Regional Planning Partnership · Regional Planning Partnership Wednesday, February 26, 2014, 2:00 p.m. ... Using delegated authority from the RPP, the Project Level Conformity Group

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814

tel: 916.321.9000 fax: 916.321.9551 tdd: 916.321.9550 www.sacog.org

Regional Planning Partnership

Wednesday, February 26, 2014, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. American/Sacramento Rivers Room

Teleconference Information: Dial-in #: 888-431-3598

Access Code: 6748387102 (New) 1. Introductions and Information Sharing

2. Approve December 4, 2013, Action Summary◄ (Mr. Cáceres)

3. Update on Eastern Solano Projects of Air Quality Concern (Mr. Jones)

4. Project Level Conformity Working Group Update (Mr. Cáceres)

5. 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Update

A. 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Outreach Update (Ms. Hernández)

B. Inventory of Adopted and Proposed Land Use Plans (Initial Focus on New Greenfield Plans) (Ms. Lizon)

6. Input Solicited for Active Transportation MPO Program Guidelines (Ms. DeVere-Oki)

7. Review of Regional Freight and Weight Restricted Routes (Mr. Holtzen)

8. Other Matters

9. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 26, 2014. ◄ Indicates Action The Meridian Plaza Building is accessible to the disabled. If requested, this agenda, and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact SACOG for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should contact SACOG by phone at 916-321-9000, e-mail ([email protected]) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Parking is available at 15th and K Streets

Page 1 of 3

Regional Planning Partnership I tem #2

Action Summary December 4, 2013

Attendees: Mike Brady, Caltrans Victoria S. Cacciatore, SACOG José Luis Cáceres, SACOG Tracy Canfield, Sacramento Regional

Transit District Matt Carpenter, SACOG Jason Crow, ARB John Deeter, ECOS Woody Deloria, EDCTC Renée DeVere-Oki, SACOG Chris Dougherty, City of West Sacramento Gordon Garry, SACOG Clint Holtzen, SACOG Aaron Hoyt, PCTPA Matt Jones, Yolo-Solano AQMD

JJ Killian, City of Colfax Amy Lee, SACOG Kacey Lizon, SACOG Mark Loutzenhiser, Sacramento

Metropolitan AQMD Karina O’Connor, EPA Mary Poole, City of Citrus Heights Larry Robinson, Sacramento Metropolitan

AQMD Sam Shelton, SACOG Angela Shepard, Caltrans Michael Sidhu, SACOG Karen Taylor, Sacramento Metropolitan

AQMD

1. Introductions & Information Sharing. Mr. Robinson shared that Sacramento Metropolitan

AQMD will be hiring for the position of planner.

2. Approve October 23 Action Summary. Mr. Robinson moved to approve the action summary of the October 23 meeting; Ms. Poole seconded the motion. The Partnership voted in favor of approving the action summary and the motion carried.

3. 2013-2014 Flexible Funding Programming Round Recommendations and Adoption of the 2014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. DeVere-Oki introduced the draft 2013-14 Flexible Funding project list, which was first presented to the Partnership at the October meeting. She noted that the list has been presented to all SACOG committees and the Board of Directors, and the summary of discussion surrounding the Capitol Southeast Connector funding request from the October 31 Transportation Committee could be viewed in Attachment C. The projects recommended for funding and the dollar amounts have not changed since they were originally released. Ms. DeVere-Oki added that, following the approval of recommended project list, additional staff work is needed before project sponsors can claim the awarded funds, such as a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program amendment to add in new projects and awarded funds, the submittal of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)

Page 2 of 3

to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and the execution of any Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with project sponsors. Mr. Robinson moved to approve the final 2013-2014 Flexible Federal Programming Round project list, authorize staff to submit the RTIP to the CTC, authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and execute any MOUs with project sponsors, and prepare any necessary MTIP amendments; Mr. Crow seconded the motion. The Partnership voted to approve the item and the motion carried.

4. 2013 Delivery Plan Results. Mr. Shelton provided background on the 2013 Project Delivery Plan and informed the Partnership that the region exceeded its delivery target of $37.8 million and was able to claim an additional $486,000 as a result. When asked how the region could spend more than our allocated amount and not be operating on a deficit, Ms. DeVere-Oki explained that the region can borrow unused federal funds from other regions and the state can borrow money from other states, but, unlike region-to-region borrowing, the state does not have to pay those funds back. Additionally, the state takes steps to ensure that California does not lose any of its allocated federal funds, meaning that some regions need to spend more than their allocated amount because others will spend less. In that respect, the SACOG region spending more than the target amount is a good thing because it enables the state to spend all of their allotted funds, and it will not have a negative effect on our ability to spend funds in the future.

5. 2016 MTP/SCS Update

a. Regional Growth Projections. Ms. Lizon informed the Partnership of the “trial balloon approach” recommended by MTP/SCS staff, which proposes the use of the growth projections from the MTP/SCS 2035 and extending them to 2036 for the upcoming MTP/SCS update. The proposal would only adjust the horizon year of the plan and growth projections; any changes to the interim targets for attainment, scenarios, distribution of growth, jobs, and development will occur over the next two years of the plan update. She explained that staff analysis indicates the projections have not changed significantly since the last plan, and not revisiting the projections would permit efficiency of resources as SACOG would not have to reinvest the time and funding into revising them. Ms. Lizon added that stakeholders and local planning staff have been supportive of this approach.

b. Policy Framework for MTP/SCS Update Process. Ms. Lizon presented the policy framework for the MTP/SCS Update, which would focus on implementation of the commitments made in the previous plan. The Board and stakeholders were supportive of this approach when the framework was presented through SACOG’s engagement processes.

Page 3 of 3

c. Regional Road Maintenance Needs Briefing. Mr. Holtzen updated the Partnership on the regional road maintenance needs white paper, which will be available within the next two weeks for comment and review. The paper follows the framework of the statewide roads needs assessment, which described the $3-4 billion shortfall in road maintenance in the SACOG region over the next ten years.

Mr. Holtzen noted that the white paper covers maintenance and state of repair of some rights of way other than roads, such as pavement and signals of some bike routes, but does not review the state highway network.

6. Other Matters. Ms. Cacciatore informed the Partnership of a CEQA legal workshop being held at SACOG on December 12 from 12 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. RSVP is requested by tomorrow, December 5, to Greg Chew of SACOG staff. Ms. Cacciatore also wished Mike Brady of Caltrans a happy retirement after years of working on air quality conformity issues. Mr. Brady informed the Partnership that Marilee Mortenson will be the new Caltrans contact for planning and conformity issues along with Rodney Tavitas, who will likely represent Caltrans at meetings such as the RPP. Mr. Brady added that project-related concerns should be taken through Caltrans Environmental, and reminded the Partnership that the district is the primary contact for projects. Ms. O’Connor announced that there are a few spots open through the EPA’s three-day training for project level hot spot analysis in December.

7. Adjournment. Mr. Brady moved to adjourn the meeting; Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. The Partnership voted in favor of adjournment and the motion carried.

Item #3


February 19, 2014 Update on Eastern Solano Projects of Air Quality Concern Recommendation: None, this item is for information. Discussion: Under federal law, certain types of transportation projects must be reviewed through interagency consultation to determine whether they are in conformity with regional PM2.5 attainment efforts. Projects that are not determined by the interagency group to be projects of air quality concern (POAQC) are considered to meet the conformity criteria. The Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA) for PM2.5 includes all of Sacramento County and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Yolo, and Solano Counties. The majority of the SFNA falls within the boundaries of SACOG’s metropolitan planning area, but the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is responsible for making conformity determinations for projects in Eastern Solano. As such, a representative of the SFNA is responsible for participating in MTC’s interagency consultation and providing quarterly reports of POAQC determinations in Eastern Solano County to the SACOG Regional Planning Partnership. Since the last POAQC determination update in September 2013, no projects in Eastern Solano County have been reviewed through MTC’s interagency consultation process. Mr. Matt Jones of Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District will be present to answer any questions from the Partnership regarding conformity determinations in Eastern Solano County. JLC:gg Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 José Luis Cáceres, Associate Transportation Planner (916) 340-6218

Regional Planning Partnership Item #4 February 19, 2014 Project Level Conformity Working Group Update Issue: What actions has the Project Level Conformity Group, a subcommittee of the RPP, taken since May 2013? Recommendation: None, this is for information only. Discussion: Using delegated authority from the RPP, the Project Level Conformity Group (PLCG) is tasked with reviewing and taking action on PM2.5 and PM10 Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) determinations and hot spot analyses. Since May 2013, the PLCG has not taken any actions. To date, the PLCG has reviewed ten projects. These actions were reported at the May 2013 RPP meeting, and can be found online at: http://sacog.org/calendar/2013/05/rpp/ Attachment A lists the members of the PLCG; and Attachment B is the RPP item from September 2011, establishing the PLCG. Anyone from the RPP is welcome to join the PLCG. If you would like to join, please contact José Luis Cáceres. JLC:gg Attachments Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis, (916) 340-6230 Renée DeVere-Oki, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6219 José Luis Cáceres, Associate Planner, (916) 340-6218

http://sacog.org/calendar/2013/05/rpp/

Attachment A

Members of the Project Level Conformity Group

# Last Name First Name Organization

1 Anderson Charles SMAQMD

2 Anderson Cari ARB

4 Barton Jerry EDCTC

5 Christian Shalanda Caltrans

6 DeVere-Oki Renée SACOG

7 Fong Alex Caltrans

8 Green Angel Placer County

9 Johnston Dave El Dorado County

10 Jones Matt YSAQMD

11 McNeel-Caird Luke PCTPA

12 O'Connor Karina EPA

13 Riding Chad Caltrans

14 Robinson Larry SMAQMD

15 Spaethe Sondra FRAQMD

16 Tang Sharon Caltrans

3 Tavitas Rodney Caltrans HQ

17 Tollstrup Brigette SMAQMD

18 Vaughn Joseph FHWA

CoordinatorCáceres José Luis SACOG

I t em # 4

Regional Planning Partnership Act ion September 21, 2011 Proposal from Ad-hoc Subcommittee to Improve Process for Determining Projects of Air Quality Concern Issue: Should the Partnership create a subcommittee and delegate authority to it to review and take action on Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) determinations and hot spot analyses and establish a process by which the subcommittee will approve POAQCs? Recommendation: That the Partnership a establish the Project Level Conformity Group (PLCG), a subcommittee tasked with reviewing and taking action on PM2.5 and PM10 POAQC determinations and hot spot analyses. Discussion: The Partnership formed an ad-hoc subcommittee in May 2011 to review the current process for determining POAQCs and recommend improvements. The subcommittee evaluated the practices in other regions, reviewed the current SACOG process, and now recommends the following improvements:

1. Form a standing subcommittee to review and act on POAQC determinations.

2. Revise submittal, review, and approval procedures.

3. Create a project-level conformity webpage.

4. Improve the standard form and accompanying instructions.

5. Annually, remind project sponsors of the POAQC determination process. Attachment A summarizes changes proposed by the subcommittee. Upon conceptual approval of these changes by the RPP, staff will create a POAQC packet for the RPP’s review and approval at the October meeting. The packet will include procedures for handling POAQC determinations in Eastern Solano County. JLC:gg Attachment Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276

Gordon R. Garry, Director of Research & Analysis, (916) 340-6230 Theresa Arnold, Manager of Capital Programs, (916) 340-6200 Renée DeVere-Oki, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6219

José Luis Cáceres, Associate Planner, (916) 340-6218

JCaceres

Typewritten Text

Attachment B

Revised September 20, 2011 Page 1

POAQC & Hot-Spot Analysis Process Highlights

The Regional Planning Partnership (RPP) Project Level Conformity Group is tasked with reviewing and deciding Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) determinations and hot-spot analyses. The Project Level Conformity Group is open to all interested parties, with membership confirmed by the RPP. This initial membership list below is consistent with the membership of other similar bodies in California.

Federal rules require that POAQC determinations and hot-spot analyses go through “interagency consultation.” The RPP charge states that the purpose of the RPP is “to assist SACOG with its transportation and air quality planning and programming processes, with an emphasis on technical issues, by providing consultation…The Partnership exists to help meet the inter-agency consultation requirements of both [SAFETEA-LU] and the Federal Clean Air Act.” The Partnership charge also allows for the creation of subcommittees to help carry out that charge. “The Partnership may establish such subcommittees, task forces, or study groups as it deems appropriate to carry out its charge.”

Initial Subcommittee Membership

• ARB • Caltrans • EDCTC • EDAQMD • EPA • FRAQMD • FHWA

• FTA • PCTPA • Placer County APCD • SACOG • SMAQMD • Yolo-Solano AQMD

A. Process

1. Submit Form Using the “Instructions for POAQC Determination,” the project sponsor determines if its project requires a POAQC determination. If it does, the sponsor sends the completed POAQC form to SACOG, allowing two weeks for review and approval. Alternatively, if the sponsor concludes that its project is a POAQC, the sponsor may elect to skip the POAQC process and submit a project-level hot-spot analysis to the subcommittee.

2. Review SACOG staff does a cursory review. Next it forwards the form via email to the members of the Project Level Conformity Group for 14 days of review. (SACOG staff tracks the project in a spreadsheet to record when review begins and ends as well as when action takes place.)

3. Comments, Questions, and Approval During the 14-day review period, the Project Level Conformity Group may make comments, ask questions, and request more information. The Project Level Conformity Group may also arrange special telephone conferences, as needed. Although individual reviewers may informally contact the project sponsor directly, they will send official comments and questions through the subcommittee membership email list.

Attachment A


a. If no comments or questions are made, the project is automatically approved on the 15th day, with written email confirmation from EPA and either FHWA, for a project categorized under federal consultation process 6005, or Caltrans, in the case where the project falls under 6004.

b. In the case of formal comments or questions, the project sponsor will address them promptly to ensure speedy approval.

c. Although all members of the Project Level Conformity Group may comment on a project, actual approval of a POAQC determination or a Hot-Spot Analysis can only be decided by EPA and either FHWA or Caltrans in the case of a 6005 or 6004 categorized project, respectively.

d. At their discretion, EPA, and FHWA (or Caltrans in the case of a 6004 C.E. project) may approve a project sooner than 15 days, cutting short the review period.

4. Disagreement If approval by EPA and FHWA/Caltrans (see above) is not reached through this process—or for any reason—the project sponsor may choose one of the following options:

a. Escalate the decision to the full Partnership.

b. Perform a hot-spot analysis (in lieu of pursuing a POAQC determination).

5. Follow-up

a. SACOG posts the action and documentation online.

b. Quarterly, the Project Level Conformity Group presents status updates to the RPP and reminds the RPP that membership is open to anyone, with membership confirmed by the RPP.

B. Webpage SACOG maintains a webpage dedicated to POAQC and Hot Spot Analysis. The website includes projects, forms, guidance, and past decisions.

C. Advance Notification SACOG will annually notify project sponsors to remind them of the POAQC process.

D. Procedure for Handling Project of Air Quality Concern Determinations for Eastern Solano County

a. The Eastern Solano County cities of Vacaville, Dixon, and Rio Vista fall within both the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) boundary and the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area. Because Eastern Solano County is in the Sacramento Nonattainment Area, it is linked to the SACOG region for purposes of air quality conformity.

b. Eastern Solano County projects go through Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) interagency consultation body, the Air Quality Conformity Task Force, for POAQC determinations.


c. YSAQMD will, on a quarterly basis, provide an update to SACOG’s RPP on determinations made for projects in the Eastern Solano County region.

d. Additionally, YSAQMD will, on an as-needed basis, determine if an individual project needs to be presented to both MTC’s Air Quality Conformity Task Force and SACOG’s RPP Project Level Conformity Group.

Item #5A Regional Planning Partnership

February 19, 2014 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Outreach Update Issue: Staff is conducting early outreach for the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Recommendation: None, this is for information only. Discussion: In September 2013, staff presented to the RPP the Outreach and Communications Plan (Attachment A) for the 2016 MTP/SCS. The Outreach and Communications Plan is a working document that can be added to and augmented to meet diverse needs as they arise. Included in the Outreach and Communications Plan was the development of a “sounding board” of cross-sectoral stakeholders (Attachment B) at the senior and executive level. The purpose of the sounding board is to provide feedback to the Board and staff on issues, research and analysis, and implementation themes being considered within the MTP/SCS. The last meeting of the sounding board was in October 2013. The sounding board provided feedback on the growth projections and implementation focus of the 2016 MTP/SCS. The next meeting of the sounding board will occur in February. Outreach with the MTP/SCS sounding board is not required by state or federal statutes for public outreach for the 2016 MTP/SCS. The required public workshops will occur in fall 2014, and updates on the workshops will be provided in advance. Staff anticipates working closely with local jurisdiction staff on outreach and communications to residents. In addition to the early outreach meetings, staff is beginning required outreach to Tribal governments in the SACOG region. Per SACOG’s adopted Public Participation Plan, which identifies state and federal requirements for public outreach, SACOG is required to conduct government-to-government outreach with Tribal governments. The established Tribal governments in the region are: Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, United Auburn Indian Community, and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Staff is working with Placer County Transportation Planning Agency on outreach with the United Auburn Indian Community and with El Dorado County Transportation Commission on outreach to the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. MH:gg Attachments Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276

Kacey Lizon, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6265 Monica Hernández, Associate Public Information Coordinator, (916) 340-6237 José Luis Cáceres, Associate Planner, (916) 340-6218

1400604

2016 MTP/SCS OUTREACH PLAN Working document that can be added to throughout the engagement process BOARD MEMBER, JURISDICTION STAFF & PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

• Regular communication and updates will occur at all SACOG board committee meetings and at board meetings as needed

o Timing: Ongoing • Regular communication and opportunity for feedback from the Planners Committee, Transit

Coordinating Committee, Regional Planning Partnership, Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, with membership drawn from member jurisdictions and partner agencies

o Timing: Ongoing • Meetings with and communications to member jurisdiction staff on the process, requesting

information, providing information for review and feedback o Timing: Ongoing

• Regional Managers Meetings o Timing: Quarterly

• Meetings with state and federal agencies o Timing: As needed to align with planning calendar and as dictated by statutory requirements

• Presentations to various public agency staff and boards in the region. o Timing: As coordinated by SACOG staff or by request

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH In addition to ongoing communications outlined above, staff will use methods such as those listed below to engage communities across the region about the 2016 MTP/SCS update:

• A comprehensive stakeholder list including stakeholders who participated in the previous MTP/SCS process will be updated and utilized.

o Timing: Ongoing • A one-stop request for information on the 2016 MTP/SCS update will be on the SACOG website for

access to key input and feedback points for the public, key decision points for the Board, technical information, and meeting/workshop information.

o Timing: Winter 2014, dependent on board adoption of 2016 MTP/SCS Framework • Early engagement for cross-sectoral stakeholder group

o Timing: Commenced Fall 2013, and ongoing approximately quarterly • To maintain a consistent message, a PowerPoint presentation will be prepared to highlight both

background on the MTP/SCS and the process for the update. The presentation will be used by various staff at presentations throughout the region coordinated by staff and/or by request from stakeholders and board members.

o Timing: March 2014 • Stakeholder meetings, member and partner agency coordination, and public communications on policy

issues and areas of research for the 2016 MTP/SCS o Timing: 2013-2015

• Staff will collaborate with key partners to publicize and present a greenhouse gas target-setting public workshop (contingent on actions of the California Air Resources Board).

• Staff will provide updates and gather feedback from SACOG advisory groups • Public Workshops

o Timing: Fall 2014 o Staff will conduct at least eight public workshops in the region o Workshops held in El Dorado and Placer counties will be coordinated with EDCTC and PCTPA.

Attachment A

• Stakeholder meetings, member and partner agency coordination, and public communications on development of draft plan and next steps

o Timing: Summer 2014-Fall 2015 • Elected Official Information Meetings on draft Sustainable Communities Strategy

o Staff will conduct at least six elected official information meetings on the draft Sustainable Communities Strategy/Alternative Planning Strategy (SCS/APS) in the update, one in each county with representatives of the county board of supervisors and city councils that represent a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of that county. Meetings held in El Dorado and Placer counties will be coordinated with EDCTC and PCTPA.

o Timing: Fall/Winter 2015 • At least three public hearings on the draft SCS/APS. Any meetings held in El Dorado and Placer counties

will be coordinated with EDCTC and PCTPA. o Timing: Fall/Winter 2015

• Tribal consultation will occur in alignment with the outreach and communication principles, and as guided by the adopted Public Participation Plan. Outreach will occur on a government-to-government basis. For the Tribal Governments with land within Placer and El Dorado counties, tribal consultation will occur through collaboration with the Regional Transportation Planning agencies (RTPAs) in those counties.

o Timing: Commenced January 2014, ongoing and in coordination with PCTPA and EDCTC MASS COMMUNICATIONS To supplement the ongoing routine media coverage of transportation issues, the following strategies will be used to inform and engage interested stakeholders

• A series of articles in the electronic newsletter on the content of the current MTP/SCS, what projects have begun or been completed in the interim, and an overview of the planning process with opportunities for feedback noticed in a timely manner

o Timing: Beginning Winter 2014 • On the MTP/SCS website general information and a timeline for the update, including but not limited to

why the update is taking place, contact information, meeting locations. The website will be easily accessible and updated as needed. The link to the MTP/SCS website will be prominent on the SACOG homepage.

o Timing: January 2014 • Press releases and media outreach as needed. • White papers and issue briefs may be developed on specific policy issues as the MTP/SCS Update

process evolves, or new information or technical analysis needs to be communicated • Staff will continue to reach out to community newsletters, social media, blogs and other similar

publications outside of traditional media that work with SACOG in its media outreach. o Timing: Ongoing

• Staff will develop and place a number of op-ed pieces by board members as appropriate. Staff contacts: Kacey Lizon, Project Manager, [email protected] (916) 340-6265 Monica Hernández, Communications Coordinator, [email protected], (916) 340-6237 Jennifer Hargrove, Land Use Coordinator, [email protected], (916) 340-6216 Clint Holtzen, Transportation Coordinator, [email protected], (916) 340-6246

mailto:[email protected]




Attachment B

1 of 4

Title Agency/Organization City Jurisdiction SectorExecutive Director WALKSacramento Sacramento Region Active TransportationProgram Director Woodland Bike

CampaignWoodland Yolo Active Transportation/Biking

Advocate CA League of Womens Voters

Sacramento Region Active Transportation/ Transit/Seniors

Deputy Director of Housing Policy

CA Department of Housing & Community Development

Sacramento State Affordable Housing

Policy Director Housing California Sacramento State Affordable HousingBoard Member Sac Housing Alliance Sacramento Region Affordable Housing

District Director US Department Housing & Urban Devolopment

Sacramento Region Affordable Housing

President/CEO Nehemiah Corp Sacramento Region Affordable Housing Developer

Executive Director Capay Valley Vision Esparto Capay Valley Agriculture

Agricultural Commissioner

El Dorado County Placerville El Dorado Agriculture


Placer County Auburn Placer County Agriculture


Sacramento County Sacramento Sacramento County Agriculture

Ag Commissioner Sutter County Yuba City Sutter County AgricultureAgricultural Commissioner

Yolo County Woodland Yolo County Agriculture


Yuba County Marysville Yuba County Agriculture

Executive Director BREATHE CA Sacramento Region Air QualityBoard Member American Insititute of

Architects, Central Valley

Sacramento Region Architecture, design, development

Executive Director Asian Resources Sacramento Sacaramento City Community Based Organization

Executive Director Mutual Assistance Network

Sacramento Sacramento City & County

Community Based Organization

Executive Director Ubuntu Green Sacramento Sacramento City Community Based Organization

President/CEO Valley Vision Sacramento Region Community Based Organization

Branch Manager FREED-Center for Independent Living

Marysville Yuba & Sutter Couties

Disabled Community

Advocate/Community Organizer

Resources for Independent Living

Sacramento Region Disabled Community

Attachment B

2 of 4

Title Agency/Organization City Jurisdiction Sector

President/CEO Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce

Sacramento Region Economic Development

President/CEO El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce

Placerville El Dorado County Economic Development

Predisdent/CEO El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce

El Dorado Hills El Dorado Hills Economic Development

Executive Director Greater Sacramento Urban League


President Rainbow Chamber Sacramento Region Economic DevelopmentSenior Vice President, Public Policy & Economic Development

Sac Metro Chamber of Commerce


President/CEO Sacramento Asian-Pacific Chamber of Commerce


President/CEO Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce


Senior Vice President SACTO Sacramento Region Economic DevelopmentDirector Center for Strategic

Economic ResearchSacramento Region Economic

Development/Regional Data

Economic Development Executive, Greater Sacramento Region

PG & E Sacramento Region Energy

Supervisor, Electic Transportation

SMUD Sacramento Region Energy

Executive Director ECOS Sacramento Region Environment

Community Partnerships & Innovation Director

Sac Tree Foundation Sacramento Region Environment

Conservation Program Coordinator

Sierra Club Sacramento Region Environment

External Affairs Manager The Nature Conservancy

Sacramento Region Environment

Public Information Officer

Sacramento Metro Fire Sacramento Sacramento County Fire

President/Co-founder Domus Development Sacramento State For-Profit Affordable Housing Developer/Infill Developer

Attachment B

3 of 4


Manager of Environmental Policy

CA Trucking Assn Sacramento State Goods/Freight

Manager of Enviro Policy CA Trucking Assn Goods/Freight

Project Director Cordova Hills, LLC Sacramento Sacramento Greenfield Developer

Health in All Policies coordinator

CA Department of Public Health

Sacramento State Health & Built Environment/Active

Community Benefits Director

Sutter Health Sacramento Region Health Care Provider

Program Manager Sierra Health Foundation

Sacramento Region Health Foundation

Program Manager The CA Endowment Sacramento State/So Sacramento City & County

Health Foundation

Director, Local Government Affairs

UC Davis Davis Region Higher Education

Associate Vice Chancellor: Workforce & Economic Development

Los Rios Community College District

Sacramento Sacramento County Higher Education/TOD

Executive Director Capitol Health Network Sacramento Sacramento County Human Services

Predisdent/CEO Community Link Sacramento Sacramento County Human Services

Capitol Area Development Manager

CADA Sacramento Sacramento Infill Development

Public Information Officer

CA Highway Patrol West Sacramento Region Law Enforcement

Managing Principal Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)

Sacramento Region Market Rate Developer

Vice President Richland Homes Roseville Region Market Rate Developer

President StoneBridge Sacramento Sacramento Market Rate Developer

Principal & Pressident MacKay & Somps Roseville Region Market Rate Development

Executive Director Region Builders Sacramento Region Market Rate Development

Director of Governmental & Legislative Affairs

North State Building Industry Association

Roseville Region Market Rate Development

Founding Partner/Legal Counsel

Taylor Wiley Sacramento Sacramento Market Rate Development Attorney

Executive Director Mutual Housing California

Sacramento Yolo & Sacramento Counties

Non-profit Affordable Housing Developer

Attachment B

4 of 4


Public Health Officer Sacramento County Sacramento Sacramento County Health

Director of Litigation, Advocacy & Training

CA Rural League Assistance, Inc.

Marysville Yuba, Sutter, El Dorado counties

Rural Social Equity

Senior Planner Area 4 Agency on Aging Sacramento Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo & Yuba counties

Seniors/Aging

Deputy Director Opening Doors Sacramento Region Social EquityDirector UCD Center for

Regional ChangeDavis Region Social Equity

Counsel Western Poverty Law Center

Sacramento State Social Equity

President CA Capital/CDFI Sacramento Region Social Equity/Economic Development

Associate Professor UC Davis Davis Region Social Equity/Equitable SB 375 Investment

Legal Counsel Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians

Shingle Springs Sovereign Nation Tribal Government

Government Affairs United Auburn Indian Community

Auburn Sovereign Nation Tribal Government

Tribal Liaison Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation

Brooks Sovereign Nation Tribal Government

Executive Director Regional Water Authority

Sacramento Region Water

Program Director Health Education Council

West Sacramento Region Youth & family health

Executive Director Yolo Children's Alliance Davis Yolo Youth Services

Item #5B R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P a r t n e r s h i p

February 19, 2014 Inventory of Adopted and Proposed Land Use Plans (Initial Focus on New Greenfield Plans) Issue: What is the status of the land use forecast update for the 2016 MTP/SCS and what is the process moving forward? Recommendation: None; this item is for information. Discussion: Under the land use forecast topic of the MTP/SCS update framework is a research task to inventory adopted and proposed land use plans in the region. This is one of the first technical steps of every MTP/SCS update cycle to help determine if and how to adjust the MTP/SCS land use forecast. In addition, the Board recently expressed interest in understanding the planned development capacity in the region compared to the long-term market demand for housing and employment. Description of the map and greenfield plan inventory: The map and accompanying table in Attachment A is a first assessment of planned development capacity, focused on adopted and proposed land use plans in greenfield areas, or areas with no current urban development. This mapped information was gathered through a combination of staff research and interviews with member agency planning and public works staffs. The map and tables identify projects that are in the current MTP/SCS as Developing Communities or are candidates for inclusion in the updated plan as Developing Communities. The map overlays approved and proposed greenfield development projects with the adopted MTP/SCS community types and Blueprint growth footprint. The accompanying Table A-1 lists, by jurisdiction, each of the mapped plans along with the total amount of planned housing (capacity) and the amount of housing expected to be constructed by 2035 (demand) in the adopted MTP/SCS. The sum of the greenfield plans not currently in the MTP/SCS represents an estimated 117,615 housing units of additional capacity beyond the 525,000 units of capacity in the plan (the plan estimates market demand for 303,000 new housing units by 2035) (see Table A-2). It is important to note that this regional capacity will increase further once the inventory for the Established, Center and Corridor, and Rural Residential communities is completed and the “unknown” capacities of the listed greenfield plans become “known.” In particular, the Rural Residential Communities capacity will increase significantly as there are tens of thousands of units of housing capacity in adopted general plans in those areas. It is also important to note that the map and table only represents a partial analysis: employment capacity estimates for community types are still under development. While the current MTP/SCS shows that all community types have additional capacity beyond the 2035 horizon year, Developing Communities have the highest additional housing of all of the community types (Table A-2). The fundamental issue in this map is not that the sum of these plans is inconsistent with the Blueprint footprint; in fact, nearly all of these projects are generally consistent with the Blueprint at least in terms of their development footprint. The issue highlighted by the map is that there is a 50-60 year potential development supply of housing for 20 years of demand in the MTP/SCS. In other words, given the large supply of development, the challenge in the MTP/SCS update will be the phasing of the first 20 years of demand in order to plan the appropriate transportation investments. Next steps for an updated land use forecast: There are several new growth area plans on this map that are not part of the current MTP/SCS, a few of them entitled and several in the entitlement process. As part of our normal review of land use plans in the MTP/SCS update, it is possible we will identify some areas that we now conclude are not likely to develop during the planning period, or that their growth rate could be significantly slower.

In addition to consideration of local land use plan, the land use forecasting process of the MTP/SCS also relies on analysis of state and federal regulatory and private market influences on development. State and federal policies and regulations include, most notably (but not limited to): those relating to development in floodplains and other natural hazard areas (e.g., fire), federal Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act permit requirements, Transportation Control Measures in air quality plans under the Federal Clean Air Act, and state housing requirements. Practical considerations affecting the cost and timing of providing infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, transportation) are also analyzed, and this cycle, the availability of water will be a particularly important factor. Private market considerations are analyzed, such as people’s interest in different types of housing and developers’/builders’ ability to deliver that housing at prices people can afford, as are future demographic trends (i.e., percentage of households with children, older heads of households, etc.). Staff aims to bring to this analysis the PECAS land economics and transportation model to test the affects of different market conditions on the regional growth pattern. Staff will bring information from all of the above research to Board committees, member agencies and stakeholders as it is assembled. Ultimately, all of this information will need to be analyzed in terms of how it affects plan performance. As is highlighted in the Plan Performance chapter of the MTP/SCS, the distribution of development across the four community types and across housing types is critical to the plan’s ability to lower VMT and congestion and meet SB 375 greenhouse gas targets. Staff has also started thinking through how to analyze this information while maintaining an implementation focus to the plan update. Attachment B describes a proposed approach, which is also summarized as follows:

Approach to Creating and Analyzing MTP/SCS Scenarios: 1. Three scenarios for plan horizon year 2036 will be based on the current plan plus two updated/refined scenarios from the last plan cycle. The updated scenarios will account for new information on local land use plans, changes in federal and state regulations and policies, and market forces. (Spring and Summer 2014) 2. Concurrent with Step 1, analyze different timing to construction of transportation and land use components of current MTP/SCS. (Spring through Fall 2014) 3. Refresh revenue assumptions of the current plan using the same basic revenue framework in the plan. Use the phasing analysis initiated in Step 2 to test the flexibility of those revenue assumptions and identify implications of different timing of transportation investments. (Spring through Fall 2014) 4. Based on input from public workshops, stakeholders (including our cross-sectoral working group), members and partner staff and the Board over the next several months create a framework for a draft preferred scenario that includes assumptions for the plan horizon year of 2036 and a timing sequence for building the transportation network and estimating when development projects will be constructed. (Fall 2014, draft preferred scenario creation in 2015)

Staff will seek Board input on this analytical process at all February Board committees, have meetings with stakeholders in February, and then ask the Board to take action on this in March. MM:MC:KL:ts Attachments Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Kacey Lizon, MTP/SCS Manager, (916) 340-6265 Jennifer Hargrove, MTP/SCS Coordinator (916) 340-6216

1400701

Approved or Pending Greenfield Plans included in adopted 2035 MTP/SCS as Developing Community

Total Housing

Units Planned/Proposed in

Project

Housing Units Estimated to be Built by 2035 in

Adopted MTP/SCS

Approved or Pending Greenfield Plans not included in adopted 2035 MTP/SCS

Total Housing Units

Planned/Proposed in Project

El Dorado County El Dorado CountyPlacerville Placerville

Unincorporated El Dorado County Unincorporated El Dorado CountyBass Lake Hills Specific Plan 1,458 1,392 Lime Rock Valley Specific Plan 800 Carson Creek Specific Plan 1,700 1,162 El Dorado Hills Specific Plan 6,162 4,996 Missouri Flats (Diamond Springs-El Dorado) 844 498 Valley View Specific Plan 2,840 1,350 Village of Marble Valley Specific Plan 3,236 647

Placer County Placer CountyAuburn AuburnBaltimore Ravine Specific Plan 725 725

Colfax Colfax Lincoln LincolnVillage 1 Specific Plan 5,639 2,034 Village 31 4,841 Village 7 Specific Plan 3,285 3,296 Village 41 5,421 Village 21 3,784 2,037 Village 5 5,779

Village 61 5,083 SUD C1 0SUD A1 1,899 SUD B1 429

Rocklin RocklinSunset Ranchos Specific Plan 4,339 4,339

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Table A-1

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A


Total Housing


Project


Adopted MTP/SCS


Total Housing Units


Clover Valley Specific Plan 558 564

Roseville RosevilleWest Roseville Specific Plan (includes amendments in progress) 9,900 8,831 Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan 3,011 Creekview Specific Plan 2,011 579 Sierra Vista Specific Plan 8,769 6,106

Unincorporated Placer County Unincorporated Placer CountyBickford Ranch Specific Plan 1,890 1,435 Squaw Village Specific Plan 750 Placer Vineyards Specific Plan 14,132 8,037 Curry Creek2 unknownRegional University Specific Plan 4,387 2,781 Placer Ranch1 (Placer County/Roseville) 6,740 Riolo Vineyards Specific Plan 933 934

Sacramento County Sacramento CountyCitrus Heights Citrus Heights

Elk Grove Elk GroveLaguna Ridge Specific Plan 7,826 7,590 Lent Ranch Specific Plan 280 280 Triangle Specific Plan 701 403 Sterling Meadows Specific Plan 1,184 950 Southeast Planning Area/Meridian Specific Plan 4,790 4,102

Folsom FolsomSouth Folsom Plan Area Specific Plan 10,210 6,688

Galt Galt Galt SOI1 7,577 1,091

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Table A-1

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A


Total Housing


Project


Adopted MTP/SCS


Total Housing Units


Isleton IsletonVillage on the Delta Specific Plan 300

Rancho Cordova Rancho CordovaSunridge Specific Plan 8,763 7,571 Rio Del Oro Specific Plan 11,601 8,057 Ranch At Sunridge Specific Plan 2,713 2,296 Suncreek Specific Plan 4,893 1,834 Arboretum1 4,742 571 Westborough1 6,078 756

Sacramento Sacramento Delta Shores Specific Plan 5,092 5,077

Unincorporated Sacramento County Unincorporated Sacramento CountyElverta Specific Plan 4,950 1,507 Cordova Hills Specific Plan 9,010 North Vineyard Station Specific Plan 6,063 3,292 Jackson Township Specific Plan 6,143 Vineyard Springs Specific Plan 5,942 3,740 Newbridge Specific Plan 3,075 Vineyard Community Plan 6,610 5,251 Northwest Special Planning Area 22,000-25,000Florin Vineyard Specific Plan 9,919 2,552 Glenborough at Easton Specific Plan 3,239 3,262 West Jackson Specific Plan 15,658 5,150 Mather South Specific Plan 2,504 1,039

Sutter County Sutter CountyLive Oak Live Oak

Live Oak northern annexation1 2,700 Live Oak SOI1 10,900

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Table A-1

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A


Total Housing


Project


Adopted MTP/SCS


Total Housing Units


Yuba City Yuba City Lincoln East Specific Plan 4,865 1,024 Yuba City SOI1 8,300 725

Unincorporated Sutter County Unincorporated Sutter CountySutter Pointe Specific Plan 17,500 3,489

Yolo County Yolo CountyDavis Davis

West Sacramento West SacramentoSouthport Industrial 1,383 482 SW Southport specific plans 6,501 2,849 SE Southport specific plans 3,433 836 NE Southport-Liberty Specific Plan only 1,900 249

Winters Winters Winters SOI area2 unknown

Woodland WoodlandSpring Lake Specific Plan 4,037 4,049 Spring Lake Phase 22 unknown

Woodland potential GP growth areas2 unknown

Unincorporated Yolo County Unincorporated Yolo CountyDunnigan Specific Plan 9,230 Elkhorn Specific Plan 0Madison Specific Plan 630-1,335Knights Landing Specific Plan 393-800

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Table A-1

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A


Total Housing


Project


Adopted MTP/SCS


Total Housing Units


Yuba County Yuba CountyMarysville Marysville Wheatland WheatlandWheatland various specific plans in city 1,325 612 Johnson Rancho/Hop Farms Specific Plan 14,369 Nichols Grove Specific Plan 1,609 436

Unincorporated Yuba County Unincorporated Yuba County East Linda Specific Plan 6,014 4,614 Woodbury2 unknownNorth Arboga Study Area 2,500 1,311 Plumas Lake Specific Plan 18,130 6,548 Magnolia Ranch Specific Plan3 3,302 0

Region RegionTotal 288,726 152,026 Total 117,615

2Housing unit estimate not available.

1Housing unit total shown here are an estimate from General Plan and/or jurisdiction staff, not from a development proposal.

3Specific Plan project area is in a Developing Community in the MTP/SCS; however, this specific plan was not assumed in the MTP/SCS.

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Atable A-1

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

Community Type/Plan Area

Estimated New Housing Unit Capacity in Region1,2

Estimated New Housing Units Built in the MTP/SCS by 20351

Difference between Estimated Housing Capacity and Estimated Housing Units Built by 2035 in the MTP/SCS1,2

MTP/SCS Center and Corridor Communities 135,636 92,046 43,590 MTP/SCS Established Communities 124,050 79,364 44,686 MTP/SCS Rural Residential Communities 5,694 5,301 393 MTP/SCS Developing Communities 263,009 126,310 136,699 Total for all MTP/SCS Community Types 528,389 303,021 225,368 Approved or pending greenfield projects not included in the MTP/SCS 117,615 0 117,615 Total Inventory (plans included and not included in the MTP/SCS) 646,004 303,021 342,983

2The housing unit capacity estimates in Center and Corridor Communities, Established Communities, and Rural Residential Communities is currently being updated. The numbers shown here are from the current MTP/SCS, where in particular, in Rural Residential Communities, the housing capacity was limited to areas that have growth in the MTP/SCS. There are ten's of thousands of units of housing capacity in the adopted general plans in these Rural Residential Communities.

1Estimate of new units, does not include housing units that exist as of 2008. In 2008 approximately 25,717 housing units existed in areas shown in Developing Communities. Those existing units were subtracted from the total 152,026 housing units estimated to be built by 2035 in the MTP/SCS (shown on the previous table).

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Table A-2

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

ST99

ST49

ST113

ST70

ST65

ST20

ST20

ST99

ST113

ST70

ST99

£¤50

¡¢80

ST16

§̈¦505

ST128

ST45

ST160

ST160

ST220

ST193

ST174

ST88

ST49

ST49

ST16

ST99

Sources: USGS, Esri, TANA, AND

YoloCounty

SacramentoCounty

PlacerCounty

YubaCounty

SutterCounty

El DoradoCounty

Winters SOI

Spring Lake & Phase 2 Area

Area contemplated for development in GP

Dunnigan

SouthportIndustrialPark

SW Southport SE

Southport

NESouthport

DeltaShores

TriangleLagunaRidge

Southeast PlanningArea (Meridian)

Lent RanchSterling Meadows

Galt SOI

CordovaHillsJackson

West

Rio Del Oro

WestboroughFolsom

South Area

Suncreek

Ranch at Sunridge

Vineyard SpringsVineyards

FlorinVineyards

Carson Creek

El DoradoHills

Bass LakeHills

Marble ValleyLime Rock Valley

Valley View

Missouri Flats

BaltimoreRavine

BickfordRanch

Clover Valley

Village 1Village 2

Village 3

SunsetRanchos

Village 4

SUD A

SUD BVillage 7

Village 5

Village 6SUD C

SutterPointe

Placer VineyardsRiolo Vineyards

Elverta

CurryCreek

Regional University

West RosevillePlacerRanch

Amorusa Ranch

Northwest SpecialPlanning Area

JohnsonRanchoNichols

Grove

HopFarm

PlumasLake

Woodbury

East LindaYuba City SOI

Lincoln EastSOI

North ArbogaStudy Area

Live OakSOI

Live Oak recently annexednorthern area

Magnolia Ranch

Creekview

Various SpecificPlans

SOI

Sierra Vista

0 5 10 15 202.5Miles

MTP/SCS Community Types

Established Community

Center/Corridor CommunityDeveloping Community

Lands not Identified for Development in the MTP/SCS Planning Period

Rural Residential Community

Glenborough

North Vineyard Station

Arboretum

Sunridge

Newbridge

Rio Del Oro

JacksonTownship

SouthMather

ElkhornSpring LakeMadison

KnightsLanding

Approved and Pending Greenfield Projects*

Water Features

Blueprint Growth Footprint

County Boundaries

Blueprint Vacant Urban LandCity Boundaries

*Areas in Developing Community Type in current MTP/SCS orareas that would be categorized as a Developing Community ifadded to the future MTP/SCS. New development in Center andCorridor Communities, Established Communities, and Rural Residential Communities is not the subject of this map.

Greenfield Projects

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

jhargrove

Typewritten Text

Attachment A

Attachment B DRAFT

1

MTP/SCS Framework: Approach to Creating/Analyzing Scenarios

Consistent with the Board’s direction to focus this MTP/SCS update on implementation issues staff is raising a

trial balloon on how to create and analyze scenarios. We will get Board input at the three February committees

and have meetings with stakeholders in February and then ask the Board to take action on this in March.

1. Three scenarios for plan horizon year 2036 will be based on the current plan plus two updated/refined

scenarios from last plan cycle.

Discussion: Scenarios should bracket a reasonable range of possible futures, taking into account all

major market and policy/regulatory influences. All scenarios are designed to represent reasonable

possibilities of what might occur (i.e. not idealized futures driven solely by 1 or 2 considerations to the

exclusion of others). The three scenarios analyzed last time met this real world test, and varied

principally by how much housing and transportation choice they created. The S\scenario (#3) with the

most use of a range of transportation modes had the most amounts of new development in Centers and

Corridors and Established Communities and attached housing. On the other end, the scenario (#1) with

the least use of transportation modes other than the automobile had the most amounts of new

development in Developing Communities and Rural Communities and large lot single family housing.

The final plan adopted by the Board was most like the scenario in the middle (#2), but it included

elements of both Scenarios #1 and #3 based on input from our members, the public and stakeholders

and technical analysis. (See attached Table to compare the adopted MTP/SCS with the three scenarios

analyzed during that plan’s development process.)

For the 2016 MTP/SCS update staff suggests that the existing MTP/SCS be one of the scenarios, with the

other 2 scenarios being similar to the first and third Scenarios from the last plan cycle, refreshed and

updated to reflect relevant actions and trends that have occurred in the interim. For example, the

updated Scenario 1 would have similar amounts of new growth in each of the 4 community types as

Scenario 1 from the last plan cycle, but the specific properties forecasted to be developed within each

community type would differ at least to some extent based on local government land use approvals

since the last plan, market trends, and the intentions and capability of the property owners/developers.

Similarly this updated Scenario 1 would have similar amounts of housing growth in the lower density

and higher density housing types as Scenario 1 from the last cycle, though they may be located to some

extent in different places. A preliminary look at the data leads staff to believe that this approach likely

creates sufficient flexibility to ensure that the Plan and EIR documents this cycle analyze a reasonable

range of alternatives that might be likely to occur.

While this step will be important, we are trying to keep the level of effort contained so that it is possible

to maximize the effort available for Step 2.

2. Analyze different timing to construction of transportation and land use components of current MTP/SCS.

Discussion: Key components of the Board’s December 2013 action focusing this plan cycle on

implementation issues were to explore the full potential for a “fix‐it‐first” investment strategy, and to

Attachment B DRAFT

2

analyze whether there are reasons to alter the timing that land use and transportation projects in the

current plan should be constructed. In other words, even if the end state in 2035 (now 2036) was the

same, does it make a difference how (in what order) the region builds the projects that lead to that end

condition? Staff has done some very preliminary thinking on this topic and believes that in some areas

differences in timing might have a substantial impact on the life cycle costs and benefits of the plan. To

illustrate the point at the extremes, there may be significant differences in variables such as total new

lane miles, vehicle miles traveled, air pollution and water use from first building the growth forecast in

the plan for Rural Communities and Developing Communities versus first building the growth forecast

for Centers and Corridors and Established Communities. SACOG has never focused on this type of

information when constructing the plan (except to ensure compliance with federal clear air act and SB

375 standards) and staff believes it could really help the Board and stakeholders focus on new policy

issues that might improve life cycle plan performance (i.e. even if the end state in 2036 remained

substantially the same as the current plan).

3. Analyze different levels and types of transportation revenue

Discussion: Every plan cycle SACOG must refresh its revenue assumptions, consistent with federal

requirements that our plan contain “reasonably reliable” revenues. Mainly this involves scrutinizing

existing, long‐term revenue streams like federal, state and local transportation taxes and local

development fees, but within reasonable limits it can also involve new future revenue streams that we

forecast to be available in the plan. Staff suggests that this revenue analysis first be focused on the

currently adopted MTP/SCS (i.e. will we have the same, more or less revenues to build the projects

included in the plan?). Then, if the scenario and timing analyses conducted under #1 and #2 above

indicate there may be a need for new revenue (which seems likely), that we analyze the merits and

viability of a focused list of new revenue sources. For example, the following new revenue sources are

potential candidates for consideration: state cap and trade revenue, new local transportation sales

taxes, statewide vehicle registration fee.

4. Prepare draft plan scenario

Discussion: Based on input from public workshops, stakeholders (including our cross‐sectoral working

group), member and partner staff and Board members over the next several months staff will create by

the end of 2014 a framework for a draft preferred scenario for Board consideration that includes both

the end state condition in 2036, and a timing sequence for building the transportation network and

estimating when development projects will be constructed.

Attachment B

3

Table B‐1. Description of 2012 MTP/SCS Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 (for the planning period 2008‐2035)

Land Use Inputs Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Adopted MTP/SCS

1 Share of growth in Center & Corridor Communities (percent of new homes)

19% 28% 36% 30%

2 Share of growth in Established Communities (percent of new homes)

30% 28% 27% 26%

3 Share of growth in Developing Communities (percent of new homes)

46% 41% 35% 42%

4 Share of growth in Rural Residential Communities (percent of new homes)

5% 3% 2% 1%

5 Share of growth in large‐lot single‐family homes (percent)

39% 33% 25% 28%

6 Share of growth in small‐lot, single‐family homes (percent)

30% 25% 23% 28%

7 Share of growth in attached homes (percent)

31% 42% 52% 43%

Transportation Inputs Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Adopted MTP/SCS

8 New or expanded roads (lane miles, percent increase from 2008)

32% 31% 26% 29%

9 Transit service (Vehicle Service Hours, percent increases from 2008)

54% 88% 127% 98%

10 Funding for transit ($ in billions)

$10.7 $11.7 $13.7 $11.3

11 Funding for road, bike and pedestrian maintenance ($ in billions)

$10.9 $11 $11 $11.3

12 Funding for new road capacity ($ in billions)

$8.7 $8 $6.7 $7.4

13 Funding for bike and pedestrian street and trail improvements ($ in billions)

$2.8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.0

14 Additional miles of bicycle paths, lanes and routes (Class 1, 2 and 3 = 1,700 in 2008)

800 1,100 1,300 1,100

15 Funding for Programs ($ in billions)

$1.5 $1.6 $1.7 $2.2

Attachment B

4

Table B‐1 (continued) Description of 2012 MTP/SCS Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 (for the planning period 2008‐2035)

Performance Outcomes Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Adopted MTP/SCS

16 Square miles of farmland converted to development (4,166 square miles of farmland in 2008)

93 70 50 57

17 Square miles of vernal pools affected by development

9 8 7 7

18 Share of new homes near high‐frequency transit (percent of new homes)

22% 28% 35% 38%

19 Share of new jobs near high‐frequency transit (percent of new jobs)

26% 35% 44% 39%

20 Transit costs recovered by ticket sales (percent) 38% 41% 51% 38%

21 Total homes in environmental justice areas near high‐frequency transit (percent of homes, 30% in 2008)

43% 45% 47% 55%

22 Share of trips by transit, bike or walk (percent increase per capita from 2008)

12% 22% 31% 33%

23 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (percent change per capital from 2008)

‐6% ‐8% ‐9% ‐6.9%

24 Vehicle miles traveled in heavy congestion (percent of total VMT)

5% 6% 7% 6%

25 Travel time spent in car per capita (percent change from 2008)

‐3% ‐4% ‐4% ‐4%

26 Weekday passenger vehicle CO2 emissions (percent change per capita from 2005)

‐14% ‐16% ‐17% ‐16%

Item #6 Regional Planning Partnership

February 19, 2014 Input Solicited for Active Transportation MPO Program Guidelines Issue: The California Transportation Commission has released draft guidelines for a competitive statewide program to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. MPOs with larger urbanized areas can modify these guidelines for an MPO specific competitive program. Recommendation: None, this item is for information and discussion only. Discussion: Staff is seeking input about the option to customize the statewide ATP guidelines and scoring criteria to best meet regional needs for the six-county MPO program. Any modifications to the state guidelines and scoring criteria by MPOs are subject to CTC approval or rejection. The attachment shows the scoring criteria excerpted from the draft state ATP guidelines. A draft version of the MPO guidelines will be shared with the Transportation Committee in March, and submitted for the Committee’s approval in April. Pursuant to the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 99, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has developed draft guidelines for the Active Transportation Program (ATP). The ATP combines many federal and state funding streams previously used for bicycle, pedestrian, safety, and other related purposes into one funding stream with broad eligibilities. The purpose of the ATP is to accomplish the following goals: Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking; Increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users; Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction

goals as established pursuant to SB 375 (C728, §2008) and SB 391 (C585, §2009); Enhance public health, including reduction of childhood obesity, through the use of programs

including but not limited to projects eligible for Safe Routes to School Program funding; Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program; and Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users.

The CTC conducted outreach through public workgroup meetings, specific subgroups to discuss particular elements of the guidelines, and public hearings from October 2013 through January 2014. The statewide guidelines are expected to be approved by the CTC on March 20, launching a two-month long call for projects beginning on March 21 with applications due May 21. A fund estimate for the ATP approximates $179,550,000 will be available through a statewide competitive funding program, and $9,600,000 will be distributed competitively throughout the six-county SACOG region. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) competition will initiate in late spring with applications due summer 2014. RDO:gg Attachment Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Renée DeVere-Oki, Team Manager of Programming and Project Delivery, (916) 340-6219

Lacey Symons-Holtzen, Team Manager of Active Transportation, (916) 340-6212

Draft Statewide ATP Scoring Criteria [Excerpted from the Draft Active Transportation Program Guidelines (1/29/14) – http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/ATP/DRAFT_ATP_%20Guidelines_012914.pdf]

Proposed projects will be rated and ranked on the basis of applicant responses to the below criteria. Project programming recommendations may not be based strictly on the rating criteria given the various components of the Active Transportation Program and requirements of the various fund sources.

• Potential for increased walking and bicycling, especially among students, including the identification of walking and bicycling routes to and from schools, transit facilities, community centers, employment centers, and other destinations; and including increasing and improving connectivity and mobility of non-motorized users. (0 to 30 points)

• Potential for reducing the number and/or rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries, including the identification of safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists. (0 to 25 points)

• Public participation and Planning. (0 to 15 points) Identification of the community-based public participation process that culminated in the project proposal, which may include noticed meetings and consultation with local stakeholders. Project applicants must clearly articulate how the local participation process resulted in the identification and prioritization of the proposed project. For projects costing $1 million or more, an emphasis will be placed on projects that are prioritized in an adopted city or county bicycle transportation plan, pursuant to Section 891.2, pedestrian plan, safe routes to school plan, active transportation plan, trail plan, or circulation element of a general plan that incorporated elements of an active transportation plan. In future funding cycles, the Commission expects to make consistency with an approved active transportation plan a requirement for large projects.

• Cost-effectiveness, defined as maximizing the impact of the funds provided. (0 to 10 points) Applicants must discuss the relative costs and benefits of the range of alternatives considered and quantify the safety and mobility benefit in relationship to both the total project cost and the funds provided. Caltrans must develop a benefit/cost model for infrastructure and non-infrastructure active transportation projects in order to improve information available to decision makers at the state and MPO level in future programming cycles by September 30, 2014

• Improved public health through the targeting of populations with high risk factors for obesity, physical inactivity, asthma or other health issues. (0 to 10 points)

• Benefit to disadvantaged communities. (0 to 10 points)

• Use of the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the Public Resources Code, as partners to undertake or construct applicable projects in accordance with Section 1524 of Public Law 112-141. Points will be deducted if an applicant does not seek corps participation or if an applicant intends not to utilize a corps in a project in which the corps can participate. (0 to -5 points) The California Conservation Corps can be contacted at ccc.ca.gov. Community conservation

corps can be contacted at californialocalconservationcorps.org. Direct contracting with the California Conservation Corps or a qualified community conservation corps without bidding is permissible provided that the implementing agency demonstrates cost effectiveness per 23 CFR 635.204 and obtains approval from Caltrans. A copy of the agreement between the implementing agency and the proposed conservation corps must be included in the project application as supporting documentation.

• Applicant’s performance on past grants. This may include project delivery, project benefits (anticipated v. actual), and use of the California Conservation Corps or qualified community conservation corps (planned v. actual). Applications from agencies with documented poor performance records on past grants may be excluded from competing or may be penalized in scoring. (0 to -10 points)

Item #7


February 19, 2014 Review of Regional Freight and Weight Restricted Routes Recommendation: None. This item is for information. Discussion: Over the last few months, SACOG has been collecting information about member jurisdictions’ truck routes. This information will serve as the foundation for various geospatial analyses that will help identify farm-to-market routes and critical needs in the regional freight network. This work is part of the ongoing effort of the Rural Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS) program to better understand challenges and opportunities facing rural and agricultural communities in the region. SACOG is requesting that public works staff responsible for maintaining local trucking route information review and offer any changes or additional routes for your jurisdiction. The attached map includes the regional network of freight routes by classification. If you would prefer a GIS shapefile or jurisdiction specific map, SACOG can share these upon request. Please submit any questions or comments to Clint Holtzen ([email protected]) or Deborah Schrimmer ([email protected]) by Friday, March 7.

CH:gg Attachment Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Victoria S. Cacciatore, Transportation Planner, (916) 340-6214 Clint Holtzen, Transportation Planner, (916) 340-6246 Deborah Schrimmer, Land Use Planner, (916) 340-6223



§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

ST99

ST49

ST113

ST70

ST65

ST20

ST20

ST99

ST113

ST70

ST99

£¤50

£¤50

¡¢80

ST16

§̈¦505

ST128

ST45

ST160

ST160

ST220

ST12

ST193

ST174

ST89

ST88

ST89

ST89

ST267

ST28

ST49

ST49

ST16

ST99

5

I80

99

I 5

50

I 505

113

20

70

160

US HWY 50

I 80

HWY 16

12

80

HWY 20

STATE HWY 88

HWY 4

5

HWY 65

JACKSON RD

HWY 49

RIVER RD

65

WISE RD

STATE HWY 193

HWY 128

HWY 1

13CO

UNTY

ROA

D 98

MOORE RDS B

REWE

R RD

STATE HWY 49

JEFF

ERSO

N BL

VDCOUNTY ROAD 1

COUN

TY R

OAD

85

N HWY 65

HWY 70

TWIN CITIES RD

EMERALD BAY RD

N DO

WD

RD PLAC

ER H

ILLS

RD

Q ST

COUN

TY R

OAD

102

COUN

TY R

OAD

95

SPENCEVILLE RD

COUN

TY R

OAD

87

FREE

PORT

BLV

D

MT VERNON RD

BASELINE RD

HWY 65 S

2ND ST

LINCOLN RD

FINNING MILL RD

EAST

ST

GRANT LINE RD

SUNRISE BLVD

RYER

AVE

BLUE RAVINE RD

A ST

14TH AVE

MADISON AVE

EXIT 188

COUN

TY R

OAD

93

COUNTY ROAD 19

FLORIN RD

COUN

TY R

OAD

104

HWY 1

13

160

80

I80

50

99

80

5

99

I 5

160

I80

99

HWY 1680

80

HWY 7

0

I 505

TWIN CITIES RD

¯

El Dorado County

Placer CountyYubaCounty

SutterCounty

YoloCounty

SacramentoCounty

0 10 205 Miles

Lake Tahoe

Semitrailer length: no limitKPRA: 40' max for 2 or more axles; 38' max for single-axle trailersOverall length: 65' max

Semitrailer length: over 48' and up to 53' maxKPRA: 40' max for two or more axles; 38' max for single-axle trailersOverall length: no limit

CA Legal Truck Tractor - Semitrailer

STAA Truck

Truck Route ClassificationsA truck tractor-semitrailer (or double) that cantravel on virtually any route in California.Terminal Access and Local RoutesState or local routes that have granted access to STAA trucks.

Federal highways included in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. This network can accomodate STAAand CA Legal Trucks.

National Network

CA Legal Truck Route

Recommended and weight-restricted truck routes.Special & Restricted Routes

Draft Regional Goods Movement Truck RoutesFebruary, 2014

Documents

Regional Planning Partnership · Regional Planning Partnership Wednesday, February 26, 2014, 2:00 p.m. ... Using delegated authority from the RPP, the Project Level Conformity Group