HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1994.06.2917 6
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, June 29, L994
Burlingame Intermediate School Auditorium
Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony convened the special city council forum of the Burlingame City
Council concerning the BART/San Francisco Airport Extension on the above date at
Burlingame Intermediate School at 7:06 p.m.
CouNcr. Pnrsrxr: HenrusoN, KNIcHT, O'MeHoNy, PectnRo, SuNrttl
BART/SauTRnNs: Totrt MencRo, Texls SaLrres, HoweRo Goone (SevTnnNs), Jna Wssr
(PnmNsur-e Rau- 2000)
Sr.AFr Pnrsgvr: ARcyREs, CoLnMRN, MouRog
Mayor O'Mahony welcomed the audience of approximately 200 citizens. She urged that the
citizens become informed regarding the impact of the project alternatives proposed so they
might influence the final decision particularly at the SamTrans Board. The purpose of the
forum was to make the public aware early on of the alternatives being studied by BART and
SamTrans for the BART/San Francisco Airport Extension. The city is particularly concerned
about Alternative VI which is the only alternative that would affect Burlingame. She reviewed
the EIR (environmental irnpact report) and decision-making process by BART and SamTrans.
She urged that the public hearing on the EIR should be held in September, not August,
because of farnily vacations. She next asked Councilman Spinelli for his opening comments.
Councilman Spinelli noted that it was important to have a point of reference concerning the
project; and since he is a photographer, he had prepared a number of slides. He presented a
series of slides which included the wording of Measure K concerning locating an external
station near the airport and US-101 interchange west of the freeway. He asked why, given the
vote, we are looking at Alternative VI which involves a station inside the airport and at
Millbrae Avenue. He noted that the majority of the users of the proposed station would be
coming frorn the south and the Millbrae Avenue station does not address this use efficiently.
He reviewed the crime statistics he received from the police chief concerning the Daly City
BART station, as well as photos of a 1,400-space parking garage in Cohna and tail track
construction in the East Bay. He noted that BART's literature calls for Phase II to include an
extension of BART frorn the airport to Palo Alto. He next showed slides depicting what an
aerial BART line would like going through Burlingame at Broadway and Burlingame Avenue
past our historic train station. In his opinion, BART to Millbrae is really BART through
Burlingame, to which he is strongly opposed.
Councilman Pagliaro reviewed his original opposition to BART which was based on the
physical impact which had been illustrated by the slides shown by Councilman Spinelli. He
noted that BART has a third rail and this would stop east/west access at Broadway, Oak
Grove, and Burlingame Avenue. The only other alternatives were to tunnel through
Burlingame, go aerial, or grade separation. He discussed the impacts of each, noting that
aerial was the least costly but had the biggest physical impact. Although he has historically
177
been opposed to BART because of the physical impacts, he is now very concerned about the
financial impact of the proposed BART/San Francisco Airport station on availability of mass
transit throughout the county provided by SamTrans. He noted that under existing agree-
ments, SamTrans is committed to $100 million per station and that one-third of the existing
SamTrans budget is for debt service. With Alternative VI cost of $1.3 billion, even if 75
percent is from the federal government,25 percent is from local sources. He also noted that
proposed financing includes $200 million from the airport which was originally for traffic
mitigation in other areas. The existing BART/SamTrans agreement calls for SamTrans to pay
a portion of construction costs as well as maintenance and operations and to make up any fare
box operating deficit. He noted that this project may very well bankrupt SamTrans.
Councilwoman Knight commented that all of the city council is in full agreement in opposing
BART into Burlingame. The council does not want gridlock, but does not feel that the
proposed projects are appropriate solutions to the traffic problems we face. She and the other
council members support Caltrain. She does not want to give up neighborhood open space to
large concrete structures for BART.
Councilman Harrison noted that the mayor's recent article in the Boutique & Villager speaks
for the council. We need to be sure to upgrade and electrify Caltrain and have the extension
into downtown. He stated that during the review process, the city council could not stop the
BART project and that we need to focus on influencing the SamTrans Board, who can stop
BART. A bankrupt SamTrans will mean the loss of SamTrans service throughout the county.
Mayor O'Mahony next asked for comments from BART and SamTrans representatives
Tom Margro, Assistant General Manager of BART, gave an introduction and noted that they
are trying to address all concerns. The EIR is currently being reviewed by the federal
government and it is anticipated for release in mid July. He noted that in using photography,
it is easy to make projects look their worst. All of the alternatives selected for review have
been chosen by a committee on which SamTrans participates. He noted that the finances are a
very important issue and that lots of work needs to be done before construction. He stated that
the estimated operating and maintenance cost of the extension is $28-35 million, and this
would be offset by revenues. SamTrans' share is determined by a very complex formula, and
they are working with SamTrans; BART is responding to San Mateo County's desire to have
BART to the airport.
Howard Goode, SamTrans Deputy General Manager of Planning and Engineering, noted that
tonight's forum was the type of discussion that was needed concerning the project. He noted
that the decision would be made in the months ahead concerning selection of one of the
alternatives. It is the position of the SamTrans Board that the train is here to stay and the
impact of this project on train use was an important consideration. They are also concerned
about the impact on the various communities during property acquisition, construction, and the
financial impact of this project on their bus and rail operations.
Jim West of Peninsula Rail 2000 noted that his group is a transit advocacy group that is
looking for the best transit solutions. He reviewed the Proposition H and I campaigns in San
Francisco, noting that the result was really proof of which had the best campaign. He noted
that the proposed BART into the airport would serye an estimated 328,000 fewer passengers
178
than BART at the external Millbrae station at Center Street because of the difficulty of transfer
from train to BART for commuters from the south and the long walks once into the interna-
tional terminal. He noted that MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) Resolution
1876 called for the extension of Caltrain downtown as well as the BART extension to the
airport. Caltrain electrified and extended downtown with an external station at the airport is a
viable and financially feasible alternative.
Mayor O'Mahony next introduced San Mateo County Supervisor Mary Griffin who was in the
audience and member of MTC; she asked if she wished to speak. Supervisor Griffin noted
that she served on MTC which would review the various grant proposals. She noted San
Mateo's Measure A money could only be spent on the operation of Caltrain. Mayor
O'Mahony also acknowledged Belmont Councilwoman Adele Della-Santina who serves on the
SamTrans Board.
Tom Margro next discussed the slides of the various BART extension alternatives, including
slides of a rendering of the proposed internal airport station, the Colma facility, and the
Millbrae Avenue cross platform station. He noted that Alternative VI calls for an at-grade
1,500-foot tail track into Burlingame. He noted one alternative for visual screening of the tail
track would include a soundwall with ivy. He showed some slides that projected one interface
of Caltrain and BART on the tail track with the wall and ivy.
Councilman Harrison urged the public to question BART about the financing aspect of the
project. Mayor O'Mahony called for an brief intermission at 8:20 p.m. At8:32 p.ffi., Mayor
O'Mahony reconvened the meeting and invited citizen questions and comments. She noted the
need to take a message to the SamTrans Board of Directors.
The first two speakers were from San Bruno and questioned BART about the condemnation
proceedings and the feasibility of the access to a portion of the San Bruno station. The BART
official noted they would follow federal and state regulations for condemnation reimburse-
ment; and they would, in the case of each station, involve a local committee of citizens to
assist in design detail of the stations. A Burlingame Trousdale resident questioned the cost-
per-mile estimate of extension of Caltrain versus BART. It was estimated that the Caltrain
upgrade and electrification would cost approximately $2 million per mile; whereas, the BART
cost of Alternative VI (he most expensive) was about $160 million per mile. Other residents
addressed the proposed cost of the project versus the actual cost which in Colma's case was
two to three times more, and what would happen to the freight trains. One asked whether
Caltrain could serve the airport directly; it was noted in response that tunneling for Caltrain
was too expensive, and a people mover was a less costly and more efficient means of connec-
tion between Caltrain and the airport. Residents continued why a 3,000-car garage, why was
the Millbrae Avenue alternative proposed, and the problems with construction in the soils in
the area. One noted the train led development but BART served the automobile and had a
much bigger impact.
Takis Salpeas of BART noted that Millbrae requested the study of the Millbrae Avenue
alternative because of its opposition to the loss of homes at Center Street. He noted that the
most difficult portion of the San Francisco Airport project was financing and the construction
in bay rnud. He said that there are two projects currently underway in other portions of the
Bay Area which are dealing effectively with very similar soil conditions.
179
A Burlingame resident asked about noise impacts on adjacent residential areas from the BART
tail track. A California Drive resident noted that the traffic impact of the proposed project
would be severe. Mr. Margro stated the EIR will show that there is minimal impact on
intersection capacity on El Camino. Glenn Mendelson, Cumberland Road in Burlingame,
asked how many of the SamTrans directors who will vote on the project are from the central
county area. Two San Bruno residents questioned why BART and Caltrain could not share
tracks and why a police station is proposed as a part of the project in San Bruno. Mr. Salpeas
reviewed the crime statistics concerning BART and presented the city council with a paper on
BART security. He noted that there are holding facilities in each station. A Burlingame
resident, stating he was an engineer, noted that BART is old technology. He also questioned
the fiscal impact of the project on potential lost hotel revenue to the City of Burlingame.
Mayor O'Mahony noted that the hotel tax revenue provided over $6 million for the city last
year, and this was a very important impact that BART should review.
Another resident questioned whether the residents would have to pay for any shortfall in
financing from property tax and asked who benefited the most from the San Francisco
extension. Another Trousdale resident commented that the 3,000 car garage would cause a
dangerous traffic nightmare on Trousdale.
Burlingame resident Mike Galligan questioned whether it was possible to connect the airport
people mover to the Burlingame hotels. Mr. Salpeas noted that if private money was available
to work with, federal guidelines would encourage this type of cooperation. Irv Amstrup, also
a Burlingame resident, noted that BART's public relations material does not address the issue
of service to the southern county.
Mayor O'Mahony than asked for additional council questions and asked whether the EIR
would address the cost of each alternative. Mr. Margro noted that the EIR would review cost
and that they would be happy to review this with staff or council. He noted that the federal
government also has an independent review of the cost estimates of the alternatives. Council-
man Spinelli noted that Alternative VI leaves out Caltrain and that Caltrain was a more flexible
system in dealing with emergencies like earthquakes. Mr. Salpeas reviewed the capacity of the
BART trains as being 1,500 people each 130 seconds and felt that in the 1989 earthquake,
BART responded very well.
Mayor O'Mahony noted that MTC Resolution 1876 guarantees that there will be a downtown
Caltrain extension and questioned SamTrans as to how far along the EIR process that project
was. Howard Goode replied that the EIR was not completed and it was probably 18 months
away from hearing and action. Funding for the downtown extension is not now in hand and
its first ranking priority means it will be funded in the next 20 years.
Mayor O'Mahony thanked the public and the panel and urged them to follow the EIR process
and express their opinions to the SamTrans Board which meets the second Wednesday of the
month in San Carlos.
ADJOURNMENT
Judith A. Malfatti
City Clerk
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9: