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 15, 2006 8 Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting, November 16, 2006 9 Fremont Public Information Meeting, November 29, 2006 10 Agency Scoping Meeting, Menlo Park, November 16, 2006 10

4. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE...... 12 Letters and E-mails ...... 12 Letters from Resource Agencies, Responsible Agencies, and Jurisdictional Entities ...... 12 Federal Agencies 12 State Agencies 15 Regional and Local Agencies 16

Appendix A

MEDIA ADVISORIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

DIRECT M AILER

DISPLAY BOARDS EXHIBITED AT PUBLIC SCOPING AND INFORMATION MEETINGS

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON DUMBARTION R AIL CORRIDOR PROJECT

SCOPING MEETING HANDOUTS

WALLGRAPHIC IMAGES FROM PUBLIC M EETINGS

AGENCY SCOPING MEETING N OTES, MENLO PARK, NOVEMBER 16, 2006

DUMBARTON RAIL POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE A GENDA

Appendix B

COMMENT FORMS Newark Public Scoping Meeting Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting Fremont Public Information Meeting

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

Overview of Scoping Process

The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with local agencies, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC) Project. The project will extend rail service for approximately 21 miles between Redwood City and Union City by reconstructing an existing rail bridge next to the Dumbarton Bridge (State Route 84) and using existing rail right-of-way leading to and from the reconstructed bridge. The corridor is owned by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) from Redwood Junction to Newark Junction and by the Union Pacific Railroad east of Newark Junction. The purpose of the project is to link the East Bay and the West Bay by extending rail service across southern San Francisco Bay. The extension will connect existing public transportation services, such as BART, Altamont Commuter Express, Capitol Corridor, Caltrain, and regional bus service.

A Scoping process was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register, and elected officials and various agencies were contacted by mail to notify them of the intention to prepare the environmental document and of the Scoping process. Eight federal agencies were invited to be cooperating agencies in preparing the environmental document. Notices of Preparation were distributed to State agencies through the Clearinghouse.

Two public scoping meetings were held on the following dates and at the following times and locations: Wednesday Nov. 15, 2006 Thursday Nov. 16, 2006 6:30 pm-8:30 pm 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Newark Community Center City of Menlo Park Senior Center 35501 Cedar Blvd. 110 Terminal Ave. Newark, CA 94560 Menlo Park, CA 94025

An agency scoping meeting was held from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm on Thursday Nov. 16, 2006 at the City of Menlo Park Senior Center.

The City of Fremont hosted a public information meeting about the project and the initiation of the environmental process from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm on Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006, at the Niles Elementary School. Caltrain staff were invited to present the project and receive community input at this meeting. At the request of participants, the Scoping comment period deadline was extended to facilitate receipt of comments generated by the Fremont meeting.

Public outreach for the Scoping process included newspaper advertisements, information flyers to transit riders, direct mail notification, a project web page and press releases. Announcements were also made at the October 17, 2006 DRC Project Development Team meeting and at the November 14, 2006 DRC Project Policy Advisory Committee meeting. Copies of noticing materials are included in Appendix A.

The purpose of the meetings was to present the proposed project and its components, describe the project alternatives under consideration, identify the environmental technical studies to be prepared, and obtain public comments on the alternatives and potential environmental impacts to be evaluated in the environmental document.

All of the meetings began with an open house during which participants visited information stations on project-related topics such as the project purpose and need and alternatives under consideration. Project staff were available to answer questions and provide information during the open house. Following the open house was a formal presentation about the proposed project, the environmental review, and the schedule. The meeting concluded with a formal public comment period.

The agency scoping meeting was more informal, enabling questions and discussions throughout the open house and presentation. Participants at all meetings were encouraged to submit comments in writing as well as orally. Comment forms were distributed and contact information provided.

Overview of Comments Received

A summary of the major comments received during the public comment periods, on comment forms submitted during the meetings, and in writing by mail or email follows. Caltrain retains a complete file of every comment, submitted by whatever means.

ƒ Other Alternatives Suggested – Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), re-route or extend ACE trains, extend BART, extend Dumbarton Express Service ƒ Modifications to Proposed Alternatives – Use electrified trains, make service bi- directional, add off-peak service, add a stop at Marsh Road, construct grade separations at major street crossings ƒ Noise & Vibration – impacts of DRC service, impacts of freight service ƒ Safety – impacts of DRC service, at grade crossings, impacts of freight service ƒ Other Potential Impacts of Freight Service – potential for accidents, hazardous wastes transport ƒ Traffic – potential for cross traffic delays at grade crossings, impacts on local circulation with traffic access to/egress from stations ƒ Wildlife and Wetlands – particularly impacts to Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge

ƒ Cost and Funding – including high project costs, costs and benefits of project, sufficient funding for mitigation measures ƒ Impact on Local Property Values – from DRC and/or freight service ƒ Elimination of Dumbarton Express Bus Service ƒ Environmental Justice ƒ Construction Phase Impacts

Overview of This Report

This report documents the Scoping process and reports on the timing, location, noticing, and content of the Scoping and public information meetings. It summarizes the major comments received during each meeting as well as the comments received after the meetings. Comments from agencies in response to the NOI and/or NOP are also summarized. Appendix A of this report provide copies of the media advisories and announcements, the mailer distributed along the proposed project corridor, the displays exhibited at the meetings, the PowerPoint presentation given at the meetings, and meeting handouts and other materials, including the “wallgraphic” of public comments created during the meetings. Appendix B contains copies of all the comment forms submitted at the end of each meeting.

1. INTRODUCTION

Planning for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project (DRC) began in 1991 with a study sponsored by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) that evaluated the feasibility of operating a commuter rail service in the corridor. The Dumbarton Commuter Service Feasibility Study recommended the rail service option as a long-term strategy, including future planned rail expansions. Pursuant to this long-term strategy, in 1994, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) purchased the DRC right-of-way between Redwood Junction and Newark Junction as an investment for future commuter rail service.

In 1997, SMCTA sponsored the Dumbarton Corridor Study to identify short- and long-term transit opportunities in coordination with other regional rail links. This study also concluded that rail service is a long-term solution and recommended that bus service be expanded as a short-term strategy.

Strategic planning for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor was guided by a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee. These committees consist of representatives from state, regional, and county transportation and transit agencies, as well as the affected cities on both sides of San Francisco Bay. SMCTA completed a Project Study Report (PSR) for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor in May 2004. The DRC Project Environmental Phase I work program included strategic planning level Alternatives Analysis that identified the most feasible alternatives for detailed environmental analysis along with the No Action Alternative. The project Purpose and Need statement that was presented during the Scoping process was also developed as part of the Environmental Phase I work. The Phase I Report was completed in March 2006; the PAC approved the Alternatives Analysis report on June 20, 2006.

2. PURPOSE AND N OTIFICATION OF S COPING

NEPA and CEQA require an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). Scoping helps to identify the range of alternatives to be considered, potentially significant environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures to be analyzed in the environmental document.

NEPA/CEQA Notices

Pursuant to NEPA, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2006. The NOI announced the intention of the Federal Transit Administration and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to prepare an EIS/EIR for the DRC project. It provided dates and contact information for written comments on the scope of the EIS and published the dates, locations and times for the public and agency scoping meetings. The NOI described the project corridor, proposed service, project purpose and need, alternatives, the EIS process and the role of participating agencies and the public.

Pursuant to CEQA, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report was distributed to State agencies through the State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Research) on November 1, 2006. NOP packages also were distributed to local and regional agencies, and representatives of interest groups and associations. Like the NOI, the NOP announced the intention of the Federal Transit Administration and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to prepare an EIS/EIR for the DRC project. It provided dates and contact information for written comments on the scope of the EIS and published the dates, locations and times for the public and agency scoping meetings. The NOP described the proposed project and alternatives and identified the probable environmental effects.

In addition to the NOI and NOP, letters were mailed to eight federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to project-related environmental issues, requesting that they participate as cooperating agencies. Further details on the cooperating agency invitations are provided in this report.

Press Releases and Newspaper Notices

Newspaper advertisements announcing the Scoping meetings were placed in three newspapers of general distribution: The San Francisco Chronicle and The Argus (November 1 and 8, 2006), and El Observador, a Spanish-English bilingual newspaper (November 3 and 10, 2006). Press releases were also mailed to local newspapers to announce the meetings.

Direct Mail Notification

Flyers inviting the public to participate in the Scoping process for the EIS/EIR were mailed directly to approximately 37,500 addresses within one-half mile of the proposed project corridor and were also distributed to elected officials, city officials, major employers, and non-profit organizations. The flyers contained information on the Scoping meetings, project purpose, project alternatives, and potential environmental impacts.

The majority of the flyer text was in English, but critical information about the project and meeting locations, dates and times was provided in Spanish.

Transit Rider Outreach

Approximately 800 flyers were distributed to AC Transit Dumbarton Express and Transbay Bus U riders at the Ardenwood Park-and-Ride lot and the Union City BART station on November 6, 2006. Bilingual staff distributed the flyers to facilitate direct communications about the proposed project. Additional “take-one” flyers were placed on Dumbarton Express buses and the flyer was on display at the Palo Alto Transit Center.

Internet Outreach

Information about the Dumbarton Rail Project and the Scoping meetings was posted on the Caltrain website: www.caltrain.com/dumbartonrail.

3. SCOPING M EETINGS

Meeting Format and Content

Two public scoping meetings were held: Wednesday Nov. 15, 2006 Thursday Nov. 16, 2006 6:30 pm-8:30 pm 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm Newark Community Center City of Menlo Park Senior Center 35501 Cedar Blvd. 110 Terminal Ave. Newark, CA 94560 Menlo Park, CA 94025

An agency scoping meeting was held from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm on Thursday Nov. 16, 2006 at the City of Menlo Park Senior Center. Members of the public requesting to attend this meeting were accommodated.

The City of Fremont hosted a public information meeting about the project and the initiation of the environmental process from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm on Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006, at the Niles Elementary School. Caltrain staff were invited to present the project and receive community input at this meeting. At the request of participants, the Scoping comments deadline was extended to facilitate receipt of comments generated by the Fremont meeting.

Each meeting had a similar format: open house followed by a Powerpoint presentation and then a formal public comment period. Upon arrival, participants were requested to sign in and were provided an agenda with information about the project, a speaker request card, and a comment card. Participants were then directed to informational stations located around the room where they could talk directly with project staff regarding the project.

The open house portion of the meeting continued for about an hour and included the following information exhibits: ƒ Project Purpose and Need ƒ Identifying Alternatives for Study ƒ Rail Alternatives ƒ Bus Service – Year 2012 ƒ Bus Service – Year 2035 ƒ Environmental Studies that will be Performed ƒ Potential Impacts ƒ Environmental Milestones

Steve Minden, Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Manager, gave a Powerpoint presentation regarding project development, purpose and need, process, timeline, budget, and

alternatives. Members of the technical consultant team and Caltrain staff provided some clarification during the presentation.

Lou Hexter of MIG facilitated a public comment period during which participants offered their comments about the proposed project alternatives, service scenarios, impact issues, funding and other ideas. Beth Altshuler of MIG graphically recorded the comments on a large wall-sized paper graphic. The display boards, PowerPoint presentation, wallgraphic reductions, and meeting handouts are included in the appendices to this report.

Based on the meeting Sign-In Sheets, over 178 people attended the public Scoping meetings, 57 in Newark and 121 in Menlo Park. Additionally, 14 agency representatives attended the agency Scoping meeting in Menlo Park. Thirty-nine people attended the public information meeting in Fremont. Large numbers of participants requested to provide oral comments at all of the public meetings, and speaker times were requested to be held to a minimum to enable the greatest number an opportunity to provide comments.

Summary of Meeting Comments (Verbal and Written)

This section briefly summarizes the oral and written comments received at the meetings. Written comments received via mail or e-mail are summarized in the next section of this report. Comments mentioned multiple times are not reiterated, although the summaries attempt to identify the major or most frequent comments and those comments particular to a meeting location. Copies of all the comment forms turned in at the meetings are included in Appendix B of this report.

Newark Public Scoping Meeting November 15, 2006 ƒ Noise & Vibration most frequently mentioned – impacts of commuter rail and freight service, including train passbys and train horns, particularly at night; quiet zones advocated to silence train horns in residential areas. ƒ Traffic Issues – potential for cross traffic delays at grade crossings and impacts on local circulation with traffic access to/egress from stations. ƒ Cost and Funding – comparative costs and benefits of the project; high costs of project and increase in project cost estimates over time; source for operating subsidies. ƒ Ridership Forecasts – whether estimates are boardings, trips or riders; how many new riders; whether low ridership forecasts justify project costs; whether ridership estimates will be updated. ƒ Other Modal Alternatives – Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (better cost/benefit ratios and fewer impacts than the proposed DRC service for similar ridership). ƒ Suggested Modifications to the Proposed Service Scenario – service should be bi- directional during both peak periods; service should continue during the midday. ƒ Safety Concerns – need separation of existing grade crossings; seismic safety; threat of derailments.

ƒ Disturbance to Wildlife From Construction and Operation of the DRC – potential impacts to Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. ƒ Need to Integrate Retail Opportunities into Transportation Planning – opportunities for transit oriented and retail development near rail stations.

Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting, November 16, 2006 ƒ Noise & Vibration most frequently mentioned – commuter rail and freight service; train passbys and train horns; particularly at night; quiet zones and four-quadrant gates to silence train horns in residential areas. Phase 1 environmental analysis should have included noise study. ƒ Alternatives to DRC service – Light Rail (less train horn noise, no “double-deckers” less maintenance and fuel costs); Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); extend BART; extend Dumbarton Express Service. ƒ Freight Service in DRC corridor – noise and vibration; potential accidents; hazardous wastes transport, derailments; project sponsors kept this “hidden”; trackage rights agreement prevents JPB from precluding freight service; UPRR should contribute to project costs; JPB should buy out UPRR. ƒ Modifications to Proposed Alternatives – Make service bi-directional; construct grade separations at major street crossings; identify lower-impacting rail alignment. Several people mistakenly thought the DRC service would stop at Redwood City station or Menlo Park; others suggested an alternative terminus at Palo Alto. ƒ Cost and Funding – costs and benefits of the project; increase in project cost estimates over time; source of operating subsidies; source of funds for mitigation measures and whether mitigation budget would be adequate; funds for grade separations; whether project is cost-effective. ƒ Ridership Forecasts – whether estimates are boardings, trips, or riders; how many new riders; whether low ridership forecasts justify project costs; whether ridership estimates will be updated; disclose forecasting methods and assumptions; how do you know people will ride. ƒ Effects on Residential Communities/Property Values – freight and commuter rail impacts; traffic impacts; visual impacts; loss of neighborhood feel; displacement of homes; eminent domain; benefits mostly to East Bay residents and workers at expense of West Bay homeowners and communities; dangers to children; Atherton should be represented on project committees. ƒ Effect on Existing Bus Service – continued or dropped with Rail Alternative. ƒ Mitigation Measures – insufficiently funded; whether project sponsors are bound by environmental document; whether sound walls will be implemented. ƒ Safety – impacts of commuter rail; freight service in DRC corridor; at grade crossings; school children’s safety; air quality impacts on children. ƒ Environmental Justice – Fair Oaks area; people do not drive; cross tracks frequently; concern regarding accidents. ƒ Wildlife and Wetlands – impacts to Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

ƒ Joint Development Opportunities – new Union City development offers potential for new riders. ƒ Other – flood risk to bridge with rising sea levels due to global warming; on-time train schedules.

Fremont Public Information Meeting, November 29, 2006 ƒ Noise & Vibration – impacts of increased commuter rail and freight service; train passbys and train horns; need noise study of Niles Canyon service; freight on Centerville line; quiet zone or grade separation for Nursery Avenue; why horns are so loud/have such long reach. ƒ Quality of Life – degradation from noise, traffic, freight trains along Nursery Avenue; impending Union City project. ƒ Rail Alternative – layover yard locations omitted from presentation, skip stop service; average operating speeds; don’t need additional intermodal connections ACE/Capitols/ BART, East Bay/West Bay. ƒ Other Modal Alternatives – Extend Bus Alternative to Brisbane and South San Francisco, bus is more flexible than rail. ƒ Freight – service will shift to Niles or Centerville. ƒ Focus on Niles Connection – potential impacts to Alameda Creek, Alameda County Water District water intake line. ƒ Cost and Funding – comparative costs and benefits of the project; increase in project cost estimates over time. ƒ Ridership Forecasts – how many new riders; whether low ridership forecasts justify project costs; whether ridership estimates will be updated. ƒ Safety – need separation of existing grade crossings; safety planning during construction; threat of derailments; what percent of total project costs will be devoted to safety.

Agency Scoping Meeting, Menlo Park, November 16, 2006 The following agency representatives attended the meeting: Felicia Aristakumara, Alameda County Water District Thomas Berkins, Alameda County Water District Brad Tarr, City of East Palo Alto Kelly Diekmann, City of Fremont Chip Taylor, City of Menlo Park David Boesch, City of Menlo Park John Boyle, City of Menlo Park City Council Kelly Fergusson, City of Menlo Park, Vice Mayor Saber Sarwary, City of Redwood City Mintze Cheng, City of Union City Mort Frank, San Mateo County / ALA Andrew Berthelsen, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Matt Jacobs, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

Winnie Chan, US Fish & Wildlife Service (Don Edwards NWR)

Issues Raised: ƒ Impacts to Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge – clapper rail, salt marsh harvest mouse (see Recovery Plan), harbor seals (Mowry Slough), wetlands; Refuge contact person/info, available to meet, share info; requests copy of Environmental Phase I report. ƒ Noise & Vibration – quiet zones. ƒ Historic – Dumbarton Rail Bridge was first bridge across San Francisco Bay (1913 for Southern Pacific Railroad). ƒ Service Suggestions – Service is single track? Make bi-directional during peak; consider bus service to Redwood City Port development. ƒ Other Alternatives – increase Dumbarton Express Bus Service and then transfer to Caltrain. ƒ Opportunities for Joint Development – large employers relocate to Menlo Park. ƒ Potential impact to Alameda County Water District line – with Niles Connection.

Questions (Answers): ƒ Distance from BART to Dumbarton at Union City intermodal? (less than 100 feet) ƒ Can Caltrain handle the added train traffic? (will integrate into schedule) ƒ Need new right-of-way for stations or layover yard? (yes) ƒ Project costs include grade separations, quiet zone technology? (no) ƒ Is Shinn Connection common to both Rail Alternatives? (yes) ƒ Any permanent new tracks in wetlands? (No, but need access during construction) ƒ Will High Speed Rail use DRC? (If use Altamont Pass, exits at Niles Canyon, and could use DRC from there to Caltrain. We are not evaluating HSR as part of EIS/EIR, may look at cumulatively) ƒ Oppose joining Caltrain at Redwood Junction (are considering third track to just short of Atherton) ƒ If impacts require grade separations, will they be implemented? (possible) ƒ Fare from Union City to Redwood City? (Consistent with Caltrain fare structure) ƒ Will need subsidy? ($6 million per year from Regional Measure 2) ƒ How do ridership forecasts tie in with BART, VTA, and ferries projections? (the VTA model was used with the best available data)

A summary of the comments contained in the written responses from agencies is provided in Section 4 of this report.

4. SUMMARY OF W RITTEN C ORRESPONDENCE

Letters and E-mails

Over 100 e-mails and letters were received from members of the public (including letters to the editors of local papers), and these comments reflected the issues raised at the Scoping meetings and public information meeting as summarized herein. Caltrain retains a complete file of every comment, submitted by whatever means.

Letters from Resource Agencies, Responsible Agencies, and Jurisdictional Entities

Formal Scoping comment letters were received from federal, state and local agencies in response to the NOI and NOP. These are summarized here and their guidance and requests regarding technical issues to be included in the studies will be distributed to the appropriate technical specialists. Copies of the agency letters will be included in an appendix to the Draft Environmental Document. The following sections summarize the comments received from federal, state, and regional and local agencies.

Federal Agencies

In addition to publishing the NOI and distributing the NOP, FTA and JPB wrote to eight federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to project environmental issues. These letters reiterated the NOI request for their attendance at the agency Scoping meeting and their comments on project alternatives and impact issues affecting resources or approvals under their jurisdiction and invited them to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the environmental document. Letters were sent to the following agencies: ƒ Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ƒ Federal Railroad Administration ƒ National Park Service ƒ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ƒ U.S. Coast Guard ƒ U.S. Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service ƒ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ƒ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Three written replies were received from federal agencies:

The National Park Service stated that it did not have jurisdiction over the areas being studied and referred the team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, whose letter is summarized below.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) declined to participate as a cooperating agency, but emphasized that it would coordinate in the development of the EIS as outlined in the 2006 NEPA/Clean Water Act Section 404 Integration Process for Surface Transportation Projects Memorandum of Understanding (NEPA/404 MOU) (even though FTA is not a signatory to this MOU).

USEPA also recommended close coordination with the California High Speed Rail and Regional Rail Plan to streamline design, construction, permitting, and mitigation, ensure the most efficient use of the facility for commuters, and minimize impacts to the Bay and surrounding habitat.

USEPA recommended that FTA and JPB invite the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to coordinate so as to ensure that impacts to tidal waters and species within the refuge and surrounding areas be minimized insofar as possible. USEPA suggested that a coordination meeting among the project sponsors and USEPA, USFWS, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) be convened. Contact information was provided.

An attachment to USEPA’s letter amplified these recommendations, as follows: ƒ Coordinate with the High Speed Rail (HSR) project so as not to preclude analysis of the Dumbarton Rail Corridor as an option for future HSR connectivity. Design coordination to avoid a second round of construction within sensitive habitat. Compare potential impacts of concurrent versus serial construction of these projects in DRC EIS. ƒ Broaden the project purpose and need statement. ƒ Include a bus rapid transit alternative. ƒ Specific recommendations were provided for the Air Quality analysis. Most of these are consistent with FTA’s air quality analysis methods. Evaluation of potential exceedences of PM2.5 standards is a recent requirement. The EIS should report emissions from all operational sources and construction emissions with proposed mitigations in a comparative format. Use the most current EPA-approved emissions estimation model; identify potential hot spots. ƒ EPA provided a detailed listing of potential AQ impact minimization and mitigation measures by alternative mode and phase. ƒ EPA reiterated regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act and recommended appropriate analysis and reporting of information regarding wetlands and other aquatic resources. EPA asked that the EIS disclose project impacts in relation to the historic loss of habitat with San Francisco Bay and the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. ƒ Recommendations were provided to guide the studies of threatened and endangered species in the project vicinity, including demonstration of compliance with Section 4(f)

regarding impacts to a national wildlife refuge, and observation of Executive Order 13112 regarding Invasive Species. ƒ Integrate the proposed project with, and minimize impacts to, existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. ƒ Requirements for analysis of impacts to cultural resources were offered. ƒ Cumulative impact analysis should include non-transportation projects, describe the “identifiable present effects” attributable to past actions to determine the current health of various resources (see CEQ’s Forty Questions, Question #19), and identify potential landscape-level regional impacts and mitigation measures. ƒ EPA provided recommendations for scoping a land use model based growth inducing analysis and enlisting local expertise, then using the results to inform station locations and size parking facilities. EPA cited recently published Caltrans/FHWA guidance on growth-related impacts. ƒ EPA requested analysis of rail station location and parking impacts and mitigations, including land use changes. Station location to support increased densities around stations and intermodal coordination to maximize access by transit, bicycles or walking was emphasized. ƒ Finally, EPA referenced requirements pursuant to Executive Order 12898 regarding Environmental Justice.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns about potential effects on the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge wetlands and endangered species in the refuge, including California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse as well as migratory birds. Concerns included noise, dust, vibration and disruption during construction and from operations; the use of the railway by predators such as foxes and feral cats; and the potential for a derailment. The following specifics concerns were stated: ƒ Construction activities should avoid breeding and nesting periods. ƒ Construction and operations access needs should consider the overall purposes of the Refuge as habitat. The Refuge is concerned about wetland and habitat disturbance impacts or direct take of wildlife by work that would be conducted on refuge property adjacent to the rail line. ƒ The agency encouraged close cooperation with the High Speed Rail Authority. ƒ The agency requested a meeting with project representatives. ƒ The agency stated that coordination with the Endangered Species Division of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge will be required. ƒ Contact information was provided but the agency did not directly respond to JPB’s request that it be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the environmental document.

In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers emailed contact information for the individual assigned to the project.

State Agencies

The NOP was distributed through the State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Research, OPR) to all State agencies having trustee or responsible agency status or interest in the proposed project. Three state agencies provided written comments, as summarized below:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided detailed guidance on the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) recommended to ensure that project impacts to State roadway facilities are thoroughly assessed. Caltrans asked that JPB coordinate preparation of the TIS with Caltrans and offer Caltrans the opportunity to review the study scope of work. Reference to Caltrans “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies” was provided.

Caltrans specified requirements under NEPA and CEQA for cultural resource studies if construction activities are proposed within State rights-of-way and specified the types of activities included. Caltrans stated that these requirements musts be fulfilled before an encroachment permit can be issued for project-related work in State rights-of-way. Caltrans cited its Standard Environmental Reference (SER) for guidance.

Caltrans advised the need for an encroachment permit for construction activities once final plans are ready and outlined application requirements. Caltrans stated that traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process.

Caltrans asked to review the Environmental Document as well as the TIS and its technical appendices and provided contact information.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) stated the required steps to ensure the proper assessment archaeological resources and mitigation of any project-related impacts. The NAHC also stressed the need to provide for accidental discoveries and coordination with culturally affiliated Native Americans during the studies. Contact information was provided.

The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) stressed the need for project planning to highlight safety of the rail corridor, including cross traffic volumes and operations and pedestrian circulation. Safety measures mentioned by the PUC included grade separations at major thoroughfares, improvements to existing highway-rail at-grade crossings, and appropriate fencing to limit access of trespassers. Grade separations at Willow Road and University Avenue were recommended prior to initiation of passenger service.

The PUC provided contact information and recommended coordination during conceptual design.

Regional and Local Agencies

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) stressed the need to evaluate lower-cost fundable options to the rail alternative linking Union City BART to the Caltrain mainline. These included reduced rail service area options and a busway alternative using the railroad right-of-way. Contact information was provided.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is a member of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, responded to the NOP without specific comments at this time.

AC Transit submitted the following comments: ƒ NEPA requires consideration of all alternatives in equal detail, which goes beyond CEQA requirements. ƒ Concern that the proposed Bus Alternative does not provide for thorough analysis of all feasible modes and transit services. ƒ Purpose and Need statement is generally appropriate and mode neutral and will provide basis for objective analysis of service alternatives. ƒ EIS/EIR needs to consider character of existing, planned and projected land use in the corridor as the basis for travel demand. ƒ Communities the DRC will serve do not contain high-density employment centers. This “many to many” travel environment is not best served by rail. Buses are a better service mode for this type of travel market. ƒ AC Transit has plans to expand both the Dumbarton Bridge bus service and the bus routes that access that service within the next year. (Specifics were given for DRC planners’ information.) ƒ As in AC Transit’s letter of October 27, 2005, AC has concerns regarding the routing and slowness of the proposed DRC bus alternative. AC urges DRC planners to formulate a revised bus alternative that provides a better comparison to the rail alternatives. The revised bus alternative would recognize the existing and planned bus network, simplify routing, consider all day bus service, use Transbay Bus to reach Peninsula employment sites, take advantage of highway HOV lanes, use techniques like queue jumps and signal priority, and consider additional park and ride capacity at appropriate locations. ƒ The EIS/EIR needs to reaffirm the commitment to continue the existing Dumbarton Express Service for destinations not served by the new DRC line.

Contact information was provided.

The Town of Atherton submitted the following comments: ƒ Analysis of a third track extending south into Atherton implied by the Redwood Junction Analysis and plans in the Phase 1 report is lacking. The EIS/EIR needs to include more detailed information regarding the design, use, and impacts of this track.

ƒ Atherton requests to participate in DRC planning by having a member of the Town Council on the Policy Advisory Committee, the Atherton Public Works Director included in the Project Development Team, and an Atherton resident on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee. ƒ Project needs to consider, minimize and mitigate impacts to mature and heritage trees; the visual impacts of tree removal also need to be mitigated. Town’s tree protection ordinance and permit requirements were cited. Potential for impacts to Holbrook- Palmer Park related to tree removal must be considered, especially for the Extended East Siding or other siding alternative. ƒ Caltrain needs to specify tree work affecting privately owned trees and address the need for condemnation actions to remove valuable trees on private property; project also needs to address effects on property values or inverse condemnation from removal of rail corridor screening. ƒ Noise impacts near residences must be mitigated. ƒ The addition of a third track adjacent to the historic Atherton train station would have an adverse effect on the site and context of the station. The station’s historic status and age and the need to modify the project to avoid a significant adverse effect were cited. Assessment of the impact must conform to historical guidelines. ƒ Impacts on the Town of Atherton City Hall complex must be evaluated. ƒ Caltrain should consider routing all DRC trains to the Redwood City hub station so that passengers could connect to Caltrain service there and avoid Atherton. If continuation of DRC service southbound is desired, trains could depart Redwood City and switch to the southbound Caltrain tracks. ƒ Project scope should include, as means of reducing costs, running turnback service to Redwood City only, with return service to Union City. Passengers would access DRC at Redwood City. This would require fewer train sets and fewer crews. Turnback service would also provide West Bay commuters with service to the East Bay in the morning, with return service in the evening. DRC trains would not be on the Caltrain system interfering with Baby Bullet trains.

The City noted the need for a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts to the Town cannot be avoided or mitigated.

The City of Fremont mentioned its long involvement in planning the DRC project and listed the following impacts to be considered in the EIR: ƒ noise and dust during construction; ƒ need to characterize construction activities, locations, durations and equipment; ƒ soil analysis for hazardous wastes; ƒ proximity to Shinn Connection to Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; and noise and vibration during operations on new and existing lines.

The City outlined its limitations on hours for construction noise and asked that the City’s Health and Safety standards be applied to train warning systems if they are more restrictive than FTA’s.

The City stated that it does not support the Fremont layover yard location, citing conflicts with nearby residential land uses and potential impacts on these uses.

The City requested that the cumulative and growth-inducing impacts analysis include the Union City Intermodal Station, Altamont Commuter Express, Capitol Corridor services, and Union Pacific freight services.

Other impacts analyses requested by Fremont were the following: ƒ Analysis of proposed new Alameda Creek Bridge for potential impacts to the waterway or groundwater recharge system during construction and of derailments or spills during operations. ƒ Inclusion of impacts of traffic congestion at the Fremont Boulevard, Maple Street, Dusterberry Way and Blacow Road grade crossings, traffic impacts at Centerville Station, and impacts of construction and staging yard access in the Traffic Impact Analysis. ƒ Potential project phasing, including longer-term operations of an interim project, including use of interim facilities for maintenance and operations or as end-of-line stations.

Contact information was provided.

The City of Hayward wrote to express its interest in plans for the northern project terminus at Industrial Parkway. It requested more information about project timing and funding. Hayward provided contact information and requested contact information for a follow-up call by the City’s engineer.

The City of Menlo Park’s letter focused on potential construction phase impacts, as well as what it anticipates as the long-term effects of the DRC project in the city. An attachment to the City’s letter provided Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. (These are not summarized herein; a copy of the attachment is included with the City’s letter in Caltrain’s file of all written comments.) The following items summarize the city’s concerns: ƒ Noise and vibration analysis should apply the most stringent standards, whether federal, state or local, develop mitigation, and include all passenger and freight train noise sources and address residences and businesses. ƒ Analysis of diesel emissions and health effects is requested. ƒ Cross traffic delay analysis at at-grade crossings needs to be done using the city’s criteria for intersection operations and including a comparison analysis of effects with grade separations in place. ƒ Full analysis of freight rail operations along the DRC needs to be reported in the EIS/EIR. The city also asked how UPRR’s financial participation in the project would

be determined and approved and whether it would be possible to design the rehabilitated bridge to preclude freight use. ƒ The city requested analysis of a light rail alternative. ƒ Regarding construction phase impacts, the city had the following concerns: • Traffic impacts on public streets (e.g., Marsh Road) and three state highways (Highway 101, SR 109/University Avenue, SR 114/Willow Road); • Construction noise and vibration • Damage to city streets from heavy equipment or vehicles • Removal of trees/landscaping with respect to visual and habitat impacts • Impacts to access for emergency services • Impacts of dewatering operations • Safety and security hazards, especially at night and on weekends • Procedures for dealing with hazardous wastes • Impacts on local storm drains and receiving waters from construction depositions on city streets ƒ City stated that the proposed location of the new Willow Road station is too generalized for appropriate analysis and asked to work with Caltrain to specify the location of this station.

The City of Redwood City’s letter mentioned the Downtown Redwood City Precise Plan, which establishes a new vision for downtown Redwood City, including integration of train service. A website reference to the plan was provided. The City also provided the following specific comments: ƒ Is right of way required within Redwood City and adjacent unincorporated North Fair Oaks? ƒ Will a new station/stop be constructed at Redwood Junction? ƒ Address safety and operational impacts at grade crossings within Redwood City (Whipple Avenue, Brewster Avenue, Maple Street, Main Street, Chestnut Street); address noise as well. ƒ How is DRC project coordinated with Caltrain’s plans for additional tracks in Redwood City? Is grade separation of the Redwood City crossings being considered? ƒ Concerns for safety of pedestrian and vehicular movements at Middlefield Road crossing. ƒ Proposed project should not preclude a future rail connection to the rail facilities at the Redwood City seaport.

Contact information was provided.

The City of Union City expressed its support for the DRC project and iterated the emphasis in Regional Measure 2 of the intermodal connection of BART, Capitol Corridor and Caltrain service as well as regional bus lines and possibly ACE trains at Union City.

Union City reported its own actions to develop mixed-use high-density transit-oriented development near the proposed intermodal station.

The city provided several comments concerning the analysis of Segments G and F as a possible first phase of DRC service, as follows: ƒ Segment G would ease freight rail congestion on the Niles Subdivision and Niles Junction, while Segment F would ease freight congestion through Centerville in Fremont. Therefore, these segments have independent utility. ƒ Segments F and G could qualify for matching infrastructure bond funds for freight improvements. The benefits of these segments to freight service were iterated. ƒ Segment G provides a direct passenger rail connection from Union City BART to Caltrain at San Jose Diridon Station. ƒ Implementing Segment G sooner rather than later would help to control escalating project costs. ƒ It would be cost-effective to coordinate construction of SR 84 and BART seismic retrofit of aerial structures in Union City with the DRC project.

Union City requested analysis of a grade separation at Decoto Road, which would otherwise raise concerns for traffic delay and safety.

Finally, the City reminded DRC planners that Union City prepared an EIR for the Union City Intermodal Station that was certified in February 2006. The EIR examined the passenger rail connection to BART service and its scope corresponds to Segment G of the DRC project.

Contact information was provided.

CORRIDOR PROJECT

Environmental Scoping Report March 2007 Appendix A

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Environmental Scoping Report

Appendix A Table of Contents

MEDIA ADVISORIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS………………………………………………….A-1

DIRECT M AILER………………………………………………………………………………………………………A-4

DISPLAY BOARDS EXHIBITED AT PUBLIC SCOPING AND INFORMATION MEETINGS……………………………………………………………………………………A-7

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON DUMBARTION RAIL C ORRIDOR PROJECT…………………………………………………………A-16

SCOPING MEETING HANDOUTS………………………………………………………………………A-30

WALLGRAPHIC IMAGES FROM PUBLIC M EETINGS……………………………………….A-33

AGENCY SCOPING MEETING N OTES, MENLO PARK, NOVEMBER 16, 2006………………………………………………………….A-36

DUMBARTON RAIL POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE A GENDA…………………….A-38

Media Advisories and Announcements

Press Release

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-1 Newspaper announcement that ran in the Fremont Argus on Wednesday, November 1 and Wednesday, November 8, 2006.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-2 Newspaper announcement that ran in the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday, November 1 and Wednesday, November 8, 2006. The same announcement ran in El Observador on Friday, November 3 and Friday, November 10, 2006.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-3 Direct Mailer – Public Scoping Meetings

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-4

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-5 Direct Mailer – Public Information Meeting

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-6 Display Boards Exhibited at Public Scoping and Public Information Meetings

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-7

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-8

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-9

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-10

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-11 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-12

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-13

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-14

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-15 PowerPoint Presentation on DRC Project

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-16

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-17

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-18

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-19

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-20

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-21

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-22

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-23

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-24

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-25

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-26

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-27

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-28

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-29 Scoping Meeting Handouts

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-30

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-31 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-32 Wallgraphic Images From Public Meetings

Newark Public Scoping Meeting, November 15, 2006

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-33

Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting, November 16, 2006

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-34 Fremont Public Information Meeting, November 29, 2006

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-35 Agency Scoping Meeting Notes Menlo Park, November 16, 2006 What is the distance between Union City BART and Dumbarton Transfer? Less than 100’. Study if Caltrain can handle the additional volume of DRC riders? Already did. We will study this more during the EIR. Do you need to transfer trains after crossing the bridge to get to San Francisco/ San Jose? No. Passengers will stay on one train the entire way to San Francisco or San Jose. Regarding service, some DRC trains will be skip-stop and some local. Does the $600 million figure include inflation factor? Yes. Does additional real estate need to be obtained to build new stations? Yes, for parking and amenities. Fremont: Does current project include Shinn Connection? Yes. Shinn for both A and B. John Boyle (Menlo Park): Bus alternative should say that bus routes connect to Caltrain instead of going additional places We will consider looking at that. The direct service avoids a transfer – barrier to riders so additional bus stops makes it comparable. Steve Minden: CEQA clearance of Union City portion of the project Kelly Ferguson (Menlo Park): Does the cost estimate include mitigations? Concerned about the level of certainty about mitigations, especially for crossing the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge. Currently have $10 million for bio type mitigations (i.e. to buy other wetlands to offset impacts of this projects) Kelly: Grade separations included? No. Quiet Zone Technology? Cost not included, but small contingency for added costs. 32 % construction costs Hours of service? Now study only includes rush hour – but infrastructure could include more Single track across the bridge? Double in some strategic locations Going to assume one way commute now Don Edwards refuge: Increased footprint of what is currently there? No. Right of way will not widen, but construction may necessitate access roads. Don Edwards refuge: The refuge will only allow seasonal access because of sensitive habitat.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-36 Will CA High Speed Rail run on this track? If Altamont pass alternative is chosen then it could cross Dumbarton Bridge and connect to Caltrain. But we are not looking at that in our EIR/EIS. Saber (Redwood City): What are the impacts to Redwood junction? Merging trains onto Caltrain. Phase 1 report proposes to add a third track (extend one of the main tracks south to just n of the current Atherton station). This will allow no or very little disruption from Dumbarton train. No grade separations considered? We will study traffic impacts. If we find there are impacts will consider grade separations or other mitigations John (Menlo Park): Do you study business/economic impacts? No, We look at how it might affect growth qualitatively. Quality of life issue, increases their labor pool. Don’t need to study this in depth because is a mature transit corridor. Pat Gelb: No – look at displacement, which is a multiplier of economic and socioeconomic effects. Reduction in highway delay is net social cost – improved quality of life for commuters. We can go talk to Sun Microsystems about how DRC will affect them. Kelly (Fremont) – What will you have to analyze on Union Pacific? Please study increase in freight traffic on the Niles corridor. How much will a ticket cost? Fair structure will be consistent with Caltrain’s current fair structure (zones). Service will be subsidized with a $6million operating subsidy after build. Alameda County Water District – Concerned about the 90-degree turn over our water source (potential for derailment, construction environmental impacts, operation impacts). We will meet with you. A new bridge will be built next to the old bridge during the low flow summer months. Federal Railroad Administration safety features will be implemented. Saver (Redwood City) – Bus alternative to Redwood Shores. Lots of construction already there. Consider bus service in the port of Redwood City area There is high demand because of major employment at Oracle Kelly (Fremont) – What are the ridership estimates? Based on MTC model. BART is included. Kelly (Fremont) – What agency is issuing the recommended decision? FTA recommend, Caltrain will certify. Pat – Please email us your agency’s comments. Marie – Please designate one person to be the contact at your agency.

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-37 Dumbarton Rail Policy Advisory Committee Agenda

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix A Environmental Scoping Report Page A-38 CORRIDOR PROJECT

Environmental Scoping Report March 2007 Appendix B

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Environmental Scoping Report

Appendix B Table of Contents

COMMENT FORMS Newark Public Scoping Meeting……………………………………………………..B-1 Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting….……………………………………………..B-15 Fremont Public Information Meeting………………………………………………B-35

Comment Forms: Newark Public Scoping Meeting

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-1

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-3 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-4 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-5 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-6 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-7 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-8 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-9 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-10 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-11 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-12 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-13 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-14 Comment Forms: Menlo Park Public Scoping Meeting

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-15

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-17 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-18 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-19 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-20 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-21 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-22 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-23 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-24 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-25 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-26 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-27 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-28 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-29 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-30 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-31 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-32 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-33 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-34 Comment Forms: Fremont Public Information Meeting

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-35

Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-37 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-38 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-39 Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project Appendix B Environmental Scoping Report Page B-40