Download - MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP AGENDA
MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Gilroy City Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring
to address the Committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are
limited to 2 minutes. The law does not permit Committee action or extended discussion
on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Committee action is
requested, the matter can be placed on the next agenda. All statements that require a
response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
REGULAR AGENDA
4. ACTION ITEM - Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2016.
5. ACTION ITEM – Review and approve new Mobility Partnership Structure and
Organization including selection of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
6. INFORMATION ITEM – Receive reports from Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) and Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) staff.
7. INFORMATION ITEM – Presentation on US 101/SR 25 Interchange area.
8. INFORMATION ITEM – Presentation on City of Gilroy transportation improvements.
9. ACTION ITEM – Overall Status/Workplan Update/Next Steps
10. ACTION ITEM – Future meeting schedule
11. ADJOURN
Mobility Partnership August 16, 2017
If you have any questions about the Mobility Partnership, please contact VTA Community
Outreach Department at (408) 321-7575, TTY (408) 321-2330, or e-
mail [email protected] UH.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those requiring
accommodations or accessible media for this meeting should notify the Board Secretary’s Office
48 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 321-5680 or E-mail: [email protected] or TTY
(408) 321-2330. VTA’s Homepage is located on the web at: http://www.vta.org or visit us on
Facebook Uhttp://www.facebook.org/scvta U.
Mobility Partnership Page 1 of 6 November 9, 2016
MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The Mobility Partnership Meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Vice-Chairperson Muenzer
in the Gilroy City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020.
1. ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Representing Status
Terri Aulman Member County of Santa Clara Absent
Margie Barrios Member County of San Benito Present
Larry Carr Member County of Santa Clara Present
Jerry Muenzer Vice -Chairperson County of San Benito Present
Perry Woodward Chairperson County of Santa Clara Absent
Ignacio Velazquez Member County of San Benito Present
Meeting as a Committee of the Whole due to the presence of only one member from Santa
Clara County.
2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
There were no public presentations.
3. ORDERS OF THE DAY
Member Velazquez arrived at the meeting at 9:35 a.m. and took his seat.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
On General Consensus, and there being no objection, the Mobility Partnership Regular
Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2016 were accepted.
5. REPORTS FROM VTA AND SBCOG STAFF
Casey Emoto, VTA Deputy Director – Planning and Program Development, Chris Metzger,
Project Manager, and Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG)
Mobility Partnership Page 2 of 6 November 9, 2016
Executive Director, provided updates on sales tax measure for Santa Clara County, SR 25
Route Adoption, state legislation, high speed rail and FASTLANE Grant Program.
Discussions:
1. Mr. Emoto provided an update on the early returns for the proposed VTA sales tax
measure. If the VTA sales tax measure passes, next step would be to provide initial
information on the process related to implementation of the measure at the VTA Board
meeting on December 8, 2016.
2. Ms. Gilbert provided an update on SR 25 Route Adoption. The California Transportation
Commission took action in October 2016 to adopt the route for SR 25 widening between
Hollister and Gilroy. Next step is for Santa Clara County, San Benito County and City of
Gilroy (in coordination with Caltrans Districts 4 and 5) to incorporate the SR 25 Route
Adoption in their respective General Plans.
Mr. Carr asked if the route adoption would happen before the availability of state funding.
Ms. Gilbert explained that based on State Statutes, once the route is adopted, it should be
reflected in upcoming General Plan updates.
3. Mr. Emoto discussed status of Public Private Partnership (P3) state legislation (SBX2 4)
which is set to expire by the end of 2016.
Mr. Metzger noted that VTA has legal authority to pursue a local toll road facility. A Pre-
Development Agreement (PDA) could be pursued for a locally owned and operated tollway.
Mr. Emoto also noted that an existing law, AB 2374, expands the use of Construction
Manager/General Contractor project delivery method to design and construct certain
expressways that are not on the highway system. This approach could also be applied to SR
152 improvements if so desired.
3. Mr. Metzger provided updates on High Speed Rail (HSR). HSR is currently working
toward the Preliminary Preferred Alternative (for San Jose to Merced). The Preliminary
Preferred Alternative is planned to be out by spring of 2017.
4. Mr. Metzger discussed the FASTLANE Grant program that VTA is reviewing for the SR
152 Trade Corridor project. SR 152 project elements such as improved access to HSR
station, safety, enhancements, and good movements may be good fit for this grant
opportunity.
Mr. Carr asked on the process to decide on how to move forward with the project. Mr.
Metzger discussed the impending expiration of P3 state legislation (SBX2 4) and the
alternative/ option to develop a locally owned and operated toll road under a JPA through a
Public Private Partnership (P3).
Mobility Partnership Page 3 of 6 November 9, 2016
Mr. Emoto added that if VTA sales tax measure passes, some local funds would be available
for the US 101/SR 25 interchange improvements that could be leveraged to get other
funding. The next MP meeting should bring a clearer picture on the path forward for
improvements within the purview of the MP.
Mr. Velazquez asked if the “no toll” roadway option would be considered. Mr. Metzger
noted all options are open and are dependent on project funding. Mr. Velazquez requested
that “no toll” option still be discussed as an option/alternative for local residents that might
also serve as incentive for the San Benito community to actively support the project.
Mr. Muenzer inquired if available public funds are sufficient to complete the project. Mr.
Emoto noted previous calculations have shown that public money alone is not adequate for
project completion. Mr. Muenzer asked if any public money would lessen the toll amount or
lessen the time of toll collection. Mr. Emoto noted that factors such as project delivery
timeline and level of public funding would influence toll rates if a toll road is pursued.
Ms. Barrios asked on the competiveness and timeline of the FASTLANE grant program. Mr.
Emoto noted that these grant programs are usually oversubscribed. Mr. Metzger discussed
that VTA is currently gathering requirements/information on the FASTLANE grant program
for the SR 152 project. Submissions are due in mid-December.
5. Mr. Carr inquired on the HSR timeline. Mr. Metzger noted that HSR’s selection of a
Preliminary Preferred Alternative immediately precedes circulation of the draft
environmental alternative. The final record of decision on the environmental document (for
San Jose to Merced) may be in late 2017.
Mr. Carr asked if the MP should comment on the preliminary preferred alternative route and
if staff will provide the committee review information and route recommendation. Mr.
Metzger noted that as part of the SR 152 project, VTA has participated on HSR working
groups and has commented on alignments at workshops. It was suggested to invite Mr. Ben
Tripousis back to present at the time the draft environmental document is ready for
circulation.
Mr. Carr also inquired if the MP can comment before the preferred alternative is chosen. Mr.
Metzger said that basic fundamental comments had been provided such as SR 152 project
and alignment coordination. HSR is open to receive written comments once the formal Draft
Environmental Document (DED) is released. Staff will keep the MP informed of schedule
and coordinate MP comments thereon.
6. PRESENTATION ON SR 156 WEST CORRIDOR PROJECT.
Discussion:
Mr. Todd Muck, Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Deputy Executive
Director provided a presentation on SR 156 West Corridor Project toll road efforts.
Mobility Partnership Page 4 of 6 November 9, 2016
The SR 156 West Corridor Improvement Project would construct new four-lane highway
parallel to the existing Highway 156 with new interchanges constructed at Castroville
Boulevard and at US 101. The current two lane highway will be converted into a frontage
road that would serve the local community.
The SR 156 Project is now conducting a Level 2 Traffic and Revenue Study which will
provide results about current and future traffic diversions, potential toll rates, toll discounts
for local residents and businesses, and other questions and concerns brought by the TAMC
Board and the public. The study also evaluates weekend and weekday, as well as seasonal
traffic. Information gathered from the study will provide the public and elected officials
information needed to evaluate tolling viability on SR 156.
7. PRESENTATION ON JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) FORMATION
Discussions:
Mr. Victor Pappalardo, VTA Senior Assistant Counsel, provided a report expanding on
information provided at September 14, 2016 MP meeting.
1. Ms. Muenzer asked if two (2) JPAs can form a JPA. Mr. Pappalardo answered in the
affirmative. It has also been clarified that VTA is not a JPA but a special district. VTA can
form a JPA with SBCOG (which is a JPA as confirmed by Mary Gilbert).
2. Mr. Pappalardo discussed that power of JPA is limited by the least powerful agency.
3. Another alternative is to create a JPA without creating a separate agency. One agency
would be assigned to act on behalf of the other agency. This alternative is more suitable for
short- term and well-defined projects; and not on long-term projects such as SR 152 Trade
Corridor.
4. Mr. Velazquez inquired on the timeline to form a JPA. Mr. Pappalardo explained that the
timeline depends on complexity of agreement negotiations but could take at least six (6)
months to form a JPA.
5. Mr. Velazquez stressed that the MP needs to be clear on what needs to be accomplished
and consider factors such as: the route to be taken by HSR, SR 25 corridor project, toll/no
toll roadway decisions, SR 152 alignment and project funding/costs.
Mr. Pappalardo explained that it would not be necessary to have the JPA defined down to the
exact roadway route: broad objectives/purpose would suffice in forming a JPA, leaving
flexibility for the JPA to meet these broad objectives.
6. Ms. Barrios said that the MP needs to create a structure. Ms. Barrios suggested to set up
the agreement with a broad purpose and then formulate specifics later.
Mobility Partnership Page 5 of 6 November 9, 2016
7. Mr. Carr asked if in forming a JPA, the project needs to be defined or if the purpose of the
JPA is to define the project. Mr. Pappalardo explained that it depends on the details of the
agreement which should fall within state laws.
Mr. Carr further inquired if the project goals – to build and operate the project – would be
jointly addressed by the JPA. Mr. Pappalardo explained that JPA could address both goals.
8. Mr. Carr inquired on the path forward regarding the JPA. Mr. Emoto noted that roadmap,
questions or options could be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Carr also requested staff to
address whether issues discussed at this meeting were best addressed by a formal JPA rather
than a Partnership, similar to the current arrangement.
9. Mr. Velazquez stressed the need to be clear on what needs to be accomplished, such as
project cost and the general route to be selected.
10. Mr. Muenzer inquired if a public agency would redirect funds to another party. Mr.
Pappalardo answered in the affirmative.
11. Mr. Muenzer directed the staff to provide a layout or roadmap regarding JPA at the next
meeting.
12. Ms. Barrios requested for a sample JPA agreement.
13. Mr. Carr is supportive of the directive requesting for a JPA roadmap granted it refers to
the next steps and path to move forward as described by Mr. Emoto in earlier discussions.
14. Mr. Nick Saleh, Deputy District Director of Caltrans District 4, inquired if the JPA has an
expiration or time limit. Mr. Pappalardo opined that he’s not aware that time limit or
expiration date for a JPA is requirement.
8. PRESENTATION ON OUTREACH PLAN
Discussions:
Mr. Goodwin provided a report on the implementation of the outreach plan.
Meeting summaries were provided on the three stakeholder meetings held on November 3,
2016 for the SR 152 Project held at the San Benito council of Governments Office in
Hollister. The meeting scheduled for 9:30 to 11:00 a.m. had representatives from the business
community and long-time community leaders. The 11:00 a.m. meeting was with the
Executive Director of the San Benito County Farm Bureau. At 2:00 p.m., the San Benito
Council of Governments’ (SBCOG) regularly scheduled Technical Advisory Committee
meeting had the topic as an agenda item.
1. Ms. Barrios appreciated the effort on reaching out to a diverse group of stakeholders.
Mobility Partnership Page 6 of 6 November 9, 2016
2. Mr. Velazquez was pleased that the stakeholders are favorable to the southern alignment.
9. NEXT STEPS
Discussion:
Chris Metzger, Project Manager, discussed workplan updates, next steps and action items.
10. ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
Discussions:
1. Members requested that the next meeting be scheduled for February 8, 2017 (Wednesday)
at 9:30 a.m. in the City of Gilroy. Specific location to be determined.
11. ADJOURNMENT
On the order of Vice-Chairperson Muenzer, and there being no objection, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca de Leon
VTA Highway Program
Memo on Agenda Item 5
Date: August 16, 2017
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Director of Engineering and Transportation Program Delivery
SUBJECT: Approve the Mobility Partnership Structure and Organization
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the new Mobility Partnership structure and organization.
BACKGROUND:
Members of the Mobility Partnership have been appointed by each county:
o Santa Clara County:
Larry Carr (City of Morgan Hill, Councilmember)
Dan Harney (City of Gilroy, Councilmember)
Peter Leroe-Muñoz (City of Gilroy, Councilmember)
o San Benito County:
Jerry Muenzer (San Benito County Board of Supervisors, Member)
Ignacio Velazquez (City of Hollister - Mayor, Council of San Benito
County Governments (SBCOG) - Chairperson)
Jaime De La Cruz (San Benito County Board of Supervisors - Chairman,
SBCOG - Vice-Chairperson)
Members shall select Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the Mobility Partnership.
Memo on Agenda Item 6
Date: August 16, 2017
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Director of Engineering and Transportation Program Delivery;
Mary Gilbert, Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG) Executive
Director
SUBJECT: Receive reports from VTA and SBCOG staff
INFORMATION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report from VTA and SBCOG staff on items related to the Mobility Partnership.
BACKGROUND:
Staff from VTA and SBCOG to provide status update on the following:
Sales tax measure for Santa Clara County – Measure B
State legislation update (SB 1)
Regional Measure 3
High Speed Rail update
Memo on Agenda Item 7
Date: August 16, 2017
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Chris Metzger, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Presentation on US 101/SR 25 Interchange area
INFORMATION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive presentation on US 101/SR 25 interchange area and potential improvements identified in
various studies including:
SR 152 Trade Corridor Project Study Report (2015)
SR 25 Route Adoption Report (2016)
US 101 Widening Environmental Report (2013)
BACKGROUND:
See attached presentation and attachments.
US 101/SR 152/SR 25 Interchange 1st Phase
Alternative Comparison
Agenda Item 7
US 101/SR 152/SR 25 Interchange 1st Phase
Alternative Comparison
Agenda Item 7
US 101/SR 152/SR 25 Interchange 1st Phase
Alternative Comparison
Agenda Item 7
Memo on Agenda Item 8
Date: August 16, 2017
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: City of Gilroy Staff
SUBJECT: Presentation on City of Gilroy Transportation Improvements
INFORMATION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation on City of Gilroy transportation improvements.
BACKGROUND:
Oral report to be provided.
Memo on Agenda Item 9
Date: August 16, 2017
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Chris Metzger, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Overall Status/Workplan Update/Next Steps
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Review wokplan status/action items, including review of previous discussion on Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) and Public Private Partnership (P3) considerations.
Approve workplan updates, next actions, and action items per today’s meeting.
BACKGROUND:
See attached workplan document, summarizing status of work plan adopted at the December 17,
2015 Mobility Partnership meeting, and presenting potential future activities/decisions.
Based on this workplan and discussions held at the meeting, agree upon next steps.
Work Plan Status – August 16, 2017
Original Work Plan Element Status Next Action
1. Review New Improvement Concepts Two Alternative Corridors defined: “PSR corridor” and “Southern corridor” per July 19, 2016 meeting.
Develop “Southern Corridor” to better define geometry and identify/assess impacts/cost.
2. Assess Potential Near Term Funding Opportunities
Potential Funding for US 101/SR 25 I/C from Santa Clara County Measure B Sales Tax Measure November, 2016. State transportation funding bill – SB 1. Considering application to FASTLANE Grant program.
Work with CTC to submit 152 Corridor funding. If/when applicable, assess FASTLANE Grant program
3. Workshop on Institutional/Governance Topics
Received report(s) for MP meetings conducted on the following 2016 dates: March 9, September 14, and November 9.
Pending identification of funding and/or direction forward.
4. Assess Opportunities to Coordinate with High Speed Rail
Received report at May 11, 2016 meeting. Regular updates planned. HSR supportive of improving 152 to provide access to Gilroy Station, but does not see nexus to help fund from HSR funds
Develop more formal support from HSRA for use in discussions with State Legislators. Dependent on more clarity for 152 corridor.
5. Establish and implement Outreach Plan Draft Plan presented at September 14, 2016. Report on initial outreach at November 9, 2016 MP meeting.
Consider next steps in Fall 2017.
6. Review and define actions in pursuing Funding Options for Improvements
Project Goals approved at May 11, 2016 meeting. Funding possible for Goods Movement, Safety, Economic viability of area, access to HSR.
Refine message and meet with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMBAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and State Legislators to understand SB 1 options. Track RM 3 progress.
7. Assess Options for Delivering SR 152 Trade Corridor and SR 25 improvements
Discussion held at July 19, 2016 MP meeting that full funding from public funds not likely. Presentation on P3 basics part of September 14, 2016 MP meeting.
Develop options for first phase of 101/25 interchange improvements consistent with MP goals.
In support of the above items discussed in the December 17, 2015 Mobility Partnership (MP) meeting, the following lays out the project
development steps that would be required, approximate timelines, and major issues for which the MP would be requested to provide direction.
Memo on Agenda Item 10
Date: August 16, 2017
TO: Mobility Partnership
FROM: Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Director of Engineering and Transportation Program Delivery
SUBJECT: Establish schedule for future meetings
ACTION ITEM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve schedule of future meetings.
BACKGROUND:
No future meetings are scheduled at this time. Based on availability of MP members for this
meeting, staff is recommending the following meeting dates for discussion and approval:
Wednesday, November 8, 2017 – morning. Time and location TBD
Wednesday, February 14, 2018 – morning. Time and location TBD
Mobility PartnershipAugust 16, 2017
Senate Bill (SB) 1
Programs
2
Agenda Item 6
3
SB 1 Programs – Implementation Schedule
Agenda Item 6
Programs Amount Types of Projects Guidelines Adoption Applications or
Project Lists Due
New SB 1 Programs
Local Streets and
Roads
$1.5B annually City/County defined August 16- 17, 2017 September – October
2017
Solutions for
Congested Corridors
$250M annually Within highly congested
corridors
Balanced, transportation,
environmental, and access
December 6-7, 2017 February 2018
Trade Corridor
Enhancement
$300M annually Corridor based Freight January 2018 March 2018
Local Partnership $200M annually Road maintenance and
rehabilitation
October 18-19, 2017 March 2018
Existing Commission Programs
Active Transportation $100M
augmentation
Bike, Pedestrian June 28, 2017 August 2017
State Highway
Operation and
Protection Program
(SHOPP)
$1.9B annually Road, bridge, culvert repair
and maintenance
June 28, 2017
Adopted Interim
SHOPP Guidelines
January 2018
(Caltrans submits
proposed SHOPP)
* California Transportation Commission – Information as of August 2, 2017 – Please note
that all dates are tentative and schedule is subject to change.
US 101/SR 25
Interchange
4
Agenda Item 7
5
SR 152 Trade Corridor Shared Transportation
Corridor Concept (w/HSR)
Agenda Item 7
6
SR 152 Alignment Alternative
Agenda Item 7
7
US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvements Elements –
US 101 Widening Project
Agenda Item 7
8
US 101/SR 25 Interchange –
SR 152 Trade Corridor PSR/PDS
Agenda Item 7
9
SR 25 Widening and Route Adoption Project
Agenda Item 7
US 101/SR 25
Staff Discussion
December 2016
10
11
Alternative 1 – Median-MedianAgenda Item 7
12
Alternative 2 – Compact US 101/SR 25 Geometry
Agenda Item 7
13
Alternative 3 – US 101/SR 25 Diverging Diamond
Interchange, Santa Teresa Blvd Extension
Agenda Item 7
14
Alternative 4 – Alternative 2 with SB 101 Right Side
Connector to SR 25
Agenda Item 7
15
Alternative 5 – Alternative 2 with SB 101 Median
Connector to SR 25
Agenda Item 7
16
US 101/SR 25 Approach Options
Agenda Item 7
Proceeding with US 101 Widening Alternative : Environmentally Cleared
Assumed design does not include US 101 to SR 25
direct connectors in SR 152 Trade Corridor concepts
Requires defining of limits/elements of First Phase
Shorter time to delivery of an improvement at the
US 101/SR 25 interchange
Assess Phased approach for US 101/SR 25 Consider tolling opportunities through interchange/direct
connection to future tolled facility (SR 152)
Tailor Phase 1 to best use of available funds
Likely require some environmental re-evaluation
City of Gilroy
Transportation
Improvements
17
Agenda Item 8
18
City of Gilroy Transportation ProjectsAgenda Item 8
Questions
19