8.1 Scoping Meetings and Noticing Chapter 8 As described in Chapter 1, Section 1.7, Scope and Content of this Environmental Impact Report, the scoping process for this EIR was formally initiated on June 24, 2013, when the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) submitted a notice of preparation (NOP) to the California State Clearinghouse; federal, regional, and local elected officials; federal, state, and local agencies, including the planning and community development directors in Santa Clara, Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties; and the interested public. 1 Public scoping meetings were held in Santa Clara, Fremont, Modesto, Livermore, and Tracy from July 22 to July 30, 2013, with a total of 184 attendees. ACEforward staff received questions and comments in an open house style meeting at which attendees received handouts, viewed informational poster boards, had the opportunity to discuss ACEforward with a member of the ACEforward team, and could submit written scoping comments. A supplemental scoping process for ACEforward was formally initiated on May 9, 2016, when SJRRC submitted a supplemental NOP to the California State Clearinghouse. The supplemental scoping process was initiated due to the addition of a project-level element for ACEforward establishing a new rail connection at Niles Junction that would allow freight to better utilize the Niles Subdivision as a direct connection to the Port of Oakland. SJRRC held two scoping meetings for the supplemental NOP in San Leandro and Union City on May 24 and 26, 2016. Agencies, interested parties, and the public were invited to provide input on potential environmental impacts of the additional near-term improvement proposed at Niles Junction. Appendix A, NOP and Scoping Summary Report, and Appendix B, Supplemental NOP and Supplemental Scoping Report, contain the scoping reports detailing the scoping process, including the notification and scoping activities undertaken, as well as written and oral comments received during the scoping process. 1 The June 2013 NOP indicated that a joint environmental impact report (EIR)/environmental impact statement (EIS), satisfying the requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), would be prepared for ACEforward. Originally, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) and the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) were preparing a combined EIR/EIS with the FRA acting as the federal lead agency. At this time, since no federal funds have been identified to fund the ACEforward, SJRRC and FRA have decided that the appropriate NEPA document will be a Program EIS, which is to be released following completion of the CEQA process. 8-1
8.2 Consultation and Coordination The alternatives analysis process for ACEforward utilized preliminary planning, environmental, and engineering information to identify feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and preliminary engineering design considered for analysis in this EIR. Chapter 2, Description of Near-Term Improvements, and Chapter 3, Description of Longer-Term Improvements, describe the alternatives that are being considered in this EIR. Chapter 6, No Project Alternative and Alternatives Considered and Dismissed, describes the evaluation criteria that were applied and used to determine which alternatives to carry forward into this EIR and which alternatives were considered but rejected for further analysis. Throughout the environmental process, SJRRC has conducted ongoing outreach activities (consultation and coordination). SJRRC has held meetings with: (1) local agencies, organizations, and stakeholders identified along the ACEforward corridor; (2) the Altamont Corridor, Altamont Regional, and Central Valley Rail Working Groups; and (3) resource agencies to address local issues and identify potential alternatives to be considered in ACEforward. A comprehensive stakeholder database was created and maintained, and stakeholders received email updates throughout the planning process. The ACEforward stakeholder list includes approximately 2,500 subscribers. Appendix Q, Public and Agency Coordination, provides a list of organizations/individuals with whom SJRRC has met, meeting dates, and topics presented during these meetings. In addition to consultation and coordination meetings, an ACEforward website (www.acerail.com/aceforward) was developed. The ACEforward website contained the most current announcements, informational materials, maps, and contact information. Informational materials were developed, including an overview fact sheet, county-specific brochures, FAQs, and detailed maps. These materials contained details on the ACEforward schedule, alternatives, benefits, environmental process, and how to submit public input. Physical copies were also distributed to attendees during stakeholder and public meetings, and press releases and media advisories were distributed to provide updates and seek input. 8.2.1 Local Agency, Community, and Stakeholder Meetings Numerous meetings and presentations were conducted with local agencies, community organizations, and stakeholders during the development of ACEforward. This includes meetings with cities and counties along the alignment; councils of governments (COGs); the California State Assembly Select Committee on Rail; the SJRRC Board; other transportation agencies; and local organizations, such as chambers of commerce, political organizations, religious groups, community groups, and professional networks. On April 4, 2014, the SJRRC Board reviewed a presentation detailing an initial set of alternatives considered in ACEforward. This presentation can be viewed at the ACEforward website. 2 The initial set of alternatives was developed based on agency and public comments received during the scoping period. 2 Available at: www.acerail.com/about/public-projects/aceforward/environmental-review-scoping 8-2
Since the initial set of ACEforward alternatives were presented to the SJRRC Board in April 2014, the alternatives have been refined, and additional potential station locations have been added to the environmental analysis. Refinements to the alternatives and alignment options have been developed through communication with stakeholders, local governments, and the public through meetings and town hall discussions. Additional station options resulted from various town hall meetings and public input. A petition signed by more than 1,000 Mountain House community residents, as well as discussions with representatives from the City of Tracy, Tracy Hills development, and Ellis development, resulted in additional potential West Tracy station options. In addition, in September 2016, four town hall meetings were held in the communities of Tracy, Manteca, Lathrop, and Mountain House at which SJRRC staff presented ACEforward South San Joaquin County station options, including the West Tracy, Downtown Tracy, River Islands, and Lathrop/Manteca station options, and their associated alignment alternatives. The relocated Lathrop/Manteca Station alternative was added at the request of the City of Manteca. Additional input regarding these alternatives was provided by attendees. Town hall meetings received extensive media coverage from local newspapers, including the Tracy Press, Mountain House Matters, Manteca Bulletin, Modesto Bee, and Stockton Record. The South San Joaquin County alternatives were presented to the SJRRC Board on October 14, 2016. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) connectivity alternatives were also developed through discussions with BART, Alameda County, the City of Union City, and the Mountain House Community Services District. These alternatives were presented to the Altamont Regional Rail Working Group in February 2016, in July 2016, and to the SJRRC Board on July 1, 2016. Additional agency comments have resulted in adjustments to alignments and profiles of the alternatives to avoid and minimize potential environmental and community impacts. On August 21, 2015, the chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Rail, Adam Gray, held a public hearing to receive public input on rail projects, including ACEforward. SJRRC presented on the benefits of the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and ACEforward, and various state senators, assembly members, county supervisors, city mayors, and local leaders spoke in support of ACEforward. This meeting received press coverage in the Modesto Bee, Merced Sun-Star, Central Valley Business Journal, Oakdale Leader, and Turlock Journal. In addition, hundreds of additional meetings with local elected officials, city and county staff, leaders, businesses, organizations, agencies, and the public were conducted to disseminate information and receive input on ACEforward alternatives and potential environmental impacts. A complete list of these meetings is located in Appendix Q. 8.2.2 Working Group Meetings The Altamont Corridor Rail and Central Valley Rail Working Groups (Working Groups) consist of representatives of local and regional transit agencies and elected officials and staff of counties and cities along the existing ACE corridor. The Working Groups advise on the planning, design, and environmental review of ACEforward and engage in the following activities. Partner with SJRRC throughout the ACEforward development process. Provide guidance on local issues, development plans, and policies. Assist in developing and evaluating alternatives. 8-3
Develop consensus regarding ACEforward goals, objectives, and major elements. Participate in public involvement activities and events. Act as liaisons to local communities. The Altamont Corridor Rail Working Group is comprised of the following members. Alameda Congestion Management Agency ACE BART California High-Speed Rail Authority California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley Caltrain Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Metropolitan Transportation Commission Sacramento Area Council of Governments San Joaquin Council of Governments San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Mateo County Transit District Tri-Valley Regional Rail Policy Advisory Committee The Central Valley Rail Working Group is comprised of the following members. County of Sacramento City of Sacramento City of Elk Grove City of Galt Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento Regional Transit District County of San Joaquin City of Lodi City of Stockton City of Manteca San Joaquin Council of Governments SJRRC San Joaquin Regional Transit District County of Stanislaus City of Modesto 8-4
City of Turlock Stanislaus Council of Governments County of Merced City of Merced Merced County Association of Governments The Working Groups have been instrumental in guiding the development of the initial set of alternatives and refining the alternatives for environmental analysis. Altamont Corridor Rail Working Group meetings were conducted on May 29, 2013 and February 26, 2014. Central Valley Rail Working Group meetings were conducted on August 22, 2013; February 28, 2014; August 22, 2014; May 29, 2015; April 8, 2016; and September 23, 2016. Feedback from these meetings was used to develop and refine the ACEforward alternatives. In addition, another working group named the Altamont Regional Rail Working Group was formed in 2015 to facilitate and provide input for the connection alternatives for ACE and BART in the Tri- Valley. The Altamont Regional Rail Working Group is comprised of the following members. Alameda County San Joaquin County City of Dublin City of Livermore City of Pleasanton City of Tracy ACE BART Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group East Bay Leadership Group San Joaquin Partnership SJRRC met with the Altamont Regional Rail Working Group on February 10, 2016; May 4, 2016; July 13, 2016; and September 14, 2016 to discuss the potential ACE to BART connection alternatives, ridership impacts, and costs. Participation in the working group led to the refinement of the alternatives for the Tri-Valley connection between ACE and BART. 8.2.3 Resource Agency Meetings SJRRC consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 9, 2016. The meeting provided an opportunity to present an overview of the ACEforward alternative analysis process and a preliminary understanding of potential impacts of near-term and longer-term alternatives on resources of concern to these three agencies, including impacts on regulated federal and state waters and wetlands and threatened and endangered fish and wildlife species. The meeting also 8-5
addressed cultural resource issues that may be of concern to USACE during any associated Section 106 consultation process. SJRRC will also be consulting with other resource agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State Lands Commission as ACEforward progresses through environmental review. 8.3 Notification and Circulation of Draft EIR CEQA requires the lead agency (SJRRC) to prepare an EIR that reflects the independent judgment of the agency regarding the impacts of a project, the level of significance of the impacts both before and after mitigation, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts. A draft EIR is circulated to responsible agencies, trustee agencies with resources affected by the project, and interested agencies and individuals. The purposes of public and agency review of a draft EIR include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analyses, checking accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counterproposals. This draft EIR has been released for a 60 day public review period. The public will be advised of the availability of this draft EIR through legal notices placed in local newspapers, sent by email and direct mailing, posted on ACE trains and at ACE stations, and announced through the ACEforward webpage and Facebook page. Additionally, the draft EIR public review period will be announced at city council and/or county board of supervisor meetings and other key stakeholder meetings of jurisdictions along the ACEforward corridor. A Notice of Availability (NOA) will be posted with the California State Clearinghouse and at county clerks/recorders offices for Santa Clara, Alameda, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties. In addition, the NOA will also be published in the following newspapers. San Jose Mercury News The Argus Valley Times Tri-Valley Herald The Independent Mountain House Matters Tracy Press Stockton Record Manteca Bulletin Modesto Bee Turlock Journal Livingston Chronicle Atwater Signal Merced Sun-Star 8-6
Hard copies of the draft EIR will be distributed to the following locations for public viewing. SJRRC offices at 949 East Channel Street, Stockton Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, 150 East San Fernando Street, San Jose Rose Garden Branch Library, 1580 Naglee Avenue, San Jose Mission Library Family Reading Center, 1098 Lexington Street, Santa Clara Northside Branch Library, 695 Moreland Way, Santa Clara Alviso Branch Library, 5050 North 1 st Street, San Jose Newark Library, 6300 Civic Terrace Avenue, Newark Fremont Main Library, 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont Union City Library, 34007 Alvarado-Niles Boulevard, Union City Niles Library, 150 I Street, Fremont Hayward Public Library, 835 C Street, Hayward Oakland Public Library MLK Jr. Branch, 6833 International Boulevard, Oakland Pleasanton Public Library, 400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton Livermore Public Library Central Library, 1188 South Livermore Avenue, Livermore Springtown Branch Library, 998 Bluebell Drive, Livermore Mountain House Branch Library, 250 Main Street, Mountain House Tracy Branch Library, 20 East Eaton Avenue, Tracy Lathrop Branch Library, 450 Spartan Way, Lathrop Cesar Chavez Central Library, 605 North El Dorado Street, Stockton Manteca Public Library, 320 West Center Street, Manteca Friends of the Ripon Memorial Library, 333 West Main Street, Ripon Stanislaus County Library, 1500 I Street, Modesto Ceres Public Library, 2250 Magnolia Street, Ceres Turlock Public Library, 550 North Minaret Avenue, Turlock Livingston Library, 1212 Main Street, Livingston Atwater Branch Library, 1600 Third Street, Atwater Merced County Library, 2100 O Street, Merced Reviewers of this draft EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental effects. 8-7
Open houses will be conducted during the draft EIR public review period in the following cities: Santa Clara, Fremont, Livermore, Tracy, Modesto, and Merced. Written comments on the draft EIR will be received during the open houses. Comments on this draft EIR must be received by SJRRC no later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the draft EIR public review period, and can be submitted by any of the following methods: Mail: San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Attn: 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 Email: ACEforwardEIR@acerail.com 8-8