Related Links

The Regular Meeting of the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara Policy Advisory Board (PAB) was called to order at 3:09 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Snyder, at the City Council Chambers, Milpitas City Hall, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California.

ROLL CALL

Members Present             Members Absent

Tom Blalock                         Jim Beall
Cindy Chavez                       Jose Esteves
Patricia Dixon                       James Fang
Gus Morrison                       Ron Gonzales
Scott Haggerty                     Joel Keller
Peter Snyder                        John McLemore

A quorum was present.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS

Member Haggerty left his seat at 3:05 p.m., the quorum was lost, and the Committee of the Whole was declared.

Rob Means, interested citizen, expressed concern on the amount to be spent on the BART Extension project.   He noted that the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is an alternative that will cost less than the BART Extension Project and will provide more coverage. 

Member Haggerty took his seat at 3:05 p.m. and a quorum was declared.

Robert Allen, interested citizen, proposed a lower cost Minimum Operating Segment (MOS).   He urged the PAB to consider his plan that focuses on the delay of the subway construction until funding is identified and limitation of construction of BART stations.

Minutes of February 25, 2004

M/S/C ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(Haggerty/Dixon) to approve the Minutes of February 25, 2004.

Summary of Community Working Group (CWG) Comments on the Alignment and Station Design Options

Anne Jamison, Deputy Project Manager, noted that staff met with the CWGs in March and April 2004.  She noted that the presentation will cover comments from those meetings as well as comments on three public hearings regarding the environmental document.  She noted that staff did not get input on all alignment and station options because the public did not indicate any preference. 

In Milpitas, Ms. Jamison noted the communitys concern that the Milpitas Option of the Locomotive Wye will cause problems or delays on the development of adjacent properties.   On Dixon Landing Alignment, Ms. Jamison noted that there is concern on the noise associated with the aerial alignment.  She noted that the CWG and attendees of the public hearing preferred a trench alignment for Dixon Landing.

Ms. Jamison noted that for the Berryessa Station, the Northeast Parking Structure Option is preferred because it lessens the economic impact to the flea market.  For the Alum Rock Alignment and Station, the community expressed significant support for the U.S. 101/Diagonal Option.  Lastly, Ms. Jamison noted that the community preferred the Diridon/Arena South Alignment Option for the Diridon/Arena Alignment and Station Option.

Ms. Jamison stated that the community favors the North Parking Structure for the Santa Clara Station.  With regard to the Historic Tower, she stated the historic stakeholders might consider moving the Historic Tower to the south.  She explained that this option will allow the walkway to be directly across from the station and would maintain the continuity between the historic depot and the historic tower.  She added that staff is continuously working on the options for this location.  

Ms. Jamison noted that there was fair amount of discussion regarding the connection the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport.  She stated, however, that the discussions were split between the at-grade alignment and direct connection. 

Member Dixon expressed concern regarding the aerial option at Dixon Landing in Milpitas because there are two major mobile park in that location. She inquired if VTA has attempted to give a presentation at that location instead of waiting for the residents to come to the public meetings. 

Ms. Jamison replied that VTA did not go to specific communities to give presentations on the environmental document. She explained that staffs concern is to have comments that are authored in a very formal format to include in the environmental document. 

Member Dixon commented that it is a special area because of the senior residents who do not have the opportunity to go to public meetings.  She expressed concern that these are the people who will be greatly impacted if the aerial option for Dixon Landing is carried forward.  She noted that the City of Milpitas has offered some areas that should be looked at and critiqued as value savings such as the station itself and the consideration of the movement of the wye.

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, the Summary of CWG comments on the Alignment and Station Design Options was received and filed.

Status Report on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR)

Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Planning Manager, provided a brief summary regarding the content of the DEIS/EIR document.   He stated that a Compact Disc (CD) version of the document is available. 

Mr. Fitzwater stated that the DEIS/EIR addresses the three alternatives under consideration. The No Action alternative includes the current roadway and transit network and the planned and programmed improvements for 2025.   The New Starts (Baseline) alternative includes no action but provides for additional express buses and three busway connectors for I-680 to Warm Springs, Warm Springs to I-880, and I-880 to Montague Expressway.  Lastly, the BART Extension Alternative is the 16.3 miles with seven stations, one future station, a yard shop, and two Minimum Operating Segments (MOS). 

Mr. Fitzwater noted that the environmental analysis includes the 17 topical areas.   He explained that it is large because each of the alternatives and the two MOS were addressed.   VTAs approach to reduce impact is to use design requirements and best management practices.  For impacts that are not reduced to acceptable levels, specific mitigation measures are developed to reduce or eliminate the impacts. 

Mr. Fitzwater enumerated the benefits of the BART Extension on average weekday trips, air quality, new transit trips, air quality, disadvantaged communities, and improved level of service on some intersections along the corridor. 

Mr. Fitzwater noted that because of the scale of the project, there will be substantial impacts.   There are four areas with significant unavoidable impacts and these are impacts that are defined by the criteria set by federal and state agencies.  These impacts are construction traffic at downtown San Jose, construction lane closures at 3 intersections (one in Milpitas and two in San Jose), long-term traffic impacts at 16 intersections, and long-term vibration impact in 12 residences.  He noted that some of the intersections with long-term traffic impacts are currently operating poorly or have declining level of service. 

Mr. Fitzwater discussed the other mitigated impacts.   Traffic impacts will be reduced through detour planning.  For noise impacts, he noted that 127-192 affected residences were reduced to zero by providing soundwalls.  The vibration impact was reduced from 344-472 residences and hotel rooms to 12 residences by designing special track work and floating slabs.  Some property owners will be relocated, but they will receive appropriate compensation.

Mr. Fitzwater noted that the public hearings covered the significant unavoidable short-term and long-term impacts for each city.  In Milpitas, the short-term impact is one lane closure per direction at Montague Expressway during construction.  The intersections with long-term significant impacts are Milpitas Boulevard and Montague Expressway, Great Mall Parkway and Abel Street, and Landess Avenue and Dempsey Road.  Mr. Fitzwater added that if the South Calaveras Future Station is added, intersections at Calaveras Boulevard and Abel Street, Calaveras Boulevard and Milpitas Boulevard, and Milpitas Boulevard and Jacklin Road will also be impacted.

Mr. Fitzwater noted that short-term impacts in San Jose include the closure of Santa Clara Street for three months at the start and end of construction, one-lane closure in Santa Clara Street during the three and half to four years of cut and cover station and cross over section construction, lane closures at Trade Zone Boulevard and Hostetter Road, and construction traffic detours that will last for about three and a half to four years.  There are a number of intersections that are primarily located in station locations that will have long-term traffic impacts.  He added that there will also be vibration impacts to 12 residences in San Jose.  Lastly, there will be some cultural impacts that need to be resolved with Historic and Cultural Commission.

For Santa Clara, Mr. Fitzwater noted that there will be long-term impacts on the following intersections:   El Camino Real and San Tomas Expressway, Lafayette Street and Central Expressway, Homestead Road and Monroe Street, and Monroe Street and San Tomas Expressway.  He noted concern on the pedestrian over or under-crossing and stated that there are 7,000 projected crossers using this crossing in 2025.  He added that it is a major issue because of the Historic Tower and Depot. He noted, however, that staff met with the City of Santa Claras Historic and Landmark Commission to resolve the issues. 

Mr. Fitzwater noted that there were 70 attendees in all three public hearings.   The comments ranged from construction impacts, noise and vibration impacts, and property values. He stated that VTA has received about ten comments through e-mail or mail and staff anticipates more comments by the May 14, 2004 public comment deadline. 

Mr. Fitzwater noted that the target release of the final EIS/EIR with the public comments is on October 2004.   VTA Board of Directors is scheduled to certify the document by November 2004 then subsequently submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a Record of Decision on December 2004.

Vice Chairperson Snyder inquired about approval of the project by BART Board of Directors before the FTA decision.   Mr. Fitzwater replied that in terms of the EIS/EIR, VTA is the only lead agency that needs to certify the document.  Ms. Jamison added that BART Board of Directors is scheduled to accept the project description included in the EIS/EIR sometime around November 2004.

Member Haggerty left the meeting at 3:32 p.m., the quorum was lost and the Committee of the Whole was declared.

Thomas Margro, BART General Manager, explained that the lead agency is the one that certifies the EIS/EIR document.   He noted that the two critical milestones in the project are signing of the final administrative draft of the EIS/EIR by the general managers of BART and VTA, and BART Board of Directors adoption of the project after the certification of the EIS/EIR.

Vice Chairperson Snyder suggested to include that schedule in the document.

Member Dixon inquired about the process and funding with regard to soundwalls. Mr. Fitzwater replied that staff is working with the City of Milpitas to establish the noise levels in 2025.  He noted that when the EIS/EIR is adopted, the project will require the installation of soundwalls at the predetermined locations in the project.

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, the Status Report on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report was received and filed.

Status Report #8 Project Update

Ms. Jamison provided a brief update on the project. She noted that conceptual design is essentially completed. Discussions regarding construction mitigation, issue resolution with BART, parking study and strategy, utility and basement identification, and noise and vibration analysis are currently in progress. 

For the public outreach process, Ms. Jamison stated that there will be a VTA/BART Joint Meeting on May 7, 2004.  The fourth public hearing is on May 10, 2004.  The PAB is scheduled to meet again on May 26, 2004.

In terms of BART Coordination, Ms. Jamison noted that the Phase I of the BART Core Impact Study is completed.   She also advised that there is progress on the design standards update and that the yards and shops will be discussed in the next couple of months. 

Ms. Jamison noted good participation among cities along the corridor, staff, developers, and other transit agencies on the Developers Roundtable Meeting held on  March 10, 2004.  She noted that staff will continuously work with the developers and create a work program to identify transit-oriented development, joint development partnership opportunities, value capture, and additional revenues for the project.

Member Blalock referred to Page 7 of the report and noted that there should be more discussion regarding Issue Resolution. He also noted concern on the safety at the Downtown San Jose Crossover Spacing and the Tunnel Evacuation Spacing.  Peter M. Cipolla, VTA General Manager, replied that those issues are being resolved. 

Member Chavez noted the construction impact on Downtown San Jose.  She inquired about the process in certification of the DEIS/EIR.  Ms. Jamison noted that the EIS/EIR should have a Locally Preferred Alternative and a project definition where significant elements of the projects need to be defined.  Entrance locations are carried through in the preliminary engineering and will be resolved later in the process. 

Mr. Allen urged that the San Francisco service proposed in the project be eliminated and leave the service to San Francisco to Caltrain. 

Preliminary Engineering Status Report

Jack Collins, Chief Construction Officer, reported that VTA Board of Directors approved the contracts based on the recommendations of staff from VTA, BART, and cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara.   Value Management Strategies has completed three of the four studies for Value Engineering.  The reports will be turned over the preliminary engineering team to evaluate suggested value cost savings that could potentially impact the design and location of certain elements in the project.  Mr. Collins noted that the changes will be brought back to the PAB and VTA Board of Directors for evaluation and possible amendments.  Other contracts approved are Hatch Mott MacDonald and Bechtel for Tunnel Segment and Project Controls, PGH Wong and Parsons Brinckerhoff for Systems Design, and HNTB Corporation for Line Segment. 

Mr. Collins noted that VTA Board of Directors is scheduled to award the Passenger Stations to Earth Tech, Inc. in May 2004.     In June 2004, Yards and Shops and Design Integration contracts will be awarded to STV Inc. and Booz Allen, Hamilton Inc. respectively.

Mr. Collins noted that the preliminary engineering team will identify additional geotechnical bore holes along the tunnel alignment and rail corridor and do additional sub-surface utility exploration at station locations.   He added that there are further value engineering study analysis of the proposals on tunnel, line segments, and stations.  Lastly, he noted that BART is working on the design criteria for yard and shops. 

Mr. Collins briefly stated that the $45.2 million conceptual engineering budget is funded by the Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds and noted uncertainty of those funds in June 2004.   He stated that 60 percent of the conceptual engineering budget has been incurred and there is a balance of $18 million.  He noted that $81.7 million Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way purchase was financed by VTA through the 1996 Measure B Bonds. 

Mr. Collins noted that the 2000 Measure A Bonds funded the preliminary engineering budget.   The breakdown of the budget is as follows:  $121.6 million for Design Consultants, $34.5 million for VTA/BART, and a contingency of $13.9 million.  Mr. Collins highlighted that currently, only $800,000 has been expensed and that amount was used for VTA/BART staff. 

Mr. Margro commented that VTA and BART Staff have a good working relationship and assured that problems will be resolved.

Member Dixon inquired about the remaining TCRP funding.   Mr. Collins replied that a contingency was budgeted because it is not certain what will happen to the TCRP Funds.  Mr. Cipolla noted that the project is getting positive feedback in the state level.  He added that there may be delays but the project will keep on moving forward. 

Vice Chairperson Snyder commented that if a project is considered in close out mode, the money will come through.   Mr. Cipolla stated that there are three or four major projects statewide that the state is looking at in terms of the projects economic impacts and this project is one of them. 

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, the Preliminary Engineering Status Report was received and filed.

Announcements

Ms. Jamison noted that the next PAB meeting is scheduled for May 26, 2004.   The PAB will make a recommendation on the alignment and station options.  She added that the VTA/BART Joint Meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2004.

ADJOURNMENT

On order of Vice Chairperson Snyder, there being no objections, the meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Elaine F. Baltao, Board Assistant
VTA Board of Directors

NOTE: M/S/C MEANS MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE MOTION PASSED UNAMINOUSLY.