Policy Advisory Committee May 18, 2012, 1:30 PM Union City Council Chambers

Transcription

1 Policy Advisory Committee May 18, 2012, 1:30 PM Union City Council Chambers City Hall (map) Alvarado Niles Rd, Union City, CA Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Chairperson Comments 4. Project Manager Comments 5. Public Comment (For items not on the agenda) 6. Consent Calendar a. Minutes of January 20, 2012 Meeting 7. Report of the Citizens Advisory Panel 8. Information Items a. Environmental Process Update b. Stakeholder Meetings and Coordination c. DBROC Update 9. Action Item a. ACTC Ballot Measure Endorsement 10. Correspondence 11. Requests from Members 12. Next Meeting Purpose and Date 13. Adjourn

2 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Meeting: Date: DRC Policy Advisory Committee January 20, 2012 Location: Time: San Mateo County Transit District Meeting Start: 1:05 pm 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA Meeting Adjourn: 2:02 pm Minutes Prepared By: Issue Date: Paula Hirsch March 16, 2011 Attendance: Attendees (sign-in sheet attached) Policy Committee Members Mark Green, ACTA (Chair) Tim Blalock, CCJPA Kevin Mullin, MTC John Seybert, SMCTA Carlos Romero, SMCTA Kelly Fergusson, SMCTA Project Staff Aidan Hughes, Joint Powers Board Donna Chung, Joint Powers Board William Hurrell, CDM Smith (formerly Wilbur Smith Associates) Paula Hirsch, CDM Smith (formerly Wilbur Smith Associates) Wenlin Yang, Joint Powers Board Elizabeth Rutman, Louis Berger Others Please refer to the attached sign-in sheet. Item No. Discussion 1. Call to Order Chair M. Green called the meeting to order. 2. Roll Call Insufficient members were in attendance to achieve quorum. Continued with agenda as the only action item occurred later at Item Chairperson s Comments Later this afternoon we will hear from ACTC regarding Measure B, next Thursday the steering committee is to vote on a recommendation to go forward with an additional ½ cent sales tax, and no sunset. 4. Project Manager s Comments Project Manager had no comments. 1 of 5

3 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 5. Public Comments (for items not on the agenda) S. Van Pelt stated that during the sessions last year he asked what funds were available for grade crossings and noise mitigation and was told that none were available. Is it Dumbarton s responsibility or is it the local community? A. Hughes responded that no grade separations are included in the project; however, in the section on mitigation we re including the cost of mitigation including noise. 6. Consent Calendar This item was deferred until the end of the agenda. (Committee member Blalock arrived and a quorum was achieved.) The September 30, 2011 meeting minutes were approved. 7. Report of the Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) T. Pitsker had nothing to report. 8. Information Items A. Environmental Process Update DEIS/EIR Process Alternatives screening process completed Station screening process completed 15% design completed Initiated preparation of Draft EIS/EIR chapters Interagency Meetings A meeting with the FTA was held and there was agreement on the document review process and the outline for the DEIS. A NEPA 404 meeting was also conducted and all the local, state and federal resource management agencies were invited. Issues about the impacts of the project on the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge were raised and discussed. In addition the Coast Guard and the Bay Conservation and Development Board (BCDC) raised questions about the design of the replacement rail bridges relating to navigational clearances and sea level rise due to climate change. A follow up meeting was held with the Coast Guard and the BCDC to address these questions. Public Meetings A series of five public information meetings was held in Newark, Fremont, Union City, Redwood City, and Menlo Park during the period November 2-9, These meetings were well attended (25 40 attendees on average). The primary comments received fell into these categories and topics: Property related impacts: noise, vibration, property values Impacts at grade crossings: traffic and needs for grade separation Environmental concerns: air quality, wildlife Safety issues: tracks adjacent to homes Bus Services: desire for increase in service Schedule The project is on schedule and will be completed in the following timeline: ADEIS to FTA: Winter DEIS to Public: Spring 2012 Final EIS: Fall of 5

4 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes i. Discussion M. Green asked when the issues with the Don Edwards Refuge will be resolved. A. Hughes explained that the Don Edwards Refuge is clearly a sensitive issue. Previous studies identified the need for breaches to allow flow of water, however, over time the habitats have become individual. At the moment we will assume the breaches, in due course we may be advised not to have those breaches. It will take several weeks to resolve this issue. It is also worth repeating that the No Project case of this project includes the removal of the rail bridge because of the agreement with the Coast Guard. Removal of the bridge has its own environmental impacts. M. Green asked about the cost impact of removing the bridge. A. Hughes responded that the cost is estimated at 80 to 100 million dollars and that the TSM (bus) alternative would also include rail bridge removal. B. Stakeholder Meetings and Coordination A number of meetings have been held with stakeholders to review and address various elements of the project. A presentation on the project was given to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board. They were pleased to be given an update and to be kept informed about the project. A special meeting was held with elected officials and staff from the Redwood City, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto to follow up on their request for more information on the physical characteristics of the alternatives in each of their cities. The design elements and right-of-way requirements of each of the alternatives was discussed. Also there have been meetings with the Caltrain staff involved with the HSR project to discuss the implications of the blended Caltrain/HSR proposal. In addition there was a meeting with the City of Newark to coordinate our activities regarding their plans for the Newark station area. i. Discussion K. Mullin inquired about the general character of comments received at the meetings and if the concerns were mostly about impacts on properties. A. Hughes replied that the majority of concerns related to impacts to property both physical and through noise and so forth, secondary concerns regarded environmental issues and the Don Edwards Refuge. M. Green stated that the air quality would be improving, and he hopes that message would be conveyed when these questions were answered. Also, on the subject of property value, the development side would say that property values will improve. TOD = property value increase. K. Fergusson indicated she has some comments about bike access, and that there certainly is a strong desire in Menlo Park for a bike/ped corridor in conjunction with this project. C. ACTC Measure B Update Art Dao, Executive Director of the ACTC was invited to speak on the new Measure B expenditure plan in Alameda County. He indicated that after almost two years work they are ready to adopt the final expenditure plan at the end of January, a one penny sales tax into perpetuity. The only other one in existence in the state is in Los Angeles. A poll taken in October indicated that 79% said they support the sales tax, expending $7 billion over the next 30 years with the majority funding transit. $120 million would be allocated for the Dumbarton rail corridor project. This 3 of 5

5 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes amount will not fully fund the project, but will add the momentum needed to move the project forward. In addition to the $120 million allocation to the project, ACTC is also proposing funding other projects which in part will contribute to the total funding needed for the Dumbarton project. These include the Alameda County regional rail right-of-way preservation project, the Union City Station project, and funding allocated for transit oriented development. It is really good news that the expenditure plan will provide the funding to keep the project moving to its reality. ACTC is working hard to get a consensus on the transportation expenditure plan. Then we will move it forward for the voters to approve in the November election. i. Discussion K. Mullin asked if the PAC as a body is able to take a support position. M. Green responded that he hopes that the PAC will be able to express their support for the expenditure plan with a resolution at the next meeting. D. MTC RM2 Funding Update The status of the expanded bus service initiative was presented. The new transit operator has taken over the operation of the service as of December 19, As planned the Route DB3 was eliminated. The transition to the new operator was successful with only a few minor issues reported. Meanwhile MTC is in the process of securing the approval of the PAC s request to allow the $5.5 million annual allocations of RM2 operating funds to be used to fund the DB bus services. The public comment period will end January 23, 2012, and the item is scheduled to go before the Commission on January 25th. With the Commission s approval the expanded service would be implemented in the spring of The DBROC consortia that oversee the operation of the Dumbarton services on the road bridge will meet on the 25th of this month. They will be asked to apply to MTC for the RM2 funds on the basis of the expanded service plan that the PAC has reviewed. AC Transit s tentative schedule is to announce the proposed changes at the meeting on March 14 th and hold a hearing on April 11th or the 25th. i. Discussion J. Bigelow stated that this proposal provides up to $5.5 million per year, which is more than is needed for the current expansion plans. There will be money on the table for other bus projects such as more service to the southern peninsula. A. Hughes responded that AC Transit has outlined a 47% increase in terms of bus revenue hours. As Jim noted, the amount of money available through RM2, assuming that is successful and we can get 30% farebox recovery, will allow us to work together on the rail project and the expansion of the bus service including opportunities to expand into Menlo Park and elsewhere. It s not going to happen all at once, as we must make use of the money judiciously. C. Romero added that anyone who s taken the DB service knows it stops at Menlo Park, and continues all the way down Middlefield Road. That is a growing area. The next step is to expand service because of Facebook and other development. M. Green asked what if we get 28% instead of 30% farebox recovery, does that mean we should not look at these other routes? A. Hughes replied that we need to maintain a reasonable balance, but the RM2 requirement allows for a build-up to the 30% goal over a period of three years. K. Fergusson commented that there s been a couple of mentions about the uncertainty regarding HSR, around the Peninsula and also enhancing the capacity for regional rail. The Facebook project offers certain ridership growth and we should capitalize on that. The DEIR for Facebook s 4 of 5

6 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes expansion will be published on the 30th of this month, and the city council will decide on the project in June. 9. Correspondence None. 10. Requests from Members C. Romero commented that the ACTC initiative to make the connection to sustainable community strategies is a brilliant stroke. If the sales tax passes, we should have some discussion to broaden consideration of other projects which will bring more people to ride transit. M. Green stated that they will vote next Thursday on their own expenditure plan. There is wide interest in TOD, and station planning. 11. Next Meeting Next meeting is proposed for April 20 th in the East Bay. 12. Adjourn Meeting adjourned 2:02 p.m. 5 of 5

7

8

9

10 Memorandum Date: May 18, 2012 To: Policy Advisory Committee From: Aidan Hughes JPB Re: EIS/EIR Update Staff has advanced the environmental clearance process through coordinating with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region 9, meeting with federal and state environmental regulatory agencies and completing the Admin Draft EIS/EIR document. FTA Coordination JPB Staff has coordinated and worked very closely with FTA. FTA Staff has provided draft chapters review and input which has significantly assisted the Technical Team in preparing the Admin Draft document. JPB and FTA Staff met on March 28, 2012 to discuss technical reports in support of Section 106 and Section 4(f) evaluation and coordination as well as initiation of the Biological Resources Consultation process. As required by NEPA and with JPB Staff support, FTA has initiated the SHPO/Tribal Coordination process. Per new requirements, the Environmental Justice Chapter was submitted to FTA Headquarters in Washington DC for review and comments by the Civil Rights Specialist. Regulatory Agency Coordination To comply with the provisions of Section 404, Staff presented the project and its potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures at the April 11, 2012 U S Army Corps of Engineers monthly meeting. Attendees to this meeting were: USACE (Army Corps of Engineers)

11 USFWS (Fish and Wildlife Services) EPA USCG (Coast Guard) SF BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge RWQB (Regional Water Quality Board) The regulatory agencies present at the meeting did not object using the alternatives under consideration in the Admin Draft EIS/EIR for eventual permitting purposes. Staff also obtained consensus and support from the Don Edwards and the US Fish and Wildlife Services on the use of breaches as a marsh enhancement measure. The US Coast Guard did not foresee any navigational issues and agreed with the review of the Admin Draft as a Cooperating Agency. Alternatives Performance Based on environmental analyses as of the time of the Admin Draft completion, the alternatives considered performed as summarized below: Of the three rail alternatives ( Commuter Rail, Rail Shuttle and Rail Hybrid), the Commuter Rail alternative causes the least overall environmental harm and meets purpose and need The No Build alternative, does not meet the purpose and need and causes direct environmental impacts from bridge removal The TSM alternative, only partially meets purpose and need and causes direct environmental impacts from bridge removal Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Status The Admin Draft EIS/EIR document has been completed but not submitted to FTA.