Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting 

Agenda 

 

Wednesday, October 10th 2012, 7:00pm 

San Mateo County Transit District 

Gallagher Conference Room, 3rd Floor 

1250 San Carlos Avenue 

San Carlos, CA 94070 

  

1. Call to Order 

 

2. Roll Call 

 

3. Approval of Minutes: May 9, 2012 

 

4. Public Comments 

 

5. Action Items 

 

a. Review of the PAC Agenda of October 19, 2012 

 

6. Member Comments and Requests 

 

7. Future Meetings 

 

Adjourn 

 

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

1 of 4

Meeting: Date: DRC Citizens Advisory Panel May 9, 2012 Location: Time: Silliman Aquatic Center Meeting Start: 7:03 P.M. 6800 Mowry Avenue Meeting Adjourn: 8:16 P.M. Newark, CA Minutes Prepared By: Issue Date: Paula Hirsch June 22, 2012

Attendees (sign-in sheet attached)

CAP Members Tim Pitsker, Fremont Mike Dubinsky, Fremont Eric Hentschke, Newark Mark Gonzales, Newark Barry Ferrier, Union City Malcolm Dudley, Atherton Thaddeus Norman, Menlo Park Jim Bigelow, Redwood City Nancy Radcliffe, Redwood City

Project Staff Hilda Lafebre, Joint Powers Board Bill Hurrell, CDM Smith (formerly Wilbur Smith Associates) Paula Hirsch, CDM Smith (formerly Wilbur Smith Associates) Members of the Public Roland Lebrun Diane Shaw

Meeting Purpose: Review the information to be provided to the PAC on May 18, 2012.

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Minutes from January 11, 2012

Minutes were approved.

4. Public Comments

There were no public comments.

5. Action Item: Review of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) agenda for May 18, 2012

A presentation was provided on the three information items which would be discussed with the PAC.

A. Information Item - Environmental Process Update FTA Review and Coordination • The FTA incrementally reviewed DEIS/EIR draft chapters between January and April. • Minor comments to draft chapters were received. • The team met with the FTA on March 28 to discuss the document, the status of

Section 106 and Section 4(f) coordination efforts. • FTA Region 9 is required to send the environmental justice chapter to a civil rights

specialist in Washington, D.C.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

2 of 4

Section 404 Interagency Coordination • The team made a presentation of the project at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Interagency meeting on April 11. • Meeting attendees included USACE, EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, Coast Guard,

BCDC, Regional Water Quality Board. • Presentation provided information regarding the range of alternatives and on the

planned breaches of the railroad embankment separating the marsh areas. Regulatory Agency Coordination Takeaways • The agencies had no objections to using the alternatives under consideration in the

DEIS/EIR for eventual permitting purposes. • The Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge (Fish & Wildlife) staff supports the embankment

breaches concept as a marsh enhancement measure. • The discussions with the agencies have progressed beyond impact analysis to

mitigation. • The U.S. Coast Guard sees no navigation issues related to the bridges. Alternatives Performance Summary – the evaluation of the alternatives in terms of their impacts on the natural and physical environment are summarized as follows: • No Build – does not meet purpose & need; causes direct impacts from bridges’

removal. • TSM – partially meets purpose & need; causes direct impacts from bridges’ removal. • Rail Alternatives – Commuter, Shuttle & Hybrid meet purpose & need. Rail

Commuter causes the least overall environmental harm of the Rail Alternatives. Administrative Draft EIS/EIR Status • The internal Administrative Draft has been finalized but not submitted to FTA. • Additional studies are needed to address the implications of a DRC and Blended

High Speed Rail/Caltrain System interface. • Results of the studies and necessary modifications will be incorporated into the

Administrative Draft. • Submission of Administrative Draft to the FTA and publication of the document will

occur when the additional studies are complete and incorporated. • Work on the draft EIS/EIR will be suspended until these additional studies are

complete and the necessary changes to the document can be defined. Next Steps • Continuing with NEPA Sections 106, 4(f) and 404 processes. • CalMod to proceed with operational analysis for the DRC & Blended System. • Determine how the document will be completed based on additional studies results.

B. Discussion: T. Norman asked what would be the timeframe of the bridge removal. H. Lafebre responded that if the result of the environmental process is to select either the No Build or the TSM alternative, our agreement with the Coast Guard stipulates that the bridges must be removed. The time frame would be subject to negotiation with the Coast Guard. T. Pitsker inquired if San Mateo County would be responsible for the cost of removing the bridges.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

3 of 4

H. Lafebre responded that there would be an impact to the funding agencies in regard to the cost, but it has not been determined where the money would come from to remove the bridges. M. Gonzales asked for clarification regarding the delay in finalizing the environmental document, the draft is finalized, but the JPB says you must do more. H. Lafebre responded that the draft EIS has not yet been reviewed by the FTA. Before we submit it to them, we need to do some more studies to determine how the DRC project can be integrated with the blended Caltrain/HSR project. When we have this information, we can make the necessary changes to the DEIS and submit it to the FTA for their review. These studies will help us to be better prepared for the public hearing and comment process. We anticipate three to four months before we get results, at which time we can advise the CAP members on the new time frame. C. Stakeholder Meetings and Coordination H. Lafebre explained that we have continued with regulatory coordination, speaking with organizations and cities, and have provided information to them. There was no discussion. D. DBROC Update W. Hurrell explained that the planned expanded DB bus improvements will be implemented on July 1. E. Discussion

B. Ferrier expressed concern that as a member of the public he finds it very difficult to get information directly from DBROC. He has attempted to get on their mailing list for meetings and hearings, but he finds out after the fact that meeting have occurred that he was not informed of. He would like to request that a representative from DBROC attend these CAP meetings in the future.

J. Bigelow commented that the funding for DBROC bus approved by MTC is up to $5.5 million per year. This morning at MTC there was a $2.1 million appropriation to fund DB and DB1 bus service. Because the MTC board is allocating and approving the funds, we have a way of getting the attention of the DBROC staff that we need to be informed. DBROC should be more accountable to the PAC because they are spending the funds intended for the DRC project.

W. Hurrell indicated that a representative from DBROC will be at the next PAC meeting.

F. Action Item – ACTC Ballot Measure Endorsement H. Lafebre reported that the PAC will be asked to consider an action item endorsing the ACTC Measure B3 ballot initiative. ACTC Executive Director, Art Dau, will be there to provide a summary of the measure. M. Dubinsky noted that some of the members of the PAC are not members of Alameda County.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes

4 of 4

W. Hurrell responded that this is why Art Dau will be there, to answer their questions. B. Ferrier made the motion that the CAP recommend PAC’s endorsement of Measure B3. M. Dubinsky seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

6. Member Comments and Requests

M. Dubinsky made the following comment regarding the mailing of notices relative to the EIS process. There is a need to expand the area that will receive the notices. The last time, for the public meeting in 2011, the mailing did not get to neighborhoods that would have been interested. He would be willing to review the target areas for the mailings.

7. Future Meetings

H. Lafebre explained that future meetings will be scheduled once we get guidance from the PAC. We will communicate to the CAP and the PDT when to meet next.

Adjourn 8:16 P.M. Attachments: Sign-in sheet

Policy Advisory Committee

October 19th 2012 – 1:30 pm

1250 San Carlos Avenue- San Carlos

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 May 18, 2012 Meeting

7. Report of the Citizens Advisory Panel

8. Information Items

a. CalMod-Blended System Study Results

b. Final Draft EIS/EIR for FTA review - Schedule

c. DBROC Update

9. Action Item

10. Correspondence

11. Requests from Members

12. Next Meeting – Purpose and Date

13. Adjourn