Amazon Web Services - ADMINISTRATION &...

ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE

Thursday, February 21, 2019

12:00 PM

VTA Conference Room B-106

3331 North First Street

San Jose, CA

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

1. 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 a subsequent agenda. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff

for reply in writing.

3. ORDERS OF THE DAY

4. ACTION ITEM - Conduct voting to determine the Committee's vice chairperson for

calendar year 2019.

CONSENT AGENDA

5. ACTION ITEM -Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 20, 2018.

6. ACTION ITEM -Approve the 2019 Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee

Meeting Schedule.

7. ACTION ITEM - Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors 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.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Administration & Finance Committee February 21, 2019


Manager to negotiate and 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.

9. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive Monthly Investment Report for December 2018.

REGULAR AGENDA


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.

11. ACTION ITEM -Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors approve draft framework

of the proposed 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant

Program.

12. INFORMATION ITEM -Receive an update on the development of the 2019 New Transit

Service Plan.

OTHER ITEMS

13. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration.

14. Review Committee Work Plan. (Srinath)

15. Committee Staff Report. (Srinath)

2016 Measure B Update

16. Chairperson's Report. (Carr)

17. Determine Consent Agenda for the March 7, 2019, Board of Directors Meeting.

18. ANNOUNCEMENTS

19. ADJOURN

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

[email protected] or (408) 321-2330 (TTY only). VTA’s home page is

www.vta.org or visit us on www.facebook.com/scvta. (408) 321-2300: 中文 / Español /

日本語 / 한국어 / tiếng Việt / Tagalog.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

Administration & Finance Committee February 21, 2019

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 VTA’s website

at http://www.vta.org and also at the meeting.

NOTE: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY

ANY ACTION RECOMMENDED ON THIS AGENDA.

Administration & Finance Committee

Thursday, December 20, 2018

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Administration and Finance Committee (A&F) was called to order at

12:03 p.m. by Chairperson O’Neill in Conference Room B-106, VTA River Oaks Campus, 3331

North First Street, San José, California

1. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name Title Status

Larry Carr Member Present

David Cortese Alternate Member Absent

Dev Davis Alternate Member NA

Daniel Harney Alternate Member NA

Sam Liccardo Member Present

Teresa O'Neill Chairperson Present

Ken Yeager Member Absent

* A quorum was not present and a Committee of the Whole was declared.

2. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:

Blair Beekman, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) expressed concern

about the increased law enforcement surrounding sporting events; and 2) noted he is

pleased with the Diridon Station working group.

Roland Lebrun, Interested Citizen, made the following comments: 1) reported he

disagreed with the previous speaker’s comments; and 2) commented about the reboot

time of Clipper machines on the buses.

Raj Srinath, Chief Financial Officer and Staff, explained that the bus operators are

required to power down at the end of its route and noted that there have only been a

handful of delays/mix-ups regarding the Clipper machine during the reboot process.

The Agenda was taken out of order.

5

Administration & Finance Committee Minutes Page 2 of 7 December 20, 2018

OTHER ITEMS

13. Committee Staff Report

Mr. Srinath provided an update on decisions made by the Supreme Court regarding

online sales tax and the impacts it will soon have on VTA.

Member Carr arrived and took his seat at 12:11 p.m. and a quorum was established.

REGULAR AGENDA

12. Transit Ridership Trends Review -- Fall 2018

Jay Tyree, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of the staff report and

provided a presentation, entitled “Transit Ridership Review,” highlighting the following:

1) Informational report on Transit Ridership; 2) “Ridership” = Boardings; 3) Transit

Ridership is Seasonal; 4) The mix of Weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays impacts

ridership; 5) Average Weekday Boardings by Fiscal Year; 6) Average Weekday

Boardings by Month (12-Month Rolling Average); 7) Service Level Impacts Ridership;

8) Average Weekday Boardings by Hour (12-Month Rolling Average); 9) 10-year VTA

Bus Year-Over-Year Change in Weekday Boardings; 10) 10-year VTA Light Rail Year-

Over-Year Change in Weekday Boardings; 11) 33 of 37 Bus Operators Carried Fewer

Riders in 2017 than 2016; 12) 35 of 37 Bus Operators Carried Fewer Riders per Hour in

2017 than 2016; 13) January 2018 Service Improvements to Four Routes; 14) Route 72:

Senter & Monterey - Downtown San Jose via McLaughlin;15) Route 73: Senter &

Monterey - Downtown San Jose via Senter; 16) Route 522: Rapid Palo Alto - Eastridge;

17) Route G: Green Line (Winchester - Mountain View); 18) Many Factors Contributing

to Ridership Decline; 19) Next Network + Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon

Valley Phase 1; 20) Next Network Just a Start; 21) Redesigned Transit Information for

Customers; 22) Better Performance Monitoring; 23) Better Express Bus Service; and

24) Faster Transit.

Members of the Committee and staff discussed the following: 1) speeds relative to traffic;

2) how economic growth affects ridership; 3) the impacts of Transportation Network

Companies and scooters on public transit; 4) time is a major factor for the public transit

riders and there is need for increased speed; 5) VTA staff tracking other transportation

agencies and how VTA compares; 6) exercising caution when speaking about peer

agencies; 7) Board Members assisting with streamlining the process for light rail to have

signal priority; 8) BART reporting San Francisco is losing short trip riders to scooters;

and 9) VTA riders are more transit dependent than riders of its peer agencies.

Nuria I Fernandez, General Manager/CEO, reported that VTA is always looking for ways

to improve ridership. Ms. Fernandez further reported she welcomes any assistance Board

Members may have with their jurisdictions in assisting with increased speed and signal

priority.

Public Comment

Mr. Beekman commented about express bus route 181 and ridership.

5


On Order of Chairperson O’Neill and there being no objection, the Committee

received information on Transit Ridership Trends - Fall 2018.

3. ORDERS OF THE DAY

There were no Orders of the Day.

CONSENT AGENDA

Member Liccardo requested the following be removed from the Consent Agenda and

placed on the Regular Agenda: Agenda Item #5. 5. Amendment of Outfront Contract for

SVBX Advertisement.

4. Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2018

M/S/C (Carr/Liccardo) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of

September 20, 2018.

5. (Removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda.)

Authorize the General Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with Outfront

Media Group, LLC, to amend the scope of services to include the Berryessa/North San

Jose Intermodal Transit Center and the Milpitas Intermodal Transit Center, and to

increase the Minimum Annual Guarantee to reflect the additional advertising assets.

6. Approve 2019 Legislative Program for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation

Authority (VTA)

M/S/C (Carr/Liccardo) to approve 2019 Legislative Program.

7. Monthly Investment Report - October 2018

M/S/C (Carr/Liccardo) to receive Monthly Investment Report for October 2018.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

NOES:

APPROVED- Consent Agenda #4; #6-7

Larry Carr, Vice Chairperson

Sam Liccardo, Member

Carr, Liccardo, O’Neill

None

ABSENT: Yeager

REGULAR AGENDA (continued)

8. Multifunction Devices & Managed Print Services

Gary Miskell, Chief Information Officer provided an overview of the staff report.

NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,

THE MOTION

5


M/S/C (Liccardo/Carr) to recommend that the VTA Board of Directors authorize the

General Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Ray Morgan Company (RMC)

for Multifunction Device (print, copy, scan) services. The initial term of the contract will

be five years with an option to extend the contract on an annual basis for two additional

years. The cost of the initial five-year term is $1,800,000, plus $300,000 per year for two

optional one-year periods, for a total of $2,400,000.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

NOES:

APPROVED- Agenda Item #8

Larry Carr, Vice Chairperson



None

ABSENT: Yeager

Member Liccardo recused himself on Item #9 and left his seat at 12:45 p.m.; a

Committee of Whole was declared.

9. Closed Circuit Television on Light Rail Vehicles Contract Amendment

Richard Bertalan, Technology Manager for Technology Support Services, provided an

overview of the staff report.

Public Comment

Mr. Beekman made the following comments: 1) thanked staff for their work; and

2) noted closed circuit television is good for transparency.

Upon hearing a Committee Member’s comments Mr. Bertalan noted the value and

importance of the system.

On Order of Chairperson O’Neill and there being no objection, the Committee of the

Whole forwarded to the VTA Board of Directors without a recommendation the

authorization for the General Manager to: (1) execute a contract amendment with Allied

Telesis for additional warranty, support and software customization services in support of

the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system on Light Rail in an amount not to exceed

$1,525,647; (2) extend the contract term through six (6) years of Extended Warranty; and

(3) increase the total contract value to an amount not to exceed $9,163,044.

Member Liccardo returned to his seat at 12:56 p.m. and a quorum was established.

Member Liccardo recused himself from Agenda Item #10., General Engineering

Services for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension.

10. General Engineering Services for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension

Dennis Ratcliffe, Deputy Director, Deputy Director, provided an overview of the staff

report.

5


Committee Members and staff discussed the following: 1) steps for expediting the grant

process; 2) Capital Improvement Grants and the lengthy application process; 3) future

opportunities for public/private partnerships as it relates to BART Phase II; and 4) the

types services that Mott MacDonald/PGH Wong Engineering Joint Venture (MMW)

would be providing.

On Order of Chairperson O’Neill and there being no objection, the Committee of the

Whole forwarded to the VTA Board of Directors without a recommendation the

authorization for the General Manager to execute a contract with Mott MacDonald/PGH

Wong Engineering Joint Venture (MMW) in an amount up to $125,000,000 to provide

General Engineering services for the preliminary engineering phase of VTA’s BART

Silicon Valley Phase II Extension.

11. US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvement - Phase 1- Execute PS&E Services

Contract

Gene Gonzalo, Engineering Group Manager, provided an overview of the staff report.


General Manager to negotiate and execute a cost plus fixed fee contract for the Final

Design and Right-of-Way Engineering Services for the US 101/SR 25 Interchange

Improvement Project - Phase 1 (Phase 1 Project).

Note: Due to the strict grant fund timing, this recommendation is preliminary. Staff will

provide the recommended contractor and amount before the January 10, 2019 VTA

Board meeting.

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

NOES:



Larry Carr, Chairperson


None

ABSENT: Yeager

CONSENT AGENDA (continued)

5. Amendment of Outfront Contract for SVBX Advertisement

Upon inquiry of Committee Member Liccardo, VTA staff discussed the long term capital

investment by Outfront that influenced VTA’s decision to accept the proposed Minimum

Annual Guarantee (MAG) and revenue share.


General Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with Outfront Media Group,

LLC, to amend the scope of services to include the Berryessa/North San Jose Intermodal

Transit Center and the Milpitas Intermodal Transit Center, and to increase the Minimum

Annual Guarantee to reflect the additional advertising assets.

5


RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES:

NOES:



Larry Carr, Chairperson


None

ABSENT: Yeager

OTHER ITEMS (continued)

11. Items of Concern and Referral to Administration

There were no Items of Concern and Referral.

14. Chairperson’s Report

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

15. Determine Consent Agenda for the November 1, 2018 Board of Directors Meeting

CONSENT:

Agenda Item #5. Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors authorize the General

Manager to execute an amendment to the contract with Outfront Media Group, LLC, to

amend the scope of services to include the Berryessa/North San Jose Intermodal Transit

Center and the Milpitas Intermodal Transit Center, and to increase the Minimum Annual

Guarantee to reflect the additional advertising assets.

Agenda Item #6. Approve 2019 Legislative Program.

Agenda Item #8. -Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors authorize the General

Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Ray Morgan Company (RMC) for

Multifunction Device (print, copy, scan) services. The initial term of the contract will be

five years with an option to extend the contract on an annual basis for two additional

years. The cost of the initial five-year term is $1,800,000, plus $300,000 per year for two

optional one-year periods, for a total of $2,400,000.


Manager to: (1) execute a contract amendment with Allied Telesis for additional warranty,

support and software customization services in support of the Closed Circuit Television

(CCTV) system on Light Rail in an amount not to exceed $1,525,647; (2) extend the

contract term through six (6) years of Extended Warranty; and (3) increase the total

contract value to an amount not to exceed $9,163,044.

Agenda Item #12. Receive information on Transit Ridership Trends - Fall 2018.

5


REGULAR:


Manager to execute a contract with Mott MacDonald/PGH Wong Engineering Joint

Venture (MMW) in an amount up to $125,000,000 to provide General Engineering

services for the preliminary engineering phase of VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II

Extension.


Manager to negotiate and execute a cost plus fixed fee contract for the Final Design and

Right-of-Way Engineering Services for the US 101/SR 25 Interchange Improvement

Project - Phase 1 (Phase 1 Project).

Note: Due to the strict grant fund timing, this recommendation is preliminary. Staff will

provide the recommended contractor and amount before the January 10, 2019 VTA

Board meeting.

16. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Ms. Fernandez wished the Committee Happy Holidays.

17. ADJOURNMENT

On order of Chairperson O’Neill and there being no objection, the meeting adjourned

at 1:13 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Theadora Abraham, Board Assistant

VTA Office of the Board Secretary

5

Date: February 15, 2019

Current Meeting: February 21, 2019

Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority


THROUGH: General Manager, Nuria I. Fernandez

FROM: Board Secretary, Elaine Baltao

SUBJECT: 2019 A&F Committee Meeting Schedule

Policy-Related Action: No Government Code Section 84308 Applies: No

ACTION ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the 2019 Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee Meeting Schedule.

BACKGROUND:

The VTA Board of Directors Administration and Finance (A&F) Committee generally meets the

third Thursday of every month. The following meeting dates are proposed for 2019. The

Administration and Finance Committee typically meets at VTA River Oaks Campus, 3331 North

First Street, Conference Room B-106, at noon, or as otherwise posted.

Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, March 21, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, April 18, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, May 16, 2019 12:00 p.m.

June 2019 - (No Meeting Scheduled)

July 2019 - (No Meeting Scheduled)

Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, September 19, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, October 17, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:00 p.m.

Thursday, December 19, 2019 12:00 p.m.

6

of 2

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no Fiscal Impact.

Prepared by: Theadora Abraham

Memo No. 6838

6



Board Meeting: March 7, 2019

BOARD MEMORANDUM




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:

Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors 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.

7

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.

7

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.

Prepared by: Ed Evangelista, Sr. Transportation Engineer

Memo No. 6583

ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit_A_Rapid_523_Corridor_Bus_Shelter_Locations (PDF)

Exhibit_B_Keyes_Story_Corridor_Bus_Shelter_Locations (PDF)

Exhibit_C_SantaClara_AlumRock_Corridor_Bus_Shelter_Locations (PDF)

7




BOARD MEMORANDUM




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:

Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to negotiate and

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

8

of 4

Evaluate the transit supportiveness of each corridor, and recommend the most

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:

8

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

8

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.

Prepared by: Tamiko Percell

Memo No. 6842

ATTACHMENTS:

S18181 Attachment A (PDF)

8

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

8.a



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM




FROM: Chief Financial Officer, Raj Srinath

SUBJECT: Monthly Investment Report - December 2018

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

The investment activities of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority are in compliance

with the Investment of Non-Trust Held Funds Investment Policy, the VTA Retirees’ Other Post-

Employment Benefits Trust Investment Policy and the ATU, Local 265 Pension Plan’s

Investment Policy.

DISCUSSION:

The US economy grew at an annual rate of 3.4% in 2018 Q3. According to the Bureau of

Economic Analysis. The increase in real GDP in the third quarter reflected positive contributions

from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, state and local

government spending, federal government spending, and nonresidential fixed investment that

were partly offset by negative contributions from exports and residential fixed investment. In the

second quarter 2018, real GDP increased 4.2 %.

Headline consumer prices, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI), rose 1.9% year over

year as of December 2018. Core CPI, which excludes volatile food and energy prices increased

at a rate of 2.2% year over year as of December 2018. The Federal Reserve continues to target an

inflation rate of 2.00%.

The unemployment rate in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA was 2.5 % in December

2018, up from a revised 2.4 % in November 2018, and below the year-ago estimate of 2.7 %.

This compares with an unadjusted unemployment rate of 4.1 % for California and 3.9 % for the

nation during the same period.

9

of 8

Market Watch

The Standard & Poor’s 500 index returned -9.03% in December, and the NASDAQ Composite

index returned -9.38%. Large cap stocks returned -9.11% and small cap stocks returned -11.88%.

Within the large cap space, growth stocks outperformed value stocks, returning -8.60% and

-9.61%, respectively. The top performing industries were Utilities, Materials & Processing, and

Technology. The worst performing industries were Financial Services, Producer Durables, and

Energy.

The Barclays Aggregate index returned 1.84% in December 2018. Investment grade corporate

debt returned 1.50% and agency MBS returned 1.80%.

In global markets, the European 10-year government bond yield ended the month at 0.24%

compared to 0.31% at the end of November. The Japanese 10-year bond yield finished December

at 0.00%.

VTA Enterprise Funds

VTA Enterprise Funds are invested in portfolios managed by Payden & Rygel, the State of

California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and an interest-bearing checking account.

Investment performance for the Payden & Rygel managed accounts are included below.

The Payden & Rygel weighted average composite portfolio underperformed its policy

benchmark in December by 0.39%. The current yield for the Payden short-term portfolio is

1.61%, the mid-term portfolio is 1.87%, and the long-term portfolio is 1.95%.

At month-end the current yield for funds invested in LAIF was 2.29% and the VTA’s checking

accounts was 1.00%.

Market performance for each Payden & Rygel account is summarized in the following table:

Investment Performance

Asset Class Fund Manager Dec. 3 Mo Y-T-D 1 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr I-T-D

Short-Term Fixed

Income 2

Payden & Rygel 0.15% 0.44% 1.96% 1.96% 1.42% 0.99% 0.90% 1.69%

iMoneynet Money Market Index 0.18% 0.52% 1.77% 1.77% 0.95% 0.57% 0.35% 1.22%

Mid-Term Fixed

Income 1

Payden & Rygel 0.44% 0.81% 1.65% 1.65% 1.29% 1.10% - 1.37%

Merrill Lynch 1- 3 Year Treasury Index 0.79% 1.29% 1.90% 1.90% 1.07% 0.87% - 1.02%

Long-Term Fixed

Income

Payden & Rygel 0.95% 1.48% 1.27% 1.27% 1.45% 1.61% 2.09% 3.81%

Barclays US Govt. Intermediate Index 1.49% 2.23% 1.43% 1.43% 1.00% 1.33% 1.76% 3.70%

Composite Portfolio Returns 0.62% 1.05% 1.71% 1.71% 1.40% 1.25% 1.60% 3.25%

Policy Benchmark Returns 1.01% 1.60% 1.87% 1.87% 1.09% 0.98% 1.24% 3.07% 1 Implemented February 11, 2009 2 Implemented February 14, 2003

9

of 8

VTA Retirees’ Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust

The VTA Retirees’ OPEB Trust Investment Policy requires the following asset allocation:

Asset Allocation Range Target Actual

Domestic Large Cap Index Int’l

Equity Developed Market Int’l

Equity Emerging Market

Private Real Estate

Diversified Real Assets

Domestic Fixed Income

Absolute Return

Cash

28-68%

6-16%

0-10%

6-16%

0-10%

15-30%

0-15%

0 - 3%

30%

18%

6%

11%

5%

21%

8%

1%

32%

17%

5%

11%

5%

21%

8%

1%

The Retirees’ OPEB composite portfolio underperformed its policy benchmark by 0.10% for the

month of December 2018. The current yield for the fixed income portfolio is 4.32% and the

current effective duration is 4.40 years.

Market performance for each money manager is summarized in the following table:



Large Cap Index State Street -9.00% -13.48% -4.40% -4.40% 9.22% 8.47% 13.09% 5.11%

S&P 500 Index -9.03% -13.52% -4.38% -4.38% 9.27% 8.51% 13.12% 5.01%

Int’l Equity Dev.

Markets Growth

MFS -4.28% -11.74% -10.09%

MSCI AC World ex-US Growth Index -4.58% -12.20% -13.83%

Emerging Market State Street EM(2) -2.66% -7.48% -14.74% -14.74% 8.01%

MCSI World Emerging Market -2.65% -7.46% -14.56% -14.56% 8.51%

US Core Real Estate UBS 4 1.73% 6.98% 6.98% 6.59%

NCREIF NFI-ODCE 2.08% 8.68% 8.68% 8.10%

Diversified Real

Assets

Principal Group -4.13% -8.55% -9.70% -9.70%

Diversified Real Assets Strategic Index -3.06% -6.67% -8.81% -8.81%

Fixed Income Dodge & Cox 1.18% 0.58% 0.02% 0.02% 3.96% 3.48% 5.02% 5.59%

Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index 1.84% 1.64% 0.02% 0.02% 2.06% 2.52% 3.49% 4.83%

Absolute Return Lighthouse 3 -0.50% -3.47% -2.57% -2.57% 1.93%

HFRI FoF Index -1.16% -3.99% -3.10% -3.10% 2.62%

Absolute Return Sky Bridge 3 -1.83% -2.60% 4.73% 4.73% 5.27%

HFRI FoF Index -1.16% -3.99% -3.10% -3.10% 2.62%

Composite Portfolio Returns -3.58% -7.16% -2.97% -2.97% 7.18% 6.63% 10.17% 6.49%

Policy Benchmark Returns -3.48% -7.13% -3.20% -3.20% 6.80% 6.26% 8.78% 5.42% 2 Funded June 30, 2016

9

of 8

3 Funded January 28, 2016 4 Funded January 4, 2016

MFS - The International Equity manager underperformed its policy benchmark in December

2018 by 0.30%. Stock selection in the communication services sector was the primary detractor

to relative performance for the month.

PRINCIPAL GROUP - The Diversified Real Asset Manager underperformed its policy

benchmark in December 2018 by 1.07%. Allocations to the natural resource and the

infrastructure sectors both contributed to relative underperformance for the month.

DODGE & COX - The Fixed Income portfolio manager underperformed its benchmark in

December 2018 by 0.66%. The primary contributor to relative performance was the portfolios’

shorter relative duration and an overweight position to corporate bonds.

LIGHTHOUSE - The Absolute Return manager outperformed its policy benchmark in December

2018 by 0.66%. Long / Short international equity managers were the primary contributors to

relative performance for the month.

SKYBRIDGE - The Absolute Return manager underperformed its policy benchmark in

December 2018 by 0.67%. Relative value, structured credit and credit sensitive MBS strategies

all contributed to relative performance for the month.

A 7.00% rate of return assumption is used in the annual actuarial analysis for the Retirees’

OPEB. The results of the actuarial analysis determine VTA’s annual contribution rates. Any

difference between actual investment returns and the 7.00% assumed annual return is recognized

in the same year. The annual returns for the Retirees’ OPEB portfolio have been equivalent to or

exceeded the 7.00% assumed rate of return in 9 out of 15 years.

Historic Portfolio Performance for the last fifteen calendar years:

Year Performance Year Performance Year Performance

2004 7.6% 2009 22.2% 2014 10.8%

2005 3.9% 2010 12.5% 2015 1.1%

2006 11.7% 2011 4.0% 2016 9.3%

2007 6.1% 2012 12.4% 2017 16.12%

2008 -20.9% 2013 18.9% 2018 -2.97%

SCVTA-ATU, Local 265 Pension Plan Assets

It is the policy of the SCVTA-ATU Board of Pensions to have a well-managed investment

program that provides for the financial needs of the pension plan and allows the investments to

be appropriately diversified and prudently invested to protect the safety of the principal while

maintaining a reasonable return. Assets are invested within the following investment guidelines:

9

of 8


Domestic Large-Cap Value 10-20% 15% 15%

Domestic Large-Cap Index 5-15% 10% 10%

Domestic Small-Cap Value 5-15% 10% 10%

Int’l Equity Developed Markets 8-18% 13% 13%

Int’l Equity Emerging Markets

US Core Real Estate Diversified

Real Assets

Domestic Fixed Income

Absolute Return

0-10%

5-15%

0-10%

15-30%

4-14%

5%

10%

5%

22%

9%

5%

10%

5%

22%

9%

Cash 0 - 5% 1% 1%

The SCVTA-ATU Pension Plan composite portfolio underperformed its policy benchmark in

December 2018 by 0.33%. The current yield of the Dodge & Cox Fixed Income portfolio is

4.39% and the current effective duration is 4.40 years.




Large-Cap Value

Stocks

Boston Partners -10.34% -13.83% -8.57% -8.57% 7.98% 6.08% 12.54% 8.90%

Russell 1000 Value Index -9.60% -11.72% -8.26% -8.26% 6.94% 5.94% 11.17% 6.40%

Large-Cap Index State Street -9.00% -13.48% -4.40% -4.40% 9.22% 8.47% 13.09% 6.66%

S&P 500 Index -9.03% -13.52% -4.38% -4.38% 9.27% 8.51% 13.12% 6.58%

Small-Cap Value

Stocks

Wedge 5 -12.04% -18.50% -14.28% -14.28% 5.20% 4.29% 13.40%

Russell 2000 Value Index -12.09% -18.67% -12.86% -12.86% 7.37% 3.61% 12.44%

Int’l Equity Dev.

Markets Growth

MFS 6 -4.20% -11.60% -8.05% -8.05% 8.47% 4.37% 9.59% 3.99%

MSCI AC World ex-US Growth Index -4.58% -12.20% -14.43% -14.43% 4.19% 1.68% 7.15% 0.74%

Emerging Market State Street EM7 -2.66% -7.48% -14.74% -14.74% 8.01%

MCSI World Emerging Market -2.65% -7.46% -14.56% -14.56% 8.51%

US Core Real Estate UBS 8 1.73% 6.98% 6.98% 6.83% 8.99% - 10.35%

NCREIF NFI-ODCE 2.08% 8.68% 8.68% 8.36% 10.48% - 12.26%

Diversified Real

Assets

Principal Group -4.13% -8.55% -9.70% -9.70%

Diversified Real Assets Strategic Index -3.06% -6.67% -8.81% -8.81%

Fixed Income Dodge & Cox 1.18% 0.55% 0.02% 0.02% 3.67% 3.35% 5.02% 5.82%


Absolute Return Lighthouse 9 -0.50% -3.47% -2.57% -2.57% 1.93%

HFRI FoF Index -1.16% -3.99% -3.10% -3.10% 2.62%

9

of 8

Absolute Return Sky Bridge 9 -1.83% -2.60% 4.73% 4.73% 5.27%

HFRI FoF Index -1.16% -3.99% -3.10% -3.10% 2.62%

Composite Portfolio Returns 10 -4.39% -7.78% -4.56% -4.56% 6.11% 4.96% 9.46% 7.71%

Policy Benchmark Returns -4.06% -7.14% -5.33% -5.33% 5.43% 4.50% 7.90% 5.66% 5 Funded April 1, 2009. Prior manager was Brandywine with the same benchmark. 6 Funded December 14, 2007. Prior managers were Putnam and Fidelity with MSCI EAFE as their benchmark. 7 Initially funded June 30, 2016 8 Initially funded July 1, 2010. UBS Realty Investors LLC with NCREIF NFI-ODCE as their benchmark. Report 45 days after quarter ended. 9 Funded January 28, 2016

10 Investment performances by prior managers are included in composite returns and historical policy benchmark returns.

BOSTON PARTNERS - The Domestic Large Cap Value Equity manager underperformed its

policy benchmark in December 2018 by 0.74%. Stock selection in the finance and technology

sectors both detracted from relative performance.

WEDGE - The Domestic Small Cap Value Equity manager outperformed its policy benchmark

in December 2018 by 0.05%. Stock selection in the consumer staples, transportation and the

telecom sectors all contributed to the relative performance for the month.

MFS - The International Equity manager outperformed its policy benchmark in December 2018

by 0.38%. Stock selection in the communication services sector was the primary detractor to


PRINCIPAL GROUP - The Diversified Real Asset Manager underperformed its policy

benchmark in December 2018 by 1.07%. Allocations to the natural resource and the

infrastructure sectors both contributed to relative underperformance for the month.




LIGHTHOUSE - The Absolute Return manager outperformed its policy benchmark in December

2018 by 0.66%. Long / Short international equity managers were the primary contributors to


SKYBRIDGE - The Absolute Return manager underperformed its policy benchmark in

December 2018 by 0.67%. Relative value, structured credit and credit sensitive MBS strategies

all contributed to relative performance for the month.

A 7.00% rate of return assumption is used in the annual actuarial analysis for the ATU Pension

Plan. The results of the actuarial analysis determine VTA’s annual contribution rates. The

annual returns for the ATU Pension Plan portfolio have been equivalent to or exceeded the

7.00% assumed rate of return 10 out of 15 years.

Historic Portfolio Performance (calendar year) for the last fifteen calendar years:

Year Performance Year Performance Year Performance

2004 12.2% 2009 25.7% 2014 7.2%

9

of 8

2005 7.2% 2010 14.0% 2015 0.5%

2006 14.5% 2011 1.7% 2016 9.2%

2007 5.8% 2012 14.5% 2017 14.65%

2008 -19.7% 2013 16.5% 2018 -4.56%

ATU Spousal Medical Trust Fund, Dental, and Vision Plan

Asset allocation for the ATU Spousal Medical Trust Fund (including funds for dental and vision

plans) is provided for in the SCVTA-ATU Pension Plan Investment Policy.


Domestic Fixed Income 30-50% 38% 37%

Domestic Large Cap Index 50-70% 60% 62%

Cash 0-5% 2% 1%

The ATU Spousal Medical Trust Fund composite portfolio underperformed its policy benchmark

in the current month by 0.57%. The current yield for the fixed income portfolio is 4.39% and the

current effective duration is 4.40 years.




Large-Cap Index State Street -9.00% -13.48% -4.40% -4.40% 9.22% 8.47% 13.09% 8.11%

S&P 500 Index -9.03% -13.52% -4.38% -4.38% 9.27% 8.51% 13.12% 8.11%

Fixed Income Dodge & Cox 1.05% 0.29% -0.31% -0.31% 3.19% 2.87% 5.01% 4.42%


Composite Portfolio Returns -5.25% -8.48% -2.80% -2.80% 7.15% 6.55% 10.32% 7.24%

Policy Benchmark Returns -4.68% -7.56% -2.35% -2.35% 6.51% 6.25% 9.42% 6.62%




Other Data

The valuation of VTA’s securities is provided by Interactive Data Corporation (IDC) and

Bloomberg Generic Pricing Service. These firms are the leading providers of global securities

data. They offer the largest information databases with current and historical prices on securities

traded in all major markets.

This report complies with VTA’s adopted investment policies. Based on budgeted revenues and

expenditures as well as actual transfers to/from reserves, there are sufficient funds available to

meet expenditure requirements for the six months ending June 30, 2019.

9

of 8

Prepared By: Sean Bill

Memo No. 6856

9




BOARD MEMORANDUM




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:

Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors 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.

10

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

10

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


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.

10

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

10

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).

10

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.

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)

10

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.

10.a


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


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

Preliminary Review (City Planning) Summer 2019 Summer 2019

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

10.a


GRBH Site Plan

Archway over Main Entrance

VTA Transit Parking

Market-rate Building

Affordable Apartment Bldg.

To Martial Cottle Park

10.a


GRBH Site Program and Uses

10.a

Attachment B – Review Panel Summary

Attachment B: Review Panel Summary Report Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC, a joint-venture company between


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

10.b


• 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

10.b


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.

10.b


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.

10.b


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.

10.b


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

10.b


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.

10.b

Attachment C Key Participants

Attachment C: Key Participants Green Republic Blossom Hill, LLC, a joint-venture company between


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

10.c




BOARD MEMORANDUM





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:

Recommend that the VTA Board of Directors 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

11

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

11

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:

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 Grant Program was the only

11

of 5

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.

Prepared by: Jane Shinn

Memo No. 6128

11

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.

11.a

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.

11.a

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.

11.a



Board Meeting: N/A

BOARD MEMORANDUM





SUBJECT: Proposal for 2019 New Transit Service Plan

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

BACKGROUND:

This is a staff proposal for a 2019 New Transit Service Plan that incorporates the direction

provided by the VTA Board of Directors at its December 2018 meeting.

Following an intense two-year planning effort in collaboration with Jarrett Walker + Associates,

the community, and transit stakeholders, the VTA Board of Directors adopted the Next Network

transit service plan in May 2017. The plan was to be implemented with the start of BART service

to Milpitas and Berryessa. As adopted, the Next Network plan comprised 1,601,000 annual bus

hours and 192,000 annual rail hours of service, with an 83% ridership and 17% coverage mix.

Since adoption, VTA's existing service network (in place and largely unchanged since 2008)

remains in effect until the introduction of BART service.

To help address VTA's structural deficit and improve its long-term financial stability, in

December 2018 the Board of Directors adopted the Ad Hoc Financial Stability Committee's

recommendations. Included in these recommendations was direction to develop a 2019 New

Transit Service Plan that would replace the original Next Network plan at approximately the

same service level as FY2018, but with a higher ridership focus, in order to achieve a $14.7M

annual operating cost savings.

Per VTA's Transit Service Guidelines and the Title VI Major Service Change policy, any major

service change must be developed as part of a comprehensive service plan development process,

which must include outreach/engagement with the community, an analysis of ADA paratransit

impacts, a CEQA environmental analysis, and a Title VI service equity analysis. Accordingly,

the necessary first step of this process is for staff to develop and present this network proposal

for Board and community consideration.

12

of 10

DISCUSSION:

At its December 2018 meeting, the VTA Board of Directors directed staff to develop a new

transit service plan, based on the original Next Network, but with several changes. The proposed

service plan presented here generally meets all three of the Board’s parameters for the new plan:

1. Maintain transit service at levels approximately the same as what is offered today,

1.52M annual hours of bus service and 156K annual hours of rail service, to achieve

a $14.7M reduction in annual operating costs. The proposed plan would achieve a net

$14.7M reduction in annual operating costs, however the plan divides the cuts between

bus and rail service to preserve BART connections, ridership, and efficiency.

2. Adjust the network’s ridership/coverage balance to 90% ridership and 10%

coverage. The proposed plan would achieve a 90/10 ridership/coverage balance.

3. Protect service in South County. All local bus service as adopted in the original Next

Network plan is maintained in South County with no reductions. Route 68, which is South

County’s “backbone” transit route into San Jose, is improved significantly (resulting

from the shift to a 90/10 network). Express bus service to South County would be

reduced, however, as part of coverage reductions in the entire Express Bus program.

The original Next Network transit service plan was used as the baseline for this proposal,

and as such, the proposed plan is presented by prescribing changes as compared to the

original service plan. While service cuts are always difficult because the loss of transit service

impacts real riders, staff aimed to focus cuts on the least productive services in the network

(routes with the fewest boardings per hour of service) to minimize the impact to riders and

improve the proposal’s systemwide ridership. Accordingly, the proposed plan minimizes cuts to

VTA’s Next Network light rail system plan, as it represents the foundation of VTA’s ridership-

oriented service. To follow the direction to move to a 90/10 network, the proposal focuses most

of the service cuts to coverage services throughout the Local and Express route network. The

most significant major changes are also illustrated on the map in Attachment A. Attachment B

lists the municipalities impacted by each change.

Service Reductions

The proposed service plan includes 61 reductions in service as compared to the original Next

Network plan. All the reductions are to coverage service (to limit ridership impacts). Each

change in service is detailed below; the most significant major changes are highlighted in bold.

Purple Line (Almaden)

1. Discontinue Purple Line rail service (Almaden spur)

2. Replace Purple Line rail service with a new bus route that will stop at all three

stations (Ohlone/Chynoweth, Oakridge, Almaden) at 30-minute frequency, on the

same days and generally the same hours as the Purple Line

Blue Line (Alum Rock – Santa Teresa)

3. Shorten to end at Baypointe Station instead of Alum Rock Station; stations east of

Baypointe would be served by the Orange Line (Mountain View – Alum Rock)

All Light Rail Lines

4. Change weekend frequency to every 20 minutes on all lines (to provide better

12

of 10

connections with BART’s 20-minute weekend train frequency)

Rapid 523 (Berryessa – Lockheed Martin)

5. End Saturday service at Sunnyvale Transit Center instead of Lockheed Martin after 8:00

PM

6. End Sunday service at Sunnyvale Transit Center instead of Lockheed Martin after 7:30

PM

Route 20 (Milpitas BART – Sunnyvale Transit Center)

7. End weekday service at 8:30 PM instead of 10:00 PM

Route 21 (Stanford Shopping Center – Santa Clara Transit Center)


Route 22 (Palo Alto – Eastridge)

9. Discontinue overnight service (1:00 AM to 4:00 AM)

Route 27 (Winchester Station – Kaiser San Jose)

10. Start weekday service at 6:00 AM instead of 5:30 AM


12. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 40 minutes from every 30 minutes

13. End Saturday service at 8:00 PM instead of 9:00 PM

14. End Sunday service at 7:30 PM instead of 8:00 PM

Route 31 (Evergreen Valley College – Eastridge)

15. Discontinue Sunday service

16. Start Saturday service at 8:30 AM instead of 7:30 AM

Route 40 (Foothill College – Mountain View Transit Center)


Route 44/47 (Milpitas BART – McCarthy Ranch)



20. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 40 minutes from 30

21. Reduce Sunday frequency to every 60 minutes from 30






Route 53 (Sunnyvale Transit Center – Santa Clara Transit Center)


27. Discontinue Saturday service

28. Eliminate deviation to Stevens Creek (stay on Homestead)

Route 56 (Lockheed Martin – Tamien Station)

29. Eliminate deviation to downtown Sunnyvale (stay on Fair Oaks)


31. Start Sunday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:30 AM

Route 57 (Old Ironsides Station – West Valley College)

32. End weekday service at 11:00 PM instead of 12:00 midnight

Route 59 (Valley Fair – Baypointe Station)


34. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 60 minutes from 30

12

of 10



37. Start Sunday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:30 AM

Route 61 (Sierra & Piedmont – Good Samaritan Hospital)



Route 63 (San Jose State – Kooser & Blossom Hill)



41. Discontinue route

Route 71 (Milpitas BART – Capitol Station)


Route 72 (Downtown San Jose – Senter & Monterey via McLaughlin)

43. Reduce weekday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 8:00 PM and

9:00 PM

44. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 7:00 PM and

9:00 PM

45. Reduce Sunday frequency to every 60 minutes from every 30 between 8:00 PM and 9:00

PM

Route 73 (Downtown San Jose – Senter & Monterey via Senter)

46. Reduce weekday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 8:00 PM and

9:00 PM

47. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 7:00 PM and

9:00 PM

Route 77 (Milpitas BART – Eastridge)


49. End Saturday service at 11:00 PM instead of 12:00 midnight


Route 83 (Ohlone/Chynoweth Station – Almaden & McKean)


Express 101 (Camden & Highway 85 – Stanford Research Park)


Express 102 (South San Jose – Stanford Research Park)

53. Eliminate 2 of 7 daily trips in each direction

Express 103 (Eastridge – Stanford Research Park)


Express 121 (South County – Lockheed Martin)


Express 122 (South San Jose – Lockheed Martin)


Express 168 (South County – San Jose Diridon Station)


Express 182 (Palo Alto – IBM/Bailey Ave)


Express 185 (South County – Mountain View)


12

of 10

Route 251 (St. Francis High School – Mountain View Transit Center)

60. Discontinue school-oriented route

Route 255 (Fremont High School – Lawrence & Tasman)

61. Discontinue school-oriented route (regular Route 55 trips would remain)

Route 266 (Santa Teresa High School – Bernal & Via Serena)

62. Discontinue school-oriented route

Service Improvements

Since the proposed plan aims to achieve a 90/10 ridership/coverage balance as compared to the

original Next Network plan’s 83/17 balance, the proposal also includes additional investments in

the Frequent Network, VTA’s ridership-oriented network of frequent routes that are designed for

serving and attracting high ridership. The proposed service plan includes 6 improvements to

routes in the Frequent Network as compared to the original Next Network plan. Each

improvement is detailed below.

Rapid 500 (Berryessa BART – Diridon Station)

1. Improve weekday frequency to every 7.5 minutes all day (average) from every 10-15

minutes

Route 23 (De Anza College – Alum Rock Station)

2. Improve weekday and weekend service frequency between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM

Route 26 (West Valley College – Eastridge)

3. Improve weekday service frequency between Curtner Station and Westgate to every

15 minutes from 30, extending the all-day Frequent segment of the route west

beyond Curtner Station

4. Improve weekend service frequency between Curtner Station and Westgate to every

20 minutes from every 30

Route 68 (San Jose Diridon Station – Gilroy Transit Center)

5. Improve weekday midday service frequency between Santa Teresa Station and

Gilroy to every 15 minutes from 30, which would make the entire route from San

Jose to Gilroy frequent all day

Rapid 522 (Palo Alto – Eastridge)

6. Improve early morning and evening frequency to every 15 minutes from every 20,

daily

Service Levels

The proposed service plan would divide the service cuts between bus and rail to achieve the

Board’s goal of a net annual $14.7M savings versus the original plan. The Ad Hoc Financial

Stability Committee recommendation was to focus more of the cuts on the light rail network;

however, such extreme cuts to the light rail network would have been contrary to the direction to

create a more ridership-oriented network (since VTA light rail carries far more riders per hour of

service than VTA bus). Therefore, the revised plan as proposed focuses the cuts on coverage

service throughout the bus network. As Table 1 shows, the proposal includes 1.49M annual

hours of bus service and 172K annual hours of rail service.

12

of 10

Table 1: Summary of Proposed Plan Service Level

Original Ad Hoc Committee Proposed % Reduction

Next Network Plan Recommendation Plan from Original Plan

Annual Hours (Bus) 1,601,000 1,520,000 1,490,000 – 6.9%

Annual Hours (Rail) 192,000 156,000 172,000 – 10.4%

Ridership Impact

The reduction in service levels will have a negative impact on VTA transit ridership, as well as

BART ridership in Santa Clara County. At the same time, the transition to a 90/10

ridership/coverage network through additional investments in the Frequent Network will have a

positive impact on ridership. Table 2 provides a planning-level estimate of the proposal’s net

change in ridership as compared to the original Next Network plan.

Table 2: Estimate of Ridership Impacts

Annual Boardings

Current Ridership (Dec. ‘17 – Nov. ‘18) 36,141,014

Original Next Network VTA Ridership 40,372,000

Impact of Light Rail Reductions – 566,000

Impact of Bus Reductions – 607,000

Impact of Bus Improvements + 662,000

Net Impact – 511,000 (– 1.3% from original plan)

Proposed Plan VTA Ridership 39,407,000

In addition to the impact on VTA transit ridership, the proposed plan would also impact BART

ridership at both stations in Santa Clara County due to fewer VTA transit connections,

particularly at Milpitas Station. For example, the longstanding plan to provide Blue Line and

Orange Line service at Milpitas Station (service every 7.5 minutes) would be cut in half to just

the Orange Line (service every 15 minutes). Quantifying the proposal’s BART ridership impact

would require significant further analysis not possible in the timeframe of this memorandum.

The revised service levels and VTA ridership impacts discussed above are anticipated to result in

a $14.7M net annual savings versus the cost of the original Next Network plan (a 4% reduction).

Outreach and Next Steps

Following the January VTA’s Board of Directors meeting, staff will immediately begin an

intensive two-month community outreach effort to gather feedback on the proposal, as dictated

by VTA’s Transit Service Guidelines and Title VI Major Service Change policy. Community

and stakeholder feedback will be used to revise the plan for the final version that will be

presented to the Board of Directors for adoption in the spring.

To complete the process and have sufficient time to prepare for and deploy the revised network

in time for day one of BART service, the process will need to move quickly and there is little

room for delay in the schedule:

12

of 10

December 2018: Board directs staff to develop new service plan

January 2019: Staff presents new service plan proposal to Board

January 2019 to February 2019: Staff conducts community outreach, ADA paratransit

analysis, CEQA analysis, and draft Title VI service equity analysis

March 2019: Staff revises plan based on community and stakeholder input

April 2019: Staff presents final service plan to VTA Board Committees

May 2019: Staff presents final service plan to VTA Board of Directors for adoption

May 2019 to September 2019: Staff conducts implementation activities (prepares

schedules, revises customer information, fabricates and installs new bus stop signage, and

a host of other activities to implement the new network on day one of BART service)

Staff will provide updates to the Board of Directors throughout the spring as staff conduct

outreach, analysis, and develops the final plan. The final plan to be presented for the Board’s

adoption in May will include service details, analysis, and maps.

Related Efforts

Fast Transit Program. Alongside this effort to revise the transit service plan, staff is actively

ramping up efforts to speed up VTA buses and trains, which are suffering from a long-term

gradual decline in average speeds due to a variety of factors. Since the cost of VTA transit

service is directly related to the speed of buses and trains, slower speeds are effectively a service

cut because they result in higher costs to deliver the same service. Alarmingly, VTA’s speeds

have declined 20% over the last 30 years, resulting in a 20% increase in operating costs to

maintain the same miles of service, and that trend has accelerated significantly in recent years.

To illustrate the potential impact of faster transit, a speed increase on VTA’s Frequent Network

of just 1 mile-per-hour would reduce annual operating costs by well over $15M, which would

eliminate the need to make any of the cuts as proposed in this plan. Staff are actively studying all

sources of delay to VTA buses and trains and will be working with the VTA Board and our

municipal partners to implement policies and actions that put transit first. Accordingly, staff are

exploring cost-effective strategies that other transit properties have implemented to great success

in speeding up transit, including transit signal priority, removing and consolidating bus stops, all-

door boarding, and fare policies that reduce the delays related to cash fare collection.

Express Bus Study. VTA staff in late 2018 began a comprehensive study of VTA’s nine-route

Express bus program. Following a VTA Committee and Board report on the program’s poor

performance in spring 2018, staff have begun an effort to conduct a thorough analysis of each

route, collaborate with stakeholders on new ideas for commute services, and develop a new

service plan that will better meet the needs of commuters as well as VTA’s performance

standards. While this 2019 New Transit Service Plan proposal would reduce the Express bus

program’s total service level by half, staff will continue the study on the remainder and make

recommendations with the remaining resources (likely late 2019 or early 2020).

ALTERNATIVES:

Alternatively, the Board could reject the proposal and elect to proceed with a different transit

network plan altogether. One alternative could be implemented without any further outreach or

12

of 10

analysis and could be in place on day one of BART service:

1. The Board could elect to abandon the direction to revise the transit service plan, in which

case staff would implement the original Next Network transit service plan as adopted in

2017.

However, implementing the service levels in the original Next Network transit service plan

would not achieve the desired $14.7M and would seriously jeopardize VTA’s long-term

financial stability.

Aside from the original Next Network plan or the revised plan as proposed in this memo, any

other network plan would require development, subsequent analysis, and a full Title VI outreach

and community engagement process. Unfortunately, there may not be sufficient time to complete

the necessary tasks in time for day one of BART service, meaning the new network may not be

ready and VTA would continue to operate today’s network after BART service begins. Although

not recommended by staff because it is likely the network would not be ready for day one of

BART service, the Board could elect to:

2. Direct staff to develop a new transit service plan based more strictly on the Ad Hoc

Financial Stability Committee’s original recommendation to focus the cuts on the light

rail network (i.e. a light rail network without the new Orange Line). Staff would present

such a plan to the Board in February and proceed along a similar timeline. However, due

to the delay, it may be a challenge for staff to implement the network in time for day one

of BART service.

3. Direct staff to develop a new transit service plan based on a new set of criteria. Staff

would present the new plan to the Board in February. The delay would push the schedule

out and the network would not be ready for implementation until November 2018 at the

earliest.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is minimal direct fiscal impact from directing staff to conduct outreach on the proposed

Next Network service plan revision. However, if the proposed plan revision is implemented, the

updated service levels and VTA ridership impacts discussed above are anticipated to result in

annual net savings of $14.7M versus the cost of the original Next Network plan.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

The Technical Advisory Committee considered this item at their February 13 meeting. The

committee had the following requests or comments: 1) asked staff to work with the city of

Sunnyvale on bus stop locations, 2) asked for ridership and demographic data for the riders on

Route 22 late night trips, 3) appreciated the inclusion of the Orange Line in the new service plan,

4) asked staff to continue looking at "skip stop" or "express" style rail service between Mountain

View and Milpitas BART, 5) asked staff to consider maintaining service to St. Francis High

School in Mountain View. The committee asked the following questions: 6) how does converting

from light rail service to bus service save money, 7) what is the average speed of our transit

12

of 10

routes. Staff responded: 6) the operating cost per hour of bus service is half that of rail service, so

converting reduces costs by 50%, all else equal, and 7) our core network average bus speed is

just under 13 miles per hour, while some outlying area coverage routes get up to 16 miles per

hour.

The Citizens Advisory Committee considered this item at their February 13 meeting. The

committee had the following comments: 1) concern about areas such as Almaden Valley

becoming "deadspot", lower activity areas due to lack of transit coverage, 2) encouraged staff to

consider the aging population and trends of population shifts and travel patterns as more people

move to Morgan Hill and Gilroy, 3) suggested more marketing of Express Bus services to help

boost ridership, 4) concern over the decline of transit ridership and competition with Google

buses for ridership, and 5) concern about status of light rail extension projects to Vasona and to

Eastridge. The committee asked the following questions: 6) how considerations are made when

proposing which routes to improve or cut, 7) will the Express Bus program still meet demand of

riders who currently use the service, and 8) what dominant themes from the community

engagement session fall under the "Other" category. Staff responded: 6) bus routes whose

productivity fall below VTA's minimum standard of 15 boardings per hour are considered for

evaluation, and other factors such as the land uses and street grid of the served area impact these

decisions, 7) yes, staff will aim for this and evaluate which Express Bus trips to keep for each

route to ensure they serve the most riders, 8) the sum of comments about routes facing proposed

service cuts make up a majority of this "Other" category.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee considered this item at their February 13

meeting. The committee asked the following questions: 1) how much would VTA save if

average speeds returned to their 1981 levels, 2) how confidant is staff in the 7-9% ridership

increase projections, 3) how does VTA include communities of concern in their planning

process, 4) clarification of why certain routes don't show up on the new service plan flyer. Staff

responded: 1) $30 million per year if we return to 1981 speeds, or $15 million per year if we

achieve a 1 mph increase in the Frequent Network routes, 2) staff is confident, given empirical

results from other properties who have conducted similar redesign efforts, 3) communities of

concern are an integrated part of our planning process as we develop all new service proposals

such as this one, and 4) the flyer was designed to inform the public of changes from the Next

Network plan, so it only lists routes that are proposed to change from the Next Network.

The Policy Advisory Committee considered this item at their February 14 meeting. The

committee had the following comments: 1) concern about cuts in South County, 2) concern

about the cuts to Route 22 overnight service, 3) encouraged staff to look at increasing transit

speed to save money, 4) expressed that the 22 overnight service is not the best way to provide

homeless shelter. The committee asked the following questions: 5) how much do the overnight

22 trips cost, 6) asked for clarification on Route 44/47 in Milpitas, 7) asked staff what is

considered "near" transit service, 8) asked staff if frequencies are adjusted instead of deleting

routes entirely, 9) asked if Uber/Lyft partnerships could be a solution for coverage areas, 10)

asked if staff could look at the plan for Route 37 particularly the end time of service, 11) asked

for clarification for Route 26 service to West Valley College. Staff responded: 5) approximately

12

of 10

$500,000, 6) staff will provide a detailed response in writing, 7) within one-third of a mile, 8)

yes, staff adjusts service frequencies regularly to match demand, 9) yes, there is a subcategory of

money in Measure B devoted to innovative first/last-mile services, 10) yes, staff will analyze,

and 11) staff will provide a detailed response in writing.

Prepared By: Jay Tyree

Memo No. 6878

12

S a n Fr a n c i sco B ay

Express Bus changes not shown on map:

Discontinue routeExpress 101 Camden & 85 – Palo AltoREDUCTION

Discontinue routeExpress 122 REDUCTION

Discontinue routeDiscontinue routeExpress 185 South County – Mountain ViewREDUCTION

Discontinue routeExpress 182 Palo Alto – IBM/Bailey AveREDUCTION

Discontinue 2 unproductive trips each direction(currently 7 trips each direction)

Express 102 South San Jose – Palo AltoREDUCTION

Discontinue 1 unproductive trip each direction(currently 4 trips each direction)

Express 103 Eastridge – Palo AltoREDUCTION


Express 121 REDUCTION


Express 168 South County – San JoseREDUCTION

Improve frequency to every 15 minutes during early morning and evening

Rapid 522IMPROVEMENT

Improve evening frequencyRoute 23IMPROVEMENT

Improve weekday frequency between Westgate and Curtner Station from 30-min to 15-min

Route 26IMPROVEMENT

End at Baypointe Station instead of Alum Rock Station

Blue Line light railREDUCTION

Eliminate deviation to Stevens Creek (stay on Homestead)

Route 53REDUCTION

Discontinue overnight serviceRoute 22REDUCTION

Discontinue Sunday serviceRoute 31REDUCTION

Eliminate deviation to downtown Sunnyvale

Route 56REDUCTION

Discontinue routeRoute 83REDUCTION

Discontinue routeRoute 65REDUCTION

Discontinue Almaden light rail;replace with bus every 30 minutes

Purple Line light railREDUCTION

Improve weekday midday frequency in South County from 30-min to 15-min

Route 68IMPROVEMENT

23

26

68

522

22

52250023

22

53

56

83

65

31

68

Improve weekday midday frequency in South County from 30-min to 15-min

Route 68IMPROVEMENT

Improve weekday frequency to every7.5 minutes (average), all day

Rapid 500IMPROVEMENT

MorganHill

San Martin

Gilroy

Major Changes in the Revised Next Network Service PlanAttachment A

This page shows the major and as compared to the original Next Network planIMPROVEMENTS REDUCTIONS

12.a

baltao_e

Typewritten Text

baltao_e

Text Box

Major Changes in the 2019 New Transit Service Plan

Attachment B(compared to original Next Network plan)

Annual Municipalities Impacted by Change

Change Number and Description Hours Cam Cup Gil LA LAH LG Mil MS MH MV PA SJ SC Sar Sun

Purple Line (Almaden)

4 1. Discontinue Purple Line Almaden rail service -6,170 X

1 2.Replace Purple Line rail service with a new bus route that will stop at all three stations at 30-

minute frequency, on the same days and generally the same hours as the Purple Line5,800 X

Blue Line (Alum Rock – Santa Teresa)

1 3.Shorten to end at Baypointe Station instead of Alum Rock Station; stations east of Baypointe would

be served by the Orange Line (Mountain View – Alum Rock) only-13,562 X X

All Light Rail Lines X X X X X X

4.Change weekend frequency to every 20 minutes on all lines (to provide better connections with

BART’s 20-minute weekend train frequency)n/a

Rapid 523 (Berryessa – Lockheed Martin)

5. End Saturday service at Sunnyvale Transit Center instead of Lockheed Martin after 8:00 PM -89 X

6. End Sunday service at Sunnyvale Transit Center instead of Lockheed Martin after 7:30 PM -110 X

Route 20 (Milpitas BART – Sunnyvale Transit Center)

7. End weekday service at 8:30 PM instead of 10:00 PM -489 X X X X

Route 21 (Stanford Shopping Center – Santa Clara Transit Center)


Route 22 (Palo Alto – Eastridge)

1 9. Discontinue overnight service (1:00 AM to 4:00 AM) -3,789 X X X X X X

Route 27 (Winchester Station – Kaiser San Jose)

10. Start weekday service at 6:00 AM instead of 5:30 AM -144 X X X X


12. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 40 minutes from every 30 minutes -416 X X X X

13. End Saturday service at 8:00 PM instead of 9:00 PM -307 X X X X

14. End Sunday service at 7:30 PM instead of 8:00 PM -168 X X X X

Route 31 (Evergreen Valley College – Eastridge)

1 15. Discontinue Sunday service -478 X

16. Start Saturday service at 8:30 AM instead of 7:30 AM -49 X


17. Start Saturday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:00 AM -63 X X X

Route 44/47 (Milpitas BART – McCarthy Ranch)

18. Start weekday service at 6:00 AM instead of 5:30 AM -561 X

19. End weekday service at 9:00 PM instead of 10:00 PM -510 X

20. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 40 minutes from 30 -546 X

21. Reduce Sunday frequency to every 60 minutes from 30 -598 X

22. Start Saturday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:00 AM -110 X

23. End Saturday service at 8:00 PM instead of 9:00 PM -111 X

24. End Sunday service at 7:00 PM instead of 8:00 PM -116 X


25. End weekday service at 9:00 PM instead of 10:00 PM -238 X X X

Route 53 (Sunnyvale Transit Center – Santa Clara Transit Center)

26. Start weekday service at 6:30 AM instead of 5:30 AM -179 X X X

27. Discontinue Saturday service -498 X X X

1 28. Eliminate deviation to Stevens Creek (stay on Homestead) -1,403 X X

Route 56 (Lockheed Martin – Tamien Station)

1 29. Eliminate deviation to downtown Sunnyvale (stay on Fair Oaks) -2,405 X

30. Start Saturday service at 7:00 AM instead of 6:30 AM -137 X X X X X

31. Start Sunday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:30 AM -205 X X X X X

Route 57 (Old Ironsides Station – West Valley College)

32. End weekday service at 11:00 PM instead of 12:00 midnight -485 X X X

Route 59 (Valley Fair – Baypointe Station)

33. Start weekday service at 6:00 AM instead of 5:30 AM -540 X X

34. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 60 minutes from 30 -598 X X

35. Start Saturday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:00 AM -140 X X

36. End Saturday service at 8:00 PM instead of 10:00 PM -189 X X

37. Start Sunday service at 8:00 AM instead of 7:30 AM -139 X X

Route 61 (Sierra & Piedmont – Good Samaritan Hospital)

38. End weekday service at 11:00 PM instead of 12:00 midnight -485 X X X

39. End Saturday service at 10:00 PM instead of 11:00 PM -99 X X X


40. End weekday service at 9:00 PM instead of 10:00 PM -518 X


1 41. Discontinue route -7,017 X X

Route 71 (Milpitas BART – Capitol Station)

42. Start Saturday service at 7:00 AM instead of 6:30 AM -120 X X

Route 72 (Downtown San Jose – Senter & Monterey via McLaughlin)

43. Reduce weekday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM -510 X

44. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM -208 X

45. Reduce Sunday frequency to every 60 minutes from every 30 between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM -122 X

Route 73 (Downtown San Jose – Senter & Monterey via Senter)

46. Reduce weekday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM -510 X

47. Reduce Saturday frequency to every 30 minutes from every 20 between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM -208 X

Route 77 (Milpitas BART – Eastridge)

48. End weekday service at 11:00 PM instead of 12:00 midnight -510 X X

49. End Saturday service at 11:00 PM instead of 12:00 midnight -104 X X

50. End Sunday service at 10:00 PM instead of 11:00 PM -116 X X

Route 83 (Ohlone/Chynoweth Station – Almaden & McKean)

1 51. Discontinue route -3,383 X

RA

IL R

EDU

CTI

ON

SB

US

RED

UC

TIO

NS

(continued on next page)

page 1 of 2

12.b

Attachment B(compared to original Next Network plan)

Annual Municipalities Impacted by Change

Change Number and Description Hours Cam Cup Gil LA LAH LG Mil MS MH MV PA SJ SC Sar Sun

Express 101 (Camden & Highway 85 – Stanford Research Park)

1 52. Discontinue route -2,295 X X X X

Express 102 (South San Jose – Stanford Research Park)

1 53. Eliminate 2 of 7 daily trips in each direction -2,242 X X

Express 103 (Eastridge – Stanford Research Park)

1 54. Eliminate 1 of 4 daily trips in each direction -1,075 X X

Express 121 (South County – Lockheed Martin)

1 55. Eliminate 3 of 9 daily trips in each direction -4,178 X X X X

Express 122 (South San Jose – Lockheed Martin)

1 56. Discontinue route -1,020 X X

Express 168 (South County – San Jose Diridon Station)

1 57. Eliminate 2 of 7 daily trips in each direction -2,406 X X X

Express 182 (Palo Alto – IBM/Bailey Ave)

1 58. Discontinue route -897 X X X

Express 185 (South County – Mountain View)

1 59. Discontinue route -5,223 X X X

Route 251 (St. Francis High School – Mountain View Transit Center)

60. Discontinue route -144 X

Route 255 (Fremont High School – Lawrence & Tasman)

61. Discontinue route (regular Route 55 trips would remain) -457 X

Route 266 (Santa Teresa High School – Bernal & Via Serena)

62. Discontinue route -211 X

Various

Miscellaneous minor reductions in trips (not listed individually) -3,369

Rapid 500 (Berryessa BART – Diridon Station)

1 1. Improve weekday frequency to every 7.5 minutes all day (average) from every 10-15 minutes 7,887 X

Route 23 (De Anza College – Alum Rock Station)

1 2. Improve weekday and weekend service frequency between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM 2,312 X X X

Route 26 (West Valley College – Eastridge)

1 3.Improve weekday frequency between Curtner Station and Westgate to every 15 minutes from 30,

extending the all-day Frequent segment of the route west beyond Curtner Station13,552 X X X

1 4. Improve weekend service frequency between Curtner Station and Westgate to every 20 from 30 n/a X X X

Route 68 (San Jose Diridon Station – Gilroy Transit Center)

1 5.Improve weekday midday service frequency between Santa Teresa Station and Gilroy to every 15

minutes from 30, which would make the entire route to Gilroy frequent all day5,614 X X X

Rapid 522 (Palo Alto – Eastridge)

1 6. Improve early morning and evening frequency to every 15 minutes from every 20, daily 4,169 X X X X X X

BU

S R

EDU

CTI

ON

S (C

ON

TIN

UED

)B

US

IMP

RO

VEM

ENT

S

page 2 of 2

12.b

Doc ID Origin Short TitleA&F

2/21

BOD

2/22

BOD

3/7

A&F

3/21

BOD

4/4

A&F

4/18

BOD

4/19

BOD

5/2

A&F

5/16

BOD

6/6

BOD

6/21

BOD

8/1

A&F

8/15

BOD

9/5

A&F

9/19

BOD

9/20

6583Division - Engineering and Program Delivery /

Ken Ronsse

Bus Stop Enhancement at Various Locations

(C18171F) Contract A

6513Dept - Real Estate / Ron Golem Blossom Hill Station Joint Development RFP

Award A

6838Dept - Board Secretary / Theadora Travers 2019 A&F Committee Meeting Schedule

A

6128Division - Planning and Programming / Jane

Shinn

Draft Innovative Transit Service Models

Competitive Grant Program A

6842Dept - Transportation Planning / Jim Unites Contract Award for the Strategic Plan for

Advancing High Capacity Transit Corridors A

6856Dept - Finance / Sean Bill Monthly Investment Report - December 2018

I

6878Division - Planning and Programming / Jason

Tyree

Proposal for 2019 New Transit Service PlanI

6513Dept - Real Estate / Ron Golem Blossom Hill Station Joint Development RFP

AwardA A


Ann Calnan

EBRC SEIR Environmental Clearance

ScheduleA A


Dennis O. Ratcliffe

Execute the O&M’s with partner agenciesA A


Ken Ronsse

Rail Rehab Phase 7-Crossovers &

InterlockingsA A

6750Dept - Accounting & Budget Administration /

Carol Lawson

Revenues & Expenses Report 2Q FY19A A

6815Division - Operations / Joonie Tolosa Contract for Automatic Passenger Counters

for VTA Revenue Service VehiclesA A

6753Dept - Project Development / Casey Emoto I-680 Soundwalls - Contract (Final Design and

ROW Engineering Services)A A

6865Dept - Programming and Grants Management

/ Bruce Abanathie

Resolution to Support Certifications and

Assurances for 2017 - 2019 LCTOPA A

6870

Dept - Programming and Grants Management

/ Bruce Abanathie

Resolution to Commit LCTOP Funds to the

Purchase of Zero Emission Electric Buses and

Infrrastructure

A A

6909

Division - Engineering and Program Delivery /

Ken Ronsse

Chaboya BRT Modifications, Phase I Project -

Contract for Design Services and Construction

Support

A A

6857 Dept - Finance / Sean Bill Monthly Investment Report - January 2019 I

6901Dept - Real Estate / Ron Golem VTA’s Joint Development Program: Looking

Forward/Policy RevisionsA A


Ken Ronsse

Track Intrusion AbatementA A


Ken Ronsse

Montague Expressway Pedestrian O/Head

CrossingA A

Administration & Finance Committee Work Plan

February - September 2019

2/15/2019 1 of 2

Travers_T

Text Box

14

Doc ID Origin Short TitleA&F

2/21

BOD

2/22

BOD

3/7

A&F

3/21

BOD

4/4

A&F

4/18

BOD

4/19

BOD

5/2

A&F

5/16

BOD

6/6

BOD

6/21

BOD

8/1

A&F

8/15

BOD

9/5

A&F

9/19

BOD

9/20

Administration & Finance Committee Work Plan

February - September 2019

6524Dept - Real Estate / Ron Golem Follow Up on Joint Development Policy

RevisionsA A

5786Dept - Project Development / Casey Emoto Cooperative Funding Agreement with City of

Santa ClaraA A

6551Dept - Transportation Planning / Adam Burger 2018-2027 Short Range Transit Plan

A A

6858Dept - Finance / Sean Bill Monthly Investment Report - February 2019

I

6627Dept - Real Estate / Ron Golem BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension

Project: Delegation of AuthorityA A


Carol Lawson

Revenues & Expenses Report 3Q FY19A A

6859 Dept - Finance / Sean Bill Monthly Investment Report - March 2019 I


Ken Ronsse

Hamilton Structure Stabilization Phase 2A A

6860 Dept - Finance / Sean Bill Monthly Investment Report - April 2019 I


Carol Lawson

Revenues & Expenses Report FY19A

6861 Dept - Finance / Sean Bill Monthly Investment Report - May 2019 I

2/15/2019 2 of 2

Travers_T

Text Box

14

Amazon Web Services - ADMINISTRATION &...

Documents

Transcript of Amazon Web Services - ADMINISTRATION &...