The Regular Meeting of the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 3:09 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Nora Campos, Isaac Newton Senter, Santa Clara County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

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

There were no Public Presentation.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Kevin Connolly, Transportation Planning Manger, Development and Congestion Management Division, advised the PAB that a proposal related to Enhanced Outreach Activity would return to the PAB in June 2006.

Mr. Connolly provided background information regarding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects in North America and a summary of VTA’s BRT activities.   He stated that at the November 3, 2005 PAB Meeting staff provided a presentation on BRT projects in  Santa Clara County. Specifically, staff provided information regarding the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, land use and economic development projects.  The PAB requested staff provide additional information pertaining to the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania BRT Development Strategy at their next meeting.

In response to the PAB’s request, Mr. Connolly highlighted three BRT initiatives:   Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. Easy Busway, Boston Silver Line Washington Street BRT, and Charlotte Area Transit System Rapid Transit.   Mr. Connolly introduced Ying Smith, Sr. Transportation Planner, and stated that she conducted the research, wrote the informational memo, and developed fact sheets for the three BRT initiatives with relevance to the City of San Jose.

Pittsburgh East Busway
The Pittsburgh East Busway is an older project, built in 1983.   The project is 9.1 miles, covers the suburb and City of Pittsburgh, and has approximately 30,000 riders per day. There is no exact relevance to Santa Clara/Alum Rock Alignment.

The Pittsburgh East Busway had a very impressive record of development activity between 1983 and 1996 with approximately $300 million of development within the area of the stations for the projects.   From 1996 to today approximately $200 million has been invested.

The Pittsburgh East Busway staff attributed the development to the project improving an unimproved area, investments in buildings available for reuse/redevelopment, and a boom in the medical sector in 1998.

Member Cortese took his seat at 3:13 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Boston Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit
In terms of the Boston Silver Line BRT, which is more relevant in terms of the type to the City of San Jose as it is more of an inner city, short corridor, and approximately two miles.   The Boston Silver Line BRT opened in 2002 and ridership averages approximately 15,000 per day.   This is a $500 million project that not only included BRT, but improved the whole street sidewalk-to-sidewalk, removed elevated rail trains, and put in planters.  The street went from being run down to being very nice, the businesses followed, and that is when it developed into a development.

M/S/C (McHugh/Cortese) to accept the Bus Rapid Transit with Land Use and Economic Development Policy presentation.

M/S/C (McHugh/Cortese) to approve the Minutes of March 2, 2006.

Member Cortese stated that at the meeting of March 2, 2006 he presented his recommendation to staff regarding changes for the Neiman Extension Alignment, which have been well documented in the minutes.   His staff contacted the Arcadia Representatives who indicated loss of interest in configuring their property around the Alignment other than what was in the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is requesting the Arcadia Representatives’ wishes be put on the record.

M/S/C (Cortese/McHugh) to accept the Neiman Extension Alignment report.

Jeff Funk, Deputy Director for Construction, provided a presentation on the Conceptual Plan for Santa Clara/Alum Rock Single Car Light Rail Terminating at the Alum Rock Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Station – Consistency with Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI).  He noted that the location was around 28^th Street, near the proposed BART/Alum Rock Station.

The PAB inquired about how the concept may be consistent or inconsistent, with the Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace SNI that had previously been approved by the City of San Jose for that particular area.  Mr. Funk reviewed the map and overlay and indicated in his presentation the inconsistencies between the SNI Plan and the proposed concept.

Member McHugh referenced Page 3 of 3, which states that flexibility for full range of high-density development may be compromised.   He inquired if that would have an impact on federal funding.   Mr. Funk replied that it would and advised that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a resolution for projects to compete for discretionary funding and that could include New Rail Starts funding projects.  One of the criteria to be considered is identifying the competitiveness of projects or the level density around transit stations.

Vice Chairperson Campos inquired about what staff was trying to communicate to the PAB.   Mr. Funk responded that staff assumes that this is an interim phase of an overall improvement down the entire corridor and that is the purpose currently identified with the Project.   The concept would be one where it has some inconsistencies with what the community is expecting since finalization of the SNI in 2002.  Some inconsistencies are limited to areas west of 28^th Street where SNI desires to redevelop.  It reduces the overall density potential because of having a facility where you have a lot of trains present and frequent crossings at Santa Clara and 28^th streets creates a presence in the neighborhood that may be considerably different than envisioned by SNI.

Vice Chairperson Campos commented that Mr. Funk was giving her information without providing the options.   Vice Chairperson Campos further commented that the PAB has a vision of what it wants to see happen on Alum Rock with the Light Rail connected to BART, but inquired about the options before the PAB.   Mr. Funk responded that    Agenda Item #7, Santa Clara/Alum Rock Project Direction, Schedule and Budget might partially address the question of options.

Vice Chairperson Campos stated that during the staff’s presentation regarding the Boston and Charlotte Transit Systems, the bus and light rail designs show no difference in how they interact with each other.   Vice Chairperson Campos queried how the PAB could envision taking that particular data and applying to this concept.  Mr. Connolly explained that the approach has not been conducted and there has been a concerted effort not to make them compatible or similar.

Vice Chairperson Campos further inquired about how to deal with funding issues and the impact on high density funding.   Mr. Connolly explained that the answer to the question is complicated and requires understanding of MTC’s requirements.   He explained that corridor-wide land use definitions and land use requirements have to be met.  If one station were not to meet them, another station may have to pick up the slack.  He noted that if there was a station that may not be meeting the exact threshold, it would be all right but another station would then have to far exceed a threshold.  He advised the PAB that MTC is currently studying the Corridor, which consists of the City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, and City of Milpitas Extensions together with the City of Fremont Extension.  The Study is in process and the results have not been received.

M/S/C (McHugh/Cortese) to receive and file the Illustrative Plan for Santa Clara/Alum Rock Single Car Light Rail Terminating at Alum Rock BART Station presentation.

Mr. Connolly advised the PAB that on March 1, 2006, VTA received direction from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to update the environmental document.  Mr. Connolly directed attention to Page 3 of 3, Santa Clara Alum Rock Decision Matrix and stated that the matrix lays out the options.   He noted that VTA is facing delays to the original schedule because the environmental document has to be updated with the existing condition data, which will add approximately a four- to six-month extension to the Project.  The existing conditions, according to FTA, are out of date and need updating.

Mr. Connolly explained to the PAB that if VTA pursues the new concept, it would have to be introduced as a new alternative in the environmental document, which would extend the schedule an additional four to five months.  Mr. Connolly noted that the budget would increase, for an environmental update approximately $150,000 and for a new alternative approximately $350,000.   He advised the PAB that the Enhanced Outreach does not change the scope in the program, but there will be minor changes based on the need to repeat the study work.  However, if a new alternative is not included, the Enhanced Outreach will be done in the Fall 2006.  If a new alternative were included, that would add nine additional months.

Mr. Connolly added that in terms of looking beyond the Enhanced Outreach and approval of the environmental document, the project would go to the Board of Directors in September 2007 or March 2008 (Option 1 and Option 2).   He also stated that if there was some reticence about including a new alternative, there is a possibility of a mid-way alternative, staff could study more, return to the PAB, and decide about inclusion as an alternative.

Member Cortese inquired if VTA could study the concept without amending the environmental document.   Member Cortese recommended that perhaps the PAB could receive the information about costs and consequences, without the environmental document, in order to allow the outreach process to move forward.   

Member Cortese noted that he understands that the outreach process is a big picture discussion of what is the better overall product, BRT or Single Car Light Rail.     

Member Cortese stated that while the citizens can be told that the Single Car Light Rail has a couple of alternatives in terms of integration or coordinated with the BART construction, he believes it will not change the opinions of people as to whether a  Single Car Light Rail is a better or worse option for the corridor overall. 

Member Cortese requested clarification from Mr. Connolly.   Is he trying to say that if staff continues to study the concept extensively   during the outreach/debate period, then the PAB can be provided with enough information to allow for a good debate, which would coincide with bringing the Environmental Report back in September prior to an early outreach schedule   and if it turns out that the alternative will be Single Car Light Rail, it will still be an option.   Mr. Connolly said yes.

Mr. Connolly referenced Page 2 of 3, Items 1 and 2, which incorporates the new concept into the Draft Environmental Process and Item 3, which presents the PAB with ane option of studying the concept further and returning to the PAB with more detailed information.   Member Cortese referenced Item 3 which states “…before inclusion in the environmental document”, but continue with the Enhanced Outreach commencing Fall 2006 so the outreach process would not be delayed.   Mr. Connolly stated that he understood Member Cortese’s concern and noted it to be perfectly feasible.  Mr. Connolly stated that the outreach process could be designed to be compatible regardless of the terminus of light rail.

Vice Chairperson Campos inquired about the time line, if the alternative was to be studied, and when staff could return to the PAB.   Mr. Connolly responded that staff would have to understand exactly what to study, but that it is reasonable to expect staff to return to the PAB in September 2006.

Mr. Connolly reviewed the actions the PAB could request of staff:

1. Incorporate the new Alum Rock LRT Concept into the Draft EIR/EIS
2. Update the environmental document without inclusion of the Alum Rock LRT Concept
3. Study the concept further and return to the PAB with more detailed information before inclusion in the environmental document.

Member McHugh commented that he supports Enhanced Outreach that would commence as scheduled.   Member Cortese explained that that is the intent of the motion, but would defer to staff for clarification.

Mr. Connolly provided a summary of Member Cortese’s comments to the PAB.   Mr. Connolly stated staff anticipates the Enhanced Outreach debate sometime near November 2006, which will enable staff to move into precursor outreach before the debate with more of a generic light rail and not address the terminus. Mr. Connolly stated that by the time of the actual debate staff would have an answer.   Mr. Connolly further commented that he understands that the point is that the large issue is light rail versus BRT as opposed to the exact alignment and staff could design the outreach in such a way it would not necessarily focus on the actual terminus and stations that it is due.    Member McHugh acknowledged his agreement with Mr. Connolly.

Member Cortese commented that the Enhanced Outreach is not a substitute for environmental review but rather it is a separate outreach process and as long as staff has internally studied all the options well enough that it brought experts forward to conduct the debate with or without the BART terminus, the debate can go forward.   If after the Enhanced Outreach a direction is received from the community to go forward with Single Car Light Rail, the construction schedule being as out there as it is, there will be sufficient time to amend the EIR and have the EIR comment period. 

Mr. Connolly stated that one option available to the PAB is to do something along the lines of doing all the work necessary to include the concept as an alternative in the EIR.   Mr. Connolly commented that if a new alternative is eventually incorporated into the EIR, there will be no cost savings and the schedule will go beyond September   because the environmental document will still take nine months.   Mr. Connolly did note that a portion of the work could be done that does not include all of the work that is necessary nor the entire budget necessary and could then be returned to the PAB September.  Mr. Connolly approximated 50 percent.

Vice Chairperson Campos commented that 50 percent of the work it will provide the Committee with an idea as to whether or not to move forward after the debate. 

Member Cortese confirmed that it was his overall intent to try to keep the Enhanced Outreach schedule in the Fall and not push it back to Spring because then it will cause delays. 

Member McHugh inquired if this was a decision the PAB could make or whether it has to go to the full Board.   Vice Chairperson Campos requested staff provide the PAB with an answer as to whether or not it had to go to the full Board of Directors.

Vice Chairperson Campos made it clear that because this is extremely important to her constituents, she does not want to lose the opportunity to be able to put a new concept   in if it needs to go into the EIR at some point.  

M/S/C (Cortese/McHugh) to study the concept further and return to the PAB with more detailed information on or about September 2006 without inclusion, but before inclusion in the Environmental Document; however, to continue with the Enhanced Outreach Schedule commencing in Fall 2006, making the two compatible.

On order of Vice Chairperson Campos, there being no objection, the presentation on Santa Clara/Alum Rock Project Direction was received.

On order of Vice Chairperson Campos, there being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gwene L. Haywood, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors