DOCSLIB.ORG

Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT VOLUME 1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY October 2020 June 2020 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page | i Madera Station Relocation Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Volume 1 Madera Station Relocation Project San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority October 2020 Prepared for: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 949 Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 Prepared by: AECOM 300 Lakeside Dr Oakland, CA 94612 Madera Station Relocation Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Table of Contents ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ xiii MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ..................................................................... xiv 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ......................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Project Setting .................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Project Location .................................................................................................. 6 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 8 2.1. Project Environmental Footprint .......................................................................... 8 2.2. Phase 1 – San Joaquins Relocated Station .......................................................10 2.2.1. Platform ..................................................................................................10 2.2.2. Trackwork ...............................................................................................10 2.2.3. Bus Depot ..............................................................................................10 2.2.4. Parking ...................................................................................................10 2.2.5. Access Road ..........................................................................................10 2.2.6. Roadway Network ..................................................................................12 2.2.7. Buildings and Structures .........................................................................12 2.2.8. Trains .....................................................................................................12 2.3. Phase 2 – HSR Interim Operating Segment Station ...........................................12 2.3.1. Platform ..................................................................................................12 2.3.2. Trackwork and Overhead Contact System .............................................17 2.3.3. Bus Depot ..............................................................................................17 2.3.4. Parking ...................................................................................................18 2.3.5. Access Road ..........................................................................................18 2.3.6. Road Network ........................................................................................18 2.3.7. Buildings and Structures .........................................................................18 2.3.8. Trains .....................................................................................................19 2.4. Construction Period ...........................................................................................19 2.5. Preliminary Project Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................20 2.6. Operations .........................................................................................................20 2.7. Required Permits ...............................................................................................21 2.8. Public Outreach .................................................................................................22 October 2020 Page | i Madera Station Relocation Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 3. INITIAL STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.1. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................23 3.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .............................................29 3.3. AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................37 3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................51 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................84 3.6. ENERGY ...........................................................................................................90 3.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .....................................................................................97 3.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................. 111 3.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................... 119 3.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 133 3.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................... 143 3.12. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 154 3.13. NOISE ............................................................................................................. 156 3.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................ 163 3.15. PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................... 166 3.16. RECREATION ................................................................................................. 173 3.17. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................ 176 3.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................. 186 3.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................. 190 3.20. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................ 198 3.21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................ 202 4. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 207 5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 208 October 2020 Page | ii Madera Station Relocation Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Figures Figure 1-1 San Joaquins Service Map ............................................................................. 1 Figure 1-2 Existing Madera San Joaquins Station at Madera Acres ................................ 5 Figure 1-3 Existing Madera Station .................................................................................. 6 Figure 1-4 Proposed Relocated Station at Avenue 12 ..................................................... 7 Figure 2-1 Proposed Project Environmental Footprint ..................................................... 9 Figure 2-2 Proposed Design for Project Phase 1 – San Joaquins Relocated Station (Overview) ........................................................................................ 11 Figure 2-3 Proposed Design for the Project Phase 1 – San Joaquins Relocated Station (Detailed View) .................................................................................. 13 Figure 2-4 Proposed Design for the Project Phase 2 – HSR Interim Operating Segment Station (Overview) ......................................................................... 14 Figure 2-5 Proposed Design for the Project Phase 2 – HSR Interim Operating Segment Station (Detailed View)................................................................... 15 Figure 2-6 Proposed Design for the Project Phase 2 – HSR Interim Operating Segment Station (Station Close-In View) ...................................................... 16 Figure 3.2-1 Farmland Classifications ............................................................................... 31 Figure 3.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species ....................................................................... 53 Figure 3.4-2 Designated Wetlands Part 1 .......................................................................... 54 Figure 3.4-3 Designated Wetlands Part 2 .......................................................................... 55 Figure 3.7-1 California Earthquake Zone Map ................................................................... 99 Figure 3.7-2 Potential for Soil Erosion to Water ............................................................... 102 Figure 3.7-3 Potential for Soil Erosion to Wind ...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview
    APPENDIX G: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW 2011 Regional Transportation Plan DRAFT San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview April 2010 San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Overview Page 6-1 2011 Regional Transportation Plan 1. Executive Summary This chapter provides an interregional perspective to transportation planning within the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) of California, consisting of the entireties of the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern. This chapter addresses several issues of regional and interregional importance including air quality, highways, streets and roads, aviation, rail, goods movement and bicycle efforts. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a broad overview of issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. The Congestion Management Processes and Operations and Maintenance issues will be addressed by each individual RTPA as applicable. Valleywide Planning The recently approved Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) replaced the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) as the funding for major infrastructure investment for transportation improvements. SAFETEA-LU funds are directed toward projects and programs for a broad variety of highway and transit work through several funding components including: Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Transportation Enhancements, Safety Program, Rail Program and Emergency Relief Programs. Previous federal legislation included the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and TEA-21. Transportation planning efforts are directed to be coordinated in geographically defined air basins. The eight counties mentioned above do share an air basin and have many attributes in common. There are also significant differences in the context of transportation planning.
    [Show full text]
  • 1-22-21 SJJPA Agenda Packet
    Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Alternate Melissa Hernandez, City of Dublin Councilmember David Hudson, City of San Ramon Alternate Diane Burgis, Contra Costa County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Daron McDaniel, Merced County Alternate Doug Kuehne, City of Lodi Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Alternate Rey Leon, City of Huron Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County TELECONFERENCE BOARD MEETING January 22, 2021 – 9:00 AM Call-In Information: 1 (646) 749-3112 Conference Access Code: 928-641-597 GoToMeeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/928641597 SPECIAL NOTICE Coronavirus COVID-19 In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference or videoconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing 1 (646) 749-3112 with access code: 928-641-597 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/928641597. Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at [email protected] in which staff will read the comment aloud during the public comment period.
    [Show full text]
  • Madera Station Relocation Project
    Madera Station Relocation Project Sacramento Project Overview Lodi Martinez Richmond Stockton (ACE) What is the Madera Station Relocation Project? Antioch Emeryville Stockton The existing Madera San Joaquins Station (Station), which is Oakland nearly three miles north of Madera, has extremely low ridership Modesto Turlock/ and lacks connecting bus service in the area due to its location. Denair Merced The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA), in coordination Thruway Bus with local leaders, has been planning to relocate the Madera Transfer Station Station to a location near Avenue 12 to better meet regional Madera goals of improving ridership and connectivity. Fresno What is involved in the Project? Hanford To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is anticipated that the Project will require an Initial Corcoran Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to identify potential environmental impacts and associated mitigation Wasco San measures. Once this process is complete, the Project can Joaquins ® Bakersfield move forward to permitting, final design and construction. A schedule can be found on the back of this Fact Sheet. Who is the Lead Agency? Figure 1. Current San Joaquins Route Map SJJPA is responsible for the management of the San Joaquins rail service and is the CEQA lead agency for this effort. To help ensure a successful process, the SJJPA is working closely with the Madera County Transportation Commission, Madera County, City of Madera, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). New Station Location • Approximately 1 mile north of Avenue 12 along the BNSF railroad right-of-way and high-speed rail (HSR) corridor, and 2 miles from the Madera Community College Center • Primarily on publicly-owned land within the Madera State Center Community College Specific Plan, which designates future development in the area and provides opportunity for transit- oriented development • Close to approved future growth areas of Madera County Figure 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 9-25-20 SJJPA Agenda Packet
    Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Vice-Chair, Alameda County Alternate Melissa Hernandez, City of Dublin Councilmember Kevin Romick, City of Oakley Alternate David Hudson, City of San Ramon Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Daron McDaniel, Merced County Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Alternate Doug Kuehne, City of Lodi Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Alternate Martin Devine, City of Hanford Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Alternate Andrew Medellin, City of Madera Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Alternate Rey Leon, City of Huron Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County Alternate Bob Link, City of Visalia CONFERENCE CALL AGENDA September 25th, 2020 – 9:00 AM Call-In Information: 1 (571) 317-3122 Conference Access Code: 858-476-989 GoToMeeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/858476989 SPECIAL NOTICE Coronavirus COVID-19 In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20, N-29-20 and N-35-20, San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board Members will be attending this meeting via teleconference. Members of the public may observe the meeting by dialing 1 (571) 317- 3122 with access code: 858-476-989 or log-in using a computer, tablet or smartphone at GoToMeeting.com using link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/858476989. Please note that all members of the public will be placed on mute until such times allow for public comments to be made. If a person wishes to make a public comment during the meeting, to do so they must either 1) use GoToMeeting and will have the option to notify SJJPA staff by alerting them via the “Chat” function or they can 2) contact SJJPA staff via email at [email protected] in which staff would read the comment aloud during the public comment period.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation
    October 20, 2017 Meeting San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 1. Introductions Steve Cohn, Chair San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 2. Public Comment Steve Cohn, Chair San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee 3. Amtrak San Joaquins Operations Update Daniel Krause SAN JOAQUINS ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-Time Performance FY12 – FY16 100.0% 90.0% 88.1% 84.0% 80.0% 77.7% 75.4% 76.5% 73.6% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 SAN JOAQUINS ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-Time Performance FY17 100.00% 88.70% 90.00% 85.70% 81.20% 80.70% 79.50% 81.00% 78.60% 80.00% 77.90% 71.20% 70.00% 65.70% 66.30% 61.40% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% SAN JOAQUINS RIDERSHIP Ridership Ticket Revenue Month FY17 FY16 % Chg. FY17 FY16 % Chg. Oct 87,454 90,961 -3.9 $2,769,402 $2,756,890 +0.5 Nov 101,672 102,915 -1.2 $3,538,396 $3,609,485 -2.0 Dec 98,053 97,530 +0.5 $3,378,587 $3,415,503 -1.1 Jan 82,707 82,475 +0.3 $2,608,201 $2,643,805 -1.3 Feb 76,288 80,868 -5.7 $2,253,335 $2,424,039 -7.0 Mar 92,019 97,167 -5.3 $2,906,099 $3,118,374 -6.8 Apr 102,440 84,968 +20.6 $3,097,819 $2,529,587 +22.5 May 95,894 96,630 -0.8 $2,961,079 $2,904,982 +1.9 Jun 98,158 97,844 +0.3 $3,088,761 $3,032,447 +1.9 Jul 104,088 107,120 -2.8 $3,317,878 $3,327,313 -0.3 Aug 95,909 94,932 +1.0 $3,050,003 $3,004,462 +1.5 Sep 85,355 88,891 -4.0 $2,733,361 $2,818,684 -3.0 YTD 1,120,037 1,122,301 -0.2 $35,702,920 $35,585,570 +0.3 SAN JOAQUINS RIDERSHIP FY16 v.
    [Show full text]
  • Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
    Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT APPENDIX C HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY October 2020 June 2020 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page | i Appendix C Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum Madera Station Relocation Project Prepared for: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 949 Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 Kaiser Center 300 Lakeside Dr Oakland, CA 94612 October 2020 Madera Station Relocation Project Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................1 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................16 4. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..............................................17 5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................21 6. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................22 October 2020 Page | i Madera Station Relocation Project Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Figures Figure 2-1 Proposed Project Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Agenda January 27, 2017
    Councilmember Don Tatzin, Vice-Chair, City of Lafayette Alternate Federal Glover, Contra Costa County Councilmember Patrick Hume, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Mike Villalta, City of Los Banos Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Alternate Tom Blalock, BART Councilmember Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Alternate Bob Link, City of Visalia Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Alternate Justin Mendes, City of Hanford Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Alternate Andrew Madellin, City of Madera AGENDA January 27, 2017 – 12:30 PM San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 E Weber Avenue, Stockton CA This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
    [Show full text]
  • 2020/2021 Work Program and Budget
    2020/2021 Work Program and Budget Perseverance & Progress Built on solid ground, SJRRC will continue through this unprecedented crisis with vision and momentum. ® Table of Contents ® Executive Summary............................3 SJJPA..............................................11 ® Planning.............................................4 Organizational Chart.........................13 Operations.........................................6 Capital Budget.................................14 Stockton Diamond..............................8 ACE Operating Budget.....................15 Capital Projects..................................9 SJJPA Operating Budget .................16 The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Board of Directors Christina Fugazi Debby Moorhead Scott Haggerty Chair, City of Stockton Commissioner, City of Manteca Commissioner, Alameda County Leo Zuber Nancy Young John Marchand Vice Chair, City of Ripon Commissioner, City of Tracy Commissioner, City of Livermore Bob Elliott Doug Kuehne Commissioner, San Joaquin County Commissioner, City of Lodi Stacey Mortensen Executive Director 2020/2021 Work Program and Budget 2 Executive Summary The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is built on a ing forward and provides much needed jobs for many private solid foundation of political leadership, staff commitment planners, engineers, architects, and construction contractors. and adaptability. The difficult years of the 1998 ACE start- The Valley Rail Program will continue to press forward in the up, the 2003 dot.com implosion, and the 2009 full recession coming year with multiple environmental processes to keep have prepared the agency to deal with the unknowns of the the entire Program on-track and set to deliver transforma- coming year. Staff is prepared to work with less, cover extra tional service expansion for both ACE and the San Joaquins. workload and find ways to leverage and share resources with Also, included in the Capital Program are key passenger other partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority
    Madera Station Relocation Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority MADERA STATION RELOCATION PROJECT APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SAN JOAQUIN JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY October 2020 June 2020 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page | i Madera Station Relocation Project Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Appendix B Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum Madera Station Relocation Project Prepared for: San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority 949 Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 Kaiser Center 300 Lakeside Dr Oakland, CA 94612 October 2020 Madera Station Relocation Project Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 2 3. REGULATORY CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 17 4. RECORDS SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 20 5. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION............................................................................................ 21 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Harnessing High-Speed Rail How California and Its Cities Can Use Rail to Reshape Their Growth Contents
    Harnessing High-Speed Rail How California and its cities can use rail to reshape their growth Contents Acknowledgments 4 Executive Summary 6 Introduction: Reshaping the Economic Map of California Primary Author: Egon Terplan Additional writing and research: 12 The Opportunity of High-Speed Rail in California Susannah Parsons, Yiyang Yu Thank you to the dozens of city, county, 30 Barriers to Achieving the Vision for High-Speed Rail regional, state and federal officials, local employers, community activists, developers 36 Recommendations and others who shared their ideas and perspectives in the development of this Harnessing report. Special thank you to the local leaders 48 Appendix A: Plan of Action in Gilroy, Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield for their planning efforts in response to the major opportunity of high-speed rail. SPUR also 50 Appendix B: Methods and Assumptions wishes to acknowledge the involvement of High-Speed Rail officials from the California High-Speed Rail 51 Appendix C: Key Conclusions and Recommendations From Authority, the Strategic Growth Council and the California State Transportation Agency SPUR’s Beyond the Tracks (CalSTA). How California and its cities can Edited by Karen Steen 52 Endnotes Copyedited by Rachel Fudge use rail to reshape their growth Proofread by Valerie Sinzdak Design by Nicole Smiley SPUR 654 Mission Street 76 South First Street 1544 Broadway San Francisco, CA 94105 San Jose, CA 95113 Oakland CA, 94612 tel. 415.781.8726 tel. 408.638.0083 tel. 510.827.1900 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Harnessing High-Speed Rail How California and Its Cities Can Use Rail to Reshape Their Growth Contents
    Harnessing High-Speed Rail How California and its cities can use rail to reshape their growth Contents Acknowledgments 4 Executive Summary 6 Introduction: Reshaping the Economic Map of California Primary Author: Egon Terplan Additional writing and research: 12 The Opportunity of High-Speed Rail in California Susannah Parsons, Yiyang Yu Thank you to the dozens of city, county, 30 Barriers to Achieving the Vision for High-Speed Rail regional, state and federal officials, local employers, community activists, developers 36 Recommendations and others who shared their ideas and perspectives in the development of this report. Special thank you to the local leaders 48 Appendix A: Plan of Action in Gilroy, Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield for their planning efforts in response to the major opportunity of high-speed rail. SPUR also 50 Appendix B: Methods and Assumptions wishes to acknowledge the involvement of officials from the California High-Speed Rail 51 Appendix C: Key Conclusions and Recommendations From Authority, the Strategic Growth Council and the California State Transportation Agency SPUR’s Beyond the Tracks (CalSTA). Edited by Karen Steen 52 Endnotes Copyedited by Rachel Fudge Proofread by Valerie Sinzdak Design by Nicole Smiley SPUR 654 Mission Street 76 South First Street 1544 Broadway San Francisco, CA 94105 San Jose, CA 95113 Oakland CA, 94612 tel. 415.781.8726 tel. 408.638.0083 tel. 510.827.1900 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Harnessing High-Speed Rail How California and its cities can use rail to reshape their growth Executive Summary In the 20th century, California invested in significant To fully realize these and other benefits, the forward-looking projects like the California State Water improved accessibility that a fast train brings must be Project, the state highway system and the California combined with targeted policies and investments to Master Plan for Higher Education, which linked the transform the economies of the cities with high-speed University of California, California State University rail stations.
    [Show full text]
  • 7-26-19 SJ JPA Agenda Packet
    Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Vice-Chair, Alameda County Councilmember Kevin Romick, City of Oakley Alternate David Hudson, City of San Ramon Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Daron McDaniel, Merced County Councilmember Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Alternate Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Alternate Francisco Ramirez, City of Hanford Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Alternate Andrew Medellin, City of Madera Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County Alternate Bob Link, City of Visalia AGENDA July 26th, 2019 – 9:00 AM Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Chambers 1010 10th Street (Basement), Modesto CA, 95354 Oakland Tulare County 1311 Midvale Ave Administrative Board of Lodi, CA Building Supervisors 95240 1221 Oak Street, Board Room Oakland, CA, 94612 2800 West Burrel Avenue, Visalia, CA, 93291 This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the offices of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission located at 949 E.
    [Show full text]