CC 20161101 I SCAG Tri-City Roadway Safety Master PlanRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: 11/01/2016
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
Consideration and possible action to apply for the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) 2016 Sustainability Planning Grant, to fund the creation of a Tri -
city Roadway Safety Master Plan in coordination with the Cities of Palos Verdes Estates
and Rolling Hills Estates
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the City Manager and/or his designee to submit an application as the
lead agency for the 2016 Sustainability Planning Grant offered by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) to fund the Tri -City Roadway
Safety Master Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Nicole Jules, PE, Deputy Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Michael Throne, PE, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager. rv' 11'
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. 2016 Sustainability Planning Grants Application (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Cycling on the Peninsula, particularly in the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) and
Palos Verdes Estates (PVE), has presented some challenges to ensuring the safety of
cyclists, motorists and pedestrians who share the road. Given that travel takes place
between and through RPV, PVE, and Rolling Hills Estates (RHE), a collaborative effort
has begun to create a plan for safe and efficient travel on the Peninsula.
Staff from all three cities have met and concluded that there would be mutual benefit to
establishing a multi -city "Roadway Safety Master Plan" to address safe and efficient
movement on Peninsula roads. The concept is to develop a plan that establishes
standard safety measures that apply peninsula -wide, but with subsections tailored to
each of the participating cities. This could include consistent designated paths of travel,
signing, markings and routing, as well as education of the public who are unfamiliar with
rules and regulations that apply to the use of the roadway, regardless of the mode of
travel.
1
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is currently accepting
applications for the 2016 Sustainability Planning Grants Program which provides
consultant services as well as financial and technical resources to selected projects,
free of charge. SCAG's program recognizes sustainable solutions to local challenges
and has resulted in local plans that promote sustainability through the integration of
transportation and land use. The previous call for proposals in 2013 resulted in over 70
funded projects, ranging from Bicycle Master Plans to Urban Forestry Initiatives. The
Tri -city Roadway Safety Master Plan would be an ideal candidate project for a grant of
this type.
The 2016 Sustainability Planning Grant application will be filed as a multi -agency
application, with Rancho Palos Verdes as the lead agency. The City of Palos Verdes
Estates will be completing the application on behalf of all three cities. Applications are
due November 18, 2016.
ALTERNATIVE:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council's consideration:
Do not authorize staff to apply for the 2016 Sustainability Planning Grant and not
move forward with the multi -city Roadway Safety Master Plan.
2
Southern California Association of Governments
2016 Sustainability Planning Grants Application
Community Plan Application Form
Agency Name: XXXX
Project Name: XXXX
sustainability
PROGRAM
Is IP
Tris
INNOVATING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW
A-1
Project Information
A. General Information
Project Name:
Agency Name:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip:
Project Manager:
Title:
Email:
Phone:
Addtl. Contact:
Title
Email:
Phone:
B. Authorizing Signature
Name (City Manager or Equivalent):
Title:
Phone Number:
Email:
Signature:
Date:
C. Project Details
Project Start Date:
Project End Date:
Subregion or COG
County:
Requested Amount:
Local Match:
If your agency is submitting multiple applications,
please prioritize them below.
Number of Applications
Priority of this Application
Submitted:
(Ex. 1 of 3):
If your agency is partnering with additional agencies
or community based organizations for this project,
please list them here and identify their roles.
Partner Name:
Role:
Partner Name:
Role:
Partner Name:
Role:
Partner Name:
Role:
If your project is part of a proposed multijurisdictional effort, please list cities applying for the same project
and the name of the project being applied for if different.
K
A-2
City Name:
Project Name:
City Name:
Project Name:
City Name:
Project Name:
D. Project Description
1. Please provide a short summary of your project that includes the major deliverables.
Provide a short description of the scope of your project. (500 Character Limit)
Enter Text Here.
2. Funding for the SPG is provided through a combination of federal, state and local sources and
requires a direct transportation nexus. For funding purposes please describe the transportation/GHG
emissions reduction nexus.
Provide a short description of how your project will reduce VMT and/or GHG. (500 Character
Limit)
Enter Text Here.
E. Background Information
1. Is your agency a member of SCAG? ❑ Yes/❑ No
2. SCAG requires that each jurisdiction submit a supporting resolution from the elected body or a letter
of intent in support of the project from the appropriate executive officer prior to receiving funding.
a. Is your agency willing to adopt/provide documentation of support? ❑ Yes/❑ No
3. Has your city adopted a Complete Streets ordinance/resolution/policy or an updated mobility
element that incorporates complete streets? ❑ Yes/❑ No
a. If yes, check all that apply:
Type
Date of
Adoption
Link to Document
L Resolution
Date
Link
❑ Ordinance
Date
Link
E Policy
Date
Link
Mobility Plan Update
Date
Link
4. The 2016 RTP/SCS seeks to "Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air
quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking)." The Active
Transportation Appendix outlines strategies for implementing the Active Transportation Component
of the RTP/SCS. Please list the strategies your project will implement:
3
A-3
Strategy:
Strategy:
Strategy:
Strategy:
Strategy:
F. Funding Criteria
The following questions will help SCAG identify the appropriate funding source for each project and
determine project eligibility.
1. Have you received ATP funding in cycles 1 or 2? ❑ Yes/❑ No
2. Is the funding request for this project more than $200,000? ❑ Yes/❑ No
a. If more than $200,000, did you submit your project in the statewide ATP call for projects?
Yes/❑ No*
*If this is a new project and the requested amount is more than $200,000 it must be
submitted as part of a larger Shared Vision project. Use the Shared Vision application
instead.
3. Is your project a Planning, Non -Infrastructure or Capacity Building Project?
❑ Plan
❑ Non -Infrastructure
❑ Capacity Building Mini -Grants
4
MA
Application: Community-wide/Area-wide Plans
Mark the type(s) of project activity that you are proposing. You may mark more than one. (Information only)
❑ Bicycle Master Plan
❑ Pedestrian Master Plan
❑ Safe Routes to School Master Plan
❑ Active Transportation Plan
❑ First Last Mile Plan
❑ Neighborhood Mobility Area Plan
A. Project Need (Total 50 pts)
1. Mobility Benefits (15 points)
a. Does your community currently have a bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school or
comprehensive Active Transportation Plan? ❑ Yes/ ❑ No
Mark all that your community currently has:
*If your plan is not currently available via hyperlink, please submit a PDF of the document with
your application.
i. If yes, describe the planning gap that you hope to fill and its desired impact on improving
mobility for people walking and bicycling. If no, simply write 'No Plans.'
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Type
Year
Completed
Link
L
Bicycle Master Plan
Date
Link
❑
Pedestrian Master Plan
Date
Link
❑
Safe Routes to School Master Plan
Date
Link
F7
Active Transportation Plan
Date
Link
*If your plan is not currently available via hyperlink, please submit a PDF of the document with
your application.
i. If yes, describe the planning gap that you hope to fill and its desired impact on improving
mobility for people walking and bicycling. If no, simply write 'No Plans.'
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Mobility
Score
5 Points
Agency/Community has no active transportation plans or has not
updated these plans in more than 10 years.
2-4 Points
Agency/community completed some active transportation planning, but
project sponsor provides comprehensive justification for the need for
additional planning.
0-1 Point
Agency/community has updated active transportation plans, and
presents limited justification to support the need for more planning.
5
CEJ
b. Describe the state of active transportation infrastructure in your city and the project area. What
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure/non-infrastructure programs are in place? What
infrastructure gaps exist that you would hope to address with the plan? (Applicant may wish to
attach maps, photos, or walk audit results to support responses).
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Mobility
Score
3-5 Points
Applicant presents a clear need for active transportation infrastructure
improvements and shows how the proposed plan will address gaps in
programming and infrastructure.
0-2 Points
Applicant presents a limited need for active transportation
0-2 Points
infrastructure improvements and proposed plan does not completely
address identified gaps.
c. Describe the land -use and transportation plans and policies that have been developed or are
under development that will support greater rates of walking and biking. This may include plans
for increased transit investment or greater mixed-use development—Transit Priority Areas, High
Quality Transit Areas, and special district plans. Describe any other supporting policies adopted
by your governing body related to active transportation that will support the proposed project
by leveraging other efforts to create more walkable and bicycle friendly communities (Ex. Bicycle
Parking Ordinance, Complete Street Policies, etc...). If your city has not yet adopted such policies
but has secured funding or initiated planning for such policies, please include expected dates of
completion.
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Mobility
Score
3-5 Points
Applicant provides clear examples of current or future plans and
policies that will support greater rates of walking and biking. Describes
a current or future policy environment where an active transportation
plan will add considerable value.
0-2 Points
Applicant provides few examples of current or future supportive plans
and policies. Describes a policy environment where an active
transportation plan will have limited impact.
2. Safety (20 points)
11
M
a. For community wide plans, identify the rate of bicycle or pedestrian collisions in your city or
county in this document. If planning for an area or neighborhood, use this document to select
the census tracts within your project area, sum the total bicycle and/or pedestrian
injuries/fatalities for the selected census tracts and divide by the area's combined population.
Geographic Unit of Rate (Area or City): (XXXX)
Bicycle Rate (Bicycle Plans Only): (XXXX)
Pedestrian Rate (Pedestrian Plans Only): (XXXX)
Combined Rate (Active Transportation Plans/Safe Routes to school Plans):
Points
Safety
Score
15 Points
0.0025 bicycle, or
0.0022 or greater pedestrian, or
0.0048 or greater combined collisions per capita.
12 Points
0.0013-0.0024 bicycle, or
0.0013-0.0021 pedestrian, or
0.0026-0.0047 combined collisions per capita.
5 Points
0.0004-0.0012 bicycle, or
0.0004-0.0012 pedestrian, or
0.0008-0.0025 combined collisions per capita.
b. Describe any additional factors that impact real or perceived safety in the area (high speeds, lack
of infrastructure, crime, need for additional enforcement, etc.). How will this project engage
stakeholders and agency staff to address these factors?
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Safety
Score
3-5 Points
Additional factors are identified that pose significant challenges to
expanding rates of walking and bicycling. A clear plan for engaging
stakeholders and agency staff to address the issues identified.
0-2 Points
Additional factors are mentioned but clear strategies for engaging
stakeholders are not provided.
3. Public Health (5 points)
a. Provide health statistics for the community/area where the project will be completed. For
citywide plans use CHIS Neighborhood Edition to determine the rates in your city. For area wide
plans use the lowest level of geography available. If data is not available at your project level,
use the smallest geography available. If you need assistance with finding data for this question
7
A-7
contact your county health department. Results below are based on 2014 California Health
Interview Survey data.
Geographic Unit of Data Provided: (XXXX)
i. Percentage of the population with Obesity (SCAG Regional Average 26.7%): (XXXX)
ii. Percentage of the population with Diabetes (SCAG Regional Average 9.3%): (XXXX)
iii. Percentage of the population with Heart Disease (SCAG Regional Average 5.6%): (XXXX)
Points
Public Health
Score
0-5
One point for each chronic disease score that is higher than the regional
average. Five points if all three are higher than the regional average.
4. Disadvantaged Community (10 points)
a. What percentage of your community qualifies as a disadvantaged community? To qualify,
residents must either live in an area that is in the top 25% of communities identified by
CalEnviroScreen, have a Median Household Income of Less than 80% of the state median, or be
located in a SCAG Community of Concern (Map of Existing DACs).
• For community -wide plans, the percentage should be based on the total population that
meets one or more of the criteria listed above. SCAG has calculated the data in this
document for your convenience.
• For area -wide plans, estimate the percentage of the population that lives within a
Disadvantaged Community based on census tracts within % mile of the project. Add
together the total disadvantaged population (Dis_pop) living in the census tracts from
this document and divide by the total population (Tract_pop).
• For first -last mile transit connectivity plans, include the percentage of the population
based on census tracts within three miles of the transit stop or station. Add together the
total disadvantaged population (Dis_pop) living in the census tracts from this document
and divide by the total population (Tract_pop).
• For Safe Routes to School Master Plans, the percentage should be based on the
percentage of the school district student body that is eligible for free and reduced
priced lunches (Column E - http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/sd/documents/f rpm1516.xls).
If your agency needs technical assistance to determine this percentage, please contact SCAG by
10/15/16.
i. Percentage of population that is disadvantaged: 11 1
Points Disadvantaged Communities Score
E3
V1,1111111111591
UNLO-1
10 Points
80% or more of the population is considered disadvantaged.
Score
8 Points
60%-79% of the population is considered disadvantaged.
6 Points
40%-59% of the population is considered disadvantaged.
4 Points
20%-39% of the population is considered disadvantaged.
2 Points
0-19% of the population is considered disadvantaged.
B. Project Goals, Objectives and Outcomes (40pts)
1. Mobility (20 points)
a. State the goals and objectives in measurable terms that relate directly to the identified
need/problem(s) identified in Part A. The objectives should be concise (use bullets), address a
specific issue(s), and be realistic with a reasonable probability of achievement.
For example:
• The goal of this project is to reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities to 0 by 2030.
• The goal of this objective of this plan is increase bicycle usage by XX% to increase
rates of physical activity and reduce chronic diseases.
• The objective of this project is to identify policies and programs that will encourage
XX% more children to walk and bicycle to school.
Enter Text Here.
Points
Mobility
Score
6-10
Applicant identifies goals and objectives that meet the needs of the
Points
community that are achievable.
0-5
Applicant identifies the goals and objectives but does not tie them
Points
to the needs of the community or they are inappropriate for the
context of the project.
b. Identify the outcomes (tasks and deliverables) to be conducted in order to accomplish the stated
objectives (use bullets). (Applicants may choose to use the Model Scope of Work for
Community -wide Plans as a guide. It can be downloaded on the application website.)
N
MR
For example:
• A prioritized list of pedestrian safety projects and expected costs.
• A GIS shapefile of all existing and proposed bicycle facilities.
• Modeled increases in bicycle and pedestrian usage and expected health outcomes
that will occur as a result of the plan.
Open Ended (1000 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Mobility
Score
6-10
Applicant identifies reasonable tasks to achieve the stated goals and
Points
objectives.
0-5
Applicant identifies tasks but they are not appropriate or realistic for
Points
completing the project with the proposed budget.
2. Safety (5 points)
a. How will safety and the role of education and enforcement activities be considered in the
development of the plan? Discuss any analysis tools, outreach or other strategies to be
considered in the scope of work that will help ensure education and enforcement strategies are
considered in the plan development process. Provide a letter of support from School Districts,
Law Enforcement agencies or other partnering organizations that are committed to enhancing
safety in the project area. The letter should include a description of the support the agency or
organization will provide or how the organization will be engaged in the project (such as
participate on a technical advisory committee).
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Safety
Score
3-5 Points
Approach is clear and comprehensive. Illustrates data based
methodology for identifying and targeting collision "hot spots" and
informing educational programs. A letter of support from a supporting
agency is provided.
0-2 Points
Approach is feasible but lacks a data driven approach for identifying
collision "hot spots" or informing targeted educational programs. No
partnership with a supporting agency.
3. Public Health (5 points)
10
A-10
a. How will public health be considered in the development of the plan? Discuss any analysis tools,
outreach or other strategies incorporated into the scope of work that will help ensure health
outcomes are considered in plan development. Provide a letter of support from the County
Health Department, health care agency, or health focused community based organization. The
letter should include a description of the support the partner will provide for the project.
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Public Health
Score
3-5 Points
Approach is clear and comprehensive and describes tools and
2-3 Points
strategies that will be used to incorporate health outcomes. A letter of
0-1 Point
support from public health partner is provided.
0-2 Points
Approach is not clear and/or comprehensive, tools and strategies are
not clearly defined. Lacks a letter of support from health partner.
4. Public Participation (5 Points)
a. Describe innovative approaches for outreach that will be included in your project. Include target
audiences, outreach strategies and desired outcomes. Include strategies for reaching members
of disadvantaged communities and non-English speaking populations if applicable.
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Public Participation
Score
4-5
Points
Project includes robust and innovative outreach strategies that will
engage identified target audience.
2-3 Points
Project includes sufficient outreach and includes outreach strategies to
reach identified target audience.
0-1 Point
Project includes minimal or limited outreach strategies.
C. Partnerships and Leveraging (15pts)
1. Leveraging (5 pts)
a. No local match is required to receive SPG -AT funding, however additional points will be
provided for agencies that provide local match or in-kind match. Additional points will also be
provided to projects that utilize existing partnerships and resources to extend the reach of AT -
SPG funding.
i. Will your agency provide a local match?
11
A-11
ii. What is the monetary value of the match?
iii. What percentage of the project does this represent?
Points
% of Local Match pledged to the project.
Score
4 Points
20% or more of total project cost
'°r
and details additional sources of funding that will be used to
Reviewer
support the project.
Only
3 Points
15% to 19.9% of total project cost
For
Reviewer
Only
2 Points
11.5% to 14.9% of total project cost
For
Reviewe\
r On ly
1 Point
1% to 11.4% of total project cost
For
Reviewer
Only
b. Please describe the source of the local match (In -Kind, Local Funding, Existing Grants, etc.).
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
Points
Leveraged Funds
Score
0-1 point
The applicant clearly demonstrates commitment to leverage funds
and details additional sources of funding that will be used to
'or
Reviewer
support the project.
Only
2. Cost Effectiveness (5 pts)
a. SCAG is seeking to limit duplication of efforts across the region and provide best practices for
many of the project components eligible through the AT -SPG. If selected what existing
methodologies/tools/templates will be integrated into your plan (Metro First -Last Mile Strategic
Plan, Model Complete Streets Policies, Sub -regional Active Transportation Plans, etc.)?
Alternatively, please describe how the plan promotes multijurisdictional collaboration and/or
otherwise seeks to leverage and expand the impacts of the project beyond a single municipality.
Open Ended (1500 character limit)
Enter Text Here.
12
A-12
Points
Cost Effectiveness
Score
3-5 Points
Applicant identifies existing methodologies/tools/templates to be
included in the plan and clearly describes how they will be
incorporated into project. Alternatively the applicant agrees to use the
3-4 Points
Model Scope of Work for community -wide plans. Alternatively,
applicant clearly defines method and approach for ensuring project
results in multi -jurisdictional impact.
0-2 Points
Project identifies existing methodologies/tools/templates but fails to
clearly describe how they will be incorporated into the project.
Applicant provides limited or no evidence to support that the project
will have multi -jurisdictional impacts.
3. Public Participation / Collaboration (5 pts)
a. Provide letters of commitment for your plan from a minimum of three (3) other jurisdictions or
stakeholder groups that will contribute resources to the project's success. These letters are in
addition to other letters required throughout this application. Each letter should include a brief
list of the types of activities that the other jurisdiction or stakeholder group will commit to
providing as part of the project. Stakeholder groups can include the following:
i. Youth/Senior Group
ii. School District
iii. City Agency
iv. Community Based Organization
v. Faith Based Organization
vi. Chamber of Commerce/Business Group
vii. Advocacy Group (Social Equity, Health, Environment, etc.)
Points
Public Participation
Score
5 Points
The applicant has provided more than 3 letters of commitment for the
project and they clearly outline the types of activities each jurisdiction
or stakeholder will undertake to support the project.
3-4 Points
The applicant has provided 3 letters of commitment for the project
and they clearly outline the types of activities each jurisdiction or
stakeholder will undertake to support the project.
1-2 Points
The applicant has provided less than 3 letters of commitment for the
project.
13
A-13
Attachment 1
Scoring Matrix
14
A-14
Reviewer's Name:
Agency:
Phone Number:
Email:
Scoring Matrix
Sub -question
Possible Total Received
Question A: Project Need
50 Points
Mobility
1
15
Safety
2
20
Public Health
3
5
Disadvantaged Communities
4
10
Question B: Project Goals, Objectives and Outcomes
35 Points
Mobility
1
20
Safety
2
5
Public Health
3
5
Public Participation
4
5
Question C: Partnerships and Leveraging
15 Points
Leveraging
1
5
Cost Effectiveness
2
5
Public Participation / Collaboration
3
5
Final Score
Reviewer's Notes
Signature:
15
Date:
A-15
Attachment 2
Letters of Support
16
A-16