DOCSLIB.ORG

Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 2, 2020 Regular Meeting 6:00 P.M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 2, 2020 Regular Meeting 6:00 P.M Town of Atherton ATHERTON RAIL COMMITTEE MINUTES TUESDAY, June 2, 2020 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. This meeting was held virtually This meeting is compliant with the Governors Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 4, 2020 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Brown Act. The purpose of this is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. The meeting will be held by tele or video conferencing. The public may participate via: Zoom Meeting. Join Zoom Meeting: Remote Public Comments: One tap mobile Meeting participants are encouraged to submit +16699006833,,97996012676# US (San Jose) public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. The following email address will be Dial by your location monitored during the meeting and public +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) comments received will be read into the record. Meeting ID: 979 9601 2676 Email: [email protected] Weblink: https://ci-atherton-ca.zoom.us/j/97996012676 1. ROLL CALL Committee Members: Alex Keh (Chair), Scott Lane (Vice Chair), Malcolm Dudley, Jack Ringham, Greg Conlon, Paul Jones, Nerissa Dexter, Jim Janz, John Maulbetsch, James Massey Councilmember Liaisons: Council Member Cary Wiest Staff: Robert Ovadia 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS – For items not on the agenda. (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Committee on any matter on the agenda that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Rail Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from acting on items not listed on the Agenda.) None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 4, 2020 Recommendation: Approve minutes for February 4, 2020 Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes – June 2, 2020 Page 2 Approval of February 4, 2020 Minutes: Approved Motion: John Maulbetsch Second: Paul Jones Abstained: Alex Keh and Nerissa Dexter 4. PRESENTATIONS – High-Speed Rail Authority (20 min.) Update on HSR Activities, 2020 Business Plan, and EIR/EIS release and Public Input Opportunities Boris Lipkin, California High-Speed Rail Authority Northern California Regional Director provided an update on current High-Speed Rail Authority activities including: 2020 Business Plan Expenditures Status of Project Segments Status of Environmental Clearances San Francisco – San Jose Project Segment o Environmental Document . Overview of Alternatives . Structure of EIR/EIS . Release – Anticipated July 10, 2020, 45-day comment period . Public Comments – Accepted through August 24, 2020 . Anticipated Public Workshops 5. REGULAR AGENDA 5a. Caltrain Station Closure (10 min.) The Committee will receive a brief update on the proposal received from Caltrain to close the Atherton Caltrain Station. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss this item. Not an action item. Council Subcommittee has been formed and assigned to coordinate with Caltrain regarding station closure. Memorandum of Understanding being developed with Caltrain. Caltrain has initiated required analysis to support closure. Roland Lebrun indicated that he gave a presentation to the Redwood City City Council regarding a new Caltrain/HSR/Dumbarton station at Redwood Junction. Offered to provide the same presentation to the Rail Committee. 5b. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Update and Discussion (5 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on current activities related to Caltrain’s electrification of the peninsula corridor. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss current and upcoming activities as well as related items. Not an action item. Caltrain’s Contractor, Balfour Beatty, has been working in the vicinity of Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes – June 2, 2020 Page 3 the Watkins Avenue Crossing including new communications building and trenching for conduits to the gates at the corners. No schedule provided yet regarding the installation of the remaining foundations and standing of the poles. 5c. High-Speed Rail Update and EIR/EIS Discussion (30 min.) The Committee will receive an update on the High-Speed Rail Project including procurement status and anticipated timing of the business plan and environmental documents associated with the Northern segment. Due to the anticipated timing of the public comment periods, the Committee may discuss how comments are to be submitted by committee members and designate a committee member to aggregate comments and work with staff to draft a response letter for consideration by Council. The Committee also may act to authorize a recommendation to Council to formally send the aggregated response letter to the High-Speed Rail Authority. EIR/EIS for the SF/SJ segment anticipated for release on July 10, 2020, with comments due by August 24, 2020. Committee members encouraged to review the EIR/EIS and submit comments to staff. Subcommittee formed (Maulbetsch, Jones, Keh) to review the comments and develop a draft comment letter for the Committee’s review at the August meeting. 5d. Caltrain Update (10 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on current issues and considerations at Caltrain including governance structure and proposed sales tax measure. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss current and upcoming Caltrain issues as well as related items. Not an action item. Caltrain is working on a potential 1/8 cent sales tax funding measure for the November 2020 ballot. To be placed on the ballot, measure would need approval from three County Boards of Supervisors (San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara), SamTrans, and the three County transit authorities. Filing deadline is August 7, 2020. Caltrain has been reviewing and exploring changes to its governance structure as part of the development of its 2040 Business Plan. Caltrain is investigating the potential separation from SamTrans. This potential change is being pushed by San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties to allow them greater input in how Caltrain runs. PA Post Article regarding ridership and budgetary shortfalls. 5e. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Update (5 min.) The Committee will receive a brief report on the current status of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. The Committee will have the opportunity to discuss the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, current and upcoming activities as well as related items. Not an action item. Town of Atherton Rail Committee Minutes – June 2, 2020 Page 4 Facebook is considering backing out of the Cross-Bay Transit Partnership. They want to focus on local community issues and may withdraw their financial support for continuing the environmental review process. 6. COMMITTEE AND STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS None. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Presentation from Rolland Lebrun that he presented to Redwood City High-Speed Rail Authority EIR/EIS for San Francisco – San Jose Segment 9. NEXT MEETING – August 4, 2020 10. ADJOURN Next meeting is scheduled for: August 4, 2020 Please contact the City Clerk’s office at (650) 752-0500 with any questions. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 752-0500. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (29 CRF 35.104 ADA Title II) NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION Atherton Rail Committee June 2, 2020 STATEWIDE PROGRAM 2 DRAFT 2020 BUSINESS PLAN • Required by PUC Section 185033 » Foundational document for implementing the program » Required every two years (even years) • Includes: » Updated capital cost and other estimates » Updated ridership and revenue forecasts » Summary of progress over last two years » Review of current challenges and how to address them • Released in mid February and requires 60 day public review • Public Comment period extended to June 1 • Due to the Legislature July 1, 2020 DRAFT 2020 BUSINESS PLAN 3 LEADERSHIP IN SUSTAINABILITY • California is the national leader on clean transportation in the era of climate change • Meeting our mobility, economic, and environmental goals • More than $6.4 Billion has been invested in planning and building high-speed rail DRAFT 2020 BUSINESS PLAN 4 A GOOD INVESTMENT Cost of High-Speed Rail Phase 1 compared to cost of equivalent highway/air capacity DRAFT 2020 BUSINESS PLAN 5 WHERE WE ARE IN 2020 • 350 miles of electrified high-speed rail on the way to or under construction » 171 miles between Merced and Bakersfield » 51 miles of the Caltrain Corridor being electrified » 130 miles connecting Las Vegas to Southern California • Remainder of Phase 1 (San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim) environmental clearance underway » 5 Draft EIR/EIS documents planned in 2020 DRAFT 2020 BUSINESS PLAN 7 LOOKING AHEAD TO 2022 • 350 miles of high-speed rail under construction » First high-speed trains under development • Full Phase 1 environmental clearance complete » Advancing strategic investments » Pursuing additional funding DRAFT 2020 BUSINESS PLAN 8 MOMENTUM PICKING UP IN THE FIELD AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURES BY QUARTER STATEWIDE PROGRAM 9 MOMENTUM PICKING UP IN THE FIELD WEEKLY AVERAGE WORKERS DISPATCHED First week of April was an all time high of 821 workers dispatched STATEWIDE PROGRAM 10 MOMENTUM PICKING UP IN THE FIELD STRUCTURE AND GUIDEWAY PROGRESS 2019/2020 As of first week of April up to 77 miles of Guideway and 39 Structures underway and/or complete STATEWIDE PROGRAM 11 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT 2018/19 • Estimates the economic impacts of planning and constructing a high-speed rail system California Statewide Economic Impacts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SBC Executivesummfac
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences
    CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination and Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Accountant’s Report ................................................................................................................. 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule (On a Budgetary Basis) ........................................................................... 2 Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................ 3 - 10 Supplementary Information – Program Summaries ............................................................................. 11 - 30 Supplementary Information – 2000 Measure A Ballot ........................................................................ 31 - 33 Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee 3331 North First Street San Jose, California 95134 We have examined the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) compliance with the requirements of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A Program), a fund of VTA, for the year ended June 30, 2019. The
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study
    Draft Summary Report Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study October 2019 Redwood City Transit Center Redesign Study Summary Report Background ......................................................................... 1 Figure 1: Location and Components of the Existing Project History ................................................................ 1 Transit Center................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Existing Transit Center Site Configuration – Project Goals ................................................................... 2 Looking Northeast from El Camino Real .................... 13 Study Description............................................................ 4 Figure 3: Phase 1 – Short Term: Existing Transit Center Site Improvements ...................................................... 15 Existing Conditions ............................................................. 5 Figure 4: Phase 2 – Long Term: Existing Transit Center Existing Transit Services ................................................ 5 Site Improvements ....................................................... 17 Parking ............................................................................ 6 Figure 5: Perry Street and Caltrain Parking Lot Configuration – View from the Arguello Street Transit Center Amenities ................................................ 6 Side of the Site ............................................................. 18 Land Use and Zoning ...................................................... 6 Figure
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Scoping Report
    CORRIDOR PROJECT Environmental Scoping Report March 2007 Federal Transit Administration & Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board PREPARED BY: Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. in cooperation with Parsons Transportation Group Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Environmental Scoping Report Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................4 2. PURPOSE AND NOTIFICATION OF SCOPING.................................5 NEPA/CEQA Notices................................................................................................................5 Press Releases and Newspaper Notices.....................................................................................5 Direct Mail Notification...............................................................................................................6 Transit Rider Outreach.................................................................................................................6 Internet Outreach..........................................................................................................................6 3. SCOPING MEETINGS ..........................................................7 Meeting Format and Content......................................................................................................7 Summary of Meeting Comments (Verbal and Written) ..........................................................8 Newark Public Scoping Meeting November
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Community Needs Assessment
    Southeast San Mateo County CBTP Community Needs Assessment INTRODUCTION This report documents existing demographic and transportation conditions in transportation-challenged communities in Southeast San Mateo County. The information will inform the Southeast San Mateo County Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) to be prepared by the San Mateo City/County Council of Governments (C/CAG). CBTPS AND THE LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM In 2001, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) concluded that community-oriented planning was required to address the travel needs of residents in low-income Bay Area neighborhoods. MTC implemented two complimentary programs designed to allocate funding for transportation improvement projects that are based on intensive outreach to low-income communities. The goal of the CBTP program is to improve mobility in “Communities of Concern” (COCs). These are neighborhoods defined by census tract-level factors that increase susceptibility to transportation access gaps such as high rates of minorities, low-income residents, seniors, and lack of car ownership. Per MTC guidelines, CBTPs require a diverse outreach plan to multiple community stakeholders, as well as coordination with local advisory committees. CBTPs facilitate the identification of projects that are eligible for funding under the Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP). The LTP was designed to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income and other challenged communities. Per its 2018 guidelines, projects that are eligible for funding by the LTP must: . Be developed through an inclusive planning process that engages a broad range of stakeholders. Improve a range of transportation choices by adding new or expanded services. Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified in CBTPs or other substantive local planning efforts involving focused outreach to low-income populations.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Redwood City
    City of Redwood City Proposal for Ferry Financial Feasibility Study & Cost-Benefit and Economic Impact Analyses October 11, 2018 Acknowledgments City of Redwood City Council Members Project Team Diane Howard, Mayor Christopher Dacumos, Management Analyst II, City of Redwood City Shelly Masur, Vice Mayor Jessica Manzi, Transportation Manager, City of Alicia C. Aguirre, Council Member Redwood City Ian Bain, Council Member Radha Mehta, Management Fellow, City of Janet Borgens, Council Member Redwood City Giselle Hale, Council Member Kristine A. Zortman, Executive Director, Port of Redwood City Diana Reddy, Council Member Kevin Connolly, Planning & Development Port of Redwood City Commission Manager, WETA Arthi Krubanandh, Transportation Planner, Ralph A. Garcia, Chair WETA Richard (Dick) Claire, Vice Chair Chad Mason, Senior Planner & Project R. Simms Duncan, Port Commissioner Manager, WETA Richard “Dick” Dodge, Port Commissioner James Connolly, Project Manager, COWI Jessica Rivas, Marine Engineer, COWI Lorianna Kastrop, Port Commissioner Ashleigh Kanat, Executive Vice President, EPS San Mateo County Transportation Jason Moody, Principal, EPS Authority Kate Traynor, Senior Associate, EPS Jennifer Williams, Analyst II, San Mateo County Lindsey Klein, Project Planner, PlaceWorks Transportation Authority Charlie Knox, Principal, PlaceWorks Peter Skinner, Director of Grants and Funding, Bill Hurrell, Vice President, CDM Smith San Mateo County Transportation Authority Piyali Chaudhuri, Project Manager, CDM Smith Peter Martin, Project Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Corridor South Bay Connect
    5.1 Capitol Corridor South Bay Connect ACTC Multi‐Modal Committee October 12, 2020 Agenda Project Overview • Station Planning Environmental Review Process Communications & Engagement • Concerns Heard Questions & Discussion Month Date, Year 1 10/11/2020 Project Overview Improving Rail Operations South Bay Connect – A key rail improvement project that will: . Enhance reliability, access, and travel time for Capitol Corridor riders . Reduce train congestion between Oakland and San Jose . Improve rail operations for passenger & freight service . Reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality Month Date, Year 2 10/11/2020 Project Description . Capitol Corridor route relocation (Oakland Coliseum to Newark) . Two discontinued Capitol Corridor stations (Hayward & Fremont‐Centerville) . New Ardenwood intermodal station (existing transbay bus & shuttle connections) . No frequency increase in Capitol Corridor service or change to freight operations . Potential improvements to UP rail lines (Industrial Parkway & Shinn Connection) . Pending UP modeling and discussions with UP Future Rail Mobility & Efficiency South Bay Connect – One of several transportation improvements identified within local, regional & state plans to provide efficient travel options & transport of goods in our growing region. 2014: Capitol Corridor Vision Plan Update 2016: Capitol Corridor Vision Implementation Plan 2017: Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study 2018: Alameda CTC Rail Safety Enhancement Program California State Rail Plan Collective plans establish clear roadmap for implementation over time Month Date, Year 3 10/11/2020 7 Preliminary future market demand assessment results from the Southern Alameda County Integrated Rail Study: Trips through Southern Alameda County Serving Market Demand Month Date, Year 4 10/11/2020 Union Pacific (UP): Owner / Operator Shared use of rail lines: . Capitol Corridor .
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco to San Jose Project Section
    California High-Speed Rail Authority San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Deliberative and Confidential Draft Draft Historic Architectural Survey Report May 2019 Table of Contents Deliberative and Confidential Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................1-1 1.1 Section 106 and CEQA Cultural Resources ............................................... 1-3 1.2 CEQA-Only Cultural Resources ................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Properties in the Area of Potential Effects that Require Phased Identification ............................................................................................... 1-4 2 REGULATORY SETTING .....................................................................................2-1 2.1 National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) ................ 2-1 2.1.1 Implementing Regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R. Part 800) ............................. 2-1 2.2 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................. 2-2 2.3 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303) ..... 2-2 2.4 California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Res. Code § 21083.2) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5) ........ 2-3 2.5 California Register of Historical Resources (Cal. Public Res. Code § 5024.1 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 4850) .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR PROJECT January 2020
    DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR PROJECT January 2020 PROJECT NEED • Local population and employment growth • Existing automobile congestion • Lack of multimodal transportation options • Insufficient east-west transit connectivity • Underutilized Dumbarton Rail Bridge PROJECT BENEFITS • Enhance mobility between the East Bay and the Peninsula • Connect to existing regional transit networks • Provide public mass transit system • Reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS • Accommodate anticipated $3 Billion (Subject to change) population and employment growth ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT Projected Increases by 2040 24,000 trips/day 7.3 million annual trips +18.2% 2020 500,000 +11.8% Planned Operation by 2028 2040 0 Jobs Housing Units San Mateo County Source: Plan Bay Area 2040 CONTACT US: www.crossbaytransit.com [email protected] www.samtrans.com/dumbarton [email protected] DUMBARTON RAIL CORRIDOR PROJECT January 2020 ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE (Subject to change) Identification Public Draft Final Environmental Alternatives Permitting of Preferred Environmental Environmental Scoping for Evaluation and Approvals Alternative Document Document Spring 2020 Summer 2020 Spring 2021 Summer 2021 Spring 2022 Summer 2022 PROJECT PARTNERS REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY The San Mateo County Transit District (District) and Cross BayTransit Partners, LLC (CBTP), a partnership created by Plenary and Facebook, are engaged in a public-private partnership (P3) to improve transportation in the South San Francisco Bay Area. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project would provide a new mass transit system between the San Francisco Peninsula and the East Bay, connecting the Caltrain Sequoia/ Redwood City station to the Union City BART station. Between Redwood City and Newark, the Project would primarily utilize an existing railroad right-of-way owned by the District.
    [Show full text]
  • Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Advisory Group Meetings Summary Report
    Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Advisory Group Meetings Summary Report June 3, 2019 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Project Overview 3 Advisory Group Meetings 3 Meeting Materials 3 Questions and Answers Summary 4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure 4 Communities of Concern 4 EIR and Environmental Concerns 4 Project Costs and Allocation of Funds 5 Regional and Local Connectivity 5 Project Alignment and Train Stations 5 Train Technology 5 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 6 Next Steps 6 Appendix 7 Appendix A – Meeting Attendees Appendix B – Participation Invite Appendix C – RSVP invitation Appendix D – Agenda Appendix E – PowerPoint Presentation 2 Project Overview The San Mateo County Transit District (District) and Cross Bay Transit Partners LLC (CBTP), a new company created by Plenary and Facebook, are engaged in a public-private partnership (P3) to improve transportation along the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC) in the South San Francisco Bay area. Together, the District and CBTP are exploring new, environmentally appropriate alternatives for a high-quality, high-capacity public transit system (Project). The objective of the Project is to enhance regional mobility, increase connectivity between modes of travel in and around the DRC and bring transit closer to key origins and destinations on the Peninsula and East Bay. Advisory Group Meetings Two advisory group meetings and a briefing for local elected officials and staff were held on June 3, 2019 at the District’s headquarters (1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070). A total of 30 individuals attended the meetings, which were held at different times throughout the day to accommodate three distinct groups.
    [Show full text]
  • CMEQ) Committee
    Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colma Daly City East Palo Alto Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo San Mateo County South San Francisco Woodside AGENDA Congestion Management & Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 Time: 3:00 p.m. Place: San Mateo County Center 455 County Center, Room 101 (1st Floor), Redwood City, California 94063 1. Public comment on items not on the agenda. Presentations are limited to 3 mins 2. Issues from the May 2019 C/CAG Board meeting: Information (Lacap) No Materials • Approved – Reauthorizing the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan for four years from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2023 • Approved – TDA Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Call for Projects FY19/20 Cycle • Approved – Cooperative Agreement between Caltrans, SMCTA, and C/CAG for the construction phase of US 101 Express Lane (Northern Segment) 3. Approval of minutes of April 29, 2019 meeting. Action (Garbarino) Pages 1 – 4 4. Receive a presentation on the US 101 Managed Lane Project north of Information (Higaki) Pages 5 - 6 I-380. 5. Review and recommend endorsement of the list of regionally Action (Lacap) Pages 7 - 15 significant projects to be submitted to MTC for the update of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) also known as Plan Bay Area 2050. 6. Executive Director Report Information (Wong) No Materials 7. Member comments and announcements Information (Garbarino) 8. Adjournment and establishment of next meeting date: Action (Garbarino) June 24, 2019 PUBLIC NOTICING: All notices of C/CAG regular Board meetings, standing committee meetings, and special meetings will be posted at the San Mateo County Transit District Office, 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA, and on C/CAG’s website at: http://www.ccag.ca.gov.
    [Show full text]