Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 2:02 p.m. by Chairperson Chavez, Lower Level Conference Room,  70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present                                          Members Absent
Blanca Alvarado                                                None 
Nora Campos, Vice Chairperson 
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
David Cortese 
Pete McHugh

A quorum was present

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

There were no Public Presentation.

Minutes of January 6, 2005

M/S/C (McHugh/Alvarado) to approve the Minutes of January 6, 2005.

The Agenda taken out of order.

Downtown East Valley Funding Strategies Report

Steve Fisher, Senior Transportation Planner, introduced Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manager and DTEV PAB Staff Liaison.

Mr. Connolly stated that the memo includes two attachments, which are in response to the PAB’s requests at their January 6, 2005 Meeting for staff to look at and start discussion of funding strategies of Downtown East Valley Projects.   Mr. Connolly stated that staff will present project history of other light rail projects and their funding sources and future funding.

Mr. Connolly reported that with regard to project history, staff provided a table outlining funding for five light rail projects developed between 1990 and 1996.  There were different funding sources such as federal, state, and local.    The money changed over time but essentially they are federal programs that are competitive by nature and are to be applied to through Federal New Starts and state programs that have the same competitive quality or through other sorts of funding that are a one time only source of funds. 

Mr. Connoly noted that Tasman West funding came from two bond initiatives that were injections into the project and unfortunately these types of funding no longer exist.  Mr. Connoly stated that if there is a message that is shown in project history is that there is a trend over time of having less and less federal and state funding and more local funding.   

Member McHugh stated he found it amazing that only 16 percent of the funding was state and federal and always assumed that there was greater federal involvement.   Member McHugh queried what would happen if the proposed sales tax is not successful.   Mr. Connolly clarified that the new sales tax is oriented towards operating funds.

Member Alvarado expressed her appreciation for the information staff provided.

Mr. Connolly referenced the Long-Term Transit Capitol Investment Program, which explains how projects over the next 20 years are going to be funded as well as the strategy for funding projects in the County.   Mr. Connolly noted that the Downtown East Valley projects are represented in the Long-Term Transit Capitol Investment Program. 

Mr. Connolly stated page B-3 outlines the projects and the estimated project funding. Mr. Connolly pointed out that total dollar amount for DTEV is   $550 million in 2003 dollars and in the document it has been escalated to $655 million.   The components that are assumed in the document is Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Nieman and then the Nieman to 87 piece would be eligible to be funded under the New Rail Corridors Program and Page B8-B9 outlines the funding amount, $2.94 billion Measure A for future rail corridors.

Member Alvarado stressed that staff understand the PAB has not made a decision on the mode for Alum Rock/Santa Clara and that staff’s information is based on staff recommendation. 

Chairperson Chavez expressed concern the PAB is setting forth on assumptions in print that aren’t accurate, stating the PAB could formally take a position that they want only light rail if that’s what is needed to get the top number.   Chairperson Chavez stated that her sense is PAB is still going through this procedure it makes some sense to either take the higher number or put in a range.   Chairperson Chavez stated that the figures will be confusing to their colleagues because they will not have the chance to read the fine print.

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, stated there is a project range expressed on the fact sheets and for cash flow purposes, staff needs to know how to expend it down and that does make a difference depending on the mode chosen by the PAB along Santa Clara/Alum Rock.   Because the cash flow for the light rail on Capitol Expressway assumes a different time frame than enhanced bus and along with the cost which then affects the budget number as well. 

Cortese took his seat at 2:19 p.m.

Ms. Gonot stated that the public has the document for review and are awaiting comment and staff will not hold public meetings on the draft document until every city council has a chance to take that information back for review and will then be provided to the Board of Directors at their workshop on April 22, 2005 to provide the comments.   At this time the Board of Directors will request staff present the cash flow for enhanced bus against light rail. 

Chairperson Chavez expressed concern that in the past she was told that the list was a blue print and now the PAB is being told that because the PAB took action on the blueprint and funding for the project cannot be moved.

Ms. Gonot clarified that staff is attempting to remain open and the only difference is if the light rail alternative is chosen the cash flow will change, the bottom numbers will change and projects may have to be moved out to later years.   The light rail version would move at a different pace than enhanced bus.

Chairperson Chavez stated whether or not the PAB decides to maintain light rail long term or not it is important to maintain bus rapid transit.   Chairperson Chavez stated that as a Board they may need to make a policy decision because of the disruption in the bus alignment. 

Member Alvarado stated she supports what Chairperson Chavez is saying because when this hits the Policy Advisory Board that is one thing and we can talk about it here in entirely but some VTA board of directors may get it as well and made some assumptions with regard to the draft so it does create a bit of confusion and that is something she will be very concerned about.

Mr. Connolly mentioned that the Monterey Highway BRT is assumed as part of the BRT funding even though it has always been considered part of Downtown East Valley. 

Chairperson Chavez stated she has not seen any information regarding the BRT and would like to understand the cost associated with BRT from a vehicle perspective and then from the enhanced bus that are actually for Capitol. 

Member Alvarado expressed concern that between the time the Long-Term Transit Capital Investing Program is out for public input and presented to the Board of Directors at their workshop on April 22, 2005, the time frame does not allow the PAB to make its recommendation on the preferred mode. 

Member Campos took her seat at 2:26 p.m.

Mr. Fisher advised that staff is carrying out both alternatives for the  Santa Clara/Alum Rock Enhanced Bus and Single Car Light Rail at co-equal levels without a preference all the way through the environmental impact of the Statement. 

Member Alvarado queried if it is not the practice that the PAB submit its recommendation ahead of what the VTA Board of Director review.   Ms. Gonot responded that the problem is that there are two processes going on at the same time. 

Member McHugh expressed concern that the information misleading because the document assumes the enhanced bus and it marginalizes the PAB taking a position.

M/S/C (Chavez/McHugh) to recommend to the VTA Board of Directors that the PAB would like the full project to Nieman as the placeholder, to reset the cost of light rail and then have a footnote or a statement that if the other alternative, which is still being considered is chosen, that would result in the following adjustments.   Member Alvarado abstained.

Downtown East Valley Status Report

Mr. Fisher reported that with regard the Capitol Light Rail portion staff has been working with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to release the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for circulation and approval by the Board of Directors.   The FTA has requested VTA show a federal financial interest in the document before they agree to release the document and VTA has reached an agreement with FTA by using Transportation for Livable Communities Funds (TLC).

FTA has requested that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) must agree to the adequacy of the archaeological findings and impacts in the FEIS before FTA can release the document for circulation.   The technical work to the archeology and have submitted it to the documentation to SHPO.   As a result of SHPO’s concerns, FTA is requiring VTA and SHPO agree on a draft treatment plan to be included in a Memorandum of Agreement between the two agencies before FTA releases the FEIS. 

At this time staff is expecting to bring the FEIS Directors at their meeting of May 5, 2005 for approval.

Staff has been working primarily on the urban design features of the corridors and has been working with the city staff to come up with an urban design landscaping plan that not only can be put in with capital funds but also be sustained over time with the operating resources that VTA and the City of San Jose have. 

Mr. Fisher advised that VTA is having an urban design workshop on March 9, 2005,  6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Hank Lopez Community Center, 1694 Adrian Way,  San Jose, California.  In addition, staff attended four Strong Neighborhood Initiatives (SNIs) in February 2005 to introduce the Preliminary Engineering (PE) effort and notify the community of upcoming public meeting.

Member Cortese stated that members of the public have recommended deferring some of the landscaping and pedestrian improvements on Capitol Expressway and leaving the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in after the median construction of the light rail and reassess traffic levels of service at a later date to make a final determination.

Mr. Fisher stated that Capitol Expressway is a challenging environment to build light rail and will be difficult to cross the expressway because there is high-speed roadway and a bleak environment.   It was important and crucial to the project to create an environment across the expressway that would be transformed into what is now being referenced to an urban boulevard. 

Member Cortese referenced Page 2 the report wherein it stated that the HOV lanes would be removed once the median piece is actually built and queried if it is absolutely a foregone conclusion that the HOV lanes would go away there. 

Ken Ronsse, Design and Construction Manager, stated staff is in the process of advancing the preliminary engineering and staff considered the possibility for some of the HOV preservation south of Tully and it came at the direct sacrifice of the walkway, sidewalk and landscaping. 

Member Cortese queried how much trouble is it to engineer both Phase 1A and 1B together at this point.   Keith Meyer, Project Manager, Rajappan & Meyer, responded the two options can be studied figure out which will make the most sense.  Mr. Meyer stressed the importance of planning for the engineering of Phase 1A and Phase 1B together. 

Member Cortese stated he is only requesting as much engineering flexibility on the side-ruining piece that goes from Eastridge to Nieman until land planning is finalized.

Vice Chairperson Campos queried as to the timeline for Eastridge and the effect it would have if the phase to Nieman would have to be redesigned.   Mr. Ronsse responded staff has been treating both Phase 1A and 1B as one and the expenditure and budgets reflect the phases as one extension and if staff received direction to only go to Eastridge, any redesigning necessary would be done during final design.  Mr. Ronsse stated with regard to the Nieman Extension, it will not necessarily be a schedule constraint because of how studies and track work can be accommodated.

Mr. Fisher reported that there is a draft environmental impact statement on Santa Clara/Alum Rock, which carries both alternatives into FTA.   Staff has received two sets from FTA, the most recently February 9, 2005 and staff is in the process of answering the second set of comments.

Mr. Fisher advised that there is one troubling comment FTA has made twice on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regards to air quality mitigation during construction. The EPA has requested VTA add restrictive mitigation language for construction mitigation which will require use of low-sulfur fuel and limit the amount of equipment running at one time during the construction phase.   Staff is studying those comments and is of the opinion the language is restrictive and is not prepared to accept their request without having extensive discussion at the staff level and contractors.   Mr. Fisher stated that if the EPA’s recommendation is accepted for this project then it would become standard for all VTA projects.

Member Alvarado stated she would be interested in seeing a copy of the EPA’s comments so she could forward to VTA’s lobbyists in Washington DC to see if they can determine what it is about.

7.          Report on Downtown East Valley Funding Strategies

M/S/C (Alvarado/McHugh) to approve the PAB to meet in April 2005 to give the PAB and opportunity to vote on either staff’s recommendation or light rail so the PAB’s preferred alternative can go on record before the VTA Board of Director’s Workshop Meeting of April 22, 2005. 

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Downtown East Valley Status Report was received and filed.

Report on Evergreen Valley Quarterly Status Report

Laura Provetti provided an overview of the Evergreen Area stating the City of San Jose is studying an area that is essentially bounded by Story Road to the north by I-101 to the east, and Yerba Buena to the south.

Ms. Provetti stated there is a very strong community planning process and working very closely with all of the neighborhoods in the Evergreen Area and are attempting to identify what the future vision for this location within the community.   Staff is trying to do is a very delicate balance between new growth, transportation amenities, as well as community amenities. 

Ms. Provetti reported that the purposes of their process is to involve the community in planning for its future; comprehensively plan for new housing, retail, restaurants, and other land uses, including transit-oriented development; balance new growth with transportation improvements and community amenities; secure funding for improvements and amenities; and, improve over all quality of life in Evergreen.

Ms. Provetti stated the vision for Evergreen key objectives are:   1) implement sustainability principals with all new development; 2) ensure high quality and aesthetically pleasing development; 2) establish infrastructure and services to support the planned levels of residential and non-residential development; 3) increase the overall livability of Evergreen with vibrant businesses, mixed use, and residential areas linked by various transportation modes and community amenities; 5) create housing opportunities for a wide range of household types and income levels; and, 6)  apply the concepts of Transit Oriented Development near future transit stations.

Ms. Provetti highlighted the following Possible Transportation Improvements: 1) 101 improvements – considering funding major transportation with private contributions; 2) intersection improvements; 3) traffic signal synchronization;   4) pedestrian over crossings; and, 5) Thompson Creek Trail. 

The possible community amenities are as following:   1) sports complex for little league field;  2) community improvements identified in the “West Evergreen SNI Neighborhood Plan”; 3)  unfounded park needs identified “Greenprint”; and 4) open space along foothills and trail connections.

Ms. Provetti advised that the elements of the Evergreen Visioning Project are: 1) vision statement; 2) general plan land use changes in order to implement the growth potential;   3) new Evergreen traffic policy; 4)  design guidelines; and, 5) financing plan to make sure it is identified how developers will be funding the project.

Ms. Provetti stated that in August 2003 the first phase was identified, which was the creation of the guiding principals. From December 2003 through February 2005 staff has been working on different land use concepts for the four sites and trying to come to consensus regarding growth.   Staff now has a sense of the range of housing units and numbers the community would like studied for the environmental document.     Ms. Provetti stated staff is now in the phase where a new traffic policy is being crafted, will be rerunning the traffic numbers and doing a full environmental impact report and continuing to do public outreach.  Staff’s goal is to bring the whole package to the City Council in December of 2005.

Ms. Provetti summarized what is different about the Visioning Process:  1) community-based process to plan four major opportunity sites and provide for additional development capacity at other infill sites in a comprehensive approach;   2)  City Council considers comprehensive plan, updated traffic policy, and financing package; 3) if approved developers agree to pay fees and taxes per City ordinances and additional funds to build the Highway 101 improvements and build community amenities. 

With regard to Next Steps, Ms. Provetti are:   1) Task Force and Community Input on: updated traffic analysis and draft new traffic policy; 2) community meeting to scope the environmental impact report; 3) on-going community outreach; and 4) stay in touch: www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/evergreen.

Member Cortese advised that task force is working through a process that when   a community facilities district is built that monies for the development will be reimbursed through a reimbursement mechanism or some type of matching program

Chairperson Chavez stated that she agrees with Member Cortese regarding the importance of figuring out a reimbursement mechanism and also stated that mechanism for assigning costs and the conditions in assigning them is important.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Downtown East Valley Quarterly Status Report was received and filed.

Report on Capitol Expressway Preliminary Engineering Urban Design Features

Mr. Ronsse reported that the project has been into preliminary engineering for a few months and staff is starting to define street geometry, utilities design, and structural design. 

At this time staff’s main focus has been on urban design and in support of urban design, there will be an urban design workshop on March 9, 2005, as well as staff creating a technical report to outline specific details.   Individual invitations were provided to four different SNIs encouraging them to attend the workshop to provide their input.

Mr. Meyer reported that the objective of the outreach is to solicit input and provide images to the public on what the base features, the typical features that area provided in the VTA light rail system and solicit input as to what conditional features, what kind of features currently exist on the system, whether they are an advantage, what folks like, what they would like not to see, what additional art, elements and amenities that we can now start to provide input. 

Owen Lange, Sasaki Associates, stated the pictures depicted in the Urban Design Exhibits are miniature version of what will be boards.   The pictures are organized so that the community can have a sense of what are the different station conditions.   VTA staff and Sasaki Associates staff will be staffing the workshops to answer the public’s questions and to receive their comments.

Mr. Ronsee stated one of the goals is to identify the right theme of the area as well as identifying some of the future artwork enhancements.   There is an oversight artist who will not do any detailed art design during PE but will make sure that VTA is moving in a fashion that can support future art elements and that they are integrated.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:43 p.m.

 Respectfully submitted,

Gilda M. Grozdanich, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors