solano transportation authority · 3/25/2020 · unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 ayes...

The complete STA TAC packet is available on STA’s website: www.sta.ca.gov

Solano Transportation Authority Member Agencies:

Benicia ♦ Dixon ♦ Fairfield ♦ Rio Vista ♦ Suisun City ♦ Vacaville ♦ Vallejo ♦ Solano County

One Harbor Center, Ste. 130, Suisun City, CA 94585-2473 ♦ Phone (707) 424-6075 / Fax (707) 424-6074 Email: [email protected] ♦ Website: sta.ca.gov

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2020

MEETING AGENDA ITEM STAFF PERSON

Daryl Halls, Chair

Janet Adams

Johanna Masiclat

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT(1:30 -1:35 p.m.)

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES(1:35 – 1:45 p.m.)

• 2020 State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Approved List

5. CONSENT CALENDARRecommendation:Approve the following consent items in one motion.(1:45 – 1:50 p.m.)

A. Minutes of the TAC Meeting of February 26, 2020 Recommendation:Approve TAC Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2020.Pg. 5

B. Vallejo Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Participatory Budgeting Project Selections Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA TAC and Board to:

1. Approve the Vallejo Participatory Budgeting Projects onAttachment C for $400,000 of regional STAF Lifelinefunding; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into fundingagreements with the City of Vallejo and SolTrans toimplement the approved PB Projects.

Pg. 9

Elizabeth Richards

TAC MEMBERS William Tarbox Joe Leach Paul Kaushal Robin Borre Matthew Medill Shawn Cunningham Terrance Davis Matt Tuggle

City of Benicia

City of Dixon

City of Fairfield

City of Rio Vista

City of Suisun City

City of Vacaville

City of Vallejo

County of Solano

>> Dial In Meeting <<Dial 1(888) 204-5987 Access Code: 4515473#

1

http://www.sta.ca.gov/


C. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Transit FacilityPublic Art FundRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the creation of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Transit Facility Public Art Fund as part of the 5% Regional Transit Funding. Pg. 17

Erika McLitus

6. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Solano Suburban Housing Incentive Pool (SubHIP)Recommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve thefollowing:

1. $1.9 million from the Suburban Housing Incentive Pool(SubHIP) program for the Vacaville TransportationCenter/Allison Drive PDA implementation project; and

2. Authorize the STA Executive Director to enter into afunding agreement with the City of Vacaville for the $1.9million.

(1:50 – 2:00 p.m.) Pg. 19

Robert Guerrero Shawn Cunningham,

City of Vacaville

Robert Guerrero

Robert Guerrero

7. ACTION NON-FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Solano County Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Transit ElementRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA TAC and Board to approve the updated Transit Element of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan as shown in Attachment A.(2:00 – 2:15 p.m.)Pg. 23

B. Solano County Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Arterials, Highways and Freeways ElementRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the updated Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element of the CTP as shown in Attachment A.(2:15 – 2:30 p.m.)Pg. 25

C. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Draft Land Use ChapterRecommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve releasing the Draft Land Use Chapter of the CTP for a 30-day public comment period.(2:30 – 2:40 p.m.)Pg. 27

Triana Crighton

2



D. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Solano ActiveTransportation Plan (ATP)Recommendation:Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve releasing the Solano Active Transportation Plan (ATP) of the CTP for a 30-day public comment period.(2:40 – 2:50 p.m.)Pg. 29

Anthony Adams

Erika McLitus

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 2st Quarter Update FY 2019-20(2:50 – 2:55 p.m.)Pg. 37

B. Legislative Update(2:55 – 3:00 p.m.)Pg. 41

Vincent Ma

NO DISCUSSION

Debora Harris C. Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program Second Quarter ReportPg. 87

D. Summary of Funding OpportunitiesPg. 89

Brent Rosenwald

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

April 2020A. Parking Demand Study/Mode of Transition Plan UpdateB. Draft STA Overall Work PlanC. TDA Article 3

10. ADJOURNMENTThe next regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee is tentatively scheduled at1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2020.

Meeting Schedule for the Calendar Year 2020 1:30 p.m., Wed., April 29th 1:30 p.m., Wed., May 27th 1:30 p.m., Wed., June 24th

No Meeting in July (Summer Recess) 1:30 p.m., Wed., August 26th

1:30 p.m., Wed., September 30th 1:30 p.m., Wed., October 28th

No Meeting in October 1:30 p.m., Wed., November 18th (Earlier Date) 1:30 p.m., Wed., December 16th (Earlier Date)

3



Translation Services: For document translation please call:

Para la llamada de traducción de documentos: 對於文檔翻譯電話

Đối với tài liệu gọi dịch: Para sa mga dokumento tawag sa pagsasalin:

707-399-3239

4


Agenda Item 5.A March 25, 2020

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT Minutes for the Meeting of

February 26, 2020

1. CALL TO ORDERThe regular meeting of the STA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was called to order byDaryl Halls at approximately 1:30 p.m. in the Solano Transportation Authority (STA)’sConference Room 1.

TAC MembersPresent: William Tarbox City of Benicia

Paul Kaushal City of Fairfield Matt Medill City of Suisun City Shawn Cunningham City of Vacaville Terrance Davis City of Vallejo Matt Tuggle County of Solano

TAC Members Absent: Joe Leach City of Dixon

Robin Borre City of Rio Vista STA Staff and Others Present: (In Alphabetical Order by Last Name)

Janet Adams STA Karin Bloesch STA/SR2S Ada Chan ABAG Triana Crighton STA Matthew Gleason City of Vallejo Ron Grassi STA Robert Guerrero STA Daryl Halls STA Johanna Masiclat STA John McKenzie Caltrans District 4 Erika McLitus STA Brent Rosenwald STA Dan Sequeira City of Benicia Nouae Vue City of Benicia

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAOn a motion by Terrance Davis, and a second by William Tarbox, the STA TAC unanimouslyapproved the agenda to include amendment to Agenda Item 5.D, Low Carbon Transit OperationsProgram (LCTOP) FY 2019-20 Funding. (5 Ayes – 3 Absent: Borre, Cunningham, and Leach)

5

3.

OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT None presented. Shawn Cunningham arrived at the meeting.

4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA, AND OTHER AGENCIES John McKenzie, Caltrans, provided an update on the Solano I-80 East Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP).

5. CONSENT CALENDAR On a motion Matt Tuggle, and a second by Paul Kaushal, the STA TAC approved Items A through D to include amendment to Item D as shown below in bold italics. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

A. Minutes of the TAC Meeting of January 29, 2020 Recommendation: Approve TAC Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2020.

B. Lifeline Program Funding Cycle 6 Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board recommending Lifeline Program funding by the transit operators continue to be in coordination with the CTSA Advisory Committee and STA Board via the Consortium.

C. Solano Community College (SCC) Student Transportation Fee Update Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve allowing Solano Community College students to continue to ride at no additional cost with a valid Solano Community College student ID on all SolanoExpress routes, including stops outside of Solano County.

D. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Funding Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to allocate Solano County FY 2019-20 LCTOP Population Based Funds for SolTrans $595,846 (72%) and FAST $231,718 (28%) for electrification infrastructure of the SolanoExpress fleet and distribution for FY 2020-21 LCTOP will be discussed through a cooperative process to be recommended by the Consortium to the STA Board.

6. ACTION FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Regional Measure 3 Bridge Toll Competitive Programs Priority Project Janet Adams reviewed and outlined the competitive programs in priority order with staff recommendation on the priority projects and funding amount to be sought for each project. She noted that STA is seeking projects that will be competitive to secure funding from these programs and that will attract RM 3 funding for projects that provide regional benefit, projects that are ready to begin construction within 3 to 5 years and projects that have high local support, including local funding to demonstrate this local support.

6

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the priority capital projects for RM 3 as shown in Attachment C.

On a motion by Shawn Cunningham, and a second by Terrance Davis, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

B. Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Micro-Grant Program Project Update Karin Bloesch provided an update to the application process of the SR2S Micro Grant that took place over a two month period from November 2019 to January 2020. She noted that the applications were reviewed and scored by the Micro-Grant subcommittee with a list of project award and funding recommendations. She cited that 16 SR2S Micro-Grant applications were received totaling $211,466.10 and of that total, $9,270 consisted of equipment, supplies and incentives which were all recommended for funding. She concluded by stating that STA staff is currently planning joint meetings with applicant cities and school districts to facilitate project implementation pending approval.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to accept Safe Routes to School Micro-Grant funding recommendations as shown in Attachment B.

On a motion by Shawn Cunningham, and a second by William Tarbox, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

7. ACTION NON FINANCIAL ITEMS

A. Plan Bay Area 2050 – Draft County Discretionary Revenues and Project Submittal Robert Guerrero distributed Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) project narrative and reviewed the recommended changes from the previous project list to the new RTP submittals. He commented that at the January TAC meeting, STA staff informed the TAC members that the original RTP project submittals would have to be revised to be consistent with the new RTP county budget assumption reduced from $2.4 billion to $460 million. He concluded by noting that in order to meet MTC’s March 27th deadline, STA staff is requesting the STA TAC approve the revised project list for STA Board’s approval at their March 11th Board meeting.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the Solano County Regional Transportation Plan Project List as specified in Attachment A.

On a motion by Matt Tuggle, and a second by Shawn Cunningham the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Equity Chapter Adoption Triana Crighton distributed the Equity Chapter to the TAC members at the meeting. She commented that the Equity Chapter was circulated through a variety of Citizen Based Advisory Committees and external equity-focused groups within the county during the comment period. She cited that positive comments were received and that no recommendation changes to the Equity Chapter were provided.

7

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to adopt the CTP Equity Chapter as shown in Attachment A.

On a motion by Matt Tuggle, and a second by Matt Medill, the STA TAC unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 Ayes – 2 Absent: Borre and Leach)

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – DISCUSSION

A. Legislative Update Daryl Halls noted that there are a lot of spot bills that have been introduced that are mostly related to transit. He mentioned the Bay Area Seamless Transit Act that would require public transit system operating in the nine Bay Area Counties to integrate fares and payment systems.

B. Project Delivery Update Erika McLitus provided an update to three Solano Countywide OBAG Cycle 1 projects obligated in FY 2016-17 and seven OBAG 2 Projects scheduled for obligation in FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20.

NO DISCUSSION

C. Summary of Funding Opportunities

D. Draft Meeting Minutes of STA Board & Advisory Committees

E. STA Board and Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2020

9. UPCOMING TAC AGENDA ITEMS

10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

The next regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee is scheduled at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at the STA.

8

Agenda Item 5.B March 25, 2020

DATE: March 24, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Ron Grassi, Director Programs RE: Vallejo Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Participatory Budgeting

Project Selections Background: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 2001 Lifeline Transportation Network Report identified transit needs in economically disadvantaged communities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, the Environmental Justice Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan also identified the need for MTC to support local planning efforts in low-income communities throughout the region. To advance the findings of these studies, MTC initiated and has been funding community-based transportation planning studies in low-income communities throughout the Bay Area. The objective of the community-based planning process was to develop a plan through a collaborative process that identifies transportation gaps, proposes and prioritizes strategies to address the gaps, and identifies potential funding sources and project leads for implementation. This process ensured that the low-income population directly affected by the transportation plan is guiding the process. The new Vallejo Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) process began in May 2019. The purpose of the CBTP is to identify and find solutions to transportation challenges for communities of concern within Vallejo. Vallejo was one of two cities selected by MTC (San Francisco was the other due to its participatory budgeting process. Communities of concern are neighborhoods with a high percentage of low-income households and other underrepresented groups and had been identified by MTC (Attachment A). MTC also allocated $400,000 of State Transit Assistance (Lifeline) funds for projects identified through a Participatory Budgeting process. STA has facilitated the implementation of Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) in Dixon, Suisun City, Downtown Fairfield, East Fairfield, Vacaville and Vallejo. Prior to community outreach beginning, the STA and consultant team established two committees to guide and assist this effort. A Steering Committee was established and began meeting monthly in June to provide overall guidance. It consists of the STA, City of Vallejo, SolTrans, County of Solano, Fighting Back Partnership (FBP) and consultants. A Community Engagement and Participation Committee (CEPC) of key Vallejo community stakeholders was also established to assist with outreach. Discussion: The Vallejo CBTP community outreach kicked off in July 2019 with a Transportation Forum. Input on transportation challenges and solutions was received. A survey was introduced (hard

9

copy and on-line). Promotion to the broader community began through multiple avenues and input continued to be collected into September. With the assistance of the CEPC, surveys were distributed at numerous events and half a dozen focus groups were also held.

From the data collected through the surveys, focus groups and outreach, transportation challenges were identified. Projects that addressed the challenges were developed that could be achieved within the Participatory Budgeting funding parameters. The project specifics were developed by the City of Vallejo Public Works and SolTrans. In total, 16 projects were identified for public voting (Attachment B).

Voting to prioritize the 16 projects began at the October 24, 2019 Transportation Expo. The 16 projects were displayed with a project description, the issue they were addressing, how they benefited the community, and the estimated project cost. After the event, community voting continued on-line until November 18, 2019.

The Vallejo community public was invited to vote by allocating the $400,000 among the 16 projects. Estimated project costs ranged from $10,000 to $250,000. There was not a priority ranking of projects beyond this allocation. An estimated 140 individuals voted on-line and 60 at the Expo. Projects selected through the Participatory Budgeting Process reflect community input.

The community project voting was presented to a three-member STA Board CBTP Ad Hoc Review Committee consisting of Vallejo Mayor Bob Sampayan, Vallejo Council Member Katy Miessner and SolTrans and STA Board Member Lori Wilson. The CBTP Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the list of priority projects and recommended six projects for PB funding (Attachment C).

Projects that were not selected for funding through this process will remain in the CBTP along with additional projects to address the transportation challenges raised by the community. The Vallejo CBTP recommended PB funding allocations will be presented to the STA Board in April 2020.

Fiscal Impact: The Vallejo Community Based Transportation Plan and Participatory Budgeting Process was funded with $95,000 provided by MTC and $100,000 of State Transit Assistance Funds (STAF) allocated by the STA Board as a match. Projects are funded with $400,000 of STAF Lifeline funding allocated to STA by MTC.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to:

1. Approve the Vallejo Participatory Budgeting Projects on Attachment C for $400,000 ofregional STAF Lifeline funding; and

2. Authorize the Executive Director to enter into funding agreements with the City ofVallejo and SolTrans to implement the approved PB Projects.

Attachments: A. Vallejo Communities of ConcernB. Participatory Budgeting (PB) ProjectsC. Recommended PB Projects for Funding

10

Attachment A

Vallejo Communities of Concern

11

This page is left intentionally blank.

12

ATTACHMENT B

Project A. Transit Centers Lyft/Uber designated meeting zones (Cost: $10K) Install designated meeting zones for Lyft/Uber rides at Curtola Park and Ride and downtown Vallejo Transit Center. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans) Project B. SolTrans System Maps at Bus Shelters (Cost: $20K) Install SolTrans 4’ x 4’ system route maps at 2-3 dozen of the busiest bus stop shelters. These maps would show the SolTrans bus routes. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans) Project C. Bus Stop and Shelter Lighting Improvements (Cost: $20K) Install additional solar lighting throughout the SolTrans bus system. This project would fund adding solar lighting to approximately 10 bus stops. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans) Project D. Radar Speed Feedback Signs (Cost: $30K) Purchase and install a pair of radar speed feedback signs on city streets. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project E. Redwood St Mid-Block Crosswalk Improvements (Cost: $50K) Upgrade the existing crosswalk and signing to increase visibility between Sonoma Blvd. and Sacramento Street. This is a mid-block crosswalk on a curve connecting housing and retail. This project will re-stripe the crosswalk and install a more visible flashing beacon. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project F. Broadway St - New Sidewalk (Cost: $50K) Construct a paved sidewalk on the westside of Broadway St between Delaware St and Texas St. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project G. Jordan St Striping (Cost: $60K) Install striping along Jordan St. as a strategy to direct vehicles and reduce travel speeds.(Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project H. Bus Stop Landscape Improvements (Cost: $60K) This project would fund new landscaping at approximately 20 bus stops. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans) Project I. Porter St - New Sidewalk and Street Crossing Improvements (Cost: $120K) Install over 400 feet of sidewalk on the east side of Porter St near Magazine St. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project J. Specialized Bus Shelters on Sonoma Blvd and Florida/Springs Rd. (Cost: $150K) Install approximately 5 initial specialized bus shelters on Sonoma Blvd. and Florida/Springs Rd. in preparation for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service in these corridors. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans) Project K. Fairgrounds Dr. -Pathway Lighting (Whitney-Borges) (Cost: $170K) Install lighting along an existing paved pathway on the westside of Fairgrounds Dr. between Whitney Ave. and Borges Ln. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo)

Vallejo CBTP Projects

13

ATTACHMENT B

Project L. SolTrans Real-Time Transit Information System (Cost: $200K) Install a real-time transit information system at bus stops throughout the SolTrans system. This includes electronic signs and maps to give SolTrans riders information on bus routes and arrivals. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project M. Benicia Rd - New Sidewalk and Street Crossing Improvements (Cost: $210K) Install over 500 feet of sidewalk, curb and gutter on the north side of Benicia Rd near Columbus Pkwy. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans)

Project N. Fairgrounds Dr. - New Sidewalk (Corcoran-Borges) (Cost: $210K) Construct a new paved sidewalk over 1000 feet in length on the westside of Fairgrounds Dr. between Corcoran Ave. and Borges Ln. (Project Sponsor: City of Vallejo) Project O. Enhanced Bus Shelters and Public Art (Cost: $240K) There are two major elements to the project: four enhanced bus shelters and public art. The enhanced bus shelters would be designed to reflect the characteristics of the neighborhood offering not only functionality but also an artistic element. Public art could enhance the streetscape and also be functional. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans) Project P. Additional Bus Shelters and Benches at SolTrans Bus Stops (Cost: $250K) Install at least 5 additional shelters with benches and at least 10 additional benches at bus stops that currently don’t have them throughout Vallejo that serve the communities of concern. (Project Sponsor: SolTrans)

14

Attachment C

CBTP Priority Project List (Staff recommended)

Project Description Original Project

Estimate

Revised Project

Estimate

Agency Lead

1 Bus Stop and Shelter Lighting Improvements (C) $ 20,000

$230,000 SolTrans 2 Additional Bus Shelters and Benches at SolTrans Bus

Stops (P) $250,000

3 SolTrans System Maps at Bus Shelters (B) $ 20,000 4 Bus Stop Landscape Improvements (H) $ 60,000

5 Redwood St Mid-Block Crosswalk Improvements (E) $ 50,000 $ 50,000 City of Vallejo 6 Porter St – New Sidewalk and Street Crossing

Improvements (I) $120,000 $120,000

TOTAL $520,000 $400,000

15


16

Agenda Item 5.C March 25, 2020

DATE: March 16, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Erika McLitus, Project Assistant RE: Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Transit Facility Public Art Fund Background: The STA and the County of Solano coordinates on the collection and management of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF), a transportation component of the County’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF). The County Board of Supervisors added a $1,500 per dwelling unit equivalent dedicated to the RTIF program as part of the PFF at on December 3, 2013. The RTIF collection formally began on February 3, 2014 with nearly $7.1 million collected as of the end of the 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20. As is required by law, every five years the County must update the Nexus study for the PFF. The most recent study was completed in April 2019. As part of this update, a recommendation was presented by County staff to increase the amount collected for RTIF from $1,500 to $2,500 for each dwelling unit equivalent (DUE), without increasing the total PFF. This recommendation was presented to various stakeholder groups, including the STA Board, STA TAC, developer groups, and City Managers. The Board of Supervisors passed the updated PFF, with an increased RTIF amount on August 6, 2019. The updated PFF schedule of fees became effective starting on October 6, 2019. With this increase to $2,500 per DUE, the RTIF revenue is projected to average over $2M per year, well above the historic average of $1.2M per year. Seven RTIF Working Groups were created to administer the RTIF funds for transportation projects that address development growth. Five of the seven RTIF Working Groups are geographically situated with the City of Fairfield (3 of 5) and the County of Solano (5 of 5) located in multiple Working Groups. The remaining two working groups were created separately with 10% of the overall revenue dedicated (5% each) to projects in the unincorporated County area and regional transit related projects. Discussion: The RTIF Transit Working Group (WG) #6 representatives last met on November 19, 2019, after the Consortium meeting. At this meeting, STA staff discussed the current balance and project commitments for WG #6. Revenue for WG #6 is currently committed to the SR 37/Fairgrounds Dr SolanoExpress Bus Stop. As of the end of FY 2018-19, $134k had been saved towards the $300k project commitment. STA staff informed the working group that the Solano Board of Supervisors voted to increase the RTIF amount from $1,500 to $2,500 per dwelling unit. This increase is expected to grow the annual average of revenue for WG #6 from $61k to $102k. Beth Kranda, Executive Director at SolTrans, suggested making the purchase of Public Art for Regional Transit Facilities a new project priority for WG #6 and working group members

17

unanimously agreed with this proposal. The group discussed the benefits of programming the additional RTIF monies from the recent increase of the RTIF portion of the PFF to the art initiative versus using the additional revenue to accelerate the repayment of the SolanoExpress SR 37/Fairgrounds Drive project. After substantial deliberation, WG #6 decided that new additional revenue, above the previous average $61k annual revenue, would fund Art for Regional Transit facilities. In the near future, the working group will discuss development of an art policy recommendation in depth to establish basic guidelines, addressing questions such as:

• Is there a call for projects? • Should funds be distributed annually or by art project? • Should funds be on a rotating basis for each transit operator, or simply upon request?

All recommended art purchase/projects proposed by RTIF Working Group #6 will require review and approval by the STA TAC and Board. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the creation of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) Transit Facility Public Art Fund as part of the 5% Regional Transit Funding.

18


DATE: March 17, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Robert Guerrero, Director of Planning RE: Solano Suburban Housing Incentive Pool (SubHIP)

Background: The SubHIP is a portion of a larger Housing Incentive Pool (HIP) program that MTC adopted in October 2018. The MTC HIP program originally had a total of $76 million set aside for Bay Area cities to compete based on the number of housing permits or housing units built by 2022. Several urban Bay Area Cities would’ve received the greater portion of the $76 million under the criteria, with suburban counties such as Solano County being substantially disadvantaged. This prompted Solano County MTC Representative, Supervisor Jim Spering to work with STA staff and three Solano cities with the most housing development potential around PDAs to offer an alternative criteria to reflect the suburban challenges in developing affordable housing projects. The attached MTC memo provides additional details on the program including their guidelines on project eligibility.

In October 2019, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved Resolution 4348 that directed $5 million in Suburban Housing Incentive Pool (SubHIP) funding to the four North Bay Counties (Napa, Marin, Solano and Sonoma). The purpose of the program is to assist in expediting affordable housing projects. Out of the $5 million, $4 million is dedicated to Solano County for eligible transportation infrastructure projects that support affordable housing projects in Priority Development Areas (PDA) or Transit Priority Areas (TPA) (Attachment A). The STA is required to submit eligible project proposals to MTC by June 1, 2020.

STA staff has been coordinating with the cities of Fairfield and Vacaville to include an affordable component to their PDA projects at the Fairfield Vacaville Train Station PDA and the Allison PDA adjacent to the Vacaville Transit Center respectively. Both PDAs have large and multiple housing development planned and were the focus of the $4 million SubHIP pilot program.

Discussion: STA staff is recommending $1.9 million from the SubHIP funding for eligible transportation projects to incentivize an affordable development at the Vacaville Transit Center (VTC)/Allison Drive PDA. The SubHIP incentive would result in 89 affordable units out of a 99 unit development adjacent to the VTC on the northern end. A map with the proposed transportation projects and the 99 unit housing site is attached.

19

STA staff is continuing to work with the City of Fairfield for the remaining balance of the Pilot SubHIP funding to be applied to a transportation project that supports affordable development within the Fairfield Vacaville PDA. STA has also released a request for Letters of Interest to all seven cities and the County for additional SubHIP process. At the meeting, staff will also provide an update of the Solano Housing Investment Partnership (SolHIP). Fiscal Impact: A total of $4 million is available for the STA to program through the SubHIP Pilot Program. $1.9 million is recommended for transportation improvements that support a future development at the Vacaville Transportation Center/Allison Drive PDA which would result in 89 affordable units. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the following:

1. $1.9 million from the Suburban Housing Incentive Pool (SubHIP) program for the Vacaville Transportation Center/Allison Drive PDA implementation project; and

2. Authorize the STA Executive Director to enter into a funding agreement with the City of Vacaville for the $1.9 million.

Attachment:

A. Map of Allison Drive Transit Improvements and Planned Housing Development

20

TRAVIS CREDITUNION

VACAVILLETRANSPORTATION

CENTER

ALLISON DRIVE

TRAVIS WAY

ULATIS DRIVE

ULATIS CREEK

ULATISCULTURAL

CENTER

A

F

C

B

D

E

STRADA 1200245 UNITS(MARKET)

180 SENIORAPT UNITS(MARKET)

99 UNITS(AFFORDABLE)

ALLISON DRIVE TRANSITORIENTED IMPROVEMENTS

Prefabricated Ped/Bike bridgesacross Ulatis Creek

Intersection Capacity and TrafficSignal Improvements atAllison/Ulatis Intersection

Pedestrian connection (Paseo)from VTC and Vacaville HousingProject to the HarbisonCommercial Center; and from adirect connection from theSenior Apartments to VTC.

Class I AC Ped/Bike Path from"STRADA 1200" portion of pathto "I-80 Express Lane" portion ofpath (on Cole Property)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION COST

A + B

C

D

E

$465,000 each

$1,290,000

$487,000

$671,000

TO BEARD ST(EXPRESS LANES)

21

This page intentionally left blank.

22


DATE: March 12, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Robert Guerrero, STA Planning Director RE: Solano County Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Transit Element

Background: STA staff is preparing to wrap up the Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) with the Land Use and Equity chapters anticipated for completion by March 2020. The Arterial, Highways and Freeways Element, Transit and Rideshare Element and Active Transportation Element were the three core foundations of the CTP and were previously adopted by the STA Board at different times in prior years.

The Transit and Rideshare Element was designed to serve the following purposes: • Define what is meant by Transit and Rideshare• Compare the Transit and Rideshare system in place today with the system desired by

2040, and find the most important gaps between the current reality and the future vision• Identify and prioritize projects and programs to maintain the current system while filling

in the most critical gaps• Identify the resources that can help both maintain and expand the Transit and Rideshare

system, establish policies to help allocate these resources, and identify milestones andperformance measures to guide us on our way

• Coordinate Transit and Rideshare activities with other aspects of the Solano CTP

The current Transit Element was adopted by the STA Board on January 11, 2017 and is most relevant to the SolanoExpress Consortium. STA staff proposed to have a small update of the Transit Element in January 2020 to include updated transit projects, programs and ridership information in order to coincide with the completion of the CTP’s Land Use and Equity Chapters.

Discussion: STA Staff presented the draft updated Transit Element at the January 29, 2020 Consortium meeting for review and comments. The update is primarily concentrated on updated ridership information, changes to policies and programs, recent modification to the SolanoExpress bus service, and changes to the intercity rail and regional ferry service. A deadline was set for February 14th for any further input and comments. At this time no comments were received. The next step following approval by the Consortium and TAC is to present the Updated Transit Element information to the STA Board Transit Subcommittee at a meeting tentatively scheduled in April for their input. The goal is to have the updated Element completed in May for Board approval along with the CTP’s Land Use and Equity Chapters, Arterials, Freeways and Highways and Active Transportation Elements update.

Fiscal Impact: None.

23

Recommendation: F Forward a recommendation to the STA TAC and Board to approve the updated Transit Element of the CTP as shown in Attachment A. Attachment:

A. Click here for immediate review and printing: Draft Updated Solano Comprehensive Transportation Plan Transit Element (Need Working Link)

24

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/07.Ba_Att-A_-Transit-Element.pdf

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/07.Ba_Att-A_-Transit-Element.pdf


DATE: March 17, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Robert Guerrero, STA Planning Director RE: Solano County Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element Update Background: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is nearly complete with the Land Use and Equity chapters anticipated for completion by April 2020. The Arterial, Highways and Freeways Element, Transit and Rideshare Element and Active Transportation Element were the three core foundations of the CTP and were previously adopted by the STA Board at different times in prior years. The Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element was adopted by the STA Board on June 13, 2018 and is most relevant to the STA TAC. As stated in Chapter 2 of the Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element, the element serves as the “foundational document for planning and maintaining the major roadway network that connects Solano’s communities with each other and with the broader region.” In summary, the Element defines the roadway system in Solano County, as well as current and planned status of projects along each roadway network. The Element also identifies goals and objectives for future infrastructure and funding. Lastly, performance measures and milestones were included as part of the later chapters of the Element. Discussion: STA staff has updated the 2018 Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element to coincide with the completion of the CTP Land Use and Equity Chapters. The goal of the update is to include relevant changes since it was originally adopted by the Board, but not to completely rewrite it. The update is primarily concentrated on changes in policies and fund programs, project descriptions and data on safety and congestion where needed. A copy of the draft updated Arterial’s Element was provided at the January 29th TAC meeting, with the updated project list presented. A deadline was set for February 14th for any further input and comments. At this time, no comments were received and staff is presenting the updated element for the TAC’s approval. The next step is to present the draft updated Element to the Arterial, Highways and Freeways CTP Committee of the Board at a meeting in April. The goal is to have the updated Element completed in April for Board approval in May with the CTP’s Land Use Chapter.

Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve the updated Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element of the CTP as shown in Attachment A. Attachment:

A. Click here for immediate review and printing: Draft Arterials, Highways and Freeways Element 2020 Update

25

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/FINAL-Arterials-Element_editedMAR2020.pdf

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/FINAL-Arterials-Element_editedMAR2020.pdf


26


DATE: March 17, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Triana Crighton, Assistant Planner RE: Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Draft Land Use Chapter

Background: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) serves as STA’s primary long range planning document that guides and prioritizes the STA’s investments in transportation. Aside from the plan’s primary three main elements (Active Transportation Element; Arterials, Highways, and Freeways Element; and the Transit & Rideshare Element), STA will be adding two new chapters to the newest iteration of the CTP – a Land Use Chapter and an Equity Chapter. The Equity Chapter has been successfully created and developed by the STA Board.

The primary purpose of the Land Use Chapter is to assess housing & jobs production within Solano County’s Priority Development Areas (PDAs), as well as summarize the history and investments within the PDAs. The Chapter explores how STA has and can utilize transportation funds to leverage housing production in PDAs. The work done in this Chapter is especially important as the Bay Area grapples with the current housing crisis. Solano County has a unique affordability of housing among the Bay Area counties, and this Land Use Chapter helps to tell the story of how strategic housing growth in Solano County’s PDAs, near high quality transit service, can help.

STA has explored Land Use in the past – specifically through the Solano Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Plan in 2004. The TLC Plan focused on the relationship between transportation and land use by supporting “smart growth” projects in Solano County. The Plan revolved around 10 Smart Growth Principles such as “Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices” and “Create Walkable Communities”. Many of the project areas highlighted in the TLC Plan are currently located within PDAs. Additionally, STA developed a land use chapter in 2010 that primarily focused on demographic context information in Solano County and a 2012 Transportation for Sustainable Communities Plan that was primarily an update to the 2004 TLC Plan. The current draft 2020 Land Use Chapter builds upon these past plans but emphasizes the transportation and land use relationships in PDAs and other new designations.

Discussion: Work on this updated Chapter began in December 2018 and a draft has been completed and reviewed by STA Staff, the TAC at their January 29th meeting, and the Planning Directors at their January 16th meeting. Minor edits have been made to the Chapter since their review, hence it is being brought back to the TAC for approval. Much of the content of this Chapter has been extrapolated through the work of the Planning Directors for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050 process and the formation of the SolHIP. The Plan Bay Area 2050 process required cities to review their current MTC geographies, such as PDAs, and gave them the opportunity to modify their existing designations or add new ones. These

27

designations inform where development is planned to occur. The SolHIP effort will assist the cities to evaluate where and how their priority housing development projects can be implemented.

The Chapter also breaks down STA’s work and investments within PDAs and introduces and reviews existing federal, state, and regional land use and transportation policies and legislation – these were in need of update from the previous Land Use Chapter as new legislature passes and opportunities to designate new geographies arise.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve releasing the Draft Land Use Chapter for a 30-day public comment period.

Attachment: A. Click here for immediate review and printing: Draft Land Use Chapter

28

https://sta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Administrative-Draft-Revised-MAR-10-2020-CH-3-ONLY.pdf

Agenda Item 7.D March 25, 2020

DATE: March 17, 2020 TO: STA Board FROM: Anthony Adams, Project Manager RE: Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Solano Active Transportation Plan

(ATP)

Background: The CTP serves as STA’s primary long range planning document that guides and prioritizes the STA’s investments in transportation. An element of the CTP is the Active Transportation Element, which guides STA’s investment in bike/pedestrian related projects and programs. As STA staff, member agencies, and the STA Board are in the process of adopting a new plan, it is planned that the new Active Transportation Element will utilize the Solano ATP as the basis for goals and projects.

The Solano ATP is meant to be viewed as a guiding document and will be used as the basis from which future bike/ped projects are selected and prioritized. The CTP’s Active Transportation Element, which is undergoing an update, is expected to borrow heavily from the goals, policies, and projects presented in the Solano ATP. The Solano ATP will be a living document that can be amended annually with new projects and priorities based on the requests of the seven cities and the county.

Discussion: The Solano Active Transportation Plan will result in prioritized bicycle and pedestrian projects on both a countywide and local jurisdictional scale. These project priority lists come as a result of a model that was developed by DKS Associates. The model weighs local outreach feedback on active transportation priorities and thus creates a jurisdictionally relevant projects list.

Contained within the draft plan was a comprehensive look at the County as a whole and accomplished the following:

• Held two public outreach events in each jurisdiction• Collected data on active transportation facilities that will be imported into GIS and

shared amongst the member agencies.• Conducted a needs and gaps analysis, safety data analysis, and attractor/generator

analysis for each jurisdiction to identify projects.• Provided each jurisdiction with a tailor made Active Transportation Plan that can be

adopted by each City and the County of Solano, if desired.

The Draft Solano County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was approved by the STA Board for a 60-day public comment period at their January 8, 2020 meeting.

29

STA collected numerous comments from member agency staff and the public during this public review process. A comment matrix, including how each comment was addressed, is included as Attachment A. Following Board approval, the seven cities and the County will have the opportunity to conduct further public outreach, meet with committees, amend their individual agency chapters as they see fit, and adopt them as their local plans. The Active Transportation Element will incorporate the goals, projects, and programs that are recommended as part of the Solano ATP. The STA Active Transportation Committee will tentatively meet in April to discuss the adoption of goals for this element. Fiscal Impact: None at this time, however, this Solano Active Transportation Plan once complete will guide STA’s future investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure in Solano County. Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the STA Board to approve releasing the Solano Active Transportation Plan (ATP) of the CTP for a 30-day public comment period. Attachments:

A. Draft Solano Active Transportation Plan: Comment Matrix B. Draft Solano Active Transportation Plan: Link

30

https://drive.google.com/file/d/181Ti2aTgQpfCAdnITLrYok9rRWg1WwOt/view?usp=sharing

Solano Active Transportation Public Review Comments and Response MatrixUpdated 03.18.2020

Entity/Individual Comment Resolution City Of Vacaville Projects transferred from list to SR2S need to have the same recommendations. The Vacaville SR2S projects still say

Class IV, should say “needs further study.” Addressed. Reviewed all projects in all project

lists (e.g., SRTS, Transit…etc.) to make sure they match the latest updates to the project

recommendations in the Plan.

City of Fairfield Please add a Class I path from the south portal of the Train Station to Vanden High School. Addressed. Added this facility to the map and project list.

The Florida St between Sutter St & Alameda St section (746b) should be class III, and not remove on-street parking. Addressed. Map is updated and project details are revised in project list.

Mare Island Causeway, (706a) should be noted on maps and tables as an existing CIII and planned CI, consistent with general plan revisions going to Council on 2/11.

Addressed. Map is updated and project details are revised in project list.

Table VL-1 is mislabeled as for the City of Dixon Already addressed in previous version of the Plan.

Figure VL-6 on page 7 leaves significant portions the existing CII and CIII network off the map. See attached COV amended GP Bicycle Network .pdf.

Already addressed in previous version of the Plan.

Add the Mare Island Causeway as an existing CIII to figure VL-6 on page 7. See attached COV amended GP Bicycle Network .pdf.

Already addressed in previous version of the Plan.

Figure VL-4 on page 5 should be updated to reflect existing CIII data Already addressed in previous version of the Plan.

On page 15, the text should be revised to reflect that the local backbone network is advisory only and that final authority for all roadway operations, uses, and design lies with the City Council of the City of Vallejo, as represented in the City's

adopted General Plan

Already addressed in previous version of the Plan. Language was revised per request.

The text on page 20 should be revised to note which of these recommendations are currently unfunded, and include a recommendation that STA continues to partner with cities to identify relevant funding sources.


The list on page 20 should be desribed as an unconstrained list of projects, not a planned list of projects. I recommend using lable like "strategic vision" or "strategic plan"


The text on page 20 should identify that these are the priorities identified by the STA team, and should discuss what STA's next steps are to identify resources for these projects.


Joseph Green-Heffern (Sierra Club) I support what appears to be a comprehensive effort toward providing a needed county-wide framework for guiding pedestrian and bike access improvements by individual cities as we’ll as in rural areas that connect our various

communities.

Declaration of support for Plan, no action needed, support noted.

As a Benicia resident I want to see protected protected bike lanes especially around freeway ramps because that would increase local recreation. More protected lanes on East 2nd, and of course on 1st street would lead to much more bike

trips into downtown.

Declaration of support for Plan and recommended bikeways on 1st Street and E 2nd

Street, no action needed, support noted.

I appreciate current plans betwen the area of the State Park and the Southampton loop. Declaration of support for Plan, no action needed, support noted.

Best to connect Benicia and Vallejo via bike. I commute to work on Mare Island and wish there was a safer route through Benicia Dr/Lemon/Curtola/ or Glen Cove into Waterfront.


Safer waterfront biking options will help grown downtown Vallejo and encourage biking to the ferry. I support plan to extend multi-use path on the edges of Glen Cove and connecting to Sonoma which would help with bridge to bridge

connections.


Benicia has approx. 56% of Maximum sidewalk coverage, only Rio Vista has less at 42%, other cities are in 70% range. This should be a priority.

Comment noted. The Plan highlights the importance of filling sidewalk gaps and the

supporting analysis documents in the appendix provide more specific details about the different

sidewalk gap analyses completed for the Plan.

In addition, I am concerned that the bike and pedestrian plans consider lower class or combined walks and bike lanes than the majority prefer, and do not consider the preferences of 51-56% of the bicyclists comfort typology….page 5“Often (bicyclists) not comfortable with bike lanes, may bike on sidewalks even if bike lanes are provided, prefer off-

street or separate bicycle facilities or quiet traffic-calmed residential roads. May not bike at all if bicycle facilities do not meet needs for perceived comfort.” I feel this comfort level also applies to pedestrian walkways as well.

Comment noted. The bicycle and pedestian recommendations for the Plan were developed to meet the safety and comfort preferences of

bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. In some cases, City staff and members of the

project team indicated that the most comfortable facility was not possible given local roadway

conditions, in those cases, the most comfortable facility feasible was recommended. Design

considerations for pedestrian comfort including landscaped buffers from vehicle traffic are

included in the Design Toolkit appendix.

Backbone Network Priorities – rate Benicia lower than expected – in fact the plans ignores Benicia completely for backbone projects

a.High demand routes running through Vallejo – which is ignoring the paths/rou es to the 680/780 corridor.

Comment noted. Refer to the memos in the appendix for details about how the locations in

the countywide backbone network were identified. The countywide backbone network

connects to Benicia and the Benicia Plan includes several local backbone network projects in

Benicia that will help Benicia residents connect to the countywide network.

City of Vallejo

David Wagner (Benicia Resident)

Kathleen Catton (Benicia Resident)

ATTACHMENT A

31

Bicycle priority projects – ignore some obvious bike networks that should be considered a.Benicia to Vallejo Transit Center

b.Downtown Benicia to East Second Street corridor – break in linkage c.Bicycle priority projects are not connec ng into Benicia or including Benicia specific projects

Comment noted. The bicycle priority projects identify many connections to and within Benicia. Refer to the Benicia Plan for a more detailed view

of these projects. For (a) the countywide backbone network proposes completing

connections from Benicia to Vallejo along the Bay Trail to the Ferry and Transit Center; (b)

connections are proposed from the E 2nd St to 1st St with an upgraded connection along

Military; and (c) backbone priority projects are proposed along Columbus Parkway and the Bay Trail to connect with Vallejo and the Lopes Rd connection in Unincorporated Solano County

ranks fairly high for the County.

Pedestrian Backbone projects did not address the gaps in pedestrian sidewalks in Benicia downtown let alone the East Second Corridor to downtown

Comment noted. Refer to the memo in the appendix for more information on how the backbone network and sidewalk gaps were

identified. A few downtown sidewalk gaps are shown in this project and highlighted in the

pedestrian project list for Benicia. The final list pedestrian projects highlighted in the Benicia

Plan was developed by City of Benicia Staff. Given the scale of all citywide sidewalk gap closures, it

was necessary to prioritize areas for initial investment, other gaps could still be filled over

time.Regional Trails Bicycle Network do not show connectivity in northern portion of Benicia with regional trails in the

downtown…connection should be in planningComment noted. Unsure what is meant by connection should be in planning, but only existing connections identified by project

development team and key stakeholders were included in the regiona trails bicycle network.

Planned trail projects can be added to the recommended bicycle network if trail alignment and extends are provided. Some unpaved trails

are not included since trails in this Plan are intended to meet CA MUTCD Class I standards

per Caltrans requirements.

Benicia Prioritization confirms the safety 35% pedestrian and 24% for bicyclists as the highest aggregate of concern – yet project class level does not reflect concern

Comment noted. This discussion is no longer in the plan.

Bicycle inventory indicates 85% of facilities do not have a designated bicycle facility in Benicia - this is of concern, even if the traffic stress is 73% least stressful…That leaves a need gap

Comment noted, and supports need for developing bicycle network in Benicia. It is also

important to note that some roadways in Benicia are local, residential streets with low vehicles

volumes and/or speeds, these roadways do not normally need specific facility designations to be

comfortable for bicyclists.

Sidewalk Coverage for East Second Street and Industrial park are noticeably absent…walking on East Street is hazardous people walk from residential on Rose Drive to Downtown and to Industrial Park Transit Centers …this should be a

priority

Comment noted. Priority pedestrian projects were developed by City of Benicia staff, this

concern can be raised by them and addressed in future planning efforts. Class I Multi-Use paths

are proposed in the Industrial Park area on Park Road and Industrial Way for shared use by

cyclists and pedestrians to the Transit Center. East Second Street has identified gaps but is not

located on the backbone network given the longer distance for pedestrians from Rose Drive

into Downtown. However, the City can still pursue gap closure projects in the these

locations.

Bike Network is weak in Benicia with significant multi-use paths in downtown with low safety factor – Once again the paths to industrial park are limited or non-existant.

Comment noted. Unclear what 'multi-use paths in downtown with low safety factor' refers to.

There are several protected bikeways and multi-use paths recommended to increase access to

and from the industrial park.

Biking has increased significantly on weekends on Reservoir and Lake Herman Roads with no paths yet priority for this area is low.

Comment noted. This information should be shared with stakeholders, as those areas were

not identified as high-priority areas among stakeholders during the prioritization workshop.

The Vallejo Bluff Trail has completed the design and CEQA phases but is not included in the plan. A metric is needed to capture and prioritize a project like this that has lots of local support.

The Vallejo Bluff Trail has been included in the Plan on the map and project list for

recommended bikeways.

San Fransisco Bay Trail

32

Happy to see a focus on "all ages" and abilities but project needs to put more emphasis on Class I multi use paths being the best for all ages and abilities.

Comment is noted. Per bikeway planning and design best practices, class I facilities are not

always the best option for an all ages and abilities network. In addition, in some cases class I paths were not the preferred option among City staff and other stakeholders who participated in Plan

development. Class I paths are applicable in certain situations. The Plan recognizes the

importance of these facilities, highlights regional trails, and recommends providing appropriate

separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists where appropriate.

p. 15 Under "Health and Safety" Goal/Action, an ojective of this plan should encourage complete seperation of bike/peds from traffic via class I multi use paths as these are best suited for all ages and abilities.

Existing evidence does not support this exact statement, however, encouraging the separation of bikes/peds from motor vehicles when motor vehicle volumes and/or speeds are high is a best practice. An action item encouraing appropriate

separation between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users has been added (action

3.A.7)

p. 16 Quality of life, Objective 4a is to link active tranportation facilities. The Solano County regional trails embody this objective and should be highlighted

Comment noted. The Solano County trails are specified in the actions. The objective statements

are meant to be broader statements than the actions so that they remain applicable over time.

The action statements provide reference and support to specific projects, including the Solano

County regional trails.

p 16. Action 4a1, please consider this change: "Support the completion of regional trails that including SF Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail, and the Napa Valley Vine Trail".

Action 4ab addresses this request and mentions these specific trails already, no change made.

p 21. The "percentage of Roadway Mileage" graphic makes no sense. Seems to imply that 77% of Solano which has no designated facility is "least stressfull".

The majority of roadway mileage in Solano County are residential streets, these streets are

categorized as low stress due to low motor vehicle volumes and speeds. This approach

follows best practices for calculating level of stress. All roadways are included since cyclists may operate similar to motor vehicles in those situations and are permitted. No change made.

p22 Figure 13: The Class III graphic implies there is seperation between cars and bikes. There is not. For this reason, Class III should not be pursued a a facility type that will accomdate all ages and abilities.

Class III facilities include routes in rural areas with shoulders and class III bicycle boulevards. Well-designed, bicycle-friendly shoulders do provide

separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists and a bicycle boulevard located on an

appropriate, low-volume, low-speed street is considered appropriate for people of all ages and abilitiesand does not require separation between

modes. No change made.

p24 Figure 15: The figure implies that a toddler alone on a bike would use a shared lane with traffic at speeds up to 25, a bike lane with high traffic, and 2-3 lanes up to 25 mph. This suggestion does not make sense.

The figure does not specify a toddler, merely someone who is not an adult. The figure also

indicates speeds less than 25 mph are appropriate for younger riders, not including 25

mph, and that in higher traffic or multi-lane conditions greater separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles is needed. Bicycle planning

and design best practices indicate that the conditions shown in the graphic are appropriate

for most bicyclists. No change made.

p 25 Figure 16: The listing interstates as "high stress" bike facilities does a disservice to the whole notion of Levels of Stress as bicycle and pedestrians are prohibited from their use.

The level of traffic stress analysis is a well-known methodology for measuring bicycle traffic stress. Highways are often included in this analysis. At this stage there is not enough budget to re-run the analysis excluding interstates. No change

made.p 27 Figure 17: Title says "Countywide Bicycle Network Analysis Connectivity" but legend says "Bicycle Level of Traffic

Stress". Which is it? Either way it doesn't make a lot of sense. The marsh north of SR 37 is either hi stress or hi connectivity.

Addressed previous Plan revisions. The analysis is shown in the figure is a connectivity analysis but it integrates results from several data sources,

including the level of traffic stress analysis which explain why this area received the results it did. Refer to the Appendix for analysis methodology

details. No change made.

p. 46 Safety Criteria Points. Long blurb provided in red on separate document Comment noted. An action item was added to the Plan to encourage a systemic safey approach.

The scoring criteria was developed by the plan development team and reflects the interests and

priorities selected by staff from local juirisdictions. The ranking was then approved by

jurisdiction staff and/or they requested adjustments to the scoring criteria before

approving the ranked project list. No change to the prioritization ranking criteria was made.

33

.p 46: Under the heading "Seperation between modes" class III is listed. Class III represents zero seperation between modes and should not receive points.

Class III facilities include routes in rural areas with shoulders and class III bicycle boulevards. Well-designed, bicycle-friendly shoulders do provide

separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists and a bicycle boulevard located on an

appropriate, low-volume, low-speed street is considered comfortable for people of all ages

and abilities. No change made.

p.50: Under "connectivity improvements from phased implementation" last sentence of section should reflect that class I facilities can and often should supplant on street facilites as they are the safest type and will attract the most users

Best practices for bicycle network development indicate that Class I facilities should not supplant on-street facilities. In many cases Class I facilities are not more convenient than on-street facilities since they may not directly access all destinations

which change by land-use. There are also significant limitations to where Class I facilities

can feasibly be installed and in many cases these locations are not where people live or where

people travel to. No change made.

p 54: Health and Safety Performance Metrics: Its important to note that focusing resources on locations with a high number of crashes is not neccesarily the most prudent course of action. A gap closure on a regional trail may offer a

superior solution.

The health and safe action items in the Plan were revised to reflect this request, however, the

performance metric monitoring the number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions is still an

important (and best practice) performance measure to include in the plan.

p.54: Long blurb provided in red on separate document Addressed The comment refers to a missing table of performance metrics. The table of

performance measures it shown on page 56. This comment may have been made to an initial draft

version of the Plan before the performance metrics were included. .

Regional Trails Bike Table: Discrepancies between proposed facility listed in the table and the actual type proposed in Bay Trail Project. Clarification on area from Lighthouse Drive north the Napa County line provided by Parisi Associates.

Addressed. Map updated to reflect trails proposed by the Bay Trail project, except in locations where City staff provided specific guidance on recommended facilities. The

proposed segment of the Bay Trail up to the Napa County line has been added to the map.

Note that a class III Bicycle Boulevard does not meet Bay Trail standards and is not a facility type that is recognized as either proposed or complete Bay Trail.

This is noted, local jurisdictions are not willing to make upgraded facilities in some residential

areas. This discrepancy will need to be resolved in future planning efforts between local

jurisdictions and the Bay Trail Board.

Benicia chapter, Page 3: ATP gender graphic makes no sense Comment noted. Refer to the appendix for more details on the limitations of the data presented in

the graphic. No change made.p5: Percent of Roadway mileage and traffic stress makes no sense The majority of roadway mileage in Solano

County are residential streets, these streets are categorized as low stress due to low motor vehicle volumes and speeds. This approach

follows best practices for calculating level of stress. No change made.

p7: In regards to existing bike network map there is no existing class II on residential streets between downtown and BSRA. Should be yellow at best.

Assuming this relates to the class II on W 7th St. We were told by the City of Benicia that there is a class II on this street and Google Earth confirms

the presence of a class II facility. No change made.

p8: Hi stess figure shows I-780. Bikes prohibited from using interstates so this makes no sense. See previous response to this type of comment.

P9: Benicia marsh shows hi connectivity? Does not make sense. Connectivity is based on a variety of factors, see appendix for detailed discussion of methodology

and its limitations. No change made.

On Benicia maps, shows both an existing Class I, an existing bike route, and a proposed class IV on 1st street. Believe there is only proposed Class IV and Class III. There is no class I on West F

Addressed. Existing and proposed facilities revised.

Vallejo Maps: Existing Class II and Class I missing on Maritime Academy Drive Addressed. Maps and data have been updated.

Wilson Avenue from Lighthouse Drive north to Napa County Border see Parisi drawings for alignment Addressed. Maps and data have been updated.

Vallejo pg 9. Hi connectivity on the docks at Mare island? Makes no sense. Connectivity is based on a variety of factors, see appendix for detailed discussion of methodology

and its limitations. The BNA measures connectivity between census blocks and since this area has small blocks with the high stress

roadways outside of them, the tool only measures that the lower stress local roads are easy to use between these blocks. No change

made.p 22 Figure VL-18: Add all of Bay/Vine Trail to "Recommended all ages/abilites" Addressed. Maps and data have been updated.

pg. 22 Figure VL-18: Add Vallejo Bluff (Bay/Ridge) Trail to "Recommended All Ages and Abilities" Addressed. Maps and data have been updated.

p.23 ID numbers 707A,714A,720B, area part of SF Bay Trail. Please note that 720B, Enterprse is a proposed Class IV facility and is part of the Bay/Vine Trail ATP project currently in deisgn and env. Review

Addressed. 720B is shown as a recommended Class IV. Corridor names for this list of projects was revised to show Bay/Vine Trail affiliation.

34

p. 27 Please add Vallejo Bluff Trail to the list of recommended bikeway projects. The Bay and Ridge Trail via CA coastal conservancy had invested nearly half a million in this project over the last 15 years. Significant progress on design and

env review completed.

Addressed in previous Plan update. Vallejo Bluff Trail Project is on the Map and included in the project list. The project name in the project list was revised from Bay Trail to Vallejo Bluff Trail.

pg. 30: Near Term: Bay/Vine Trail project funding building four miles of new separated facilities in North Vallejo should be referenced here as it is in advanced designed beginning env. Review. Led by STA, project is receving $4.2 milllion ATP

grant.

As stated in the text, this section of the Plan reflects responses from a specific workshop about priorities for developing a connected

network and may not be representative of all near term projects. No change made.

pg. 30: Please include Vallejo Bluff Trail which the Bay/Ridge Trail have given nearly 500k towards ove the last 15 years. This class I path will connect Glen Cove to DT Vallejo, Carquinez Bridge. Bluff Trail also key part of Carquinez Strait Scenic

Loop Trail.

As stated in the text, this section of the Plan reflects responses from a specific workshop about priorities for developing a connceted

network and may not be representative of all near term projects. No change made.

pg 30: Please include the Carquinez Straight Scenic Loop Trail, a joint effort of the Bay/Ridge/Delta/ SF Bay Area Water Trail to close gaps in these trails between Martinez and Benicia. See provided blurb.

A discussion of the Carquinez Straight Scenic Loop Trail was added to the Countywide section of the Plan on page 38 and an existing portion of

this trail was added to the map, as well as the Vallejo Bluffs Trails which is part of this loop.

pg 34: Please add the Vallejo Bluff Trail Project to the list of Reccomneded ped projects. The Bay/Ridge Trail via the State Coastal Conservancy have invested signifanct grant funding (500k) over the past 15 years.

Addressed in previous Plan update. Vallejo Bluff Trail Project is on the Map and included in the

project list. The name in the project list was revised from Bay Trail to Vallejo Bluff Trail.

35


36


DATE: March 16, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Erika McLitus, Project Assistant RE: Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) – 2st Quarter Update FY 2019-20 Background: The STA and the County of Solano coordinates on the collection and management of the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF), a transportation component of the County’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF). The County Board of Supervisors added a $1,500 per dwelling unit equivalent dedicated to the RTIF program as part of the PFF at on December 3, 2013. The RTIF collection formally began on February 3, 2014 with nearly $7.1 million collected as of the end of the 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20. Seven RTIF Working Groups were created to administer the RTIF funds for transportation projects that address development growth. Five of the seven RTIF Working Groups are geographically situated with the City of Fairfield (3 of 5) and the County of Solano (5 of 5) located in multiple Working Groups. The remaining two working groups were created separately with a 10% off the top revenue dedication (5% each) for both the unincorporated County area and transit related projects. The selected RTIF eligible transportation projects for each Working Group are the following:

1. Working Group District 1- Jepson Parkway 2. Working Group District 2- SR 12 Rio Vista Complete Streets 3. Working Group District 3- SR 37/Fairgrounds Drive SolanoExpress Bus Stop 4. Working Group District 4- Green Valley Overcrossing (Needs Updating) 5. Working Group District 5- SR113 Advanced Traffic and Rail Safety Study 6. Transit Working Group District 6- SR 37/Fairgrounds Drive SolanoExpress Bus Stop 7. County Unincorporated Working Group District 7- SR113 Advanced Traffic and Rail

Safety Study (Needs Updating) The RTIF Working Groups meet at least once annually to provide a status update on the program and the selected project. As is required by law, every five years the County must update the Nexus study for the PFF. The most recent study was completed in April 2019. As part of this update, a recommendation was presented by County staff to increase the amount collected for RTIF from $1,500 to $2,500 for each dwelling unit equivalent (DUE), without increasing the total PFF. This recommendation was presented to various stakeholder groups, including the STA Board, STA TAC, developer groups, and City Managers. The Board of Supervisors passed the updated PFF, with an increased RTIF amount on August 6, 2019. The updated PFF schedule of fees became effective starting on October 6, 2019.

37

Discussion: RTIF Revenues for 2nd Quarter of FY 2018-19 With this increase to $2,500 per dwelling unit equivalent, the RTIF revenue is projected to average over $2M per year, well above the historic average of $1.2M per year. The new rate became effective on October 6, 2019, so the second quarter of FY 2019-20 is the first period to reflect the increased RTIF revenue collection. Solano County has received RTIF checks from each member agency for FY 2019-20 Q2; a total of $405,839 has been collected for all RTIF districts, somewhat below the projected average revenue of $500k per quarter. See Attachment A for a summary of revenue collected by each district for Q1 and Q2 of FY 2019-20. RTIF District 1, the Jepson Corridor, has generated the most revenue in FY 2019-20 and is on track to surpass its $776,500 total revenue collection in FY 2018-19. However, Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 have collected less revenue than anticipated. Notably, RTIF District 5 generated no revenue in Q2 which will make it difficult for the district to match the $152,590 in RTIF revenue generated in FY 2018-19. The recent increase in the RTIF portion of the PFF may mitigate the initial lull in RTIF revenue collection for FY 2019-20. STA staff will continue to monitor RTIF revenue and work with the seven working groups to select suitable projects to support with available revenue. Fiscal Impact: None to the STA Budget. Funding is provided by the Solano County Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF). Recommendation: Informational. Attachments:

A. RTIF Revenue History by District

38

RTIF Revenue History by District FY 2019-20 1st Quarter

FY 2019-20 2nd Quarter

Grand Total

RTIF Collection $433,702 $415,336 $7,680,027 Interest $2,574 2% STA Administration $8,674 $8,307 $153,601

$0

RTIF Revenue for Eligible Projects $425,028 $407,029 $7,916,922 Total

Disbursements Remaining

Funds District 1 Jepson Corridor $266,803 $318,876 $4,047,899 $1,410,616 $2,637,282 District 2 SR 12 Corridor $74,894 $1,058 $736,381 $121,481 $614,900 District 3 South County $1,323 $28,524 $324,729 $60,000 $264,729

District 4 Central County $9,688 $17,868 $1,395,199 $1,648,000 $37,210 District 5 SR 113 $29,817 $0 $621,022 $183,571 $437,451

District 6 Transit (5%) $21,251 $20,351 $395,846 $208,128 $187,718 District 7 County Road (5%) $21,251 $20,351 $395,846 $121,760 $274,086 Total RTIF Revenue Received for Eligible Projects: $425,028 $407,029 $7,916,922 $3,385,557 $4,531,366

39


40


DATE: March 13, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Vincent Ma, Marketing and Legislative Program Manager RE: Legislative Update

Background: Each year, STA staff monitors state and federal legislation that pertains to transportation and related issues. On December 11, 2019, the STA Board approved its 2020 Legislative Platform to provide policy guidance on transportation legislation and the STA’s legislative activities during 2020.

Monthly legislative updates are provided by STA’s State and Federal lobbyists and are attached for your information (Attachments A, and B). An updated Legislative Bill Matrix listing state bills of interest is available at: https://sta.ca.gov/operations/legislative-program/current/

Discussion: The State Legislature had until February 21st to introduce new bills for the 2020 Legislative Session. In addition to Senate Bill 278 (SB 278), the FASTER Bay Area bill authored by Senator Jim Beall, Assembly Member David Chiu introduced Assembly Bill 2057 (AB 2057). The Bay Area Seamless Transit Act would require public transit systems operating in the nine (9) Bay Area Counties to integrate fares and payment systems, standardize wayfinding and mapping, and establish accountability metrics and deadlines to achieve integration AB 2057 is currently a Spot Bill and in the committee review process and staff will report back with additional analysis once the full text of the bill is released.

Staff is also monitoring the following “spot” bills that were introduced this session:

• Assembly Bill 1350 (AB 1350), authored by Assembly Member Gonzalez, would requiretransit agencies to offer free youth transit passes (18 years and under). The bill passed theAssembly (75-0) and is currently in the Senate Committee review process

• Assembly Bill 2012 (AB 2012), authored by Assembly Member Chiu, would requiretransit agencies to offer free senior transit passes (over 65 years). This bill is in theAssembly Committee review process

• Assembly Bill 3145 (AB 3145), authored by Assembly Tim Grayson, would cap theamount that cities or counties would be able to change for impact fees at 12 percent of thecity’s or county’s median home price. This bill is in the Assembly Committee reviewprocess

Senator Bill Dodd introduced Senate Bill 1408 (SB 1408) the State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act (Attachment B) would authorize a yet to be determined authority to collect tolls on State Route 37 (SR 37) to leverage state and federal funding to address congestion and sea level rise on this corridor. Specifically, SB 1408 will:

• Establish an unspecified Authority – currently intended to be the Bay Area InfrastructureFinancing Authority (BAIFA)

41

• Improve the resiliency of transportation from sea level rise, flooding, and traffic congestion • Increase opportunities for ecological enhancements, transit, multimodal use, and public

access • Include, but not be limited to, from immediately east of the State Route 37 intersection

with State Route 121 in Sonoma County to immediately west of the State Route 37 intersection with Walnut Avenue in Solano County

• Develop and implement an equity program to reduce the impact of the toll on low-income users in consolation with the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and Transportation Authority of Marin

• Consult with, and consider recommendations from, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and Transportation Authority of Marin regarding the expenditure plan for revenues derived and leveraged from SB 1408

At the March 11th meeting, the STA Board voted unanimously to adopt a position of support with amendments for SB 1408. This bill aligns with STA’s 2020 Legislative Platform Priority Tier 1 Project: “SR 37 Corridor Improvements: Segment B and Mare Island Interchange,” and Legislative Objectives #5: “Support efforts by the SR 37 Policy Committee (County Transportation Authorities of Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties) to develop and expedited funding, financing, and project implementation strategy for the reconstruction of SR 37 and provide flood protection to withstand rising seas and storm surges, while improving mobility and safety along the route.” State Legislative Update (Shaw/Yoder/Antwih/Schmelzer/Lange): On February 26, the STA staff testified at Joint Hearing Senate Governance and Finance and Senate Housing and Assembly Local Government and Assembly Housing and Community Development Hearing to share the history of Solano County’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF) and the benefits of the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) as it pertains to transportation projects in Solano County. As part of panel of special districts presenters that utilize impact fee for vital services and facilities. STA’s state legislative advocate presented at the March 11th Board Meeting to share the latest information discussed in their report (Attachment B):

• Legislative Update • SB 50 Fails Passage • FASTER Bay Area/Seamless Bay Area • Bills of Interest

Summary of Funding in Governor’s Budget (all amounts are approximate):

• Local Streets and Roads: $3 billion (1.26 billion from SB1); an increase of $120 million over FY 2019-20

• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): $591 million; a $38 million increase over FY 2019-20

• State Transit Assistance (STA): $804 million; an increase of $37 million • Intercity and Commuter Rail: $270 million • Low-Carbon Transit Operations: $125 million from Cap and Trade • Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP): $510 million • Trade Corridors Enhancement Program: $323 million

42

Federal Legislative Update (Akin Gump): STA’s federal legislative advocate (Susan Lent of Akin Gump) continues to work with STA staff to craft STA’s strategic objectives to align with those of the current administration. The STA Board was planning to travel to Washington DC, along with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to advocate for Solano County’s priority projects. These plans have been postponed. Updates on the following are detailed in Attachment C.

• FY 2021 Appropriations • Surface Transportation Reauthorization • Transportation Legislation • Emission Standards • Federal Grants • Transit Equipment originated from China

Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Informational. Attachments:

A. State Legislative Update B. Senate Bill 1408 (Dodd) State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act C. Federal Legislative Update D. Senate Banking Committee Hearing on Public Transportation E. Shaw/Yoder Legislative Presentation to the STA Board on March 11, 2020

43


44

February 24, 2020

TO: Board of Directors, Solano Transportation Authority

FM: Joshua W. Shaw, Matt Robinson & Michael Pimentel, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – March 2020

Legislative Update Legislators whad until February 21st to introduce new bills for the 2020 Legislative Year, with 2296 new measures coming in to print since January 6. We are currently reviewing the bills for impacts to STA. Later this month and bleeding into next month, the Legislature’s budget subcommittees will hold hearings to evaluate the various budget proposals advanced by Governor Newsom in his proposed State Budget for the 2020-21 Fiscal Year.

SB 50 Fails Passage Senate Bill 50 (Wiener) failed to receive the necessary votes to pass out of the Senate before the January 31 “House of Origin” deadline. The bill garnered 18 votes in support, 3 short of the necessary 21, receiving bipartisan support (and opposition). While SB 50 is done for the 2019-20 session, we don’t believe the book is closed on a housing production bill in 2020. In fact, in her closing remarks on the Floor after the bill’s vote, Senate President Pro Tem Atkins stated to her colleagues that there will be a production bill in 2020. Her official statement is below:

“So here's the thing: we need a housing production bill. We need a housing production bill that includes consensus solutions so we can help solve our housing affordability crisis. Despite the work Senator Wiener and SB 50’s advocates have made, the debate and the vote today showed this particular vehicle isn’t it. The opponents of SB 50 have real concerns, but have offered no substantive alternative with the same kind of scope of SB 50. Things have to change. We need to reset the conversation. So I am making the commitment to you today that in the coming weeks I will be meeting with stakeholders on all sides to find a way forward on a housing production bill that can pass both houses and get the Governor’s signature.”

Governor Newsom also expressed his strong desire to see a housing production bill land on his desk in 2020.

ATTACHMENT A

45

FASTER Bay Area / Seamless Bay Area We have reported in the past that efforts are underway in the Bay Area to implement a new funding source for transportation by way of a nine-county sales tax measure that would generate an estimated $100 billion over 40 years. The FASTER measure is proposed to fund primarily large-scale, mass transportation infrastructure projects throughout the Bay Area (e.g. second transbay crossing for at least BART, additional Caltrain improvements, regional express bus/managed lanes, subway improvements, etc.). Lately, the measure’s proponents have been exploring a duel-purpose measure – one that would fund both transportation and housing. Regardless of what is decided locally, the revenue-raising authority and other policy elements of the proposal (for at least the transportation piece) must first be approved by the California Legislature and governor; Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) and his staff have been spearheading the FASTER legislative effort and a bill exists that could contain the FASTER elements, SB 278 (Beall). He is likely considering such elements as: funding authorization; voter-approval requirements; local process for ballot placement; specification of the revenue collection, disbursement and oversight agency; connection to housing; and, the specific programs & projects that will receive funding. In addition to the expenditure plan element of the FASTER Bay Area discussions, proponents have also been pushing for several policy changes meant to improve the operation and effectiveness of the region’s transit agencies. Known as Seamless Bay Area, would, through legislation, require transit agencies to establish set region-wide fares and coordinate scheduling, system mapping, and data collected/shared. The legislation would also create regional transit task force to further study and make recommendations on the items above. AB 2057 (Chiu), currently a “spot bill,” will likely be amended in the coming weeks to contain many of these items. Bills of Interest SB 278 (Beall) FASTER Spot Bill This bill represents the legislative vehicle for a potential FASTER Bay Area framework and expenditure plan. SB 757 (Allen) State Highway Relinquishment State law describes the authorized routes on the state highway system and allows routes that have been deleted from the system to be considered for relinquishment by the California Transportation Commission to a local agency. The bill would require Caltrans to report to the Commission on which state highway routes or segments primarily serve regional travel and do not facilitate interregional movement of people and goods. The bill would also authorize the Caltrans to identify in the report which of those routes and segments are the best candidates for relinquishment and to allow for the relinquishment of those segments to local agencies through an administrative process. SB 1408 (Dodd) SR 37 Tolling This bill would require an unspecified authority to operate and maintain tolling infrastructure on State Route 37 between its intersections with Route 121 in the County of Sonoma and Walnut Avenue in the County of Solano. The bill would authorize the authority to issue bonds payable from the revenues derived from those tolls. The bill would authorize those toll and bond revenues to be used for specified

46

purposes, including near-term and long-term improvements to the segment of State Route 37 and the Sonoma Creek Bridge to improve the roadway’s mobility, safety, and long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. The bill would require the authority to update and approve an expenditure plan for those toll and bond revenues on an annual basis beginning on July 1 following implementation of a toll. The bill would require the authority to develop and implement an equity program for the toll bridge to reduce the impact of the toll on low-income drivers. AB 3145 (Grayson) Mitigation Fee Cap This bill would prohibit a city or county from imposing a mitigation fee or exaction if the total dollar amount they would impose on a proposed housing development is greater than 12 percent of the city or county’s median home price, unless approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval. This constitutional amendment would lower the necessary voter threshold from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent to approve local general obligation bonds and special taxes for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects.

47


48

SENATE BILL No. 1408

Introduced by Senator Dodd

February 21, 2020

An act to add Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 30925) to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to state highways.

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 1408, as introduced, Dodd. State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act. The California Toll Bridge Authority Act makes the California

Transportation Commission, together with the Department of Transportation, responsible for building and acquiring toll facilities and related transportation facilities.

This bill would require an unspecified authority, on behalf of the state, to operate and maintain tolling infrastructure, including by installing toll facilities, and charge and collect tolls for the use of the Sonoma Creek Bridge, and to be responsible for the design and construction of improvements on the bridge and a segment of State Route 37 between its intersections with Route 121 in the County of Sonoma and Walnut Avenue in the County of Solano in accordance with programming and scheduling requirements adopted by the authority. The bill would authorize the authority to issue bonds payable from the revenues derived from those tolls. The bill would authorize those toll and bond revenues to be used for specified purposes, including near-term and long-term improvements to the segment of State Route 37 and the bridge to improve the roadway’s mobility, safety, and long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. The bill would require the authority to update and approve an expenditure plan for those toll and bond revenues on an annual basis beginning on July 1 following implementation of a toll. The bill would require the authority to develop

99

ATTACHMENT B

49

and implement an equity program for the toll bridge to reduce the impact of the toll on low-income drivers.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for State Route 37 and the Sonoma Creek Bridge.

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

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: yes.

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

line 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 30925) line 2 is added to Division 17 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read: line 3 line 4 Chapter 4.1. State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act

line 5 line 6 Article 1. General Provisions line 7 line 8 30925. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 9 following:

line 10 (1) State Route 37 serves as a vital connection between the line 11 Counties of Marin, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano, providing an line 12 indispensable link between the North Bay and the rest of the state. line 13 State Route 37 is the northernmost nonmountainous east-west link line 14 between United States Highway 101 and Interstate 5 in the state, line 15 and serves as a recovery route for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge line 16 in the event of an emergency closure. line 17 (2) Traffic congestion on State Route 37 is degrading the quality line 18 of life for those living and commuting along the corridor, and line 19 shows no signs of abating. Average annual daily trips are projected line 20 to increase from 45,000 in 2013 to 58,000 by 2040. line 21 (3) State Route 37 is protected by a complex system of line 22 interconnected levees, which makes the corridor vulnerable to sea line 23 level rise inundation and flooding now and in the future. Flooding line 24 in 2017 forced full or partial closures of a westbound segment of line 25 State Route 37 in the County of Marin for a total of 27 days, and

99

— 2 — SB 1408

50

line 1 recurring inundation in 2019 resulted in closures for another 8 line 2 days. line 3 (4) Adaptive action is needed to ensure State Route 37 remains line 4 a viable transportation artery. According to a University of line 5 California, Davis project entitled, “Adaptive Planning for line 6 Transportation Corridors Threatened by Sea Level Rise,” without line 7 action, all segments of State Route 37 could be exposed to storm line 8 surge flooding from a 5- to 10-year coastal storm event by 2050, line 9 and by 2100 sea level rise is likely to render State Route 37

line 10 completely impassable. line 11 (5) State Route 37 runs through an ecologically rich area that line 12 provides habitat for nine special status species, is a principal stop line 13 for migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway, and includes many acres line 14 of wetlands and baylands. There are numerous environmental line 15 benefits conjunctive to addressing the segment of State Route 37 line 16 between State Route 121 and Mare Island. line 17 (6) The Bay Area Toll Authority, District 4 of the Department line 18 of Transportation, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, line 19 the Solano Transportation Authority, the Transportation Authority line 20 of Marin, and the Napa Valley Transportation Authority entered line 21 into a memorandum of understanding in February 2019 to line 22 cooperatively determine mutual responsibilities in delivering the line 23 State Route 37 Resilient Corridor Program. line 24 (7) This act will improve the resiliency of transportation line 25 infrastructure from sea level rise, flooding, and traffic congestion, line 26 and increase opportunities for ecological enhancements, transit, line 27 multimodal use, and public access along the State Route 37 line 28 corridor. line 29 (8) Tolling a portion of the State Route 37 corridor for a limited line 30 number of years is necessary to provide the resources, including line 31 leveraging state and federal funding, required to help realize the line 32 above-mentioned improvements and enable work to begin in a line 33 timely manner. line 34 (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that this chapter authorize line 35 the imposition of tolls only for so long as is necessary to achieve line 36 the chapter’s goals. line 37 30925.1. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 38 State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act. line 39 30925.5. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions line 40 apply:

99

SB 1408 — 3 —

51

line 1 (a) “Act” means the State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act. line 2 (b) “Authority” means ____. line 3 (c) “Bonds” means any bonds, notes, variable rate and variable line 4 maturity securities, and any other evidence of indebtedness issued line 5 pursuant to this chapter. line 6 (d) “Corridor” means a segment of State Route 37, including line 7 the toll bridge, from the State Route 37 interchange with Route line 8 121 to Walnut Avenue at Mare Island, and related facilities. line 9 (e) “Department” means the Department of Transportation.

line 10 (f) “Improvements” means those improvements described in line 11 subdivision (a) of Section 30926.1. line 12 (g) “Toll bridge revenue bonds” means bonds issued pursuant line 13 to Article 3 (commencing with Section 30927). line 14 (h) “Toll bridge” means the Sonoma Creek Bridge, together line 15 with necessary approaches. The approaches to the bridge shall line 16 include, but not be limited to, from immediately east of the State line 17 Route 37 intersection with Route 121 in the County of Sonoma to line 18 immediately west of the State Route 37 intersection with Walnut line 19 Avenue in the County of Solano. line 20 line 21 Article 2. Powers and Duties line 22 line 23 30926. The authority, on behalf of the state, shall operate and line 24 maintain tolling infrastructure, including by installing toll facilities, line 25 and charge and collect tolls for the use of the toll bridge, and shall line 26 be responsible for the design and construction of improvements line 27 on the toll bridge and corridor in accordance with programming line 28 and scheduling requirements adopted by the authority. This chapter line 29 does not limit the authority or responsibility of the state, including line 30 the Department of Transportation, to maintain State Route 37. line 31 30926.1. Revenues from the toll bridge, and any related toll line 32 bridge revenue bonds, may be used for any of the following line 33 purposes: line 34 (a) Near-term and long-term improvements to the corridor and line 35 toll bridge to improve the roadway’s mobility, safety, and line 36 long-term resiliency to sea level rise and flooding. line 37 (b) Payments pursuant to bonds and resolutions, indentures, and line 38 other constituent instruments defining the rights of the bondholders line 39 and any repayment or reimbursement obligations of the authority

99

— 4 — SB 1408

52

line 1 to any providers of bond insurance or letters of credit or lines of line 2 credit related to bonds. line 3 (c) Costs incurred by the authority pursuant to this chapter for line 4 its operations, toll collection, and administration. line 5 (d) Reimbursement to federal, state, and local agencies for costs line 6 incurred by those agencies for services provided for purposes of line 7 this chapter that are reimbursable pursuant to a written agreement line 8 between the authority and the respective agency. line 9 (e) Costs for capital improvements to repair or rehabilitate the

line 10 toll bridge, to expand toll bridge or corridor capacity, to improve line 11 toll bridge or corridor operations, to reduce the demand for travel line 12 in the corridor, or to increase public transit and nonmotorized line 13 options on the toll bridge or in the corridor. line 14 (f) Other costs incurred pursuant to this chapter. line 15 30926.2. The authority shall be reimbursed for administrative line 16 costs in an amount that shall not exceed 3 percent of toll bridge line 17 revenues. line 18 30926.3. The authority shall have, and may exercise, all rights line 19 and powers, expressed or implied, that are necessary to carry out line 20 the purposes and intent of this chapter, including the power to do line 21 all of the following: line 22 (a) Consult with counties, cities, towns, and other agencies and line 23 political subdivisions of this state regarding plans and projects line 24 authorized by this chapter. line 25 (b) Acquire by dedication, gift, purchase, or eminent domain, line 26 and hold and dispose of any interests in property whether real or line 27 personal in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its line 28 duties under this chapter. line 29 (c) Establish and enforce policies, rules, and regulations for the line 30 administration, operation, and maintenance of the toll bridge and line 31 corridor. line 32 (d) Do all acts necessary and convenient for the full exercise of line 33 the powers granted pursuant to this chapter. line 34 30926.4. (a) The authority shall update and approve an line 35 expenditure plan for the revenues of the toll bridge, and any related line 36 toll bridge revenue bonds, on an annual basis beginning on July 1 line 37 following implementation of a toll. line 38 (b) The authority shall approve the initial and annual expenditure line 39 plan at a public meeting held by the authority following a notice line 40 of at least 30 days to the public.

99

SB 1408 — 5 —

53

line 1 (c) The authority shall arrange for a postaudit of the revenues line 2 expended pursuant to this chapter to be made at least annually by line 3 a certified public accountant. line 4 30926.5. The authority shall consult with, and consider line 5 recommendations from, the Sonoma County Transportation line 6 Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley line 7 Transportation Authority, and Transportation Authority of Marin line 8 regarding plans and projects authorized by this chapter. line 9

line 10 Article 3. Revenue Bonds line 11 line 12 30927. (a) The authority may issue bonds payable from the line 13 revenues derived from the tolls imposed on the toll bridge. line 14 (b) The authority may pledge all or any part of the revenues of line 15 the toll bridge to secure bonds and any repayment or reimbursement line 16 obligations of the authority to any provider of bond insurance or line 17 letter of credit or line of credit facility determined to be appropriate line 18 by the authority to provide for the payment of debt service on any line 19 authority bonds issued pursuant to this chapter. line 20 (c) The state hereby pledges to, and agrees with, the holders of line 21 the toll bridge revenue bonds that the state will not limit, alter, or line 22 restrict the rights hereby vested in the authority to fulfill each line 23 pledge of revenues and any other terms of any agreement made line 24 with or for the benefit of the bondholders or in any way impair the line 25 rights or remedies of the bondholders or the providers of bond line 26 insurance or letter of credit or line of credit facilities. line 27 (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to pledge the full line 28 faith and credit of the State of California. line 29 (e) Any toll bridge revenue bond shall contain on its face a line 30 statement to the following effect: “Neither the full faith and credit line 31 nor the taxing power of the State of California is pledged to the line 32 payment of principal of, or the interest of this bond.” line 33 (f) The authority shall include the pledges made pursuant to this line 34 section in its revenue bonds. line 35 30927.2. The toll bridge revenue bonds are legal investments line 36 for all trust funds, the funds of all insurance companies, banks, line 37 trust companies, executors, administrators, trustees, and other line 38 fiduciaries. The toll bridge revenue bonds are securities that may line 39 legally be deposited with, and received by, any state or municipal line 40 officer or agency or political subdivision of the state for any

99

— 6 — SB 1408

54

line 1 purpose for which the deposit of bonds or obligation of the state line 2 is now, or may hereafter be, authorized by law, including deposits line 3 to secure public funds. line 4 30927.4. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), toll bridge line 5 revenue bonds shall be issued in accordance with the Revenue line 6 Bond Law of 1941 (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 54300) line 7 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). line 8 (b) The authority shall constitute a “local agency” within the line 9 meaning of Section 54307 of the Government Code.

line 10 (c) The operation of the toll bridge shall constitute an line 11 “enterprise” within the meaning of Section 54309 of the line 12 Government Code. line 13 (d) Article 3 (commencing with Section 54380) of Chapter 6 line 14 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code shall line 15 not apply to the issuance and sale of toll bridge revenue bonds. line 16 30927.6. (a) The authority may issue toll bridge revenue bonds line 17 pursuant to a resolution it adopts by a majority vote of its governing line 18 board. line 19 (b) A resolution to issue toll bridge revenue bonds shall specify line 20 all of the following: line 21 (1) The purposes for which the bonds are to be issued. line 22 (2) The maximum principal amount of the bonds. line 23 (3) The maximum term for the bonds. line 24 (4) The maximum rate of interest to be payable on the bonds. line 25 That interest rate shall not exceed the maximum rate specified in line 26 Section 53531 of the Government Code. The rate may be either line 27 fixed or variable and shall be payable at the times and in the line 28 manner specified in the resolution. line 29 (c) Before issuing any new or increased toll bridge revenue line 30 bonds, the authority shall conduct at least one public meeting line 31 following at least 30 days’ notice to the public at which public line 32 testimony shall be taken regarding the proposed bond issuance. line 33 30927.8. (a) The revenues from the tolls on the toll bridge line 34 shall be subject to a statutory lien in favor of the bondholders to line 35 secure all amounts due on the bonds and in favor of any provider line 36 of credit enhancement for the bonds to secure all amounts due to line 37 the provider with respect to those bonds. The lien shall immediately line 38 attach to the toll revenues and be effective, binding, and line 39 enforceable against the authority, its successors, creditors, and all line 40 others asserting the rights therein, irrespective of whether those

99

SB 1408 — 7 —

55

line 1 parties have notice of the lien and without the need for any physical line 2 delivery, recordation, filing, or further act. The toll revenues shall line 3 remain subject to the lien until all bonds are paid in full or line 4 provisions are made therefor. Consistent with Section 30928, the line 5 toll bridge shall not become a free public bridge until that time. line 6 (b) The liens on toll revenues created by this chapter shall be line 7 subject to expenditures for operation and maintenance of the toll line 8 bridge, including toll collection, and the corridor, unless those line 9 expenditures are otherwise provided for by statute.

line 10 line 11 Article 4. Toll Rates line 12 line 13 30928. (a) The authority shall establish and maintain the toll line 14 rates at amounts sufficient to generate revenue sufficient to meet line 15 the requirements of this chapter, including any obligations to the line 16 holders of the toll bridge revenue bonds. line 17 (b) At least 30 days before setting the initial toll rates for the line 18 toll bridge, and thereafter when a revision to the toll rates is line 19 proposed, the authority shall do both of the following: line 20 (1) Provide a public comment period regarding the proposed line 21 toll rates. line 22 (2) Take public testimony at one or more public meetings. line 23 (c) Collection of tolls shall cease following repayment of any line 24 toll bridge revenue bonds and other costs in full unless an extension line 25 of the time for toll collection is approved by a two-thirds vote of line 26 the authority at a public meeting following a notice of at least 30 line 27 days to the public. line 28 30928.2. Within two years following the imposition of the line 29 initial toll rates and at least biennially thereafter, the authority shall line 30 review the adequacy of the toll rates to cover costs incurred line 31 pursuant to this chapter, including for improvements. line 32 30929.4. (a) The authority’s toll rates may include discounts line 33 and premiums to reduce congestion and the emissions of line 34 greenhouse gases, including, without limitation, discounts for line 35 high-occupancy vehicles, electronic toll collection, and off-peak line 36 travel, and premiums for on-peak travel. line 37 (b) The authority may vary the toll rate applicable to a vehicle line 38 operated on the bridge for the carriage of passengers by any line 39 municipal or public corporation, transit district, public utility line 40 district, political subdivision, or transportation company operating

99

— 8 — SB 1408

56

line 1 under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The line 2 authority shall consult with the affected operators before adopting line 3 any toll rate pursuant to this subdivision. line 4 30929.6. The authority’s toll structure may include adjustments line 5 to toll rates to reflect economic factors, including, but not limited line 6 to, the Consumer Price Index or other cost indices. line 7 30929.8. (a) The authority shall develop and implement an line 8 equity program for the toll bridge to reduce the impact of a toll line 9 imposed pursuant to this chapter on low-income drivers.

line 10 (b) The authority shall develop and implement the equity line 11 program in consultation with the Sonoma County Transportation line 12 Authority, Solano Transportation Authority, Napa Valley line 13 Transportation Authority, and Transportation Authority of Marin, line 14 and shall consider comments from those entities. line 15 SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 16 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 17 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 18 Constitution because sea level rise and flooding uniquely threaten line 19 State Route 37 and the Sonoma Creek Bridge. line 20 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 21 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because line 22 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 23 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 24 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 25 17556 of the Government Code.

O

99

SB 1408 — 9 —

57


58

M E M O R A N D U M

February 24, 2020

To: Solano Transportation Authority

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: February Report

During the month of February, we monitored developments in Washington and brought them to the attention of STA.

FY 2021 Appropriations

On February 10, the Trump Administration unveiled its fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget. The Budget proposes to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure over 10 years, including $810 billion over 10 years for surface transportation. The budget does not identify a revenue stream to pay for the spending. The Budget proposes to reauthorize all of the modes included in the FAST Act, but to streamline and consolidate accounts and programs to improve efficiencies and program effectiveness. The Budget also proposes to end the recent practice of appropriating additional discretionary budget authority for the highway and transit formula programs.

The Budget proposes an 8-percent increase for highway and transit formula programs in fiscal year 2021 from 2020. We have provided highlights of the DOT budget keeping in mind that it is not likely to get traction with Congress.

• $50.7 billion for Federal Highway Administration programs (versus $50 billion in FY2020)

• $1 billion for BUILD (level with FY 2020)

• $1 billion for INFRA (level with FY 2020)

• $1.89 billion for the Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grant program(FY 2020 enacted: $1.99 billion)

• $11.05 billion for Federal Transit Administration transit formula grants (FY 2020enacted: $10.15 billion)

• The budget does not include funding for supplemental transit infrastructure grants (FY2020 enacted: $510 million)

ATTACHMENT C

59

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 2

• $330 million for the Federal Railroad Administration Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grants (FY 2020 enacted: $325 million)

• No new funding for Federal Railroad Administration Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair grants (FY 2020 enacted: $200 million)

Although House Democrats initially said they would consider reinstating earmarks for the FY 2021 appropriations process to allow members to secure funding for local projects, Democratic leadership ultimately decided not to allow a return of earmarks. House Democrats have said they will attempt to revive earmarks in the FY 2022 appropriations process.

The next step is for Congress to draft and mark up appropriations bills. It is too early to tell whether Congress will be able to pass and reconcile funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, but we will continue to report on developments.

Surface Transportation Reauthorization

Democratic Proposal

On January 29, House Democrats unveiled their five-year $760 billion infrastructure proposal that would fund highways, ports, harbors, transit, airports, drinking water, and broadband. It would provide $434 billion in surface transportation funding over five years, of which $319 billion would be for highways and $105 billion would be for transit.

The proposal prioritizes bringing existing infrastructure into a state of good repair and enabling the completion of critical projects. The proposal calls for funding transportation projects of regional and national significance with focused eligibility criteria and reduced discretion from the Department of Transportation over project selection. The proposal would continue to fund the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program while streamlining the application process and increasing transparency in the vetting process. It would also create a new program to protect fragile or at-risk transportation assets.

The proposal would provide technical assistance to cities and counties to improve capacity to receive and administer federal funds and facilitate project delivery. The proposal would expand decision-making over federal funds to local governments and provide additional authority to metropolitan planning organizations that demonstrate the capacity to administer federal funds. The proposal would amend the sub-allocation process to ensure mid-sized communities receive an allocation of program funds. It also calls for “tighter standards” for tolling and congestion pricing but does not provide details of what this would entail.

60

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 3 The proposal calls for large investments in transit and zero emissions buses to reduce greenhouse gasses and ease congestion. It proposes reforming the Capital Investment Grant program to ensure that projects are approved quickly and that the federal government prioritizes new transit capacity that reduces congestion and mitigates greenhouse gas pollution. The proposal also suggests increasing bus funding, enacting bus procurement reforms, and investing in bus facilities. The proposal would ensure federal funding formulas prioritize frequency of service and promote the use of bus lanes, signal priority, route optimization, and on-time performance measures. It would also create a new grant program to help connect veterans, substance abuse patients, and the elderly to healthcare.

The proposal places particular emphasis on climate change, clean energy, and resilience. It also tightens Davis-Bacon and Buy America requirements. The proposal does not specify a revenue stream to pay for the spending.

House Transportation Committee Democrats are drafting their surface transportation bill. Chairman DeFazio previously said he would release a draft in February, but no text has been introduced as of yet. The House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing regarding funding and financing infrastructure projects on January 29. Transportation Chairman DeFazio has expressed frustration that the Ways and Means Committee has not reached a conclusion regarding a final infrastructure “pay-for” for the surface transportation bill.

House Republican Infrastructure Principles

House Republicans unveiled a set of principles for reauthorizing surface transportation programs on January 28. The principles include addressing the long-term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund, incorporating innovative developments in technology to improve infrastructure, and streamlining the project delivery process to maximize available funding. House Republicans also called for addressing the needs of rural communities, prioritizing core programs and functions of existing federal surface transportation programs, and ensuring state flexibility.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO) separately urged for the adoption of a Vehicle Miles Traveled fee as a solution for the Highway Trust Fund insolvency. Transportation Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has spoken in favor of raising and indexing the gas and diesel tax and issuing 30-year bonds to pay for transportation spending.

President’s Infrastructure Proposal

61

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 4 President Trump has proposed a 10-year reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that would authorize $810 billion for surface transportation programs, including $602 billion for highways and $155 billion for transit. The proposal would provide an additional $60 billion for the construction of “mega-projects” and $35 billion for repairing bridges. It would also provide $20 billion for a Transit State of Good Repair Sprint program to reduce the state-of-good-repair transit backlog. The program would focus exclusively on rehabilitating existing assets and would not cover new capacity projects. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal does not include a funding source.

During his State of the Union on February 4, President Trump called on both parties to work together on infrastructure legislation. He praised the surface transportation bill that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up last year and expressed a willingness to work with Congress on infrastructure legislation, arguing that infrastructure investment is “not an option” but a “necessity.” While President Trump appeared to endorse the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highway title, the Trump Administration is separately drafting its own surface transportation bill, which it will present to Congress.

Senate Surface Transportation Bill Status

While the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee advanced its version of the bill in July 2019, the Senate Banking, Finance, and Commerce Committees have yet to unveil the sections of the bill over which they have jurisdiction. However, the Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on February 25 to solicit public transportation stakeholders’ perspective on the surface transportation reauthorization. Additionally, Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said the Committee is having difficulty finding a funding solution for the EPW Committee’s reauthorization bill, but is reportedly considering the potential of indexing the gas tax to inflation.

Transportation Legislation

On February 13, Representative Matt Cartwright (D-PA) introduced the Transit Bus Procurement Act, which would direct the General Services Administration to provide a source of supply for small and medium-sized transit agencies to procure buses. Cartwright argued that his bill would reduce regulatory burdens on small- and medium-sized and rural transit agencies, thereby allowing for a more efficient and cost-effective way to procure transit buses while complying with federal procurement regulations.

On February 13, Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) introduced the Promoting Service in Transportation Act, which would promote transportation career opportunities and improve diversity in the

62

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 5 transportation workforce. The bill would direct DOT to establish and administer a transportation workforce outreach program to conduct public service announcement campaigns to increase awareness of career opportunities in the transportation sector, including safety inspectors, mechanics and technicians, truck drivers, engineers, transit workers, and railroad workers. The outreach program would also be tasked with conducting public awareness campaigns to increase diversity in the transportation sector, including with respect to race, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

On February 13, Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced the Freight Infrastructure Reinvestment Act (FIRA), which would create a national freight discretionary grant program that would provide funds for infrastructure projects across the national freight mobility network. FIRA would create a new National Freight Mobility Infrastructure Fund supported by a one percent fee on the shipment of freight cargo. The program will invest in freight projects that improve the efficiency, capacity, and safety of the freight mobility system, including construction projects that make roads and bridges safer and more resilient and expand rail and highway tunnels to accommodate increased cargo.

Emissions Standards

On February 4, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from the Trump Administration to expedite litigation challenging the revocation of California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act. Oral arguments in the case are expected in fall 2020. The Circuit Court also rejected a request from California to put the case on hold until a decision on jurisdiction can be reached in the lower U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court will hold a hearing on April 16 to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for the litigation.

In early February, the Department of Justice ended its antitrust investigation into automakers who formed a voluntary agreement with California to follow the state’s more stringent fuel economy standards despite the revocation of California’s waiver. The automakers originally began coordinating with California in response to the Trump Administration’s One National Program rulemaking.

Federal Grants

On February 7, the FTA announced the availability of $454.6 million for the Buses and Bus Facilities grant program. The competitive grants will fund projects that would replace, rehabilitate, lease, or purchase buses and related equipment. Other eligible projects involve purchasing, rehabilitating, constructing, or leasing bus-related facilities, such as buildings for bus

63

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 6 storage and maintenance. The grant notice encourages applicants to demonstrate how their proposed projects are consistent with the Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (R.O.U.T.E.S.) and the Accelerating Innovative Mobility (AIM) initiatives. Eligible applicants include fixed route bus operators, states and local governmental entities that operate fixed route bus service, and Indian tribes. FTA will allocate a minimum of 10 percent of funds to rural bus needs. FTA expects to make 300 awards. Applications are due by March 30.

On February 13, FTA announced the availability of $9.3 million in research funding for innovative projects that will improve rail transit and bus operator safety. This includes $7.3 million for the Safety Research and Demonstration (SRD) Program, which funds projects that demonstrate and evaluate new technologies, safer designs, and practices to improve rail transit safety. FTA will fund projects that mitigate trespassing hazards on rail transit systems and improve the operational safety of shared corridor fixed guideway systems, including highway-rail grade crossing safety. It will also support innovative projects that demonstrate advanced technologies to improve rail transit safety. FTA expects to make four awards.

The announcement also include $2 million for the Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility Program, which funds projects that redesign transit bus operator compartments to improve safety for bus operators and passengers. The funds will support research projects to develop new transit bus operator compartment designs that protect operators from assault and improve their view of the road while still allowing them to interact with passengers, including people with disabilities and those in need of special assistance. FTA expects to make four awards between $250,000 and $1 million. Applications for both the SRD and the Redesign of Transit Bus Operator Compartment to Improve Safety, Operational Efficiency, and Passenger Accessibility programs are due by March 24. Eligible applicants include public transportation providers, state and local government entities, nonprofit organizations, and colleges.

On February 14, the Department of Homeland Security announced the availability of $1.8 billion in preparedness grants, including $88 million in Transit Security Grant Program to assist owners and operators of transit systems with protecting critical surface transportation and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure. The Department expects to make 40 awards. Applications are due by April 15.

Chinese Transit Equipment

On February 13, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) sent a letter to FTA asking the agency to send a letter to FTA grant recipients explaining recent statutory changes preventing federal transit funds from being used to purchase passenger railcars and transit buses

64

Solano Transportation Authority February 24, 2020 Page 7 from Chinese state-owned, controlled, or subsidized enterprises. President Trump signed the prohibition into law in December 2019. While the prohibition will not go into effect for two years, the Senators expressed concern that the transit industry does not have adequate information about the procurement changes. The letter specifically criticizes the award of any federal funds to BYD.

65


66

M E M O R A N D U M

February 26, 2020

From: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Re: Senate Banking Committee Hearing on Public Transportation

On February 25, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing entitled “Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Public Transportation Stakeholders’ Perspectives.” The Committee heard from:

- Paul Skoutelas: President and Chief Executive Officer, American Public TransportationAssociation,

- Patrick McKenna: President, American Association of State Highway TransportationOfficials. Director, Missouri Department of Transportation

- Scott Bogren: Executive Director, Community Transportation Association of America

- Ed Mortimer: Vice President for Transportation and Infrastructure, Chamber ofCommerce of the United States of America

- Larry Willis: President of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) called for a long-term reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to provide certainty and stability for cities and transit agencies to make responsible transportation planning decisions. Crapo and Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pledged to work together on the public transportation title of the reauthorization on a bipartisan basis.

Committee members and witnesses agreed that public transportation bolsters the economy, reduces emissions and congestion, saves money, enhances lives, and expands mobility. They agreed that Congress should pass a timely and long-term reauthorization bill that ensures a strong federal investment in transit. The witnesses agreed that the reauthorization provides Congress with an opportunity to improve and modernize public transportation.

Funding

Chairman Crapo noted that the Banking Committee does not have jurisdiction over the funding portion of the reauthorization, but called for a solution to the Highway Trust Fund shortfall. Patrick McKenna of AASHTO agreed that a solution is needed.

ATTACHMENT D

67

February 26, 2020 Page 2 Paul Skoutelas of the American Public Transportation Association supported increasing the gas tax by five cents a year for five years. He expressed openness to other solutions as well. Ed Mortimer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also supported increasing the gas tax.

Skoutelas and Ranking Member Brown agreed that the Mass Transit Account should receive at least 20 percent of any new revenue added to the Highway Trust Fund. McKenna similarly supported retaining the Mass Transit Account.

Federal Transit Programs

Paul Skoutelas called for $145 billion in funding over six years to fund critical projects to address the state of good repair backlog and fund the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) projects in the pipeline. He stated that the CIG program benefits both local communities and the country at large. Skoutelas characterized the program as a “bureaucratic maze” and asked Congress to review all statutory, regulatory, and administrative CIG requirements. Skoutelas argued that costs increase, reliability decreases, and ridership suffers when operators use outdated transit equipment. Ranking Member Brown said Congress must ensure that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is processing applications under the CIG program fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law. Brown added that Congress should ensure that FTA is not adding extra requirements or delaying projects. Ed Mortimer supported improving the CIG program.

Senator Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) called for leveraging private investment in the CIG program. Skoutelas said the program supports private investment, but suggested more private involvement could occur in the transit oriented development planning process.

Ranking Member Brown said the reauthorization should address the backlog of public transit repairs and bring systems up to a state of good repair. Ed Mortimer and Patrick McKenna supported improving the State of Good Repair program.

Patrick McKenna expressed support for retaining, expanding, and strengthen federal public transportation programs and asked Congress to increase and prioritize formula funding based federal funding to states. He expressed support for increasing the federal share for transit capital projects to 90%. McKenna also expressed support for maintaining and growing the Bus and Bus Facilities formula and discretionary program, including the Low or No Emission Vehicle (Low/No) discretionary grant program. All witnesses supported increasing funding for the Low/No Program. Ranking Member Brown called for record investment in the Bus and Bus Facilities program and the Low/No Program. .

Emerging Technologies

68

February 26, 2020 Page 3 Chairman Crapo said the reauthorization should address emerging technologies such as on-demand service, autonomous vehicles, and electric vehicles. He suggested that transit agencies should incorporate these technologies to complement fixed-route service outside of service hours, provide non-emergency medical transportation, bring riders to or from fixed-route service to their final destinations, and modernize fare payment collection.

Paul Skoutelas said Congress should create a new mobility innovation and technology initiative to integrate cutting-edge technologies, new service delivery approaches, and mobility options in the transit marketplace. He repeatedly called for special funding categories to support micro-transit pilot programs and first/last mile transportation, arguing that the federal government has a role in accelerating these programs. Patrick McKenna suggested that greater flexibility between operating and capital accounts would help operators develop first/last mile transportation. McKenna called on Congress to support and ensure state departments of transportation’s ability to harness innovation and technology.

Scott Bogren of the Community Transportation Association of America called for uniting all transit providers across a community into a network that includes traditional fixed route services and new on-demand mobility. He supported new investment programs that take into account new ways of serving passengers, utilize new metrics of success, and provide regulatory reform for smaller providers.

Larry Willis of the AFL-CIO noted that the spread of new mobility options, such as ridehailing, scooters, and autonomous vehicles, is changing the public transportation landscape. He called for Congress to consider the workforce impacts of new transportation options and to balance mobility affordability with worker protections and rights. Willis said strong unions and worker engagement are necessary to mitigate against harms caused by rapid changes in the industry.

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) suggested Congress consider how smart communities and technologies, such as smart traffic lights, can work alongside public transportation. Skoutelas agreed that the transit industry must be more responsive to new technologies and innovations. McKenna suggested operators replace aging rolling stock with smarter and safer technologies, such as automatic braking.

Housing and Workforce

Ranking Member Brown stated that transit investments should support good-paying domestic jobs and called for stronger Buy America requirements. Larry Willis cautioned Congress against undercutting collective bargaining in the reauthorization bill. He agreed that Congress must strengthen Buy America rules for public transportation investments.

69

February 26, 2020 Page 4 Willis called for ending violence against transit operators. He said both the Obama and Trump Administrations have failed to implement a FAST Act mandate to help stop assaults on front line workers. Willis supported Senator Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) Transit Worker Protection Act, which would require the development of public transportation operations safety risk reduction programs. Senator Van Hollen said he will work to get his legislation folded into the larger reauthorization bill. Willis said existing transit safety plans need more strength. He also said FTA needs better data on safety incidents.

Willis said that federal policy has failed to support needs of non-management transit workforce, thereby risking a shortage of skilled transit workers. He said the industry must recruit, train, and retrain the next generation of technicians and high skilled workers. Willis proposed creating and funding a transit training center that focuses on front line workers. Ranking Member Brown agreed transit workers should have proper training and a safe workplace. He cautioned against outsourcing safety functions and essential services.

Ranking Member Brown said housing is a critical part of infrastructure that the reauthorization should address both transit-oriented development (TOD) and housing infrastructure investment. Senator Cortez Masto similarly said Congress should consider affordable housing and economic job centers within transportation planning. She suggested Congress incentivize local zoning for affordable housing and transit connections. Patrick McKenna noted that transit providers are already working to with local transportation planning organizations to consider where people live, work, shop, and receive medical care. Paul Skoutelas added that transit agencies are receptive to TOD and suggested that Congress incentivize TOD through the federal grant process.

Additional Topics

Chairman Crapo said that federal policies should provide more certainty to transit agencies by addressing statutory and regulatory burdens in order to invite more innovation into the transit industry. He said federal policies should encourage business-like operations of transit systems and should include streamlining efficiencies, assessing current service with needs, maintaining assets in a state of good repair, leveraging resources for procurements, and seeking out partnerships with the private sector where appropriate. Scott Bogren supported “common sense” regulatory reform. Patrick McKenna called on Congress to increase flexibility, reduce program burdens, and improve project delivery. However, he cautioned that the industry cannot “streamline its way” into delivering a safer transportation system. McKenna supported the goals of Safety Management Systems and the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.

70

February 26, 2020 Page 5 Chairman Crapo said the surface transportation reauthorization should balance investment in bus and rail as well as urban and rural systems. Bogren noted that rural transit systems are often unable to meet federal match requirements. He suggested having lower match requirements for areas of high poverty and low access to healthcare. Bogren said operating flexibility will help rural transit systems. Paul Skoutelas suggested doubling rural transit funding. All witnesses agreed that rural transit is important.

McKenna asked Congress to maintain the current maximum federal funding match ratios for public transit programs to support rural and urban communities, individuals with disabilities, and seniors. McKenna asked Congress to ensure that these programs are flexible enough to work together.

Skoutelas said the public transportation industry needs a wide variety of tools to implement projects. He argued that Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan programs should count toward projects’ local shares and should not be considered as part of the federal contribution.

71


72

State Legislative UpdateSolano Transportation Authority Joshua W. Shaw and Matt RobinsonMarch 11, 2020

ATTACHMENT D

73

01

Legislation2019-2020 Regular Session

S H A W Y O D E R A N T W I H S C H M E L Z E R & L A N G E 274

S H A W Y O D E R A N T W I H S C H M E L Z E R & L A N G E

2019-2020 Legislative Session

2nd year of the two-year session

New bill introduction deadline last Friday• 2,200+ bills in 2020

• 2,575 bills in 2019

Not a huge number of transportation-specific bills• But, a few matter a lot!

375


Priority Legislation

Senate Bill 1408 (Dodd) - Authorizes collection of tolls on SR 37 from Highway 121 to Walnut Avenue, to address congestion, flooding, and sea level rise on the corridor. The toll structure shall provide accommodations for public transit and social equity.

• Required to coordinate with STA, Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Transportation Authority of Marin.

• Responsible “Authority” yet to be named (BAIFA or BATA).

476


Legislation on Impact Fees

AB 3145 (Grayson): Establishes a ceiling (12%) for development fees based on the median home price in a jurisdiction.

• Cities and counties that exceed this ceiling will be required to seek approval from the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Multiple other bills dealing with impact fees.

577

Conversation around fare free transit has grown louder in Sacramento.

Concerns include: Expected transit fiscal/operational impacts

New governor

Strength of authors

Broad legislative support

Nationwide interest

AB 1350 (Gonzalez) – Requires free transit for persons 18 years of age and under.

AB 2012 (Chu) – Requires free transit for persons 65 years of age and over.

AB 2176 (Holden) – Requires free transit for UC, CSU, CCC students.

• Would make student assessments to fund such service illegal.


Fa re Free Trans i t B i l l s

Fare Free Transit Legislation

78

FASTERBay Area


02

79


FASTER Bay Area Mega-Measure

SB 278 (Beall) – Spot bill • Stakeholders working to develop expenditure plan / incorporate

housing.

• Expenditure plan will ultimately be decided by Senator Beall, with other legislators’ input.

• Clock ticking on 2020 ballot placement.

880

Seamless Bay Area


03

81


Seamless

AB 2057 (Chiu) – Intent bill for Seamless • Amendments being discussed with author / transit GMs / proponents.

• Likely to remain a separate bill (not incorporated into FASTER effort).

• Likely to include fare integration / coordination / payment technology.

• Also scheduling / mapping / wayfinding.

• Task Force to review several issues (e.g. Transit Network Manager).

1082

TDA Reform


04

83


Transportation Development Act Reform

Transportation Committee Chairs Beall and Frazier requested task force.

California Transit Association leading effort.

Focused on “performance measures” in TDA.

Draft concept on street; informational hearing in July.

Legislation won’t move until 2021.

1284

Questions?Contact Information


Joshua W. [email protected]

Matt [email protected]

85

This page intentionally left blank.

86


DATE: March 13, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Debora Harris, Accountant 1 RE: Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program Second Quarter Report Background: The Solano Transportation Authority (STA) administers the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program for Solano County. These administrative duties include disbursing funds collected by the State Controller's Office from the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) vehicle registration fee of $1 per registered vehicle, using the funding formula of 50% based on population and 50% on vehicles abated. The AVA Member Agencies for Solano County are the City of Benicia, City of Dixon, City of Fairfield, City of Rio Vista, City of Suisun City, City of Vacaville, City of Vallejo, and County of Solano. Discussion: For the Second Quarter, STA received the allocation from the State Controller’s Office in the amount of $96,107.96 and has deducted $2,883.29 for administrative costs. The STA disbursed cost reimbursement to member agencies for the Second Quarter in the total amount of $81,480.89. The total remaining AVA fund balance after the second quarter disbursement to the member agencies is $11,743.83. This amount will be included with the disbursement in the third quarter utilizing the funding formula. The Cities of Dixon, Fairfield, Vacaville and Vallejo have shown a decrease in the number of vehicles that were abated during the second quarter compared to last fiscal year. The City of Rio Vista continues to have no report of abated vehicles for the quarter. Attachment A is a matrix summarizing the AVA Program activities through the Second Quarter FY 2019-20 and is compared to the total FY 2018-19 numbers of abated vehicles and cost reimbursements submitted by the members of the Solano County’s AVA Program Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Informational. Attachment:

A. Summary of Solano Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program for FY 2019-20 and FY 2018-19

87

ATTACHMENT A

Summary of Solano Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program for FY 2019-20 and FY 2018-19

Second Quarter Ending December 31, 2019

FY 2019-20 (Q2) FY 2018-19

Member Agency # of

Abated Vehicles

Reimbursed Amount

Cost per Abatement

% of Abated Vehicle from

Prior FY

# of Abated Vehicles

Reimbursed Amount

Cost per Abatement

City of Benicia 242 $7,007 $29 54% 449 $14,953 $33

City of Dixon 116 $6,765 $58 69% 169 $11,398 $72

City of Fairfield 2,471 $78,074 $32 63% 3,893 $158,589 $36

City of Rio Vista 0 0 0 0% 0 $0 $0

City of Suisun 5 $425 $85 1% 361 $24,060 $64

City of Vacaville 659 $30,894 $47 79% 830 $45,268 $54

City of Vallejo 1276 $54,139 $42 39% 3,237 $144,752 $52

Solano County Unincorporated area

36 $2,623 $73 18% 202 $9,332 $70

Total 4,805 $179,928 $37 53% 9,141 $408,352 $45

The total remaining AVA fund available after the second quarter disbursement to member agencies is $11,743.83. This amount is available for disbursement to member agencies utilizing the funding formula, in addition to the State Controller’s Office allocation for the third quarter FY 2019-20.

88

Agenda Item 8.D March 25, 2020

DATE: March 14, 2020 TO: STA TAC FROM: Brent Rosenwald, Planning Assistant RE: Summary of Funding Opportunities

Discussion: Below is a list of funding opportunities that will be available to STA member agencies during the next few months, broken up by Federal, State, and Local. Attachment A provides further details for each program.

FUND SOURCE AMOUNT AVAILABLE

APPLICATION DEADLINE

Federal

1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP)

Up to $300 million; projects of at least $25 million

First deadline is December 18, 2018, applications accepted on a Quarterly Rolling Basis.

2. Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) – Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG) Up to $410 million Applications due Early

Winter 2019-2020

3. Federal Transit Administration- Buses and Bus Facilities Program Up to $454 million Due on March 30, 2020

4. Department of Transportation- Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) Up to $ 1 Billion Due on May 18, 2020

Regional1. Carl Moyer Off-Road Equipment Replacement Program (for

Sacramento Metropolitan Area) Approximately $10 million

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis

2. Air Resources Board (ARB) Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP)

Up to $7,000 rebate per light-duty vehicle

Due On First-Come, First-Served Basis (Waitlist)

3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Vouchers (HVIP) (for fleets)

Approximately $5,000 to $45,000 per qualified request


4. PG&E Charge Program Pays to install 7,500 chargers in PG&E area


5. Volkswagen Mitigation Trust Fund for Zero Emission Transit and Shuttle Buses Up to $65 Million Due On First-Come,

First-Served Basis

6. TDA Article 3 Funding Up to $483,604 Proposals due June 30, 2020

7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District TFCA Funds Up to $128,801 Proposals due on April 20th

8. Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District CAF Funds Up to $340,000 Proposals due on April 10th

State 1. Active Transportation Cycle 5 Funds Up to $440 Million Proposals due June 15,

2020

Action: None.

Recommendation: Informational.

89


90

solano transportation authority · 3/25/2020 · unanimously approved the recommendation. (6 ayes...

Documents