BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Thursday, March 7, 2019 5:30 PM Board of Supervisors’ Chambers County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 AGENDA To help you better understand, follow, and participate in the meeting, the following information is provided: ▪ Persons wishing to address the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors on any item on the agenda or not on the agenda are requested to complete a blue card located at the public information table and hand it to the Board Secretary staff prior to the meeting or before the item is heard. ▪ Speakers will be called to address the Board when their agenda item(s) arise during the meeting and are asked to limit their comments to 2 minutes. The amount of time allocated to speakers may vary at the Chairperson's discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. If presenting handout materials, please provide 25 copies to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board of Directors. ▪ The Consent Agenda items may be voted on in one motion at the beginning of the meeting. The Board may also move regular agenda items on the consent agenda during Orders of the Day. If you wish to discuss any of these items, please request the item be removed from the Consent Agenda by notifying the Board Secretary staff or completing a blue card at the public information table prior to the meeting or prior to the Consent Agenda being heard.
Transcript
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday, March 7, 2019
5:30 PM
Board of Supervisors’ Chambers
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
AGENDA
To help you better understand, follow, and participate in the meeting, the following information
is provided:
▪ Persons wishing to address the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Board of Directors on any item on the agenda or not on the agenda are requested to
complete a blue card located at the public information table and hand it to the Board
Secretary staff prior to the meeting or before the item is heard.
▪ Speakers will be called to address the Board when their agenda item(s) arise during the
meeting and are asked to limit their comments to 2 minutes. The amount of time allocated
to speakers may vary at the Chairperson's discretion depending on the number of
speakers and length of the agenda. If presenting handout materials, please provide 25
copies to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board of Directors.
▪ The Consent Agenda items may be voted on in one motion at the beginning of the
meeting. The Board may also move regular agenda items on the consent agenda during
Orders of the Day. If you wish to discuss any of these items, please request the item be
removed from the Consent Agenda by notifying the Board Secretary staff or completing a
blue card at the public information table prior to the meeting or prior to the Consent
Agenda being heard.
AGENDA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday, March 07, 2019
Page 2 of 5
▪ Disclosure of Campaign Contributions to Board Members (Government Code Section
84308)
In accordance with Government Code Section 84308, no VTA Board Member shall accept,
solicit, or direct a contribution of more than $250 from any party, or his or her agent, or
from any participant, or his or her agent, while a proceeding involving a license, permit, or
other entitlement for use is pending before the agency. Any Board Member who has
received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than $250
from a party or from any agent or participant shall disclose that fact on the record of the
proceeding and shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his or
her official position to influence the decision.
A party to a proceeding before VTA shall disclose on the record of the proceeding any
contribution in an amount of more than $250 made within the preceding 12 months by the
party, or his or her agent, to any Board Member. No party, or his or her agent, shall make a
contribution of more than $250 to any Board Member during the proceeding and for three
months following the date a final decision is rendered by the agency in the proceeding.
The foregoing statements are limited in their entirety by the provisions of Section 84308
and parties are urged to consult with their own legal counsel regarding the requirements of
the law.
▪ All reports for items on the open meeting agenda are available for review in the Board
Secretary’s Office, 3331 North First Street, San Jose, California, (408) 321-5680, the
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday prior to the meeting. This information is available on
our website, www.vta.org, and also at the meeting. Any document distributed less than
72-hours prior to the meeting will also be made available to the public at the time of
distribution. Copies of items provided by members of the public at the meeting will be
made available following the meeting upon request.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, VTA will make reasonable arrangements to ensure meaningful access to its
meetings for persons who have disabilities and for persons with limited English proficiency
who need translation and interpretation services. Individuals requiring ADA accommodations
should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 48-hours prior to the meeting. Individuals
requiring language assistance should notify the Board Secretary’s Office at least 72-hours prior
to the meeting. The Board Secretary may be contacted at (408) 321-5680 or *e-mail:
[email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is on the web at:
www.vta.org or visit us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 /
Español / 日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.
NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY
ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA.
70 West Hedding St., San Jose, California is served by bus lines *61, 62, 66, 181, and Light Rail.
(*61 Southbound last trip is at 8:55 pm for this location.)
For trip planning information, contact our Customer Service Department at (408) 321-2300
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
on Saturday. Schedule information is also available on our website, www.vta.org.
are heavier than they used to be however the size and type of bus does not have a noticeable
impact on speed; 5) We will see if that information is available; 6) Yes, light rail is included in
the policy; 7) All transit speed improvements are helpful even if we can’t address an entire
corridor at one time. VTA is working with cities to develop common signal practices; 8)
Committee members engaged in discussion and staff noted the comment.
After discussion, the PAC unanimously recommended approval of the Transit Speed Policy.
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Congestion Management Program and Planning (CMPP) Committee received this
information at their February 21, 2019 meeting. Members of the committee had the following
comments: 1) How often will staff review the speed improvements after they are implemented;
2) What funding sources are available for speed and reliability improvements; 3) A member
asked if electric buses could provide faster service than diesel buses; 4) Members expressed
interest in seeing a map that shows transit speeds and/or speeds by route; 5) Suggestion to
explore solutions for school-related congestion; 6) Members thanked staff for the
comprehensiveness of the policy and the attention given to strategies for working with local
6.2
Page 5 of 5
jurisdictions; 7) A member suggested El Camino as a good example for multi-county agreements
or projects; 8) A suggestion to emphasize VTA seeks the funding for signal changes throughout
the County; 9) How does increased land use intensification make transit faster?
Staff responded as follows: 1) Evaluation and review of speed improvements will be established
once speed improvement projects are identified. The speed policy directs staff to evaluate the
success of the policy on an annual basis; 2) We've started looking into potential funding sources
for the types of speed improvements necessary to make transit fast. Once we develop projects,
we can work to find funding; 3) no; 4) comment noted; 5) comment noted; 6) thank you for the
recognition; 7) staff agreed that it’s a good corridor to establish transit signal priority agreements
and other speed strategies and one of VTA’s highest ridership corridors; 8) comment noted; 9)
The General Manager provided a response.
The CMPP recommended Board approval of the policy.
The Safety, Security, and Transit Planning Operations (SSTPO) Committee received this
information at their February 21, 2019 meeting. Members of the committee had the following
comments: 1) a suggestion to present more details on speed and reliability solutions at the next
Committee meeting; 2) Request to put this item on consent for the March Board meeting.
Staff responded as follows: 1) comment noted; 2) comment noted.
The SSTPO recommended Board approval of the policy.
Prepared by: Tamiko Percell
Memo No. 6841
ATTACHMENTS:
• 8756_Att_A (DOC)
6.2
POLICY Document Number: 340.005
Transit Speed Version Number: 1
Date: 1/17/2019
Original Date:
01/17/2019
Revision Date:
N/A Page 1 of 6
1. Purpose:
The Transit Speed Policy establishes planning and investment priorities for the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) to address the long-standing trend of declining speeds and reliability across
VTA’s bus and light rail network. The policy is a commitment to align VTA’s internal planning, design,
funding, and operating practices, and strengthen partnerships with local jurisdictions to make transit fast and
reliable.
2. Scope:
This policy applies to all departments and personnel within VTA, including consultants and contractors,
who have a role in policy development, planning, design, funding, implementation, and operations of
transportation projects and programs that impact transit speed in Santa Clara County. The policy also acts as
guidance when working with local jurisdictions and developers that propose projects and changes to traffic
operations that may impact VTA’s transit lines.
3. Responsibilities:
3.1. VTA Divisions will incorporate the guiding principles and strategies established in this policy into all
phases of their projects when and where those projects or programs have the potential to positively or
negatively impact transit speed and reliability, or where new projects are proposed by local jurisdictions
or private parties.
3.2. Recognizing that VTA does not have authority over the streets on which it operates, the success of the
policy will rely on the ongoing cooperation, responsiveness, and partnership of local jurisdictions. The
policy also acts as guidance for local jurisdictions to enhance or adopt their own local mobility policies
that embed fast and reliable transit as a core function of their mobility systems.
3.3. VTA’s Planning and Programming Division will review and update the policy on a regular basis.
4. Policy:
Providing fast and reliable transit service is critical to operating an efficient and attractive transit system.
Faster transit will increase ridership, reduce operating costs, and relies on building effective partnerships in
the cities in which VTA operates. Successful implementation of the policy demands VTA show proactive
leadership to prioritize transit speed and reliability.
A. Guiding Principles
The policy establishes a set of foundational principles to support and guide VTA’s work to make transit
fast and reliable.
6.2.a
POLICY Document Number: 340.005
Transit Speed Version Number: 1
Date: 1/17/2019
Original Date:
01/17/2019
Revision Date:
N/A Page 2 of 6
Increase Ridership
Enhance the passenger experience by quickly, reliably, and safely moving customers to their
destinations.
➢ Prioritize speed and reliability improvements to the Frequent Network, to improve service on
VTA’s most productive routes.
➢ Achieve and maintain VTA’s goal of an average bus route speed of at least 15 mph for non-
express routes per the current adopted Transit Service Guidelines.
➢ Achieve and maintain an average light rail system speed of at least 20 mph.
➢ Ensure safe accommodation for all riders of all abilities and safe operating conditions for transit
vehicle operators.
➢ Improve the passenger perception of speed and reliability with accurate real-time information and
timely updates for service delays.
➢ Provide convenient, comfortable, and safe access to transit stops and stations per the current
adopted Station Access Policy.
Reduce Operating Costs
Promote speed and reliability improvements that reduce delay and increase speed to lower operating
costs.
➢ Target combinations of speed improvements to spots, hubs, and corridors within the Frequent
Network to maximize benefits and minimize costs.
➢ Consider life cycle costs including capital and maintenance costs in the design of speed
improvements and investments in technology, infrastructure, and services that speed up transit.
➢ Promote cost-effectiveness by prioritizing projects that leverage other fund sources and local
matches to maximize the value of VTA’s investments, including local development
contributions.
Build Effective Partnerships
Work in partnership with local jurisdictions, advocacy groups, mobility and technology providers,
private entities, and the community to develop context-sensitive speed and reliability improvements to
unlock the broad benefits of quality transit.
6.2.a
POLICY Document Number: 340.005
Transit Speed Version Number: 1
Date: 1/17/2019
Original Date:
01/17/2019
Revision Date:
N/A Page 3 of 6
➢ Encourage local jurisdictions to incorporate transit first policy statements into their own mobility
policies, or adopt their own transit speed policy that supports the technology, infrastructure,
right-of-way optimization, and signal priority necessary to move transit vehicles faster along city
streets.
➢ Collaborate with local jurisdictions and developers to proactively incorporate speed and
reliability improvements at the earliest stages of their projects.
➢ Coordinate with third party shuttle providers to encourage responsible use of VTA facilities so as
not to impede VTA access to bus stops per VTA’s current adopted Commuter Shuttle Policy.
➢ Facilitate partnership opportunities between public and private sector to test and evaluate
emerging technologies aimed at improving transit speeds.
➢ Leverage resources for speed improvements through cost-sharing, data sharing and information
sharing with partners.
➢ Partner with local jurisdictions to jointly plan and fund targeted improvements to make transit
faster and help local jurisdictions achieve their mobility goals.
B. Strategies for Implementation
The following strategies serve as the starting point to develop and implement specific speed and
reliability solutions that can increase average transit speed and improve reliability of transit.
Remove Sources of Delay within VTA’s Control
➢ Employ strategies that reduce dwell time caused by frequent stopping such as eliminating
unnecessary or underutilized stops, setting thresholds to upgrade routes to Rapid service, and
implementing new headway management practices.
➢ Prioritize transit speed in service planning and route design, emphasizing the importance of
routes that are straight and direct, with limited deviations and turning movements as defined in
the Transit Service Guidelines.
➢ Implement strategies to expedite boarding and alighting such as fare policy changes, new
technology, off-board fare collection, smart cards, and all-door boarding.
➢ Ensure existing and new VTA operating policies and procedures do not inadvertently slow down
transit.
6.2.a
POLICY Document Number: 340.005
Transit Speed Version Number: 1
Date: 1/17/2019
Original Date:
01/17/2019
Revision Date:
N/A Page 4 of 6
Work with Local Jurisdictions to Reduce Transit Delay on Streets and at Intersections
➢ Work with local jurisdictions to establish transit signal priority agreements that provide the
highest level of transit priority and define protocols for signal timing changes, monitoring, and
evaluation criteria.
➢ Encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize transit speed and reliability improvements to the
Frequent Network.
➢ Pursue infrastructure changes and policy actions that minimize delay to help transit move faster
such as queue jumps, leading bus lights, bulb outs, in lane stopping, removing parking,
eliminating turning conflicts, implementing bus lanes, and enforcement of loading zones.
➢ Ensure multi-modal street improvements and transit speed and reliability improvements
complement each other as outlined in VTA’s current adopted Complete Streets Policy.
➢ Encourage cities and developers to mitigate potential sources of transit delay generated by new
developments by locating driveways and signals away from on-street bus stops.
➢ Ensure that new access across light rail is provided via grade separation in order to safeguard the
traveling public and minimize transit delays. Per VTA’s current adopted Land Use and
Development Policy, VTA will not support new at-grade crossings of light rail.
Fund and Implement
➢ Incorporate speed and reliability design elements into capital projects led by VTA, local
jurisdictions, and private developers.
➢ Seek grant funding, public-private partnerships, joint funding with local jurisdictions, and/or
other funding sources for construction and maintenance.
➢ Identify opportunities to tie VTA-administered grant funding to the policy so as to encourage
local jurisdictions to improve transit speeds.
6.2.a
POLICY Document Number: 340.005
Transit Speed Version Number: 1
Date: 1/17/2019
Original Date:
01/17/2019
Revision Date:
N/A Page 5 of 6
Monitor, Measure, Report
➢ Measure the effectiveness of speed improvements based on metrics such as ridership, signal
delay, passenger seconds of delay, travel time, on-time performance, average mph, dwell time,
layover time, and seconds per boarding.
➢ Periodically re-evaluate VTA’s measure of on time performance against industry standards and
best practices for its impact on operating cost, reliability, and rider expectations.
➢ Incorporate quarterly speed and reliability updates into the quarterly performance monitoring and
reporting as set forth in the Transit Service Guidelines.
➢ Enhance and support the policy by including an update on the performance of the policy in the
Annual Transit Service Plan highlighting cost savings, travel time savings, partnerships,
challenges, lessons learned, and recommended refinements to the policy.
5. Definitions:
Annual Transit Service Plan is the annual process and adoption of a plan to implement policies set forth in
VTA’s Transit Service Guidelines.
Dwell time is the amount of time a transit vehicle spends at a scheduled stop.
Frequent network refers to VTA’s core routes that provide service every 15 minutes or better all day on
weekdays. VTA’s frequent network includes all light rail lines, rapid lines, and routes 22, 23, 25, 26, 57, 60,
61, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 77.
Layover is the time that a bus or light rail vehicle waits at the end or beginning a trip.
On-time performance measures the percentage of actual arrival times that are within three minutes early
and five minutes late at designated points along transit routes. It is a leading indicator of service reliability
and a reflection of customer experience.
Passenger seconds of delay is the amount of delay multiplied by the number of people on board.
Reliability is the ability of transit vehicles to arrive at stops at consistent and predictable times.
Seconds per boarding is the total dwell time at a bus stop divided by total boardings.
Signal delay is the amount of time a bus spends dwelling in traffic because of signal timing.
6.2.a
POLICY Document Number: 340.005
Transit Speed Version Number: 1
Date: 1/17/2019
Original Date:
01/17/2019
Revision Date:
N/A Page 6 of 6
Transit Service Guidelines are an adopted set of actions that establish a framework to objectively monitor
and evaluate VTA’s transit services, develop service change recommendations, and develop annual service
plans that move VTA toward achieving the current adopted Strategic Plan goal of providing fast, frequent,
and reliable transit.
Travel time is the amount of time a bus takes to travel from stop to stop or from end to end of a route.
6. Summary of Changes:
None
7. Approval Information:
Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
Tamiko Percell
Transportation Planner
Chris Augenstein
Director of Planning and Projects
Nuria I. Fernández
General Manager/CEO
VTA Board of Directors
Date Approved:
6.2.a
Date: February 28, 2019
Current Meeting: March 7, 2019
Board Meeting: March 7, 2019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT: Draft 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant
Program Framework
Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve draft framework of the proposed 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models
Competitive Grant Program.
BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 2016, the voters of Santa Clara County approved by over a two-thirds vote
Measure B, a 30-year, ½ cent sales tax measure supporting transportation projects and services.
2016 Measure B includes $500 million (in 2017 dollars) for Transit Operations. The Transit
Operations Program Category is divided into the following four subcategories:
Enhance Core Frequent Network
Support new/innovative transit service models to address first/last mile connections.
Expand mobility services and affordable fare programs for seniors, disabled, students and
low income riders.
Improve amenities at bus stops to increase safety, security and access, as well as on-going
maintenance.
At their October 2017 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors approved the Transit Operations
Program Category Guidelines, which directed the Innovative Transit Service Models Program to
support goals to address first/last mile connections. Strategies to support this subcategory may
include competitive grant programs to help fund services operated by local jurisdictions, utilize
excess paratransit capacity, and other programs that encourage investments in local service. The
6.3
Page 2 of 5
Transit Operations Program Category Guidelines are included as Attachment A.
The VTA Board adopted allocation for the Innovative Transit Service Models subcategory is $3
million for FY18 & FY19. VTA staff are proposing to continue this level of funding in the FY20
& FY21 budget. If approved by the VTA Board in June as part of VTA's FY20 & FY21
budgets, this would provide a four-year total allocation of $6 million.
DISCUSSION:
In order to address the charge of the Board of Directors, VTA will develop a competitive
Innovative Transit Service Models Grant program - to support the goals of the Innovative Transit
Service subcategory. A draft framework for the proposed Innovative Transit Service Models
Grant Program was developed using the language of the voter-approved 2016 Measure B Transit
Operations subcategory and proposes competitive grant funds, available to Member Agencies,
for the operation of innovative services that address first/last mile connections, as well as for
capital costs directly associated with those operations.
The draft framework was initially presented to the VTA Technical Advisory Capital
Improvement Program Working Group (CIPWG) in fall 2017 for discussion. The presentation
included a robust discussion on the elements of the framework and concluded with Member
Agencies discussing the types of projects or programs the grant could potentially fund.
The following elements of the framework, primarily derived from the language of the law, will
be the basis of the criteria of the competitive grant program:
Innovative service/business model - The project includes an innovative aspect in project
delivery including, but not limited to, unique partnership and funding arrangements;
flexible models of transit service delivery; technical capabilities such as integrated
payment systems, incentives for traveler choices, mobile applications, on-demand
software, and/or real time transit data.
Provides first/last mile connections to existing frequent transit - The project improves
connections between major, frequent transit stations/stops and residential areas,
employment areas, or major activity centers.
Serves vulnerable/transit dependent populations - The project cost effectively ensures
equal access is provided for individuals with disabilities, low incomes, and the elderly.
The project is located in an area benefitting individuals belonging to one or more of these
vulnerable population groups.
Service is affordable - The project provides a level of subsidy to maintain affordability
for customers. The project also considers protections against “surge pricing,” a concept
made popular with ride hailing services that increases costs for customers to ride during
periods of high demand.
Serves underserved market - The project provides new or supplementary transit service
to an area that has little or no frequent transit service. The project may also target new
6.3
Page 3 of 5
markets currently not served such as specific commute patterns and/or early morning/late
night service.
Project readiness - The project has completed a feasibility study or similar analysis to
provide the basis for project implementation. Project funding has been identified and
local match funding has been secured. The project is supported in existing transportation
documents and/or policies. The project must be implemented within one (1) year of grant
award.
Level of local contribution - Project commits to more than 10% of total project costs
from non-2016 Measure B sources.
Cost effectiveness - The project demonstrates reasonableness in costs per trip in relation
to the subsidy provided. Project must include ridership projections for new transit
services.
While programs can target specific populations (e.g. school children, seniors, people with
disabilities, etc.), all programs must serve the general public.
Next Steps
With the development of the draft framework, staff is looking for the VTA Board of Directors’
approval on the direction of the draft Innovative Transit Service Models Grant Program. After
approval of the proposed grant program framework, staff will develop project scoring criteria,
based on the elements of the framework, and guidelines with consultation and input from the
Capital Improvement Program Working Group (CIPWG), advisory committees and other
stakeholders throughout spring 2019.
The draft Innovative Transit Service Models Grant Program will be brought back to the
appropriate committees in summer 2019 for review and input prior to final approval from the
VTA Board of Directors. A call for projects, anticipated in late summer/early fall 2019, will be
held after Program approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to VTA associated with the approval of the draft framework of the
proposed 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program as the
FY18 & FY19 allocation for this subcategory has already been approved. However, should the
Board of Directors choose not to approve the draft framework, development and distribution of
the competitive grant program will be delayed, pending a favorable outcome of the pending
lawsuit.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) heard this item at their January 16, 2019, meeting. A
Member of the Committee requested that staff bring future items to the TAC’s Capital
Improvement Program Working Group (CIPWG) so that they would be able to provide input.
Staff confirmed to the TAC that the proposed Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive
6.3
Page 4 of 5
Grant Program was the only subcategory of the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Program
Category through which local agencies could access 2016 Measure B Transit Operations funds.
A brief discussion was held on potential projects that may be eligible for the proposed grant
funds. Staff clarified that project eligibility would be determined once the program structure and
criteria were developed after the VTA Board of Directors approves the draft framework for the
proposed Innovative Transit Models Service Models Competitive Grant Program. A Member of
the Committee requested that the definition of the elements and ultimately criteria, specifically
the ‘Innovative’ element, remain broad to allow for flexibility. Staff reiterated that the criteria
and grant program structure would be developed with input from the CIPWG and appropriate
committees.
Upon completion of discussion, the TAC unanimously recommended this item for approval.
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) heard this item at their January 16, 2019, meeting.
Brief discussions were held on the distribution of FY18/FY19 Transit Operations allocation to
the four subcategories and the language of the Transit Operations category in the 2016 measure,
specifically the use of the word ‘seniors.’ A Member of the Committee requested that staff
consider weighting of criteria during program criteria and structure development, as well as
consider job quality as a criteria.
The CAC unanimously recommended the item for approval with the following amendments:
Include weighting the elements and include job quality as a criteria.
The Committee for Transportation Mobility and Accessibility (CTMA) heard this item at their
January 17, 2019, meeting. A Member of the Committee pointed out a specific area that they felt
was underserved. Discussions were held regarding partnering with a Member Agency to submit
an application when the time comes, program timeline, and how to keep the CTMA fully
engaged in the process. Staff will coordinate with the CTMA staff liaison on how to engage the
CTMA as the grant program develops. A Member of the Committee stated that they agreed with
the TAC comment about keeping the elements/criteria flexible, as it is important.
The CTMA unanimously recommended this item for approval.
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) heard this item at their February 14, 2019, meeting.
Discussions were had on the timeline of approval for the proposed grant program as well as
including an additional element and weighting of an existing element when determining criteria.
These two elements are as follows: 1) Applicability (add) - If a project/program is successful,
can it be scaled up to work in other jurisdictions; 2) Cost Effectiveness/Sustainability (existing) -
A project/program should not be a money-sink, thus this element should be weighted higher as a
criterion.
The PAC unanimously recommended this item for approval with the addition of ‘Applicability’
as an element for consideration as criteria and weighting Cost Effectiveness/Sustainability higher
during criteria development.
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Congestion Management Program & Planning Committee (CMPP) received this item at
6.3
Page 5 of 5
their February 21, 2019, meeting. Committee members discussed what would be considered as
‘transit’ and possibly broadening the definition to include mobility options, such as, but not
limited to, scooters or e-bikes, that are not traditional transit, but are innovative and fulfill the
first/last mile connection component of the Transit Operations sub-category. Discussion was also
had on how strictly to enforce the first/last mile connection component in a potential competitive
grant program. A committee member agreed with the TAC’s concern about keeping the
innovative component broad to preserve flexibility in the future but stated that it should remain a
key component. Staff briefly discussed the next steps in the development of the grant program
and ensured committee members that the criteria and overall program will be brought back to
CMPP during the development process.
The CMPP unanimously recommended this item for approval.
The Administrative & Finance Committee (A&F) received this item as a Committee of the
Whole at their February 21, 2019, meeting. Brief discussion was had on making the criteria of a
potential competitive grant program as equitable as possible to all jurisdictions since there are
very different jurisdictions throughout the county.
No action was taken by A&F as the committee met as a Committee of the Whole.
The Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations Committee (SSTPO) received this
item at their February 22, 2019, meeting. A committee member reiterated the Policy Advisory
Committee comment that ‘Applicability’ be considered as a criterion and that projects that can be
scaled be prioritized. Brief discussion was had on the types of projects that may be eligible under
this potential competitive grant program, and the discussion ended with a SSTPO member
stressing that innovation must be required for projects seeking this funding.
The SSTPO unanimously recommended this item for approval.
Prepared by: Jane Shinn
Memo No. 6128
ATTACHMENTS:
• MT6128_AttachmentA (PDF)
6.3
Page 1 of 3
Transit Operations Program Guidelines Definition from Resolution No. 2016.06.17 The revenue from this program category will provide additional funds specifically for bus operations to serve vulnerable, underserved, and transit dependent populations throughout the county. The goals of the program category are to increase ridership, improve efficiency, enhance mobility services for seniors and disabled, and improve affordability for the underserved and vulnerable constituencies in the county. As VTA considers modifications to bus operations and routes to improve ridership and efficiencies, these funds may also be utilized to maintain and expand service to the most underserved and vulnerable populations. The funds may be used to increase core bus route service frequencies, extending hours of operations to early morning, evenings and weekends to improve mobility, safe access and affordability to residents that rely on bus service for critical transportation mobility needs. Attachment D describes the list of Candidate Projects and Programs. Total Funding
$500 million in 2017 dollars. Distribution
VTA anticipates that allocations will be programmed based upon the total allocation for the Transit Operations Program contained in 2016 Measure B divided by the number of years in the measure.
Future allocations will vary depending upon the amount of sales tax revenue collected.
The Transit Operations Program Area funding will be allocated for the following four programs identified in 2016 Measure B Attachment D:
o Enhance Frequent Core Bus Network by increasing core bus route service frequencies, and expanding or adding additional evening, late night and weekend service.
o Expand mobility services and affordable fare programs for seniors, disabled, students and low‐income riders.
o Support new/innovative transit service models to address first/last mile connections and transit services for the transit dependent, vulnerable populations and paratransit users that is safe and accountable.
o Improve amenities at bus stops to increase safety, security and access with lighting and access improvements.
6.3.a
Page 2 of 3
The proposed allocations for the four categories are as follows:
2016 Measure B Transit Operations Program Area
Area Funding Allocation (Proposed)
Frequent Core Bus Network 73%
Innovative Mobility Models & Programs 8%
Fare Programs 15%
Bus Stop Amenities 4%
Implementation For FY18 & FY19 Budget Allocation:
The Enhanced Frequent Core Bus Network will directly fund VTA’s core bus network of services increasing core bus route service frequencies, and expanding or adding evening, late night and weekend service.
The Fare Programs will fund the Transit Assistance Program (TAP) and reduced fares for youth.
The Innovative Transit Models Program will support goals to address first/last mile connections. Strategies may include competitive grant programs to help fund services operated by local jurisdictions, utilize excess paratransit capacity, and other programs that encourage investments in local service.
The Bus Stop Amenities Program will directly fund improvements at VTA’s bus stops. The bus stop improvements will be prioritized based on VTA’s Transit Passenger Environment Plan and ongoing maintenance needs.
Six to 12 months into the implementation of the Next Network, staff will have ridership data available to evaluate potential increases to the ridership hours where we see higher demand for service. To meet our commitment as expressed in 2016 Measure B and in collaboration with the public, VTA will make increased investments in service hours in the system focusing on those areas where we see the greatest demand by transit dependent populations. VTA will consider the potential for further reducing the fares for seniors and youth with a requested goal of free rides.
Criteria
Only projects and programs currently listed on 2016 Measure B Attachment D are eligible.
Requirements
For potential competitive grants for the Innovative Transit Models Program: o Reporting requirements will be detailed in agreements executed with VTA
for project funding.
6.3.a
Page 3 of 3
o All applications must include a delivery schedule. o Funds will be available on a reimbursement basis.
VTA Complete Streets reporting requirements will be required for all capital improvements projects.
All collateral material will be required to display a 2016 Measure B logo.
6.3.a
Date: February 26, 2019
Current Meeting: March 7, 2019
Board Meeting: March 7, 2019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Chief Engineering & Program Delivery Officer, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) Contract
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Itech Solution, the lowest responsive
and responsible bidder, in the amount of $810,810 for the Bus Stop Enhancement at Various
Locations (C18171F) contract.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to establish a criteria for future bus stops, VTA employed a transit services
professionals to prepare the Transit Passenger Environment Plan (TPEP). This plan outlines
VTA’s approach for designing and improving bus stops and establishes guidelines for bus stop
elements, including the treatment of bus shelters. The TPEP, along with rider input, identified
improvements to high ridership bus stops and outlines a new, modern bus stop design for Santa
Clara County.
VTA plans to replace the existing bus shelters and add new bus shelters over the next several
years. On November 2, 2017, the Board approved the execution of a contract with Brasco
International for the fabrication and delivery of bus shelters and benches. Brasco has delivered
the new bus shelters and benches, and this contract will install the new bus shelters and benches
at following high priority bus corridors:
• Rapid 523 Corridor along Stevens Creek Boulevard, supporting the upcoming
Next Network and SVRT service to the Berryessa Station (Measure A). See
Exhibit A.
6.4
Page 2 of 3
• Keyes-Story Corridor, High Capacity Bus Stop (Federal and VTA local Funded).
See Exhibit B.
• Santa Clara-Alum Rock Corridor, upgrade local bus stop shelters (Measure A
Funded). See Exhibit C.
The installation of new shelters and benches will improve the transit passenger environment by
providing a sense of safety and comfort for our riders. The project scope consists of but is not
limited to removal and salvaging of existing shelters, benches and trash receptacles; assembly
and installation of new VTA furnished shelters, benches and trash receptacles; constructing
Portland cement concrete (PCC) bus shelter pads; and installing pull boxes and conduit.
DISCUSSION:
The Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations, (C18171F) contract was advertised on
December 18, 2018. Four bids were submitted on January 18, 2019 with the following results:
Company Name Bid Amount
Itech Solution $ 810,810.00
George Bianchi Construction, Inc., $ 977,300.61
Sposeto Engineering, Inc. $ 1,193,747.00
Fast-Track Construction Corporation $ 1,233,629.00
Engineer’s Estimate $ 1,128,520.00
The lowest bid was submitted by Itech Solution in the amount of $810.810, and the bid is 28%
below the Engineer’s Estimate. VTA staff has reviewed the bids and has determined that Itech
Solution is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. Staff recommends award of this contract to
Itech Solution.
Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2019 with completion in January 2020.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board could choose to reject all bids and re-advertise this project. This would result in a
delay in awarding this contract and the completion of the bus shelter installation prior to the
planned increased bus service for the new BART service to Berryessa later this year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize $810,810 for the construction of improvements for the Bus Stop
Enhancement at Various Locations (C18171F) contract. Appropriation for these expenditures is
included in the FY19 Adopted VTA Transit Fund and 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement
Program Fund Capital Budgets. This contract is funded by 2000 Measure A, Federal grants, and
VTA local funds.
6.4
Page 3 of 3
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION:
Based on identifiable subcontracting opportunities, a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
goal of 2.04% was established for this contract. Contractor met the established goal and has
committed to 100% DBE participation.
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration & Finance Committee met as a Committee of the Whole and received this
item as part of its February 21, 2019 Consent Agenda. The item was forwarded to the VTA
Board of Directors without comment.
Prepared by: Ed Evangelista, Sr. Transportation Engineer
FROM: Director - Planning & Programming, Chris Augenstein
SUBJECT: Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit
Corridors
Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to execute a Firm Fixed Price contract with Fehr & Peers to
complete the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors. The contract shall
be for a period of 18 months and not to exceed $800,000.
BACKGROUND:
The Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors will examine the suitability of
light rail transit (LRT), bus rapid transit (BRT), and other types of high capacity rapid transit in
corridors throughout Santa Clara County. If existing conditions do not support high capacity
transit (HCT), the study will identify changes that could support such investment, such as
increased residential and employments densities.
The study will help guide VTA’s future HCT investment decisions, and explore and evaluate the
potential integration of autonomous vehicle technology into the next phase of these corridors.
The corridors recommended for advancement will inform VTA’s long-range transportation plan
(VTP 2050).
More specifically, this study will help VTA:
• Advance the corridors best suited for high capacity transit based on existing and future
conditions
• Evaluate the transit supportiveness of each corridor, and recommend the most
mcgraw_a
Text Box
Revised Agenda Item #6.5
Page 2 of 4
appropriate HCT modes for the corridor: Light Rail Transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT), Rapid Transit Service, Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU), Electric Multiple Unit
(EMU), or other HCT services, including autonomous vehicle versions of these or other
modes
• Establish order of magnitude capital costs and planning level operating costs for each
recommended mode in each corridor
• Provide Member Agencies with information about the land use intensities and other
changes necessary to support high-capacity transit
Scope
The study will evaluate if HCT is suitable and warranted on existing, legacy, and potential new
corridors that will be identified through a stakeholder workshop. Legacy corridors were
identified from the 2000 Measure A ballot, previous VTA studies, or have long been mentioned
as possibilities for HCT, but have not been studied for their suitability for such service. The
following is the list of legacy corridors (in alphabetical order):
• Blossom Hill Caltrain station to Alviso
• Central Expressway
• Eastridge Transit Center to Nieman Boulevard to SR 87 along Capital Expressway (2000
Measure A)
• King Road: Great Mall to Capital
• Lawrence Expressway: From Campbell to Lockheed Transit Center
• Monterey Highway: Santa Teresa light rail station to downtown San Jose
• Mountain View Transit Center to Palo Alto Transit Center (2000 Measure A)
• Sunnyvale to Cupertino: Lockheed Transit Center to De Anza College via De Anza Blvd
and Mathilda (2000 Measure A)
• San Tomas Expressway: North San Jose to Campbell
• Santa Teresa Light Rail Station to Coyote Valley and Morgan Hill (2000 Measure A)
• SR 85: South San Jose to Mountain View
• Stevens Creek Boulevard: Convention Center to SR 85 (2000 Measure A)
• Vasona Light Rail extension (2000 Measure A)
Staff prepared a detailed scope of work requesting proposals include the following elements:
Page 3 of 4
• Define HCT parameters, goals and objectives, and a comprehensive list of evaluation
criteria
• Existing conditions analysis of corridors
• An assessment of mobility technology, with focus on the impact of autonomous vehicle
technology to transit operations
• Assess corridor readiness, preferred mode choice, and recommend corridors for further
study
• Ridership estimates and summary of equity, environmental, and constructability issues
• Order of magnitude capital cost estimates and planning level operating cost estimates
• Identify transit-supportive land use changes necessary to support different HCT modes
• Provide a concept for public outreach
DISCUSSION:
A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Study was issued by VTA on August 13, 2018. A pre-
proposal conference was held on August 23, 2018, in advance of the proposal due date of
September 18, 2018. VTA received four proposals from the following firms:
1) Cambridge Systematics
2) CDM Smith
3) Fehr & Peers
4) WSP
A four-person review board consisting of staff from the VTA Transit Planning department and
Modeling & GIS department evaluated the proposals based on criteria listed below, and as
outlined in the RFP:
• Qualification of the Firm 20 Points
• Staffing and Project Organization 20 Points
• Work Plan / Project Understanding 20 Points
• Local Firm Preference 10 Points
• Cost Proposal 30 Points
The review board advanced all four firms to interviews on November 8, 2018. The interviews
provided insight and clarification about staffing plans, work plans, project understanding, project
Page 4 of 4
management style, and level of proposed efforts for the study. The review board determined that
Fehr & Peers provided the best proposal to complete the services as described in the RFP. Their
comprehensive proposal includes a team of seven sub-consultants authorized to work on the
study (Attachment A).
Based on the final scoring, the review board recommends Fehr & Peers be awarded the contract
for the Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors. The team, including prime
and sub-consultants, has extensive experience in transportation planning and engineering, with
recent experience performing studies of a similar nature. In addition, the team includes leaders
in emerging autonomous vehicle technology and its potential impact on transit operations.
VTA Staff negotiated with Fehr & Peers to reduce their cost without negatively impacting the
study or deliverables. The negotiated contract scope provides approximately 4,500 hours of
planning services from the prime and sub-consultant teams.
ALTERNATIVES:
The VTA Board of Directors could choose not to move forward with this contract at this time.
However, a delay in delivery of the final study will leave VTA without an effective plan for high
capacity transit and we will not meet the VTP 2050 update in March 2020.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will authorize up to $800,000 for consultant services for the Strategic Plan for
Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors. Appropriation for this expenditure is included in the
FY19 adopted 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program Fund Capital Budget, and is
funded 100% by 2000 Measure A.
SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (SBE) PARTICIPATION:
The small business enterprise (SBE) goal is 7.84%. The consultant has committed 8.9% SBE
participation for the contract.
STANDING COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
The Administration and Finance Committee met as a Committee of the Whole and received this
item as part of its February 21, 2019 Consent Agenda. The item was forwarded to the VTA
Board of Directors without comment.
Prepared by: Tamiko Percell
Memo No. 6842
ATTACHMENTS:
• S18181 Attachment A (PDF)
Attachment A
Firm Name Name Role Location
Fehr & Peers Bob Grandy Principal San Jose, CA
ARUP Chester Fung Sub Consultant San Francisco, CA
Enviroissues, Inc. Katie DeLeuw Sub Consultant - optional task Oakland, CA
IU Group Scott Daniels Sub Consultant - optional task Santa Clara County
Jarrett Walker + Associates Jarret Walker Sub Consultant Portland, OR
LTK Tom Matoff Sub Consultant - optional task Sacramento, CA
Noakro Consult LLC Debra Jones Sub Consultant Sacramento, CA
Strategic Economics, Inc. Nadine Fogarty Sub Consultant Berkeley, CA
Strategic Plan for Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors
List of Consultants
1/30/2019
Date: February 25, 2019
Current Meeting: March 7, 2019
Board Meeting: March 7, 2019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Chief Financial Officer, Raj Srinath
SUBJECT: Blossom Hill Station Joint Development - Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Policy-Related Action: Yes Government Code Section 84308 Applies: Yes
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the General Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with
Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC (a Joint Venture of Republic Urban Properties, Swenson, and
EAH Housing) for negotiation of the proposed terms and conditions of a Joint Development
Agreement for a Joint Development project at the Blossom Hill Station.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Directors adopted VTA’s current Joint Development Policy in 2009, and it
subsequently approved 25 locations as sites in the Joint Development portfolio, including the
Blossom Hill Station Park and Ride lot. Joint Development is mixed-use, mixed-income Transit
Oriented Development pursuant to Federal Transit Administration Joint Development Circular
requirements.
The three Joint Development program goals listed by priority in the Policy can be summarized
as: (1) generate a long-term stable source of revenues for VTA; (2) create high-quality transit-
oriented development with significant affordable housing that spurs creation of transit-oriented
communities; and (3) create development that generates ridership growth and/or enhances VTA
assets. Amendments by the Board of Directors to the Joint Development Policy established a
comprehensive affordable housing policy, with a goal for 35% of all residential units to be
affordable when the portfolio is built out, and a minimum requirement for each project to provide
at least 20% affordable units. The VTA Board also identified aspirations for community
workforce opportunities in Joint Development projects.
7.1
Page 2 of 6
Blossom Hill Station is located within the Blossom Hill Road/Cahalan Avenue Urban Village.
The City of San Jose has not yet adopted an Urban Village Plan for this location, therefore
development within the area may proceed subject to the City’s “Signature Project” criteria. Some
of the most important elements the City of San Jose requires for a Signature Project include:
• specific amount of jobs-producing square footage that is constructed before or concurrent
with residential units;
• substantial and publicly accessible open space; and
• high-quality architectural, landscape, and site design that is pedestrian-friendly.
In July 2018, VTA’s Real Estate & Joint Development Department issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for Blossom Hill Station. The RFP document required interested developers to
submit a detailed development proposal that describes how they would design, finance, build,
and manage the Joint Development project pursuant to a long-term ground lease from VTA. The
RFP was distributed to an extensive list of national, regional, and local developers experienced in
mixed-use development. VTA staff conducted a pre-proposal meeting for interested developers
to discuss the project with VTA staff and each other. VTA staff responded publicly to a number
of written questions from interested parties.
Prior to issuance of the RFP, VTA and the City of San Jose conducted a community meeting
near the site at Del Roble Elementary School to provide neighbors and community members with
an update on the Joint Development project, the upcoming RFP, and future plans for working
with the community once a developer is selected for an ENA. Feedback from this community
engagement was shared with the development community.
DISCUSSION:
Proposal Received
VTA received one qualified proposal by the November 2018 deadline. The qualified response
was submitted by a joint venture comprised of three distinct development entities - Republic
Urban Properties, Swenson, and EAH Housing - forming Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC
(“GRBH”). The GRBH proposal calls for 300 new rental residential units and 12,580 square feet
of retail space, plus 382 spaces of new shared project parking. Sixty-eight (68) of the apartments
would be affordable rentals, and 232 would be market-rate units. GRBH also proposes to restripe
the existing park-n-ride lot to provide up to 254 transit station parking spaces which would be
owned and maintained by VTA. GRBH proposes a ground lease with a term of 65 years.
The 232 market-rate units and approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space are
proposed for a single building owned and developed by a 50-50 partnership comprising Republic
Urban and Swenson. The proposed 68 affordable units would be in a connecting building with
approximately 2,850 square feet of commercial space owned and developed by EAH Housing.
Proposed Uses and Developer Entities in GRBH Proposal
7.1
Page 3 of 6
VTA Blossom Hill Station Parking: 254 Parking Spaces
Within the affordable apartment building, 10% of the units would be for families earning up to
30% of Area Median Income (Extremely Low Income); the remaining apartments would be for
families earning up to 50% of Area Median Income (Very Low Income).
GRBH Housing Type Detail
Market-
Rate
Affordable 7 units
@ ELI 61 units @
VLI
Studio Apartments 88 12
1-Bedroom Apartments 108 16
2-Bedroom Apartments 36 20
3-Bedroom Apartments 20
Sub-Total 232 68
TOTAL 300
The open space occurs throughout the proposal in new plazas near the transit station and the two
residential buildings; in a new publicly accessible picnic and play area adjacent to the Affordable
apartment building; and in a new bike/pedestrian trail which would be constructed along the
bank of Canoas Creek, under Highway 85, and connecting to Martial Cottle Park.
The new parking spaces occur in a combination of surface parking and structured parking
garages, including one level of below-grade parking. GRBH proposes 382 parking spaces to
serve the combined residential and commercial project, with some shared parking between the
buildings, subject to City’s approval and application of Transit Demand Management program.
GRBH also proposes to restripe the VTA park-n-ride lot to provide up to 254 onsite spaces,
which meets the requirement to provide at least 212 onsite spaces for transit station parking.
7.1
Page 4 of 6
Attachment A to this memorandum provides details on the proposal and program.
Consideration of a Single Proposal
Joint Development solicitations for sites with a federal interest, including Blossom Hill, are
subject to the guidance contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s Third-Party
Procurement Circular C 4220.1F (rev. 4, 03/18/2013). The receipt of a single proposal raises the
question of whether there was “adequate competition” pursuant to the Circular. Staff arranged
for a third-party consultant to interview developers who had interest in the RFP by registering to
receive information via VTA’s online procurement system. These interviews reinforced that few
developers were interested in submitting proposals, even when we queried whether a Request for
Qualification process would be simpler. Other factors contributing to the low response rate
identified in the interviews include increasing concerns about the financial feasibility of new
multifamily rental development, uncertainty about economic trends, and a resulting tendency by
development firms to focus on projects already in their “development pipeline.”
The RFP release was accompanied by press coverage in the San Jose Mercury News, Silicon
Valley Business Journal, Railway Track & Structures, Progressive Rail Roading, and other local
and national media outlets. Staff and third-party vendors publicized the opportunity through
professional networks and trade organizations. Numerous publicly advertised opportunities for
additional information followed, including a pre-proposal conference on July 26, 2018; a
published date for questions to be submitted in writing to VTA staff; and a publicly circulated
“Question & Answer” document to all entities and individuals who registered for the RFP on
VTA’s “Procurement and Solicitations” web portal.
Due to the feedback received during the exit interviews and the wide-ranging publicity given the
RFP during the solicitation period, staff believes that we have met the adequate competition test,
and is awaiting FTA’s review and concurrence with our conclusion.
Proposal Evaluation
The proposal was evaluated by VTA-retained experts in architecture and development
economics. A review panel consisting of two VTA Real Estate Project Managers; one VTA
Principal Planner; one community member appointed by Councilmember Khamis (the project
site is in District 10); the Deputy Director for Real Estate and Joint Development; and an
economist from BAE Urban Economics under contract to VTA, was convened to review the
technical evaluation, conduct an interview, and assess the proposal based on the criteria set forth
in the RFP, which include:
• the quality of the development proposal, including the affordable housing commitment;
• the proposed financial offer and other proposed terms and conditions, including benefits
such as community workforce opportunities;
• the proposed development team’s experience (including a reference check); and
• the financial capacity and financial strength of the proposed development team
7.1
Page 5 of 6
In a consensus decision, the panel concluded that the GRBH proposal meets VTA’s stated Joint
Development Policy goals, and recommends to the Board of Directors that the developer be
invited to an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) period, during which all parties can aim
to produce detailed project documentation including a Joint Development Agreement and
Ground Lease for consideration by the Board. A copy of the review panel’s report is contained in
Attachment B.
Recommendations for Exclusive Negotiations
The review panel recommends the following as a starting point for VTA’s negotiation objectives
during the ENA period:
(a) increase the financial offer to VTA starting with a higher ground rent in Year 4 and annual
escalation higher than 1.5% each year thereafter; or
(b) identify a “value capture” threshold - such as standard percentage rent agreement that has
a gross revenue threshold and would include future revenue from project parking;
(c) ensure the open space is located to serve the neighborhood and any new commercial
businesses. Aligning the open space in the required setback along the creek is efficient for
the site plan, but may not be optimal for usability and desirability of the open space; and
(d) specify that 300 is the minimum number of units, even if the city requirement for jobs-
producing space is higher than the proposal. If commercial space requirements are greater
than proposed, then the residential count should stay the same or increase.
Following the Board’s authorization of an ENA, the Joint Development staff, assisted by its
consultant team, will commence negotiations with this developer on the terms and conditions of
a Joint Development Agreement (“JDA”) and a long-term ground lease, which is expected to
take approximately one year through Spring 2020. At the conclusion of the ENA period, if
negotiations are successful, staff will present to the Board of Directors for approval the proposed
terms and conditions for a JDA, including contingencies for design and entitlement approvals,
permit requirements, financing commitments, and other conditions that would need to be
satisfied before VTA executes a ground lease agreement.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board of Directors direct staff to commence a new solicitation offering, or direct staff to re-
evaluate plans for Joint Development at Blossom Hill station.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Exclusive negotiations will require use of VTA consultants to assist with review of ongoing
developer submittals and negotiations. To the extent possible, VTA staff will seek to have the
selected developer reimburse these expenses (the proposal included a $25,000 check as initial
payment towards these expenses).
7.1
Page 6 of 6
Successful completion of a Joint Development project would result in VTA receiving ongoing
ground lease payments during the ground lease term as well as any direct financial contributions
from GRBH for station area enhancements.
STANDING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Administration and Finance Committee (A&F), meeting as a committee of the whole, heard
this item on Thursday, February 21, 2019. Chairperson Carr recommended that Staff add an
additional negotiation priority to ensure that the project is transit-forward and the station
entrance is visible and inviting to encourage riders accessing from outside the development.
Prepared by: Ron Golem
Memo No. 6513
ATTACHMENTS:
• ATTACHMENT A_GRBH Proposal Summary (PDF)
• ATTACHMENT B_Blossom Hill Station Review Panel Report (PDF)
• ATTACHMENT C_Key Participants (PDF)
7.1
Attachment A Proposal Summary
Attachment A: Proposal Summary Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC, a joint-venture company between
Republic Urban Properties, EAH Housing, and Swenson (“GRBH”)
Item GRBH Proposal
Residential Units 300 Residential Units
68 Affordable (23% of total)
232 Market-rate Units
Lease Term 65 years proposed.
GRBH has expressed a desire for a longer lease term.
Lease Payments Year 1 (Construction): $ 110,000 Year 2 (Construction): $ 110,000 Year 3: $ 0 Year 4: $200,00 Base Rent Annual Increases: Base Rent increases 1.5% each year thereafter Base Rent Adjusted: Year 20, 40, & 60 according to project’s Adjusted
Gross Income (AGI), estimated at 3% annually
Commercial Square Feet 12,580 sq. ft.
Concerns • Signature Project approval in an Urban Village is discretionary and
uncertain.
• Amount of commercial square feet is ~50% lower than previous city
requirements for projects of this size.
• Site uses and circulation optimized for vehicles - not for
pedestrians/residents/transit riders/neighbors.
Benefits • Public Trail connecting Blossom Hill Road with Martial Cottle Park &
Public open space with children’s play area.
• 68 Deeply affordable family-sized units, more than the city
requirement.
• Improvements to station area, such as bike share, coffee kiosk, and
privately maintained bathrooms for use by VTA staff & customers;
maintains 212 stalls (minimum) of transit station parking.
• 300 total new residential units (potentially more with City Signature
Project approval) on underutilized parking lots.
Total Revenue proposed (65 Years)
$ 50,911,086
Assuming 3% annual growth in adjusted growth income
Net Present Value (65 years) $ 7,400,622
Net Present Value is the present value of future cash inflows. Calculation assumes a 5% discount rate.
7.1.a
Attachment A Proposal Summary
GRBH Proposal Data
GRBH Proposed Unit Types and Sizes
Market-Rate Affordable Approximate Sq. Ft.
Studio Apartments 88 12 550
1-Bedroom Apartments 108 16 725
2-Bedroom Apartments 36 20 1000
3-Bedroom Apartments 20 1250
Sub-Total 232 68
TOTAL 300
GRBH Proposed Affordability Level
Affordability Range Proposed Units
Percentage
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI) 7 10%
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI) 61 90%
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 0 0%
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 0 0%
TOTAL 68 100%
*AMI = Area Median Income
Proposed Schedule for Negotiations and Project Development
Task Commence Conclude
Exclusive Negotiations (VTA) Spring 2019 Fall 2020
Signature Project Approval & Environmental Review (City) Fall 2019 Fall 2020
Joint Development Agreement & Ground Lease (VTA Board) Fall 2020
Building Permit Fall 2020 Spring 2021
Construction Spring 2021 Spring 2023
Lease-Up and Occupancy Summer 2023
Projected Potential Annual Revenue to VTA
Ground Lease Payments Stabilized Year $ 200,000
Fare Revenue from 210 new riders 2019 fares $ 125,791
Parking revenue from daily parking fees If approved $ 72,478
Total $ 400,000
Additional One-time payment for Station Area Enhancements
Year 1/2
$ 220,000
7.1.a
Attachment A Proposal Summary
GRBH Site Plan
Archway over Main Entrance
VTA Transit Parking
Market-rate Building
Affordable Apartment Bldg.
To Martial Cottle Park
7.1.a
Attachment A Proposal Summary
GRBH Site Program and Uses
7.1.a
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
Attachment B: Review Panel Summary Report Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC, a joint-venture company between
Republic Urban Properties, EAH Housing, and Swenson (“GRBH”)
A Review Panel was convened to evaluate proposals submitted by Developers responding to
VTA’s Request For Proposals (“RFP”) for a mixed-use development at Blossom Hill Station.
The Review Panel is comprised of two VTA Real Estate Project Managers; one VTA Principal
Planner; one community member appointed by Councilmember Khamis (the project site is in
District 10); the Deputy Director for Real Estate and Joint Development; and an economist from
BAE Urban Economics under contract to VTA. The panel also received expert advice from the
Dahlin Group, an Architecture and Urban Design firm under contract to VTA on issues of site
and building design.
Since there was only one proposal to evaluate, and therefore no need to compare and rank
competing proposals, the evaluation focused on either reaching a recommendation to advance to
the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (“ENA”) stage, or to identify any disqualifying
deficiencies and recommend a different course of action. During the analysis, the panel sought to
identify the following specific items:
1. Any deficiencies or disqualifying aspects in the proposal;
2. Elements of the proposal that were exemplary; and
3. Items recommended to be a focus of negotiation during the subsequent ENA period.
The Review Panel met several times in person and via telephone conferences; requested
additional information from GRBH; and conducted an in-person interview with 9 members of
the GRBH team in early December. Based on the quality of GRBH’s proposal, follow-up
information, and the interview, the panel is unanimous in its recommendation that VTA should
proceed into negotiations with GRBH for a Joint Development Agreement and Ground Lease for
Board approval.
Review Panel Findings on Evaluation Criteria
The proposal was evaluated against 4 Evaluation Criteria included in the RFP, which are
summarized below, followed by the panel’s findings for each category.
A. QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - VTA seeks development proposals for
high‐quality mixed‐use Transit‐Oriented Development (“TOD”) that represents best
practices, supports TOD on other adjacent and nearby sites, and maximizes benefits for
both VTA and the community.
The panel finds that the GRBH proposal is a high-quality mixed-use project that incorporates
best practices for site design and program. Examples of the best practices in the proposal that
were noted include:
• massing the buildings along Blossom Hill Road, to create an active street frontage
and improved pedestrian experience, with the benefit of placing the new homes
furthest away from the highway off-ramp
7.1.b
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
• Grouping the affordable housing units into a single building in order to position them
for competitive financing from state and local matching sources
• Ensuring that most the new project parking is concealed and hidden from the
pedestrian areas – but including a small amount of surface parking along the highly
visible entry street to support the ground-floor retail tenants
In terms of the proposed housing mix,
GRBH’s proposal exceeds the
requirements of the RFP and provides
an even greater number of affordable
units at very deep affordability levels.
The RFP calls for a minimum of 20%
affordable units with a requirement
for half of them to be “Low Income”
or below. GRBH is proposing 23% of the units to be
affordable; and all of the proposed units will be
reserved for Extremely Low and Very Low incomes.
Furthermore, over half of the affordable units are
proposed to be 2-BR and 3-BR apartment homes, which
are scarce in the area and will serve families who are
likely to develop long-term ties and involvement in
local insitutions, all of which maximize benefits for
VTA and the community.
Though only a conceptual site plan was submitted in the GRBH proposal, and no detailed
architectural drawings, the Panel noted the creativity and uniqueness of the proposed “Archway”
which spans the main entrance drive, and is topped by 3 levels of homes. This open span serves
to further define the street wall along Blossom Hill Rd; optimizes efficiency on a site constrained
by necessary setbacks from the freeway offramp and Canoas Creek; and adds a unique
architectural element - all of which supports the excellent design features that are required for
the City’s Urban Village “Signature Project” process.
GRBH proposes a new creekside trail from Blossom Hill Road northward to connect with
Martial Cottle Park, a community benefit that was requested by attendees at the VTA community
outreach meetings held in 2018. This pedestrian and bike connection to Blossom Hill Road is
also identified as a goal in the “State Park General Plan and County Park Master Plan” approved
by the County of Santa Clara in 2011 (p. 35). During the interview, the developer spoke about
the GRBH team’s experience working with both the County and SCVWD on other similar public
trail improvements in recent years. GRBH said they intend to seek funding from public sources
(e.g. SCVWD), which could be applied not only for easement and access rights for construction
of the trail but potentially toward ongoing maintenance funding. Though this proposed feature
takes advantage of a required Creek setback and could deliver a desirable community
enhancement – GRBH’s site plan currently overlaps the trail with other usable open space
(picnic areas, children’s play area) furthest away from the retail/restaurant spaces. Ideally the
active plazas and picnic areas would be adjacent to the retail stores, as customers would be more
Unit Type Total Average Rent
Studio 12 $ 1,012
1-Bedroom 16 $ 1,019
2-Bedroom 20 $ 1,167
3-Bedroom 20 $ 1,408
Total 68
Source: GRBH Proposal p. 95
Rent Level Total
30% AMI 7
40% AMI 14
50% AMI 46
Manager 1
Total 68
Source: GRBH Proposal p. 95
7.1.b
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
able to access them and also to prevent them from appearing to be “isolated” and potentially
attractive nuisances. The panel would like to see both the trail connection with other retail-
adjacent plaza amenities, and hopes both items can be incorporated into the final project.
Although high-quality aspects of the proposal were noted by the panel, other items the panel
recommends be further developed during an ENA period include:
• The amount of commercial square feet proposed does not meet the minimum stated by
officials in the City’s Planning Department and required by the RFP. Developer’s
reasoning for proposing 12,500 sq. ft. when 19,000 sq. ft. was requested is that anything
more than what they propose is not commercially viable according to their retail broker
experts. This adds to the entitlement risk, and also may not be enough “critical mass”
commercial space to appeal to a variety of tenants that will support the Urban Village
goals. If additional commercial space is required or proposed, it should not come at the
expense of any residential units. “Live-work” units may be one way to keep the
residential unit count and add commercial space.
• The Blossom Hill Archway, though architecturally interesting, may not be compatible
with the transit operations and auto access to the site, since there is only one auto
entrance. If the Archway is determined incompatible or infeasible during site design,
then the architecture and massing may need substantial revisions.
• The largest amount of open space is adjacent to the creek and in one of the least
accessible and least visible parts of the project. Further evaluation of whether additional
open space and plazas can be provided nearer to the retail/commercial stores should be
undertaken.
• Even though VTA’s Joint Development goals are to minimize automobile trips and
encourage transit ridership, the provision of new project parking plus the preservation of
transit parking may still be insufficient at this location. Further research into the parking
provision for both new residents and day-use transit parking, plus consideration of
parking management measures, will be necessary to minimize effects on nearby
neighborhoods and encourage transit ridership.
7.1.b
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
B. OFFER/TERMS TO VTA - VTA seeks financial proposals that maximize VTA’s long‐term financial return. VTA also seeks to maximize public benefits, including, but not
limited to, affordable housing, a quantifiable increase in community workforce
opportunities, and station access and area enhancements.
Over 65 years, GRBH has proposed to return $ 50,911,086 in total consideration to VTA, with a
net present value of $7.4 million. That number includes a one-time contribution of funds during
the construction phase of $220,000 that would be earmarked for station area enhancements such
as new lighting, planting, signage, etc. The next payments to VTA would not occur until Year 4
after the project commences construction, i.e. the year the developer expects the project to
stabilize, and would escalate at 1.5% annually with periodic adjustments based on Adjusted
Gross Income in Year 20, 40, and 60.
The development economics expert on the panel states this type of valuation process is widely
used in ground lease transactions of this type, as it allows for VTA to capture increased value in
the future, a key feature ground lease transactions for the real property owner. Based on the value
of the land used in the developer’s submitted pro forma, however, the proposed initial base rent
may not reflect today’s land value – so the escalated rent payments compute to lower annual
ground rent payments than they otherwise would. Typical ground leases for similarly sized and
located projects also have re-assessment dates more often than proposed by GRBH (which
proposes adjustment in Year 20, 40, and 60 only). The panel recommends that these terms,
including the starting base rent, should be discussed in more detail during the ENA period, and
examples of other market-rate ground leases should be used to identify the best practices for
these types of transactions.
The Blossom Hill Station would benefit from $220,000 worth of improvements to the Station
Area, but the increased ridership and use the station will get as a result of this development may
warrant a larger funding allocation from the transaction. The provision of affordable housing,
particularly the family-sized units, and the proposal to provide 68 of them when only 60 are
required by the City - is an excellent benefit. The development partnership of Swenson and RUP
have each demonstrated experience working with local apprentice labor and maintaining labor
peace on other major mixed-use projects in San Jose, which was confirmed by our reference
checks, and will be a community benefit during the construction period.
The panel concludes that GRBH’s proposal is on its way to maximizing VTA’s long-term
financial return. Ensuring the best possible value for VTA as the property owner (for instance by
establishing Year 1 rent at a higher base land value which reflects of the market value of the
property; and ensuring the AGI re-sets can occur more often than every 20 years); then the
overall financial return to VTA could be maximized.
7.1.b
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
C. RESPONDENT TEAM EXPERIENCE - VTA seeks demonstrated experience within the
Respondent team with: (i) the successful development and operation of one or more
mixed‐use housing projects similar to what is envisioned for the Blossom Hill Station
Park and Ride Lot, including the ability to successfully work with public agencies and
diverse communities; and (ii) the successful completion of multiple affordable housing
development projects that utilize Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and/or other
public and private sources of funds.
GRBH is a joint venture of three development companies that each have extensive
experience with VTA, City of San Jose, and mixed-use developments. We performed
reference checks on each of the 3 entities, with development partners, financial lenders, and
agency partners (VTA would be an agency partner), and received very good references for
all three.
Republic Urban is in development on two projects with municipal or agency oversight (one
in Millbrae and one in Morgan Hill), on which they are performing on time, on budget.
They are also in negotiation with VTA on separate site in San Jose which and members of
the Review Panel who work directly with them have found them responsive and performing
to expectations, and their experience in working on a VTA transit site is advantageous.
EAH Housing, the affordable housing developer, owns numerous affordable housing
projects in San Jose although they haven’t constructed a new one in this jurisdiction in over
a decade. Our reference checks of EAH indicate they are an outstanding developer, with
several projects built ground-up in nearby jurisdictions that include transit adjacency and
TOD features such as transit passes for residents, car-sharing, etc. They have an excellent
track record in securing funding and tax credit financing for these projects, as well. Their
proposal to utilize state 4% tax credits along with City of San Jose housing funds is
bolstered by the large family-sized units and deep affordability proposed, meaning they are
likely to receive the funding as proposed.
Swenson, who is proposed as a 50% JV partner with Republic Urban on the market-rate
portion of the project, also has good relevant experience. They have built numerous multi-
family apartment buildings in areas adjacent to VTA rail routes, for instance along the North
First Street light rail corridor and at Tamien Station. They are experienced within San Jose,
and can build on their 20+ years of experience with city of San Jose planning and approval
processes. Swenson, who is proposed to be the General Contractor on the project as well as
one of the project developers, has developed specific cost-containing processes for
construction and development that could benefit the Blossom Hill project.
Overall, the Review Panel concluded that this team has excellent experience and a very good
track record in their individual capacities, and believes they will work well together as a joint
venture.
7.1.b
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
D. FINANCIAL CAPACITY AND STRENGTH OF THE RESPONDENT TEAM - VTA seeks
a Respondent who has the capability to obtain financing for the proposed Project, as
demonstrated by its previous history of completed projects, as well as current financing
activities for pending projects.
All three development entities comprising the Joint Venture presented strong company-level
financials. Each of the 3 firms that are part of the joint venture identified sources of financing
and provided letters of interest from lenders and potential equity sources, and reference checks to
lenders and financial partners were performed on each one.
In speaking with one national lender who has worked with EAH on new construction over the
past 5 years (2012-2017), they have successfully closed loans ranging up to $13 million dollars
with no problem, and in each case leveraged those funds with various public sources as well.
Another financing partner with EAH rated them as “exceeding expectations” and “among the
best” with regards to obtaining financing, meeting financial obligations, and completing new
construction projects without incident.
According to two different financial partners (lenders) for Swenson, they have never defaulted
on a loan or been late in payments. Similarly, Republic Urban submitted documentation for
financing packages up to $70 million dollars, and they have recently completed construction and
opened up a transit-adjacent multi-family project with every retail space leased up and occupied,
in a market where many other developers often leave ground-floor retail space vacant. Republic
Urban’s success in leasing and opening ground-floor retail in its mixed-use projects is an
indicator that their proposed retail at Blossom Hill is likely to be occupied and may catalyze
neighborhood activity for future growth in that Urban Village.
Summary of Review Panel Findings
In conclusion, the Review Panel finds that the proposal meets minimum standards in all of the
Evaluation Criteria – and exceeds the criteria in several (i.e experience with ground leases;
experience with agencies and VTA; experience obtaining financing with uncertain entitlements;
familiarity with this area and neighborhood). The panel recommends that VTA enter into
negotiations with Green Republic Blossom Hill.
If negotiations are authorized by the VTA Board of Directors, then the panel recommends trying
to improve the proposal in the following areas:
• Design and Architecture. Ensure the ultimate architectural design along Blossom Hill
Road encourages further development in the Urban Village. If the architectural archway is
infeasible, replace that design feature with other interesting elements. Ensure the open
space is distributed throughout the site – the trail connection on Canoas Creek is good but
other areas may be better positioned closer to retail and residential buildings where they
are more likely to be used.
• Financial Terms. Negotiate a fair and equitable base rent based on current market value
of the land. Consider escalation and AGI re-set more frequently than every 20 years.
Ensure enough money is dedicated for station area improvements to benefit transit riders
and encourage more transit ridership in the future.
• Parking and Other Uses. Ensure the provision of parking is adequate for both the short-
term and the long-term, as parking needs are likely to evolve as the region transitions to
7.1.b
Attachment B – Review Panel Summary
more transit- and micro-mobility users. Ensure transit patron parking is sufficient to
encourage ridership. Make sure the buildings are situated so that access to parking and
station operations are not impeded, and also that adequate parking is identified for patrons
of the retail spaces and guests of the future residents.
7.1.b
Attachment C Key Participants
Attachment C: Key Participants Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC, a joint-venture company between
Republic Urban Properties, EAH Housing, and Swenson (“GRBH”)
Firm Name Key Person Role Location:
Swenson Case Swenson President San Jose
Republic Urban
Properties
Michael Van
Every
President & CEO San Jose
EAH Housing Welton Jordan Vice President San Rafael
HMH Engineers Ray Hashimoto Principal San Jose
WRT Landscape &
Urban Design Planning
James Stickley Principal San Francisco
7.1.c
Blossom Hill StationDeveloper Selection
Item No. XXX
Blossom Hill StationDeveloper Selection
Item No. 7.1
Oakridge Urban Village
Blossom Hill CahalanUrban Village (Horizon 2)
Blossom Hill Snell Urban Village
VTA’s TOD Policy Goals
▪ Generate a long-term, stable revenue source
▪ Affordable housing
▪ Enhance ridership growth and transit assets
SITE
City’s “Signature Project” Requirements
▪ Include commercial uses to spur job growth
▪ Offer community benefits
▪ Catalyze and support future growth
Blossom Hill RFP Preparation
January 2018 VTA CSJ Community meeting to get neighborhood input:• traffic • new trail to park • housing affordability
Spring 2018 VTA consultation with city staff on Urban Village Plan“Signature Project” process and requirements
July 2018 VTA published Request for Proposals (RFP)
October 2018 VTA CSJ Community meeting
November 2018 Responses due to VTA
VTA Goals and RFP Requirements :
• Quality proposal from an experienced team that can design, finance, operate
• Maximize long-term revenue to VTA
• Minimum 20% of units as affordable housing
• Create community workforce opportunities
• Developer obtain entitlements & lead community outreach
7.6 Acres
RFP Outreach and Publicity:
• Covered by San Jose Mercury News, Business Journal, & other media
• Online & Print Distribution – 100+ firms received
• Pre-proposal conference attendance 35+ firms
• Published on VTA’s Procurement portal
• Q&A e-blast to all portal registrants
• Outreach via VTA vendors, consultants, & broker community
One proposal received by November 2, 2018 deadline
Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC
Republic Urban Properties
Swenson EAH Housing
Market-Rate HousingGround-floor Retail
Affordable HousingGround-floor Retail
VTA Blossom Hill Station Parking – Park n Ride
Proposed Program and Uses
300 Residential Units (23% Affordable)12,500 Square Feet Retail
21,600 Square Feet Open Space
232 Market-Rate ApartmentsStudio, 1-BR, 2-BR
10,000 Sq. Ft. Retail
68 Affordable Apartments1-BR, 2-BR, 3-BRUp to 50% AMI
2,500 Sq. Ft. Retail
VTA continues to operate Blossom Hill Station Parking – 254 Spaces
Shared Project Parking - 382 New Spaces
Trail to Martial Cottle Park, Plazas, Picnic & Play Areas
Archway over Main Entrance
VTA Transit Parking
Market-rate Building
2.59 Acre Site
Affordable Apartment Bldg.
.64 Acre Site
To Martial Cottle Park
GRBH Proposed Site Plan
Lease Term 65 years proposed
Lease Payments Year 1 (Construction): $ 110,000 for station improvements
Year 2 (Construction): $ 110,000 for station improvements
Year 3: $ 0
Year 4: $ 200,00 Base Rent
Base Rent Increases: by 1.5% each year thereafter
Base Rent Adjusted: Year 20, 40, & 60 per Project’s actual
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Total Revenue proposed
(65 Years)$ 50,911,086
assuming 3% annual growth in AGINet Present Value
(@ 5% discount)$ 7,400,622
Proposed Financial Terms
VTA Review Panel Recommendations
• Recommendation for VTA to enter into an ENA with Green Republic Blossom Hill LLC
• Negotiation recommendations:
• Maximize density (minimum of 90 unit/acre)
• More frequent rent adjustments that track market growth
• Increase visibility & usability of public open space
• Provide access trail to Martial Cottle Park
• Provide adequate parking for collective uses
Q&A:
System Safety
▪ Audits• CPUC 2017 Triennial Audit
• Internal Audits - System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)
▪ Program Updates• SSPP Update
• Accident Investigation Procedures (SOP 530)
▪ Employee Safety▪ SSTPO Committee Presentations
➢ Safety Vest Policy
➢ Hazard Management Program
➢ Blood Born Pathogens
mcgraw_a
Text Box
8.1
Date: February 28, 2019
Current Meeting: March 7, 2019
Board Meeting: March 7, 2019
BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez
FROM: Chief Engineering & Program Delivery Officer, Carolyn M. Gonot
SUBJECT: Silicon Valley Rapid Transit (SVRT) Program Update
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension Project
VTA and BART continue to test the Project’s Systems from the Project Test Center (PTC), with
compilation and review of test documents underway. These activities are anticipated to be
completed in late March with turnover to BART anticipated in the late March or April
timeframe. Preparations for transfer of controls from the PTC to BART’s Operation Control
Center (OCC) began in February. BART is expected to develop a work plan for the transfer of
controls, and a list of PTC equipment to be turned over to BART has been compiled by VTA.
Phase II Extension Activities
In November 2018, VTA submitted an Expression of Interest to participate in the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA) Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program (EPD). The EPD pilot
program is intended to expedite the normal evaluation processes through reduced regulatory
requirements in comparison to FTA’s traditional Capital Investment Grant Program (CIG),
which includes the New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity programs.
VTA previously anticipated that FTA would issue a list of projects to be accepted into the
program by early 2019. However, due in part to the shutdown of the federal government during
January 2019, FTA has yet to issue a project list for the EPD pilot program.
On February 15, 2019 President Trump signed the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019” that
provides $2.6 billion for FTA’s CIG program, of which $100 million is allocated for EPD. VTA
continues to pursue participation in EPD, and the development of the pilot program through the
development of materials that will be proposed for inclusion in an application, and participation
in an American Public Transportation Association (APTA) working group that is assisting FTA
in the development of program guidance.
8.1.B
Page 2 of 2
Community Working Groups
The Phase II Community Working Groups for the Downtown San Jose/Diridon, Alum Rock and
Santa Clara station areas met February 5-7, 2019. Agendas for the working groups included
updates on Phase II activities, Caltrain Electrification, Diridon Station Integrated Concept Plan,
and VTA’s Transit-oriented Development Strategy & Access Planning Study. The groups are
scheduled to next meet April 16-18, 2019.
Prepared By: Kevin Kurimoto, Sr. Management Analyst
Memo No. 6776
8.1.B
VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project
Creating Transit-Oriented Communities
1
Item 8.1B
Board of DirectorsMarch 7, 2019
• TODs include both VTA-led and private developments that provide a wide range of housing, employment, and recreational choices.
• TOCs exist where multiple TODs work together to create pedestrian- and mobility- centric environments around transit stations.
• Both TODs and TOCs lead to increased transit ridership
Transit-Oriented Communities (TOCs) and
Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) - Defined
22
• unique opportunity to shape the future of the
station areas thanks to a multi-billion-dollar
infrastructure investment
• a cohesive transit-oriented-development (TOD)
strategy is essential to obtaining federal
funding
• our station areas can accommodate more
development than is currently planned
• need to address current policies and
challenges that inhibit the success of TOD
• Increased ridership ensures a return on
investment for transit infrastructure and
community benefits
VTA’s BART Silicon Valley and TOCs
3
TOD Strategy Study
Kick-off: January 2018 Estimated Completion: Summer 2019
Alum Rock/28th
Street Station
Downtown San José Station
Santa Clara Station
Diridon Station (Separate Effort)
Land Use
(TOD) Strategy
•realizing and enhancing
the vision for growth
around future stations
•strategies to increase
investment in TOD
•detailed implementation
steps to catalyze TOD
Access
Planning
multimodal
access planning
to support TOD
and growth in
station areas
4
• City collaboration is essential for
Study’s success:
• monthly coordination meetings
with City staff
• City, BART, and VTA staff involved
in Technical Advisory Group
City and Agency Engagement
5
• stakeholder briefings• community organizations, local stakeholders
• public workshops and presentations• interactive workshops with Community Working Groups
Stakeholder Engagement
Join us
April 16th - 18th
as we preview
strategies at
our final CWG
Workshops!
• define study area boundaries
• review previous planning efforts and existing conditions
• evaluate existing transportation network
background conditions
Jan.-May 2018
• identify opportunity sites and station area access needs
• formulate TOD prototypes and identify TOD potential
• evaluate development capacity and TOD barriers
corridor opportunities and constraints
Mar.-Sept. 2018
• strategies to create a market for TOD
• anti-displacement strategies
• guidelines for public and private improvements
• funding and implementation strategies
implementation strategies and tools
Oct.- June 2019
• compile findings and recommendations
• distribute draft final report to public
• present implementation strategies to city councils & public
final report
June 2019
Study Phases
we are here
7
Potential for TOD (2018-2040)
Santa Clara Station
Downtown San José
Station
Alum Rock/28th Street Station
San José Diridon Station Area Plan
(studied through a separate effort)
8
• provide a “path to TOCs playbook” that includes
guidance for cities to realize Transit-Oriented
Communities around each BART Station
Study Outcome
• land use and zoning recommendations to support balanced, 24-hour places
• development guidelines for creating pedestrian-friendly environments
• prioritized infrastructure and access improvements to serve Transit-Oriented Communities
• policies that facilitate good Transit-Oriented Development
• increased transit ridership
• financing tools for implementation
9
• finalize strategies in coordination with City
partners
• City Council study sessions
• public engagement
– community presentations, online postings, etc.
• present recommended strategies to VTA Board
(mid-2019)
• present recommended strategies to City
Councils (mid-2019)
Next Steps
10
Questions?
11
Governance and Audit Committee
Thursday, February 7, 2019
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee (“Committee”) was called
to order at 4:03 p.m. by Chairperson O’Neill in Conference Room 157, County
Government Center, 70 West Hedding, San Jose, California.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Larry Carr Member Present
Cindy Chavez Vice Chairperson Present
Raul Peralez Member Present
Teresa O'Neill Chairperson Present
Vacant Member N/A
A quorum was present.
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:
There were no Public Presentations.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
There were no Orders of the Day.
CONSENT AGENDA
4. Regular Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2018
M/S/C (Chavez/Peralez) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of
December 6, 2018.
5. 2019 Governance and Audit Committee Meeting Schedule
M/S/C (Chavez/Peralez) to approve the 2019 Governance and Audit Committee
Meeting Schedule.
NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
8.4.a
Governance and Audit Committee Minutes Page 2 of 4 February 7, 2019
6. Appointments to VTA Policy Advisory Boards
M/S/C (Chavez/Peralez) to ratify appointments to the VTA Policy Advisory Boards.
7. VTA Ethics Hotline Program Quarterly Report
M/S/C (Chavez/Peralez) to review and receive the VTA Ethics Hotline Program
Jay Tyree, Senior Transportation Planner, provided a presentation titled “2019 New
Transit Service Plan,” highlighting the following: 1) Background; 2) VTA Board
direction for the 2019 New Transit Service Plan; 3) Two types of transit routes;
4) Fundamentals of the Next Network service plan; 5) Proposed light rail service; 6) Bus
service improvements; 7) Bus service cuts; 8) Ridership impact; 9) More county residents
and jobs near frequent transit; 10) Other impacts to be analyzed; 11) Community
engagement update; and 12) Next steps;.
Members of the Committee provided the following comments: 1) inquired about the
current versus previous level of transit service; and 2) expressed concern on the impacts
of the proposed new transit service to communities of concern.
On order of Chairperson Stallman, and there being no objection, the Committee
received the Proposal for 2019 New Transit Service Plan.
11. 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grants
Program Draft Criteria
Ms. Shinn provided an overview of the staff report, explaining the criteria for the 2016
Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grants.
Members of the Committee provided the following comments: 1) inquired how projects
will be scored; 2) eligibility of an improvement project making it accessible to people
with disability; 3) areas negatively affected by the 2019 New Transit Service Plan should
score high; 4) inquired about means to measure current traffic level; 5) eligibility of new
projects, projects underway, and projects already identified in 2016 Measure B; and
6) timeline of the competitive grants program.
8.4.b
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 5 of 6 February 13, 2019
Public Comment:
Betsy Megas, Interested Citizen, suggested adding general language and not limiting key
connections to only schools, transit or employment centers.
On order of Chairperson Stallman, and there being no objection, the Committee
received the 2016 Measure B Bicycle & Pedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grants
Program Draft Criteria.
12. Draft Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Education and Encouragement Program
Ms. Ledbetter provided an overview of the staff report, describing the Countywide
education and encouragement activities.
Members of the Committee provided the following comments: 1) get involved with
activities of local jurisdictions; 2) interact with safety organizations in the county;
3) conduct public outreach; and 4) fund adult education programs that would change
behavior, recommending the review of the book titled “Fostering Sustainable Behavior.”
On order of Chairperson Stallman, and there being no objection, the Committee
received the draft Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Education and Encouragement
Program.
OTHER
13. Reports from BPAC Subcommittees
• Best Practices for Transit Operators Training
Vice Chairperson Fearer reported that the Subcommittee met on February 4,
2019, and plans to conclude by June 2019. The next meeting will be held on
March 4, 2019.
• Across Barrier Connections
There was no report from the Across Barrier Connections Subcommittee.
14. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog
Committee (CWC) Report
Member Wadler provided a report on the changes to the CAC Membership structure.
On order of Chairperson Stallman, and there being no objection, the Committee
received the CAC/CWC Report.
15. BPAC Work Plan
Ms. Ledbetter provided an overview of the work plan and provided a list of queue items.
On order of Chairperson Stallman, and there being no objection, the Committee
reviewed the BPAC Work Plan.
8.4.b
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes Page 6 of 6 February 13, 2019
16. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Ex-Officio Member Cordes announced that the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, in
coordination with the City of San Jose, will have a series of infrastructure bicycle rides.
The first ride is scheduled on March 23, 2019.
Member Lindskog announced that the City of Cupertino approved a feasibility study for a
dedicated bicycle and pedestrian trail.
Member Wadler announced that the Bike Academy will start on February 23, 2019.
Member Unangst announced that the Mountain View City Council unanimously
approved a development project that will include a pathway to access a future tunnel
crossing Central Expressway.
Vice Chairperson Fearer announced that the City of San Jose will have two (2) Viva
Calle events this year. The first event is scheduled on May 19, 2019, and the other will be
during the fall season. She also announced that the Walk to Work Day event is scheduled
on April 10, 2019.
Chairperson Stallman encouraged the BPAC to attend the New Transit Service Plan
public meetings.
17. ADJOURNMENT
On order of Chairperson Stallman, and there being no objection, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Diaresco, Board Assistant
VTA Office of the Board Secretary
8.4.b
Policy Advisory Committee
Thursday, February 14, 2019
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular Meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was called to order at 4:07 p.m.
by Chairperson Miller in Conference Room B-106, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA),
3331 North First Street, San José, California.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Anne Bybee City of Campbell Absent Landry, Susan (Alternate) City of Campbell Absent Darcy Paul City of Cupertino Present Steven Scharf (Alternate) City of Cupertino NA Marie Blankley City of Gilroy Absent Fred Tovar (Alternate) City of Gilroy Absent Lynette Lee Eng City of Los Altos Present Neysa Fligor (Alternate) City of Los Altos NA Kavita Tanhka Town of Los Altos Hills Absent Vacant (Alternate) Town of Los Altos Hills Steve Leonardis Town of Los Gatos Absent Marico Sayoc (Alternate) Town of Los Gatos Absent Karina Dominguez City of Milpitas Present Vacant (Alternate) City of Milpitas - Javed Ellahie City of Monte Sereno Present Shawn Leuthold (Alternate) City of Monte Sereno NA Rich Constantine City of Morgan Hill Absent Yvonne Beltran Martinez (Alternate) City of Morgan Hill Absent Lisa Matichak City of Mountain View Present Margaret Abe-Koga (Alternate) City of Mountain View NA Liz Kniss City of Palo Alto Present Vacant (Alternate) City of Palo Alto - Sergio Jimenez City of San Jose Present Vacant (Alternate) City of San Jose - Raj Chahal City of Santa Clara Present Karen Hardy (Alternate) City of Santa Clara NA Howard Miller City of Saratoga Present Rishi Kumar (Alternate) City of Saratoga NA Glenn Hendricks City of Sunnyvale Present Nancy Smith (Alternate) City of Sunnyvale NA Mike Wasserman SCC Board of Supervisors Present
A quorum was not present.
8.4.b
Policy Advisory Committee Minutes Page 2 of 6 February 14, 2019
2. ORDERS OF THE DAY
Chairperson Miller noted a Member of the Committee’s request to move Agenda
Item #7., Election Process for 2019 PAC Committee Leadership: Conduct Elections,
towards the end of the Regular Agenda.
3. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
There were no Public Presentations.
4. Committee Staff Report
Jim Lawson, Director of Government & Public Relations and Staff Liaison, provided a
brief report, highlighting the following: 1) a summary of actions taken by the VTA Board
of Directors (Board) at the February 7, 2019, meeting; 2) announced VTA held a Lunar
New Year Celebration in the Auditorium earlier in the afternoon; 3) announced VTA was
recognized by Cristo Rey High School for VTA’s participation in their Internship Program;
4) announced VTA will hold two groundbreaking ceremonies in March 2019 for the
Mathilda Avenue Interchange Improvements Project and the US 101 and State Route 237
Phase 3 Express Lanes Project.
Mr. Lawson introduced Jane Shinn, Senior Management Analyst, who provided an update
regarding 2016 Measure B. Ms. Shinn noted she would provide to the Committee the
allocations the Board approved for each city.
5. Chairperson’s Report
Chairperson Miller noted that VTA staff will distribute the remainder of the
commemorative checks to those cities unable to attend the January 30, 2019, press event
to announce the release of transportation funding dollars collected through 2016
Measure B.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. Regular Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2018
M/S/C (Wasserman/Hendricks) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of
