Minutes - December 4, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Church (Chair), Rich Gordon, Michael Guingona, John Lee, Lee Panza, Ira Ruskin

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Galligan

STAFF PRESENT: Michael Scanlon, Joan Cassman, David Miller, Howard Goode, Joe Hurley, Shahla Yazdy, Roger Contreras, Rita Haskin, Jim McKim, Martha Martinez, Jennifer Buhr

Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

CONSENT CALENDAR

The Board unanimously approved the following items under the Consent Calendar:

1. Approval of Minutes of October 2, 2003
2. Approval of Minutes of November 6, 2003
3. Adoption of Financial Statements, September 2003
4. Adoption of Financial Statements, October 2003
5. Adopt Meeting Calendar for 2004

PUBLIC COMMENT

None at this time.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) REPORT

Doris Maez reported:

• At the most recent meeting there was an election of officers. Larry Shaine will be the new chair and the new vice-chair will be Stephanie Wiegold.
• Randy Hees and David Cropper headed a retreat, which was in held in October. The half-day retreat was scheduled to discuss Measure A.
• Agenda item 10(b), Route 1 Improvements for Westport Drive to Fassler Avenue, instigated many discussions. Ultimately, the vote of the CAC was 10 to 3 to support the staff recommendation. However, there was a lot of concern regarding both the scale and the scope of the project. Another concern that the CAC had involved the level of funding that the City of Pacifica would be requested of the TA. The CAC understands that there are other projects that have been fully funded by the TA. However, this project seems to be the more expensive, which is concerning.
• The CAC unanimously supported agenda item 10(a), allocations to the JPB for engineering at various stations and grade separations and 10(c), authorization to execute a two-year lease with Herbert Martinez for property located at 101 San Bruno Avenue.
• Ms. Maez referenced the request of approval for the revised attendance policy and commented that the attachment to the staff report stated that the CAC meets at 4:00 p.m. However, they now meet at 4:30 p.m. The main reason for the revised attendance policy involves an ongoing situation of attrition.
• Three CAC members attended the Measure A workshop held in Pacifica. There is a commitment of eight CAC members to attend the workshop that will be held in Daly City.
• Noted the presence of George Zimmerman and Pat Dixon in the audience.

The Board unanimously approved the motion of approval for the revised TA CAC attendance policy.

CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT

No report at this time.

SAMTRANS LIAISON REPORT

Director Guingona reported in reference to the written reports from the October 8 and November 5 meetings, which were included within the packet.

Director Lee questioned whether the suspension of the parking fees was a success.

Michael Scanlon responded that the hard data has not been received. However, anecdotally it seems to be helping. Additionally, today ING bank sponsored the BART riders from 6:00 a.m. through 9:00 a.m. so that riders could take the inbound train free.

JOINT POWERS BOARD REPORT

Michael Scanlon reported on the November 6 and December 4 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board meetings, as follows:

November 6, 2003

• The Nominating Committee for the Vice Chair has agreed to commence without a vice-chair for the remainder of the year. The new Nominating Committee for next year’s chair and vice-chair has been formed with Director Lloyd as chairman, Director Burns and Director Yeager.
• Last week the MTC held a workshop in San Mateo County, which included the Commissioners riding on Caltrain and BART.
• Resolution of Appreciation was given to Manuel Valerio for his service on the JPB since 2000.
• Key Caltrain Performance Statistics:
1. September ridership went from 692,476 to 691,370 riders, a .2 percent decrease.
2. September average weekday ridership was down 2 percent, from 28,586 weekday riders to 28,001.
3. September total revenue was off 4.4 percent from $1.79 million to $1.72 million
4. On-Time Performance was 92.3 percent versus 96.6 percent from last September.
5. September shuttle ridership had an decrease of 4.6 percent with 4,018 riders down from 4,210.
• Rider Rep Program has been initiated. The program consists of randomly selecting passengers on the system and distributing evaluation forms for critiquing their ride. The information will be presented, on a quarterly basis, to the JPB CAC. The feedback will be used as a tool to improve service.
• Work on Diridon Station began on October 27. The project consists of rebuilding platforms and ramps to make the station ADA compatible.
• Recognition for Caltrain conductor Charles (Chuck) Herndon for Amtrak President’s Service and Safety Award for Sustained Excellence.
• Recognition of Palo Alto Community Service Officer Gabe Mora for his action in saving the life of an elderly woman by pulling her off the tracks of an approaching train on October 8, 2003.
• Chuck Harvey gave an update on the equipment, construction and schedule development of the Baby Bullet project. There is still hope to complete the work in the spring of 2004 so that the Baby Bullet service can be initiated.
• Monthly Safety and Security report was distributed. There was one fatality on October 15.
• The audit by the Federal Railroad Administration was just successfully completed.
• A new coffee vendor opened on October 15 at the 4th and King Station.
• A modified schedule ran the day after Thanksgiving.
• Rita Haskin gave a presentation on the Passenger Survey results.
• The Caltrain commercial was shown. The commercial will be run on cable stations.
• The Board unanimously authorized the following actions:
1. Authorized Executive Director or Designee to Execute Right of Way Certifications.
2. Authorized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with City of San Bruno for Grade Separation Project
3. Authorized rejection of low monetary bid from Iconco, Inc and award of Lenzen Yard Demolition and Grading contract to HSR, Inc.

Director Panza questioned whether there was any indication of an increase in ridership.

Mr. Scanlon responded that October was the first full month of Proof-of-Payment (POP), which went into effect September 22. The October average weekday ridership indicated that ridership was off 6.4 percent. However, since on September 22 fares changed and a one-way ticket went from being eligible for thirty days, to a ticket that would only be good for four hours, staff speculates that transit riders bought tickets in advance of September. Since the ridership numbers are drawn from how many tickets are sold, averaging the ridership from September (2 percent) and October (6 percent) would be a more accurate number of riders for the month of October. Mr. Scanlon anecdotally commented that ridership is coming back slowly.

• A Resolution of Appreciation was presented to Mary Janney for her service on the JPB since 2002.

• Key Caltrain Performance Statistics:

1. October total ridership went from 727,711 to 701,563 riders, a 3.6 percent decrease.
2. October average weekday ridership was down 6.4 percent, from 28,177 weekday riders to 26,363.
3. October total revenue was off 10.5 percent from $1.82 million to $1.63 million.
4. On-Time Performance was 93.9 percent versus 95.3 percent from last October.
5. October shuttle ridership had an increase of 4.7 percent with 4,230 riders up from 4,040.
• MTC is now engaged in the hearings for the next Regional Transportation Plan. This year there will be focus on the transportation shortfall and the desire by counties to have flexibilities, particularly with streets and roads.
• Gerald Graham reported that at the last CAC meeting there were public comments including Take Ones on the train, the Transbay Terminal and modifications of the parking structure at Millbrae. Additionally, Maureen O’Sullivan gave a presentation on the Passenger Survey results and Ian McAvoy gave a presentation on the Strategic Plan.
• Toy for Tots Train was another success this year. Special thanks go to the Marine Corps, the Golden Gate Museum, and all the choirs and bands that helped with the festivities. Rita Haskin, Chief Communications Officer, made a presentation on the success of this years train.
• The installation of the bridge at Bayshore was completed this past Sunday.
• The Public Hearing for the proposed schedule changes is anticipated to be held in February. Staff has received a wide variety of public comments regarding the proposed changes.
• ING Bank is sponsoring rides on BART therefore, today is a free-ride day on BART.
• Caltrain is eligible for a security grant of $800,000. The funds were made available under the FY2004 Appropriations Act for the Homeland Security Department
• Monthly Safety and Security report was distributed. There was a fatality on November 14. A young male student reportedly leaped in front of the train in Palo Alto.
• Ian McAvoy gave a presentation on the draft Caltrain Strategic Plan and notice of plan circulation to the public for comment.
• The Board unanimously authorized the following actions:
1. Award of contract to William P. Young Construction, Inc. for the fabrication and installation of mini-high platforms at various stations.
2. Authorized execution of an agreement with Digital Concepts, Inc. for a traffic control system premium service package

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

a) Update of Reauthorization of Measure A

Howard Goode, Chief Development Officer, reported that staff has been working with the C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) over the past nine months on the reauthorization of Measure A. The task of the committee was to address the question of how the money should be divided within programs in a new measure. A request was sent to every city in the county for the identification of potential projects. The response was a list of projects in the total amount of $3.4 billion, which is roughly three times the amount that a new measure would provide. Subsequently, there were screenings and eliminations of projects, which resulted in a revised total amount of $2.6 billion. Taking into consideration of reasonable grant money that would be available, a consensus conclusion was made around a split in the program between highways, local streets, transit, grade separations, pedestrian/bikes, TSM/TDM and administration. In many respects, the outcome is not that different to what the current measure holds. Further input is desired before a final program is designed. The TAC also discussed prioritization of the projects within the categories, which staff is continuing to work on. Staff hopes to bring back a proposal for a draft expenditure plan at the February meeting.

Rita Haskin, Chief Communications Officer, reported that 25 people participated in the Coastside Measure A workshop held in Pacifica. Good input was received on the proposed projects that the technical track put together and some proposed their own projects. A group of teenagers proposed later evening bus service or shuttle service. Some also wanted a pedestrian/bike trail parallel to Highway 1 so that they could traverse the coast. All projects will be reviewed. The North County workshop will be held in Daly City on December 10 and the South County workshop will be held January 24 in Redwood City.

Director Panza questioned whether it was appropriate to spend public money on something that would potentially become a ballot issue.

David Miller, Legal Counsel, responded that there is a difference between education and advocacy. The interpretation of the statute that governs the board is that the board is under a duty to prepare the plan. As the trustee of the funds, the board has an obligation to bring something to the voters. In light of that duty, money can be spent in order to develop the plan. However, the line would be drawn once the plan is developed. At that time it would not be permissible to spend money to advocate for adoption.

Director Panza commented that C/CAG does not have the statutory responsibility so Director Panza questioned whether the situation would be different for C/CAG to be distributing money towards the workshops.

Mr. Miller stated that he is not familiar with the agreements by which C/CAG is created in order to give a response.

Director Gordon questioned whether Legal Counsel could have a meeting with C/CAG Counsel to identify permissible activities.

Mr. Miller responded that one conversation has taken place and both Counsels are under the same understanding between advocacy and education. It is Mr. Miller’s understanding that C/CAG Counsel reached the conclusion that C/CAG may spend money to advance the Measure A plan development process.

Director Ruskin commented in regard to the development of the project "wish list." The people that have been most aware of the deficiencies in the transportation network around the county have been meeting to put together what should be included in the plan. At this point there are more projects than there is money in the measure. Director Ruskin questioned what the process of selecting projects will be.

Mr. Goode responded that more information would be available at the February meeting. However, the notions of flexibility and being able to identify the best projects and making adjustments over the course of the measure are all desired characteristics.

Director Lee commented that the existing measure also had flexibility for variations.

Mr. Scanlon stated that the TA is very fortunate that there is a separate group, the Citizens for Traffic Relief, which is working to raise private funds so that advocacy can be done. The advocacy will include polling the public. In the final analysis, there needs to be two-thirds vote in support.

b) Presentation on Ramp Metering Study

Howard Goode prefaced the presentation by stating that the Transportation Authority is a partner with C/CAG in a study of ramp metering on Highway 101. The specific reason for the partnership is that the TA is making a large investment in improvements along Highway 101 with interchanges and auxiliary lanes and ramp metering is a potential tool for making the most effective use of that capacity. Additionally, there is evidence of benefits for the projects in the current measure. The modeling that has been completed indicates how congestion that would otherwise be taking place, both currently and in the future, is going to be mitigated by projects that the TA is doing.

Walter Martone and Sandy Wong, of C/CAG, made a presentation on the Peninsula Corridor Ramp Metering Project. Highlights of the presentation included, objectives, study area, key assumptions, study scenarios, growth forecasts, "no metering" results indications, I-101 and I-280 travel times and queuing diagrams. The presentation also included details of Scenario 1 (limited metering) and Scenario 2 (expanded metering) as well as what the next steps of the project are.

FINANCE

a) Authorization of Allocations to the JPB for Engineering at Various Stations and Grade Separations

Jim McKim, Senior Engineer, reported that staff recommends the approval of funding to the following projects. In the City of Burlingame, allocate $1,680,000 from the Caltrain category of Measure A funds to the JPB for engineering and construction of a modification to the Burlingame station. In the City of South San Francisco, allocate $1,165,000 from the Caltrain category of Measure A funds to the JPB for engineering of a new South San Francisco station. The San Bruno Grade Separation, allocate $5,000,000 from the Grade Separations category of Measure A funds to the JPB engineering of the San Bruno Grade Separation.

Mr. McKim stated that all of the allocations are consistent with the Strategic Plan.

Director Lee referred to the Burlingame item and questioned whether engineering and construction were included in the allocation.

Mr. McKim, stated that the allocation will also include money for construction.

Debbie Lucero, San Bruno, commented that the Caltrain/BART project was just finished. It entailed three years of pounding, driving and loud noises. Homes were damaged because of the project. Ms. Lucero stated that she lives right across the street from the Sylvan/San Bruno Caltrain station and has never received information regarding the grade separation in depth. Ms. Lucero feels that both the projects should have been done at the same time. Further Mr. Lucero stated that there was no public hearing for the citizens to be able to vote on.

Mark Harnett, San Bruno, commented that he is opposed to the San Bruno Grade Separation project primarily from a financial point of view. Mr. Harnett doesn’t think that $93 million, as proposed, is a good use of taxpayer money. It is Mr. Harnett’s understanding that there are two primary objectives to this project. One being to reduce congestion and the second involving the safety issue. Over the last 30 years, Mr. Harnett stated that there have been about six deaths in and around the San Bruno crossings. Of those, many of them have been going around load barriers. Mr. Harnett feels that the efficacy of spending $93 million to save a handful of lives over a quarter of a century is not a good use of money. Additionally, Mr. Harnett stated that the process of the allocation seems murky. He has spoken to staff members regarding how the ranking is decided upon for allocated money from Measure A to the San Bruno Grade Separation project. It is his understanding that it follows the CPUC rankings, which are based upon a $5 million project, not a $93 million project cost, which Mr. Harnett feels is faulty. Lastly, Mr. Harnett stated that $93 million is almost two years of the total Measure A spending with only five years left in Measure A, which seems like an unproportional amount.

Jim Ruane, Councilmember of San Bruno, commented that he represents Mayor Larry Fanzella, Councilmember Ken Ibarra and Councilmember Irene O’Connell who couldn’t attend the meeting. Additionally, Mr. Ruane stated that he represented 15 members of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), who unanimously approved this project after a number of months of meetings. In March of 2000, there was yet another death at this location. This intersection is so convoluted and dangerous that it invites trouble. At the time, the city was bombarded by citizens wondering what was going to be done about the intersection. The City of San Bruno got together with the JPB to work out a solution. Five alternatives were identified. With long discussion, public comment and study sessions, alternative five was chosen as the preferred city alternative. Additionally, a 15-member Citizens Advisory Committee was formed. There were 10 meetings with the JPB engineering staff to decide what would be done with the project. Mr. Ruane commented that this grade separation is desperately needed not only from a Baby Bullet or vehicular stand point but to relieve a real safety problem.

James Kelly, requested that before the board commits to spending nearly $100 million in San Bruno, they should ask themselves if collisions could be averted or reduced in other less costly ways. Mr. Kelly stated that one promising alternative is better crossing barriers. Barriers that can not be driven around, crashed through, climbed over or ducked under. The State Rail Safety Division informed Mr. Kelly that prototypes of such barriers now exist. Mr. Kelly has heard that one type is already in use in the state of Mississippi. Mr. Kelly questioned whether Caltrain and city officials have seriously considered such alternatives to grade separations. According to Mr. Kelly, it is not clear that the staff and officials have. Mr. Kelly stated that it makes little sense to proceed with a faulty project. Mr. Kelly commented that the project would not eliminate fatal collisions. In fact, as designed, it may increase the hazard of collisions. By that Mr. Kelly means, it will leave a serious rail curve in place and add a fairly abrupt slope to the curve. Mr. Kelly stated that the money would be better spent trying to reduce all deaths instead of just a few in one community.

Linda Bascono, San Bruno, echoed the comments that Mr. Kelly made. Mr. Bascono commented that she is a resident of Mills Avenue. Since all the construction is going to be going on in the evening, Ms. Bascono stated that it will definitely impact the residents in terms of noise and it will affect their homes. Ms. Bascono commented that the residents just went through the Caltrain/BART construction, in which Ms. Bascono had damage to her home from the pile driving. Further Ms. Bascono stated that the trucks going by at nights, the massive lighting and the pile driving is very disruptive. During the BART project, Ms. Bascono suffered cracking to her home because of the pile driving. If $93 million is going to be spent, it would be worthwhile to look into an alternative. Although one can not put a price on a human life, she suggested that there might be a better solution. Ms. Bascono also commented that the citizens were never given an opportunity to vote on the project because there were no public hearings.

Shirley Allen, San Bruno, reported that there were no public hearings for this project of any sort. Ms. Allen went through vibration and cracks in her foundation and stated that she did not receive anything from BART for the damages. Ms. Allen is concerned with the safety of the individuals that will not get sleep because of the project work and is concerned with additional damages. If there were public hearings, these concerns would have been risen before.

Anthony Washington, San Bruno, commented that he was never given a notice nor did he read anything legally published in the newspaper for the San Bruno Grade Separation project. No legal public hearings were held or posted in the City or Caltrain. Mr. Washington stated that he is a security officer and has figured out that if the $93 million is kept in a four or five interest barring account, the interest alone would produce enough money to pay for guards in a small enclosure at the two crossings. It would also pay the cost to erect a ten-foot wall along the track and cover it with vegetation and to realign the two or three streets near the current crossing. There would also be money left over to fix up the Sylvan Station and to get the newest technology of gates, bells and whistles for the Huntington and Angus crossings. This alternative would not use the $93 million and the money could be used for something more urgent. Additionally, Mr. Washington stated that of the people that he has spoke to, none of them want the grade separation.

Barbara LaRaia, San Bruno, reported that for the record no public hearings were held, posted or published for the San Bruno Grade Separation project. Ms. LaRaia commented that there is a legal issue pending, which the board has copies of, regarding the mayor’s alleged conflict of interest in owning three properties within feet of the train station. Ms. LaRaia stated that there were no public hearings and a San Bruno councilwoman is making a motion and voting for her own mother to be on the Citizens Advisory Committee. The new station will be on the sharpest curve of the entire system. 400 signatures were given previously to the JPB to keep the station at Sylvan permanently. Ms. LaRaia stated that the BART subway is in the way, the above I-380 overpass is in the way and trains are a foot too tall. There was no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) done. Ms. LaRaia commented that the new gelatinous soil caused by BART’s subway affecting drainage, will cause problems later for elevated structure. Further, Ms. LaRaia stated that this ill-fated plan calls for the storm drain to be placed on top of the BART subway. In today’s Chronicle and in the New York Times last week, there were articles regarding less expensive ways of preventing accidents, yet Ms. LaRaia stated that no public entity will look at these ways, which leads one to believe that safety may not be the reason for this outrageously priced, half mile project that costs $93 million. Ms. LaRaia commented that the taxpayers deserve to have a project that represents the democratic process, is done in an ethical manner, does not have major engineering nightmares and is fiscally responsible. Ms. LaRaia requested that the board either vote no for this funding or postpone the vote until the major problems of this project are addressed. Further, Ms. LaRaia submitted a list of signatures that were obtained, under penalty of perjury, that they never received notices of the project.

Richard Dunbar, San Bruno, commented that he is a 23 year resident of San Bruno and is currently in his third term as commander of the Local American Legion Post. The Post is comprised of 225 veterans that served during wartime. The Post building is located on the corner of Huntington and San Mateo Avenue. They have just gone through the BART construction and now are being asked to suffer another couple of years with the proposed grade separation. Mr. Dunbar commented that it is his understanding that this is a project that the people of San Bruno do not want. There has never been any public hearings on the matter. To Mr. Dunbar, it is irresponsible to spend $93 million when the state of California is suffering from a serious budget deficient. At a recent meeting of the Post, there was a unanimous vote to oppose the grade separation.

Chris Pallas, San Bruno, stated that he agreed with the previous comments. Mr. Pallas commented that when he was running for City Council, he had a stroke. He ran his campaign from a wheelchair and was able to get more votes than anybody while spending less money, which Mr. Pallas believes shows he has a good following in San Bruno. Mr. Pallas stated that there were interviews of about 20 people regarding the grade separation. After the people were interviewed, Mr. Ruane pulled a piece of paper out of his pocket that had 15 names written down, which Mr. Ruane nominated and received a second on. When Mr. Pallas asked if he could nominate someone, Mr. Ruane allowed, but Mr. Pallas did not receive a second for any of his nominations. According to Mr. Pallas, at the next council meeting Councilman Ibarra stated that they purposely picked people that were in favor of the grade separation. Mr. Pallas requested that the board not make a vote on the project tonight.

Doris Maez reported that she was on the CAC for the grade separation. Her initial interest was because she was concerned with the design of some of the grade separations down the line and their ADA compliance. Ms. Maez commented that there were many meetings and the public was notified and attended some of the meetings. The JPB staff worked very hard to make the process work. One comment that Ms. Maez made was that the San Bruno Avenue area is more commercial in nature than residential, which Ms. Maez points out that because of that it won’t be quite as disruptive to residents as it would be. One concern that Ms. Maez does have regards Scott Street crossing, which will be closed eventually. Ms. Maez stated that the Scott Street project got removed from the San Bruno project and got moved over to the South San Francisco project and Ms. Maez wants to make sure that it is not forgotten.

Lylliam Decourt, San Bruno, commented that she lives on Mills Avenue and reported that she did not receive any notifications regarding a public hearing for this project. Ms. Decourt stated that the San Bruno residents have already endured enough with BART constructions. Her house received some damage without any help from BART. Ms. Decourt commented that she would appreciate it if the board could come up with another solution because the grade separation will be a problem.

Carlos Decourt, San Bruno, stated that he has lived in San Bruno for almost 20 years. Mr. Decourt reported that there were a lot of problems with the BART construction and stated that he opposed the San Bruno Grade Separation. Mr. Decourt commented that he was just made aware of the project two days ago. Prior to that, he received no notifications or information on the project, if they would have received the information they would have made their comments earlier. Mr. Decourt doesn’t believe that $93 million should be used for this project.

Rose Urbach, San Bruno, commented that in her view this grade separation is nothing more than a want, not a need. The citizens are being told that the project is for safety but she doesn’t believe that is true. Ms. Urbach stated that she supports the prior comments of Chris Pallas.

Director Lee requested that staff address the issue of public hearings and notices regarding this issue.

Mr. Goode responded that the City Council had two workshops that were open to the public and broadcast over cable TV, at which the JPB came and made presentations on alternatives to the project. Those workshops were the basis for City Council actions relative to the project. In addition to that, a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was comprised which was made up of a range of individuals from business and residents from around the community. The meetings of the CAC were all public meetings.

David Miller, General Counsel, reported in regard to what the Expenditure Plan says and how it might bear on the policy issue of this project. The Expenditure Plan lists a number of projects and prioritizes them. It states that as a general proposition the Caltrain improvements and grade separations constitute the number one priority within the Expenditure Plan. There are standards within the Expenditure Plan that include, "individual grade separation locations will be built according to priority to be determined by the County Transportation Authority based on a state PUC formula." Mr. Miller stated that the second requirement includes the desire of the city involved. The Plan does not enumerate any minimum requirements in terms of process. In the past, as cities have come to the board to seek funding, weight was accorded to the wishes of the City Council. If it is the pleasure of the board, the proposed expenditure would be permissible from a legal standpoint.

Mr. Scanlon added that in terms of the California Public Utility Commission, this project is rated number 5 on the list, and the first in the County, of priority because of safety issues. In regard to the comments that were presented, Mr. Scanlon stated that the overall concern involved going through the three years of BART construction that was conducted at night. Mr. Scanlon commented that there has been no determination made that the construction for this project would be done at night.

The motion to authorize allocations to the JPB for engineering at various stations and grade separations was approved unanimously, by roll call, and resolution 2003-19 was adopted.

b) Approval of the City of Pacifica Additional Funding Request – Route 1 Improvements from Westport Drive to Fassler Avenue – Calera Parkway Project

Joe Hurley, Director of the Transportation Authority Program, reported that the staff recommends approval allocating $1,008,000 Measure A funds to the City of Pacifica for the improvements of Route 1. This additional allocation would provide the City of Pacifica with the necessary funding to complete the Environmental Documents, Project Report and Design for the improvements to Route 1 from Westport Drive to Fassler Avenue. This segment of Route 1 experiences significant congestion northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. The purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate current and projected traffic on Route 1 and to bring the level of the service of the two intersections within the project limits to a level of service of E, or better, as called for in the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan. The TA staff has been working closely with the City of Pacifica. In July, the City made a request of the TA for 100 percent funding commitment to the board for what had grown to be a $20 million project. The TA staff responded to the City with a concern about the project cost escalation and the increase in the TA share. Staff informed the City that before any additional funding would be considered, that they explore and develop cost saving opportunities for this project. The City came back to the TA staff with a revised project and revised cost of $15 million. The TA staff has received a commitment from the City to explore the alternatives that are being proposed. Mr. Hurley pointed out that this allocation is for the Environmental Document Project Report and Design, which will provide information that will clearly allow staff to assess the benefits of the project and develop, with confidence, a refined cost estimate.

Shahla Yazdy, Engineer, reported that the proposal includes widening Route 1 by one lane in each direction between Fassler Avenue and Westport, adding a Class 1 bicycle lane and completing signal intersection modifications at two of the intersections. Additionally, a landscaped median would be done. There are some wetland mitigations for this project and staff is currently working with the Federal and State agencies to come up with a plan.

James Vreeland, Mayor of Pacifica, commented that this is a critically important project locally. This project will increases some wetland mitigation and potentially some additional habitat along the highway that is important to a number of endangered species. There have been a number of alternatives that community members have come up with and the recommendation for tonight is to move ahead with the entire process that would allow review and evaluation of all the alternatives. Mr. Vreeland reported that the entire Council is supportive of this project.

Todd Bray, Pacifica, reported on an alternative that he devised dealing with the Reina Del Mar intersection. The alternative involves altering the intersection slightly to allow traffic flow in and out of the Reina Del Mar intersection. Mr. Bray commented that this alternative would be about $1 million project, which is about 14 times cheaper than widening the highway, and would be more cost effective. Mr. Bray presented a visual that he prepared that illustrated his alternative.

Robert Pilgrim, Pacifica, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club. Mr. Pilgrim reported that the comments indicating that there is one lane in each direction with a median divider is not that benign. According to Mr. Pilgrim, the Calera Parkway project constitutes significant adverse and avoidable impacts in that it has been identified as a latten segment. Mr. Pilgrim stated that he was going to exhaust all remedies to prevent this segment in becoming an objective reality.

Doris Maez encouraged those involved to look at the alternatives for this project. Ms. Maez commented that this project generated many discussions at the CAC meeting. Ms. Maez pointed out that some of the traffic at certain parts of the day is due to school traffic. Ms. Maez reported that there has been a public policy made that includes the elimination of school busses. However, Ms. Maez feels that the other impacts of the decision should be examined.

Pat Dixon, Redwood Shores, expressed concern in regards to the center strip of 26 feet with 10-foot shoulder on either side. Ms. Dixon asked that because of the size of the space, if later down the road if this area would become another lane.

Director Panza commented that although Mr. Vreeland indicated that the money would be used to look at all alternatives, the staff report indicates that the process that would utilize this money would be to finish the environmental process for this design rather than considering any other alternatives. Director Panza questioned whether other alternatives were going to be seriously considered.

Mr. Hurley responded that the environment process requires that staff vigorously explore and evaluate all reasonable alternatives that meet the projects purpose and need. Therefore, the proposals that were brought forth will be analyzed and assessed, as well as refinement for the presented alternative. Mr. Hurley clarified that the presented alternative is still in early stages and there are still opportunities to mold and shape the project to minimize the environmental impact and potentially reduce the project cost. The funding that is being requested is to arm the staff with the tools to analyze the different alternatives and to refine the presented alternatives.

Director Panza clarified that the money would then not be focused on the one alternative that was presented. Mr. Hurley responded that is correct.

Director Gordon commented that he is well aware of the congestion that occurs around the area in Pacifica. However, Director Gordon is not sure if he supports this particular proposal and yet he would be prepared to support the fund allocation with the understanding that it would include the exploration of all alternatives and the reduction or eliminated of the median, which may reduce the right-of-way costs. Additionally, Director Gordon wants to make sure that if there were wetland mitigations required relative to the area, that the environmental document would clearly show that TA money was used to do the minimum that would be required. Director Gordon doesn’t think that TA money should be used for major environmental projects that have their own benefit. Director Gordon clarified that he is aware of the particular wetland that is in need of improvement. However, if mitigation was required by this project, the project would be designed in a way that wouldn’t need overspending of TA money on mitigation. If the environmental report can address those issues, Director Gordon would support the project.

Director Ruskin expressed that he has some additional concerns that he doesn’t have all the information that is needed for this project.

Director Lee questioned what the matching funds of the City would normally be asked to provide assuming that the project is estimated at $15 million.

Mr. Goode responded that many of the projects with Measure A funds have been matched with state highway funds, which is the case along the 101. There have been projects that have were 100 percent TA funding. The reason for that is there is a limited amount of state transportation funding available. In terms of a matching requirement, the highway program has never had a specific matching funding requirement from the local communities.

Director Gordon commented in congruent with the concerns of Director Ruskin and would hope that all concerns would be addressed by the environmental review that is being requested. Director Gordon reiterated the need to have all alternatives reviewed for this proposal.

The motion to approve the City of Pacifica additional funding request – Route 1 Improvements from Westport Drive to Fassler Avenue – Calera Parkway Project was passed (5-1), Director Ruskin dissenting, and Resolution 2003-20 was adopted.

c) Authorization for the Executive Director or Designee to Execute a Two-Year Lease with Herbert Martinez for Property Located at 101 San Bruno Avenue, San Bruno and to Reimburse SamTrans for Payment of a Real Commission

Howard Goode requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda due to further negotiations with the lessee, which now allows the Executive Director to execute the lease.

Capital Projects Status Report – 1^st Quarter FY2004

Director Panza made reference to page 2 of 2, under the Oversight section, line 00603 Strategic Plan Update, which shows a revised budget of $601,000. The table indicates $586,000 encumbered and yet in the far right column there is an intention to expend another $100,000. Director Panza questioned whether there may have a been a mistake with that number.

Mr. Hurley commented that there was a typo.

Director Panza also questioned whether there was a mistake under the 007770 Reauthorization Planning, which shows $340,000 encumbered this year.

Mr. Hurley responded that that too was a typo and the corrections would be made.

Director Panza commented that there seems to be an issue of waiting for final invoices regarding C/CAG services and requested that the TA staff and C/CAG staff get the issues resolved.

Mr. Hurley responded that he would take care of it.

REQUESTS FROM THE AUTHORITY

None at this time.

REPORT FROM LEGAL COUNSEL

None at this time.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION TO AUTHORITY

The communications packets were distributed to the Board members.

DATE/TIME OF NEXT MEETING:

Thursday, January 8, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. at the SamTrans Administrative Building, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070

ADJOURNED: 7:25 p.m.