CC Resolution No. 8659
RE!'rnl'I'IΠ00. 8659
A RESOllJTIΠOF 'nIE CITY CXXJNCIL OF 'nIE CITY OF aJPER1']N)
ESTABLISHThG A SANTA CLARA axJNTY LOCAL 'lRANSPORrATIŒ
AIJ'lHORITY AND API'ROIT]N; EXPENDI'lURE PLI\N
A. A coalition of county civic, business, labor and environmental
organizations has proposed the fODllation within Santa Clara County of a
local transportation authority pursuant to Division 19 of the California
Public Utilities Code (section 180000 et ~.). 'Ihe proposal for the
fODllation of the authority will be, or has been, presented to the Santa
Clara County Board of SUpervisors for consideration and adoptions.
B. Pursuant to Public utilities Code Section 180051 the JlBltJership of
such an authority must be cxmcurred in by a najority of the population in
the incorporated area of the County.
C. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 180206, a county
transportation and expenditure plan designating the proposed expenditure
of revenues expected to be raised by the authority must be approved by the
Board of SUpervisors and the city council representing both the najority
of the population residing in the incorporated areas of the county. .
N:W, 'lHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED '!HAT;
Section 1. In the event the Santa Clara County Board of SUpervisors
creates in 1992 a transportation authority pursuant to Division 19 of the
Public Utilities Code, the City cxmcurs that the netbership of such an
authority shall be as follows:
sæI'IŒ 2. a::MPOSITIŒ OF 'nIE AIJ'lHORITY
2.1 'Ihe Authority shall consist of five (5) voting JIBItJers as
follows :
2.1.1 CkIe JœIÒ:Jer of the Santa Clara County Board of
SUpervisors awointed by that board.
2.1.2 '1\;0 JœlÒ:JerS representing the City of San Jose
consisting of the Mayor thereof and a JœIÒ:Jer of the San Jose City Council
awointed by the Council.
2.1.3 '!'.Ie I1JSI1Ì)ers representing the other cities in the
county pursuant to section 2.2.
2.2 'Ihe JDeIItJers representing the other cities in the county shall be
awointed in the following manner:
2.2.1 'Ihe cities shall be divided into bio zones, the north
zone and the south zone.
2.2.2 'Ihe north zone shall include the cities of IDs Altos,
IDs Altos Hills, Milpitas, M::>untain view, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and
Sunnyvale.
2.2.3 'Ihe south zone shall include the cities of CaßJ:iJell,
CUpertino, Gilroy, IDs Gatos, M::>nte Sereno, M::>rgan Hill and Saratoga.
2.2.4 'Ihe mayors fran cities in each zone, by majority
vote, shall awoint one mayor or councill1JSl1Ì)er fran their respective zone
to serve on the Authority.
2.3 'Ihere shall also be five nonvoting RIefIDers of the Authority,
each of whan shall have all rights of a voting I1JSI1Ì)er except the right to
vote as follC7\l/B:
2.3.1 One I1JSI1Ì)er awointed by the Santa Clara County
Transit District which is organized under Part 12 of Division 10 of the
Public utilities Code.
2.3.2 One I1JSI1Ì)er awointed by the Metropolitan
Transportation Camlission which is organized under Title 7.1 of the
GoveJ:1llællt Code.
2.3.3 One I1JSI1Ì)er awointed by the Peninsula Rail Joint
Pcr.ierS Board which is organized under Division 16 of the Public utilities
Code.
2.3.4 One I1JSI1Ì)er awointed by the Congestion Managsnent
Agency designated under Chapter 2.6 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
CDvermœnt Code.
2.3.5 One I1JSI1Ì)er awointed by the Department of
Transportation.
2.4 An alternate may be designated for each voting nll2.Lt:.c of the
Authority. 'Ihe Mayor of San Jose may designate an elected official of San
Jose to serve as his or here alternate. In the case of any other voting
1\1I!I1ÌJer, the awointing local c;pvermœnt(s) may designate an alternate
elected official to the regular awointed IDeIIber. When the regular IDeIIber
is not present at the meeting of the Authority, the alternate may act as
the regular I\1I!I1ÌJer and shall have all rights, privileges, and
responsiliilities of the regular IDeIIber. 'Ihe alternate elected official's
tenn of office shall be the same as that of the regular IDeIIber.
2.5 If any voting I\1I!I1ÌJer ceases to be an elected official, that
I\1I!I1ÌJer shall cease to be a I\1I!I1ÌJer of the Authority.
Section 3. 'Ihe Santa Clara County Traffic Congestion Relief and
Transit :rnprovaœnt Plan ~ hereto is approved as the county
transportation expenditure plan for the Authority pursuant to Public
Utilities Code Section l80206(b).
PASSED AND AOOP'lED at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of CUpertil10 this 18th day of Mav , 1992, by the
following vote:
vote
Mæòers of the City Council
AYES:
1œS:
Dean, Goldman, Koppel, Szabo, Sorensen
None
ABSENT:
None
ABS'I2\IN :
None
ATŒST:
APPROVED:
/s/ Dorothy Cornelius
City Clerk
/s/ Lauralee Sorensen
Mayor, City of CUpertil10
EXPENDITURE PLAN
PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED BY THE
CITIZENS COALITION FOR TRAFFIC RELIEF
The expenditure plan consists of three transportation
elements: rail transit, express bus transit, and highways.
The specific projects have been selected for their ability to
alleviate traffic congestion, improve air quality, and
attract regional, state and federal funds to maximize the
buying power of local dollars.
Each project in the plan is beneficial on its own merits, but
is further enhanced as a portion of the overall system of
transit and transportation improvements to keep Santa Clara
County residents, and workforce, moving.
The specific projects are as follows:
RAIL TRANSIT ELEMENT
1. TASMAN LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION
Description: Will Extend the current light rail system 12
miles from Milpitas to Mountain View, parallel to Highway
237.
Cost: $306 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
2. FREMONT - SOUTH BAY CORRIDOR
Description: Will build a new rail extension in Santa
Clara County to connect with BART in Alameda County.
Cost: $99 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
3. CALTRAIN COMMUTER RAIL (DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE NORTH)
Description: Increase Cal-Train rail service by 65
percent, from 60 to 100 trains per day, from downtown San
Jose to San Francisco. This includes station improvements
and electrification of the line.
Cost: $146 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
4. CALTRAIN COMMUTER RAIL (DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE SOUTH)
Description: Increase planned frequency of service, from 8
to 16 trains per day, on the Cal-Train rail line from
downtown San Jose to Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
\
Cost: $37 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
"EXHIBIT A"
5. VASONA LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION
Description: Extend the current light rail line 6 miles,
from downtown San Jose, through Campbell, to Los Gatos.
Cost: $165 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
6. CAPITOL - DOWNTOWN EVERGREEN RAIL EXTENSION
Description: This would connect to the Tasman Light Rail
extension at Hostetter Road In Milpitas\North San Jose,
and extend rail 14 miles through East San Jose and
Evergreen, and then on to downtown San Jose.
Cost: $238 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
7. STEVENS CREEK RAIL EXTENSION
Description: This 9 mile rail line would run from downtown
San Jose, through Santa Clara, to Cupertino, on or near
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Cost: $260 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
8. SUNNYVALE - CUPERTINO RAIL EXTENSION
Description: This 4.5 mile line would connect with the
Tasman light rail line near Highway 237 and Lockheed,
proceed through Downtown Sunnyvale and on to Cupertino.
Cost: $140 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
9. ALMADEN UPGRADE - DOUBLE TRACK
Description: This will doubletrack the 1 mile Almaden
branch of the existing Guadalupe light rail line.
Cost: $1 million for capital construction.
MASS BUS TRANSIT ELEMENT
1. "SUPER EXPRESS" COMMUTER BUS SERVICE
Description: This will add 30 new buses and several new
routes to the "Super Express" bus system. These buses go
directly from neighborhoods throughout the County to major
employment centers during commute hours, and are time
competitive with the automobile. New routes to be served
shall include the following major employment areas:
1. Stanford Park (Palo Alto): Which includes Syntex,
Alza, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Varian, Watkins Johnson,
Xerox, and others.
2. Moffett (Sunnyvale): Which includes ESL, Martin
Marietta, Lockheed, and others.
3. Great America (Santa Clara): Which includes Intel,
Synoptics, Advanced Micro Device~, Siemens, Northern
Telecom and others.
4. Vallco\De Anza (Cupertino): Which includes Hewlett
Packard, Apple, Tandem, Measurex and others.
5. Shoreline (Mt. View): Which includes Silicon Graphics,
Alza, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard and others.
Cost: $54 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
2. TRANSIT SERVICE FOR DISABLED SENIORS AND TRANSIT DEPENDENT
Description: This service will provide transit for
disabled and handicapped citizens, as called for in the
"Americans with Disabilities Act."
Cost: $217 million
HIGHWAY ELEMENT
1. MEASURE A ENHANCEMENTS
Description: Enhancements to the "Measure A" system's
strategic plan.
1. Improve the interchange at Highway 237\880
in Milpitas.
Cost: $76.9 million for capital construction.
2. Improve the interchange at Highway 85\101
in Mt. View.
Cost: $23.5 million for capital construction.
3. Build interchanges on Highway 237 at Maude and
Middlefie1d Roads in Sunnyvale and Mt. view.
Cost: $14.9 million for capital construction.
4. Improve the interchange at Highway 85\87
in So. San Jose.
Cost: $13 million for capital construction.
5. Improve the interchange at Highway 85\101
in So. S.J.
Cost: $13 million for capital construction.
6. Widen Highway 85 between Highway 237 and 101 In Mt.
View.
Cost: $3.3 million for capital construction.
7. Build a partial interchange at Highway 237 and
Lafayette Street in Santa Clara.
Cost: $2.5 million for capital construction.
8. Engineering Costs and Right-of-Way reimbursement to
local jurisdictions.
Cost: $41.5 million.
2. SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION
Description: Synchronization and continuous monitoring
of the traffic signals on all eight of the County's major
expressways, using video surveillance from a traffic
operations control center: Foothill, Central, Lawrence,
San Tomas, Montague, Capitol, Almaden, and Oregon. This
allows signal timing to be adjusted to minimize congestion
during peak traffic hours.
Cost: $13 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
3. HIGHWAY 87 (GUADALUPE PARKWAY)
Description: Upgrading Route 87, the Guadalupe Parkway,
from a surface street to a freeway, between downtown San
Jose and Highway 101, by removing 4 stoplights and
building a new access road to the San Jose International
Airport.
Cost: $26 million for capital construction.
4. HIGHWAY 101 (BERNAL ROAD TO COCHRANE ROAD)
Description: Currently, Highway 101 has 4 lanes of
traffic, each way, from the San Mateo County line until
South San Jose at Bernal Road, near IBM. Eight miles
south, at Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill, Highway 101
becomes 3 lanes each way. In between Bernal Road and
Cochrane, however, Highway 101 is two lanes each way.
This will add one lane of traffic, each way, over the 8
mile stretch.
Cost: $15 million for capital construction.
Please note: Costs sited for all projects are based on 1992
dollars. Amounts listed are the local share necessary to
leverage regional, state and federal funds. Cost estimates,
adjusted for inflation for actual construction year dollars
over the life of the program, have been reviewed to ensure
that project capital, operation and maintenance costs are
accurate. Special emphasis has been placed on developing a
project list which would be completely built during the life
of the program with projected local, regional, state and
federal revenue.
Several steps have been taken to ensure project delivery.
These steps include:
1. A conservative estimate of sales tax revenue. "Measure A"
estimated an annual increase in sales tax revenue of 8
percent. This program is built on a conservative estimate
of 4.7 percent, which is in-line with current and
projected revenue growth.
2. To ensure project delivery, the dollar figures for
capital construction are based on a conservative estimate
of project costs.
3. The program's intent is to build on a "Pay As You Go"
basis. Debt service on bonds can decrease purchasing
power by as much as 25 percent. Therefore, it is the
stated intent of this program to only bond for projects as
needed to maximize state and federal dollars, as they
become available.
4. Each project has been selected, in part, on its ability to
successfully compete for state and federal matching funds
to maximize the buying power of local dollars. The
anticipated amount of state and federal matching funds
built into the Expenditure Plan has been kept at a
conservative level, to ensure the project list will be
delivered during the life of the program.
file:explan.myc