Loading...
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: