Resolution 1992-30
.
.
.f
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 30
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY SUPPORTING THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A SANTA CLARA COUNTY LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE PLAN, ENTITLED THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS) a coalition of County civic, business, labor and environmental
organizations has proposed the formation within Santa Clara County of a local
transportation authority pursuant to Division 19 of the California Public Utilities
Code (Section 180000 et seq.). The proposal for the formation of the authority
will be, or has been, presented to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for
consideration and adoption; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 180051, the membership
of such an authority must be concurred in by a majority of the cities having a
majority of the population in the incorporated area of the County; and
WHEREAS, 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 councils representing both the majority of the cities in
the county and a majority of the population residing in the incorporated areas of
the county; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
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 concurs that the membership of such an authority shall be as
fol1ows:
A. The autbority shal1 consist of five (5) voting members as follows:
1. One member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
appointed by that board.
2. Two members representing the City of San Jose consisting of the
mayor thereof and a member of the San Jose City Council appointed by tbe council.
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 30
.
.
3. Two members representing the other cities in the county
appointed pursuant to Section B.
B. The members representing the other cities in the county shall be
appointed in the following manner:
1. The cities shall be divided into two zones, the north
zone and the south zone.
2. The north zone shal1 include the Cities of Los Altos, Los
Altos Hil1s, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale.
3. The south zone shall include the Cities of Campbel1,
Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga.
4. The mayors from the cities in each zone, by majority
vote, shal1 appoint one mayor or council member from their respective zone to serve
on the authority.
C. Tbere shal1 also be five nonvoting members of the authority, each of
whom shall have all the rights of a voting member except the right to vote, as
follows:
1. One member appointed by the Santa Clara County Transit District
which is organized under Part 12 of Division 10 of the Public Uti Ii ties Code.
2. One member appointed by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission which is organized under Title 7.1 of the Government Code.
3. One member appointed by the Peninsula Rail Joint Powers Board
which is organized under Division 16 of the Public Utilities Code.
4. One member appointed by the Congestion Management Agency
designated under Chapter 2.6 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
5. One member appointed by the Department of Transportation.
D. An alt,rnate may be designated for each voting member of the
Authority. The mayor of San Jose may designate an elected official of San Jose to
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 30
.
.
serve as his or her alternate. In the case of any other voting member, the
appointing 10cal government(s) may designate an alternate elected official to the
regular appointed member. When the regular member is not present at the meeting of
the authority, the alternate may act as the regular member and shall have all the
rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the regular member.
E. If any voting member ceases to be an elected official, that
member shall cease to be a member of the authority.
2. The Santa Clara County Traffic Congestion Relief and Transit
Improvement Plan appended hereto is approved as the county transportation
expenditure pIan for the authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
180206(b).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, HALE, KLOECKER, ROWLISON, VALDEZ and GAGE.
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: NELSON
ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPRO'?):
_tLwN~Ci_~
Mayor ~
ATTEST:
-3-
.,
'-;1
.
.
THE SriJ."fTA CLil.?.A COUNTY
T~.FFIC CONGESTION RELIEF
AND TRANSJ.T IMPROVE.1\ffiNT PLlI.N
PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED BY TEE
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, mcving.
'C
The specific projects are as follows:
RAIL TRANSIT ELE~~~
1. TASMF.N LIGHT RAIL E{TENSION
Description: Will E:ctend 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 BlIRT 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 (DOw"NTOWN 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.
.
.
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 RiUL 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 mainten~~ce.
8. SUNNYVALE - CUPERTINO RAIL EXTENSION
Description: This 6 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, Lcck~eed, and ct~ers.
3. Great ~merica (Santa Clara): Which includes Intel,
Synoptics, Advanced Micro Devices, Siemens, Northern
Telecom and others.
4. Vallco\De Anza (Cupertino]: w-nich includes Hewlett
Packard, Apple, Tandem, Measurex and others.
5. Shoreline (Mt. View): Which includes Silicon Graphics,
Alza, Sun Microsysta~s, Hewlett Packard and others.
Cost: $54 million for capital, operation and maintenance.
2. TRANSIT SERVICE FOR DISABLED SE...'TIORS AND TRANSIT DEPENDENT
Description: This service will provide transit for
disabled and handicapped citizens, as called for in the
"Americans with Disabilities JI..c"t... n
Cost: $217 million
HIGh"'WAY ELEMENT
1. ~.EASURE A ENHANCE."'ENTS
Desc::ipticn: Enhance..TTIe!lts t.:: t~e "Mea.sure A" syste!Il's
strategic plan.
1. Improve the interchange
in Milpitas.
Cost: $76.9 million for
at Highway 237\880
capital construction.
2. Improve the interchange
in Mt. Vie.......
Cost: $23.5 million for
at Hiahwav 85\101
- -
capital construction.
3. Build interchanges on Highway 237 at Maude and
Middlefield Roads in SUnnTJale 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 (GUADJ>..LUPE PARKWAY)
Description: Upgrading Route 87, the Guadalupe Parkway,
from a surface street to a f=eeway, betwe~n 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. HIGh"'WAY 101 (BERNJ>..L ROAD TO COC};:RJ>..NE ROJ>..D)
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 i~c~e~se 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 deliverI, 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 2S 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 m~{imize the buying pcwer 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 du~ing the li=e of the prcgr~~_
file:explan.myc
.'
.
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 92-30
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 18th day of
May
, 19~,
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the
Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this
19th
day of ___Y--aL__
19 92.
- AU,4c&.....,/,& .
5f}6}--C1erk or the (;1 ty --of
(Seal)