The Regular Meeting of the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 3:14 p.m. by Chairperson Chavez, Lower Level Conference Room,  70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present                                    Members Absent
Nora Campos, Vice Chairperson            Blanca Alvarado
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
Dave Cortese
Pete McHugh

A quorum was present.

There were no Public Presentation.

M/S/C (Campos/Cortese) to approve the Minutes of November 3, 2005.

Jeff Funk, Deputy Director of Construction, reported that the general support received from various public meetings within the community was a desire for VTA to move forward with making a value engineering analysis alternative which is an actual feature of the project that will require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR).    Staff anticipates commencing the Supplemental EIR immediately and should be ready for Board approval in early 2007.

Mr. Funk stated staff is recommending starting with final design for the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project PE when the Preliminary Engineering (PE) work is complete. 

Mr. Funk advised that contract negotiations for design work with Rajappan and Meyer has commenced and if successful with the negotiations a contract amendment will be provided to the Board of Directors at their June 2006 Board Meeting for action.

Mr. Funk noted that VTA’s two-year budget includes the funding for final design through all the design activities leading up to 65 percent design.   Staff anticipates concluding in the summer 2007.

Mr. Funk reported that the budget for PE remains on track and the overall completion of PE is scheduled for May 2006.

Ben Tripousis, City of San Jose, stated that at the November 3, 2005 DTEV PAB Meeting, the City of San Jose discussed providing regular updates on the status of relinquishment of Capitol Expressway.   Mr. Tripousis stated he was happy to report that since the November 2005 meeting negotiations with County staff have been completed and a recommendation that outlines a relinquishment plan to allow initiation of construction of the light rail project has been forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their response.

Member McHugh took his seat at 3:20 p.m.

Member Cortese referenced the supplemental EIR inquiring why one is needed.  Mr. Funk responded that staff’s recommendations developed during PE modified the design, which would create changes to the project description. Mr. Funk noted that the EIR approved by the Board of Directors in May 2005 featured light rail tracks going underground upon approach of Tully Road and then up and back underground on Quimby Road is now being proposed to be aerial.   As it is a major change, it needs to be identified in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and once again presented to the Board of Directors for approval. 

Member Cortese recommended a potential alignment coming onto the center of the   Arcadia property if the EIR will be revisited. The developer, in terms of trying to configure that property is interested in that option included in the Supplemental EIR.    Mr. Funk advised that there has been dialogue with regard to the end of the line for Capitol Expressway, in particular in the context of the Draft VTA Expenditure Plan that envisions what the EIR refers to as Phase 1A ending near Eastridge and Phase 1B going on to Nieman.

Mr. Funk stated one of the timing considerations might be if construction funding for the Light Rail down to Nieman will not be available for some time the environmental document may have to be redone because of the time lapse.   Mr. Funk noted that an EIR is good for about 3-4 years before there is a need to reassess if things have changed.   Mr. Funk stated that a possibility may be a supplemental EIR for Phase 1A, designing the end of the line near Eastridge if it appears that the funding for construction for 1B is going to be much later then the final decisions of what the Arcadia configuration is going to look like and may be doing the Supplemental EIR at that time to then identify how you extend the line on down to the Nieman Station. 

Member Cortese explained the motivation to do any of what he is asking about is only to some certainty as the land use goes forward with as much certainty as possible in terms of what the best decisions are available.   Member Cortese stated that if the engineered or preliminary engineered options for that alignment, the San Jose City Council or whoever the powers may be may come back as a private sector side of the equation ultimately go with engineering concept 3, not 1, not 2.    Member Cortese noted that the dilemma is how they build a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) around a transit line that does not have all of the alignment options in front of them. 

Keith Meyer, Rajappan & Meyer, advised that the station area has been evaluated based on the conceptual work and what was cleared in the environmental document.   There are a couple of factors as the PE is developed that are pretty important to keep there. 

Carolyn Gonot, Chief Development Officer, referenced Member Cortese’s query with regard to looking at the alignment again with an EIR stating that she does not think that at this point staff can provide a yes or no answer but staff will look at it again and provide the opportunity to the DTEV PAB Members what they want to do. 

Chairperson Chavez stated it would be helpful if information, with regard status of process and options are provided to the DTEV PAB Members in writing before the June 1, 2006 Meeting.

Chairperson Chavez expressed concern regarding the possibility of closing off options that may be wanted in the future.

Miriam Ayllon, Community Outreach, provided a report regarding community involvement between October 2005 through February 2006.   Ms. Ayllon reported that five community meetings and two open houses have been held in addition to having a booth present at the Day in the Park. Ms. Ayllon advised that approximately 50 people attended the community meetings and open houses.   Ms. Ayllon stated that VTA staff worked closely with Strong Neighborhood Initiatives and with the DTEV PAB Members’ staff.

Members of the public provided the following comments:   1) their support of the organic designs and inclusion of cultural elements, 2) the public expressed concern regarding their ability to be included in the art selection process, 3) expressed concern regarding the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.   Staff advised that additional information would be forthcoming.  In response to the publics’ concern, staff advised of the measures VTA has operationally to combat graffiti.  The public also expressed concern regarding safety as it relates jaywalking.  Staff explained the project has elements that will curtail jaywalking as well as other safety measures.  

Ms. Ayllon noted that information was mailed to approximately 5,000 households in the Corridor. 

Member Campos stated one of the concerns that brought to her attention from the Strong Neighborhoods Initiatives (SNIs)   was the bus stop at Ocala and queried if that concern was expressed at the meeting.   Ms. Ayllon responded Ocala/Cunningham station should have been located further north to accommodate the high density of population between Story Road and Ocala Road and would increase ridership.    Member Campos stated the SNIs reiterated their comments several times to her and was wondering as the response that was provided to them.  Ms. Ayllon responded it was explained to them that the station was moved further north towards Ocala when they requested that the station be moved even further north. 

Mr. Meyer noted that the EIR had a platform that was mid-way between Ocala and Cunningham served by pedestrian overcrossings.   Because of the concern from the neighborhood that it was too far south the station was moved up and that was the closest the station could be moved without having to take additional right of ways.     Member Campos queried the SNIs were provided with that explanation. 

Member Cortese advised that he envisions the east/west linkage, which will allow neighborhood kids to be able to cross some sort of pedestrian bicycle spine from the East Hills area to a planned greenbelt over a pedestrian bridge under Lake Cunningham that will have a $5 million skate park, and catch light rail to Eastridge.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Status Report on Capitol Expressway Corridor Preliminary Engineering was received and filed.

Mr. Funk reviewed the concept that VTA staff has developed to address the recommendation of the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Single Car Light Rail Alternative for the Corridor.   Mr. Funk advised the Corridor could be implemented in phases with Phase 1 ending at the Five Wound Church adjacent to 28^th Street.  Mr. Funk noted that location is a proposed BART/Alum Rock Station as well.

Mr. Funk emphasized the work is highly conceptual and is based on a number of assumptions staff made which could be modified and as such could also affect the issue of cost feasibility and timing.

Mr. Funk referenced two maps entitled Attachment A – Existing and Proposed Transit System Alum Rock Single Car Light Rail and Attachment B   - Westerly Terminus  Alum Rock Single Car Light Rail, displayed for the PAB’s and public’s review. 

Mr. Funk stated staff is assuming that Phase 1 will be the continuation of the bus service throughout the Corridor to handle bus transfers especially for light rail riders who are headed to Downtown San Jose. 

Mr. Funk stated the maps outline the existing and proposed transit system down to King Road and on to Eastridge.   Mr. Funk noted that it is critical to the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Light Rail Corridor to connect to the existing Capitol line at the Alum Rock Station and then utilize the proposed Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project Facilities to allow light rail vehicles to travel down to Eastridge and traverse back to their original stating point.

Staff is assuming, with the Project being part of Phase 1 that bus service will continue throughout the Corridor to handle bus transfers, especially for those light rail riders who will be headed to Downtown San Jose  

Mr. Funk noted the number of assumptions in developing the concept for Phase 1 will affect the costs to the interim phase because there will be a subsequent phase that will have to be developed.

Mr. Funk advised that key assumption consisted of two objectives with terminating the single car light rail at the Five Wounds area to facilitate bus transfer from the light rail and also to facilitate light rail transfers to the BART facility.

Chairperson Chavez inquired what would happen with the westerly terminus that would be at the Five Wounds Church area.   Mr. Funk responded that the light rail cars, as envisioned in the draft EIR will run on the side of Santa Clara and will not be able to stop and return in the direction the train came from so the train will have to get off of Santa Clara and go to the north and have that be the alignment to get the trains off of the street to do their maneuvering so that they can go in the reverse direction to the Corridor.

Mr. Funk refreshed the PAB Members’ memory stating that the original single car light rail for the entire length of the Corridor was $298 million and staff’s estimate for the concept would be $167 million to implement it and includes $29 million for the new westerly terminus features which will consist of station modifications, track features, crossovers, and station platforms near the bus portal.    If Phase 1 is implemented and then implement Phase 2 at a later date in 2003 dollars, the cost would $334 million compared to the $298 million if the project was implemented all at once.

Mr. Funk further stated that staff’s evaluation of Phase 1 raised several issues that obviously would get further study if the PAB wanted to consider this another alternative.   Currently there is a bus stop in front of Five Wounds Church but if it is the goal to provide the easiest transfers, the location could be a critical issue in terms of transit facilities. 

In response to Chairperson Chavez’ query, Ann Jamison, Deputy Director, noted that the visionary plan for Alum Rock included in the SNI Plan, consists of a plaza area and parking garage to serve to the north end of the site at Julian.   There will be two entrances, one to the parking garage and the other that leads to the plaza area.

Chairperson Chavez requested staff bring back the Conceptual Plan for Santa Clara/Alum Rock Single Car Light Rail Terminating at Alum Rock BART Station for further review and consideration to the next DTEV PAB Meeting.

Chairperson Chavez stated it would be helpful to see the overlay of the current plan as it relates to the goals the neighborhood had in trying to connect the neighborhood to the BART station.   Chairperson Chavez stated she would also like to see an enhanced plan of the alignment for the PAB’s review.

Vice Chairperson Campos requested the information be provided to the PAB Members before the meeting to allow them a chance to review the document. 

Chairperson Chavez recommended the PAB meet in late April before the May 4, 2006 Board of Directors’ Meeting.

Member McHugh requested staff address the impact on the EIR/EIS and budget impact. 

Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manager, advised that staff will be providing the SNI plan and how it looks at the areas as well as street level views.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Presentation on the Conceptual Plan for Santa Clara/Alum rock Single Car Light Rail Terminating at Alum Rock BART Station was received.

Mr. Connolly reminded the PAB that at the November 3, 2005 meeting staff discussed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that resulted in a request to discuss the City of Pittsburgh, in particular, the development policy that they have done around BRT.   Mr. Connolly stated that although staff did have the information ready to be provided to the PAB, the schedule was so full that staff decided to forward the information to the PAB after the meeting and if there is interest, discussion can be held at the April or June 2006 meeting. 

Mr. Connolly advised that since meeting in fall 2005, staff met with the identified facilitator for the meeting in an attempt to “put some meat on the bones” and discuss detail to what the enhanced outreach would be and what staff developed to define the outreach process and bring it back it to the PAB for their approval.

Chairperson Chavez requested clarification regarding what part of the environmental process meant.   Mr. Connolly responded that staff would go out to the community, hold public hearings and tell the public that this is the project and these are the findings and comparisons of the project and discuss the outreach that was done.    Chairperson Chavez questioned what would happen if it was public outreach was done another way.   Mr. Connolly responded if the enhanced outreach after the hearings staff would not be able to say what the conclusion was. 

Mr. Connolly explained that the awareness part of the Meeting Format which staff is recommending is a two-level outreach so the center piece of the show are the debated that would be held in both part of the Corridor and would involve precursor work with the community and SNI meetings.   Staff will provide detailed graphics and will be done by VTA staff, which is the most cost-effective way. 

Building Awareness
Staff is also looking to have some sort of sponsorship program where the community groups and organizations help sponsor or participate in the meetings to have less of a VTA process and more of a community process. 

Chairperson Chavez queried if people’s questions can become part of the EIR document.   Mr. Connolly responded staff could approach it as if they are comments being given to the environmental process as well. 

Eileen Goodwin, Apex Strategies, explained that not all meetings will feel the same because as they get closer to the debate, staff will be stepping it up, ramping up the excitement the outreach, media attention and sponsorship. 

Member Cortese recommended holding the debate at San Jose City Hall to ensure that the public who cannot attend are able to participate via the cable system, to use the video streaming capability and to receive on-line questions from television viewers.

Chairperson Chavez recommended partnering with Channel 5 or Channel 11.

Chairperson Chavez recommended the public be provided with a condensed version of the Citizen’s Guide with the inclusion of a timeline.  

Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Planning, stated that one thing that staff has done in the past is assemble scoping reports that collates all of the information from the public meetings that have occurred outside of the public hearing process.   Chairperson Chavez stated that is a good idea because it is necessary to memorialize it all.

Chairperson Chavez expressed concern regarding the length of time related to BART and BART construction, memorializing each step and what the intent was at the time.

Vice Chairperson Campos referenced a community that do not feel comfortable at public meetings yet work really well with her because she is Spanish speaking and they feel they can relate to her and queried how staff is going to make it more diverse so that her community, even though they are coming to these meetings and sharing their comments, they are still contacting her because they are not feeling that they have been heard.    Vice Chairperson Campos also asked how staff will be communicating with her community that what they are saying and that their comments are going to be incorporated into the process.   Ms. Ayllon responded community-sponsored meetings, where needed, will be held in Spanish.

Chairperson Chavez recommended staff attending coffee hour at the churches along the Corridor and speaking with the members.   Chairperson Chavez requested that as a schedule of locations is put together and ideas for sponsors to contact her office so staffs can work together.

Vice Chairperson Campos reminded staff that besides a Spanish speaking Community, there is also a Vietnamese and Portuguese Communities, which need to be approached in different ways so that everyone feels the process, works for them.

Mr. Connolly referenced Page 3 of 3 of the Memorandum, which outlines the Conceptual Timeline.   Staff is making an assumption it is either with if a new alternative is included which really adds up to nine months on the environmental versus whether just to stay with the current two alternative.   Staff has just been informed that traffic information will have be updated so that it is going to require a four-month extension. 

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the Staff recommendation on details of proposed Santa Clara/Alum Rock Enhanced Outreach Program was received and filed.

Mr. Connolly stated that with the environmental staff has been waiting for a response from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with regard to the historic properties report.   Feedback was received from SHPO in December 2005 and VTA met with them in January 2006 and are now set to move forward and request the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the project sponsor, to review the final draft.

Chairperson Chavez requested that discussion of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) be brought to the April 2006 DTEV PAB Meeting.   Chairperson Chavez requested the report on BRT be provided to them ahead of time to enable the PAB enough time to review the report.   Chairperson Chavez stated the Committee is particularly interested in the experiences related to land use.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the status report on Santa Clara/Alum Rock Environmental document was received and filed.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the presentation on the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Project Direction, Schedule and Budget were deferred to the next meeting.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gilda M. Grozdanich, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors