Discussion

VTA was created as a County department by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1972 to oversee the region's transportation system. VTA's primary responsibility since its creation has been the development, operation and maintenance of the bus and light rail system within the County. VTA separated from the County of Santa Clara and merged with the region's Congestion Management Agency in January 1995; thereby it gained the additional responsibility of managing the County's blueprint to reduce congestion and improve air quality.

The Vasona Light Rail Project will be an extension to the existing 28.6-mile VTA light rail system (see Appendix A). The alignment of the proposed Vasona Corridor extends from downtown San Jose to the Vasona Junction in the City of Los Gatos. The northerly terminus of the alignment is at the intersection of West San Carlos Street and Woz Way in downtown San Jose, where the Vasona line connects to the existing Guadalupe Corridor line. From this point, the alignment extends to the west along West San Carlos Street to Delmas Avenue, passing under the SR-87 overpass. The LRT line extends north along the east side of Delmas Avenue to San Fernando Street, at which point the alignment turns west again. The line continues to the San Jose Diridon Station on an alignment to the north of San Fernando Street, crossing Los Gatos Creek on a proposed new bridge. The segment west of Autumn Street, including the location where the LRT line crosses the existing UPRR and PCJPB Diridon Yard tracks, is underground. After crossing under the yard tracks at the San Jose Diridon Station, the alignment returns to the surface and heads in a southerly direction along the west side of the Diridon Yard tracks. From a point just south of Park Avenue, the proposed alignment utilizes the existing Vasona railroad corridor. The project remains within the railroad corridor all the way to the Vasona Junction in the City of Los Gatos. Existing freight rail service in this corridor will continue unchanged, although the existing single track will be relocated in many areas to allow for construction of the light rail transit tracks.

The proposed project is expected to be funded in three phases. Phase 1 constructs the portion of the project from downtown San Jose to the Downtown Campbell Station. Phase 2 extends the line from Downtown Campbell Station to the Winchester Station. Phase 3 extends the line from Winchester Station to the Vasona Junction Station in the City of Los Gatos.

The light rail transit tracks will cross the Woz Way/West San Carlos Street Intersection at-grade. The at-grade crossing is the most financially and environmentally acceptable choice and is in keeping with the open access concept of light rail transit. Alternatives to an at-grade crossing are depressing the street below the tracks, depressing the tracks below street level, elevating the street above the tracks, and elevating the tracks above street level. Each of these alternatives may be physically impossible. Other problems would also be created with a grade separated crossing, such as conflicts with existing development and utilities, noise generation, aesthetic impacts and the creation of possible hazards due to flooding caused by depressing rail or street facilities. Construction of this project serves the public by providing efficient transportation in a growing area of the Santa Clara Valley.

VTA is the lead agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Vasona Corridor Light Rail Transit Project was released to the public in October 1999, beginning the formal review period. VTA prepared a Final EIR/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in March 2000 in accordance with CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS/EIR evaluated the proposed rail transit project and several options. Public scoping meetings were held on April 14-15, 1999, at which meetings, the light rail project was discussed at length with local citizens in the surrounding communities. In addition, there had been previously a period of public comment wherein local citizens were asked to write in their comments and concerns regarding impact on their properties or other pertinent matters. Comments by the public, where feasible, were incorporated into the environmental documents and considered in the preparation of the EIS/EIR of the Light Rail Corridor.

On May 4, 2000, a Notice of Determination (Notice) was filed with the State Secretary of Resources - Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento and the County Clerk Recorder's Office - Santa Clara County, City of San Jose. The Notice, which is included in Appendix C, advised all interested parties that the VTA was in compliance with Section 21108 of the California Public Resources Code.

VTA has approved the proposed project, as the environmentally superior alternative, and further stated that:

1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. A Final EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.

5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

A certification was made that the Final EIR with comments, responses and record of the project approval was made available to the general public at the Environmental Analysis, Building B in the City of San Jose on May 5, 2000.

The Commission is a responsible agency for this project under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences of a project that is subject to its discretionary approval. In particular, to comply with CEQA, a responsible agency must consider the lead agency's EIR or negative declaration prior to acting upon or approving the project (CEQA Guideline Section 15050(b)). The specific activities that must be conducted by a responsible agency are contained in CEQA Guideline Section 15096. The site of the proposed project has been inspected by the Commission's Rail Safety and Carriers Division - Rail Crossings Engineering Section staff. Staff examined the need to construct the proposed crossing, as indicated in the exhibits attached to the application, and recommends that the application be approved.

The Commission has reviewed the lead agency environmental documents. The EIS included an analysis of potential environmental effects, including impacts related to transportation and traffic, air quality, noise and vibration, energy, land use, socio-economics and environmental justice, vegetation and wildlife, water quality, floodplains, geology, hazardous materials, magnetic fields and interference, cultural resources, aesthetic considerations, safety and security, construction and growth-inducing impacts.

The EIS analyzed 35 potential environmental impacts. Of that number, 17 were found to have no effect, be not substantial, potentially beneficial or beneficial; 18 were found to have potentially substantial or substantial effects. However, mitigation measures were adopted and will be implemented as specified by the lead agency to either eliminate or substantially lessen those environmental impacts. In particular, we have considered the following information.

The proposed project will reduce overall vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) and vehicle-hours-traveled (VHT) in Santa Clara County. Reducing traffic congestion will also reduce auto emissions that degrade air quality. This is a beneficial impact because a decrease in VMT and VHT reduces congestion, air pollution and energy consumption.

Noise due to moving trains will exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) thresholds at various residences located along the alignment. The noise impacts will be mitigated with the construction of soundwalls, reducing the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Socio-economic impacts will be less than significant, as the project will not result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations. No neighborhoods will be divided and no cultural or religious facilities will be impacted by the project.

The proposed project will not result in significant air quality impacts. In fact, the project is anticipated to result in a beneficial impact on regional air quality. Furthermore, the proposed project conforms to the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act.

The project will provide opportunities for joint development at various locations. Joint development, sometimes referred to as Transit-Oriented Development has overall beneficial land use impacts because it allows for high-density infill with easy transit access.

The proposed project will not result in significant long-term water quality impacts. However, the proposed project could result in significant short-term water quality impacts during construction. The short-term impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by the specific construction practices and methods being utilized.

As to each of the potentially substantial or substantial impacts identified in the EIS and as discussed above, the Commission finds the lead agency adopted feasible mitigation measures to either eliminate or substantially lessen the impacts.

Protection at the crossing shall be as indicated by text, plans attached to the application and as further described by Appendices A and B of this order.

The application was found to be in compliance with the Commission's filing requirements, including Rules 38-41 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Site maps of the grade crossing are as shown on plans attached to the application and Appendix A.

In Resolution ALJ 176-3060, dated March 27, 2001 and published in the Commission Daily Calendar on March 28, 2001, the Commission preliminarily categorized this application as ratesetting, and preliminarily determined that hearings were not necessary. Since no protests were filed and no hearings were held, this preliminary determination remains accurate. The Commission's Rail Safety and Carriers Division recommends that this application be granted. Given these developments a public hearing is not necessary, and it is not necessary to disturb the preliminary determinations made in Resolution ALJ 176-3060.

This is an uncontested matter in which the decision grants the relief requested. Accordingly, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 311(g)(2), the otherwise applicable 30-day period for public review and comment is being waived.