbd Operations and Finance Committee Las Gallinas Sanitary District-General Manager-Engineer City of San Rafael-tbd Craig Tackabery, Assistant Director of Public Works, County of Marin Technical Working Group City of San Rafael Public Works: Kevin McGowan Las Gallinas Sanitary District: tbd Flood Zone #6: Board Chair or their delegate Flood Zone #7: Jacqueline Garcia Marin County Flood Control District: Tracy Clay, Neal Conatser County of Marin Community Development Agency: Tom Lai State Coastal Conservancy: Tom Gandesbery Marin County Open Space District: Elise Holland Las Gallinas Creek Watershed Council: Emily Dean Marin Sonoma Mosquito Abatement District: Erik Hawk Marin Municipal Water District: tbd SMART: John Nemeth Miller Creek Watershed Stewards: tbd

20

DRAFT

9 August 8, 2012

Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association: tbd Contempo Marin homeowner: tbd Marin Lagoon homeowner: tbd North San Rafael Coalition of Residents: tbd State and Federal Resource agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, BCDC, Regional Board, Department of Fish and Game Public Works Watershed staffing Primary roles and responsibilities: Liz Lewis, Principal Planner

• Manage overall schedule, deliverables, and budget; coordinate communication with partners and County Departments

Roger Leventhal, Associate Engineer • Manage technical consultant team and peer review of Army Corps products such as the H&H modeling

and related products. Neal Conatser, Assistant Engineer

• Manages Army Corps modeling effort and the County’s levee studies; manages the cost sharing agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers.

Hugh Davis, Associate Engineer • Assist with conceptual levee design and geotechnical review

Chris Choo, Senior Planner • Coordinate meetings public outreach through the website and with stakeholders.

Laurie Williams, Senior Planner • Develop GIS database to support project planning. Prepare maps for website and stakeholder meetings.

21

1

Southern Marin Watershed Program www.marinwatersheds.org

Purpose The Southern Marin Watershed Program is a collaborative effort of the City of Mill Valley, the County of Marin, and Flood Control Zones 3 and 4. The purpose of the Watershed Program is to provide a framework to integrate flood protection and environmental restoration with public and private partners to protect and enhance Marin County’s watersheds and to identify solutions that will enhance and protect the diverse habitat of the lands that drain into Richardson Bay. The Board of Supervisors authorized the Marin County Department of Public Works to begin implementation of a county-wide Watershed Program on May 13, 2008. This document summarizes the content and scope of the Southern Marin Watershed Program.

Numerous studies were produced over the decades to identify and guide the construction of projects to reduce flood damage in the southern Marin watersheds that drain to Richardson Bay. A primary task for the Southern Marin Watershed Program will be to develop a Watershed Master Plan (WMP) that integrates flood protection needs with opportunities for creek and water quality enhancements. The WMP will identify opportunities that provide the following benefits:

• Develop cost effective solutions to help reduce flooding • Protect, enhance, and restore sensitive creek and wetland habitat and water quality • Identify multi-benefit projects that will improve the ability to compete for state and federal funding • Identify the impacts of sea level rise and develop project concepts that could be adapted to rising tides • Evaluate the beneficial re-use of dredged sediment from Coyote Creek and other sediment removal

projects for wetland restoration, levee maintenance, and shoreline protection • Improve efficiency of existing flood maintenance operations

22

2

The purpose of the WMP is to provide a comprehensive road map for future project implementation. This summary describes the scope and budget for development of the WMP and the stakeholder process that will be implemented to support this work. Background The low lying areas bordering Richardson Bay have experienced periodic flooding for decades. The County Board of Supervisors formed both Flood Control Zone 3 and Zone 4 during the late 1950s to address the flooding experienced along the low-lying areas bordering Richardson Bay. The WMP study area addresses 14 square miles draining to Richardson Bay including the sub-watersheds of Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio, Coyote Creek, Ryan Creek, Sutton Manor Creek, and East and West Creeks.

Numerous facilities and channels have been constructed to address flooding including eight (8) stormwater pump stations, an earthen and concrete levee system, and several drainage improvements. In addition, sediment removal is regularly implemented as well as annual vegetation maintenance activities. The Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District also maintains two stream gauges, a weather station, and holds numerous easements and properties in order to maintain these channels and structures.

The City of Mill Valley evaluated opportunities to increase the level of flood protection within the Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio watershed in response to the 2005/06 floods. Based on these studies, over $70 million dollars in flood control projects have been identified for planning and implementation. This process will help the City and residents to evaluate these recommendations so that alternatives can be prioritized. An overview of existing conditions and relevant studies is available at www.marinwatersheds.org. EPA Grant In 2010 the County received nearly $370,000 in grant funds from the EPA’s 2010 San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund for improvements to the Richardson Bay watershed. Richardson Bay has been listed as being impaired by pathogens related to measured high levels of coliform bacteria. The EPA funds will be used to reduce the potential for coliform bacteria to reach Richardson Bay. Funding will include work to restore creek-side vegetation along a tributary to Warner Creek in Boyle Park to increase filtration with native vegetation and to conduct outreach in the community. Funding will also support the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency’s efforts to develop a houseboat and marina monitoring plan. Program Description and Outcomes The Southern Marin Watershed Program will build upon the decades of existing operations and improvements. A suite of analytical tools will be used to identify and prioritize a range of flood protection alternatives that integrate habitat restoration benefits. These analytical tools and the process for developing and evaluating the proposed project alternatives will be summarized in the WMP. The WMP will also include recommendations for how to fund the proposed work, including a discussion of local revenue measure options and describe opportunities to leverage local funds to attract state and federal grant funds. The District has identified the general causes of flooding within the watershed and a general description of flooding will be included in the WMP. A description of the individual tools and methods to be used are described below.

23

3

Hydrology and Hydraulics Models An understanding of how much water is moving through the watershed (hydrology), how fast it is moving, and where it is going (hydraulics) is critical to quantifying flooding impacts and identifying solutions. The development and use of computer models to quantify stormwater runoff and channel flow are the industry standard for describing flooding and analyzing proposed solutions. These modeling tools will allow us to identify areas that need increased flood protection and to understand how channel and floodplain modifications will influence the ability of the channel to carry flood flows. Utilizing existing flow models or developing new ones will provide the ability to refine the engineering analysis required to develop conceptual design alternatives and to get a better idea of the costs associated with implementation

The watershed based hydrology and hydraulics models will allow staff and the Technical Working Group to review conceptual project alternatives for their benefits including an evaluation of sea level rise scenarios. Climate Change Adaptation Scenarios The Richardson Bay watershed is one of the most highly susceptible areas of Marin County to the impacts of climate change. Rising tide levels in San Francisco Bay will result in more direct wind-wave shoreline erosion (wave energy increases as the square of water depth) as well as increased river flooding as the stormdrain system is unable to drain against the tidal backwater. Short duration rainfall intensities are anticipated to increase and will exacerbate stormwater flooding as well as landslides and soil erosion in the upper watershed. The Master Plan will begin the process of organizing and planning for climate change in the watershed. The WMP will include a synthesis of the range of projections for Bay sea level rise and an evaluation of the potential impacts on existing and proposed flood protection projects. The WMP will consider a range of potential adaptation strategies, for example:

Higher, larger levees Outboard habitat transition zone levees Buffer zones and beaches Detention basins Raising and floodproofing structures More pump stations Planned retreat

The WMP will provide the technical studies that allow community decision makers to frame their planning decisions on where to devote financial resources over the next thirty to one-hundred years. Alternatives Analysis One of the primary goals of the Watershed Program is to identify cost effective alternatives for improving the level of flood protection. The hydrology and hydraulics models will be used where appropriate to evaluate the proposed alternatives in each watershed. Utilizing these tools, the District and the Technical Working Group will be able to evaluate a range of alternatives to identify practical and sustainable projects. The models will be used to analyze and develop the full range of feasible measures consistent with the program goals. Preliminary costs, flood protection benefits, and multi-benefit projects will be clearly identified through this process and in the WMP.

24

4

The watershed program considers the development of multi-benefit projects as a basic principle to ensure that the identified alternatives are eligible for the broadest range of funding at the state and federal levels. A series of technical memorandums describing the design methodology and results of the various flow modeling efforts will form the foundation of the WMP. These memorandums will contain the engineering details for technical review by agencies, partners, and interested parties. Opportunities for increased flood protection, restoration, and habitat benefits will be identified and evaluated. A set of flood protection and habitat restoration criteria would be developed to evaluate and prioritize the recommendations and to identify integrated projects. These criteria would also consider project feasibility, sequencing and existing flood protection objectives. The alternatives analysis would also include a thorough treatment of climate change and sea level rise issues. The WMP would include a general description and conceptual drawings to illustrate the proposed design alternatives. GIS-based Mapping and Database Development Staff will compile existing Geographic Information Systems or GIS data (publicly-owned parcels, stream data, locations of current and past restoration sites, and fisheries data) into a watershed-scale restoration opportunities database. The database will be used to analyze restoration needs and to support the identification of multi-benefit projects. The projects will be prioritized based on the GIS analyses and the modeling results and described in the WMP. Financial Strategy The goals of the financial strategy are to review budgetary needs for the operation and maintenance of existing assets and to define a strategy for annual funding of a reserve amount suitable to address long-term projected needs. Additionally, alternatives for funding recommended projects will also be described including different revenue measures, available reserves from existing funding sources, and potential grant opportunities, among others.

Watershed Master Plan The Watershed Master Plan will provide a comprehensive, integrated strategy for flood protection and environmental restoration that will serve as a guiding document for the next thirty years. A thirty year time frame is recommended in light of the State of California predictions that San Francisco Bay is likely to experience a sea level rise of about 16 inches by 2050. The Plan will describe the proposed alternatives, recommendations for project sequencing, and identify multi-benefit projects that both enhance flood protection and habitat. This type of integrated approach to flood and creek management is consistent with current state and federal grant guidance to identify projects that are multi-purpose and multi-benefit in nature. Staff is undertaking a systematic review of existing conditions. Prior work is being assessed and data gaps will be identified. The WMP will allow the District and partner agencies to answer the following questions:

1. Which previously defined improvements should be considered? 2. Are there improvements that have not yet been defined, but should be considered? 3. What information is needed before improvements can be designed? 4. How can District projects, both constructed and planned, effectively address the potential

impacts posed by climate change and sea level rise?

25

5

5. Do the District’s monitors and gauges provide it with the data necessary to develop hydrology and hydraulics suitable for the design of its construction projects?

6. Are there projects which present opportunities for increased flood protection, fish passage, and/or riparian restoration?

7. Do current maintenance efforts ensure the effective operation and optimum use of existing facilities?

8. Where will the District or partner agencies need to pursue new easements or fee title acquisition to support future maintenance and project implementation?

This information and the supporting data will be summarized within the WMP. Consideration of sea level rise scenarios and future adaptation will be included in this effort. Engineering and technical work will be led by County staff with consultant assistance to supplement the existing hydrology and hydraulic analysis where needed.

The WMP will also include recommendations for leveraging local funds to attract state and federal grant funds and describe the type of local revenue measures that could support project implementation. The major findings of the WMP will be published in a user-friendly web-based “booklet format” to effectively communicate findings and recommendations to partner agencies and the community. The goal is to summarize and communicate key findings and recommendations in a concise, graphics rich format.

Stakeholder Process The WMP will be developed via a collaborative, iterative process. The Marin County Board of Supervisors established stakeholder committees at three levels to support community outreach and to provide overall program direction (a complete list of recommended committee members is included at end of this document). Broad community outreach is provided through the Program’s website www.marinwatersheds.org, the stakeholder process and community meetings. Description of Stakeholder Committees Policy Advisory Committee - This group of elected officials is comprised of the District County Supervisor, two representatives from the participating city council, two representatives from each of the appointed flood zone advisory boards and the board of directors of the participating agencies. This committee provides policy input on program direction and community issues and will meet 1-2 times per year. Operations and Finance Committee- The participating city manager and the Marin County Public Works director will use these meetings to evaluate progress and prioritize funding strategies and will meet 3-4 times per year. Technical Working Group- This group will include staff of participating state, federal, and local regulatory and participating agencies and community members with a science and technical background. The group will be responsible for the review of watershed products and provide input on issues, needs, and watershed priorities. This group will include conservation and watershed groups, homeowners associations, and other technical experts within their respective watersheds. This group will meet at least quarterly to provide input and to review the development of work products. Community Outreach Communication to the community at large will be supported by targeted community meetings, presentations at various local boards and homeowners associations, and utilization of the Watershed Program website (www.marinwatersheds.org). The program website provides dedicated information about the watershed and is

26

6

regularly updated with notices about workshops, meetings, proposals, and projects. The website platform integrates the Watershed Program with Flood Control and the resources of our MCSTOPPP website. Community outreach will be developed around these key messages:

1. Working at the watershed scale acknowledges the mutually dependent interactions and linkages between our ridge tops, the valley floor, creeks, and Richardson Bay.

2. The watershed approach acknowledges the need to work collaboratively to identify solutions to reducing flood hazards and improving habitat.

3. Implementation at the watershed scale takes time and is performed in tandem with the on-going maintenance and rehabilitation needs of existing infrastructure.

Tentative Schedule of Meetings and Milestones

2012

July Develop a summary of previous studies and existing conditions and data gaps (Tech Memo #1)

Aug TWG meeting to review scope, format, and schedule of WMP, and Tech Memo #1

Sep PAC meeting to discuss preliminary hydrology results (Tech Memo #2) and draft climate change mapping strategies

Oct TWG meeting to review hydrology modeling and strategies for climate change mapping and adaptation

Nov Community meeting proposed Dec Development of integrated project criteria

2013

Apr PAC meeting to review existing conditions hydraulics modeling results, sea level rise projections and review the list of potential project alternatives

May TWG meeting to review existing conditions, hydraulics modeling results, sea level rise projections,and the list of potential CIP project alternatives to be further evaluated

Sep PAC meeting to review recommended alternatives and financial strategy report

Oct TWG meeting to review H&H for alternatives analysis

Dec Release draft WMP for TWG and PAC review 2014 Feb TWG meeting to review draft WMP Apr PAC meeting to review draft WMP May Community meeting proposed Jul Final WMP released

27

7

Proposed Budget Expenditures Existing Conditions and Data Gaps $55,000 Watershed Hydrologic Modeling $60,000 Hydraulic Modeling (inc. sea level rise scenarios) $70,000 Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation Strategies $33,000 GIS Habitat Mapping $35,000 Surveying $75,000 Alternatives Analysis $40,000 Master Plan $180,000 Financial Strategy $22,000 Project Management $30,000 Stakeholder Process $30,000 Outreach (inc. website) $40,000 Equipment $10,000 Total $680,000 Revenue County of Marin $100,000 City of Mill Valley $100,000 Flood Control Zone 3 $240,000 Flood Control Zone 4 $240,000

Total: $680,000

28

8

Stakeholder Committees Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Supervisor Kate Sears Mill Valley City Council: Shawn Marshall and Garry Lions Flood Control Zone 3 Advisory Board: Linda Rames and Curry Ecklehoff Flood Control Zone 4 Advisory Board: Jerry Thayer Operations and Finance Committee James C. McCann, City Manager, Mill Valley Craig Tackabery, Assistant Director of Public Works, County of Marin Technical Working Group City of Mill Valley: Public Works: Jill Barnes and Bianca Gomez City of Mill Valley Planning: Mike Moore City of Mill Valley Parks: Rick Misuraca Flood Control Zone 3: Shawn McGhie and Robert Burton Flood Control Zone 4: Bob Rogers Marin County Flood Control District: Hannah Lee, Tracy Clay County of Marin Community Development Agency: Tom Lai State Coastal Conservancy: Tom Gandesbery BCDC: tbd Marin County Open Space District: Elise Holland Marin Municipal Water District: Greg Andrew Mill Valley Streamkeepers: Betsy Bikle Richardson Bay Audubon Center: Brooke Langston Local science expertise: Joan Florsheim Tamalpais Community Service District: Jon Elam Marin City Community Service District: to be determined Strawberry Recreation District: to be determined Homestead Valley Community Association: to be determined CalTrans: to be determined Mill Valley Fire Department: to be determined Corte Madera Fire Department: to be determined State and Federal Resource Agencies: US Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Game, Regional Board as needed

29

9

Watershed Program Staffing Liz Lewis, Principal Planner

• Manage overall schedule, deliverables development, program budget, and communication with partners • Provide input and review of WMP technical memorandums and other deliverables

Roger Leventhal, P.E. Associate Engineer

• Manage the Watershed Master Plan (WMP) study process • Draft the WMP and manage development of related maps and graphics • Update hydrology and hydraulics models for Coyote Creek and Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio • Develop hydrology and hydraulics calculations and models for the remaining sub-watersheds in

Richardson Bay as-needed • Provide briefings and updates to partners and local jurisdictions • Coordinate review of draft documents with management, counsel, and stakeholders and facilitate

discussion in technical work group meetings • Manage and review consultant products related to development of the WMP technical memorandums

and other deliverables Neal Conatser, Assistant Engineer

• Initiate pilot asset management pilot effort • Develop financial strategy to support project implementation • Provide input and review of WMP technical memorandums and other deliverables

Chris Choo, Senior Planner

• Coordinate outreach and meetings with the Technical Working Group • Manage EPA grant reports and deliverables • Provide input and review of WMP technical memorandums and other deliverables • Conduct habitat assessments and support data analysis

Laurie Williams, Senior Planner

• Develop GIS database to support restoration project planning and prioritization • Prepare maps for website and stakeholder meetings • Support asset management pilot project

Rob Carson, Planner

• Support the tasks funded through the EPA grant for Richardson Bay and develop and manage the Quality Assurance Protection Plan and Monitoring Plan for precipitation monitoring

30

The Community Development Block Grant Program - Fact Sheet

Basic Program Components • The CDBG Program is authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act

of 1974. The funds are a block grant that can be used to address critical and unmet

community needs including those for housing rehabilitation, public facilities, infrastructure,

economic development, public services, and more.

• Primary objective is to develop viable urban and rural communities, by expanding economic

opportunities and improving the quality of life, principally for persons of low and moderate

income.

• Since 1974, it has invested $144 Billion in communities nationwide.

• Appropriation level has varied over the 40 year program history – (3.10 B for FY 2014).

• Individual Community determines the need and use of funds.

• Each year approximately 95% of funds are invested in activities that primarily benefit low

and moderate income persons.

• For FY 2014 there are 1220 grantees including cities, counties, states, and insular areas, and

non-entitlement counties in Hawaii. However, potential reach is to every community either

directly or indirectly—more than 7,250 local governments have access to funding.

• CDBG is an important catalyst for economic growth- helping local officials leverage funds for

community needs.

2013 CDBG Program Accomplishments • Nearly 28,000 Americans found new permanent jobs or were able to retain their jobs at

businesses supported by CDBG economic development activities;

• More than 94,300 housing units received some level of housing rehabilitation assistance;

• More than 7,250 local governments, including more than 2,500 rural communities,

participated in CDBG through the entitlement, urban county, or state programs; and

31

• More than 9.8 million people live in areas which benefited from CDBG-funded public service

activities and almost 3.3 million live in areas which benefited from CDBG-financed public

improvements.

Historic Program Outcomes by Category

Job Creation and Retention o From fiscal year 2004-2013, CDBG economic development activities have directly

created or retained more than 421,183 permanent jobs.

o Between fiscal years 2007-2013 CDBG helped more than 232,000 businesses expand

economic opportunities for our country’s most vulnerable citizens.

Public Facilities and Public Services o CDBG grantees historically expend one-third of their funds annually on public

improvements.

o CDBG has improved public facilities that benefitted more than 33.7 million people

between fiscal years 2005 and 2013. These improvements assist in providing the critical

elements for suitable physical environments including sanitary water and sewer

systems, safe streets and transit-ways, improved drainage systems, and other

improvements that support our communities and help grow local economies.

o Up to 15 percent of CDBG funds can also be used by local governments on important

public services. These investments assist the most vulnerable populations in a

community, including children, the homeless, and victims of domestic violence. For low-

and moderate-income families, these are life-changing services.

Housing Activities o Grantees historically spend approximately one quarter of their CDBG funds for housing

activities, with the most significant activity being owner-occupied rehabilitation.

o From fiscal year 2004-2013 more than 1.3 million homes have been rehabilitated for

low- and moderate-income homeowners and renters

o In fiscal year 2013, more than 94,000 households received housing assistance, ranging

from minor emergency housing repairs enabling elderly and infirm residents to remain

in their own homes to weatherization improvements that result in more affordable

energy bills.

32

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program- Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the overall mission of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program?

The CDBG program, authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, provides annual grants to cities, counties and states to develop strong communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. CDBG eligible activities are initiated and developed at the state and local level based upon a community’s needs, priorities, and benefits.

2. What are the requirements for the use of the CDBG funds?

Each grantee receiving CDBG funds is free to determine what activities it will fund as long as certain requirements are met, including that each activity is eligible and meets one of the following national objectives: benefits persons of low and moderate income; aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meets an urgent development need which is defined as posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community in the past 18 months, and that the grantee is unable to finance on its own nor with other funding sources. Other Federal requirements such as environmental, labor standards, fair housing, nondiscrimination, also apply to the use of CDBG funds.

33

3. What is the overall appropriation level for this program and how much has been invested in communities since the program’s authorization in 1974?

The appropriation level has varied over the 40 year program history. The level is $3.10 B for FY 2014. Since 1974, CDBG has invested $144 billion in communities nationwide.

4. How many grantees across the nation will receive funding this year, Fiscal Year 2014?

There are currently 1,220 CDBG grantees that are receiving funding throughout the United States directly from HUD including cities, counties, states, insular areas, and non-entitlement counties in Hawaii. However, the potential reach is to every community either directly or indirectly—more than 7,250 local governments have access to funding.

5. Does CDBG fund the local government, organizations or individuals?

CDBG funds states, metropolitan cities and urban counties directly. Organizations and individuals cannot receive funds directly from HUD, but can apply for funding through their local government agency.

6. Can citizens participate in the planning/decision-making process around the use of CDBG funds?

CDBG-funded projects have a better chance of success when citizens are involved from the beginning. The CDBG law requires that a grantee must develop and follow a detailed plan which provides for, and encourages, citizen participation and which emphasizes participation by persons of low- or moderate-income, particularly residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, slum or blighted areas, and areas in which the grantee proposes to use CDBG funds. The plan must provide citizens with reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and records related to the grantee's proposed and actual use of funds.

34

7. What types of activities does the CDBG program fund?

CDBG funds 28 eligible activities that include infrastructure, economic development projects, installation of public facilities, community centers, housing rehabilitation, public services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, and homeowner assistance, to name a few.

8. What types of activities are most frequently funded with CDBG monies?

Historically, CDBG grantees expend one-third of their funds on public facilities and improvement projects. CDBG has improved public facilities that benefitted more than 33.7 million people between fiscal years 2005 and 2013. Infrastructure projects such as sewer systems, sanitary water, safe streets and transit-ways, improved drainage systems, community centers and public parks, and other improvements that support our communities and help grow local economies.

9. How Does the CDBG Program Support Economic Growth and Recovery?

From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2013, CDBG economic development activities have directly created or retained more than 421,183 permanent jobs. In addition, grantees provide financial assistance to businesses as loan and grants and the recipients use the CDBG assistance to expand economic opportunities and create permanent jobs, primarily for low and moderate income Americans. Between fiscal years 2007-2013, CDBG helped more than 232,000 businesses expand economic opportunities for our country’s most vulnerable citizens.

10. I need my home rehabilitated? Will CDBG pay for that?

You will need to contact your local grantee to find out if the grantee is using CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation and for any program requirements.

11. How many homes have been rehabilitated using CDBG funds?

From fiscal year 2004-2013, more than 1.3 million homes have been rehabilitated for low- and moderate-income homeowners and renters. In Fiscal year 2013 alone, more than 94,000 households received CDBG funding for some level of housing rehabilitation assistance ranging from emergency repairs to enable elderly and infirm residents to remain in their own homes to weatherization improvements that result in more affordable energy bills.

35

12. Can you leverage other funds with CDBG dollars and how is this done?

CDBG funds can be leveraged with other Federal, state, local or private funds to increase the impact of the funds. Facing local budget shortfalls, CDBG funding remains a crucial source of funding that helps communities leverage funds for key infrastructure and economic development projects. On projects where leveraging was reported for the fiscal years of 2010-2012, grantees reported that every dollar of CDBG funds leveraged an additional $4.07 of other funds.

13. How does CDBG’s Section 108 Program work with economic developers who want to leverage jobs with other funds and to create jobs?

The Section 108 Program is the loan guarantee provision of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program that provides states and communities with a source of financing for economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale development projects. This makes it one of the most important public investment tools that HUD offers to states and local governments. It allows them to transform a small portion of their CDBG funds into federally guaranteed loans large enough to pursue economic revitalization projects that can renew entire neighborhoods.

Such public investment is often needed to inspire private economic activity, providing the initial resources or simply the confidence that private firms and individuals may need to invest in distressed areas. Section 108 loans are not risk-free, however; local governments borrowing funds guaranteed by Section 108 must pledge their current and future CDBG allocations to cover the loan amount as security for the loan. For more information about the Section 108 program go to: https://www.onecpd.info/section-108/

14. How do I contact a CDBG grantee to find out if funding is available or to support a project where I live?

The following link provides a listing of all the CDBG grantees that currently receive funding directly from HUD: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/about/budget/budget14

36

15. How can a private citizen find out the projects that have received CDBG funding in their community?

Interested persons can check the CDBG grantee’s website for activities that were funded that program year and in some cases, in prior years. Please see the website below for the grantee contact information: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs/contacts

16. Where can I learn more about the CDBG Program?

To learn more about the Community Development Block Grant Program, click on the following links: https://www.onecpd.info/cdbg-entitlement/

https://www.onecpd.info/cdbg-state/

37

Your LOCAL Electricity Company

MCE started as a blue-sky idea bigger than any

one of us. With the help of local leadership, cham-

pion businesses, and people just like you, we’re

doing something BIG about climate change, one

energy bill at a time.

Residents and businesses in Marin County, unin-

corporated Napa County and the cities of Benicia, El Cerrito, Richmond and San Pablo now have lo-

cal, renewable electricity choices.

Our Partnership with PG&E

We procure electricity from renewable sources—solar, wind, bioenergy, geothermal, and small hy-

dro—then partner with PG&E to deliver electricity to your homes and businesses just like they al-

ways have. We do the work; you take advantage of cleaner, healthier energy. And because PG&E

still maintains the electric lines, you continue to get all the support and reliability you’ve come to

expect from your power company. Except now, half of your energy automatically comes from re-

newable sources.

Our Mission

Our mission is to address climate change by reducing energy related greenhouse gas emissions

through renewable energy supply and energy efficiency at stable and competitive rates for custom-

ers while providing local economic and workforce benefits.

Our Promise

At MCE, we promise to do the best we can to provide you with clean, renewable energy at stable

and affordable rates. Why renewable? So that we can be a part of the solution, and not the problem.

Renewables come from constantly replenishing a virtually limitless supply of natural resources.

Think sun, wind, tides, bioenergy and geothermal heat. By turning to these sources instead of fossil

fuels, we can help create a clean and secure energy future for California.

Our Impacts

63,482 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions eliminated

$16 million+ saved by customers in 2014-15

2,400+ California jobs supported

7.7 million+ gallons of waters saved

38

Welcome to the North Bay Watershed AssociationThe North Bay Watershed Association (NBWA) is a group of 16 regional and local public agencies located throughout Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties. We are committed to crafting a set of regional approaches to the problems and issues associated with managing our common watershed. Our mission is to facilitate partnerships across political boundaries that promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed resources.

The North Bay Watershed Association was created to help regulated local and regional public agencies work cooperatively on water resources issues that impact areas beyond traditional boundaries in order to promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed. Agencies participate in the NBWA in order to discuss issues of common interest, explore ways to work collaboratively on water resources projects of regional concern, and share information about projects, regulations, and technical issues.

If you would like more information on NBWA, please contact us. 2016 SaveTheDate Flyer Register

Come see "What's New" at NBWA

Next NBWA Board Meeting

Friday, Jan 8, 20169:30 am -- 11:30 amThe Marin Community FoundationMore information...

Next Watershed Council Meeting

Wednesday, Mar 18, 20153:00pm -- 5:00pmPoint Blue Conservation ScienceMore information...

North Bay Watershed Agecies

• Bel Marin Keys Community Services District • Central Marin Sanitation Agency • City of Novato • City of Petaluma • City of San Rafael • City of Sonoma • County of Marin • County of Sonoma • Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District • Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Program • Marin Municipal Water District • Napa County Flood Control and Water

Conservation District • Napa Sanitation District • North Marin Water District • Novato Sanitary District • Ross Valley Sanitary District • Sonoma County Water Agency • Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District • City of Mill Valley

(Group Associate Member)• Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin

(Group Associate Member)• The Bay Institute

(Associate Member)• Tomales Bay Watershed Council

(Associate Member)

The mission of the NBWA is to

facilitate partnerships across

political boundaries that

promote stewardship of the

North Bay watershed resources.

© North Bay Watershed Association, 2011. All rights reserved.Site Design: JM Design

GO

HOME ABOUT NBWA NBWA BOARD PROJECTS COMMITTEES WATERSHED COUNCIL WHAT'S NEW CONFERENCES LIBRARY LINKS CONTACT

Page 1 of 1North Bay Watershed Association | Welcome

1/6/2016http://www.nbwatershed.org/39

About NBWA

Mission and Goals

The mission of the NBWA is to facilitate partnerships across political boundaries that promote stewardship of the North San Pablo Bay watershed resources. This mission is accomplished through meeting NBWA's goals:

• Bring together local agencies to work cooperatively and effectively on issues of common interest.

• Be proactive on watershed based regulation, which increasingly affects areas beyond traditional political boundaries.

• Work cooperatively to increase eligibility for watershed based funding.

• Maximize effective use of resources.

• Enhance the NBWA's influence on local, state, and federal policies and programs.

• Educate communities about the importance of watershed stewardship.

Organization

Next NBWA Board Meeting

Friday, Jan 8, 20169:30 am -- 11:30 amThe Marin Community FoundationMore information...

Next Watershed Council Meeting

Wednesday, Mar 18, 20153:00pm -- 5:00pmPoint Blue Conservation ScienceMore information...

North Bay Watershed Agecies

• Bel Marin Keys Community Services District • Central Marin Sanitation Agency • City of Novato • City of Petaluma • City of San Rafael• City of Sonoma • County of Marin • County of Sonoma • Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District • Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Program • Marin Municipal Water District • Napa County Flood Control and Water

Conservation District • Napa Sanitation District • North Marin Water District • Novato Sanitary District • Ross Valley Sanitary District • Sonoma County Water Agency • Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District • City of Mill Valley

(Group Associate Member)• Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin

(Group Associate Member)• The Bay Institute

(Associate Member)• Tomales Bay Watershed Council

(Associate Member)

The mission of the NBWA is to

facilitate partnerships across

political boundaries that

promote stewardship of the

North Bay watershed resources.

© North Bay Watershed Association, 2011. All rights reserved.Site Design: JM Design

GO

HOME ABOUT NBWA NBWA BOARD PROJECTS COMMITTEES WATERSHED COUNCIL WHAT'S NEW CONFERENCES LIBRARY LINKS CONTACT

Page 1 of 1NBWA | About NBWA

1/6/2016http://www.nbwatershed.org/v2/pages/about.php40

About Us

The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is designated as both the congestion management agency and the transportation sales tax authority for Marin County. As the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), TAM addresses Marin's unique transportation issues, fulfilling the legislative requirements of Propositions 111 and 116, approved in June 1990. TAM was designated the sales tax authority in 2004, for the purpose of administering the 1/2 cent transportation sales tax in Marin County, passed by voters in November 2004 as Measure A.

The Authority is responsible for managing a variety of transportation projects and programs in Marin County, receiving federal, state, regional, and local funds, working closely with all eleven cities and towns as well as the county. The TAM Board includes representatives from each of the cities and towns in Marin County, plus the five members of the Board of Supervisors. The TAM Board meets monthly and operates under a variety of committees.

Page 1 of 1Transportation Authority of Marin : About Us

1/6/2016http://www.tam.ca.gov/index.aspx?page=4941

Mission Statement

TAM is dedicated to making the most of Marin county transportation dollars, and creating an efficient and effective transportation system that promotes mobility and accessibility by providing a variety of high quality transportation options to all users.

Page 1 of 1Transportation Authority of Marin : Mission Statement

1/6/2016http://www.tam.ca.gov/index.aspx?page=34342

FOLLOW OUR PROGRESS

Check our website for project information, updates and to sign up for our e-newsletter at www.sonomamarintrain.org

Email your questions or comments about the project: info@sonomamarintrain.org

Request information about construction in your neighborhood by calling our toll-free Project Information line: (855) 312-7444

KEEP IN TOUCH

FUN FACTS

State-of-the-Art Infrastructure

▪ Crews are replacing the 60-100 year old track with new rail, ties, ballast and track switches — rebuilding from the subgrade up.

▪ Local road crossings at the track are being upgraded with modern concrete panels, for easier passage for pedestrians, wheelchairs, bicycles and cars.

▪ Each new section of rail is about five football fields long. It’s continuously welded for a smooth, quiet ride — no more ‘clickety-clack’!

Sustainability Focus

▪ Old ties, rail and even bridge sections are being recycled or saved for re-use. The new rail has majority recycled content.

▪ New concrete ties and steel rail are inert materials = net environmental benefit.

▪ Made in the U.S. — shorter shipping distances = reduced emissions

Rails manufactured in Pueblo, CO Ties made in Spokane, WA Trains assembled in Rochelle, IL Ballast—100% local suppliers

▪ Rails & ties shipped by rail — one ton of freight can be shipped 500 miles on one gallon of fuel!

▪ New Haystack Bridge in Petaluma is a re-purposed span with 85 years useful life.

Local Economic Benefits

▪ Almost 1/2 of subcontractors are local, accounting for about 50% of total construction—more than 183,500 local labor hours to date.

▪ SMART Contracts have put more than $24 million directly into the local economy through use of local materials and service suppliers.

A Little History

▪ The North Bay rail network was extensive through the first half of the 20th century. Freight ran until the late 1990’s — and started up again under NCRA/NWP Co. in 2011. The last passenger train ran in 1958.

▪ Local governments worked with the Golden Gate Bridge District in the late 1980’s to preserve the right-of-way for future passenger rail use.

▪ SMART was created in 2002 by state legislation. Measure Q was passed by voters in 2008.

5401 Old Redwood Highway Suite 200

Petaluma, CA 94954 www.sonomamarintrain.org

P: (707) 794-3330 F: (707) 794-3037

Updated Feb 2015

The only safe and legal place to cross railroad tracks is at a designated crossing — indicated by the crossbuck sign as seen here.

Tracks are for trains — not for games! Besides being subject to fines, trespassers endanger lives. It is illegal to walk, jog, play or bike on the tracks.

REQUEST A FREE RAIL SAFETY PRESENTATION!

Help build a RAIL-SAFE COMMUNITY, visit www.caol.us and click “Request a Presentation”

BE “TRACK SMART”

SMART TRAIN & PATHWAY PROJECT

OVERVIEW WHAT IS SMART?

SMART is a voter-approved passenger rail and bicycle-pedestrian pathway

project located in Marin and Sonoma counties. It will serve a 70-mile corridor

from Larkspur to Cloverdale, with a first phase from San Rafael to Santa Rosa.

SMART will connect residents and

visitors with jobs, education,

recreation and services.

Today, more than 75% of commuters

in the North Bay travel either within

or between the two counties to get

to work. And the North Bay draws

visitors from all over the world

seeking a variety of recreation and

leisure activities.

The SMART train and pathway

provide options to get out of your car

to get where you need to go, for work

or for fun — and to do work or have

fun along the way.

And for every driver who leaves a car

behind, traffic improves for everyone.

43

PHASE 1 SUMMARY

Project

▪ Passenger rail service is scheduled to begin in late 2016 and will serve 70-80% of estimated ridership for the full system

▪ 43 miles—Downtown San Rafael to Airport Blvd north of Santa Rosa

▪ Total projected cost for Phase 1 is estimated at $428 million

SMART Pathway System

▪ Links segments constructed by SMART with existing segments and other planned projects to create one of the longest continuous bicycle-pedestrian pathways in the country

▪ Phase 1 Pathway segments are focused on access to stations, high potential use and bridging gaps between existing segments

▪ “Rail with trail” allows longer, multi-modal trips

Stations

▪ 10 stations: Santa Rosa (Airport Blvd., Guerneville Rd. & Railroad Square) Rohnert Park (Rohnert Park Expressway), Cotati (East Cotati Ave.), Petaluma (Downtown), Novato (San Marin/Atherton & Hamilton), and San Rafael (Marin Civic Center & Downtown)

▪ Level boarding and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant

▪ Express Connector bus service between Santa Rosa and future station locations in Windsor, Healdsburg and Cloverdale, and between Downtown San Rafael and Larkspur

Passenger Cars

▪ 7 two-car train sets

▪ Self-propelled Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) are comfortable and reliable

▪ Environmentally friendly engines meet stringent “Tier 4” EPA requirements; economical to operate

▪ “Buy-America” compliant and manufactured in Rochelle, IL

▪ Each train set has capacity for up to 158 seated passengers, 160 standing passengers and 24 bicycles — depending on mix of bikes, wheelchairs, strollers and use of flip seats

Schedule

▪ Trains will operate in both directions every 30 minutes during peak commute hours, with a mid-day trip and weekend service planned as well

Fare

▪ Fares will be comparable with other transit options

▪ Clipper® cards will be utilized for fare collection

Speed

▪ Top speed of 79 mph; average speed (including stops) of 40 mph

▪ Strategically placed sidings allow trains to operate and pass in both directions at standard speeds

▪ A train ride from Santa Rosa to San Rafael will take about an hour

44

MCCMC Legislative Committee: Established by MCCMC Bylaws. The Legislative Committee shall consist of a Councilmember from each of the member cities, chosen by their respective City Councils, and two city managers. Its duties shall be to review pending Federal and State legislation affecting cities and to make recommendations to the COUNCIL on the action to be taken. Meets on the fourth Monday of the month at 8:00 AM San Rafael City Hall. MCCMC Joint Services Authority Oversight Committee: Committee shall consist of a Councilmember from each of the member cities, chosen by their respective City Councils, and one member of the Board of Supervisors. Committee will meet as needed to provide policy oversight to General Services Joint Powers Agency. Meets as needed. Pat Eklund replaced Larry Chu as Chair in 2010.

45

Search

QUICK LINKSABAG Overview

Who We Are, What We Do

Programs & Activities

Member Cities, Towns & Counties

Governance

Meetings & Agendas

Partner Agencies

Who We Are

What We Do

Additional Planning Projects

Budget & Work Program (PDF)

Who We Are, What We DoWho We AreIn 1961, the Bay Area's local governments came together to form ABAG as a response to state legislation that would have supplanted local control over all bridges, ports, and transit operations in the Bay Area.

ABAG's mission ever since has been to strengthen cooperation and collaboration among local governments to provide innovative and cost effective solutions to common problems that they face.

The ABAG Planning and Research Department works with local governments and stakeholders to develop and implement innovative solutions for issues involving land use planning, housing, transportation, environmental climate change, earthquakes and disaster resilience, and economic equity.

A variety of cost-effective member service programs—ABAG Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN) Corporation, ABAG Financial Services and ABAG POWER Natural Gas Pool—address the comprehensive needs of local governments such as financing, risk management, natural gas, and employee training.

What We DoABAG provides planning and research resources related to land use, housing, environmental and water resource protection, disaster resilience, energy efficiency and hazardous waste mitigation, risk management, financial services and staff training to local cities, and

About ABAG Communities & Environment

Service Programs

Page 1 of 3ABAG: Who We Are, What We Do

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/whowhat.html46

towns. ABAG's planning and research programs are committed to addressing sustainability, resilience and equity in the region.

ABAG builds collaborative partnerships with local governments, Bay Area leaders and citizens throughout the region to establish shared goals and create a broader framework to examine economic, social and environmental challenges for the region and future generations. Collaborative participation envisioned in these partnerships represents a comprehensive strategy to guide how we want to grow, adapt to change, preserve member communities' unique qualities, and create more vibrant and successful initiatives that maximize ABAG's regional planning objectives and resources.

ABAG PLAN offers affordable general liability, property insurance, claims management, risk management, and bond coverage to 30 municipalities. ABAG Financial Services issues tax-exempt capital financing on behalf of local jurisdictions in California for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable multifamily housing, health care facilities, schools, and other community facilities. The ABAG POWER Natural Gas Pool conducts pooled purchasing of natural gas on behalf of 38 local governments and special districts and allows participants to work collectively to save resources

Additional Planning ProjectsOther beneficial ABAG Planning and Research Department projects include job and population research, data analysis, earthquake preparedness research, and on-line and on-site classes. ABAG oversees the San Francisco Estuary Project, the Bay Trail Project, and the Water Trail. ABAG also operates as the state-designated clearinghouse for federal grant applications.

ABAG provides cost-effective member services to local governments struggling with rising costs and diminishing income. Depending on the issue, we coordinate closely with MTC, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and other agencies. Our local service programs include ABAG PLAN (Risk Management and Insurance Services), ABAG Financial Services, ABAG Online Hazardous Materials Training Program, and ABAG POWER. These programs represent another dimension of the variety of services, specialized training, and planning resources, and publications available to member agencies.

ABAG also sponsors workshops and conferences where local officials and staff, business and industry leaders, special interest groups, and

Page 2 of 3ABAG: Who We Are, What We Do

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/whowhat.html47

private citizens explore and discuss programs and issues of regional significance.

Budget and Work ProgramFor more information about ABAG's Work Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016, please visit http://abag.ca.gov/abag/overview/workplan/ABAGBdgtWrkPrgAPPROVED216.pdf

© 2014–2015 Association of Bay Area Governments 101 Eighth St. Oakland CA 94607(510) 464-7900 Contact Us

Page 3 of 3ABAG: Who We Are, What We Do

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/whowhat.html48

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

ABAG Program Activities and Impact # of Employees Revenue, Grants, and Budget

Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN)

Nine-county Bay Area, all 101 cities and nine counties Advances local government capacity to offer, implement and deliver energy efficiency & other sustainable services to their constituents. Works towards California’s reliable and sustainable energy future, includes: water, greenhouse gases, and resiliency issues Coordinates multiple regional efforts and delivers integrated solutions to meet California’s aggressive climate change goals

1.0 FTE; 4.0 PTE Awarded a total contract of over $39 million Since inception, awarded grants totaling $39 million Approved for continued funding

Finance/Accounting In addition to full-cycle accounting services for ABAG, provides full-cycle accounting services for: Other ABAG-related entities San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transit Authority Alameda County Green Business Program

6.0 FTE Accounting staff shared with ABAG and ABAG-related entities

Finance Authority for Nonprofits (FAN)

Enables public agencies and private organizations to maximize resources Opens up the municipal bond market and other financing opportunities Improves access to capital at low interest rates

1.0 FTE Revenue from ongoing bond administration and fees from new financings To date, provided more than $9 billion in capital financing on behalf of members

Land-Use Planning and Research

Serve as a resource for policy makers and local planning staff on land-use policies and programs that enhance regional as well as local well-being Conducts a wide range of land use planning and research activities that support development and implementation of Plan Bay Area in conjunction with the MTC, local jurisdictions and stakeholders Addresses housing affordability, production and preservation by initiating and supporting efforts to develop new funding sources for, and to remove obstacles to, local infill and addresses displacement Conduct regional housing need allocation (RHNA) process with towns, cities and counties Update and provide planning assistance, research, and institutional coordination for implementation of PDAs, PCAs, and preservation of industrial areas, critical to economic vitality Continue to support local and regional economic development through a variety of activities

14.0 FTE

Approximately $ 4 M from MTC, the Strategic Growth council and other small grants

49

Pollution Prevention and Waste Reduction - Green Business Program

Regional coordination of Bay Area Green Business Program Originating member of the statewide Green Business Network 2,289 of the 2800 businesses (est 80%) are located in the Bay Area Promote sustainable business practices among small and medium size businesses in Bay Area region

.25 PTE Revenue from county fees: $60,000 Currently 2800 certified green businesses statewide conserving: 124M gallons of water, reducing 822,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, diverting 419,000 tons of waste from landfill, and generating $30M energy efficiency utility savings

Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN)

Provides municipal property, liability, and crime insurance coverage to 28 Bay Area cities and towns Enables members manage risk/exposure to claims and stabilizes liability and insurance costs Grant program provides funding to reduce claim frequency through best practices sharing and safety/loss control consultation Provides claims administration services to members, controlling and managing cost and claims defense Sponsors annual major conferences, Sewer Summit and Urban Forest Council, with capacity audiences year after year Train members via additional risk training seminars to identify and mitigate hazards and prevent losses

6.0 FTE Revenue $9.25 M from member premiums Grant program provided over $23 M in dividends, including program funding since inception Saved members $1.3 M since 2013 via contracted TPA services Invested $300k in annually in training program and platform

Publicly Owned Energy Resources (POWER)

Natural gas aggregation and procurement for 38 local governments and special districts within PG&E service territory Provides both cost savings & long-term price stability

2.0 FTE Approximately $8 million/yr budget. Funded through fees attached to natural gas sales 95% of funds are pass-through

Resilience Program Develop a regional land use pattern which reduces the risk of natural hazards Provide a platform for local governments to jointly plan, share best practices and propose solutions to regional resilience challenges Provide tools for local governments to develop and implement resilience solutions Improve the resilience of the region’s building stock by promoting stronger codes and upgrading existing buildings Disseminate scientific information in an understandable and usable way that facilitates good policy and planning decisions

3.0 FTE, 0.5 PTE

$1.3 million grant funding from FEMA through October 2017 $300,000 grant funding from Rockefeller Foundation through October 2016 $68,271 grant funding from United States Geological Survey through December 2016

San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail

Coordinate completion of a growing network of launching and landing sites in all nine counties around San Francisco Bay for non-motorized small boats Partnership project with Coastal Conservancy, BCDC and Division of Boating and Waterways

.75 FTE $1.75 million Coastal Conservancy block grant provides staff support and grant program pass through funds through March 2017

San Francisco Bay Trail Completion of a 500-mile continuous hiking and bicycling trail for recreation and active transportation around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay linking nine counties and 47 cities. Over 340 miles complete. Project has significant support from elected officials, local jurisdictions, numerous agencies, organizations and the public Bay Trail non-profit board of directors provides ongoing project direction

3.25 FTE Staff costs and project operations funded through MTC bridge toll funds. Funding approved annually; $715,380 secured through June 2016 MTC bridge toll funds provided for project operations since 1989 Grant program pass-through funds from state park bonds via Coastal Conservancy. Over $18 million awarded since 1999 for planning, design, engineering and construction

San Francisco Estuary Partnership

Part of National Estuary Program, US EPA under Section 320, Clean Water Act Protect, restore, and enhance water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in and around the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary Coalition of resource agencies, state, local and county governments, non-profits, citizens, and scientists Pass-through funding for over 60 projects responding to climate change/sea level rise, restore wetlands and creeks, enhance water supply during the drought, and offer water conservation rebates Grantee for San Francisco Bay region Integrated Regional Water Management funding, managing projects and facilitating funding for dozens of projects to improve water supply and water quality ($93 million) Staffs San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, poised to bring a ballot measure for a local fee for wetland restoration funding Hosts the State of the Estuary Conference every two years, convening more than 800 scientists

12 FTE Funded via variety of state, federal and other sources that total $22.5 million currently $20.2 million goes to a wide variety of projects around the region Over the next five years, $100 million will go to projects and partners around the region

Training Center (HazMat Training)

Provides online safety training for field workers and first responders in the Bay Area and beyond. Offers courses on economical and practical ways for organizations to satisfy OSHA and DOT training requirements

1.0 FTE $0.6M in course fees

50

Search

QUICK LINKSABAG Overview

Who We Are, What We Do

Programs & ActivitiesMember Cities, Towns &

Counties

Governance

Meetings & Agendas

Partner Agencies

ABAG Members

Who can join ABAG?

ABAG Membership Directory

ABAG MembersABAG's voluntary members are towns, cities, and counties which represents the region's nine-county population of more than 7 million people. ABAG member services include research and analysis, planning and outreach, as well as cost-effective service programs. Building coalitions and strategic partnerships within the Bay region and beyond have reinforced ABAG's problem-solving techniques and approaches to issues affecting the Bay Area.

Who can join ABAG?Only governmental organizations are eligible for ABAG membership. Non-profits, corporations, and private individuals cannot serve as members. Associate memberships are no longer offered.

ABAG Membership Directory

About ABAG Communities & Environment

Service Programs

Page 1 of 5ABAG: Members

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/members.html51

County of Alameda

• City of Alameda

• City of Albany

• City of Berkeley

• City of Dublin

• City of Emeryville

• City of Fremont

• City of Hayward

• City of Livermore

• City of Newark

• City of Oakland

• City of Piedmont

• City of Pleasanton

• City of San Leandro

• City of Union City

County of Contra Costa

County of Marin

• City of Belvedere

• Town of Fairfax

• City of Larkspur

• City of Mill Valley

• City of Novato

• Town of Ross

• Town of San Anselmo

• City of San Rafael

• City of Sausalito

• Town of Tiburon

County of Napa

• City of American Canyon

• City of Calistoga

• City of Napa

• City of St. Helena

County of Santa Clara

• City of Campbell

• City of Cupertino

• City of Gilroy

• City of Los Altos

• Town of Los Altos Hills

• Town of Los Gatos

• City of Milpitas

• City of Monte Sereno

• City of Morgan Hill

• City of Mountain View

• City of Palo Alto

• City of San Jose

• City of Santa Clara

• City of Saratoga

• City of Sunnyvale

Page 2 of 5ABAG: Members

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/members.html52

• City of Antioch

• City of Brentwood

• City of Clayton

• City of Concord

• Town of Danville

• City of El Cerrito

• City of Hercules

• City of Lafayette

• City of Martinez

• Town of Moraga

• City of Oakley

• City of Orinda

• City of Pinole

• City of Pittsburg

• City of Pleasant Hill

• City of Richmond

• City of San Pablo

• Town of Yountville

City and County of San Francisco

County of San Mateo

• Town of Atherton

• City of Belmont

• City of Brisbane

• City of Burlingame

• Town of Colma

• City of Daly City

• City of East Palo Alto

• City of Foster City

• City of Half Moon Bay

• Town of Hillsborough

• City of Menlo Park

• City of Millbrae

County of Solano

• City of Benicia

• City of Dixon

• City of Fairfield

• City of Rio Vista

• City of Suisun City

• City of Vacaville

• City of Vallejo

County of Sonoma

• City of Cloverdale

• City of Cotati

• City of Healdsburg

• City of Petaluma

• City of Rohnert Park

• City of Santa Rosa

Page 3 of 5ABAG: Members

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/members.html53

• City of San Ramon

• City of Walnut Creek

• City of Pacifica

• Town of Portola Valley

• City of Redwood City

• City of San Bruno

• City of San Carlos

• City of San Mateo

• City of South San Francisco

• Town of Woodside

• City of Sebastopol

• City of Sonoma

• Town of Windsor

Cooperating members in the Bay Area• Alameda Contra Costa Transit

District

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District

• Bay Area Rapid Transit District

• Bay Planning Coalition

• Central Contra Costa Sanitary District

• East Bay Municipal Utility District

• East Bay Regional Park District

• Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District

Page 4 of 5ABAG: Members

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/members.html54

• Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District

• Port of Oakland

• San Mateo County Harbor District

• Transbay Joint Powers Authority

Cooperating members outside the Bay Area• City of Rocklin

© 2014–2015 Association of Bay Area Governments101 Eighth St. Oakland CA 94607 (510) 464-7900 Contact Us

Page 5 of 5ABAG: Members

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/members.html55

Search

QUICK LINKSABAG Overview

Who We Are, What We Do

Programs & ActivitiesMember Cities, Towns &

Counties

Governance

General Assembly

Executive Board

Administrative CommitteeFinance & Personnel

CommitteeLegislation & Govermental

Organization Committee

Regional Planning Committee

Full Committee List (PDF)

Meetings & Agendas

Partner Agencies

ABAG GovernanceFormed by a Joint Powers Authority in 1961, ABAG is a voluntary membership and advisory organization with limited statutory authority. The agency is governed by a General Assembly and Executive Board with standing and interagency committees. An elected official from each of the nine counties and 101 member cities and towns serves as a delegate to its General Assembly, which determines policy annually, adopts the annual budget and work program, and reviews the policy actions of ABAG's Executive Board. ABAG convenes its General Assembly once every year in April. Conference attendees include Bay Area elected officials, civic and business leaders, and researchers from leading academic institutions to identify and address land use planning, sustainability, and other policy issues that impact the entire region. The 38-member Executive Board meets bimonthly to make operating decisions, appoint committee members, authorize expenditures, and recommend policy.

ABAG Meetings and Agendas

About ABAG Communities & Environment

Service Programs

Page 1 of 4ABAG: Governance

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/governance.html56

All meetings are open to the public. Upcoming meeting agendas and past minutes are posted at http://abag.ca.gov/meetings. Videos of some ABAG meetings are available at http://regional-video.com/.

Executive BoardThe Executive Board usually meets the third Thursday of every other month. Of the 38 voting memberships on the Executive Board, 35 are appointed to reflect the population size of each Bay Area county. The president, vice president, and immediate past president also serve as voting members of the Executive Board. Advisory, non-voting members representing state or federal agencies may be invited to serve at the pleasure of the Executive Board. County representatives are selected by their boards of supervisors. City representatives are appointed by the mayors of member cities in each county. (Those officials representing the City of Oakland and the City of San Jose are appointed by their respective councils; the City of San Francisco representative is appointed by the mayor.) Each of these appointing authorities may appoint alternates to the members selected.

More information

Standing Committees

Administrative CommitteeThe Administrative Committee acts for the Executive Board in a month when the Board does not meet or in an emergency when a quorum of the Board cannot be convened. It also studies and submits reports and recommendations to the Executive Board on such matters as may be assigned by the Board.

More information

Page 2 of 4ABAG: Governance

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/governance.html57

Finance & Personnel CommitteeThe focus area of this committee includes the proposed annual budget prepared by the Executive Director; annual audit of financial affairs for the Association; financial and budgetary status of the Association and reports to the General Assembly. The committee also advises on personnel rules and regulations; salary and benefits plans; and diversity and business opportunity reports. In addition, the Finance & Personnel Committee serves as Board of Directors for ABAG, Inc. and ABAG Finance Corp. and manages other matters assigned by the Executive Board, including litigation; and investigations related to complaints against Board Appointed Executives.

More information

Legislation & Governmental Organization Committee (L&GO)The L&GO provides to the Executive Board recommendations for ABAG's legislative program; studies proposals affecting regional organization; advises on proposed amendments to the Association's Bylaws; provides recommendations for Association policy on regional, state and national issues, and handles other matters as assigned by the Executive Board.

More information

Regional Planning Committee (RPC)Provides oversight to the Executive Board on matters related to the preparation and implementation of the Regional Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Components of the plan include environmental management, housing, and infrastructure planning. The RPC receives input on special plans and reports from planning task forces or other regional agencies, and advises on comprehensive planning policies and procedures, along with other matters as assigned by the Executive Board.

Page 3 of 4ABAG: Governance

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/governance.html58

More information

All CommitteesFor a full listing of the standing committee membership and other ABAG committees click here (PDF)

© 2014–2015 Association of Bay Area Governments101 Eighth St. Oakland CA 94607 (510) 464-7900 Contact Us

Page 4 of 4ABAG: Governance

1/6/2016http://abag.ca.gov/overview/governance.html59

A COUNTYWIDE RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Our Mission

MERA is a collection of public agencies formed in part-

nership to provide and operate a public safety radio sys-

tem. As such, MERA provides a crucial communications

delivery system that is interoperable between public agencies in order to efficiently and effectively facilitate

critical (emergency) communications.

Vision Statement

MERA provides essential communications between and among local and regional public entities that serve all

facets of public safety including Fire, Police, Public Works, Special Districts, Transportation and other Emer-

gency Responders, to facilitate the protection of lives and property and enhance the safety of citizens, workers

and visitors.

Core Values

The service and operational attributes of these Values shall serve as MERA's organizational code of behavior:

The Marin Emergency Radio Authority (MERA) is a Joint Powers Authority in Marin County, California, formed in 1998 to plan, implement and manage a countywide public safety and emergency radio system for the use of all member agencies. This system helps unify public safety response and ensures communication among indi-vidual agencies and departments.

The system of 17 base station radio and receiver sites provides regional or coutywide radio communications among dispatch centers and mobile units throughout the county. View a map of the system.

MERA is governed by a Governing Board comprised of representatives from the County of Marin, all cities,

towns, and fire districts in Marin, and other special districts such as the Marin Municipal Water District. The

Executive Officer and Operations Officer serve the Governing Board via contract.

Leadership: To set by example the standards we expect others to follow

Integrity: To maintain the highest ethical principles and act in a completely transpar-

ent manner that merits respect and confidence

Diversity: To respect the individual differences that provide a source of strength and

enable a persistent team approach to identify and overcome obstacles

Empowerment: To encourage responsible decision-making at all levels

Continuous Quality Improvement: To continually strive to deliver the highest quality,

responsive, timely, constantly improving public service to both internal and external

clients

Fiscal Responsibility: To promote sound, fiscally-minded decision-making at all levels,

without compromising service

60