Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
CHAPTER 1.0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Final EIR addresses the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC).
The VTA Board of Directors selected the BART Extension as the Preferred Investment Strategy (also known as the Locally Preferred Alternative) for the SVRTC following completion of a Major Investment Study/Alternatives Analysis (MIS/AA) in November 2001. During that same month, the VTA and BART Boards approved a comprehensive agreement regarding the institutional, project implementation, and financial issues related to the BART Extension. This agreement identified VTA as the local lead agency in preparing the environmental document in partnership with FTA. VTA will also design and construct the BART Extension. Upon completion, BART will operate and maintain the system. VTA, BART, and FTA will continue to work closely throughout the project development process.
With the approval of the MIS/AA, the VTA Board of Directors instructed that a “New Starts” Baseline Alternative also be evaluated in the environmental compliance phase as required under FTA’s New Starts program. In addition, a No-Action Alternative has been formulated as a basis for comparison to the other alternatives.
It should be noted that this EIR was initially written as a combined federal/state document (Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report [EIS/EIR]) in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. However, subsequent to the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIR, VTA choose to pursue federal and state environmental clearance of the project on independent paths. Therefore, this Final EIR contains information that is applicable to the federal environmental review process. The Final EIS, to be completed at a later date, will require Federal Transit Administration review and approval.
This executive summary highlights the information that is presented in detail throughout this Final EIR. For full particulars on any topic herein, the reader is directed to the document chapter(s) or section(s) that address that topic.
1.2 STUDY AREA
The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the City of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles (Figure 1.2-1). Major roadway transportation facilities in the SVRTC include Interstate 880 (I-880), Interstate 680 (I-680), U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) and State Routes 237 and 87 (SR 237 and SR 87). The corridor is also traversed by two freight railroad mainlines and commuter rail, interstate and state routes, expressways, and major arterials. VTA, Caltrain, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail (Capitols), Amtrak, and a variety of bus operators provide transit services to major activity and employment centers located throughout the corridor.
Executive Summary 1.2-1 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
Figure 1.2-1: Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor
1.2-2 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
The overall purpose of transportation improvements in the SVRTC is to:
• Improve public transit service in this severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity and faster, convenient access throughout the San Francisco Bay Area Region, including southern Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, Central Valley, and Silicon Valley. • Enhance regional connectivity through expanded, interconnected rapid transit services between BART in Fremont and light rail transit (LRT) and Caltrain in Silicon Valley. • Accommodate future travel demand in the corridor by expanding modal options. • Alleviate severe and ever-increasing traffic congestion on the I-880 and I-680 freeways between Alameda County and Santa Clara County. • Improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. • Improve mobility options to employment, education, medical, and retail centers for corridor residents, in particular low-income, youth, elderly, disabled, and ethnic minority populations. • Maximize transit usage and ridership. • Support local economic and land use plans and goals.
1.3.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIS/EIR AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
This document is a Final EIS/EIR and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA and the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. It presents alternatives for improving transit services in the SVRTC and discloses the environmental impacts of those alternatives.
This document will be used by federal, state, regional, and local agencies to assess the environmental impacts of the SVRTC project on resources under their jurisdiction and/or to make discretionary decisions regarding the project. The FTA, the State of California, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will use this document in deciding whether and how to fund the project.
Once the project is approved, public agencies can use this EIS/EIR as the basis for their decisions to issue permits and other approvals necessary to construct the project.
The EIS/EIR includes the following chapters, with supporting information found in the appendices:
• Chapter 1: Executive Summary • Chapter 2: Introduction • Chapter 3: Alternatives • Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis • Chapter 5: BART Core System Parking Analysis • Chapter 6: Other CEQA and NEPA Considerations • Chapter 7: Final 4(f) Evaluation • Chapter 8: Financial Considerations
Executive Summary 1.3-3 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
• Chapter 9: Agency and Community Participation • Chapter 10: Agencies and Organizations • Chapter 11: List of Preparers • Chapter 12: Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms • Chapter 13: Bibliography
1.4 ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives are under consideration for the SVRTC project: No-Action Alternative, “New Starts” Baseline Alternative, and BART Extension Alternative. Two Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) scenarios also are included as sub-options under the BART Alternative.
1.4.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action Alternative consists of the existing SVRTC roadway and transit networks, as well as programmed improvements that are identified in the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) through the long-range planning horizon year 2025. Major highways include I-880, I-680, US 101, SR 237, and SR 87. Existing transit systems encompass Caltrain commuter rail, VTA LRT and buses, ACE, Capitols, and Amtrak. Expansion of those transit networks is also planned in the future through the year 2025, along with highway and roadway improvements in the corridor.
1.4.2 “NEW STARTS” BASELINE ALTERNATIVE
The FTA requires project proponents to develop and evaluate a Baseline Alternative in comparison with the rail project that is seeking federal funding under FTA’s “New Starts” Program. The “New Starts” Baseline Alternative (Baseline Alternative) identifies transit improvements above and beyond the No- Action Alternative to represent the “best that can be done” to increase transit services without major capital investment in new infrastructure and provides a basis for comparison to the proposed project. The Baseline Alternative builds upon existing, planned, and programmed transportation improvements in the corridor with additional express bus service and associated improvements (Figure 1.4-1). Bus service for the Baseline Alternative could be implemented, in conjunction with the completion of the BART Extension to Warm Springs, in 2008.
1.4.2.1 Proposed Improvements
The Baseline Alternative would expand express bus service between: (1) the Central Valley, Tri-Valley, and central Contra Costa County and the planned BART Warm Springs Station in southern Fremont, Alameda County; and (2) the BART Warm Springs Station and various Silicon Valley destinations in Santa Clara County. The service into Santa Clara County would augment existing express bus service and improvements planned in VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan 2020.
In addition, the following three new busway connectors are proposed in the Baseline Alternative to facilitate bus circulation:
• I-680 to Planned BART Warm Springs Station • BART Warm Springs Station to I-880 • I-880 to Montague Expressway
1.4-4 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
Figure 1.4-1: Baseline Alternative
Executive Summary 1.4-5 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
1.4.2.2 Financial Considerations
Total capital costs are estimated to be $379.0 million in 2003 dollars for the Baseline Alternative to purchase buses and construct roadway improvements. In 2025, annual operating and maintenance costs are projected to increase by $28.2 million (2003 dollars) for all modes under the Baseline Alternative in comparison to the No-Action Alternative.
1.4.3 BART EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE
The BART Extension Alternative (BART Alternative) consists of a BART rail transit line constructed on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) San Jose Branch right-of-way (ROW), now owned by VTA. The new extension would run between the planned BART Warm Springs Station and Santa Clara Street in San Jose, continuing in a subway (Figure 1.4-2) under public and private property through east and downtown San Jose, terminating at grade near the Santa Clara Caltrain Station (Figure 1.4-3). Service for the BART Alternative could start in 2013, if funding were available. Figure 1.4-2: BART Subway Station The 16.3-mile BART Alternative would have seven stations, plus one future station, as follows:
• South Calaveras (Future) – at Calaveras Boulevard (SR 237) and the railroad corridor ROW • Montague/Capitol – at the rail ROW between Montague Expressway and Capitol Avenue • Berryessa – at Berryessa Road and the railroad corridor ROW • Alum Rock – at 28th Street between East Julian and East Santa Clara streets • Civic Plaza/San Jose State University (SJSU) – at East Santa Clara Street between 4th and 7th streets • Market Street – at West Santa Clara Street between 1st Street and Almaden Avenue • Diridon/Arena – south of and parallel to West Santa Clara Street between Autumn and White streets • Santa Clara – at Benton Street/Brokaw Road between El Camino Real and Coleman Avenue.
Multiple alignment and station options are under consideration for the BART Alternative. Alignment options are provided for BART south of Warm Springs, at the Alum Rock Station, for crossover locations in downtown San Jose, and at the Diridon/Arena Station. Profile options are also included for BART’s crossings of Warren Avenue and Dixon Landing Road. Various station and parking design options are evaluated for the South Calaveras Future, Montague/Capitol, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Diridon/Arena, and Santa Clara stations. In addition, the three downtown San Jose subway stations – Civic Plaza/SJSU, Market Street, and Diridon/Arena – have multiple station entrance options. The Santa Clara Station also has options for a pedestrian overcrossing or undercrossing connecting with the existing Caltrain station. An at-grade or lowered vertical profile option has been developed to accommodate a potential future connection to the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJIA).
1.4-6 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
Figure 1.4-3: BART Extension Alternative
Executive Summary 1.4-7 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
1.4.3.1 Other Related Facilities
Other ancillary facilities would be constructed along the BART Alternative, including electrical, train control, communications, and subway support equipment. In addition, a new BART Maintenance Facility would be constructed east of the UPRR Newhall Yard in San Jose/Santa Clara. UPRR track improvements also would need to be made to terminate and relocate the existing freight railroad services along the line.
1.4.3.2 BART Core System Parking Analysis
Additional parking for those BART Alternative passengers driving to existing BART core system stations north of the extension would need to be accommodated. It is projected that parking for riders of the SVRTC extension who would board at BART stations north of the extension would require approximately 3,200 spaces in 2025.
1.4.3.3 Minimum Operating Scenarios
In July 2003, the FTA recommended that VTA identify a BART Alternative Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) to include in the EIS/EIR and New Starts process. An MOS translates to constructing the BART Alternative in two phases, which would include an initial operating phase and a final phase to complete the full project. The FTA feels the MOS approach would make the project more competitive in the New Starts program by reducing the initial project cost and federal funding share. Based on FTA’s direction, VTA has defined two MOS scenarios for analysis in this EIS/EIR: MOS-1E and MOS-1F.
Under both MOS scenarios, the entire trackway alignment would be built in phase 1 (MOS-1E or 1F) but other project elements, such as certain stations, vehicles, parking spaces, maintenance facility components, and BART core impact modifications, would be deferred to phase 2 (MOS-2E or 2F). It is assumed that the deferred MOS-2E and 2F elements would be completed within three years of initial MOS-1E and 1F phase start-up and may require additional federal funding.
1.4.3.4 Financial Considerations
Total capital costs in 2003 dollars are estimated to be $4,112.0 million1 for the BART Alternative, assuming the least costly design options. Initial start-up costs could be reduced by $217 to $350 million based on the MOS scenarios. This would reduce BART Alternative costs to between $3,762 to $3,895 million for the MOS scenarios.
The BART Alternative would rely on three key funding sources (2003 dollars): $2,629.0 million from VTA’s Measure A local sales tax and other capital funding sources, $649.0 million from the State of California’s Traffic Congestion Relief Program, and $834.0 million from Federal Section 5309 New Starts funds.
In 2025, annual operating and maintenance costs for all modes under the BART Alternative are projected to grow by $73.3 million (2003 dollars) in comparison to the No-Action Alternative and $45.1 million
1 Capital costs for the BART Alternative were estimated at $3,838.0 million in year 2001 dollars, which was the base year for the Major Investment Study/Alternatives Analysis.
1.4-8 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR relative to the Baseline Alternative. The costs to operate and maintain the BART Alternative in 2025 are estimated at $65.1 million greater than the No-Action Alternative and $64.4 million greater than the Baseline Alternative. Annual operating and maintenance costs for the MOS scenarios would be $60.3 million for MOS-1E in 2025 and $56.1 million in 2015. MOS-1F would cost $59.7 million in 2015 to operate and maintain.
Funding to operate and maintain the BART Alternative would come from a mix of sources such as a county half-cent sales tax, State Transportation Development Act (TDA), State Transit Assistance (STA) Program, passenger fare revenues, Federal Transit Act Section 5307, and other sources (e.g., advertising, rentals, interest earnings, etc.). Potential new funding sources could include ¼ to ½-cent sales tax, broadening the sales tax base, joint development, benefit assessment districts, proposition 42, regional gas tax, and Bay Area bridge tolls.
The financial plan indicates that this extension will need additional revenue in order to be constructed and operated in the time frame described. FTA is approving circulation of this EIS, with a preliminary financial plan, in recognition of the project's inclusion in the current MTC financially constrained regional plan and as support for the public dialogue on the project and its financial plan. The financial plan in the EIS is based on financial projections and governmental actions that are not finalized. As part of the New Starts process, a feasible financial plan will need to be prepared to advance the project into Final Design. In addition, the proposed project is dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project that does not yet have a final financial plan in place.
1.5 IMPACTS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS/BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PROPOSED MITIGATION OF SVRTC ALTERNATIVES
Table 1.5-1 summarizes the long-term impacts and proposed mitigation of the SVRTC alternatives. Short-term, temporary construction phase impacts and proposed mitigation of the alternatives are summarized in Table 1.5-2. The criteria for determining adverse impacts are provided in each topical section. A number of potential adverse impacts of the Baseline and BART alternatives will be avoided or minimized through design requirements and best management practices, which are required by current standards, codes, and/or guidelines or are already part of VTA’s existing construction procedures. These requirements and best management practices are summarized in Tables 1.5-1 and 1.5-2.
In addition, the following pre-construction activities will be implemented by VTA before construction of the Baseline or BART alternatives. The magnitude of this effort would be substantially greater with the BART Alternative than with the Baseline Alternative.
• Undertake detailed geotechnical investigation. • Prepare Final Design documents and construction contracts. • Prepare traffic control and detour plans. • Prepare Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. • Undertake a pre-construction building data survey. • Conduct a pre-construction survey. • Continue ongoing public involvement and coordination activities. • Establish a construction-related community information/outreach program. • Acquire necessary property and easements, including temporary construction and long-term underground easements.
Executive Summary 1.5-9
.
n n e re
e ley
o
d
i h as
ties g s i t i tu n o ,
l it e p as ed. t i , ci ve sev r lp n a d i s th i a
i ed and Wr t n rsect t i , and v on t ard, s Fu t ed by Mi f t
e ing i t ti di : t si , h of c r et, ev t u rams t vera n no n under No- e o rk w ing f ree g s f Jackli a ul ent ds i t n o o
r rib
e i d eeway cted n a t c r v n Rail ROW i a a d wi h and Almaden 78,000 new f l Bo o o s t p ll w ed. e i d be pro h t i and r ed t t t i e t as e park e remain d el Stree con l 29 f t u r h Calavera s c w
nroe S h d be af uth Cala im wi b t on i the Locomot wet a e i T. o A and pro e l t tigat nue , impro v ea Stree ilpi i cyc A e n woul
r lt o es s req s t gat nt u e So
s share ule es VM ci mmodat i on of h and Race Stre e Sou . VT e bi li i t n o i d; mi Executive Summary e on o l co h d on c l i ts i r dec also b y and nes e Bo l on i ti miti n i t t c v e a uct a s d d res f c l of t o r a en a i g po es fi w u n tion Measures t ga t e U.S. woul i i n k gati o 2025; 22 of ard and M i e a fair t A wi i e f a af h er emergent pro nst t v r n tio T on, i cl t o o Jose, and Santa Clara, as woul d be ac ti y mi s w i ovem uc V rk Avenu of cong ovement c Milp n mi ovid r
le t r e
n ll Par eek under the East o t on i r n : ips t reduc p ow great b ed t o pr turning l r a i s ti p park rs r h stead Road and M ti s h t n Mitig e eshwat n b add m , Sa ll p woul t lo t t a ces s Boule r i s o i no Real and San Tomas Expressway a s n ed by c e ec ses i e te Cr ti s e im ns s c ghest ng Road, San Carlo c nges and bi f ct eat Ma ay, and o s wa me be us . I i an o me i e n r A w i l i vera ants Home t f if n r ter hi t th t a osed dev crea c for c a y
o , Street, Pa and f la n of i ri ut l t e t G l y Milpita t in uc . wil to h on nt Pra s ; in tr res d o ti ect t e es n Alternative avel s n es ona ing ua Calien e a r pol rough and/o essway n ver, VT Prop em st ti m s i c d be af r g a
t h t at tio e as Expressw ed. tio e t BART Extension p esswa nue, El Cami ters ow el con a
s e A ir x ll f Road and Ki eri n d c ba e g s s made onl o relo ed pedes woul s ng v e cities of Ave and Marke e to of e fo re Sys d have more How mmuni el Street, Ca o 0.008 ac Crit 39,000 new t t on o 13 i . be it i
ds Manag ; ; o A gui s ll t mas E ac
s s ese l ative n l t th T . res t t n o at , n a Ab s ree es. c c l ss c s t ht t e e ti woul tio e crossin ue Expressway, Landess Avenue and Dempsey Road, Oakla f f RT Co g li ed by ted i Impro i g /Be l t on wi . A and c c at th i ec p agreements c and s c : Addi : None requ wet ef ef s id ons o a is in p e B l r es San T f ti al al tru es, g es es Road, McKee e i i on. About d ent ard d and Montague r r s 1.115 ac ters and Central Expr n ent RT and V have le ti
ribut i w in 2025. Average v ec u u n Impac nut re of d be s d A a b
ing f s s l citi in . an f rs et nt seline alter n Carlos S e. , t dev ul 7 ule e nefic nefic o irem Op ngs B o t ic e e fund es u ion d be af ovem i n t re co as e. ree r q , Mea Mea on o park wo wou t e ul at ment Practices, and it e p e s Bo s n n ial t ti at : B : B : About p t e Boulevar l serv ri s s s R tte Stre s f t t t uc tio tio le for 1 0.128 ac The c abl p n w wo n onal ent 121 i oe S i a a c c im d be 14 mi tan tr o re S ing demand at evard, Sa g r t i agenc ib l io l i s s fi m u h ul e RT boardi ad. rk tig tig t gments v A a e e Milpita Ro sub County of Santa Clara and th appl B wo P addi 30 of seg s Des Action and Ba Mi Creek Fut About Wye Mi con Impac l feas traf Boulevard and Montag Road and Broka Bou Auzerais Avenue and Delmas Lafaye Mon Stat Calavera wi appro Mi Impac Impac
e e t s s
t b me
d i y d n e l d t /Best Manag ansi u io u r cau t utan o s ct ll
bas avel A o f r - ents s w o f ip e t ways, with No ia p ed. ed. r would
r gher, s ir ir o ee e d. t hal t i hi e ce r y seline st fr 6,800 new t a e at pat all ; Averag s; Cri s n ic ci t trans r sou ct c rv e mpared t e ed f o . ffe anti ct on mo s s gn Requirem : None requ : None requ 2025. ef n t margi T c c s n al l of se es es i a r r Alternative e ) i cial e nute sele om oth p i VM X u u n
fr s s se or are approximately m n
i nefic nef i ngestio t o s. e
n n New Starts B . , (NO e Mea Mea d result i io t owth on two mi n n r : B : Be : No ti ct n s s s len t t t tio tio ative ec c g a a n ovem woul r tha r eased co s s e redu p tig tig p ters i n r n Impac Impac Impac t im les Traffi incr unacceptable lev i Mi show a decrea equiva o Alt Mi
e s. ic e on
sit us ti
EIR n ia a l of serv r ec f on s d o owth and n d c r e cts ls o ul ter leve a eled (VMT) g tio crite e . sed tran y o n v t or bas a es ts w es s, with ls id h ec h ng e t j e lev s tr
udy i l v . t w e co ile l tab : Increa : No imp ted
of s : Hig s s Corridor Final . nt a gro t t ep om corr oor freewa e m a c t i c Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi ice cl f cip p eased sit u l l anned pro No-Action Alternative Impact an Impac use fr pl Traf incr most freeway unac at half po vehi and serv Impac anti ry
o d ces: n Rapid Tr Table 1.5-1: sour on a i e t ds
orta cal R t i n i pact Categ log m I Transp Trans Air Quality Bio Wetla
Silicon Valley 1.5-10
a to on
e to
s. . and
EIR ti e
b g in
.
n s , ie o
n tat e o i uc i a of res
i re as n t
s s t OE l ec to tr support d t er’s s 1.5-11
h u . C s e U.S e tio e -pha ng G ed los i c r 6 ac op or t
n t ment t sp
ies e th s a o e rry a res f a Sta i th A con , tru s wit i t e s nt s), and p ast y c re the rian hab e , Co ie s b ns B ed a u on e r b ed t o g exi s w ti Co corrid tru n n rtl ters o ra, rip rryes ed under Coyot and 15. (estim / riou fec and CDF u her 0.009 ac a e us Spec she ns e manag e-c tain re no net g t s and other i c t a i tio Corridor Final r t ulta o oad nt ndi n F ed ti st in s uld be reduc a t v su e li ta a e B n Cal c nd mum ext h p ua ul sit o o l Sta rpl Central t.
s wo m f ary c at a d be af ug r th p n e railr t
ta n. s. Be , and
an i . o o o other w n o h ul to en e aq s o 04 perm ) e affe pier wall pact f and n’s s f e maxi ter dges res ati erie thr al c and ss t tion Measures n h s ed by ext m or, and anot s. Tunne l tsid on (NOAA and t i ) wo e i a d n o ted s sh COE c r St i s tio rm c o d e k 6 ac ass ou rri d bri ngdo ze harm to and ens rat o f ined erie ad may be affect rike hab n hw r t s To t See Specia o a t e 2. h Op h swallow l acreag a s tru ed through c to f nsi s (A e m l
k acro i o u : : s 01 and 4 g s rrido a ,
Rapid Tr t t i r Thi f ti s s, t s l o at r Co e n l li t h inf sult of tempor ter Mitig eer o or o c eelh e 4 ces ces i min e t , s exte t n w a t f i h ug um Roc ti ti n co d be af f ss o minimi road c t e to heas t p d c c s g a t Cree
o faci a rhead recon e rt ed rai t lmon f n t rap e e nment. th ot c Ad o ari the i frog osed formu of s b ss o at as a re g o g , l thro i o p d l b e rail c u i N l om lo and ) t l Sc e ns k sa h i s y t nt Pra nt Pra her ed ures habi r the Al al g o l o ary S. (ri s of E i In addi e on. e e e Alternative o i i t s t s w Prop rp m m k w l sta ke fr lmon and leg nal net lo re-lo
ino ie to log t and due t i ulat vit ll avoid im i ed. - e e o e a e U.S. woul BART Extension i a res e o c s s ndi t ces i rrying ti mosp on f meas r h m m c i
Silicon Valley e e t. es o C t fo ct t u c e ec
k s y t the U. shr
a f ss ac At en suitabl on t ca u hw sp p no i for m n sp y Cre oo of ia red t s eve n r - Op of d e lo as s Manag Manag ut n n u of le n ROW Opt r tio t hi rs l lver t t b ga o e l i of f c c ed a e s s l reem t c and Creek under t t i for n i S. A reet res erhead ll ad g d be af i at Warm Springs for im r Chi g tru s and, if ne tio ul lhead and Ch /Be /Be ul A St o e Rai wat ure So e w wat c s s l p n : Wrig : M t th h i h of the cu t ired log kite, n es to a of ecial s ecie wo es es adalupe River w g tru r tio more riparian u n l stee to Cali d ent ent the U. cons tat f r r Oceani ruc permanent p p kely w cab s 14.9 ac i u n u s i re of i
u u w ra t n res ca s al th li ile s s i o to s o c ad/28 St o s n e s be s t te nd a act ng Toroges l ta e sout o s o irem irem c h of s r i - t p under t h 1 ac keep u u e n ing on req e t A , e and r t p . t q q . ly, c Mea Mea rryi ti e on w d t r ment Practices, and l o s 0. e e . Mea n wing o may res tio n n a a e mal hab ood Sy ti exte l im al o : Up t s i s n e f g b t s n R R c i e d s f ia a y Creek ta le eff t ten sio tio tio S, Nat t t 0.033 ac l t ure c cab n n y i n h i t nua a a e Park le op u ib tio t i lt o g g on f i c us - i i t i s t urbanc s tla t m d ten lver tig tig acti r burro sc s ss e o d o i r u o e f Cottonw p hawk, whi Sub of th and the Railr Opt 0.002 ac About c resu A Wrig l di stru Des Pos Des con w the ex con surve USFW CDFG. N d Mi p avoid impac Creek and the G prac Stream Mi Impac
t d
ss e s t for liz u
/Best Manag t ern tailed ta t i rtmen at t S, om lo a l sta
ed . ents ic n ze harm to r Wes if ke fr ed for Dep le hab i c r and, fina o ecia , white- USFW a b . Habi e i k rmi s a nimi n e t y sp th i sp shr ed i f t seline habitat c for s- rve e a e s. e f u on requi on o on w rik i i i rhead eci t be det h e ecie G) to mi ll on s g tat gat i oper’s haw t ti the Cali ul wi inua c gn Requirem : Sp t sp d be af log a nt ns ul es (CDF mi n tru r o nt and 13 acres f Alternative o and o ct Co 13 acres of su e y s u s b n s s o w s, l o t ou e to ggerhead s c in c w the c , o e l New Starts B d affe eri
l measures Mea s tarpla h o g o vari ary n n : Up t s n o i s i s and Gam le eff t s. tio cou t mpensator w h e s a o ib ces s ugh pre-c ensure gat , and s ti pac e tig eci Fi m Impac Congdon’ burro losse kit Pos of grassland. Mi mi thro if ne NOAA Fis of and sp No c i cts a
. : No imp ted s a t Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi cip No-Action Alternative Impac anti s ry o ces: Specie Table 1.5-1: s sour u e t cal R l Sta i pact Categ log m I Bio Specia Executive Summary
n
d ic i
l r
of
E. u to l e st y o d ty e i e i t P o s,
e s h s at es n an b s ation ere i h i the and t ura n t u it w g in h on lit i l h , an i t, s ass ed ti t cau m r t c t el e , of reet the e se c t th h a ec s ess d i h m j i n e o r opol aid e s of b l o r t
d niza St g Cult t i s t ; expand a a e ns n al rties in a g o Gu i e eat Mal eac o a n ic be t y aff r i ss c and f rt l i e pro ces n ; and/o M t l g on p h i e org o t l to ad mutua iall nk l i wi t i rded s cce e G dinate wi e Santa Clara ara to ensure s Marke f l ed ppo ed i t ac tat as, San J o nd s i i nt air emissions, noise sec a h t t r ica f u th t s d l i o a i e i l o te e Parc n v to a nd s or ul lp the i and ACHP. Miti p coor lp o es t h , i a dependi s t l s ent . , i e rec Mi p s at t s y d affec tra s may lie within the A ect Executive Summary h M s wo PO park n f hi
t p s at th c e archaeo i a erty s are recorded within n . ue to tion h to h p o es. SH north of and i tion Measures oved d Tran ertie g measures , in ani rk t t ti on phas ted by t r nt r t i r res i a ed park r n a a were i t ed p rk w e on to t o v es o op City o i ei e op c c pro y c an o r (MOA) and s t ti e of tra al site d t and d di h c e a i t op Expand existing s ic propert Hisp i di owi Cont t f j ic p f im n di ag l p r
l w rest nue. truct e rri iv rd : y a c k u or o n b : a o a sign it ped f t h te lities as a result of ical resource d ty, u ns ad i s e st Mitig A n bo ori i on ac y t b lo Y y ces o lin ns ni o ti fi Ave s e ces ti D st e n l in ue to u s l ad c a the af ti c bed i i fac In ad olog tor s n e hi t ati n and d c s t uc ty , San Jose, and Santa C c i ne i m atel l y ri hi r n ro ). s a t dev e f l io c a at rv opert i ni ila osed
r nt t E stria Agreement s c one h e for a p an een VT n i e f b ita e n of the fol e nst s P n n u i g com n to a p d Milp o o nt Pra ula l tw g o e rai res ic archaeologic i on o e l m e R uld ita (AP Alternative e t vent mmu h p mmedi t ati o om pr ners o R ct o
Prop d m m lp Mi atio i ng; co r ly at Cur b
n c , e P will b ican e p circ e o n i Co BART Extension are des t b fec f Des aeo stor f n w ) fec ere archae ni m i f e er t i n s le h o c Mi ow er P a or A v . f amenit a , c o ss erty o ti nd l pated c g T r Ef randum o T for i m st y l nal tie o ts p e ef a a n c nagement n V c i the U li a i i l arc na s t s wh n i a em rs i anges ty o hi en Manag mo e ci o r ng o e i ct ud y h rking e Fi nt e l on t t ve A pro si M a i m F rk, p of i a e c s c and t ord p of ti t h of p l a an/b an (CR n st n g ant th t i l n os a ri o a t ty fa o e of r t cat n u o i derat p /Be B P o count ke p str s, i park / es s h co i e seg : Some combi : A M e addi e. uni e lex to Ci an adv ti te im hou i d nati d an c ehistoric and hi ent P p e iv i a ug es es cted m , b st s ent r t plementing e ent ent the N r r Two of the thr ri v rest ve an adverse e
v r her lo g di o e 100’ s minat ug ativ m m . t u : t m r and u u o t ti t p n th te i th c s s y o i ro c em em e ed at o sse c r h ea a Area of t thr s o co i irem l t co v d ha in r in im ; pro a e aff c wi p u ent j 1 u a tat n gh and mo ul e c li to m t, t q ts en Mea Mea ted Alter m on w th ment Practices, and e
hi im tio ci n n gic T at ti m : 5 : Eight p sele . o f ec e en o riate cit ri s s s ces T park R the d ce ele ta e repl t t tio tio manner regardi oj o e a 20’ by l e p p n would ha n wo e n seg r r ures lop r y a a u ti o ss t eol BAR g gn Requi em T io ons i ro l s li h si R sour tran ti nes rkland tter fa p qui tig tig eserva ati e e n r a e mel o pp i unding a pedes p the p ensur t Mi Impac the BART Alterna BA requi Deve Des im p Ac nearby f acce Meas and vibration, visu table. R con a agreemen appro Santa Clara b faci Mi Impac arc are numero Z five E St op Stat D
t ll fi ce
l or. t /Best Manag ong ica
ing wi h ay nnec e Warm
o w ents h subsurfa s enc d r u aeolog ed. e would bene r l b or and al l s f t 880 c o ong t ce t
. o a tie ological deposit is seline arch I- li d al ntr e ty o a s e ci t urf nnec ni o co rat
let t ci i e ay p e. archae ty fa area w v c
t s n None requi c 880 c gn Requirem : Subs rvi e l com e ried es es: e e ed i pres of mod u r r Alternative i s s b bsequen f
to I- mmuni u u i b u n s s ll , n t nes o ent n d i d e New Starts B . ati ed bus s i Mea Mea ica ague Ex v y n n if ons wi : 40 co : Zo it St tered, s tor s s n nt ti v t t tio tio i o pro nduct ec a a un it o M ngs m n i tig tig ns e a sig e f h Impac Impac by Mi s con Mi be c Spri t I enco excava
EIR cts cts a a
. . : No imp : No imp ted ted
Corridor Final s a a t cts Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi a sit cip cip p No-Action Alternative m anti Impac anti an I ry s o ie t i
Rapid Tr l i Table 1.5-1: Fac y t i ces pact Categ sour m e I Commun Cultural and Historic R
Silicon Valley 1.5-12 l
e ro
s on l t i EIR ed es, o
t b n n c n on t a r es
i
gn r a i c o n r si age. n ic i be
el s l ll o 1.5-13 lv ei d i b eli F Co
cto t a h u e begi t more de a id M quef wi ra
te ern f teral t u p emis b r s el li a si to v o nc t e be erv l nt
a , ll ) of o t fo n . her appl i a r ’s g t n t e n c and gui T t t es o f u pment o w l o n R ti l s. An E ti arch, pres ti d o c A on, and e or low-income es w ns. Con i ic . n
Corridor Final y i r a po ac r e rvice. uni ds o i io u l a MOA dards a o r to reduc t ef rat rity rt d aut o n res th B C an ct a l i st sit u e h an ai c B quef qu ment i rev ru i h i l t hi e ifi t ppo and equi y 1,000 feet iva l n l an in res s y t
er of o . mino n t ce w h ec es ement t TP, c i gn st e CU sig o e n i t i atel ing, i h unt e t tion Measures t l ec i ted arch sp j w t c lian o m t a r c ak a and o o o prov p Cent n set for om reduc r a l h du des r i e t
in CR d c sed m a m cto . cip s F EMF exposure will be a P nal De s b n . fects o u o
a ti s f f e redu : :
Rapid Tr r g, and s es ll a te i t Fi i d cy s n ur y foc ng und n Mitig n i t ces ces ces: i w dance, o v d be bel (approxi t in c Si expanded transit se vemen Medic ti ti ti s, s rse e . f nes is an il oi andards e and c c c e an ul rs n l c e s s e c u ficie s oced e o ic st n i r o warpi
rd mo at osed b ef o ing ts o ng gro ertie rv n a wo J p ri st e ro p ng, si op nt Pra nt Pra nt Pra be t i s sig ude av res r t e e e k o Alternative erati neer e i s u i cl s re and busi emen p Prop s m m m g n r e San
300 met s c o owing gh or adv op Stand ed. ed. ed. e e e i excavat al energy sa interpretive display, BART Extension i n t c d al ll s , i ans l y ir ir ir ure, Silicon Valley the genera r crac th e or hi ty nu d appro m n t ti li gn s ly s dent , fo i face li wil i i at atel ci ng, e requi may ary E in t t y rupt ur ng , an n Manag Manag Manag s hi m g i i sei s ensure energy t t t t O o
b rc ures and expo l ult Faci uded i s s s t ures l the h im s u u tor iona a o of fa cordation T c e me res i n n rren r f d to o ruc /Be /Be /Be energy it e s re ement impact; an e o c s s s , : None requ : None requ : None requ tio i v al n approxi f und l ns st Radi if i e Prel l n neering des f es for es es es e n be i e BAR up h i e moni r ent ent ent o clud t r r r o th cu ll t i cial Al ec t h w-
i h on meas i n u u u sproport p
e o s ntial s s s i . l
r t c wi terr wi asu
. e y in t nef t irem irem irem e fi s e n a Impro gati n in t . o u u u in a on. des ti addit o l s and gro i q q q , on- o measures m Mea Mea Mea ti on wit m ia fo t n i ment Practices, and anc e e e et fec r P e and engi s n n n n g, e Of l : EMF : Be : No di : P o t e on v n fs Mi h i s s s s a R R R ti ed with ACHP, SHP . i . N era ti t t t t uct tio tio tio tio t reta t a n n n ng co r a a a a cord d benefi id t ty nt es g g g th ef ect gned and s fy i i i rp crite di s li i t e asure l ul e ti pul di t tig tig tig tig readi ns otec an of e o r o p h Impac in ac bui and po heal Des t Des s Des Impac m p int Mi execu bo pro con and Tes n c faci Mi des Mi Impac Impac po wo Mi
g, e o t n
ic
/Best Manag r t
e ng rv a
n gned
i o
e be readi r ll transi s sig p mil i t com ents e i s and wi ment ment in e, str s gh o - ed. ed. e e energy g, and c d ral and d decrease i ans be des ir ir ur n e r d. hi t ll ul t m d be s e a nag nag s ly dent i seline l a a pment e wi t use , in t t a pat or low M M s n si t rup
l y ci t sei o t t na woul ensure t i s ti ures io t c es es ng, warpi me res i a ive or wo rt tran rren d to nor anti o /B /B i ement ruct s c e pac gn Requirem : None requ : None requ i po t v t and equi n c if i l for fau m m rnat s quef es es a fuels. es a n ents ents e r r i Alternative i th cu ec eased t li p w- t t u u i spro p l ect o s s i cr j l m g, s o em em wi
c t ng, crack r r o i di n t ten ative e n Al r a Impro . hi
n o New Starts B i . s c fec aki t th in t Mea Mea P n anc h : F es. n n : No : Energy i : No : Po o cy. s s s s ti -Ac t t t t alter tio tio ces ces: a men f ly wi a a cord d benefi t ti ti gn Requi gn Requi e ness gned and s l i i und s h cien t ul si si i pul verse ef tig tig e e Impac Impac Impac Impac the No slig use o D des eff Mi ad po wo bus Mi gro ground lur set D in ac Prac Prac e
r o us
e s el u come eas gh r c cts cts hi n rse effects a a
sed auto and w-in e ly o d i e s. based f ul te -
nat
. tu . . o s i wo ti ty or l or adv n l s rt eum el ri : No imp : Increa : No : No imp o ted ted s s s o ti ol a a t t t po r av a cts c r Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi ro a a r sub cip cip t i p p p pul pet s f No-Action Alternative m m I I Impac anti bus o the di beneficia on min po Impac anti
s d ry l
ice o d st n c Fie ti Table 1.5-1: s, a il tal Ju ne en ag ty i y, So
c nm i y g pact Categ trom r e viro m ec l n n I E (EMF) E E Geolog Seism Executive Summary
e s t
ial c r e f end e r nt ea ate, al r e ri
t n xed- cilities nt o c p h o o the drauli i and rate and mi harge e h wash or am , RT, e wate c re d wit ks. sc c ve p w
A ate, e ty o e l ty at e o st appro li b i st m e , t w and hy , whi tain Nat 9 ensi er di c s nd B as t d d t rem e ral faci ancillary fa ere groundwat n
d, tain n fall n d e s ob l oje h T mpat ugh crac a o e r d u a o o ewat s; ic e ext t t m th and safety plan; ob o t mize surfa r ion l si i r o gher- u e p have 1 a o t ec h d j th f ed, w lub l s thr be c t t b te w was u i l Executive Summary t o s or rain es, el n regarding the exte u t o wi a lar b ci ip y i s operat ri u r y s l fec ter; and r s w o urage hi s or riders. gn unn ch as a pump o tion Measures g n i be perf ; o s a n ll s i w dust e
tio e . om d n c p ild r ansfe wi l to af documen s, su formatio Compl D i on reg Sno-b
s u O f r ts or t and po ia al : s t ated ns des l c i ght trains, and BAR al nt u i in io i Mitig ER standard; min to nt in t st b ces ces: ans and enc no P y te cut practi , a t t ti ti em ES) o i ed cu i res o am O g l c c pl h i t i -truck tr n D ed ad; adopt worker hea ; te BART worker l i p n al s st curre t h
ans osed o or n ta ted fre e c e le . t ment r th e bay n the Aer i fac i c undwater i o v s r ks (NP e h , n nt Pra nt Pra w le c i e e retain ac o Alternative s w ed t e r n of rai nage ll d s ent Prop t m m als w i les t te HA HAZW o e gro
t irem a o o n reloca where i tenan stem os and i ed. ed. e e ansfe c BART Extension m , ri S u p s f ir ir s st n e hand s m RT cir e t g ls a o and regi al s i A l i a n Sy , a pro o car tr B en e req c l in O i o s main ter t t t Manag Manag o nne ns t e Two e ve. r may enter re arby, or t s a s t t lo io si e a s s a tu nt h ina ing bes lu w tha h tank areas e l
ude expans / c n for asb w Road Al c l . im a l /Be /Be rsonn n i o a g stat ed ont wit io ck l em s s ous m e o l : None requ : P : None requ n is p t als ling o ct inc s c r from e E io es es es m hazardou y u o t ent ent e r r r f e p g -tru hazardous mat tent ndin t nd u t c u u u is a t s str of emi s s s p uction in areas wher ina s o har h si rail n by f ns hazard w irem irem tr . f on resident n La nan nt o al ha s sc 1 ed groundwate uip u u ion is inc i o ion e be releas g land use. t pment adj te d c q q i Mea Mea Mea o n ted ct e . at ment Practices, and ntam l e e tran fect n n n int ter eq : 2 : Co : Noise from BART train t Di n on/c on o o e ina la e ; i a a y s s s s R R ed ti ti u t t t i ed c tio tio tio e Dix may o i an l n n f tera , its undi ng permits i a a a t h d af am aminati g g l m ti i i t u ds l ul expos loca moli rm e dev nor amou tig tig tig nt f ent e e e f ui o l f o R for in Des surro Mi id Contam Mi a unif us Des Impac prior to con or soi con loca d train m c accum Pol p exis Sno-b Mi Mi Impac Impac wo For t
r
. y
re m ) gn to st n fo al n s /Best Manag i e i ive o l ze ng r i io i ng
d g best at ; te m t w n n di th i . nel i s l c s ni an f an ruct RT g des w ents l t h
wi A o n a ment ment Build l ent n. oje t (OSHA e t l s mater c Emergenc e materia B ed. ed. ed. e roadway e e ed due to r ewater from rson l c ar Warm ay s t m u io m ir ir ir e ons state, and local le bui lo b s s th w
e fo ct e u e p /c h neeri ion Alter nag nag ina ab o ifor t th A h e p n the seline i and a a c dard; mi wast i ct reduc o t a e activitie n n by M M n t ti uefa w ns mpati c
as i a o t from l t t t to o o d be l f i nanc ia Un Heal es fec federal, 880 bus ul i es es No-A ten c rn i ses, i s. l R) s /B /B is o and engi inte u be c e of hazard l E her appl gn Requirem wo n/I- : None requ : None requ : None requ e to liq a demo t c o t a ement ns b o i aminati u /waste requir l to af o i ti v ty and ; adopt worker health and t es es es o y be contam Operat d a c g ents ents m r r r m e Alternative d c nts nt sed bus noise ne i nt
n a
t t n n u u u e u o g WOP e Calif i pro t s s s n ste c fro em em and po e r r pra as Saf m r ur recorded hazardo ten trai l ndli th bject t ls Impac e o
New Starts B n . . C) and o RT Stat il g land use. . u ans n po ng, or by runof s l amo Mea Mea Mea te i Des B n A l vem s : Comply with s i ona n n n an; io ni s ha : Fo : Not : Increa pl l o s bile VMT under l l th p ti B se (HAZ tor s s s i rd ct g Si o e water m a t t t a n e wat tio tio tio ative ces ces: a a n c undi n c p o i ec a a a ments n ti ti gn Requi gn Requi ty p s or sp ngs r a o u p e d n st m l si si e de (CU uef tig tig tig rf des. tes w e e o q u i Impac Impac Impac si identified. Very sma may be used in maintenan Surfa leak bus clea pav autom D materia bui asbestos and lea safe Occ Hazardous Wa Res s management Mi regi Alt D Spri con surro Mi stand Co c l resi Mi Prac Prac
s n a
EIR T pl istent al s n cts cts o a a e BAR con th s t as
. . . and regi ies a l : No imp : No : No imp ted ted a s Corridor Final lic c a a t ative o c n Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi lo a r cip cip sit p h p e t No-Action Alternative m Impacts Impacts I an anti wi and Alt anti ry o
Rapid Tr ste Table 1.5-1:
pact Categ e s i m o I Hazardous Wa Land Use N
Silicon Valley 1.5-14
. a
A RT
d e T
EIR uld r A , h eri R e B g t
ent r i t led u A li n l ed r i e e. A an he The d
1.5-15 h ct ted t c s in T s s ed sta t cha s. ul s: under le d have an t c e resi l F o RT c e and 12 a cle cle in es s y, loca A th p t e cts and a pac servi a Option wo exc y facilities T t wou p e B m and 84 B wi on w ll b ls under t , and i ork or o pac vehi vehi i tion s n denc s h y i e t nces don/Arena s es ed under the FT m ent at As im ise im e w kw cillar e nearby apartment i op a o d BAR c
Corridor Final th t m pths Stree eria i a pac g
t n i Optio n lev k and k and th n th ed re underl r t i m denc i rrier wi eri i compl 8 tra io te n
sit t i s resi a i l o 2 t nd a el de r 2 t impact / a ver a criteri ng
g i s. l areas, as follow trac trac i s i r the Diri an e alig RT c agonal Opt s e b T t c brat n n e , 1 i o so h pac A c A c is u unn n Land and 326 re T vi tai tai m exp dent tion Measures fect a ilroad i o i redded t h to t red BAR a s. F a l no h osed - t to m er ef re F d t siden t 7 s n Cros d n and 42 res e and B , op e e ia impact Main Main e R ise e s -tal e Dixo v r r s wit A
from buses a t pac lower t t h t e h : cular Rapid Tr , T i p atio n t m A cri eria res t and 58 i ise n t e Mitig i foo
T A and i pact a truc ces ces: bratio . fect residentia mats - d abs r ial no i l of t end s re F ti ti tio expos c the US 101/Di 2 m s no , BART alignment and an e c c eri y ns vi a e F FT i s ec i rp unit have 8 r ast e v A ll eet S . it inc
h a 7 ia and a g e l r e le s a T r tig osed con n e i uld af and 12 s ting s e t eri rd . . A 1 Str nti t e ball A c i a s 6 f nt Pra nt Pra m e nment r re F oa T et t ia. Sp l hot 12 s e e o g Alternative e train ill b criter i r a e v ver rk rrier, p safety Prop n o T have 4 m m n would v f
the m e a a o d w , reg e e to reduce d R BART Extension Al remaini SS # o io om eri l s h n to reduc b i k es, f t t k A t P t Silicon Valley ed under t lls i u i M c a t criter io r B os an a ti vels o o e FTA c T n d ha T y d be po ls fr e ise at e under F of h t t i w ul ed t 3 moderat s pac ul h l sec t ve Manag o Manag d om n l e en w r RT c mbi no e m n on w o t t at cr o t cur i A BART trains wo o um R BAR and 36 s ol S s s ti t p ll be used nne pact e ia. led r foo on w ise fr ise l m ad wo i - d hav /Be /Be bra e Alum Roc under t al ver ev i i s. d be i s s 2 t l : Sou : A c under t h ul e A and a v s to Al y sup es ct derat i l for se rth Op The Wes n from w es es e iers wi es tl r 1 A and B a idor tu crite a Ro a ent ent te no r r o nding Road, the r uld have 48 FTA and 8 BART crite wo i ins o o ce no ue/Capit ng n e s i p FT T T
t a u u e t u s e ri h woul h n s s i s. denc t e dent eria. i i b o tig l . For t i t denc es ten i irem irem sil n La l i ct i ntag a r the N 79 mo reduc u u o a w ed Cut Opt on wo e o i q q m e p Mea Mea w n l eria. H t, eria im eri or BAR ment Practices, and i l Anot e e t s d 100 F n n t i / . Mo s, re : Vibra : Po Berry i denc a re resi e y to red f i e f r RT c s s . The corr en R R 20 res 3 resi e anc t t rly w tio tio i t t A n n l lex crit crit , v a nd Dix a a d hav larl h Opt h o g g e rade Opt p p T T t i i ener o nm t mat u eria eria im asure g t ul RT c A and rth o pac pac t t tig tig ti - e A m m Impac i cri and B es Alig Sou Des wo cri Des reg Mi From Warm Sp 250 res B i Impac com m sou com Court fas underground bar BAR no FT regul Mi 58 s The Ret At BAR Bey ll /Best Manag ep
e ise wa e
ents d k e. safety ment e. s l no i l d e of th an ic a t s d. - rv an re t e e e nag y d seline t i a ze no su i s i a pat M
m ci t cur th s ni o es re pres mi anti /B s o gn Requirem : A 10-foo t ti on b c l for se n es d a a ents r e. Alternative i e p t tai u t ned t s n c m i em u expanded bus r t ctur i a ten h
l u tru M New Starts B Mea
ns wit n : No : Po s wel s s co t t tio ed str ces: t e a ti gn Requi nes dent si tig ci ill b e n Impac Impac i engi Mi D Prac w eleva cts cts a a
. . : No imp : No imp ted ted s s a a t t c Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi a cip cip p No-Action Alternative m I anti Impac anti ry o em t Table 1.5-1:
n o ty and Sys i pact Categ m brati i I V Secur Safety Executive Summary
y .
t r o
ers
e cus
n
l s and id o h e f
a rrid e e uni v ze t
tio i ea e ram for o h o l o g t g on r g nti t n , in n to the o anc ts e ll b me o r t nim ct ement y p st e r t ti P ver f i the c si
. l reloca 400 f n f po . , gned t ty areas, and i i co e s af ns e - s t rtment As nts wi r an and vehicle al and sta uti to mi i y o d n a and al dependi a n s t n ing h and ram.
o i n o p
t r p t e Saf y . str ti uni ts, o al t tio n l nment i og gn requi p cu l o i t-a u a e eratio r e proximity ght a i de u c be des ro s hb c em i r stag q tive treatmen ll o l op a ni on wi ce De ig c st t ti ing l cem e Executive Summary and reduc on P or oc to cu on f y f dis e des h denti t i la ti sua t ne ti Sy c it i i h g na d at e l i a i Poli i ng wi e
t re env m Rel u sp c to v f vi e in clo m T uc i r i tion Measures i park u o n r e. , o l c a RT’s of f ef i ghti ic e 5 res n A ting nst th fre n al o to i o Rel eas owners is Li Implement natio Coord All d d cost-ef are i be v s u nta Clara Tower r arily d e BAR y ements for pe t B : : : : w serv e U A’s ation ar
y th im t n a T ert y r and s Mitig not it pact e vis ces ces ces ces it th ic Sa e ll es, 1 t io f il h ti ti ti ti t op and co h m emen s p t the ex e V r a and gl gns, and 1 ut c c c c a i i requir riate an
tion, t wi h h pl ie i . y ut oxim t p p ht t gn, i ty r i s ness d i wit osed it en o l m i g i i s nt il e l t ft t i t w e a s ted
a Clara S e e c in ures ll t o f e p a nt Pra nt Pra nt Pra nt Pra d c and t u i s u s e e e e safe a D
2 ad s f Alternative v ges l , l appro wi ten cip Prop s , m m m m ruct
rdan and t n and histor . In ad ed. Implementati ed. ed. Sant ting is an e e e e clo em BART Extension s ver o pro nt t s o s ir ir ir h n
i ng o co 101 bus Adj l t g wi lo ons 1970 Final li o c the na il n ti ine y g, nt. ement ing s e exi p ac sys of du ic cons wil el e n train e n at T Sta pl ar s e d e api
Manag Manag Manag Manag d are anti T r n s e 46 t s h m erate i s m t t t t R b z ces c ri o i s s s s ext d ti u on BAR n Act l of ted i s c i neeri j d park sta l m BA t
mpo o i u orage t l u t ill op le p /Be /Be /Be /Be e uc o n a iti vi of s s s s s o d : None requ : None requ : None requ t c s c n
Landsc w prac and gui n y o raphi . Engi a Caltrai , g mi s w es es es T gn and i o r s icab g ent ent ent ent ncy Plan. ty on r r r tio l eni e i cement R si u u u an p sin th l
es, a Caref e ons s s s ca l sc . ew i ti BA s t cur p inary s. os lo li , 1,025 s irem irem irem irem be c wi r n a l r to D s e ct stations an m u u u u ci o e vi o t c li se nta Cla th ap s to q q q q a on i Mea Mea Mea ti ere all eli ment Practices, and m e e e e wil ti n n n i nf p h r ct and geo : Dis : R : Chang an e a o a operty Acqui n s s s st tion. R R R R tha ri es regul r t t t c n tio tio tio RT f o ly w ic Sa i e n n n n
i ti management ed pri a a a i A p ghtt t y P d g g g g ty w ty and gn o ng P fi i i i i or v r i it t RT ROW. ti B dest tig tig tig des, o ti il ni A t o e n f o o Impac Impac market des Des excava Des No imp P /bes c c Plan and Emerge Com ac Real Mi duri u durat n Mi o ensur o glare. Des safe B safe Mi Impac his Des
s
h s A’s
e ure . T i
/Best Manag al t wit i n l e i
gn e o i e V c R ti h a ents c s fac ment ment o ty meas ad s rdan u and ed. ed. e e e e ir ir co d. d. c A b e e n one nag nag saf ac seline h a a t n a sta VT pat pat and rel M M 1970 and t
si are identified for ci ci t t and ng s y g wi of ti t ted i es es i ment on anti anti /B /B uc e on As s s gn Requirem d i c : None requ : None requ t t al n a n Act c c , es es o o a a secur ents ents cat r r Alternative p p on spl e ram. u u iti i lo t s s e for exis iz m m e em em l a c di i og r r i i be c t c l R quis New Starts B lo Mea Mea e : U : All wil n n : Two businesse : No : No r orm on Pr s s s e if ti es l t t t tio tio ces ces n ti b a a i i ti ti gn Requi gn Requi v s si si loca s tig tig ti operty Ac e e e r Impac Impac Impac already in pla and operations. Mi po D ac the U P R Mi D Prac Prac
EIR cts cts cts a a a
. . . : No imp : No imp : No imp ted ted ted s Corridor Final s a a a t t c cts Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi a a sit cip cip cip p p No-Action Alternative m m I anti anti Impac anti an I ry o
Rapid Tr s c Table 1.5-1: i m o ality and u
con ies pact Categ oe i it il m t I Soc U Visual Q Aesthetics
Silicon Valley 1.5-16
s
s l t
l t. l e c ing
EIR c . n i i en l a oje a e th r s wil e
top
v ains , nt ng ure wi 1.5-17 n that i parking nters e i t o l p at ret a be e ainage ic si a nera es r ri ll i if dpl at pact ro e c t ll b p of t os i ruc i undwater e CWA. The y d S r t m ec es t oo D wi h i c l c S G v e c t f n. a i oodpl n i an set ab l gro t con h , mwater n o rf an e i r ai e e DE t ures u eria w ri f s
P t ac ose already e appro for sp o bway s o ood ll b tat 02 of sto Corridor Final i h d. h u li s t J 10-year storm ev year f ruct e ed s
and i e N Cri l fl t ci n oodpl th o d by means n r, a ious s aminat a e fl
sit a r and ud ca e e th es w h f i o S nt cl d t t , do i ze o an ing s e l ement ect nt wi i ement t e l perv r rt as t rri mi h t y in r c Desig pl te i on 100- m o topic areas. r the pedest e wat e 401 and 4 ni tion Measures T p is i c fac o m l l s. i ppo bmi a a gned to f d c ns i u u read rf mi a o M ica i nerated by o u s be prot t al es of t None beyond t BAR CCWP, and be i e t, s urce on of cons ll r t
cept A : : n chment s e
Rapid Tr ti s u g undwat be s t s o so e , mum requi wi ll Mitig w c and e oa will P uc i s , m ces ces be des r s ni o ure P s. Crit tr ll t e t ti ti th Sec R wi P above or under t ng railro s ed ex c c c i r e fea ent t e fl enc t am ze gro Fr wi s i ed for specific fea ng f pract i kway ori e
osed y
con l ac si VUR m nm o undwater, b ora ure wi rf the mi exi t areas ni os nt Pra nt Pra u f o requi mpl r entif e e Hist s Alternative ans t o l o gro c r Prop ruc , alig mi Some m m . Trac th SC P n
n and permi . i , and o s
ed beyond tho ed. e e BART Extension
st y id l o gement s ff from and on i the s i
w ir ir o i . d a
nes Silicon Valley t n o adway l i s ert nts r o a o t al etc i e and c , nt r c ey o c s l gat t ne i e m and to ti te nv Manag Manag mana s u s e run i riate. Incorp o n lo ten c rm ar f c t t Ge s c areas. s, culv e e s s i e c h n ood events e op y g and ro segment o r way ze eff o do g i n best er Cultu r P ll ex dewalks p h i e top giv /Be /Be id e a wit m s s r surfa : No mi : None requ : None requ t d, nnel ic , si i ni n b n. Drainage l u ces c if es es es o year fl und ter. Other jurisdictiona
park t ent ent r r r Wat c g gned t ns serve. s, w ti . te
sed as ap mi a d i l cies for approva
ll e
u u u l o n n is i r the 10- av s s s a ac o g se eatment uld a i r o ed guidanc ati r f ns irem irem s t o ud crea n and pat orm w and l to us d t o r 100- l e u u n o c is gre oodplai e e e p i o l l w q q ut , st Mea Mea Mea sc t n t er t St ora i for sp ment Practices, and c b be des e e t rta C T n n n gn o i : I : i ll al e o s R i gned f s s R R ed rec i ora r t es i t i nal D tio tio tio t ures p n n f wi i ti , a a a year f g g ement di s BA gned f ined- li ons d Fi i i i i pos t lls a o t ti w incorp pl tig tig tig corp ormwa ent ruct a e o t n l m Impac areas. Clara. None beyond those alread Des Mi op i I Indus ret f way St management The des regulatory agen Fac des w 500- be des whichever b int Mi id Mi Impac s no tha Des
. e
ac t /Best Manag rf
e CWA S u ten h s is t DE ents P ns ment rmit and of o ed. e 2 ir c e N d. e nag th seline ces a ter Pe ti a pat volume of M
n ci t i e es s anti /B 401 and 40 s ea gn Requirem : None requ t r ns c CCWP, and Storm Wa es orate prac o a l ents A r Alternative inc p a p u i , s P m em r P i nor Secti P New Starts B ff. h t Mea o i : Incor n : Mi : No VUR w s s t t tio y ces a ti gn Requi si tig mpl th SC i e o Impac Impac water run D w General Industr c Mi Prac cts cts a a
. . : No imp : No imp ted ted s s a a t t Summary of Long-Term Impacts, Desi cip cip No-Action Alternative Impac anti Impac anti ry o
s t c and , ces, Table 1.5-1: ffe r u ity
l ns ve E ti ai r Reso pact Categ dpl e m oo l I Wat Water Qua F Cumula Executive Summary
t l .
om l l n l
i n ss r on r i a e
d
. e t o t i le al tio
urs r San n c oi c n f n e n es i . on f g bu i
er a b ing wi ho truc 10 /West tio l tru av i t c s ans ne o s i r parti ct i ure nme d l on. d be ined ov osur o a i pl s zed acc to e
PM bein p aff ul f s ri s ngest wntow s r park con ic l cl e a o o uipment and uct m a one-mi o i inta t t hs if r I from one q ans wil n d n ty. Advan a e alig rking t o l i i y ent oid om ad s. Con nt h a d c ec , and ong Eas v bus e io g wo s. Clo i m x e ns th e m p on t l p n n in r i p g at o e al t em s fr n- on o n n var n ro c c ng c tio ti p s t o b i f act eas a i l r s l o tio n ts wi i l nes sse a St s to av s, NO uc s c tru ec c 24 mo r no o t parki e i urs n con tr o ec t w se j ns o e cha s c under the B tru Executive Summary y fo a o rac sine
g zo during peak ters r t r would Aren reet m repl s cro u y n dev es / cit ns t l tru . l ri 18 t
affic upted by n a o et b and i r i s r HP Pavil arl g det ted. ns st adi nic g e. s s d con i on p n servic cove do r cons by con T a o ul i wn in a ired ness ic - n uc t urs d Inte ri Cap on, o : r ic i u 3 ½ years for partia d c o se wi o ve rv d l
udi g di in the Co s and n l . ti org e ion n c s. co nst prov tru , an ucti Jo e D nt busi ed - es , n uc n r at s at stre o i t-a det tices r l n rain an e part h ve t i o ; ed of c i g and lo ns c tr ts i op i , a u up to ud arios. woul t o t s fi on n c nst is le, i g c o e t e is req sid c n n S cl n ti es i r cu o LRT s b n il Calt cl o t i t-and o
cir i n parki o ic ur n y ed c s rati e, s i in sd of s o t c sce i r c ss a a rv e y ct nment s f of e t wh t uct areas e e g l ati n n v ure r n i f d park i t po s Alternative a s o o ll b ment Pra l clo
the c e i l jur i a local CO, react local re for cu t rou tio r major co ill be no c e St a o a are bei e Ci nt ns r at many downt e sep t t r af a clo c si BART Extension h e of o l d-c ra m and bi es of n he upti years s w to cu p n u ad o r n i dent
e to e lo ong al fo n r s s a d t ss w tal c o v h - ot a i i ans l t t ons d t n on c tran i osur h di i Manag f ri urs u e e as the MOS si d al t resi o r to n/Arena t o on areas. ure d cl of g A an uld oc o of s o t the ext t ti t orated n n w wit eni f g garages T n
do o osed ese p d be di t n ng c s n V o parat uc ri LRT and bus i
det i t h i tio nv ree hedul r ri e t hs f ul o
c op t c tes an c i o tio u r a pedes ns f t on wo c o i o s eratio pac nst . T ary emis ary disrupt p i es: , as well uc tru t t o t inc r r incorp f ents/Be p r te s r ea. Clos s and busine n si s s s m t s t e o mont u o n traf co le s i . s r the D rel t ree d be s pac rect n p ive n ary n coo t t ar o t a ce o ll b nge mp s. r o of i i c dent t m ing i r grade s t i pact t ur and a hal o e o e ary i ement park o c e di r in There wo three m Mea Pla com ed f fo oje ti d f te c for co woul n n r at s ac d and about one year if : Tempo : T e ary ns w i d i s n ri s s r i v ents/Best Management Practices, p es na t t g demand. D tio tio io i no o p f es at s o i ti h to n er park c a a i is i and i cl ed stree od of upted. v be made i e rk s r l vance no av rtial or velop nor temp tig tig ti l e tempo s d a e h d appro Coord radius. Res publ A ac To wi Mi vehi p Jos rest o mont Increased c durat closure Tempo clo Mi park di peri and repl Design Requirem Impac t Santa Clara S Mi Prov wo BART alterna be pro Impac RT .
s A
t l
es e t i n a affic B tion Measures
r c e at jor a (CO), o T . a l cit by e
y
ngs sid i t d : h n e i r vi o p cted ti ces and dus S . R her m on. ati ti Mitig i n wit ffe ), during peak c m appropri ul x us y r ot i io n t a rc h i on ac arl c ti pacts, Design Requirem
nnect W on monox osed l (NO ul rad era o s for a nt Pra wit c a uc e p m i ined i e c es n at o ]). I a seline o d s t o m mil 10 l a tio carb tour ed. - nstr n e f part c c M e cle o
ir Prop of n , o hi e tru l c d e en oxi on b fi i g er [P ns ons ti a one and t ped i Manag o d v p ss si be mai n r o i ed of c t t u l ll i s r h traf e f s an ague busway c Alternative po te co ni t wi , e mat n nt /Be s nt di wit t ty s o e e i y : None requ s ce o ti ar ary emis ula es New Starts B pme r ent o be notif r ect c ordina be dev i gas pac l o
ll l u u i e ext oj n c s r q c 680/M h i ni l w mpor irem Ca t e . b u s. Co n ss wi ga u q r Mea on p o to ans i e Te n ti t ons : : Temp o c ns ti s s pl R e nded parti t t uc u o tio n and I- i v n ic r a c hour tr t o rol g ti d i s fi Summary of Construction vance p tig ns nt ati ris rect
o EIR o u :
c St Des reac (suspe Impac Impac c j di traf con and busine Ad Mi 5-2 . cts cts a a
. . Table 1
Corridor Final Action : No imp : No imp ted ted s s a a t sit No- Alternative cip cip an Impact anti anti Impac
d
Rapid Tr n
ct on a i a t
orta t Imp i Category Transp Trans Air Quality
Silicon Valley 1.5-18 e e
sh s mit on g ;
i th
EIR ,
s n fi e, , s ; li r ed ted as s e
at loo e n nci ine es g ed oper’s
l e 1.5-19 clo ks i and eci el n S, NOAA n i e p at rmi l
n area at wat e k e n e ow excavat r tio , Co y c t sp c e o ow c b a sig t l Guid ange f e owing owl e rtl n ickly as r t of excava r tru USFW eas; en ent in good yd and appl yessa Creek in ter fl d r Where riparian u ks hau g u s b s ; n
h
i o a la , when winds t yo u n . s o be det s wil h i e uc s sed s o o ll e t t ty i n w areas; sweep
Corridor Final ved on on a c e vi i i t o i t wi t d Co d sio ed ten ern bur c on wi c e pond t is
, var ver tr sit creek ti nel D expo ed wi st p an . off and av n s tion as q re
s tru tru rem ta ures a l n ard; pav ed an to e tain equipm ter em ng act u o c s along Berr ns s i s 10 sure tha ill b n cons tenci ly Chan eebo meas d als and r hwe s in unp nders t for We i Main E ni y fen or to im con banks of f t ve co e e: swallow r PM l w , and mark areas; co i
s il e nd : : s h movi on u er t d o st area bi n s, l o z t emiss c o u va e i i ay l of l ed o i or o c i
Rapid Tr tio us t op orar f riate gati es f Frie c n i tices tices r g the r mater ina p ti h c c ) s i
n e o pper P op terw s ll feet le habita i ic tru r o rap ent a n. stab frog, s o . x l asu mi end eart p s i d fac s ns o io e e wi tem g U w u o t the p t t itab o ers t e for rem n - f ur
A’s F as es us s o n n en w r r l m be i iliz t susp l u ic) s Alternative l ill b as ap n al ment Pra ment Pra ve c l sta tai ty o ph VT , i , x ated i ed. (no op ab s. e e i r zone al a w n l h sub
d wi t i reduce exha o n
ntro i n ir f t
t i BART Extension and e of su on a y i s o g a i i c ter ec i co il s s area n amore riparian for meas w y o Silicon Valley tie e s an t c t sp uct n i n ter act ia red-legged y - r ers; l ni y dent o Manag Manag appl i i r buffe t o a s roads to 15 mph; replant vegeta n h to m u r on area i Creek o - t t ten t s urbanc o to e y (non- ti nded e ns rve s s or so l m o k t is d , riparian corridor gati o u p c acc
ants d stab e o ng time t uc y in the v s: w n l ti r . Sta l ood y
tr e l
C p . s k : None requ : ow on s e o oseed cons i G ll ito nt o kite, n and r ary dist e mi t sure onw es es e F , or ap unpaved o e p r t ire tru d ze idli ral com ents/Be ents/Be allow r r c nc nt, Californ and d , n con t b t n u as u u ice dai u m tu recomme ile l wheel was s s ll ily io h in i tr w s ll e t ’ a t al s as f ta t co d CD ph y hy a t urba - th l D n t r i ue/Ca s trees e ad near Co p o st e s d t n on Mea Mea ted an s tarpla ag croac ti es wi n n ans w t s or req s are no s w : Tempo s, l l l l e-c Ro u en s e; all na ose d di r l Coas e ssa S ents/Best Management Practices, uc le; i t ggerhead shri wat tio tio time s; ap r oi o t a a r, ed 25 mph. ib iding a riparian corrid em th eri s et l e e teria teria teria y hniq bury n As; p ss ssag p tig tig v av a a a a sh S a o i o o from p F Co Prov order and minimi The BAAQM m p E onl tec m Centra the Mon Berrye M t Mi Congdon’ hawk, whi and l Some en Design Requirem Impac im m three stre c traffic speeds on p exc Mi Design Requirem
;
, .
n s
f f s
e ly e e o l e k s d i tai o
l n ey l e ri s y o p b med en t l h r k e rv tion Measures ; o hawk ant rmin c ili
u ers t ) ree i reduce ers; and a oc teria e
Ensure Main nfi A d s h o t for t s h ks to the a bank r op t ab t e:
ge; al A iliz and s wil tw areas; s be er’s c t n : : f l on d a r b n n a e te O o p d s i m s u det e h l e ll me ter c in unpav ces ces tio (ESAs sio wil l w gati ceed 25 mph. l a sta c n ti ti uct Mitig ted l is S, N ed of ti a i r Coo ation to be c c i pas sure s wat g ti ee t , c ers ggerhea v w d and co o ll to en g le habita h W y tru , z ong t i n h o e i i s ed wi d t nt F l mi ns i strict’s (BAAQMD) s em expos i e a ns S e wi o d pacts, Design Requirem s ct 15 mph; repl ll en l w 10 o ver osed itab c o e Areas w e e or s o mi abil y fen nt Pra nt Pra o f as es t s rpl al appl o ne al m y iv r t t e e , ze i r remo a and l I it st th U u seline e l i o af t m m s i ve c s or require tru of the area and as of excava ph es wi tor will be affected e, c i l a pre- mi e ed. t all e e r zo ies en winds ex n e e n s u n ment D w oseed ; ins ir e e ow and f ni Prop sa nders n’s m o o e of su b on q l r f i n l i b i ed f ec e l ) so o t l tio t cl ge S r p es for PM en bi meas r f ic y e siz tio r ib il p uct n e s x ll wil ty wh s chn ter act buf r ten wil and ard; pav o ngdo ta Manag Manag o a s r t gna a m y i vi y hyd t ed f at i l o o s are no t t - ul urbanc te it Mana n re ) so e materia ns s s p bat d . Th s be temporaril n n Co ent c s l co gati s th o i Alternative , n o l s e s: w eebo rri des ti i x m o rmi r der and mi ap l measu e /Be /Be h o w ous o
r terial C ; e areas; en wil qual c s s f (no . : None requ : y as p t ri ng act ow t a f -t r s n y f o ron G ll a a on unpaved roads e, c encie kl n u i ants vi ary dist e mi als and es es t o d New Starts B F v i s o ntro c s. r v ent ent g cavat m r r tie o Quality tio
i eets on areas. pl s o impede wat ing o as c r u u et u ti t o on s s ter e on w i appl (no nt te, ex i e riparian vegeta uni En eed be det i t a r s parian c t s goo f y as f tru uc habi irem irem r d CD ph ll p hauling loo s e reso , n o o u u i tr s and me y m h , s o ns
as q s q q w k on t e Mea Mea ted c wi eep e y and latory a an o nded co
truc n ed k l n c r e e ti ; l t f n n fi s i appl : Tempo g a ri abl o ees f s, n en r ui t emi d earth m a s r i R R tio n fac o d e l comm ated as a uc . Wher t i i tio tio q n r r a n n y s dai ures ve c o ern burro d t t o rways a a ta r tru , ur i g g e t pment e-t in c it t em ti con gn eri s i i l e n e s y t i v t l it Summary of Construction n al p tig tig th o os sh i
mes r i m i h i : im cove mai t areas; sw inac dai l veg suspe Mi West whi Des Des Impac meas and, as appropriat F Co P creek unav with regu qu the re equi exhaus The Bay Area Air recomme tha wat natura des t removed sub w Mi 5-2 . cts a
. Table 1 Action : No imp ted s a t No- Alternative cip anti Impac ces:
s ct sour u e a t cal R l Sta s i Imp Category log ecia Bio Sp Specie Executive Summary
e
n s
x on n t by ant r to ng thi for le i i ti
s ant ti e l l s n prior pl ie s e uc
satory i io ec
c G k ; b l e ica prio tr l s p s the F e , to s ec us o s ie ry e ed comp r og ng to p e i it i f ans c o l h dabl ol ec s wee i ow e tor bat oi f of sp i e-con n p s ons, ni e Jun r ed and i t ent o t areas w e owls are no and CD red-legged ensat t o h sure two s ntal int y of t to b foll us sp p h ss a S p m t ta s i atio quality of e i t rrows if e unav an at s th de as s c i t l u il t or h n l pul t a i such as e com t b n st w , velop s any ts of the compen g CNP ial s po and wildl ic e to b s ed ier s or roo l hab t acci re i n l during t s, and m t s if i t nt be as an w ec d l ated the d ll a i w ant Executive Summary ze imp ec i c p o ear e; o ll ow rpl n l wi r sp and o asure a e pl y e , occup addres e v ng tio it ort nes t i i mammal ch as quiremen o tion and ted for California of sp cab ass behavior u a mammals; m n device p e no t it e ies u e c to preven minim a s
n s tarplan ti e on f o oth n’s i m io g n the area and o r t tig f G ns ec ing i m , s ti ac et ti rrow a qual F e io us s r or a sup s t l st gam u it the r a na p t i ngdo c m ces fr e s erv n- t urbanc lue oid uld ed- nd ngdon’ fi h lant o ion o ve sp b i ry mi und; exc t ne st e o ns an no size of f th CD ti c o ord s be condu t in at t; co C di l e
g t non-g fied areas will be marked as ESAs and s t l
habi i r i u rmine p it co n co , wi e en tat va s srup t e exten y i i t d i - on o s to av u i c and ent rm i e m ensat ant The eys d n’s tarp s wil s for t Alternative d e . af i s and u ied ea of v od l ls are fo stip y y d ; o lat det i f s es tha r l r e; d o d l support Co rds uff i on of na hab h ent. Co p l idabl e e d mp m i w r f al u r pl u e c BART Extension i es t e v v o b t ur -s o regardi o xi e t a t ti o v s d a lf rri i f a c co uc c ngbi t, o vi y b a ec Any i g unt met u i n f ti ers sur sur o The t ed wil n od . Cong s. on s n n t w on and en t r on w in sp e, in on i und to rk s y onw c d ing agencies ti o o ti str u osed i i ti ator ti nci e o s, t t th r be c b f int ed una i ry r em e the m prac uc c c uc ud ll uc uc op c o on ac o ct d o i r tr to ed nati tr cl nt tr tr t i and e e s s a tru tru , re s on wo e f wi s c the proj n f n on w ti g peri rri es; i , in owls are se ns ns be af rapt ers and equipm t l n a y tru n of mig e tio ange f ext con o o as p avoidanc ure, t i tio l y c k con t ccup r s l ed and gro con r h to areas fo ACOE ta t r eri truc e ct n ni regul ta ni
on be af o i wil h e o tru o h e t t w ll t id t ci h mits o or enhan n of ru i ns ve be c i c suc , a t o u l t of l o ns t u mum tha io h grato s t w o n t vi measures to veg t ote n g e ed ng pre-c ng pre-c ng pre-con n n t of c c s s; and on, areas o ng with r be s d wit on wi n ec on g mi i hed o o ti ti ti e ti in e i i ing c ing tio t s. p ents/Best Management Practices, s se ce ti ory veg uction wor ng ng oj lyi y to med wit i a r i e star e r n mber f ca ct at ta r tr i p st urc i ing or j bli ect e acem f gat gat a e s t t l i o a v term ti p ti get ch as nf t eds otec the maxi r e e o e u o con mi im Avoid t Where impacts s p Conduc es to th proceedi Delay d nes Surve s the o A combina assur Educ the p resou Conduc v c res mi rep over veg Com not Conduc No pro
d
d of t
nt e s
a h
w o ;
le r o
art rpl l al t l t o r t of or tion Measures a r woul s ab o
on ans
o n area of asure d wit i o a t her ing owl n t ch as n f t sure id e e
e m ing p n o f as s, t
w pri u tio s nt o s tarplan w o h p ec e
n’s st io n pl , v . n or as u cident ec uc o l , s Any t ch t i l c getat ucti ant io us b s i t or o r l u s. on m e it o a d s a t ne Mitig d ti pl nt r ces fr o bats , s e; trod lue ul a o t a l o nst nd G ngdon’ x v are found; l n t ior to t s o g exc ent F an w s o e i an f l o l l e in burro t Congdo as t i rp the proj c i r co pr t h pacts, Design Requirem w a p rt u and pro it co osed ed and gro c , rein a atory rap at n mp t tat va s r of cat g peri r o i u h m h on o f prev o a ess any una o fi i ls are n n rm ts on r I t t i o e s tio ppo eys i seline n’s ti s for C c e , d v n ied dis a f u t y ; o lat eri a tory m and CD and equipment m f mi r ow d s mig ESAs e maximum exte i i hab p e tat l
S o f al et
w c Prop n tio tig es on and res e v sa e t f ures nt practicab o i i be s o o weeks n ti t s th d as ngdo i ers o t; uc to a o en h t t, o vi k r rmined t tw l the i
tio ga c hed ed-s sur ed as c m ruct t i
e and en c ti Co t u on su e i n is en g CNP fi y veg in spe n e, in und t ts t mp pment i ion o onw nst c ti o n i i o c eds o o bl i m exte o tru l r s or t th s mber fl at nc mit e e an a det f t em l uc c e l e Alternative w e c e a CDFG uff s p c on ac ns u on wor or un o ry i tr v h ic c ed by s mu i nati h i t i o t ll -s t est s t tru eci s p i c to
aft p c o ng s it game mammals be mark on wi te- il a f n l u es; on and s i ti No rlier tha ecif ns l e-c havi i d dev t areas c i New Starts B sp si stip tru n r t a t w o tru p maxi avoid e i self f c s n e overs ecie to s l ec a wi s on f to ng wi e ACOE i
s ll e n w
b a oc f t th h h , ou s tru o a t th p id withi or enhan ts o n of s are get i i no e , the mpens s co u une ing unt s ing e e ns t
, eedi l i io us sp o t J o ied os s t w c w o n erv on o s t. T y of on and pact t and non- nc e; at n g t e e ec , ti e ng pre-c ng pre-con i t of c g v t ti e o ns ed n h bl p m s on g ina ti n by con ti n t area ou i ed c ed areas ti s. a rds se na carr n ed burro ti b l s t uc t n ng c s le ow i s lyi io ure c i a fi e e n i a co ct e o tr p ey cia re pro t t ni ding areas s or ro ng t acem v i a s urbance t us p l i o Summary of Construction o pul p ecia cupi ngbi otec ange f enti srup ant ruct ill b
r i c r
EIR o d : carried rep the d nat st Com asso pro Conduc duri i o intr Coord w im Av sp prac Where i po pl p Conduc habi dist con bef Delay o d juve Surv nes s the o A com 5-2 . Table 1
Corridor Final Action sit No- Alternative an
Rapid Tr
ct a Imp Category
Silicon Valley 1.5-20
y e
n
c i
e e n
EIR be e e h on
t ll b gh l e n t ers l
i ia o d y i d be ry and erg rati i hi n t ee Tabl 1.5-21 th of f o e v w f e ul e t ds wi s f rs o e was uct April). If o n t a r lat e o l em t d (s c a a u l ty o ion e e pro ul it ns ey ni Califor c Thes ge s p o i h wat bed Al loca . areas ci rch t d wet reg n i nd
t
c e G rv l h a n i of t th r e in i i i ement e v tal l co s
Corridor Final o ream th h e pl res d by ia unt p d areas will be e arly c - m te w St n wi
sit e th CDF ul ons w d by in t G so may sti na s e ti ic on i ond an ti une and Ma nages ta d wi t. l ic sp ect n al ure s e t u uc am s o i r s i part generat t , emergency ecif to J s d drai ped and i s All wetla Coord
p h o clo n d . e fy l and CDF icat s t i : : or dinat s. c t and 0.019 ac con uids f r e
i l r n t- es s . t o u o ti ng ree i
Rapid Tr o o h an and pro ec t es t vi ri tices tices c (Marc Not a and
own to exi c c . oj ti u l ut r s d n and f y Cer res d vet n o s pul be c be dev it l ac l a ll ESAs s or lk a i wet ur ro ri on ural
fied as i . o wi e t lt are k n 404 permi of s that p re po c tour s ur pl u A wil o e t Alternative m peri d i o ment Pra ment Pra e ed i o enti O c e ed. ed. e e res kali m ated as ESAs; co mat t tru c l oo ir ir f n urc s BART Extension a id ; y d o g
n e n o . o and b r bl cip e Silicon Valley and det le, a c t es ng det depos i c ti i ei i orar l and M r aso Manag Manag measures n Res i h p p e o l be mark t t l o ry s d s ures l s s turt
ura st
may e e n 401 Water Qual . y 0.074 ac oric y to lt t s e ACOE Sect is an ng t t ed by t o wil nd n a t dec u i t el s h t o e tem c t : None requ : None requ : CRTP ey at v e dev f ent urb hi ens h aced away from wetland areas n duri ad clos m t es es es asure p ents/Be ents/Be af r r r vol rn p s o es. I e i
ements u u u m r y te s s s and Hi di a permi l ers i ants m prev y y in enc part of es c be pl und, t d ll ng the rai l i aril a at o pl r ifi ura or where c h , Mea Mea Mea hw wi t y wil s ag n n n : Approxi : Ma : M and co ut
it ed as s s s . mpo t ents/Best Management Practices, o es spec ce ed of t t t v bo tio tio tio are f g, i e prov e r a ures s ti t a a a n c i it
ded duri o , s 1, Cult ect harge requi i ul v j p c ppy o p tig tig tig ti rvi ns S. nci s ants i s . e t e e Impac Impac Impac av ac 1.5- temporarily fenced off and desi di Mi s advance of any r Mi U Design Requirem pro Design Requirem frog po pl f meas Other resou s Agreement. The Sec di s Mi
s
G
h h
ant ry t
is es y o rc t r r e t a u o a bo e tion Measures e pl s ESAs ll b and v a a i i rg ; ted for method Water e es. I a it ens ppy grat c i 1 and CDF w h t 0 s m ns ing mp sc ed as n e mi e i enc ng urces o o a po ud i l o es Mitig t of e s i ni c ion 4 r n h n s ag June and M o o ste d i f res o Th i , i l
a be condu . g t ce . and c l pacts, Design Requirem y a cond r s n osed t G c ect i be mark fied duri i l n t F e Sect m l n e w n 404 permi g i ing, h I D d Cal o seline o arch t s wil tio i l C e ecial y l T a a
resou nc o l ulat
e p a h e t vic Prop u ey wi (M bi t t. v d re pro d. d. d. ip i c
f regardi p h d t e e e u ; y o w o ic s pet en t t s t an
if oje ers e sur y s d d- y s r and f pat pat pat n r a e ass n a rk ec ci ci ci o o i perio und, to e p reem t m sp may be identi o a nat pact c Alternative m h g l o i s core p e ACOE Sect t- f amo o m h anti anti anti A o gu tru s s s on wo ring t t n ange s t t t e ti r c c c are f ojec n als ns s in t ze i to es o r r r bl New Starts B asure tio a a a o e o me mammal o n i i e p p p th t ei p ra truc t cli h ec m m m ants h and di nimi m be coord e te ica wi l i i i c l ns d by part of c t s if pl o e ts. e tha ifi A n mi ng t r v wil o d fe sp i If ng pre-c s ect li e ent d t lk . and moni : No : No : No ted t ti , ed as ) b a s s s ing c d o l a t spec s t t t t ev duri y Cert a r e mi oi at it ul c li cip wild i ul a Summary of Construction p ns av Apri i ants rds and non-ga k ill p
o t o o : dev bi Educ and t Conduc al pl t and pro measure w Other c anti s Stream Qual requiremen Impac Impac Impac 5-2 . cts cts cts a a a
. . . Table 1 Action : No imp : No imp : No imp ted ted ted s s s a a a t t t No- Alternative cip cip cip anti anti anti Impac Impac Impac s, ns ie o t ces: i i l i
ut it ct sour
st e Fac a n y t i s I ds ces u cal R s, and i Imp n o i Category ool log lig sour e e Bio Wetla Commun Sch R Cultural and Historic R Executive Summary
f l to . er
t ns s p r
ed f , o io st l s t i
and t
on o th t r i a o e n in al l e to ti
s when men e s a OPER v e to soi nd P wi l ar- s
ll b t il . ted pl vel e e ter o ed moli e. t y ser g bal a l t es d rat e l s na n r bl i i set e i w si uiremen f n le a t inat pated. se team a q an i lor io ctu contamina n ted in HAZW c t , and determine h or d Segregate soil ty u e ment wi o a am a on w z light ound i here to co c spec i , n n re t r ss Spray i nt t d nel anti . str tim tion io n g in and s t ing y h A am ng t . , co t y resp ed l ud n from both ti t asse all teriza e es ff undwater t e. e cl nc is io o ic tes it i con e edures ed pai Executive Summary ina d c hea -s o il character gro in each area c as te th f
o sit ri fi b i on s ter in e i w . charac pro t on a t ntam to ambient air. aminat ter run T ern lera into ex Evaluate quanti Train person c n of so o al and safety plan. P ad- e ns w a emerg t the remedia ed o s nt : : e il o t y nc c l f o tru -spec
u i on ese , PP. s contamination is p tail i e inw r
s t P alth s co wering o n e i ound f o and lead in renova s b tices tices al o r t can ings. W zat ng co c c ocarb co , t i ri eated o al r cts and i t e d g s e r tr e d er di , a Phase h s. Not bes ing s teri als n y p e to ra n ed contamination, s at rker he ve u g a S l T s tha h eff exis . us ti mat of , PCB r as in y o d s t inat s . ing and l o emic d n d e wo u Alternative s mate on and exposur llia ment Pra ment Pra h u w pro m f ls of u l or are not p Desig io u a ed ti stem e e m charac a ten il sto t t ir onnel oleum l c llo BART Extension e nnel d. u o nal
sy tr inc u e . ina rfor st p t t e e
s materia i cava l ement con
e u Fi al ex asb tailed te al es are edures p c pl pat t m and safet Manag Manag p e c rm ng. th ng o h s, or sp i e ci t t atib m e and f ntam r ri ed pers ne req and underpin build s s r hazardo pment e n er exposure t s o P e t w , and verti , a d ill b ant c s g pro anti rai ng f on sure to terial n i t ure healt s n li where hazardo on w : Duri i o a t t t ter co comp y tal equi c tt p and i c nta a n e e es: N es l and e o or oth r or other d a o als or was m dewat ents/Be ents/Be of hazardou g l r r
an ndl ted w ruc s le work a i vati c s . p , tru t e u u tiv ntami b nt i ng s s v va y m OPER- m o es s ou ns Bs e ec c r areas s i me s for ace t
W l later o f er ha rker exp rker o l wate o . Des D o o p Co ting s . t Mea Mea tia P ro s materi exca s d duri is
w t n n pro g t , heav for disposal, evalua : No : So : l e ral t of exca e l relea the HAZ n en n s s s a ou e i ze amou ents/Best Management Practices, ts pro le le sur le w hazard t t t y y y e and deeper soil. o med f ning PC tio tio ar ure n f f men r ot c i i o t t a a w rd ib ib ib ai o e o p en c l t s s s o led to b o t l v st c ll nimi tig tig il c Gen ent ent u f o Impac Impac set Shore ex Mi per OSHA. ac d hazard F con Empl pers Mi o id Mi Design Requirem perf Impac surfa Evaporation of VOCs upon ex Pos the s soi id materia the stru Pos sol Pos sp generat Design Requirem
st t ts u
l n - i PP). eat d
o r d r vels e tion Measures on e i of
in t on a t e s Train ter Permi c a n e G t le al als, or a n upon oth and (SWP h s : en n o i o n tru h p t ese s p inw r o c ina ces l s at t Pla OCs) ti Mitig e s w r generat s amount c v tru con e rmer Ford e s materi on tie o all am i Segregat er di ns es. t e vi p e to ra
ou m pacts, Design Requirem l water or n D s at ti u osed l r. an. s nt Pra ro an F m o t e 1100 South M ai I undwat pl n d seline t ac y Pl y m releas w pro onse t soil contam t or are not p n a io y e t OSHA. mpounds (V neral Co and RWQCB requireme e p ent f e e erl con hazard llo Prop f n Preve t ti d. d. e o a s e e io ina h pm u ed gro led s materia en c co t MP) il o d f ut y res l es are a and ambi pat pat ll t of Ge Manag ou Form e id n t s nc i ci ci th d t o ntam nagement n , sp n e s l a er exposure t a o Alternative l ia” (S i s t th and s am re to wi t l organi ER per t e erg u anti anti P /Be t e soi nt i re dev s l e M s s s y i : Characteriz o t t ter co u t it
c c
a liforn S em es New Starts B a a als or was condi ent of hazard a r y w ated mbl le work p p ect s f ray soi u m Water Po n e on. b nt i s ring. s m m rker heal ti s sp s e contaminant an i i a s irem ace the “ eated c f ami v r o u A in . Sp h t and expo Noti wo a g and fut q s y e . Mea in HAZWOP l l n s materi l n a Stor e n o : No : No : P bi g i unt con wit s s s t ure nel R ou ing to o ves ze amou n le sur y ica t t t tio Milpitas, C goi i a n n t ti Adhere to of a n m ff, v . ib re exc o g ement . ng dewat s od i s l o a ud l o l Summary of Construction l llia pl nimi tig i oced r o tes te.
r a
EIR p o m : contaminated soil. Evaporation of vola exc Pos runo s duri Des Impac Impac Impac bef Compl Aut Stree f Mal pers i accord p p hazard si Mi si inc Peri Mi 5-2 . cts cts cts a a a
. . . Table 1
Corridor Final Action : No imp : No imp : No imp ted ted ted s s a a a t t sit No- Alternative cip cip cip an Impacts anti anti anti Impac Impac
d Rapid Tr
c ste ti s an ct il a ne ag ty i y, So c Imp i Category trom ds (EMF) l ec l E Fie Geolog Seism Hazardous Wa
Silicon Valley 1.5-22
t s s
o t l
a
s
u ns t r
f
f on EIR o . e t s e D ns i o t
ill ti y lla o t
n u
t e li a io s m s o s wil d ac o l
arby en sure t e n pes e ica b e
i 1.5-23 of ll. s and pl Pla r t l os if ill b if tm ionar t th nel w n erat y o , l ng ement rt es not n ement zone at
ting li e o t es g g to h op bes S permi teria wer pi r hazardo n me as n d rson ve pres e o n ng demo E i i a e d pri u i the SCVW y d as e n spec d s a c e abat s materia t te s d n
m thi e area w t A noise o hand ssemb ter trea tio e a r
i Abat Great Ma p or lig gate impact . a a os c a tru i t ch ea driv ea m o t v er NPD n ng r w r FT e i a Corridor Final ied o c le A l meas harg i i h the e if ns if f int, t op n c d i red duri i bes i ild n . Lo r a s med by i pi e s rt o e i s u t r ul
sit WCD an p e be t h in ea OSHA n. As ound to mi o ) and RWQCB s ll r and negat rker b pec hazardou rm t s io ly w t b vel f FC unt s o co gati an e pac g c - p m drai C und to have ti at vel ter d ers r e e n s on p es e and vibrat m o a t on or ren erly c o i e le s ti i rk t lid Automob ng wi i ti det (SMP s ned by sig i w v enco o op s e mi f e rd Com t be perf r A s s activities at susp ls in w ti wo n
l t noi focu ant le d the A nso ad-based o noi :
n 1529). o are f s t es i a ll r moli n l n . h o ve def , p i e o fy ac e i c a ly s e l t ti als to th fo
tor tio ri fornia”
Rapid Tr . i a on used by mus i r c on am e tices i lum ni os, le ti a t en performed at mit e ed c of dewateri os l on pmen li c other measure . Bot rmer F y ed. in d ent li materi
n o tru ti r o st l d id i ures wi pec s uct l o , Cali us r the presence o t l r i Fo on e e re i m e vo s ns t ct pm e uall mat ti u e ement h a alla es o p fo s. Mo t t s ter w nst i an pac ter con s uc l us n n o p nt ill b a ding mat l 8 CCR Sec harge permit
s l at t m stru i Alternative e em, ment Pra c e cy input and w of d i re dev h ive c ed during zardous tio l s. rdous abat yzed t M e ll in t t s st nstr m s n d e ado , u nt P cou
l ng n n w ve equi harge and c e t i ll be requ y i BART Extension ch as asbest o h bui a ua om c t c f u ary i et cu io r s t s tio lle e dis w ent e o ble expo age t c oun wi m h ect su Silicon Valley i at r anal s en
i r la haza sure c , t l at n f s e star or (Tit r d ng u t s Manag i ry ri on o d s for ha io r co rm St c i re di ria of e eval als nage s p t oje th e P nageme o n to n, g o e r and . s h i ri pro of exi f c tor ra o et l a 1 perc s s g materi a e n uati io ti e a r p ni brat permit ing and f n n i i o n n to en ted al o o ral reg bef of fibers. Also, asbe Throug d t. T r drai nt o . l go e into b n pt inat ec e e w permi ring Cont an 0. l n d e ll ia. Comprehen prac near zero. en o r m ary this i u h a o Prior t e r take ed ents/Be uare f s o ent ous mat o erati
t d and v d v am bui e ed ev . f r i e ing mat q l issio e s c r i it o d e e nt s f d to re t e l u a Bs s t e rec er pers an ora with regul f o is e i o bestos ll b p p i iv ed groundwate equ nt ll b on op t it i necess i PC il c bui rm m e ined bel zed ly on cr e, and 100 s t f hazard As i
t s m the wat e cor t a 1100 South M f
ti the em ns s a s are p pro al t so : No u ina a y s. l o ent l e s for u s t n n ast n. ter ents/Best Management Practices, in t uc m a det rt ning ements r o e nsi les w m th r e ures w r ct o o i e tr ire p ai ti ent management l o p e-s l, s o em harge under an appro a forni s t p udes u t teria i c st is rmer erwhel nt nc n be reduc ll b nc her hazardo a cl s i at e t v o o o a u n Comply with the “Site Ma F requi con w no sup Design Requirem loca B or renova hazardo con perf m sam c If c Cal i prevent be mai o asbestos abatem imp c As w charac sys req Contam di f Meas o Treat be c Impac
es i tion Measures t ts
r a vi e o i e Comply v Primary b i l . pp l s i act u n ces: ors w ti Mitig s c tio n c ace s o i t pl tru pacts, Design Requirem osed o ica nt Pra e recept m e iv g t I seline t i m n ecif cons i a s e p ia. Comprehen v n Prop om er r t n s se dri - o e n f cri and Manag ise io n pil t o t s i t Alternative c brat i pac /Be s tru m i ns New Starts B ent nearby no e and vibrati o and v is e e c is ed by irem s u us q on no a ude on e r ti : No c s R s t uc t n FTA noi tr g d int i l s Summary of Construction pac
m : with con Impac cou i Des 5-2 . cts a
. Table 1 Action : No imp ted s a t No- Alternative cip Impac anti n
ct bratio i a Imp Category e and V s i No Executive Summary .
n
f f
e
o c y on i
o i
ers ed et to ca it t s o e t ng s il e d t e. s n id s. l ui li t ther ng c e n
v o b t i al i id i e o o o t truc t ei s U r es. pract s rrier -rela p r “q t s ement y ti a s to e , and t rk. e e bmi uck servi vi tim ac y p e srup f s t c po f u res tion i
n i i con l ded where . cated a c y i o o g
i wo o d pl n ssary acti k d ze tr uti n ms i n r o on mater be s rin e te. i o i orary b
e uct i , or oth ce ed s o t relo v e not l l u m t p a th ose as nstru z i c c e tr i si l ti b a d beams spanni tw m upt n ht progres c ted as needed in t c b y r be av iver ns wil e o g c tru gni t r s i o ll i rk van t e co o pro te w srup t Min t c ns i s emergenc . di l ans l co relo wi u s le d on ne n s. T na a r d wo t y ed as i i e hei rec t Executive Summary t c co ti ca y n i f h y er l o o secur ac i e v ns t t l arl ed pl ing i l d as o n y with ad s. Rou il orta u f lt e addres nt o i d a c be constru y e areas v t u and e Appl Coord icu e not need sp atory p l g o recei with l y resid iv be pl r o : : dly rt n t u t n ll o an a e site res mo d fe No o ing from suppor Det vib t ive s t . nsi s will e t ly wi hed i e s it e itiv tices tices r c rapi i t ed with t s c c o o n i c of p tha ns l i t ers at c a c or n s i i y sc l and may be used where geological ci se ered and reinforced, if ne nfl ll pri s io dependi b ies - uti e for sa v , t l e g areas. urb u of any tra so it t n iv co s n be eas i edure y brat e barri e of as on by hang i a c i Alternative fy p it h util agi ment Pra ment Pra t and use and movem unco t t d il v onsib 12 dB ti areas. Comply noise-sen d of a son ed. es t e e c carefu rnat s
s receptor. Temporary barriers tend to be e p o e n u ir e
BART Extension o a e, t v s tie e i e tru v i t i ll b i and noise t rou is ze ut d commen urbanc . N res on pro s s i 5 t ns i e and t c tiv pment e e use e they c t i s s le ty e from e rg Manag Manag i m l f ter al u co e y wi e l e. on and s ib t t l us f
e ac o c s s term and e the l ti ill b e by a a n ef e sen s ew an t t- ng i or th s uc mini , tio d s r res feas o c t t caus er w : Temporary noise barrier : None requ : Und noi t n e bec g iles n nst an on and di r rev n shor
v ill es es es are qui tru i g near no heavy equ . rmanent or the sensitiv ents/Be ents/Be as possib ten r r r t e rforman ar nois s t p n fo w e tio a u u u i cti tio vation. n
noisy activitie co d be mo rity ace duri t s s s c v e e ll b mplai uc far o uc for ques r mana s ill r co ers s urce ght f i at i t n To ni dri d eff i ing ne h y or p permi o e the ex h s wi y Mea Mea Mea nst r. l i l nst c t o n e n n n
o : Secu : Rel ns c e ed in pl . h a co o arl ers. s s pi i co nel o s ents/Best Management Practices, ise so le. Dr s t t t t t ze their pe t io tio tio tio rt i ul e prov ” o orari tru a a a it c so t e and l c ib urs y bli i ng c d fi o it a ng ss riod rson nc i t tig tig tig ppo n e barri il srup l t i o e e e o u h areas between reduc t the n requiremen Cons duri u d custom Mi Design Requirem Design Requirem part optim Impac p pi c equipment a traf and revers p Es Mi F p det Mi temp s across the exca Impac Impac
o th fy
y t
ti
n uck it
d t ms. ht y e o . wi and il nd o e e c g
l e s t y ti .
tion Measures t
b e e h . als i ls i s a ze tr uc t i ly Appl to that i r noise- y ut i e i r mpl le. N n vit mance. n rm and ers se bmi e hei e,
m m redu h a : : pro b ty and o i ti v i u i h s n s te or m nst t c so on e no fe t a will be o c o rf t- Co e lev as cti to a fi ces ces bli h s n mate s e c e e sp e fro c y ac a ti ti Mitig t n l t Min s. tru s c c be s rs . i o ior i ll g o n be eas ated with s r heavy e r cust o traf t i to nt f eff ns ght t shor a n i o t r noi eir p c c o addres e Es e c n l s tour . wi u o ed y
f e for sa pacts, Design Requirem e l to ncy re t b r of any e osed s e areas. b i nt p t l dl nt Pra nt Pra e es s ey ni ce t m e i barri iv e e een n s an h o ti I ns it seline m ring co m m s vit o erg and -rela e and l of d i tw a po ary be mo r as possib resid ed. mize th c es ass M u e e s wil dependi s rapi n m s
i
r the exte e
Temporary barriers te
m o t ir e . f , Prop o nc on n o e no d. i . ed pl use t on tie e o t i act i il ssu e c o i a i e t t t e s nc e s t a op
To e as c t nt F v a s tiv cal e o is i r. n and ty e up pat Manag Manag o iders d truc od o e l a lo ments e and s requirements v 12 dB ci ri t t sr f me ceptor ac srup on. edure to i u Tempo e bec e c i s s o upt es t D e a e n adv c ti fy . c r i re Alternative i urb iv v ar n s h s in areas b
p t t t t y d uc e tio s ct d s anti e e /Be /Be t 5 t ers. c i r y pro i e con c i ress s di s s v l e proc ed e barri t l : Temporary noise barrier : None requ i ork d t iv d do i f ed as f y l t n h c ut g n e an t d r review og n d mo nst es es o tru New Starts B prac tim t a o tw ac s r equipment as fa
ent ent e by r r ef o s. Not Uti f s in eed uti ti . n nsi f p a s y u u n . u to bi rity co o ularl e rs an o l s s te i m k i y n th fety t e e e rec o ic arl i s. R nary c irem irem it manager will be responsib a co ers noi e se iv f area as n on ne be pl il ul u u n heduled wi l n te h id us it c ti q q i t tru Mea Mea on s o res v i t e e te wi ut tio ing n part n n d rev e the l ted ti ement sc ed s o ns ated i : Secu : No during co c n e wil ns r e si r z y on wor i e s s R R nel o i l as work p z y orta t t ac uc uc i uct tio tio a of rs iv n n r t c a a te statio e tr tr t i y p ce or t i gni g g pme m g an rpo e-s l co caus cat i i i stag i t s s s o i Summary of Construction n l is u rson n i tig tig mpl ns reful curit be part co l ill
o e q o o a EIR e o n d : con Des Des i Loca sen w i loca publ c Mi t moved Impac Impac con n c and pl barri sour rec e Constru s and p transp Mi Coordina mi uti relo c 5-2 . cts cts a a
. . Table 1
Corridor Final Action : No imp : No imp ted ted s s a a t t sit c No- a Alternative cip cip an p m I anti anti Impac em
Rapid Tr t
ct a
ty and Sys Imp i Category ies it il t Secur Safety U
Silicon Valley 1.5-24
s e
h
er als e
, i of r
EIR n n ure t h
n t l g o o i o t c nage
RT n s tio f are. o i of ti s l nor c
dge ated A i i D ru f ne near i 1.5-25 work to e i ot n t i uc in W kp r tru m nt , mater e B r l i l s . ment c n o ages
e m e t t e h t d o n of s i am m drai o c di tes as i t s. nst inta r and gl bway t a ul io e a o o u sto ght ntr si o t on and ht cons clud i ng t d m asible o n sew t of 20-fo g t dewatering s adj n d s e rainy sea i pac n e c erhead bri y o e s olat Ni ll Perm e l
i e con ng c v id ti d h and SCV . s m n c ring y i n rc , on t a e anni i tar tru o a
Corridor Final u ts o e i nt f uc into uent c p ea e i r of r design s tio l r en d f ns in migrat tr c e e uct ter t vat c s at ary s t ors w sit r e duri m le p r WCD n k ou a releas pment pe s on m co ct r tru und, lov C k san ib f d ac ti l il nst
an ir erosi uip p o ed af a anges un encie ng l mpo pl ring ef uc e pi r gro h e e n cou ac h ACF at con , n and i ose o to d Poss ze s il rep r ag . o nstr To the exte Contra n e ch t o groundwater from accidental ral Cons earthwo t avy eq er t sp from exca d o d be c i n : : te s
i s e rted i a - and c t s ul nimi ne d l y. dewat he 2 a pe repl ita e ls als and equi y ated duri a
Rapid Tr d be a t ted e c erec g tices tices il and 7 ver co co lp i ppo i ram and remedi g erosi ul RWQCB v ect and cip e ” c c erl ing t o u g n S G e e pi y s hedule e Ba i co Mi l b s sp to mi - ted h em f e l h op ud riate w co cava t r l - e n r us h DE x t rt cl e i uc of beam und pro a ous. Prepare and implemen an to P op c be s harge of . Sc e materi n wil and l r inv tr r s l c c in - il n hoo s e p s. I pl s io l s ppo n ff p and rk ring Alternative ing zard ment Pra ment Pra k u tio s and t es. E at r. ap . ap cut o of N d, n ll b c ed. a water in e e ndwat anent tio
t a e con i e s d ter are anti wo e t rs e c t se wi ir or “ u t BART Extension ntro tr t e a th u and/o t o nd i e ly w o a n-h rect di o en i h tru v ur amin Runo w c gro Silicon Valley c nt from ou y manner, p a od o n J t r. The s r scre nt ns l rl h emen Manag Manag r moni men ng D e te w l in t i ter to ment o . e d. drainag
a perm t t irem cts ki e Sa r n e e s s e and sto exc na u a t ment es n sua i r co r in s o ll be no sed p a e rece i r a det o low g o , imp i di di am , c l h sedi e m eas n l P as requir e e s. f to wa s of c ed o o r s es st t : Vi : None requ im n n ely ace wat o y reet PP bl str i th req sta at t d s v rial shal i eci es es on wi ated groundwa i a ng Coord oundwate , and n i in an ord s to d n ents/Be ents/Be bway h r rec r r n i es St e t ly W o le mi erl t dec t ter bo n g rel w sig
t t . s u u u l t c b nt p n s a th i n s s surf a m te . I uc a ter i e p ly t gr s n a rna e o o rect p s c wa ami t h p tr o r le ted e
sua i t ts i s o o n be di a f orm s i l ib e. n t rel the s
e Mea Mea on s on m l s ended c an s s o e s n n ti ti a l at cip int Alt p : Vi : P n n or di
. o s s te. T ti , ri s s ero . and pro , comme t ents/Best Management Practices, enc t t t nter of 6 uc uc , tio tio u i p le ng con d s s s ng wil a a tr tr i ami
p ch. Dewa er than bei ment dent ect em ti s t s i ls. No im j h h ase. Com c tig tig il bway bsi t di st pe whi is an h ght u u y e t i rat wi s pi com pro con debri l Mi used in c plan. Condu Submi review when p after rai p Implement the S Mi con Design Requirem I the ce Impac appro Impac sp con tren s exis Ac s s depo contaminate dow Design Requirem
, s
.
n ng i air ed k p
tion Measures n t
non- rly to
a e re
. e
inat pment To the n seaso ion and s
d te to rec d e avy l o b i s y to : : m t r mediate l d
rker debri d a l n i a si s i l to dri ri t
k e San he D s ina a e ces ces r an y w ero h t l l c i ti ti , an o Mitig ng plan. i l Boar n t t ect and e rain c c es. con ing o ri p ing ro e pac id di s tio s t and equi s em rect ud ntam c s n l and Water ts h m l cl te in an o pacts, Design Requirem o of the w i on mat di a an to i osed i c on and wo r tru r bo n nt Pra nt Pra i r ri cau m in e f e e s. I pl e o io I l
n
uct seline dewat p release . uld co on s No m m r i at , commen a . d a ork ou t o and Santa Clara Valley ed. t e e l nof tio onto wat , ality Con program and re cons c w em,
c ir u u c Prop are. lls ntro tr ns i t u e o and/o t ed nstruct i st e mat o t o p in tr il e Bay o y tru amin s CD) n co ement ring c s l c
p h d gl i c ed o uen n nt pl and k ns l rect t Manag Manag al s men ter Qu i i o i ts ment o ter. R m t t soi an oc g of si a le earthw d s s t e of s u ment r co n e u l ht Alternative s i nage s sed in c and t dent o di ted il g i o sedi i ng eff n e w ll /Be /Be e c p f s of c p l s s ill b : None requ k s f n depo inta teria o onal Wa a County Flood Contr sta i d s a a w cava es rfac oc New Starts B nt e and s d n ent ent g r o r are and i Sched n m drai es x CVWD) for rev le mi g r u sig e m water mon r e e s e u l . m b o om ac l I o i s , v a ep l t n r m . t tin i s n a erly di r e . E s o e le lo s h s to s irem irem i o di l p
sua i r f il y o g u u e ib o es P s i in e and st p t . rel s q q Bay R s Mea tat l sib s tion District (ACFCW s n erl e e s strict (S n e l a ors w t pro i d s o : Vi : P u i p t e t ground os en ream drainages n e c s s ero va R R our s. z c t fea t t t i p r im s tio e t n n i t ct a t g g pment em m m dent harge of dewateri i i l i a eas i i undwat und, h r Summary of Construction wns p n p c tig c
n : equi Des gro water are anticipated. Ac gro waterc sed i disc do Des Impac Impac Contra manner, and pro Nig mi Mi exten hazardo Conduc im Submi Franc (RWQCB), Alam Conse Water D im when 5-2 . cts cts a a
. . Table 1 Action : No imp : No imp ted ted s s a a t t No- Alternative cip cip anti anti Impac Impac
and , ces, r ct u ity a
l ality and ns u ai Imp r Reso Category dpl e oo l Visual Q Aesthetics Wat Water Qua F Executive Summary c i top ic if ec ose already for sp h areas. ed c i ud cl ic top y in Executive Summary ecif read al None beyond t sp : e s for tices ed c fi ti Alternative ment Pra ady iden ed beyond tho e ir BART Extension e alre s Manag areas. t c s i : None requ ic top yond tho if es e ents/Be r c u s Mea n : None b s ed for spe ents/Best Management Practices, t i tio a tig Impac areas. identif Mi Design Requirem
th n
tio tion Measures c e. a nate wi tru i s n o Mitig on phas i . Coord uct r pacts, Design Requirem neral C osed e m nst orms I o seline st S G c a n required. ed. i s ir DE Prop d. ng P e PP a and pat duri of N ci after ra s es s i t Alternative n e anti ure t s : None requ t t the SWP c es irem New Starts B a ruc n r agenc r t u p e u s l s m i ro t th req e wat i Mea n at : No con ri s t tio ly w p a p ion Summary of Construction tig
EIR : eros appro Com Permit. Impleme Mi Impac 5-2 . cts a
. Table 1
Corridor Final Action : No imp ted a sit cts No- a Alternative cip an p m anti I s Rapid Tr t c
ffe ct a ve E ti Imp Category Cumula
Silicon Valley 1.5-26 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
• Develop interagency cooperative agreements related to construction. • Advance utility relocations. • Acquire all necessary environmental permits and approvals.
1.5.1 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE
The Baseline Alternative would have environmental impacts related to habitat for special status species, geologic and seismic conditions, noise levels, business relocations, and construction. All of these impacts can be reduced through implementation of the design requirements and best management practices and/or with mitigation measures as identified in this document. Impacts to habitat for special status species would be minimized by providing protection during construction and implementing replacement or enhancement measures pursuant to agreements with appropriate resource agencies. Geologic and seismic impacts would be avoided through appropriate design and construction techniques. Noise levels will be reduced to below FTA and BART criteria with the installation of sound walls. Relocations of businesses will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and VTA’s Relocation Program. During construction, design requirement/best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce traffic, air quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, noise and vibration, visual, and water resources impacts.
1.5.2 BART ALTERNATIVE
The BART Alternative would have impacts to localized traffic, wetlands and habitat for special status species, historic and cultural resources, geologic and seismic conditions, noise and vibration levels, business and residential relocations, and utilities, and from construction activities. All of these impacts can be reduced through implementation of the design requirements and best management practices and/or mitigation measures identified except for the following: 1) impacts to local traffic circulation near the proposed BART stations, 2) vibration impacts to 12 residences north of Berryessa Road, 3) impacts to properties determined or apparently eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and 4) impacts to local traffic resulting from construction activities.
Roadway and intersection improvements will be constructed to reduce traffic impacts at intersections around BART stations; however, mitigation is not practicable at 17 of the affected intersections. Replacement or enhancement measures will be implemented pursuant to agreements with appropriate resource agencies to mitigate impacts to habitat areas and wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Impacts to historic and cultural resources would be addressed in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and supporting Cultural Resources Treatment Plan to be achieved in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Geologic and seismic impacts would be avoided through appropriate design and construction methods. Noise and vibration levels will be reduced below FTA and BART criteria thresholds through the installation of sound walls, ballast mats, resilient fasteners, track structures (e.g., resilient ties, floating slabs), shredded tire underlay, and/or underground barriers with the exception of vibration impacts to 12 residences north of Berryessa Road. Relocation of businesses and residents will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and VTA’s Relocation Program. Utilities along the corridor will need to be relocated, and VTA will coordinate closely with local utility providers to avoid unscheduled interruptions in service.
During construction of the BART Alternative, design requirements/best management practices, and mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce temporary traffic, air quality, habitat, wetland and
Executive Summary 1.5-27 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR other waters, cultural and historical resources, hazardous materials, noise and vibration, utility, visual, and water resource impacts.
1.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 1.6-1 provides a summary of the information for each alternative contained within the various sections and chapters of the EIS/EIR. The summary table includes service and operating characteristics, ridership and traffic, environmental issues project costs, and cost effectiveness measures, to compare the SVRTC alternatives.
1.6.1 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE
The Baseline Alternative proposes expansion of bus services both within the SVRTC and extending to the Central Valley. It includes the construction of 2.75 miles of exclusive guideway to facilitate express bus connections from Santa Clara County to the planned BART Warm Springs Station in southern Fremont. Express buses would operate on varying service frequencies, ranging from three to 30 minutes. An estimated 60 additional buses would be required to operate proposed new or improved transit services under this alternative. The estimated total capital cost to implement the Baseline Alternative is $379.0 million in 2003 dollars. Total annual operating costs in 2025 are estimated to be $796.2 million for all transit modes and $28.2 million (both in 2003 dollars) for proposed bus service improvements only.
The Baseline Alternative would generate on the order of 1,686,200 transit trips on the average weekday in 2025. This compares to 1,679,400 Year 2025 transit trips for the No-Action Alternative, or an increase of approximately 6,800 riders. The new transit trips associated with the Baseline Alternative would remove approximately 3,600 peak-period auto (or light truck) trips from service area roadways. The shift in travel from auto to transit would reduce roadway congestion moderately, with a resulting savings in daily travel time of approximately 9,700 hours for all users of the service area transportation network. There would also be a moderate savings in vehicle energy consumption resulting from a shift from less energy efficient travel modes (e.g., autos and trucks) to higher capacity, more energy efficient transit modes. Transportation energy use would decrease by approximately 80 billion British thermal units (BTUs) annually compared to the No-Action Alternative, equivalent to just under 724,638 annual gallons of gasoline saved, in 2025. There would be a reduction of 529.7 pounds per day (ppd) for carbon monoxide (CO), 9.0 ppd for reactive organic gases (ROG), 1.5 ppd for sulfur dioxide (SO2), 14.3 ppd for suspended particulate matter (PM10), and an increase of 5.8 ppd for nitrogen oxides (NOx) when compared to the No-Action Alternative.
The Baseline Alternative would also affect 13 acres of non-native grassland affording habitat for federal and state species of concern. This habitat loss will be mitigated to minimize harm to and ensure the continuation of the affected species.
Comparing the ridership benefits of the Baseline Alternative with its costs, by most measures the Baseline Alternative is the least cost effective of the three alternatives evaluated in this EIS/EIR. Farebox recovery of all transit modes included in the Baseline is estimated to be 51.1 percent in 2025, or lower than the 51.6 percent farebox recovery of the No-Action Alternative. A higher farebox recovery indicates that passenger revenues cover a greater proportion of system operating costs. The operating cost per passenger-mile of the Baseline Alternative would be slightly higher than that of the No-Action Alternative as would be the operating cost per passenger. The annualized capital and operating costs for carrying each new rider on Baseline Alternative service are equivalent to $30.12.
1.6-28 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
Table 1.6-1: Summary of Alternatives, 2025 Alternatives No-Action Baseline BART Service and Operating Characteristics Exclusive Guideway (miles) NA [1] 2.75 16.3 Average Headways (minutes) NA [1] 3 to 30 6 Number of Vehicles NA [1] 60 106 to 126 Number of Stations NA [1] multiple bus stops 7 + 1 future Ridership and Traffic (2025) Average Weekday Trips NA [1] 22,600 83,600 New Transit Trips NA [1] 6,800 39,300 Daily Travel Time Savings for All Users (hours saved) NA [1] 9,700 66,900 Peak-Period Trips Removed from Roadways NA [1] 3,600 25,500 Environmental Issues Net Change in Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) --- -529.7 CO -4,507.1 CO • Carbon Monoxide (CO) --- -9.0 ROG -607.0 ROG
• Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) --- +5.8 NOX -486.4 NOX • Nitrogen Oxides (NO ) X --- -1.5 SO2 -12.2 SO2 • Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) • Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) --- -14.3 PM10 -120.6 PM10 Impact to Wetlands and Threatened/Endangered Species • Acres of Non-Native Grassland NA [1] Up to 13 Up to 15.6 • Acres of Wetlands/Other Waters of the US NA [1] 0 1.24 [2] / 0.05[2] Historic and Archaeological Sites Affected NA [1] 0 Up to 99 Change in Vehicle Energy Consumption (billion BTUs/year) NA [1] -80 -1,110 Level of Noise/Vibration Impacts (# of Residential Impacts) NA [1] 0 12 Up to 101 / 1 to Businesses / Households Displaced NA [1] 2 / 0 5 Project Costs (2003 dollars in millions) Total Capital Costs NA [1] $379.0 $4,112.0 Total Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs • All Modes in Corridor (bus, light rail, and BART) $768.0 $796.2 $841.3 • Mode Specific NA [1] $28.2 $65.1 Cost Effectiveness (2003 dollars) Farebox Recovery Ratio • All Modes in Corridor (bus, light rail, and BART) 51.6% 51.1% 54.2% • Mode Specific NA [1] 26.2%-34.7% 71.2% Operating Cost per Passenger-Mile $0.300 $0.301 $0.276 Cost per Passenger $1.52 $1.64 $2.24 Cost per New Rider (compared to No-Action) NA [1] $30.12 $32.83 Cost per Hour of User Benefit (compared to Baseline) • All Users NA [1] NA [1] $26.35 • Transit Users Only NA [1] NA [1] $40.99 Notes: [1] NA = No impact or not applicable. [2] Impacts reflect highest-impact options. Impacts to wetlands would be reduced to 0.13 acres if the South Calaveras Future Station were not included; and impacts to waters of the U.S. would be reduced to 0.04 acres if the East of Rail ROW Option were not chosen. Source: Manuel Padron & Associates, Parsons Corporation, 2003.
Executive Summary 1.6-29 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
1.6.2 BART ALTERNATIVE
The BART Alternative proposes a 16.3-mile extension of BART service from southern Fremont into Santa Clara County and improvements to corridor bus services, mainly by providing better access to existing and new BART stations. All of the BART alignment would be in exclusive guideway; seven new stations would be constructed, plus one future station in Milpitas. BART trains would operate on average headways of six minutes, based on 2025 service levels. From 106 to 126 new transit vehicles would be required to operate the BART extension. The total estimated capital cost for BART Alternative improvements is $4,112 million in 2003 dollars. Total annual operating costs in 2025 are estimated to be $841.3 million for all modes and $65.1 million (both in 2003 dollars) for the BART Alternative service only.
BART would serve approximately 1,718,700 total linked transit trips on the average weekday in 2025 with 83,600 on the BART Alternative extension itself. Linked transit trips exclude transfer boardings. This represents an increase of 39,300 trips compared to the No-Action Alternative and 32,500 trips compared to the Baseline Alternative. The shift of travel to BART and other modes under this alternative would remove an estimated 25,500 peak period trips from study area roadways. By reducing roadway congestion, this alternative results in substantial travel time savings for all transportation system users, approximately 66,900 hours daily relative to the No-Action Alternative.
The BART Alternative is estimated to result in substantial reductions in air pollutant emissions and transportation system vehicle energy requirements compared to both the No-Action and Baseline alternatives. In 2025, emissions of air pollutants would be reduced by 4,507.1 ppd for CO, 607.0 ppd for ROG, 486.4 ppd for NOX, 12.2 ppd for SO2, and 120.6 ppd for PM10, when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Transportation system vehicle operating energy would be reduced by approximately 1,110 billion BTUs annually compared to the No-Action Alternative (equivalent to 10.0 million gallons of gasoline) and by 1,030 billion BTUs annually compared to the Baseline Alternative (9.3 million gallons of gasoline).
The BART Alternative would result in environment impacts in several areas. Approximately 15.6 acres of non-native grasslands and 0.13 acres of wetlands would be removed (1.24 acres if the South Calaveras Future Station were to be built). The habitat loss will be mitigated to minimize harm to and ensure the continuation of the affected species. The wetlands will be fully replaced by enhancement, replacement, or creation of wetlands to ensure no net loss. The alternative would also potentially affect an estimated 99 historic and archaeological properties/sites and displace a number of businesses and several households. Numerous residences would be affected by noise and/or vibration from the operation of BART trains. While these impacts are greater than those associated with the Baseline Alternative, they will be reduced for the most part by design requirements and best management practices and mitigation measures except for 12 residences north of Berryessa Road.
The BART Alternative is the most cost effective alternative based on farebox recovery and operating cost per passenger mile. It is estimated to have the highest system and mode-specific farebox recovery ratios and the lowest operating cost per passenger-mile. The mode-specific farebox recovery for the BART extension is projected to be at least twice that of the Baseline Alternative.
The BART Alternative does not perform as well as the No-Action or Baseline alternatives in terms of cost per passenger and cost per new rider. The BART Alternative cost per passenger, at $2.24 in 2025, would be from $0.60 to $0.72 higher than for the other alternatives; the cost per new rider would be approximately $2.71 higher than under the Baseline Alternative. The higher costs, however, would be in part offset by the better revenue performance of the BART Alternative.
1.6-30 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
The BART Alternative is estimated to recover over 71 percent of operating costs from fares. Thus, approximately $46 million of the $65.1 million in annual operating costs of the BART extension in 2025 would be covered by fares, leaving about $19 million to be covered from other sources of revenues. The Baseline Alternative, for comparison, would recover up to 35 percent of operating costs from fares, or $10 million of the $28.2 million in additional bus service costs in 2025. This would leave approximately $18 million to be covered from other revenue sources. The BART Alternative, however, would attract over 39,000 new transit trips while the Baseline Alternative would generate only 6,800 new transit trips. The net (of fares) operating cost per new rider is therefore substantially less under the BART Alternative. Over the long-term, comparing net annual operating costs to the numbers of riders carried, the BART Alternative performs substantially better than the Baseline Alternative.
1.6.3 MINIMUM OPERATING SEGMENT SCENARIOS
A comparison of the two MOS scenarios to the “full-build” BART Alternative is presented in Table 1.6-2. The table compares various project elements and characteristics, including the alignment, stations, ridership, parking, fleet size, maintenance facility needs, property requirements, operating plan, and cost estimates. The full-build BART Alternative is based on a year 2025 planning horizon, while MOS-1E is presented for the year 2025 and 2015. MOS-1F was developed for the year 2015 to identify initial start- up needs.
Table 1.6-2: MOS Scenarios Compared with the Full-build BART Alternative Project Element and “Full-build” BART MOS-1E in 2025 and 2015 MOS-1F in 2015 Characteristics Alternative in 2025 Alignment 16.32 miles Same as full-build BART Same as full-build Alternative BART Alternative Stations 7 stations 5 stations Same as full-build (defers Berryessa and Civic BART Alternative Plaza/SJSU stations) Average Weekday Transit 83,585 (2025) 82,130 (2025) 71,785 (2015) Trips 71,176 (2015) Parking Spaces at BART 9,957 (2025) 7,457 (2025) 8,660 (2015) Alternative Stations 7,340 (2015) Parking Spaces at BART 3,235 (2025) 3,090 (2025) 2,890 (2015) Core System Stations 2,865 (2015) Fleet Size 106 to 126 vehicles 0 to 20 fewer vehicles (2025) 16 to 30 fewer 16 to 30 fewer vehicles (2015) vehicles Maintenance Facility Accommodates 240 BART Accommodates 200 BART Accommodates 180 Needs vehicles vehicles, with reduced BART vehicles, with maintenance facilities (2025) reduced Accommodates 180 BART maintenance vehicles, with reduced facilities maintenance facilities (2015) Property Requirements Property purchased for all Same as full-build BART Same as full-build seven stations, maintenance Alternative BART Alternative facility, ancillary facilities, and construction staging Operating Plan San Francisco-Fremont and Same as full-build BART Same as full-build Richmond-Fremont BART Alternative BART Alternative lines, with combined six- minute headways Total Capital Costs $4.112 billion (2025) $3.822 billion (2025) $3.895 billion (2015) (2003 dollars) $3.762 billion (2015) Annual Operating and $65.1 million (2025) $60.3 million (2025) $59.7 million (2015) Maintenance Costs $56.1 million (2015) (2003 dollars)
Executive Summary 1.6-31 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
For the most part, the MOS scenarios would have similar environmental benefits and impacts as the full- build BART Alternative. However, deferring project elements under the MOS scenarios would result in minor changes to ridership, traffic, air quality, biological resources, community facilities, energy, land use, socioeconomics, visual, construction, and cost. These benefits and impacts would be temporarily delayed until MOS-2 is completed and the project is fully implemented.
Differences in the environmental benefits and impacts are primarily attributed to the MOS-1E scenario, which defers two stations. In 2025, ridership would be slightly less for MOS-1E in comparison to the full- build BART Alternative. This would result in traffic level of service changes only near the Berryessa and Alum Rock stations. MOS-1E would also have a minor increase in pollutant emissions. Impacts to biological resources and water resources would be similar to the BART Alternative. The deferral of the Berryessa Station would defer impacts to three potentially affected archaeological resources. MOS-1E is estimated to have a small increase in energy consumption as well. Furthermore, MOS-1E would not be as compatible with land use plans and policies due to the deferral of two stations, which would have promoted intensified land uses and livable communities. It would also serve fewer people, jobs, and households. However, some property acquisitions and displacements would be deferred if the Berryessa Station was not initially built, and the existing visual character would be maintained without the parking structure. Construction impacts would be postponed at the Berryessa Station, maintenance facility, and parking facilities. Finally, the capital and operating costs would be reduced for all MOS scenarios.
1.7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
VTA conducted an extensive public involvement and agency coordination program for the MIS/AA, with ongoing outreach efforts continuing during the preparation of the EIS/EIR. These efforts have involved the establishment of several committees and forums to jointly plan for the SVRTC during the MIS/AA and EIS/EIR phases. The Policy Advisory Board (PAB) consists of representatives from the VTA Board, the BART Board, Santa Clara and Alameda counties, and the cities within the corridor. The PAB provides important policy guidance and decision-making. The VTA/BART Coordination Committee meets regularly to ensure a collaborative staff effort between BART and VTA. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides coordination and technical input from local, regional, state, and federal agencies. In addition, Project Development Teams (PDT) for Fremont, Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara were formed to address city specific issues at a staff level. VTA also meets periodically with the FTA to provide project updates.
VTA also is working with four Community Working Groups (CWGs) representing Milpitas, the Hostetter/Alum Rock area in San Jose, Downtown San Jose, and Santa Clara. Members include representatives of neighborhood and business associations, community organizations, advocacy groups, major property owners, and planning commissioners. In addition, public meetings were held at key study milestones during the project development process and presentations were made to neighborhood and business associations, city groups, and other committees upon request.
In January 2002, VTA began the state environmental process by issuing the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR to meet CEQA requirements. The NOP was subsequently reissued in January 2003 to address BART core system parking. The FTA published the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the EIS in early February 2002 as required under NEPA. Public and agency meetings were held thereafter in February 2002 as part of the scoping process. The public scoping meetings were conducted on February 7, 2002 in Milpitas; February 11, 2002 in San Jose; and February 13, 2002 in Santa Clara. In addition, a TAC Scoping Meeting was held on February 12, 2002 and an agency scoping meeting was held on February 13, 2002. The purpose of the scoping process was to determine the scope, focus, and content of the EIS/EIR. They provided a useful opportunity to obtain information from the public, interested agencies, and other parties on the proposed project alternatives, the proposed topics of evaluation, and potential impacts and mitigation measures to be considered.
1.7-32 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
1.8 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The state CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b) requires that areas of controversy known to the lead agency and issues to be resolved be included in an EIR. These issues are addressed in the following sections.
1.8.1 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
A detailed compilation of public and agency concern is provided in the Environmental Scoping Report, May 2002. The major areas of controversy relate to the BART Alternative are listed below.
• Traffic impacts during construction and around stations. • Parking spillover into communities at BART station sites. • Noise and vibration impacts at both aboveground and belowground segments. • Visual impacts from elevated portions and parking structures. • Cultural resource impacts to Five Wounds Church, downtown San Jose, Caltrain Diridon Station, and Caltrain Santa Clara Station. • Station locations in Milpitas and downtown San Jose. • Downtown San Jose stations entrance locations. • Impacts on property values. • Construction impacts in downtown San Jose. • Construction coordination with other transit and development projects. • Overall financing of the BART Alternative.
1.8.2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The primary issue to be resolved is the selection of the preferred alternative. However, if the BART Alternative were selected, decisions would also need to be made on the design options to be carried forward. The BART Alternative design options are listed below.
• Design Option 1: South of Warm Springs Alignment Rail Right-Of-Way Option East of Rail Right-of-Way Option • Design Option 2: Warren Avenue Alignment Underpass Option (BART At-grade) At-grade Option (BART Aerial) • Design Option 3: Locomotive Wye Location Fremont Option Milpitas Option • Design Option 4: Dixon Landing Alignment BART Aerial Option
Executive Summary 1.8-33 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
BART Retained Cut Option BART At-grade Option • Design Option 5: South Calaveras Future Station Parking Structure North Option Parking Structure South Option Parking Structure North Option with Parallel Bus Transit Center • Design Option 6: Montague/Capitol Station Roadway Transit Center Option with At-grade Concourse Roadway Transit Center Option with Elevated Concourse South Bus Transit Center Option with At-grade Concourse South Bus Transit Center Option with Elevated Concourse • Design Option 7: Berryessa Station Parking Structure Southwest Option Parking Structure Northeast Option • Design Option 8: Alum Rock Alignment and Station Railroad/28th Street Option US 101/Diagonal Option • Design Option 9: Civic Plaza/San Jose State University Station Station Entrance Locations • Design Option 10: Downtown San Jose Crossover Location West of Civic Plaza/San Jose State University Station Crossover Option West of Market Street Station Crossover Option • Design Option 11: Market Street Station Station Entrance Locations • Design Option 12: Diridon/Arena Alignment and Station North Option South Option Station Entrance Locations • Design Option 13: Santa Clara Station Parking Structure North Option Parking Structure South Option • Design Option 14: Santa Clara Station Pedestrian Crossing Aerial Walkway North Option Aerial Walkway South Option Underground Walkway Option • Design Option 15: Airport Connection At-grade Profile Beyond De La Cruz Boulevard Option Lowered Profile for Potential Future Airport Connection Option
1.8-34 Executive Summary Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
1.9 NEXT STEPS
1.9.1 PUBLIC CIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIS/EIR
The Draft EIS/EIR was circulated for public comments for a period of 60 days, beginning March 16, 2004 and ending May 14, 2004. Public hearings were held on April 12, 14, and 19, and May 10, 2004 at the locations noted below to take comments from interested parties and the public regarding the alternatives, impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. The times and locations of the public hearings were announced in direct mailings, in display advertisements in local newspapers of general circulation in the SVRTC, and in the Federal Register. All substantive comments received in writing prior to the close of the public comment period or entered into the public record at the public hearings include written responses in Volume II of the EIS/EIR. VTA and FTA will consider all of the public comments in concert with the information presented in this document prior to approval of a Preferred Investment Strategy/Locally Preferred Alternative for the SVRTC.
The times and locations of the public hearings were:
Santa Clara Public Hearing San Jose Public Hearings Milpitas Public Hearing April 12, 2004 April 14, 2004 and May 10, 2004 April 19, 2004 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. Santa Clara Senior Center First Methodist United Church Joseph Weller Elementary School 1303 Fremont Street 24 North 5th Street 345 Boulder Street Santa Clara, CA San Jose, CA Milpitas, CA
1.9.2 PREFERRED INVESTMENT STRATEGY/LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
As previously stated, the VTA Board of Directors selected the BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara (BART Alternative) as the Preferred Investment Strategy/Locally Preferred Alternative for the SVRTC following completion of a MIS/AA in November 2001. Multiple alignment and station options for the BART Alternative are currently being considered in the EIS/EIR. Furthermore, a No-Action Alternative and a Baseline Alternative are being evaluated in comparison to the BART Alternative.
The EIS/EIR alternatives and associated design options were developed to provide the policy-makers and the public with information of how different project components would affect the environment. As a result, the policy-makers could select the alternatives/design options for the Preferred Investment Strategy/Locally Preferred Alternative based on information provided in the EIS/EIR. A decision on the alternatives/design options to be included in the Preferred Investment Strategy/Locally Preferred Alternative would be made between the publication of the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. The public would have the opportunity to comment on the alternatives/design options at four CWG meetings and four public hearings held during the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR. Once the Preferred Investment Strategy/Locally Preferred Alternative was identified and approved, the Final EIS/EIR would be prepared.
On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, after the circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, the PAB approved the selection of recommended alignment and station options for the refinement of the Preferred Investment Strategy/Locally Preferred Alternative. The recommended alternatives/design options are included in the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Final EIS/EIR. The refined Locally Preferred Alternative is described in Volume II, Chapter 2.0, Recommended Project.
Executive Summary 1.9-35 Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Final EIR
After the VTA Board of Directors certifies the EIR and approves the project, FTA would issue a Record of Decision on the EIS. The Record of Decision is a separate document from the EIS itself. This document states the decision, states the reasons for the decision, identifies all alternatives, identifies all adopted mitigation measures, and states compliance with applicable laws.
1.9.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Upon VTA’s certification of the EIR and FTA’s Record of Decision on the EIS, VTA would continue with the Preliminary Engineering phase, during which the facilities for the preferred alternative would be engineered with more precision. VTA could also begin to acquire ROW for the project. Following Preliminary Engineering, VTA would initiate the Final Design phase. Once the project is fully designed, FTA and VTA would negotiate and execute a Full Funding Grant Agreement for the preferred project.
VTA would continue to coordinate with local cities, other jurisdictional entities, and the public in developing the preferred project throughout the EIS/EIR, Preliminary Engineering, Final Design, and construction phases of the project.
1.9-36 Executive Summary