Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09232014 - C.24RECOMMENDATION(S): RECEIVE report from the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee on transportation and school safety & siting legislative activities and ADOPT the following legislative position: STATE LEGISLATION "WATCH" on: 1: Senate Bill 1183: (DeSaulnier) Authorizes a city, county, or regional park district to impose and collect, as a special tax, a motor vehicle registration surcharge for bicycle infrastructure purposes. FISCAL IMPACT: Analysis of SB 1183 indicates no negative fiscal impact to the County, one-time start-up costs to the Department of Motor Vehicles (of approximately $175K in addition to $40K for each implementing jurisdiction) to be deducted from DMV fees, and unknown revenue increases at the local level. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 09/23/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Cunningham, (925) 674-7833 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: September 23, 2014 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Chris Heck, Deputy cc: C. 24 To:Board of Supervisors From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Date:September 23, 2014 Contra Costa County Subject:Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Report and Recommendations on Transportation Legislation and School Safety & Siting Reform BACKGROUND: LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS - The complete text of state bills discussed below are included in Attachment #1: SB 1183 DeSaulnier - Bicycle Infrastructure (Vehicle Registration Fee). State: Legislation "WATCH" on: 1: Senate Bill 1183 (DeSaulnier): Authorizes a city, county, or regional park district to impose and collect, as a special tax, a motor vehicle registration surcharge for bicycle infrastructure purposes. Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to administer the surcharge and to transmit the net revenues to the local agency. Requires the local agency to use the revenues for improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including existing and new trails, and for associated maintenance purposes. Requires related reports. The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) discussed the bill and expressed some concern about the jurisdictional structure relative to implementation and potential conflict or overlap with other efforts by local jurisdictions to fund trail construction and maintenance. Positions on aforementioned legislation from other organizations (1) (where available) School Siting/Safety: The County has been working for several years to address issues related to school siting with the state. Staff developed a draft white paper on this issue (School Siting and Safety Initiative - Attached #2) in late 2013 which was reviewed by TWIC. The paper has been used during outreach efforts, the most recent of which were in June 2014 when TWIC members met with Senator Mark DeSaulnier, and Assembly Members Joan Buchanan and Susan Bonilla. Outcomes of those meetings are below: School Siting: The County communicated our concerns with school siting practices to the delegation. The feedback that we received was that any change in policy should respect the autonomy of the school districts. After meeting with the delegation County staff, with the assistance of our state lobbyist (Mark Watts [Smith, Watts & Martinez LLC]), developed school siting reform concepts and language consistent with feedback from our delegation in terms of what would be acceptable to include in pending legislation. The language was submitted to the delegation. Ultimately, the possible legislative vehicle for school siting reform (AB 2235-Buchanan) never made it out of the legislature. In addition, the Governor expressed opposition to the bill citing concerns regarding the potential of having the school bond on the same ballot as the water bond and the rainy day fund. The Governor, as early as the development of the 2014-15 State Budget, also expressed concern about the State's continuing involvement with school construction funding. School Safety: In addition to the school siting reform discussion with the delegation, a proposal to address broader school safety was discussed. Members were receptive and interested in bringing legislation forward in 2015. The concepts that were discussed include proposals in the County's School Siting and Safety Initiative white paper. Staff brought forward a California State Association of Counties 2015 bill proposal (Attached #3: CSAC Bill Proposal School Zone 8-8-14) for consideration. Based on the consistency of the proposal with the County's 2014 Legislative Program (2) (3) and other County policies, the Committee supported the submission of the proposal. The Committee also directed staff to coordinate with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority in advocating for the legislative proposal. Bill ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other - Support Other - Oppose Senate Bill 1183 - DeSaulnier Support Watch (1) Acronym Key: ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments, BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CCTA = Contra Costa Transportation Authority, CSAC = California State Association of Governments, LofC = League of Cities, MTC = Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2) Contra Costa County 2014 State Legislative Platform: 141: SUPPORT efforts to improve safety throughout the transportation system. The County supports new and expanded projects and programs to improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users, as well as projects to improve safety on high-accident transportation facilities such as Vasco Road. Data on transportation safety would be improved by including global positioning system (GPS) location data for every reported accident to assist in safety analysis and planning. The County also supports the expansion of school safety improvement programs such as crossing guards, revised school zone references in the vehicle code, Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) grants, efforts to improve the safety, expansion and security of freight transportation system including public and private maritime ports, airports, rail yards, railroad lines, rail bridges and sidings. The County also supports limits or elimination of public liability for installing traffic-calming devices on residential neighborhood streets. (3) Contra Costa County 2014 State Legislative Platform: 144: SUPPORT efforts to coordinate development of state-funded or regulated facilities such as courts, schools, jails, roads and state offices with local planning. The County supports preserving the authority of Public Works over County roads by way of ensuring the Board of Supervisors’ control over County roads as established in the Streets & Highways Code (Ch2 §940) is not undermined. This includes strongly opposing any action by a non-local entity that would ultimately dilute current Board of Supervisors discretion relative to road design and land use. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: By not taking the recommended actions the County will forgo an opportunity to further its legislative platform. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: N/A ATTACHMENTS #1: SB 1183 DeSaulnier - Bicycle Infrastructure (Vehicle Registration Fee) #2: School Siting and Safety Initiative #3: CSAC Bill Proposal School Zone8-8-14 Senate Bill No. 1183 Passed the Senate August 21, 2014 Secretary of the Senate Passed the Assembly August 20, 2014 Chief Clerk of the Assembly This bill was received by the Governor this day of , 2014, at o’clock m. Private Secretary of the Governor CHAPTER An act to add and repeal Section 9251 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. legislative counsel’s digest SB 1183, DeSaulnier. Vehicle registration fees: surcharge for bicycle infrastructure. Existing law provides for the imposition of registration fees on motor vehicles, including additional, specified fees imposed by local agencies for transportation-related purposes. This bill would authorize a city, county, or regional park district to impose and collect, as a special tax, a motor vehicle registration surcharge of not more than $5 for bicycle infrastructure purposes until January 1, 2025. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to administer the surcharge and to transmit the net revenues from the surcharge to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to use these revenues for improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including existing and new trails and bikeways and other bicycle facilities, and for associated maintenance purposes. The bill would limit to 5% the amount of net revenues that may be used by the local agency for its administrative expenses in implementing these provisions. The bill would require a local agency that imposes the $5 surcharge to submit an annual fiscal yearend report to the Legislature that includes, among other things, the total net revenues received and expended during the previous fiscal year and a summary of the infrastructure and projects funded by the surcharge. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 9251 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 9251. (a)  In addition to any other fees specified in this code, a city, county, or regional park district may impose, as a special tax subject to two-thirds voter approval in the jurisdiction in which it is imposed, pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution, a local motor vehicle 94 — 2 —SB 1183 registration surcharge, in whole dollars not to exceed five dollars ($5), on each vehicle registered within the jurisdiction of the agency imposing the surcharge, except vehicles that are expressly exempted from payment of registration fees. The amount of the surcharge shall be specified in an ordinance adopted by the local agency. The surcharge shall terminate on January 1, 2025. The surcharge shall be administered by the department, with revenues, after deduction of collection costs, to be distributed to the local agency, for expenditure pursuant to subdivision (b). (b)  The net revenues from the surcharge shall be used by the local agency for improvements to paved and natural surface trails and bikeways, including the rehabilitation, restoration, and expansion of existing trails and bikeways, the development of new trails and bikeways, the improvement and development of other bicycle facilities, including, but not limited to, bicycle parking facilities, and the maintenance and upkeep of local and regional trail and bikeway systems, networks, and other bicycle facilities. Not more than 5 percent of the net revenues may be used by the local agency for its administrative expenses in implementing this section. (c)  Any local agency that imposes a surcharge pursuant to subdivision (a) shall provide an annual fiscal yearend report to the Legislature that shall include the following information: (1)  The total net revenues received from the surcharge and expended during the previous fiscal year. (2)  A summary of the infrastructure and projects funded pursuant to subdivision (b). (d)  For purposes of this section, “regional park district” shall have the same meaning as “district” as defined in Section 5500 of the Public Resources Code. (e)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2025, deletes or extends that date. 94 SB 1183— 3 — Approved , 2014 Governor     DRAFT California School Siting and Safety Initiative – Contra Costa County (rev: 5/27/14)  Schools have a large and enduring effect on the character and safety of the surrounding community due to the intensity of activity at the site and the vulnerable nature of the population served. Currently, the process by which schools are located and designed can result in negative community development, environmental and public health/safety outcomes. Directly related to this issue is the well-known, often cited decline in K-12 walk/bike to school rates. This decline should not be accepted as inevitable, but rather as a trend and a problem to be reversed through a strategic public policy response. The State has acknowledged some of the school siting issues in recent studies1 and intends on addressing them in 20142. Interested agencies and organizations will need to engage in the 2014 legislative and policy development process in order to ensure reforms are adequate. This paper provides an overview of the issue, identifies existing processes, and potential reforms. The current process of selecting and developing new school sites in California has substantial flaws. This flawed  process can result in poorly functioning school sites, some of which have been acknowledged by the state in recent  reports1. Examples of poor school site function are:     Inadequate or ill-conceived transportation infrastructure3 which causes avoidable congestion and/or chaotic circulation patterns both of which ultimately result in unsafe conditions.  School locations that have limited or no access to critical municipal services (e.g., fire, sewer, water) and/or are too distant from the population served to support walking & biking4.  School locations that undermine local/state policies such as sites that are outside urban limit line/urban growth boundary, in agricultural areas, preclude access by walking and cycling, undermine AB32/SB375 goals, etc.  The safety and access issues mentioned above drain very limited Safe Routes to School (SR2S) funds, and  Certain sites are contentious and strain relations between City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and School Boards. The current process has local school districts largely responsible for school siting and design. School districts have  limited policies, authority, and expertise to ensure that school sites have positive outcomes related to safe access and  community development goals. It is the cities/counties, and the State that primarily have these responsibilities:   By statute, cities and counties have land use planning authority. Currently, cities & counties cannot influence the selection and development of school sites as state law allows school districts to exempt themselves from this local authority6.  Although the state has substantial statutes and polices5 in place that should inform school siting and design, school districts are not currently compelled to comply those policies in their school siting and design decisions.  Local school districts develop and design school sites independent6 of the aforementioned state and local land development policies. This disconnect is acknowledged by the state in their recent studies1. This disconnect can be addressed through regulations tied to a state school construction and modernization bond  anticipated in 2014. This approach has been suggested by the State during their December 2012 Policy Symposium7  and in the Governors 2013‐14 Budget Proposal2.  The following are draft concepts to be considered in addressing  school siting and design requirements attached to the proposed 2014 bond or with legislation developed in parallel:    Limit the ability of school districts to preempt local zoning ordinances6. This would bring schools under the influence of SB375 given that the cities and counties ultimately implement the sustainable communities strategy. (next page)                                                              1 2012 ‐ California’s K‐12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable  Communities, Report to the CA Dept of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & Schools, and 2011 ‐ Schools of the Future Report, Tom  Torlakson/State Superintendent of Public Instruction  2 Governor’s 13‐14 Budget Report, “…now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities…”/“School districts and  their respective localities should have appropriate control of the school facilities construction process and priorities.”   3 Bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate or not present, school sites in a cul‐de‐sac or with single points of access, safe roadway crossings  are not considered, and no necessary improvements being funded or constructed by the schools.  4 “…studies show that the distance between home and school is the strongest predictor of whether students walk/bike to school.” Institute of  Transportation Engineers, 2012 “School Site Selection and Off‐site Access”   5 AB32/SB375, The Complete Streets Act, Safe Routes to School concepts, and the Health in All Policies Initiative  6 Government Code §53091(a)‐53097.5: This section allows school district preemption from local zoning ordinances.  7 Partnering with K‐12 in Building Healthy, Sustainable, and Competitive Regions: Policy Symposium: Proceedings Summary & Next Steps: “These  efforts will inform the legislative debates over the possibility—and priorities—of a future statewide K‐12 school construction bond.”    Contact: John Cunningham, Principal Planner | Contra Costa County  Department of Conservation and Development|john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us   Whether new school siting policies are advisory or prescriptive is critical. Considering that there are existing advisory documents that should result in high quality school sites it suggests that new policies will need to be compulsory in order to be effective. Revised language could be implemented with revisions to the California Code of Regulations, Title 5.  Coordination of attendance boundaries between school districts, cities/counties should be compulsory.  Statutes for Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) provide a role for LAFCOs in school site development8 and could be expanded. At a minimum, 1) school districts should be required to consult with LAFCO when a new school site is being proposed, and 2) LAFCO should discourage the extension of municipal services to school sites located in agricultural and open space areas pursuant to LAFCO law. More prescriptive restrictions related to the extension of municipal services should be considered in areas with an adopted Urban Limit Line or Urban Growth Boundary.  Legislation should require revised School Site Selection and Approval Guide and Guide to School Site Analysis and Development. Critical revisions should be moved from guidance to statutes. [revisions are too voluminous to list in this paper]  School districts, when approving a new site must 1) make findings, w/evidence, that the decision is consistent with relevant requirements in statute, 2) provide a full-cost accounting (construction, land, off-site infrastructure [utility/transportation] of facility development, costs borne by other agencies, community, etc.), of site options, and 3) the approval must include a comprehensive (auto & active modes) circulation plan signed and stamped by a traffic engineer.  The State acknowledges a greater share of funds should be directed to modernization programs than to new construction7. Any 2014 school construction and modernization bond should be linked to a comprehensive, systematic effort to reverse the well-known decline in K-12 walking/bike rates which would include the following:  Redefinition of School Zone in state law: Currently, in the vehicle code, school zone signage is limited to 500’ and 1000’. These limits are not reflective of actual pedestrian/bicycle access patterns at K-12 schools and inconsistent with SR2S funding/projects/concepts and the State’s Health in All Policies Initiative. The prescriptive figures should be increased (1320’ minimum) and local agencies should have discretion to further expand the zone based on knowledge of attendance boundaries, travel sheds, as established in a traffic study.  Reauthorize and fund implementation of Double Fine School Zone (DFSZ) statute: In 2002 AB 1886 was passed which implemented a DFSZ as a pilot in specified areas9. The statute was allowed to sunset in 2007.  Implement a Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Protection Law: VRU protection laws establish the concept “whoever can do the most damage has an obligation to be the most careful”. Oregon has such a statute and the League of American Bicyclists has drafted model legislation10.  Implement K-12 bicycle and pedestrian transportation safety curriculum: Class material would meet Common Core Standards and include in-class and in-field lessons with a dual benefit of decreased injuries/deaths and increased walking/biking. California already has numerous communities implementing this and would be a natural leader to implement a statewide effort. Bike/ped safety awareness with driver training should also be included.  SR2S11 Funding Eligibility: SR2S projects/programs at existing schools should be an eligible use of bond funds.  The State and Caltrans to conduct a study on auto speeds: In an effort to understand the decline in K-12 walk/bike rates, this study would 1) document the change in automobile speeds over the past four decades due to improvements in vehicle technology, and 2) document how that change in speed has impacted other road users. The concepts in this paper are for discussion purposes; they do not necessarily reflect adopted policy positions.                                                              8 LAFCO mandate: 1) encourage orderly formation of local governmental agencies, 2) preserve agricultural land, 3) discourage urban sprawl.  9 The post‐mortem report to the legislature on the program (by CHP) did not endorse it and gave a negative review of the program. The lack of  success was likely related to the fact that little to no resources were devoted to implementation.  10  801.608 “Vulnerable user of a public way”: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2011ors801.html  http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/bikeleague.org/files/bikeleague/bikeleague.org/action/images/vru_story.pdf  11 Safe Routes to School (SR2S) is typically a program that has a goal of making it safe and convenient children (K‐12) to bicycle and walk to school.  Strategies typically fall in to the “Five E’s”; evaluation, education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement and can include capital projects  (sidewalks/paths), bicycle safety/rules of the road training, increased police presence, crossing guards, etc.  G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  CSAC (California State Association of Counties) Bill Proposal Form Proposal from Contra Costa County: Proposal to Increase walk & bike rates to/fromK-12 schools I. SUMMARY The intent of the bill, or bills, is to increase walk/bike rates to school by way of changes to the vehicle code to 1) increase the prescriptive size of the school zone, 2) authorize performance methods for further expanding the zone, and 2) enhance penalties for speeding violations in those newly defined zones. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Problem (1) What problem does the proposal address? The decline of walk/bike rates to/from K-12 facilities1,2 is well-established. More specifically however, there is data that shows that a primary reason for this decline is the concern of school administrators and parents over traffic safety3, driver behavior and/or speeding in particular. The proposal directly addresses this issue. There are existing Safe Routes to School (SR2S) programs at the federal, state, and local level that seek to improve the walk/bike rate primarily through engineering, encouragement, enforcement and education solutions. The effectiveness of these existing programs, and their associated investments, will continue to be compromised by these traffic/speeding/safety issues. In that light, the proposal will directly improve K-12 walk/bike rates in addition to acting as a “force multiplier” in that it will leverage existing and future investments allowing them to be even more effective. (2) Does the proposal address a problem of statewide significance? Yes, the aforementioned decline of walk/bike rates is both a statewide and national problem as evidenced by the cited data. (3) Have counties been involved in any litigation regarding this problem? If so, cite the case. No.                                                              1  In 1969, approximately half of all schoolchildren walked or bicycled to or from school, and 87% of those living  within 1 mile of school walked or bicycled. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.  1969 National Personal Transportation Survey: travel to school. Washington, DC: US Department of  Transportation; 1972. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1969/q.pdf  2 Today, fewer than 15% of children and adolescents use active modes of transportation. US Department of Health  and Human Services. Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of  Health and Human Services, CDC; 1996.  3 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States  2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report September 30, 2005. Available:  www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5438a2.htm.  G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  (4) What other source materials, case law, or data, document the existence of the problem? In addition to the previously cited national data (1,2,3), there is recent locally collected data4 that validate/mirror the national findings. B. Interested Parties (1) What counties, organizations or individuals are interested in the problem? In addition to the widely accepted acknowledgment of the problem (see response II. A. 1 above), the need to solve the problem is generally accepted as well. There exists numerous national, state, local and NGO based SR2S programs which demonstrate broad interest in solving the problem. (2) What counties, organizations or individuals would be sources of information about the problem? At this time, the primary sources of information about the problem are the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control. (3) Who would be likely to support/oppose the proposal? Why? Supporters are likely to include state/local jurisdictions and NGOs that prioritize programs such as SR2S, active transportation, traffic safety, childhood obesity intervention, complete streets, etc. Due to recent legislation (AB1358 [2008], AB32/SB 375 [2006/2008]) that either directly or indirectly encourage a shift to non-motorized travel, support for the proposal should be broad. Opposition is likely to include the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol who have opposed enhanced fine zones in the past. (4) Identify groups or other governmental agencies that could be affected by the proposal, either favorably or adversely? Law enforcement would have no entirely new laws to enforce. The proposal simply enhances or modifies existing laws. Public works departments would be responsible for increased signage requirements. Again, this is not a new burden but an incremental increase of existing obligations. The proposal also includes authorization to expand the school zone beyond the prescriptive distance. This expansion would be based on a traffic study which would be the responsibility of local agencies. However, this expansion would not be compulsory and only take place at the discretion of local jurisdictions.                                                              4  CCTA SR2S Master Plan: Existing Conditions: Data Summary:  1. Table 8: Top 10 Reasons Students do not Walk or Bike to School, by Planning Area: The responses “driving too fast”  or “driver behavior” is on 4 of 5 subregions responses and the ranking ranges from #10 to #2.  2. Table 10: Top 5 Programs or Improvements that Could Encourage Students to Walk or Bicycle to/from School,  Jurisdictions vs. School Administrators: The #1 response from administrators was “If traffic congestion or speeding  around school was relieved”.  3. Table 11: Top 5 Programs or Improvements that Could Encourage Students to Walk or Bicycle to/from School, by  Planning Area: Every subregion had “Relieving traffic congestion/speeding around schools” in the top 3. It was #1 in  three subregions.  G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  As a group, automobile drivers will be affected. The culture shift necessary to accept slower speeds in corridors used to travel to/from schools should not be underestimated. III. PROPOSAL A. Existing Law (1) What are the statutory provisions currently applicable to the proposal? Current statutory provisions are as follows: California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22352: States that the maximum speed limit is 25 mph “when approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard ‘SCHOOL’ warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period.” CVC Section 22358.4: Based on traffic survey results, the maximum speed limit can be reduced to 15 mph up to 500 feet away from a school and to 25 mph from 500 to 1,000 feet away from a school. AB 1886 (2002): The bill authorized a pilot program in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Alameda Counties, which “would double or increase the fines as described above for a designated violation occurring in a specially posted school zone, as specified.” Fines collected from this violation were used to fund bicycle and pedestrian safety programs. This statute was allowed to sunset in 2007. The post-mortem report to the legislature on the program (by CHP) did not endorse the program, “…the findings do not support continuation of the program…” Observations on the pilot program and the post-mortem report: The estimated cost to implement the program described in the post-mortem report characterizes sign installation as “very costly”. In response: 1. Some of the Options/Alternatives proposed in the report are more expensive than the signage (traffic calming for example), 2. The Options/Alternatives in the report include signage, despite being flagged as “very costly” earlier in the report. 3. Signage is regularly considered a low cost solution. Questioning the effectiveness of increased fines and additional signage is to question, essentially, the effectiveness of a major component of traffic control worldwide. The proposal is a minor incremental extension of a pervasive system that is reasonably and broadly assumed to have some measure of effectiveness. The threshold for the determination of “costly” may be unrealistic in the report. Limited (observed) benefits from the pilot may be due to minimal implementation efforts. G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  (2) What case law is relevant to this issue? No existing case law is relevant to this issue. (3) Why is existing law inadequate to deal with the problem? Existing law regarding school zones authorizes signage and zones at 500’ and 1,000 feet. Neither distance is reflective of actual pedestrian/bicycle access patterns at school and inconsistent with SR2S funding/projects/concepts and the State’s Health in All Policies Initiative. AB 1886, which implemented double fine school zones, was allowed to sunset in 2007, which meant the end of an extra disincentive for drivers to speed within school zones. B. Suggested Legislation (1) Describe the specific bill proposal. Proposed changes to the code are below. Where necessary, annotations [#] accompany the changes. VEHICLE CODE - VEH DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336] CHAPTER 7. Speed Laws [22348 - 22413] ARTICLE 1. Generally [22348 - 22366] 22358.4. … (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits as follows: (A) A 15 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 1,320 [1] feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period.[2] The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less than 500 1,320[1] feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children[2] and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. (B) A 25 miles per hour prima facie limit in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 1,320 [1] feet from, a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of 500 to 1,000 1,320 [1] feet from, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. 22358.4. (#) Notwithstanding the maximum distance established in this section (22358.4), a local authority may, upon the basis of a travel survey documenting school attendance boundaries and/or travel patterns to and from a school, extend the maximum distance to establish a prima facie speed limit and school warning signs, as defined in section 22358.4, to a distance and/or specific locations consistent with the findings of the travel survey. G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  VEHICLE CODE - VEH DIVISION 18. PENALTIES AND DISPOSITION OF FEES, FINES, AND FORFEITURES [42000 - 42277] CHAPTER 1. Penalties [42000 - 42032] ARTICLE 1. Public Offenses [42000 - 42010] (16) Section 22358.4, relating to speed limits in school zones. Annotations: [1] The quarter mile distance in the proposal is an accepted (conservative) rule of thumb in planning describing the typical distance people will walk to services. The distance of any school attendance boundary is far greater than this distance of course. [2] The basis for the elimination of this language is found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The direction to drivers, “…while grounds are in use by children…” is not entirely consistent with the guidance in the MUTCD, “Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices Guidance: 02 To be effective, a traffic control device should meet five basic requirements: … C: Convey a clear, simple meaning; While the direction on the signage is clear, a drivers ability to identify or interpret the state of “while grounds are in use by children” on the road is not consistently clear and simple. Schools are used for a variety of uses at different time than instructional hours, sporting events, civic events, meetings, etc. The eliminated language is similar to the “children at play” sign which is discouraged in the MUTCD. (2) Do similar provisions exist in other California laws? As detailed in the existing law section above (III.A.(1)), there are provisions in the CVC that define school zones and the speed limits within them. CVC Section 42010/Streets and Highways Code Section 97: The State currently assesses double fines to discourage speeding and unsafe driving behavior in two particular zones: highway construction zones and sections of highways that have been deemed, through traffic studies, to have greater than average rates of vehicular collisions. (3) Describe a hypothetical application of the proposal. As suggested above, the proposal modifies existing activities. The following would occur; local jurisdictions would, at their discretion:  Install additional “school zone” signage based on the increase in prescriptive distance (1000’ to 1320’ [quarter mile]).  Perform a traffic study to establish the need to further expand the zone. The traffic study would include examination of the attendance boundaries, direct observation of travel patterns, etc.  Enhanced fines would be assessed through existing mechanisms (VC 42010) as defined in section B. 1. above. C. Fiscal Impact G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  (1) Would there be any potential fiscal impact on counties under the proposal? If so, describe. By design, this proposal is a minor increment built upon existing obligations and activities. That said, fiscal impacts are estimated to be as follows: Positive: Depending on how fines are handled, agencies could see an increase in revenues. (Need to define how revenues are handled.) Neutral: Law enforcement would have no additional patrol obligations under the proposal. Negative: Public Works Departments will have an obligation to increase the number of signs in school areas. Additional activities are authorized under this proposal (a travel study to supporting further expansion of the school zone) but they are not compulsory under the proposal and only undertaken at the discretion of the agency. (2) Would there be any potential fiscal impact on other persons or organizations, public or private? Violators would face increased fines. D. History (1) Has this proposal ever been introduced in the Legislature? If so, what was the bill number and why did it fail? SB 1151 (Cannella): Vehicles: School Zone Fines: The bill would require that an additional fine be imposed for specified violations if the violation occurred when passing a school building or school grounds. Would further require the fine moneys to be deposited in a fund for school safety zone projects under the Active Transportation Program. The legislation is pending. (2) Is judicial or executive branch resolution of the problem possible? Explain. No. The activities proposed to be impacted by a bill are currently affected by the aforementioned code sections. The resolution of the problem is most easily/efficiently affected by modifications to those existing sections. E. Public Policy (1) What are the public policy reasons in support of this proposal? Against? The proposal is an extension and targeted refinement of a policy shift that has been building for some time now. The following activities precede the proposed bill: 2001: Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 Regarding integrating bicycling and walking facilities when making road improvements. 2006: AB32 the California Global Warming Solutions Act passes, see implications of the related SB 375 below. G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\CSAC Leg Proposals\WordDocs\Bill Proposal CC County8‐8‐14.docx  2008: AB1358 The Complete Streets Act was passed to ensure that all public roads in California are designed and operated to accommodate all roadway users, including bicyclists, public transit riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. 2008: Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 Revision 1 is signed to communicate the intent of the Department to integrate Complete Streets as a matter of policy. 2009: SB375 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act implements AB32 more specifically in the transportation and land use realm. Success of the sustainable communities strategy assumes a mode shift from autos to cycling, walking and transit. 2012: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was passed by Congress making SR2S activities to be eligible to compete for funding alongside other programs, including the Transportation Enhancements program and Recreational Trails program, as part of a the Transportation Alternatives Program. 2013: SB99/AB101 created the Active Transportation Plan with the goal of making California a national leader in active transportation. 2014: (Indirect Support) Both Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration endorse the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ publications, “Urban Street Design Guide” and “Urban Bikeway Design Guide”. These publications are, among other things, best practices for accommodating non-motorized users on roadways. While both agencies embraced non-motorized travel through other actions (complete streets, routine accommodation, etc.) this endorsement is a significant departure from past practice which typically only supports the use of internal or industry standard guidance (AASHTO Green Book, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, MUTCD, etc). (2) Would any related public policy be affected by this proposal? If so, describe. This proposed legislation is not it in conflict with any public policy.