DOCSLIB.ORG

San Mateo County Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity Study Final Report July 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Mateo County Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity Study Final Report July 2007 San Mateo County Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity Study final report July 2007 Prepared for the San Mateo County Transit District Prepared by HNTB Corporation Strategic Economics Hexagon Transportation Consultants SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY STUDY Final Report July 2007 Prepared for the San Mateo County Transit District Prepared by HNTB Corporation Strategic Economics Hexagon Transportation Consultants San Mateo County TOD Opportunity Study Final Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TOD Partnership Committee Core Working Group Neal Martin, City of Atherton Marisa Cravens, ABAG Carlos De Melo, City of Belmont Val Menotti, BART Randy L. Breault, City of Brisbane Bruno Peguese, BART John Swiecki, City of Brisbane Beth Thomas, Caltrans Maureen Brooks, City of Burlingame Liam Cunningham, Caltrans Andrea Ouse, Town of Colma Becky Frank, Caltrans Kevin Guy, Town of Colma Tom Madalena, C/CAG Terry Sedik, City of Daly City Valerie Knepper, MTC Arlinda Heineck, City of Menlo Park Joe Hurley, San Mateo County Transportation David Boesch, City of Menlo Park Authority Ralph Petty, City of Millbrae Duane Bay, County of San Mateo Department of Susan Moeller, City of Redwood City Housing Tambri Heyden, City of San Bruno Dorcas Cheng-Tozun, County of San Mateo Aaron Aknin, City of San Bruno Department of Housing Mark Sullivan, City of San Bruno Janet Stone, County of San Mateo Department of Elizabeth S.R. Cullinan, City of San Carlos Housing Stephen Scott, City of San Mateo Chris Mohr, Housing Leadership Council San Mateo Gary Heap, City of San Mateo County Mark Duino, San Mateo County Susy Kalkin, City of South San Francisco Mike Lappen, City of South San Francisco Consultant Team SamTrans Camille Tsao, HNTB Corporation Corinne Goodrich, Project Director, Manager of Mika Miyasato, HNTB Corporation Special Projects Rick Phillips, HNTB Corporation Brian Fitzpatrick, Manager of Real Estate Sharon Kyle, HNTB Corporation Mike Bernick, HNTB Corporation Patrick Sheehan, HNTB Corporation Dena Belzer, Strategic Economics Wells Lawson, Strategic Economics Abby Thorne-Lyman, Strategic Economics Nadine Fogarty, Strategic Economics Jill Hough, Hexagon Transportation Consultants This study is funded under the FTA’s State Planning and Research Projects (Section 5313(b) through Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. i San Mateo County TOD Opportunity Study Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 14 1.1 Background and Study Objectives..................................................................................... 15 1.2 Study Team and Stakeholders............................................................................................ 18 1.3 Other Regional Studies........................................................................................................ 19 2.0 Market Overview......................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 Residential Development.................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Office Development............................................................................................................. 30 2.3 Retail Development ............................................................................................................. 40 3.0 Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 47 3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 47 3.2 Findings................................................................................................................................. 48 4.0 Opportunities and Constraints.................................................................................................. 50 4.1 Issues and Constraints ........................................................................................................ 50 4.2 Zoning Ordinances and Policies........................................................................................ 50 4.3 Station Access....................................................................................................................... 52 4.4 Visibility and Connectivity with Existing Activity Centers ........................................... 54 4.5 Site Availability or Ease of Assembly ................................................................................ 54 4.6 Environmental Issues or Conditions................................................................................. 55 4.7 Market Potential .................................................................................................................. 56 5.0 Introduction to Phase II ............................................................................................................. 63 5.1 Phase II Overview................................................................................................................ 63 5.2 Phase II Station Area Criteria ............................................................................................ 63 5.3 Preliminary Recommendations for Phase II.................................................................... 65 5.4 Phase II Focus Areas............................................................................................................67 6.0 Phase II Findings......................................................................................................................... 68 6.1 Small Scale Infill Development Feasibility Analysis........................................................ 68 6.2 Small Parcel Development.................................................................................................. 70 6.3 Land Assembly..................................................................................................................... 81 6.4 Affordable Housing............................................................................................................. 81 6.5 Parking Management.......................................................................................................... 83 6.6 Promoting Bicycle Access................................................................................................... 84 6.7 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................... 84 7.0 Transit Benefit Assessment........................................................................................................ 86 7.1 Description of Transportation Network........................................................................... 86 7.2 Scenarios ............................................................................................................................... 86 7.3 Findings................................................................................................................................. 88 i San Mateo County TOD Opportunity Study Final Report 7.4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 92 8.0 Recommendations and Actions ................................................................................................ 93 8.1 Promoting Incremental Infill Development .................................................................... 93 8.2 Managing Parking ............................................................................................................. 102 8.3 Improving and Encouraging Bicycle Access.................................................................. 109 8.4 Public Outreach Strategies................................................................................................ 112 8.5 Short-term and Long-term Actions ................................................................................ 115 8.6 Implications for TOD in San Mateo County ................................................................. 119 APPENDICES Station Area Profiles A. Atherton Caltrain station in Atherton B. Bayshore Caltrain station in Brisbane/San Francisco C. Belmont Caltrain station in Belmont D. Broadway Caltrain station in Burlingame E. Burlingame Caltrain station in Burlingame F. Colma BART station in Colma/Daly City G. Daly City BART station in Daly City H. Hayward Park Caltrain station in San Mateo I. Hillsdale Caltrain station in San Mateo J. Menlo Park Caltrain station in Menlo Park K. Millbrae BART/Caltrain station in Millbrae L. Redwood City Caltrain station in Redwood City M. San Bruno BART station in San Bruno/South San Francisco N. San Bruno Caltrain station in San Bruno O. San Carlos Caltrain station in San Carlos P. San Mateo Caltrain station in San Mateo Q. South San Francisco BART station in South San Francisco R. South San Francisco Caltrain station in South San Francisco Core Working Group and TOD Partnership Committee S. Core Working Group Members T. TOD Partnership Committee Members U. TOD Partnership Committee Questionnaire Infill / Small Parcel Development Analysis V. Developer Interviews W. Cash Flow Analysis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transit Information Rockridge Station Oakland
    B I R C H C T Transit N Transit Information For more detailed information about BART W E service, please see the BART schedule, BART system map, and other BART information displays in this station. S Claremont Middle Stops OAK GROVE AVE K Rockridge L School San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Schedule Information e ective February 11, 2019 Fares e ective May 26, 2018 A Transit (BART) rail service connects W 79 Drop-off Station the San Francisco Peninsula with See schedules posted throughout this station, or pick These prices include a 50¢ sur- 51B Drop-off 79 Map Key Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, up a free schedule guide at a BART information kiosk. charge per trip for using magnetic E A quick reference guide to service hours from this stripe tickets. Riders using (Leave bus here to Walnut Creek, Dublin/Pleasanton, and T transfer to 51A) other cities in the East Bay, as well as San station is shown. Clipper® can avoid this surcharge. You Are Here Francisco International Airport (SFO) and U Oakland Oakland International Airport (OAK). Departing from Rockridge Station From Rockridge to: N (stations listed in alphabetical order) 3-Minute Walk 500ft/150m Weekday Saturday Sunday I M I L E S A V E Train Destination Station One Way Round Trip Radius First Last First Last First Last Fare Information e ective January 1, 2016 12th St. Oakland City Center 2.50 5.00 M H I G H W AY 2 4 511 Real-Time Departures Antioch 5:48a 12:49a 6:19a 12:49a 8:29a 12:49a 16th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Information Daly City Station Daly City
    TAGALOG Schedules & Fares Horario y precios del tránsito 時刻表與車費 Talatakdaan o oras ng pagdaan ng sasakyan at Pasahe Transit For more detailed information about BART Information service, please see the BART Schedule, BART System Map, and other BART information displays in this station. DALY DALY Daly City San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Schedule Information e ective September 10, 2018 The San Francisco Municipal Schedule Information effective June 16, 2018 GO!STATE is SF State’s campus Skyline College Express shuttle Transit (BART) rail service connects Railway (Muni), a department community transportation initiative. runs every hour from 7:25 a.m. to Station the San Francisco Peninsula with See schedules posted throughout this station, or pick up a free schedule guide at a BART of the San Francisco Municipal Free shuttle service between San 6:44 p.m., Mondays to Fridays. The information kiosk. A quick reference guide to service hours from this station is shown. Route 14R Route 28 Route 54 Route 57 Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Mission Rapid 19th Ave Felton Parkmerced Francisco State University and Daly shuttle service is open to students, Walnut Creek, Dublin/Pleasanton, and provides bus and rail services within the City BART is provided on weekdays during the faculty and staff as well as community other cities in the East Bay, as well as San Trains Without Direct Service DepartingGuide from to Daly Frequency City Station of Service effective April 23, 2016 city and county of San Francisco, and to Downtown SF to Marina District to Hunters Point to West Portal to Lakeshore Plaza fall and spring semesters.
    [Show full text]
  • May 7, 2019 Media Contact: Dan Lieberman, 650-508-6385 Samtrans and Caltrain Encourage Cycling on Bike to Work Day This Thursday
    NEWS May 7, 2019 Media Contact: Dan Lieberman, 650-508-6385 SamTrans and Caltrain Encourage Cycling on Bike to Work Day This Thursday, May 9, Bay Area bicyclists will participate by the thousands in the 25th Annual Bike to Work Day, an annual event that encourages commuters to choose bicycles over cars for their daily commute. SamTrans buses can carry two bikes on racks at the front of each bus, and two additional bikes are allowed inside the bus, depending on passenger loads. Some things to know: only single-rider, two-wheel bicycles are permitted. There is no age limit for riders using the bike racks or bringing bikes on board the bus. However, riders must be able to load and unload their bikes without help from the operator. On Caltrain, every train is equipped with at least two bike cars. Due to the popularity of the onboard bike program, capacity for bicyclists can be a challenge. Cyclists are encouraged to choose local trains with lighter ridership to ensure they are able to board if they want to test out biking to work for the first time. Some express and limited stop trains are already operating at or near capacity for onboard bikes. Each weekday approximately 6,000 bicyclists take a bike on the train, more than any other rail service in the country. While biking and taking public transit can work well together for first- and last-mile connections, as well as getting people out of their cars and off freeways, onboard capacity may be at its limit on Bike to Work Day.
    [Show full text]
  • JPB Board of Directors Meeting of October 3, 2019 Correspondence
    JPB Board of Directors Meeting of October 3, 2019 Correspondence as of October 1, 2019 # Subject 1. The Gravity of RWC Station 2. Caltrain Business Plan Long Range Service Vision 3. Redwood trees along San Carlos Station Platform 4. Caltrain 2.0 – Elevated: Save $7B+, Better SF Stations, Bike Path From: Ian Bain To: Jeremy Smith Cc: GRP-City Council; Board (@caltrain.com); Board (@samtrans.com); Warren Slocum; Sequoia Center Vision Subject: Re: The Gravity of RWC Station Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 2:58:18 PM Dear Mr. Smith, On behalf of the City Council, thank you for writing to express your thoughts on the Sequoia Station proposal. If this proposal were to go forward, it would require a general plan amendment. As part of due process, City staff will evaluate the developer's proposal, and I believe it will take a couple of months before this issue comes before the Council to consider whether to initiate an amendment process. When it does, your thoughts and concerns will be considered. Thank you again for writing to us. Respectfully, Ian Bain IAN BAIN Mayor City of Redwood City Phone: (650) 780-7565 E-mail: [email protected] www.redwoodcity.org On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:06 AM Jeremy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: Esteemed council members, I am one of the “young” people riddled with worry about climate change and how the destruction it poses to our world and local communities. Living densely around transit is one of the best ways we in the Bay Area can reduce our carbon emissions and maintain economic growth per a UC Berkeley report in 2017 and several others since then.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 March 28, 2017 Agenda ID# 15631 TO PARTIES TO RESOLUTION ST-203 This is the Resolution of the Safety and Enforcement Division. It will be on the April 27, 2017, Commission Meeting agenda. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later. When the Commission acts on the Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the resolution become binding on the parties. Parties may file comments on the Resolution as provided in Article 14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), accessible on the Commission’s website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 14.3, opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Late-submitted comments or reply comments will not be considered. An electronic copy of the comments should be submitted to Colleen Sullivan (email: [email protected]). /s/ ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO ELIZAVETA I. MALASHENKO, Director Safety and Enforcement Division SUL:vdl Attachment CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of Draft Resolution ST-203 on all identified parties in this matter as shown on the attached Service List. Dated March 28, 2017, at San Francisco, California. /s/ VIRGINIA D. LAYA Virginia D. Laya NOTICE Parties should notify the Safety Enforcement Division, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Transportation Authority (Ta) 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, Ca 94070
    SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (TA) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Foust (Chair), C. Groom, D. Horsley, J. Lee, K. Matsumoto, T. Nagel MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Vreeland STAFF PRESENT: R. Bolon, J. Cassman, M. Choy, G. Harrington, C. Harvey, R. Haskin, J. Hurley, R. Lake, M. Lee, M. Martinez, N. McKenna, D. Miller, S. Murphy, M. Simon Chair Rosanne Foust called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Director Terry Nagel led the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of Minutes of March 3, 2011 b. Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for February 2011 The Board approved the consent calendar unanimously (Nagel/Horsley). PUBLIC COMMENT Jim Bigelow, Belmont, said this would be the last TA Board meeting for TA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) member Pat Dixon who is moving out of the area. He said it has been fantastic working with her over the years. Her heart was in Measure A and its implementation and she was an excellent chair for the CAC. He wished her the best and warm thoughts as she leaves the area. Pat Giorni, Burlingame, asked that public comment be changed from one to three minutes. She said Caltrans refuses to fix storm drainage problems until Burlingame cuts down trees along El Camino Real. She said flooding on El Camino Real will hinder congestion management movement and asked that the TA speak to Caltrans. She said Ms. Dixon was a major mentor in all things transportation. Chair Foust said concerns about the flooding and Caltrans will be forwarded to staff.
    [Show full text]
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7
    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain TIRCP Application Jan
    PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY APPLICATION FOR 2018 TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM FUNDS PROJECT NARRATIVE A. Project Title Page Project Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion Project (EEP) includes a series of incremental investments in the 51-mile Caltrain Corridor between the 4th and King Station (San Francisco) and the Tamien Station (San Jose). These investments are focused on expanding and fully converting Caltrain’s mainline diesel fleet to electric trains. This investment builds on and leverages the existing Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) and supports the goals of the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), providing increased capacity and service flexibility, supporting state and interregional connectivity, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through elimination of diesel service from the mainline Peninsula Corridor. In addition to providing immediate, direct benefits, the EEP also represents an incremental step within a larger program of development that will evolve the Peninsula Corridor in a way that supports the ridership, service levels, and connectivity goals contemplated in the draft 2018 State Rail Plan. The central component of Caltrain’s 2018 TIRCP application is the purchase of 96 additional Electric Multiple Units (EMU). This procurement will fully exercise all available options under Caltrain’s current contract with Stadler and will provide sufficient EMUs to fully electrify Caltrain’s mainline fleet, while also sustaining and expanding capacity to accommodate growing demand. In addition to requesting funds for the purchase of EMUs, Caltrain is also requesting a smaller amount funding for a series of associated projects that will equip the corridor to receive and operate a fully electrified fleet in a way that allows the railroad to reap the maximum benefit from its investments.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Menlo Park TDM Existing Conditions
    City of Menlo Park TMA Options Analysis Study: Existing Conditions ___ Client: City of Menlo Park January 2020 Our ref: 23642101 Content 3 Introduction 4 Existing Travel Options 4 Rail and Transit 5 Public and Private Shuttles 6 Existing TDM Programming 8 Travel Patterns 9 Northern Menlo Park 10 Central Menlo Park 11 Downtown Menlo Park 12 Southern Menlo Park 13 Stakeholder Outreach 13 Interviews 16 Small Business Drop Ins 18 Employee Survey 22 Conclusions 23 Next Steps 2 | January 2020 City of Menlo Park: TDM Existing Conditions Introduction TMA Options Analysis for Menlo Park Menlo Park Focus Area Zones The four zones include: The City of Menlo Park has commissioned an Options This Existing Conditions Report (and subsequent 1. Northern Menlo Park (including Bohannon Dr. Analysis for establishing a Transportation reports and analyses) focuses on four areas or area) Management Association (TMA). “zones” within the City of Menlo Park. Each zone 2. Central Menlo Park faces unique challenges due to both its location and As has been seen across Silicon Valley and generally the specific land uses and industry housed within it. 3. Downtown Menlo Park the Bay Area, recent years have brought an increase 4. Southern Menlo Park (including SLAC area) in congestion in the City of Menlo Park. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has Figure 1: Map of Menlo Park Zone Analysis been utilized for years to curb congestion by encouraging non single-occupancy vehicle travel across worksites, cities and counties in the Bay Area and beyond. As TDM is implemented in Menlo Park at a variety of levels, the City hopes that a TMA may help to better coordinate the efforts between public and private entities in the city, and potentially region-wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Transportation Guide
    Conference Transportation Guide February 12–15 San Francisco Think Venues Walking, shuttles, BART (Bay The best way to get around Connector Shuttle: Area Rapid Transit) — San Think venues is on foot. Check Moscone/Hilton Hours Francisco has it all. Think 2019 on distances between Think The Connector Shuttle will run Tuesday 7:30am–5:30pm is in a new city. To maximize your venues, suggested walking paths, between Moscone West and the Wednesday 7:30am–6:30pm time, ensure you know how to and wear comfortable shoes. Hilton San Francisco Union Square Thursday 7:30am–6:30pm get around. during the following times: Friday 7:30am–12:30pm Post St 2nd St Think Site Map 14 Market St Kearny St Kearny Grand St Grand Stockton St Stockton 1 Moscone West 6 Press Club Geary St New Montgomery St Registration & Information Desk (Sun–Tue am only) 7 Yerba Buena Forum Chairman’s Address General Session: Research 8 Yerba Buena Theater Science Slam Featured Sessions O’Farrell St 15 3rd St 2 Moscone North 9 AMC Metreon 13 Registration & Information Desk Breakout Sessions Code Yerba Buena Ln Minna St Think Theater (Featured Sessions) Powell St Powell Ellis St 6 Executive Meeting Center Business Partner Café 10 City View 7 Natoma St InnerCircle Lounge Market St 16 Mission St 3 Moscone South Mason St Registration & Information Desk 11 Tabletop Tap House Eddy St St Magnin Cyril Howard St Think Academy Code Café 5 8 9 Think Campus InterContinental Bookstore & Think Store 12 10 Registration 2 4 Think Park (Howard St.) Breakout Sessions Mason St Transportation Think Park Theater 11 (Featured Sessions) 13 Hilton Union Square Walking Path Mission St Be Equal Lounge Registration 4 1 3 Breakout Sessions Market St BART 5 Yerba Buena Gardens 5th St Westin St.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Station Profiles
    2015 BART Station Profile Study Station Profiles – Non-Home Origins STATION PROFILES – NON-HOME ORIGINS This section contains a summary sheet for selected BART stations, based on data from customers who travel to the station from non-home origins, like work, school, etc. The selected stations listed below have a sample size of at least 200 non-home origin trips: • 12th St. / Oakland City Center • Glen Park • 16th St. Mission • Hayward • 19th St. / Oakland • Lake Merritt • 24th St. Mission • MacArthur • Ashby • Millbrae • Balboa Park • Montgomery St. • Civic Center / UN Plaza • North Berkeley • Coliseum • Oakland International Airport (OAK) • Concord • Powell St. • Daly City • Rockridge • Downtown Berkeley • San Bruno • Dublin / Pleasanton • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) • Embarcadero • San Leandro • Fremont • Walnut Creek • Fruitvale • West Dublin / Pleasanton Maps for these stations are contained in separate PDF files at www.bart.gov/stationprofile. The maps depict non-home origin points of customers who use each station, and the points are color coded by mode of access. The points are weighted to reflect average weekday ridership at the station. For example, an origin point with a weight of seven will appear on the map as seven points, scattered around the actual point of origin. Note that the number of trips may appear underrepresented in cases where multiple trips originate at the same location. The following summary sheets contain basic information about each station’s weekday non-home origin trips, such as: • absolute number of entries and estimated non-home origin entries • access mode share • trip origin types • customer demographics. Additionally, the total number of car and bicycle parking spaces at each station are included for context.
    [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]