WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes

October 19, 2007

The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:38 A.M. on Friday, October 19, 2007 by Chair Sharon Brown in the City Council Chambers of the City of San Pablo, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.

1. Call to Order/Self Introductions

PRESENT: Sharon Brown, Chair (San Pablo), Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Ed Balico (Hercules), Bob Franklin (BART), John Gioia (Contra Costa County), John Marquez (Richmond)*, Gayle McLaughlin (Richmond)*, Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT)

STAFF: Lisa Hammon, Executive Director

Linda Young, Transportation Project Specialist

John Rudolph, Project Manager

Nancy Cuneo, Administrative Analyst

Hisham Noeimi, CCTA

Bryan Otake, General Counsel

EXCUSED: Maria Alegria (Pinole), Tom Butt (Richmond), Maria Viramontes, Vice-Chair (Richmond), Joe Wallace (AC Transit)

*Arrived after Roll Call

2. Public Comment

There were no comments from the public

Consent Calendar

On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by John Gioia and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the Consent Calendar as follows, with Item 6 pulled:

2. Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet, and Meeting Summary from the September 28, 2007.

3. Approved Staff Reports.

4. Approved 2008 State Transportation Improvement Program Revised Project List.

5. Received update on Focus Priority Development Area Applications.

7. Accepted Senior Transportation Project Administrator Update.

8. Authorized Letter of Support for West Contra Costa Representative to the Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Board of Directors.

Item 6: I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project Memorandum of Understanding between the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and WCCTAC.

Lisa Hammon noted that the memorandum had been discussed at a CCTA meeting held previously.

Janet Abelson expressed concern regarding the impact that ramp metering may have on local communities within West County. Ms. Abelson recommended including language in the memorandum, which grants local jurisdictions control over the ramp meters in the event of increased congestion brought about through ramp metering. She noted that CCTA approved this recommendation.

Ed Balico stated that control of the ramp meters by local jurisdictions is a good idea however he expressed concern over implications that may arise regarding funding and scheduling as approval of the ICM draws near.

Ms. Abelson stated that if action is taken now scheduling and funding will not be adversely effected.

Ms. Hammon noted that the recommendation is for the Board to authorize the Chair to sign the MOU with an incorporation of some form of the language which Ms. Abelson has proposed. She noted that the language is being drawn up by Anush Nejad of Kimley-Horn and ACCMA staff and legal counsel.

John Gioia recommended establishing some kind of protocol for the local jurisdictions as a means for determining what constitutes back-up and what would warrant overriding the ramp metering system.

Anush Nejad noted that Kimley-Horn and ACCMA are working on two additions to the existing language of the memorandum: ramp metering and local transit improvements. He noted that the goal of the project is to include the local jurisdictions in the process of determining policy, monitoring conditions, and implementing procedures for control of ramp metering. He emphasized that consistency between these policies is necessary.

John Gioia asked how a situation in which different levels of congestion tolerance between jurisdictions would be addressed.

Mr. Nejad stated that this would be addressed during the formation of a ubiquitous policy. He as well noted that the ultimate goal of the ICM Project is not to create back-up that would adversely affect local communities. He stated that queues will be in place which will adjust metering rates and/or turn ramp metering off relative to the amount of back-up accumulating on local streets.

Mr. Nejad remarked that a Technical Advisory Committee that is well represented by all of the local jurisdictions will be in place to aid in the formulation of policy and compliance with local guidelines and tolerances. He emphasized that the goal is to create a balanced network that will not divert and/or negatively impact any one jurisdiction more than another.

Ms. Abelson noted that the problem with the current language stems from the fact that when the ICM Project was first proposed it included improvements to local arterials however the CTC did not fund this component. Ms. Abelson asked that Mr. Nejad apprise the Board of a state program for funding the 24.3 million dollar arterial and transit component of the ICM Project.

Mr. Nejad remarked that this component is essential to the formulation of a comprehensive solution. He stated that ACCMA, CCTA, and WCCTAC are currently examining two avenues for procuring the necessary funds: CTC recommended using a component of the Bond Measure monies allocated for traffic light synchronization. He noted that of the original $250M allocated for this purpose $150M has been earmarked for southern California. The remaining $100M is available on a competitive basis. Applications for the funds are due January 2008.

The second funding option involves federal funds which are available through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

Jerrold Parsons expressed reservations over granting local jurisdictions the authority to turn off metering as it may adversely effect other jurisdictions.

Ms. Hammon remarked that the language will be drafted such to include local and regional considerations.

On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by Ed Balico and carried unanimously the WCCTAC Board voted to approve item 6 with the incorporation of language to be drafted by ACCMA, CCTA, and WCCTAC.

Item 9: Board Member Comments, Conference/Meeting Reports, and Announcements

Jerrold Parsons requested information regarding completion of the eastbound HOV lane between Crockett and Hercules, as so far only the westbound lanes have been completed. He noted that funds were recently diverted from the project.

Ms. Hammon stated that she would include a schedule and information regarding the project in the next Board packet.

Mr. Gioia expressed a need to take action in moving to involve all communities along the I-80 corridor, to make sure that the individual concerns of each jurisdiction are heard as a proposal to double the capacity of the main rail line from Oakland to Richmond moves forward. He remarked that WCCTAC would perhaps be the best agency to facilitate this in West County.

Mr. Balico apprised the Board of a meeting he attended that addressed protection of the Bay Area environment. He emphasized the importance of these issues and noted that members of the Board would be receiving letters with information regarding means of taking action to combat negative impacts to the local environment.

Gayle McLaughlin noted that the Richmond Green Chamber of Commerce is hosting an event, which WCCTAC endorsed, entitled “Greening Richmond - A Community Battles Global Warming.”

Chair Brown stated that she and Ms. Hammon attended the ribbon cutting for the Richmond Transit Station.

Ms. Hammon apprised the Board of articles written about the ribbon cutting and Green Richmond event, by Katherine Tam of the West County Times. She extolled the benefits of having a Richmond reporter writing for the West County Times so that events of this nature can gain exposure.

10. Legal Counsel Comments and Announcements

Bryan Otake apprised the Board of a two-phase Brown Act Provision. The first which goes into effect on January 1st, 2008 states that all public meeting materials must be provided upon request and in a timely fashion. The second provision, which also goes into effect in January of 2008, requires that a location where hard-copies of Board packets may be obtained must be provided to the public.

Mr. Otake added, regarding a decision stemming from a case called Wolf which upheld a City Manager’s right to provide one-on-one briefings with elected officials, that the clean up provisions that would have overturned Wolf were vetoed by the governor. Therefore it is permissible for WCCTAC to conduct one-on-one briefings if desired.

Ms. Hammon noted that information about the preceding has been provided in the Board member packets.

Item 11: Date for the November/December Board Meeting

At the direction of Chair Brown, Board members reviewed their calendars and agreed to hold the combined November/December Board meeting on December 14th at 7:30 AM.

Item 12: Verbal Report on Meeting Regarding the I-80 ICM Project- John Rudolph

John Rudolph provided a summary of a meeting to discuss the I-80 ICM Project. He pointed out that WCCTAC TAC, the Smart Corridors TAC, relevant jurisdictions, transit properties, Caltrans, MTC, and Rich Napier of San Mateo County were among those in attendance. He noted that Mr. Napier provided quantitative data which demonstrated that ramp metering has reduced travel time by 20 percent in the southbound direction in San Mateo, with no negative effects on local traffic.

Mr. Rudolph noted that participants discussed the seven different elements of the ICM Program and presentations of technical data were provided by Kimley-Horn and DKS. He stated that the meeting functioned as a means for local officials to be apprised of the details of the project in the interest of formulating a strategy for integration with local transit projects as the ICM project moves forward.

Ms. Hammon added that the entire planning staff from the Solano Transportation Authority was in attendance. She noted that the impetus for the meeting was the resolution of support which is moving forward combined with the sentiment of the TAC that more information was required before members presented the project to the councils of their individual jurisdictions.

Ms. Abelson inquired about information in the handout that states that one of the inherent challenges for the ICMP is integration of the East Bay Smart Corridors Program and the Caltrans District 4 traffic management system. She asked why this is considered to be a challenge.

Mr. Rudolph stated that the intent of that language was to engage Caltrans more fully. He added that at the time that the statement was written Caltrans may not have been as on board with the program as they are currently.

Mr. Nejad elaborated by stating that the problem stems from various agencies working independently. He added that Caltrans is typically a wholly independent agency which maintains and operates their own systems. He emphasized that the goal of the program is to successfully integrate the local systems with the systems Caltrans currently has in place. This presents both institutional and technical challenges however the overall goal is cohesive functionality without compromising the independence of each agency.

Ms. Abelson inquired about the East Bay Smart Corridors plan and asked was not that an example of successful integration.

Mr. Nejad pointed out that the East Bay Smart Corridors Project only impacted local roads and was not integrated with the freeway.

Item 13: Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Program (STMP or “Developer Impact Fees”) Project Financing

Ms. Hammon provided a synopsis of the staff report beginning with an overview of the background of STMP Projects and prioritization. She cited the eleven Impact Fee Program Projects and emphasized the need for projects to be prioritized in order to take advantage of bond measure financing and the incremental fashion in which funds are distributed.

Ms. Hammon noted that she, for illustrative purposes, would be highlighting a single project; to demonstrate how it might take advantage of bond revenues in comparison with the impact upon that project if it were on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Ms. Hammon pointed out that in the Hercules Train Station project example one third of its initial-phase costs are derived from developer impact fee revenues .If the project was funded utilizing PAYGO monies, funding would not be available for other projects until 2011. As well, bond financing would enable funding for other projects in as early as 2008.

Ms. Hammon stated that the San Pablo Dam Road interchange, one of the eleven projects listed, has tripled in projected costs. This project is likely phaseable; a value analysis meeting was held in the interest of finding ways to cut the cost of the project. The results of that meeting will be presented in early November 2007 providing a clearer idea of potential funding effects on the San Pablo Dam Road Interchange. Also information related to the I-80/ Central Interchange will also be available soon.

Ms. Hammon summarized by stating that a number of projects exist, where specificity of timing will be essential and financing may be tiered and distributed in several instances. She noted that funding for ferry service was not in the initial top tier however there are now funds that may be available for ferry projects as will be outlined later in the meeting.

Ms. Hammon informed the Board that WCCTAC is working with each of the project sponsors on when they will require funding. She stated that she can provide details on any of the projects to the Board at the next meeting. She noted that project sponsors already provided data on individual projects however changes have been made since the issuance of that data. She noted that factors such as funding delays, construction inflation, and increased project contingencies also affect the deliverability of these projects.

Mr. Gioia stated that the project cost figures need to be updated as the current numbers reflect outdated data. He requested information regarding how the project costs will be monitored and adjusted accordingly. As well he requested that the project financing costs be addressed and accounted for.

Mark Curran of Piper Jaffray reiterated Ms. Hammon’s statement, that financing is driven by the projects and a PAYGO system would result in the first $20 to $25M dollars worth of projects being deferred out through 2011, pending for another project 2-3 years after that. The advantage of a financing project would result in net proceeds in the mid-to-high $20M dollar range so that a number of key projects can be started sooner.

Mr. Curran began outlining the presentation on Regional Transportation Improvement Bonds (RTIB) beginning with WCCTAC bond revenue pledge sources. Regarding WCCTAC STMP revenues flow of funds, Mr. Curran noted that if all six local agencies participate, each would have a “local obligation” in terms of the amount of credit backstop being provided by Measure J. Moneys that come in as a result of Impact Developer Fees would first go to paying current year debt service, followed by next year debt service, then two-year-out debt service; once these are taken care of, any advances which may have been made would be paid back.

If a surplus exists, money would be allocated to calling in bonds pertinent to any particular member. For example if a particular jurisdiction has a greater amount of development such that the first four revenues flow of funds items have been covered, bonds attributable to that jurisdiction’s local obligations would be called in. Only after all local bonds have been paid off would funds collected within a particular jurisdiction be called in to pay off debt for all of the public agencies. Mr. Curran noted that they are recommending that the interest be capitalized for the first two years so that from the onset, items one, two, and three are already paid for.

Mr. Curran outlined the Key Assumptions of the RTIB. Regarding closed flow of funds with accelerated prepayment, he noted that with the direction of the WCCTAC Board, this component may be modified over time as it currently directs all monies coming in to call bonds in the interest of protecting Measure J funds.

Mr. Curran stated regarding the STMP Fee schedule that the amounts are set to adjust for inflation each year per the Engineering News Cost Record.

He outlined the WCCTAC development projections compiled from surveys issued to planners and member agencies. These outline projected development over the next 25 years and the resultant STMP fund projections relative to those. Mr. Curran noted that the significant drop in funds after five years stems from the conservatism of the planners and agencies and the limited scope of development forecasts in general.

Mr. Curran noted that the two largest uses of funds go to capitalization of interest and servicing the debt service reserve fund. He stated that the capitalization of interest was recommended by the finance directors of relevant agencies such that local jurisdictions would be given two years notice before any return to source funds would be called upon. He noted that WCCTAC will be providing a semi-annual report to keep local agencies apprised of current funding statistics and projections.

Regarding the estimated annual net debt service, Mr. Curran pointed out that it has been run out at 30 years; Piper Jaffray will look into shortening the financing but rolling up the debt service in the later years in interest of keeping the debt service low. Another option would be, given the strength of the STMP fees coming in, working with the rating agencies so that the longer bonds would be called first to adhere to the 30 year amortization which is the most cost effective method.

Mr. Gioia inquired about the total amount of interest to be paid.

Mr. Curran responded by stating that the amount shown reflects total payments if the bonds were outstanding for the full term which does not reflect the expectations of the funding system.

Mr. Curran stated that the estimated maximum annual net debt service examines the worst case scenario or maximum amount that any one public agency would be confronted with regarding calls upon return to source funds, based on the data that is currently available.

He noted that Piper Jaffray will be working with the rating agencies throughout the process to try and procure an investment grade rating and attempt to massage the impact resulting from the drop in Measure J funds in the year 2034.

Regarding the STMP revenue cycles, Mr. Curran showed that the data is a summary of five scenarios which examine cutting down the forecast of the STMP revenues. The first scenario represents face value, the second 75% across the board; the third which is viewed as the most conservative and realistic, examines what would occur if 50% of the revenues forecast for the first five years were cut in half and put into projects occurring during years six through ten and ran it at 75% of the individual forecasts from each member agency. Scenario four examines cycles in the economy while table five looks at what happens at 75% of the forecast dropping down to 50% long term.

Mr. Curran continued by presenting the accumulation of cash balances in the program before the bonds are paid off. He reiterated that the goal is to have the program pre-fund the debt service two years in advance at all times so as not to require return to source funds. Any surplus goes to call bonds. He noted at 100% as presented in scenario one of the revenue cycle scenarios, bonds are paid off by 2012; and by 2020 under scenario three.

Mr. Curran then synopsized the revenue forecasts for each public agency based on scenarios one and two. He noted that having the cash balance in hand provides the security with regard to Measure J funds that the finance directors were seeking; however, if that money could be used to call in bonds early, the program could be made much more efficient. Piper Jaffray is looking to establish some kind middle ground with the finance directors in the coming weeks with regard to these opposing viewpoints.

Mr. Curran synopsized scenario three noting that the cash balance providing the full two years of pre-funding is built up in total by 2010; bonds start being called in 2011 and the substantial cash balance eventually pays off all of the bonds in 2019. He reiterated that scenario three is a worst case scenario and they believe that the program would progress much more quickly than this. Mr. Curran skipped scenarios four and five.

With regard to the forecasts provided by the individual public agencies Mr. Curran reiterated that the short-term forecasts look great; however, the agencies were highly conservative in their long term forecasts.

John Gioia inquired about incorporation of the ABAG numbers with regard to development forecasts.

Mr. Curran remarked that ABAG numbers were utilized with El Cerrito and for the County.

Mr. Gioia asked for a comparison between the total numbers provided by the individual jurisdictions and those given by ABAG.

Mr. Curran requested some additional time as these matters would be addressed in the addendum.

Mr. Curran continued by going over the addendum. He wanted to clarify that bonds don’t drive the program, projects do. He noted that bonds sales are for projects when they are ready and that the WCCTAC Board would have to approve each sale. WCCTAC and local members would move forward in the up-coming months to get a maximum dollar amount approved subject to selling the bonds when the money is needed. The earliest bond sale would likely be in September of 2008 however that may slip if the money is not needed for the first project until later. The bond sales schedule will be dictated by when projects need the money.

Mr. Curran synopsized the numbers for ABAG steady state forecasts and local public agency forecasts. He remarked that the peak is perhaps too great for local forecasts and the long term numbers are perhaps overly conservative. He continued by synopsizing the totals for the estimated maximum annual net debt service and WCCTAC development and STMP revenue projections.

In summary, Mr. Curran stated that Piper Jaffray believes that the numbers they have put together are very conservative and geared toward one total goal: to protect Measure J funds so that they are available for local streets. The program does not provide as much flexibility as may be desired from the WCCTAC Board in terms of taking surplus monies out for PAYGO projects. At the WCCTAC Board’s discretion over time, once the program has been pre-funded and the bonds have been paid down significantly, it is then up to the WCCTAC Board if money is to be pulled from a surplus to fund for PAYGO projects.

Bob Franklin left at 8:40.

Chair Brown recommended either forming a sub-committee or planning a workshop at which planners, directors, commissioners, managers, and Board members could inquire about various technical aspects of the proposed STMP Program.

Mr. Curran agreed that such an arrangement would be beneficial; however, he requested that questions be provided in advance.

Ms. Abelson voiced concerns over collapsing development projections in her jurisdiction and how that might effect initial funding. She also voiced concern over local agencies being responsible for their own credit backstop.

Mr. Curran stated that he would be happy to meet with officials from El Cerrito and discuss Ms. Abelson’s concerns at a later juncture.

Mr. Gioia voiced concern over frontloading of the project funding as he believes that development will not occur in the range of the projections provided by the local agencies. He suggested a re-evaluation of the numbers.

Item 14: West Contra Costa Ferry Service - Regional Perspective from the Water Transit Authority and Local Perspective from the Cities of Hercules and Richmond

Ms. Hammon introduced John Sindzinski of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Louise Lopeman of Hercules and Alan Wolken of the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency.

Mr. Sindzinski began by stating that Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB -976 into law which eliminates the Water Transit Authority as an agency effective December 31^st and replaces it with the Water Emergency Transit Authority. The Board changes from an eleven member board to a five member board with three members appointed by the governor, one by the Senate and one by the Assembly.

Under the new legislation, the ferry operations in Vallejo and Alameda fall under the jurisdiction of WETA. The law will allow for a one-year transitional planning process. Mr. Sindzinski summarized what Bay Area Water Transit Authority has done to date: two routes in the IOP for West County which includes ferry service from Richmond and Hercules with destinations in San Francisco.

He noted that they are in the “environmental process” with regard to Hercules with final certification expected around September 2008. In Richmond they have been focusing on land use planning that would enhance the viability of the route from Richmond. He noted that they have been working with WTOD and stakeholders along the peninsula to incorporate the plan into the cities’ general plan amendment.

Mr. Sindzinski remarked that WETA has been given priority disaster relief funding as a result of Prop 1B in the amount of $25M; these monies are for capital purposes only.

Mr. Gioia requested clarification regarding the extent to which work done by the Water Transit Authority will be discarded.

Mr. Sindzinski clarified by stating that essentially the agency is being replaced with greater emphasis now being given to emergency planning.

Louise Lopeman of Hercules began by congratulating Richmond on the opening of the transit center. She provided a summary of the Hercules Inter-modal Transit Center which will feature bus, train, and ferry terminals. She emphasized the need to make transit access convenient for the commuter as a means for creating a successful inter-modal station. She noted that the goal of the station is to alleviate congestion on I-80. She remarked that the station will host commuters from as far as Solano County.

John Gioia asked why commuters in Solano County would go to Hercules when there is a ferry terminal in Vallejo and a train station in Martinez.

Ms. Lopeman responded by stating that Vallejo often becomes congested and is already experiencing significant rider-ship. She pointed out that commuters will be able to select from a variety of transportation alternatives at the Hercules station.

Ms. Abelson asked where overflow parking would be routed.

Ms. Lopeman remarked that the 386 parking stalls will meet the stations’ projected needs for the first three years. At the end of those three years, an additional structure will be built to accommodate any increase in demand. Ms. Lopeman emphasized the importance of adequate parking to the success of the station.

Ms. Lopeman noted that transit oriented development would see the creation of 2,500-3,000 homes. Waterfront planners have selected a location for a Bay Trail that runs along the land side of the railroad tracks. Bio-Rad has agreed to a portion of the Bay Trail through their property. She pointed out that the Bay Trail would intersect with the Hercules Transit Station providing a direct link to Hercules Point which is currently being developed for recreational purposes.

She continued by noting that the estimated cost of the rail platform is currently $32.5M dollars with $27M dollars of those funds raised thus far. Ms. Lopeman stated that given additional funding sources the project is considered wholly funded. She welcomed questions from the Board.

Jerrold Parsons expressed support for the intersection of the Bay Trail with the Hercules Transit Center and welcomed progress regarding Bio-Rad. He voiced concern over a section of the trail that is incomplete. He expressed a need for cooperation between the City of Hercules and the County to formulate solutions that benefit everyone not a select few.

He as well voiced concern over a gap in the trail after Victoria by the Bay where conditions are unsafe for pedestrians from San Pablo Ave onto Parker. He stated that he hoped that members of the county would collaborate with city officials to remedy deficiencies in the trail.

Ms. Lopeman responded to Mr. Parson’s concerns, apprising him that at the area along San Pablo where the gap exists, money from grants is being allocated for construction of a bus stop which will aid citizens in getting to Rodeo safely.

Alan Wolken of the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency summarized their work with the WTA which included looking into a location for a ferry building in addition to examining land use densities and intensities in the Marina Bay Project Area. He stated that the proposed site for a ferry terminal is at Marina Bay proper. The Richmond City Council held a study session and directed staff to work with WTA to move development of the site forward. He noted that a push has been made in working with MTC to establish 750 residential rooftops within a half-mile radius of the terminal.

Mr. Wolken remarked that it has been a long process, working with stakeholders, to develop a long-term land use plan that examines the kinds of densities that can exist along the Richmond shoreline. Land use proposals include shortened block lengths; bring traffic east and west to the terminal sight, drop off points, mixed use housing, and a buffer zone between various industrial densities.

Mr. Wolken added that the agency is currently working on a grade separation at Marina Bay Parkway.

Mr. Gioia suggested looking into funding the grade separation as a part of the larger rail expansion program.

Item 15: Correspondence/Other Information

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC Board, Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:40 A.M., until the next meeting to be held on December 14, 2007at 7:30 A.M. at the San Pablo City Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.