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.

mailto:[email protected]

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)

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item 4

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

deleon_re

Typewritten Text


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).


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.


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.


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.


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

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

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.





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




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



Agenda Item 7



Agenda Item 7




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.




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.

deleon_re

Typewritten Text

Agenda Item 9

deleon_re

Rectangle





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

Documents

MOBILITY PARTNERSHIP AGENDA