BUILDING
BETTER TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
|
|
Meeting Report |
|
October 6, 2003 |
PRESENT: Chair
David Cortese, Vice Chair Linda LeZotte, Vice Mayor Pat Dando, Councilmember
Forrest Williams Councilmember Cindy Chavez
STAFF: Ed
Shikada, Bill Hughes, Bill Ekern, Jim Helmer, Hans Larsen, Ben Tripousis,
Laurel Prevetti, Betsy Shotwell
a) Expansion and Improvement of Transit and
Transportation Systems
1. Status Report on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Project
Chair Cortese asked if it was appropriate to have this report cross-referenced at the Council meeting of October 21, 2003. Ben stated that it would be strictly an update. Chair Cortese stated that that would be his preference.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked what are BART’s core improvements that are being deferred?
Kelly Doyle, Associate Transportation Specialist, Department of Transportation, stated that they would be improvements to the system that exists now, parking, elevators, other station improvements to the system as they exist today that would be impacted by bringing BART to San José.
Councilmember Williams noted that some of the data indicated that Market Street would have more passengers. Ben stated that that was the highest passenger ridership station on the line.
Vice Mayor Dando earlier related this to discussion in regards to land use and how we tie this into transportation. The Berryessa flea market area is looking at thousands of units to be built there when deciding where stations should be built is going to have a huge impact on whether we build the units there. Santa Clara 1F, what does that do to our connection to the airport?
Ben stated that it builds to Santa Clara. The people mover connection would still be feasible.
The Committee discussed the idea of a cross-reference item on the Council agenda for October 21, 2003, and Bill Hughes stated that that would generate another item on the agenda and we might instead simply want to have staff available at the meeting to report out an update, since no action was needed.
Upon a motion of Vice Chair LeZotte, seconded by Councilmember Williams the Committee approved the report with direction to provide a brief update at the October 21, 2003 Council meeting.
b) Traffic Relief/Safe Streets
1. No items
c) Supporting Smart Growth
1. Presentation on the cumulative Land Use / Transportation General Plan changes
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Hans Larsen, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, and Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director, Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, and they gave a PowerPoint presentation including trends and changes to the General Plan (GP) since Council approved in 2000, and how it relates to the work program along with an overview of General Plan strategies, themes and trends of recent GP amendments, implications for Level of Service (LOS) policy update, and the implications for VTP2030. Some of the GP strategies include: mix land uses, building affordable housing, creating transportation choices, creating a walkable community, integrating land use and transportation, foster reverse commute, and locating job centers proximate to housing areas. Theses of recent GP amendments include: creating residential and mixed use opportunities along transit corridors and near downtown, increasing residential densities in strategic locations, preserving existing neighborhoods through density reduction, adding new transit cores and corridors, enhancing bicycle network, enhancing pedestrian priority areas, and augmenting scenic routes and trails.
Hans
gave an overview of the Level of Service (LOS) policy. The LOS is vital to
bridge the gap between land use and transportation. It does not support the
land use density that’s called out in the General Plan. It is important to
update the LOS policy so that we have a consistency between our transportation
policies and our land use policies contained in the General Plan. The schedule
is as follows: currently we are embarking on our community outreach process,
meeting with developer industry groups, housing advisory group, and some
special stake holders, and public meetings will be held in November. This will
go to the Planning Commission and Council November/December time frame. The
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be out for public circulation in
December/January and the formal hearings on the EIR and action by Council is
scheduled for March 2004.
Councilmember
Williams asked how the determination is made about setting the level of
service, in the sense of density, automobiles? How do you set a policy saying
this is what ought to be because of the higher density?
Hans
answered by stating that the direction of the LOS policy recognizes certain
parts of the city where we accommodate level of service for cars as a priority
and other areas where we focus on other transportation modes. In the past
automobile LOS is dictated by development and mitigations. The update to the
LOS policy says that in areas such as downtown focus on transit and pedestrian
mode, and we are looking to shape the street system and streetscape to be
pedestrian friendly, and may be congested for automobiles.
Councilmember
Williams then asked how we were going to handle the vehicles coming in or would
we suggest public transportation to get downtown, what is an acceptable
solution?
Jim
Helmer stated that there would be a distinction on corridors. He said for
example the Coleman / 880 interchange will make a good connection to the
airport and the downtown. Coleman will be a primary car access and will not
have a large emphasis on bus rapid transit or pull outs for buses, on the other
hand, a street like Santa Clara Street might have more of a focus on other
modes of transportation because the street is built out sidewalk to sidewalk
and there is no opportunity to gain auto capacity so improvements are focused
on transit (pedestrian, bicycle), and the quality of life to the residence
behind the businesses.
Chair
Cortese asked how vulnerable would the EIR / CEQA process be to the lack of
certainty around the VTP? There is documentation that the plan cannot be built
out time wise. From a policy or legal standpoint does that give rise to any
concerns on your part?
Laurel
stated that from the planning process it does not give us concern from the CEQA
process, as we are looking at existing conditions and what is on the ground and
we are modeling existing LOS and a certain projection of future LOS based on
the general plan, and we will be okay legally in terms of having a solid document.
In regards to the timing, it has come up in some of the neighborhood
discussions, why are we adding density to our general plan when transit is
years out and we remind them that the planning stages are for years out, and we
do not want to loose opportunities as they present themselves. We believe that
there are less costly improvements that can be made to our bus service that
could support the types of densities in question. We are trying to accommodate
the housing demand that we have in our community and putting them in
appropriate locations where we have existing or future infrastructure.
Vice
Mayor Dando asked if there was any follow up to any kind of a trigger that
would be built in with development as these improvements come on line? What
comes first in terms of reinforcing the multimodal transportation system and
identify funding priorities and aligning transportation investments with
economic development and housing. How do we move forward, environmentally, and
do we build the housing and the jobs and then bring in the transportation once
we identify how to pay for it?
Hans
answered that this is a tough policy question and that the opportunities for
each, whether there is a development interest in a corridor sometimes we follow
the interest of the money and it is difficult to organize in a perfect
scenario. The discussion on the VTP 2030 is an opportunity to look at from a
policy perspective the regional investments and the timing in our local
priority that strategically select investments that accommodate future planning
development so we have the infrastructure there before the development or we
are wrestling with the areas where we have the development and not the
transportation and fix later. Unfortunately we do not have the funding to do everything
at once.
Vice
Mayor Dando stated that that is the real issue, do we continue to allow
building in certain areas when our budget may not fit with all of our
transportation desires, and how do we prioritize those? The community does not
always see or agree with our planning.
Chair
Cortese expressed concern about operational issues, not just Council issues
concerning transit, and it raises the question what we want as a Council from a
policy standpoint to have something that says there needs to be certainty
within a five year window.
Hans
stated that the LOS specifically would come back to Council with an
informational memo in the December timeframe, including the results of the
community outreach, then back to Council formally in March. Community meetings
will be done geographically and DOT will be working with Council offices on the
dates and locations.
Upon
a motion of Vice Chair LeZotte, seconded by Vice Mayor Dando the Committee
approved the report.
d)
Regional
Relationships/Funding/Policy
1. Update on State, Federal, and Local Legislative - Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) / Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) task force update
Betsy Shotwell, Assistant to the City Manager, Intergovernmental Relations, gave a brief overview on the report.
Upon a motion of Vice Chair
LeZotte, seconded by Vice Mayor Dando the Committee approved the report.
Hans Larsen, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation reported that this is the second of four reports planned for the Committee working towards preparing a new VTP 2030, which is updated every three years. Our goal is to get City input on our effort to the VTA by December 2003. The goal is to identify projects for the broad 25-year plan, how we would like to build out our regional transportation system, secondly the VTA is asking us to select priorities that will form a ten year plan. This report is focused on the highway element and next month will focus on bike / pedestrian improvements and the transit. He then gave a presentation the background and City goals of the VTP 2030, regional funding summary, discretionary funding allocation, current needs for San José, the selection criteria for City priorities (regional and other), and the process steps.
Vice Mayor Dando wanted to know about the economic development side and how it relates to transportation improvements, specifically Santana Row and Valley Fair area that are challenging. Have we looked at the possibility of local transportation assessments for particular developments? She shared her experience in a Denver shopping center when you bought something at the mall on her receipt there was a line item before the tax line that stated it was a transportation assessment. She stated that the city fronted the money for the development and this was the way it was collected to be repaid.
Hans thought that was a good financing mechanism, and we do have assessment districts in parts of our city.
Vice Mayor Dando stated that the assessment that she experienced was that the people that use the area actually pay for it. Some of the money was used to maintain the grounds as well as the transportation improvements.
Bill Hughes, City Attorney’s Office, stated he thought that sounded like a sales tax. He has not heard of anything in California scheme for assessing on the basis of a retail sale. It is a possible that it is an assessment against the property owner that they are passing along by way of assessing the retail.
Hans explained the comprehensive countywide expressway study and the discretionary funding allocation by stating that within the study they identified a set of priorities, and what was included in this report was the projects in San José that were part of the tier 1 priorities that came out of the expressway study.
Vice Chair LeZotte clarified tier 1A and not 1B because Lawrence expressway was not listed. Hans said that was correct, just includes tier 1A, and that could be from the City’s perspective we want to make a greater investment in the expressway system and move down to some additional tiers.
Vice Chair LeZotte stated that part of the effort we were trying to make on Lawrence was the interchange on 280, but also the fact that the trail runs along Lawrence (through Cupertino and District 1) and the intersection improvements along there were the connectivity of the trail. She is concerned that there is nothing in there on Lawrence when both Cupertino and her pushed for some beneficial intersections. Hans stated that the trail portion of the LOS will be coming back next month and will be addressed at that time.
Ed Shikada, Deputy City Manager, noted that we anticipate doing a cross-reference item to the Council with a listing of projects as well as the criteria discussed, prior to the item going to the VTA.
Hans stated the suggestion was at next months meeting we would have preliminary recommendations as to the 5 year and 10 year priorities, for some feedback from the Committee and then prepare a final report in December and that would be forwarded to Council.
Jim Helmer stated that we would bring forward a cross reference to Council in approximately 2 weeks when the minutes are brought to Council on October 21, 2003 and if we receive any further feedback from Councilmembers about the process we will include it in the report brought back at the November BBT meeting.
Bill Hughes agreed that the best way to approach it is to bring it to the full Council.
e) Oral petitions
None
f) Adjournment
The Committee was adjourned at 3:05 pm
Councilmember
Dave Cortese, Chair,
Building
Better Transportation Committee