BUILDING BETTER TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Report

May 5, 2003

PRESENT: Chair David Cortese, Vice Chair Linda LeZotte, Councilmember Cindy Chavez

ABSENT: Vice Mayor Pat Dando, Councilmember Forrest Williams

STAFF: Ed Shikada, Bill Hughes, Jim Helmer, Hans Larsen, Ben Tripousis, Laurel Prevetti, Laura Wells, Ray Perisco, Kevin O’Connor

GUESTS: Michael Murdter, County of Santa Clara, Director of Roads and Airport Department, Dan Collen, County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airport Department, Chris Augustine, VTA, Dawn Cameron, Consultant

The meeting was convened at 1:35 PM

(a) Expansion and Improvement of Transit and Transportation Systems

(1) Report and Recommendations on County Expressway Master Plan

Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Ben Tripousis, Senior Transportation Specialist, Department of Transportation and Dan Collen, from the County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airport Department, who gave a presentation on the County Expressway Master Plan. The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study distributed in the agenda packet is currently being circulated for review, and the County is seeking comments before May 14, 2003. The study recommendations are expected to be carried forward into the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP2020). Dan Collen stated that along with the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study, a draft Implementation Plan that the County Board has approved for circulation is being presented today and the County is asking for endorsement from the full City Council. The report and presentation reviewed the County of Santa Clara’s Countywide Expressway study and the draft implementation plan.

Dan Collen stated that the final proposed plan was to go to the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) on May 29, 2003 with an adoption of the final plan by the Board of Supervisors in June 2003. There will be a public open house held at the Bracher Elementary, 2700 Chromite Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95051, on May 12, 2003. All the information can be found also at the website: www.expressways.info.

Councilmember Chavez asked for clarification on the County’s expressway priorities as relates to VTA funding priorities. And, secondarily, she requested clarity on the increase to the VTP 2020 from $80 to $150 M to allow full implementation of Tier 1A projects, and what the strategy is for the additional $70 M.

Ben Tripousis replied to the second issue, by stating that the current $80 M is programmed specifically for the improvements to Montague Expressway and Central Expressway, in the VTP 2020. The goal through the study was to secure an additional $70 M in addition to the $80 M to complete the Tier 1A projects, which should happen in the fall.

Dan Collen elaborated by stating that the County felt that the $150 M package was reasonable and did not need to go through further prioritization. In regards to the concept of joining the VTA in search of a new funding source, it is a priority of the County to identify additional operating revenue for the expressways. In light of the budget, we should not be pursuing $2 B in capital improvements if we don’t have the operating funds to operate at a level that people are comfortable with. It is a priority that the operating shortfall be dealt with, it’s not just capital projects.

Councilmember Chavez asked if the Board, separately of VTA, has done a priority setting for this plan.

Dan Collen replied by stating that County staff has not suggested that the funding strategy have a priority attached to them. They are parallel strategies, and the funding strategies stated in the report went to the Board as draft documents and approved.

Vice Chair LeZotte commented on the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study, under the Lawrence Expressway page. She stated that it might make for better reading if, under Roadway Capacity and Operational Improvements, 1A and 1C were moved around. Also, she was looking for the pages on landscaping, and was concerned if the pages the Committee received were just with respect to construction.

Dan Collen replied by stating that there is a separate summary that address landscaping. Dawn Cameron stated that the Maintenance, Operations & Aesthetics pages deal with landscaping as well. The side bar of that page deals with the recommended landscaping level for all expressways, and the cost element addresses how much it would cost annually to maintain that landscaping. These recommendations are system wide as opposed to expressway specific.

Vice Chair LeZotte expressed concern about a request that came from both Supervisor Beall and members of the community at Starbird Park regarding the culverts that were being planted over. Therefore, Vice Chair LeZotte was looking for more specificity as to whether or not the cost included in the plan was taken into consideration.

Dawn Cameron stated that the first part of the request was for trees to screen the area, and the trees and minimal shrub is a part of the overall landscaping program, so is included in the cost. The concept of covering the culvert and making it a landscaped walk way was not incorporated in the cost estimate. That would be considered an off-expressway project, that might be able to be mentioned in the full text of the plan as something that is still desirable.

Chair Cortese asked if there has been any discussion about relinquishment, at the County Board of Supervisors level. Will that be part of the discussion in June or was the idea to go forward and have this plan adopted and keep such discussion as a separate issue.

Dan Collen answered that the plan for expressways is not linked with relinquishment. Discussions of relinquishment would take part separately from the planning. The County would like to complete the study and based on discussions of relinquishment it seems that the issues will not be resolved within the time period of this study.

Chair Cortese stated that in regards to funding, another issue is the potential need to adopt along with this study a deficiency plan. Given that traffic analysis reflects congestion in certain intersections, is that still part of the plan? At what point do we as the City or does the County get involved in making that additional finding?

Dan Collen answered that the deficiency plan would not be a County Roads Department determination since the County stayed out of the Light Rail planning areas.

Chair Cortese asked how this plan speaks to prioritizing projects that are within the areas where money was generated. If a community was able to (due to large scale development) generate impact mitigation money, and wants to address some expressway concerns, would that preempt Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3, or if it falls in the Tier 4 project, do we have a dilemma? For example, if we have money available but the Councilmember does not want to direct the money towards expressway improvements because it can’t be done, we would not want to put the money into a Countywide pot and have it dissipated throughout the system.

Dan Collen answered that in the funding strategy on developer participation, is an extension of current practices and at the moment the County of Santa Clara and VTA do not really have any control over what cities do with their development and their development impact fees or traffic mitigations that are required of the developer. From a County perspective it would be ideal if the City had developers dedicate to a fund under County control that it would distribute for expressway improvements.

Chair Cortese then clarified his concern that when the City is dealing with developers on a large scale, $60 – $80 M could be involved. How can this money be leveraged? If at some point when money becomes available it flows through the tiers, what happens if you get a tier 4/3 project that has local funding but matching money is needed to make the project a reality?

Dan Collen stated the plan was written to be flexible over time and to be able to respond to changing conditions. The suggestion is that the plan is to be updated on a cycle consistent with the VTP 2020 update.

Dawn Cameron stated that Dan Collen’s statement will be a key recommendation in the PAB’s final plan in the May 29^th packet.

Chair Cortese expressed concerned about the prioritization of the study and it should dovetail with policy on the VTA side in terms of where county road money goes. There is a debate going on, on the VTA board side, as to where the $2 B need should fall in priorities and should it compete with other county road projects. This is the forum for this discussion to happen and the committee will be accepting this report, so the committee may have stipulations. What is the internal staff recommendation?

Ben Tripousis stated that while any priorities that come through the study will ultimately need to be compared against the City’s other priorities. The current effort is to prioritize the projects within the confines of expressways. Through the VTP 2020, as funding comes forward, we will need to reevaluate whether or not this is where we want to put the lion’s share of whatever funding is available. Compared against all other priorities. The recommendations are to accept the study and the priority list and any discussion of funding and funding priorities be deferred to the VTP 2020 process that will be undertaken in the fall.

Councilmember Chavez expressed that she wants the committee to work as cooperatively with the VTA as possible. One of the best methods to achieve that goal is having an internal, clear picture of what our outcomes are. We may want to consider the same process we used to look at the Light Rail cars because we can do some internal assessments before going into the VTP 2020 debate.

Vice Chair LeZotte asked if each expressway is prioritized individually, or are the expressways (all the 1A) in some sort of priority. Is that all going to be part of the funding or will there be a mix of local funds or city match. If so, how is that going to get sorted out?

Dan Collen answered by stating that the plan does not internally prioritize the tier 1A projects. We have suggested that the implementation complications of each project such as developing a roadway through a CalTrans area, will take a longer process in property acquisition versus roads and open right of ways. The natural timeline for some projects may be easier to implement at first.

Chair Cortese shared his concerned that a three-year review cycle may not be frequent enough for the plan. Some opportunities to move projects forward may not fall within the three-year cycles. There should be some mechanism for seizing opportunities that come along in between those cycles.

Upon motion of Councilmember Chavez, seconded by Vice Chair LeZotte, the Committee accepted the report, with the staff directed to include an overall general budgeting strategy to come back, and to include a mechanism to discuss opportunities for joint funding and the impact that it will have overall the programs.

(b) Traffic Relief/Safe Streets

(1) Report and review of Traffic Calming Program – Continued from April 7, receive written responses to questions from April 7

Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, gave a brief summary of the questions and answers contained in the Traffic Calming Program Report. Last month was a summary of the Traffic Calming Report submitted by Chief Lansdowne and Jim Helmer. Questions came in five categories: (1) Traffic Calming in general, (2) more about the crash rates, (3) NASCOP Program or photo radar, (4) update on public education program – Street Smarts, and (5) School Traffic Safety Programs and School Access Study.

Jim Helmer introduced Laura Wells, Acting Division Manager, Department of Transportation, and Ray Persico, Temporary Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, and Chief Lansdowne, Police Department were here to answer any questions.

Vice Chair LeZotte asked about the fourth paragraph on page 4, will the Committee be getting a report at the year end anniversary of the Street Smarts program?

Jim Helmer verified that yes, the Committee will be getting a year end status report that will come as an informational memo with a recommendation whether or not to proceed with the year two contract at the June meeting. This will include performance measurements and how successful we have been in the public awareness of this campaign.

Vice Chair LeZotte asked for a list of the 95 schools referenced on page 5, last paragraph, and the criteria as to why some schools may qualify and another does not for the school crossing guard program. This information is to be sent by Jim Helmer to all Committee members.

Councilmember Chavez expressed interest in knowing about the cutoff on the Crash Reports, were they from the top ten crash sites.

Jim Helmer stated that they did indeed pick ten to demonstrate that after we identify a location that has a trend or a pattern we show the types of actions that we take.

Councilmember Chavez stated that as we start to work on the combination of traffic calming and traffic control, there needs to be strategies to collect money so that it remains flexible in terms of not having to go to a specific signal or walkway so that we could leverage money better, either through a developer or RDA, and that the community could help with the priorities. We also need to have some consistency on how we deal it.

Jim Helmer stated that the LOS item C1 would address her concerns along with specific planning for pedestrian zone corridors or area development planning in neighborhoods.

Councilmember Chavez asked, in regards to the Street Smart Program, if there will be a follow up survey from the target audience that will be reported to the Committee in June.

Linda Crabill, Communications Relations Manager, Department of Transportation stated that there would be an awareness survey that the consultant will be conducting to find out how people are hearing about the Program, if they have heard about it, and what their perception is of the program. This will help us to fine tune the direction for year 2.

Councilmember Chavez stated that she has been telling schools that they need to pay for expansion, that they need to step up due to our budget deficit, but long term we need to think of a way to share some costs.

Chair Cortese remarked on Councilmember Chavez’s comment regarding the schools. He shared that during one his PTA like meetings at the schools, the parents are aware of the need for the program. In regards to the tentative map process there should be an additional process now within our Department of Transportation that should take a look and make recommendations that are implemented on new subdivision maps so that some of the costs could be picked up by developers, especially now during our budget issues.

Jim Helmer stated that we have implemented additional traffic calming devices; we are making headway in this area.

Chair Cortese would like to make sure that the traffic calming program continues to be a community based effort.

Jim Helmer stated that we do have three departments working together to make that occur.

Upon motion of Vice Chair LeZotte, seconded by Councilmember Chavez, the Committee accepted the report.

(2) Pavement Management Program

Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Kevin O’Connor, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, to give a brief presentation to reflect the content of the Pavement Management Program. It would give an indication as to where we are on the level of funding.

Kevin O’Connor gave the presentation on the Pavement Management Program including the topics of discussion as: the street network, 10-year recovery plan, 2002/03 activity status, 2003/04 Plan, and a 5-year outlook.

Chair Cortese asked that any questions from the Committee regarding this item be emailed to Jim Helmer and applicable staff to be answered at the June 2 meeting. Questions only to be emailed in ample time for staff to respond.

Upon motion of Councilmember Chavez, seconded by Vice Chair LeZotte, the Committee accepted the report.

(3) City’s Annual Transportation Report – Continued from April 7, receive draft report

Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation stated that on the Annual Transportation Report, any comments on the report are needed by May 23, 2003 as the report goes to Council on May 27, 2003.

Upon motion of Councilmember Chavez, seconded by Vice Chair LeZotte, the Committee accepted the report.

(c) Supporting Smart Growth

(1) Level of Service (LOS) policy revision

Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Hans Larsen, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director, Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, and Chris Augustine, Valley Transportation Authority, who gave an update of the Level of Service policy. Hans stated that we have an incompatibility issue between our land use and transportation policies. The plan is to resolve the policy discrepancy during the General Plan Annual Review process in Fall 2003. Today we would like to discuss the key issues, desired outcomes, options, and preferred direction of the Committee. The June meeting would be utilized for the preliminary policy recommendations and have a draft policy by the August meeting.

Chair Cortese stated that as in the report, the presentation was to ask the Committee if the policy was heading in the right direction before you start pushing into detail. Chair Cortese stated that he is satisfied with the direction.

Councilmember Chavez stated three comments that she would like included as the proposed direction 1) further define with some flexibility a special planning area and give bench marks to what that means 2) outcome of the meeting as a design of our own program, further definition of the livable community, what is San José’s solution, the financial models that come back are inclusive of ideas that people had even if we do not agree 3) that we find some way to recognize areas that are going to be auto oriented and crowded and leave them alone like Monterey Road.

Vice Chair LeZotte stated that she does not disagree with any of Councilmember Chavez’s comments. Under the heading of desired outcomes in the LOS presentation handouts – provide a high quality pedestrian level of service for, bicycles should be included. The same applies to the requirement of offsetting pedestrian improvements, to say pedestrian/bicycle.

Hans stated that their intent is to include bicycles into that scenario. There is a bicycle plan.

Dennis Augustine added that VTA staff has been working with the City of San José staff to strongly support this effort. One of things that VTA advocates in their community transportation program is the change of policy to enable this kind of development and this is exactly the kind of policy change that we are advocating as well. So the VTA is strongly supporting this LOS policy report.

Vice Chair LeZotte reiterated that the community outreach process should include West of Highway 17.

Upon motion of Councilmember Chavez, seconded by Vice Chair LeZotte, the Committee accepted the report.

(d) Regional Relationships/Funding/Policy

(1) State, Federal, and Local Legislative Update

Chair Cortese stated that it came up at Rules Committee last week that we are hoping that all departments fold the Legislative reports into the matrix that Betsy Shotwell is working on, so that Rules can keep the Rules report comprehensive.

Vice Chair LeZotte mentioned that also from the Rules Committee last week there appeared to be something that Mark Linder was going to get back to Rules or the BBT on the outline of the Mayor’s trip to Washington and Sacramento, the transportation issues that came from the trip.

Betsy Shotwell will check with Mark Linder and get back to the Committee members.

The Committee received the written status report.

(e) Oral petitions

None

(f) Adjournment

The Committee was adjourned at 3:40 pm

Councilmember Dave Cortese, Chair,

Building Better Transportation Committee