1

 

2

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7 

. Call to O

. Roll Call 

 

. Approva

. Public Co

. Action Ite

a. Re

 

. Member 

. Adjourn 

Citize

Wed

San M

rder 

l of Minutes

omments 

ems 

eview of the

Comments 

ns Advi

A

dnesday, 

Mateo Co

1250 San 

San Car

s: Septembe

e PAC Agen

and Reques

sory Pan

Agenda

 

January 1

unty Tran

Carlos Av

rlos, CA  9

 

er 21, 2011

nda of Janua

sts 

nel Meet

11, 7:00pm

nsit Distri

venue 

94070 

ary 20, 2012

 

ting 

m 

ict 

2 

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

1 of 4

Meeting: Date: DRC Citizen Advisory Panel September 21, 2011 Location: Time: Silliman Center Meeting Start: 7:00 P.M. 6800 Mowry Avenue Meeting Adjourn: 8:20 P.M. Newark, CA Minutes Prepared By: Issue Date: Paula Hirsch November 22, 2011

Attendees (sign-in sheet attached)

CAP Members Tim Pitsker, Fremont Mike Dubinsky, Fremont Eric Hentschke, Newark Barry Ferrier, Union City John Repar, Union City Malcolm Dudley, Atherton Arthur “Jack” Ringham, Atherton Thaddeus Norman, Menlo Park Jim Bigelow, Redwood City Nancy Radcliffe, Redwood City

Project Staff Marian Lee, Joint Powers Board Aidan Hughes, Joint Powers Board Donna Chung, Joint Powers Board Bill Hurrell, Wilbur Smith Associates Paula Hirsch, Wilbur Smith Associates Cathy LaFata, Louis Berger Associates Members of the Public Gia Daniller, Daniller Consulting

Meeting Purpose: Review the information to be provided to the PAC on September 30.

1. Minutes from June 15, 2011

Minutes were approved.

2. Public Comments

There were no public comments.

3. Action Item: Review of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) agenda for September 30, 2011.

a. Chairperson’s comments:

• None

b. Project Manager Comments:

• It was requested that the CAP review the information item on the environmental document out of the order shown in the agenda. The interface between the DRC project and the recent blended Caltrain/High Speed Rail proposal could then be discussed as requested by the members of the CAP prior to the meeting.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

2 of 4

c. Information Items

i. Environmental Document Update

The preparation of the environmental document is proceeding as planned. Work is underway on completing the various technical studies required to support the environmental analysis.

The project team held an interagency meeting hosted by the FTA. All the federal, state and local regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the project were invited. There was a good turnout. The team presented the project alternatives and reviewed the potential environmental impacts with the agencies. This meeting kicks off an ongoing process of coordination and information sharing with the regulatory agencies. Follow-up meetings are being planned based on the comments received at the meeting.

To meet the goals of NEPA, CEQA, and SAFETEA‐LU, a Public Involvement Plan

has been prepared to lay the framework for upcoming Public Information Meetings. Five public meetings are planned for municipalities where stations would be located.

The Draft EIS/EIR is on schedule and will be completed in Winter 2011/2012.

ii. Discussion

M. Dubinsky asked whether staff would be updating information included in the preliminary EIR regarding an estimate of total train trips on both the Oakland and the Niles subdivision, and taking account of Capitol Corridor, Dumbarton Rail, and freight? C. LaFata confirmed that this was the case.

B. Ferrier asked if Facebook anticipated traffic is in the EIS. A. Hughes replied that land use projections are based on the ABAG 2009 land use projections. They didn’t know about Facebook at that time. However staff will include comments on the Facebook proposals in the EIR.

C. LaFata discussed stakeholder and public outreach, reaching out to other entities including stakeholders in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Newark, Fremont and Union City. She indicated that five public information meetings are to be held the last week of October and first week of November to introduce the project to people to get them involved in the process. She requested that the CAP members assist by providing the names of the stakeholders and members of the public that should be invited to the meetings.

A. Ringham initiated a discussion concerning how the EIS was going to address the interface between the DRC project and the proposed blended Caltrain/HSR project. A. Hughes replied that HSR is not part of the baseline No Build scenario for this EIS because there continues to be so much uncertainty as to the exact nature of the HSR project. The EIS will include a discussion of the implications of the HSR proposal as related to the DRC project alternatives.

A. Ringham stated that he recently attended M. Lee’s presentation to the PCC group about the blended system and interface with Dumbarton rail was not mentioned. M. Lee responded that the Caltrain/HSR team is looking at ways to accommodate both HSR and Caltrain. The work so far does not include Dumbarton service. That work is planned as the second part of the analysis.

A. Ringham stated that another critical issue is at the Redwood Junction where, in order to permit Dumbarton rail to merge with southbound Caltrain an additional track would need to be added to the southern border of Atherton. The citizens of Atherton

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

3 of 4

would not be in favor of this. Mr. Ringham asked whether with all the outstanding issues on HSR does it still make sense to continue furthering the Dumbarton Rail study. M. Lee responded that it is not yet known whether more tracks will be required in Atherton or not. It is too early to draw conclusions and there is no need to delay the DRC project because this can all be worked out as more information is available.

B. Ferrier commented that staff time is being used to analyze a circumstance that may become antiquated. If you have a project with Caltrain and HSR merge, then you start over again spending more taxpayers’ money. M. Lee responded that this is the challenge that all environmental documents have. Typically the environmental document analyzes impacts that you know at the time and if additional impacts are identified, an addendum is prepared.

An open discussion with many participants ensued regarding the merits of continuing with the preparation of the EIS versus the option of delaying or cancelling the project. A. Ringham made the motion that the CAP recommend to PAC that they put the DRC EIS study on hold because of the myriad of uncertainties of other projects. M. Dubinsky seconded the motion. T. Pitsker stated the he objected to the motion. A vote was taken after much discussion with 2 in favor and 7 opposed. The motion was defeated.

d. Action Items

i. Expanded Bus Proposal

The Expanded Bus Proposal was presented to the PAC in June. There was general consensus that the Expanded Bus Proposal was acceptable with some minor requests for additional analysis and information. The PAC requested (a) that staff review the implications if route DB3 was eliminated; and (b) that the overall plan be reviewed to see if it could be made more robust including an examination of increasing service coverage. In response to these requests several improvements to the plan have been developed in coordination with AC Transit, MTC and DBROC.

The revised plan has now been developed, it includes the following:

• Route DB3 will be eliminated because there is ample reverse direction service incorporated in routes DB and DB1.

• Route DB will be shortened to terminate at Stanford University and the portion of the route extending to Palo Alto Research Park would be eliminated because this is served by route DB1.

• Route DB1 will not change in terms of its coverage, but the hours of service will be increased from 5 to 14 hours a day and the peak headway will be reduced to 20 minutes from 30 minutes and there will be additional reverse direction service provided.

This plan represents a 47% increase in service compared to the existing service. The operating costs for this plan will be about $2.5 to 3 million compared to the current cost of $1.4 million. These costs are still well below the $5.5 million in DRC RM2 operating funds which are available. The PAC will be asked to approve the plan and to forward the attached request for the RM2 funding to MTC for their consideration. It was noted that on September 15th DBROC will approve agreements for the new contractor to be in place by Dec. 19. AC Transit will continue to administer the service. DBROC will also be asked to approve the expanded service and support the PAC request for RM2 funds.

There was no discussion on this item.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

4 of 4

ii. Station Site Screening

The project team conducted an evaluation of the seven station sites which were identified for consideration in the DRC EIS process. The evaluation considered the environmental, land use, engineering, ridership and operations implications of each of the station sites. Meetings were held with each of the cities and with MTC and ABAG to review the results of the analysis. The analysis concluded that both the East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks stations should not be carried forward as station sites. The Union City, Fremont, Newark, Menlo Park and Redwood City stations will be included in the definition of the rail alternatives to be considered in the EIS. The PAC will be asked to confirm these recommendations.

Discussion

M. Dudley commented that East Palo Alto was the most transit dependent community in the DRC. Through the transit station study East Palo Alto had an opportunity to look at the DRC project as a way to connect the community with BART and the East Bay. How will the DRC project benefit them if there is no station? W. Hurrell responded that the Menlo Park Station at Willow Road is very close to East Palo Alto.

A. Ringham asked if there would be one or two stations in Menlo Park. W. Hurrell responded that while two sites are under consideration on either side of Willow Road, only one will ultimately be selected for the station. The City of Menlo Park is working now to come up with their preferred site.

iii. Alternatives Screening Process

The project team conducted a screening analysis of the alternatives to be considered in the EIS. The purpose of this was to confirm that it would be appropriate to continue to study the three rail alternatives and the TSM bus alternative in the EIS. The analysis concluded that none of the alternatives has a deficiency so serious as to warrant removing it from consideration. However, the rail shuttle alternative has potential impacts on the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge and on downtown Redwood City which are potentially significant. This alternative also had the best ridership of all the alternatives and for this reason it was decided not to remove it from consideration. The project team will work closely with Redwood City staff to attempt to resolve the issues at Redwood City. Mitigations to address the impacts on the wildlife refuge will also be studied.

Discussion

B. Ferrier asked if the berm on which the Dumbarton rail traverses the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge is wide enough to accommodate the double tracking required for the rail shuttle alternative. W. Hurrell responded that it is wide enough. The problem is that the berm is causing environmental damage because it blocks tidal flows. The original commuter rail project was to remove part of the berm to allow improved flow. The double tracking would make this more difficult.

CAP members asked for information on the impact of the rail alternatives on Redwood City. A. Hughes commented that staff continue to review the impacts at the Redwood City Station including ongoing discussions with Redwood City.

Adjourn 8:40 P.M.

Attachments: Sign-in sheet

 

Policy Advisory Committee 

January 20, 2012, 1:00 PM 

San Mateo County Transit District 

1250 San Carlos Avenue 

San Carlos, CA 94070 

   

 

1. 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 September 30,  2011 Meeting 

 

7. Report of the Citizens Advisory Panel 

 

8. Information Items 

a. Environmental Process Update 

b. Stakeholder Meetings and Coordination  

c. ACTC Measure B Update 

d. MTC RM2 Funding Update 

 

9. Correspondence 

 

10. Requests from Members 

 

11. Next Meeting – Purpose and Date 

 

12. Adjourn