Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Downtown East Valley Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Chairperson Chavez, Lower Level Conference Room, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present                                             Members Absent
Blanca Alvarado                                                  None
Nora Campos, Vice Chairperson
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
David Cortese
Pete McHugh

A quorum was present.

There were no Public Presentation.

M/S/C (Alvarado/Campos) to approve the Minutes of May 6, 2004.

M/S/C (Alvarado/Campos) to approve the Minutes of June 3, 2004.

On order of Chairperson Chavez,   there being no objection, the Downtown East Valley Status Report was received, as contained in the Agenda packet.

Julie Render, Deputy Director Transit Planning & Programming, provided a power point presentation outlining the final recommendations on design option refinements to the Preferred Alternative to be included in the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR).

Member McHugh took his seat at 3:10 p.m.

Ms. Render provided historical background stating that in June 2002 the PAB approved the project description for the EIS/EIR for Capitol Expressway, which included a number of design options to be explored throughout the environmental process before determining which options would be considered for approval; a preliminary staff recommendation was provided to the PAB as an information item March 2004; and the environmental document was circulated April 28, 2004 through June 28, 2004.                      Ms. Render noted that the PAB’s approval of the Final Recommendations will allow staff to complete the Final EIS, forward the document to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in September 2004, circulate the Final EIS/EIR in November 2004, and forward to the Board of Directors in December 2004 for approval.

Member Cortese took his seat at 3:30 p.m.

Ms. Render noted that staff is recommending light rail as the Preferred Alternative to be included in the Capitol Expressway Light Rail Corridor Final EIS/EIR.

Ms. Render outlined the following Design Options and Recommendations:

Design Option 1 – Vertical Alignment from Alum Rock Station to Story Road Station - staff is recommending Aerial/Aerial over the Capitol Avenue/Capitol Expressway intersection.   This option will allow high-speed light rail operation because it is a continuous aerial alignment, will cause the least amount of traffic disruption during construction, and is substantially less costly.

Design Option 2– Pedestrian Access to Story Station - staff is recommending via pedestrian overcrossing, which includes pedestrian overcrossings serving all four corners of the intersection.   This option will provide the best access for transit passengers and is an advantage for all pedestrians who do not wish to cross the vast expanse of Capitol Expressway at-grade.  Ms. Render noted that there is more right-of-way required and a higher construction cost. 

Design Option 3 – Ocala/Cunningham Station Location - staff is recommending Ocala/Cunningham, with further study during Preliminary Engineering due to public comments staff received from the Community.   The option is a safe and efficient pedestrian access to the station providing a pedestrian overcrossing, has the best station spacing, less roadway construction due to the curve in the roadway, has the least residential relocation impacts, and least conflict with existing high pressure gas lines.

Ms. Render stated that staff received community support of the Ocala Station Option as well as from the San Jose City Council.   The PAB Members clarified that staff’s recommendation and the position of the San Jose City Council is mid-way or the Ocala/Cunningham location as the preferred alternative (the community has a preference for a station closer to Ocala.) 

Ms. Render noted that the pedestrian access staff has identified is a pedestrian overcrossing for the at-grade station only for the option between Ocala and Cunningham.

Design Option 4– Vertical Alignment into Eastridge - staff is recommending depressed alignment under Tully Road.   Ms. Render informed the PAB that there is not enough distance for an aerial alignment and an at-grade station.  This option would give the best interface between Eastridge Mall and the Transit Center.  The side-running best preserves the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities at the Arcadia site.

Ms. Render noted that there are no conflicts with Reid-Hillview Airport for the aerial alignment but did receive a comment from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) regarding the environmental document with the aerial alignment.

Design Option 5 – Phase 1 Park & Ride Facilities - staff is recommending Eastridge (expansion) to 400 spaces, with initial phase up to 266 spaces.   Ms. Render stated that there are potential conflicts with high-pressure gas lines with the Ocala Park & Ride Site. 

Member Alvarado queried as to plans for Park & Rides beyond Eastridge and what VTA will if Eastridge is not willing to work with VTA on a joint parking arrangement.   Ms. Render responded that Park & Ride lots beyond Eastridge are at Monterey Highway and State Route 87 (SR-87).   Ms. Render advised that if Eastridge is not willing to negotiate an agreement with VTA, VTA owns land, which can be explored for structured parking.  Member Alvarado recommended the frontage at Reid-Hillview Airport on the north west corner of Tully Road be considered as an alternative for a Park and Ride lot if there are obstacles with Eastridge Shopping Center.

Design Option 6 – Alignment from Eastridge to Nieman - staff is recommending  side-running depressed to south of Quimby and at-grade to Nieman.  Two design options would have a side-running alignment, which is supported by the Evergreen Smart Growth Strategy.  One would cross the Eastridge access road and Quimby at-grade.  The second option is the same alignment but depressed under the Eastridge access road and Quimby and up to an at-grade station at Nieman.  The third option is tunneling back into the median of Capitol Expressway in the Quimby area and into an at-grade station at Nieman.

Ms. Render noted that further investigation should occur at Preliminary Engineering (PE) to try to maintain the HOV lanes between Tully and Nieman in Phase 1 in conjunction with the planning process for the Arcadia site. 

Design Options 7, 8, and 9 – Project-Level Decisions from Nieman to SR-87 – staff has deviated from their previous recommendations of March 2004 due to the recent progress made on the Evergreen Smart Growth Strategy.   Staff is recommending deferral of project-level decisions on the project segment from Nieman to SR-87 until the land use and transportation decisions associated with the Evergreen Smart Growth Strategy have been further developed and approved.

Ms. Render noted that there is no full-funding plan in place for Phase 2 Light Rail or for any roadway improvements but staff’s recommendation to defer the project level decisions would assure that creative community solutions for all transportation modes can be fully explored without constraints.

Ms. Render stated that there has been a great deal of concern raised during the time the environmental document was circulated regarding removing the High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) lanes, particularly between Aborn Road and US 101.

Design Option 10 – Overnight LRT Storage Facility Location.   Ms. Render stated that staff considered Ocala, a mini storage site south of Quimby and the north Park & Ride Lot at SR-87 on the Guadalupe Line.  Staff is recommending – mini storage sight south of Quimby.  That option provides operating flexibility and reduced operating costs in the near term because it is in the vicinity of Phase 1.  There are potential conflicts with Ocala Site as well as a potential that the spaces at the SR-87 Park & Ride lot may be needed if TOD /joint development occurs on the south SR-87 lot.

Staff is also recommending a Cost Benefit Analysis during PE to compare the operating cost savings to the capitol cost outlay and determine the optimum timing.  

Ms. Render noted that this project will change character of the expressway from auto-oriented to landscaped multi-use corridor. 

Ms. Render stated that staff is providing final recommendations to the PAB for approval, the Final EIS/EIR will be forwarded to FTA September 2004, the contract for PE will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for approval at their meeting of September 2004, the Final EIS/EIR will be circulated in November 2004 and to the VTA Board on December 2004 for certification of the environmental document and project approval. 

The Agenda was taken out of order.

Chairperson Chavez expressed concern regarding moving forward with staff’s recommendation for Item #6 in light of staff recommendation for Enhanced Bus along East Santa Clara because there will be no direct light rail connection from the Capitol Expressway Line to existing light rail.  Chairperson Chavez expressed further concern regarding moving forward with staff’s recommendation on Agenda Item #7.

Member McHugh stated that he thought staff had been directed to proceed with both the Single Car Light Rail and Enhanced Bus alternatives with a side-by-side comparison.

Ms. Render advised the PAB that staff is presenting preliminary staff recommendations for information and is not requesting action by the PAB.

Chairperson Chavez queried as to how this stays as one package, how it relates to the North Valley Cities’ concern about the amount of funding going to the project if light rail is not extended.   Chairperson Chavez expressed concern regarding the impact the community outreach will have on the community if only Enhanced Bus is presented.

Vice Chairperson Campos expressed concern because staff’s recommendation for the Enhanced Bus has now been printed in black and white.   Vice Chairperson Campos reminded staff that the voters wanted a complete transit system and that VTA is not doing any justice by not moving forward with the bigger picture.

Member Cortese recommended that the community receive a competitive presentation regarding both the Enhanced Bus and Single Car Light Rail Alternatives as an interim step. 

Member Cortese stated that appropriations for Downtown East Valley should remain with the chosen project until further analysis as to what the entire project along the corridor should ultimately look like.   Any saved funds, should that happen should apply to making the project whole.

Member Alvarado stated that eight years ago it was the full intention of the PAB Members to have light rail built to the Eastside, across to SR-87, and connecting with Downtown San Jose to have a complete transit system.   Member Alvarado noted that it is important to think about light rail not only in terms of today but rather the kind of system it is going to be in the next 50 years.

Member Alvarado stated she understands the technical nature of what staff has examined and what staff is presenting but that it is important for staff to remember that their expectations of the community and equally important is the need to complete the light rail system that goes somewhere.

Member McHugh expressed concern regarding staff’s recommendation and stated he would not be comfortable supporting it.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor Preliminary Staff Recommendations regarding the Preferred Alternative and Design Options were received and filed.

Chairperson Chavez stated that the PAB strongly supports the Nieman and SR-87 alternative.   Chairperson Chavez advised that at some point the PAB needs to have a discussion regarding the protection of the resources for the segment irrespective of the outcome of community outreach.   Chairperson Chavez stressed that if the PAB is not clear both with staff and colleagues on the Board of Directors, there will be a problem. 

Member Alvarado stated that it is essential for the PAB to maintain its commitment to the completion of the line. 

M/S/C (Alvarado/McHugh) to adopt Phase 1 of the Capitol Expressway Project with the clear understanding and commitment that continuing action on Phase 2 is part of the recommendation to maintain the commitment to the completion of the line.

Ms. Render noted that this item is and information item for the preliminary staff recommendations for the Santa Clara Alum Rock Corridor.

Ms. Render provided a power point presentation stating that in August 2000 the Preferred Investment Strategy was light rail on Santa Clara Street and Alum Rock Avenue from Downtown San Jose to the Capitol LRT Line to serve the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor. 

Ms. Render provided historical information noting that Conceptual Engineering began in January 2001 with the light rail system identified as ten-minute service with one to two-car trains with shared operations with automobiles west of King Road.   In 2002 it was concluded that the MIS concept for a two-car LRT system was possible however, there would be severe impacts on local community, particularly the businesses.   In spring 2002 a streetcar mode was introduced as a consideration and in October 2002 there was PAB decision to conduct a focused evaluation that would introduce the streetcar as a possible solution to the design challenges. Six alternatives (three light rail alternatives, two streetcar alternatives and one enhanced bus alternative) were studied between December 2002 and March 2003.  In April 2003 the PAB adopted staff recommendations to study two alternatives in the environmental document (enhanced bus and single car light rail) with neither identified as the preferred alternative and the Board of Directors approved the recommendation in May 2003.  From May through August 2003 staff refined the plans and in September 2003 such plans were presented to the PAB and community and the environmental studies were restarted immediately.  In July 2, 2004, the Administrative Draft EIS/EIR went to FTA and VTA anticipates a 60-day review period in the September, October, or November 2004 timeframe.  Staff is attempting to maintain the schedule to present the final staff recommendation for PAB action in December 2004.

Ms. Render stated that staff’s recommendation is the Enhanced Bus as the preferred alternative to be identified in the final document and to add $4 million for PE. 

The Enhanced Bus Operating Characteristics will enable direct limited stop service between the Diridon Station and Eastridge, introduce circulator service between Alum Rock Station and future BART Station near 28^th Street, introduce circulator service between Diridon Station, new Civic Plaza and other Downtown locations, and local service by Line 22 west of King Road will continue to operate. 

The Single Car LRT Operating Characteristics will enable direct service from Diridon Station to Eastridge, operates in separate right-of-way from Diridon along San Fernando and Almaden Boulevard to Santa Clara Street, operates in outside auto lane on Santa Clara and Alum Rock between Almaden Boulevard and King Road, operates in separate right-of-way in the median east of King Road and Line 22 will continue to operate.

Mr. Render stated that staff is recommending Enhanced Bus for four primary reasons.   First, both alternatives meet the project goals, although to varying degrees.   Both provide improved transit service with faster travel times as compared to No-Project, and both provide significantly upgraded facilities. Second, the Enhanced Bus best meets future transit demand in the Corridor.  Neither alternative meets 2025 demands with ten-minute service.  Typically, this would be remedied by running more service or large vehicles.  The Single Car Alternative is limited to single-car trains because of the short block lengths and is limited to ten-minute service because of the interface with Capitol on one end and Vasona on the other.  There is no reason that bus could not run every five-minute or even every two minutes.  The third reason staff is recommending Enhanced Bus is that it provides improved service sooner.  Ms. Render reported that because of the cut-and-cover construction for the BART Stations in Downtown San Jose, light rail could not be built from 7^th Street to Diridon Station until the construction for BART is completed.  Ms. Render stated that the fourth reason for the Enhanced Bus recommendation is that there are fewer permanent and construction impacts on local businesses. 

Ms. Render noted that staff’s recommendation for Enhanced Bus Design Options are:   Eastbound Civic Center Station – A-1 West of 6^th Street/Adjacent to City Hall Tower; Eastbound Station between 11^th and 12^th Streets – B-1 Immediately west of 12^th Street; and Project Implementation – add $4 million to VTA’s FY 2004-05 Capitol Budget for Preliminary Engineering for Enhanced Bus.

Ms. Render presented updated capital costs of $85 million for Enhanced Bus and $290 million for Single-Car Light Rail.   Ms. Render stated that staff’s next steps followed the model used for Capitol Expressway and were to present staff’s recommendations to the community for input in August/September 2004, Public Review of Draft EIS/EIR in September/October/November 2004 and Final Staff Recommendations to PAB in December 2004.  The decision process for the EIS/EIR Preferred Alternative & Design Options are:  PAB Adopts Final Recommendations in December 2004, Prepare Final EIS/EIR and submit to FTA in December 2004-January 2005, Public Review of Final EIS/EIR in April 2005, presentation to VTA Transit Planning & Operations Committee (TP&O) in May 2005 and to the VTA Board of Directors for approval in June 2005.           Ms. Render stated that the schedule is not set in stone and that staff’s direction was to move forward as quickly as possible.

Chairperson Chavez acknowledged the request for staff to move forward as quickly as possible but expressed concerned regarding light rail not circulating and connecting people to all the alignments.

Chairperson Chavez expressed concern that density and height do not get built around bus stations in Santa Clara County, they get built around light rail and heavy rail and that is why it is important, particularly with Alum Rock, to have light rail to achieve the kinds of density on the street the PAB would like to see.

Vice Chairperson Campos recommended that Agenda Item #7 not go through the community outreach process since the PAB has not decided which the alternative they choose to go down Alum Rock.

Member Cortese requested staff consider creating a multi-modality transit hub on Santa Clara/Alum Rock Streets and suggested ways to move forward with this concept.

Member McHugh requested staff return with suggestions to address the Members’ concerns.

Ms. Render reiterated that this is an information item only and does not require any action from the PAB Members.   Ms. Render noted that staff was due to commence the outreach process in August 2004 but at this time defer the meetings to enable to staff to absorb the Member’s comments and to determine how to move forward.   Ms. Render further noted that the Board of Directors approved the two alternatives in May 2003 and it would be extremely difficult to add another completely new alternative at this point in time because the environmental studies have already been completed and a third alternative is not in the budget.

Member Alvarado stated it is important to make the light rail happen.   The PAB has waited a long time and another delay to evaluate anything further is not feasible.

Member Cortese queried if it would be possible move forward with the appropriations necessary to approach the bus rapid transit and keep the rail project alive but in the category of new rail projects, or whether a third project could be considered and if there would be a surplus appropriation which would be added to the appropriations for the two existing alternatives, and what the expected timing on new rail projects.

Ms. Render advised the PAB Members that the Enhanced Bus Alternative would not preclude a future light rail project.   Ms. Render noted that a new light rail corridor study will be kicked off in 2004 and completed within a year, which would provide a priority list but projects would be out many years due to the present fiscal situation.

Member Cortese queried if the recommendation would have to be made from a technical standpoint or stated that it is the PAB’s preferred modality.   Member Cortese queried whether the alternative the PAB could make is the rail project as the preferred project with an interim gap-filled project of the Bus Rapid Transit and what technicality could prevent this alternative from happening. 

Ms. Render responded that she would provide the information to the PAB Members at their meeting of September 2, 2004.   Ms. Render advised that staff will pull back on any public involvement.

M/S/C (Campos/Alvarado) that light rail is the PAB Member’s preferred alternative for the Santa Clara/Alum Rock Corridor; to note the report received and filed, and that the PAB is not supportive of the current report; and that staff return in September 2004 with light rail as the preferred mode.

Vice Chairperson Campos stated that what the PAB Members are voting for and the decisions that the Members make will affect the public, it is necessary that the PAB makes the best decisions for the Community, even if it takes longer.

Chairperson Chavez requested a computerized simulation showing dimensions of the streets with the Enhanced Bus and Single Car Light Rail Alternatives.

On order of Chairperson Chavez, there being no objection, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,