April 26, 2013, By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal
San Mateo City Manager Susan Loftus is searching for an independent auditor to review the city’s Community Development Department after a number of “hiccups” it has had over the past several months, Mayor David Lim told a group of business leaders Thursday.
Lim sat down with a slew of tenants who call the Borel Estate Building home including lawyers, financiers and bankers in a meet and greet hosted by Linda Asbury with the Economic Development Growth Enterprise, an initiative of the San Mateo Area Chamber of Commerce.
Lim fielded questions about why the city does not allow for beekeeping, whether a public plaza should be built downtown, what the impacts of high-speed rail will be on the city and what the status of some of the city’s newest developments are, including Bay Meadows and Station Park Green, to be built on the current site where Kmart sits on Delaware Street.
A review of the Community Development Department will be undertaken because it oversees the city’s planning and building divisions and other city functions such as code enforcement, Lim said. Loftus should have an auditor picked within two months, he said.
“We are doing more with less,” Lim said about city staff. The 7-Eleven situation on San Mateo Drive is one of the hiccups to which Lim was referring.
“The permits were issued in error. It was glaring. There were two different planners and no file,” he said.
Code enforcement also caused a stir for a group of mechanics and auto body shops on Claremont Street last year for being cited for violations they were unaware of, Lim said. The proposed fines for the violation were exorbitant, Lim said.
He was also asked whether the city is “welcoming” the California High-Speed Rail Authority project. The already approved “blended system,” Lim said, will electrify Caltrain and bring other benefits to the area and be less intrusive than the authority’s original proposals.
San Mateo will hopefully get a grade separation at 25th Avenue out of the deal, he said.
“We got to get what we can get,” said Lim, who is not convinced high-speed rail trains will ever actually access the Caltrain corridor.
Lim told the group that he’s most proud of his work on the council the past three years for his advocacy for small business.
He helped Silver Lake Seafood restaurant get a loading zone approved after it applied for one two years before. The restaurant owners called Lim who then found out that their permit application had simply been misplaced the whole time.
He also helped the owners of a building on 38th Avenue and El Camino Real where a Starbucks is located find another tenant for the two-storefront building after being told there was not enough parking on the site to accommodate another tenant. City staff had simply miscalculated the parking requirements, Lim said. The Shred Center now occupies the other storefront.
Moving forward, the mayor envisions moving the tennis courts at Central Park in favor of building a community center on the site. He looks to enhance downtown with more cultural arts in the future, also.
Lim even fielded questions about bees, which the city limits.
The Beekeepers Alliance of San Mateo County approached the city recently about allowing for keepers to keep more bees on their properties.
The city limits one hive, or box per resident, however, Lim said, and that will not change.
Some who attended the meet and greet included Vince Cirigliano with Borel Financial Inc., Kenyon Mark Lee with Lee Law Offices, Timothy Martin with Martin Family Law firm, Daniel J. O’Brien with California Bank & Trust and Walter R. Chao with Dragon Financial Group.
silverfarb@smdailyjournal.com (650) 344-5200 ext. 106
Tweet
Showing posts with label High Speed Rail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label High Speed Rail. Show all posts
Friday, April 26, 2013
Thursday, May 24, 2012
San Mateo Taxpayers Should Not Subsidize Caltrain Alone
This blurb appeared in the "Reporters' Notebook" section of today's San Mateo Daily Journal:
San Mateo Deputy Mayor David Lim told Caltrain spokesman Mark Simon Monday night that if the transit agency seeks a San Mateo County only tax to fund its operations he will stand in firm opposition to it. Lim said San Mateo County residents should not be subsidizing the service for residents in Santa Clara and San Francisco counties. Caltrain is seeking a dedicated funding source as it is considering a three-county tax and other ideas to fund the service.
Tweet
San Mateo Deputy Mayor David Lim told Caltrain spokesman Mark Simon Monday night that if the transit agency seeks a San Mateo County only tax to fund its operations he will stand in firm opposition to it. Lim said San Mateo County residents should not be subsidizing the service for residents in Santa Clara and San Francisco counties. Caltrain is seeking a dedicated funding source as it is considering a three-county tax and other ideas to fund the service.
Tweet
Monday, August 30, 2010
HSR: What about San Mateo?
August 30, 2010, 03:30 AM By Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal staff
While its neighbors to the north and south have raised a stink over the possibility of high-speed trains zipping across an aerial viaduct, leaders in San Mateo have been relatively quiet on the matter.
Leaders in Belmont and Burlingame have sent off letters to the Federal Railroad Administrative asking for it not to grant more than $1 billion to the California High-Speed Rail Authority to electrify the Caltrain tracks and build a new transit station in Millbrae.
Leaders in San Mateo have not crafted such a letter even though the city decided on its own nearly 15 years ago that electrified Caltrain tracks should run underground through the city’s downtown going north to Burlingame.
San Mateo’s downtown straddles both side of the tracks on the narrowest corridor in the Caltrain system.
The Peninsula Rail Program unveiled two alternatives for the alignment from the San Francisco to San Jose stretch of the line, one with a primarily aerial viaduct option and the other with the possibility of an open trench for Burlingame and San Mateo.
On Thursday, all five of San Mateo’s councilmen made it clear the tracks must be depressed as they go through downtown. The entire council will hold a special study session Sept. 7 to discuss high-speed rail and define its position about the alternatives.
“The only acceptable option is a below-grade trench,” Mayor John Lee. “An aerial option is not acceptable for downtown. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to construct.”
A viaduct would be a huge mistake for San Mateo, Deputy Mayor Jack Matthews said.
Matthews suspects the authority, however, already favors an aerial solution for San Mateo.
“I’m a little disappointed. An open trench doesn’t seem to be favored by high-speed rail,” Matthews said. “When I hear there isn’t enough money, that doesn’t sound to good to me. They will have to find the money.”
Matthews said the city’s position is not based on what it “wants” to have but rather what the city “has” to have.
“There is not enough right of way in downtown,” Matthews said.
In downtown, the corridor narrows to 50 feet in some spots. The authority will need 80 feet or more of right of way to construct an aerial viaduct.
Councilman Brandt Grotte has represented the city in the Peninsula Rail Program’s policymaker working group, comprised of elected officials from cities up and down the Peninsula.
Grotte is optimistic the open trench alternative is still on the table for San Mateo. In the two alternatives for the Peninsula that came out Aug. 5, however, wording in the documents had incorrectly stated that San Mateo preferred an aerial option and not a trenched solution.
Grotte corrected the authority and now documents related to the alternatives going forward should reflect the city’s desire to have a depressed solution.
He also said there has been a misperception with the public that San Mateo has not been communicating with its neighboring cities, although he did say it was time to reach out a little more to leaders in Belmont.
“My intention is to open up a conversation with Belmont to see what they want,” Grotte said. “We’ve been meeting with Burlingame and Millbrae on a monthly basis to discuss our commonalties and positions.”
Roelof van Ark, the rail authority’s chief executive officer, sent a letter to city councils on the Caltrain corridor yesterday discussing the authority’s recent application for additional federal funds from the FRA.
“It appears that some are concerned that language in our Aug. 6 applications for fiscal year 2010/11 federal appropriations has pre-determined the outcome of our ongoing environmental review process. I want to state strongly that this is not the case,” van Ark said in the letter. “It is our combined state and federal environmental review process that will be used to determine the ultimate alignment selected for the high-speed train’s path along the Peninsula.”
So far, van Ark said, engineering is 3 percent to 5 percent completed.
After the draft environmental impact report comes out in December, engineering will be 15 percent completed, allowing for a more thorough evaluation of impacts and benefits, van Ark said.
Councilman David Lim supports high-speed rail for its potential economic benefits and for being a modern solution for the state’s transportation needs.
“I support high-speed rail but I also support the city’s vision for the corridor. That vision has not changed since I joined the council. We want to see an underground alignment for the downtown corridor,” Lim said.
Lim has been fielding lots of calls from San Mateo residents concerned about an aerial viaduct.
Councilman Robert Ross said the application to the FRA that showed only an aerial viaduct solution for the city was “a little disconcerting.”
“It looks like they have already ruled out the alternative,” Ross said. “It has to be depressed, otherwise there will be a small freeway running through downtown.”
Ross wants the city to be prepared for when the draft EIR comes out in December if an open trench is off the table for San Mateo.
“We have to research our legal options, although there may be none. We must be prepared to negotiate for the best solution,” Ross said.
While its neighbors to the north and south have raised a stink over the possibility of high-speed trains zipping across an aerial viaduct, leaders in San Mateo have been relatively quiet on the matter.
Leaders in Belmont and Burlingame have sent off letters to the Federal Railroad Administrative asking for it not to grant more than $1 billion to the California High-Speed Rail Authority to electrify the Caltrain tracks and build a new transit station in Millbrae.
Leaders in San Mateo have not crafted such a letter even though the city decided on its own nearly 15 years ago that electrified Caltrain tracks should run underground through the city’s downtown going north to Burlingame.
San Mateo’s downtown straddles both side of the tracks on the narrowest corridor in the Caltrain system.
The Peninsula Rail Program unveiled two alternatives for the alignment from the San Francisco to San Jose stretch of the line, one with a primarily aerial viaduct option and the other with the possibility of an open trench for Burlingame and San Mateo.
On Thursday, all five of San Mateo’s councilmen made it clear the tracks must be depressed as they go through downtown. The entire council will hold a special study session Sept. 7 to discuss high-speed rail and define its position about the alternatives.
“The only acceptable option is a below-grade trench,” Mayor John Lee. “An aerial option is not acceptable for downtown. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to construct.”
A viaduct would be a huge mistake for San Mateo, Deputy Mayor Jack Matthews said.
Matthews suspects the authority, however, already favors an aerial solution for San Mateo.
“I’m a little disappointed. An open trench doesn’t seem to be favored by high-speed rail,” Matthews said. “When I hear there isn’t enough money, that doesn’t sound to good to me. They will have to find the money.”
Matthews said the city’s position is not based on what it “wants” to have but rather what the city “has” to have.
“There is not enough right of way in downtown,” Matthews said.
In downtown, the corridor narrows to 50 feet in some spots. The authority will need 80 feet or more of right of way to construct an aerial viaduct.
Councilman Brandt Grotte has represented the city in the Peninsula Rail Program’s policymaker working group, comprised of elected officials from cities up and down the Peninsula.
Grotte is optimistic the open trench alternative is still on the table for San Mateo. In the two alternatives for the Peninsula that came out Aug. 5, however, wording in the documents had incorrectly stated that San Mateo preferred an aerial option and not a trenched solution.
Grotte corrected the authority and now documents related to the alternatives going forward should reflect the city’s desire to have a depressed solution.
He also said there has been a misperception with the public that San Mateo has not been communicating with its neighboring cities, although he did say it was time to reach out a little more to leaders in Belmont.
“My intention is to open up a conversation with Belmont to see what they want,” Grotte said. “We’ve been meeting with Burlingame and Millbrae on a monthly basis to discuss our commonalties and positions.”
Roelof van Ark, the rail authority’s chief executive officer, sent a letter to city councils on the Caltrain corridor yesterday discussing the authority’s recent application for additional federal funds from the FRA.
“It appears that some are concerned that language in our Aug. 6 applications for fiscal year 2010/11 federal appropriations has pre-determined the outcome of our ongoing environmental review process. I want to state strongly that this is not the case,” van Ark said in the letter. “It is our combined state and federal environmental review process that will be used to determine the ultimate alignment selected for the high-speed train’s path along the Peninsula.”
So far, van Ark said, engineering is 3 percent to 5 percent completed.
After the draft environmental impact report comes out in December, engineering will be 15 percent completed, allowing for a more thorough evaluation of impacts and benefits, van Ark said.
Councilman David Lim supports high-speed rail for its potential economic benefits and for being a modern solution for the state’s transportation needs.
“I support high-speed rail but I also support the city’s vision for the corridor. That vision has not changed since I joined the council. We want to see an underground alignment for the downtown corridor,” Lim said.
Lim has been fielding lots of calls from San Mateo residents concerned about an aerial viaduct.
Councilman Robert Ross said the application to the FRA that showed only an aerial viaduct solution for the city was “a little disconcerting.”
“It looks like they have already ruled out the alternative,” Ross said. “It has to be depressed, otherwise there will be a small freeway running through downtown.”
Ross wants the city to be prepared for when the draft EIR comes out in December if an open trench is off the table for San Mateo.
“We have to research our legal options, although there may be none. We must be prepared to negotiate for the best solution,” Ross said.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Peninsula high-speed rail track plans unveiled
By Mike Rosenberg
It became clearer Thursday that the state's high-speed train will run above ground in the Peninsula and South Bay -- including on so-called "Berlin Walls" that some cities fear will divide their communities and demolish homes and businesses.
08/05/2010
It became clearer Thursday that the state's high-speed train will run above ground in the Peninsula and South Bay -- including on so-called "Berlin Walls" that some cities fear will divide their communities and demolish homes and businesses.
The California High-Speed Rail Authority, at a packed board meeting in San Francisco, unveiled its most detailed engineering plan yet for the section of the $43 billion rail line that will run along the Caltrain tracks on the way to Southern California.
Some of the cities along the line will receive aboveground tracks, either next to the existing Caltrain tracks or on structures similar to freeway overpasses. These cities include South San Francisco, San Bruno, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City and San Jose.
The other cities on the Peninsula will receive the same treatment unless the state is willing to go about $1 billion over its budget to build below-ground rails that would reduce the property acquisition and blight some communities fear the tracks will create. Those include Burlingame and San Mateo and cities from Atherton to Santa Clara.
The final two cities -- Millbrae and San Francisco -- will receive a combination of above- and below-ground tracks.
There are essentially three types of tracks the train will run on through the Bay Area.
One is a raised structure that must be at least 18 feet tall and that some cities have compared with an 80-foot-wide freeway. The second option, typically the cheapest, is to simply add two high-speed rail tracks next to the existing Caltrain rails. The final option, which the riled Peninsula cities prefer but which is also the most expensive, is to bury the tracks in an underground trench open to the surface.
From the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco to Diridon station in San Jose, the tracks will rise and drop to meet various engineering and community needs.
For cities that still have two options, the most likely choice appears to be the aboveground tracks.
The state has a $5.1 billion budget for the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of the project after it allocates $1 billion to the new Transbay Terminal.
It would be cheapest, at about $5 billion, to build all aboveground rails, according to a Bay Area News Group analysis of rail authority cost estimates released Thursday.
It would cost more than $1 billion extra, meanwhile, to run the trains through trenches in the communities that want them, the figures show.
For example, it would cost $664 million to run the four tracks through a trench in Menlo Park and Atherton, which have sued the rail authority and are among the most vocal critics of raised tracks. The state could chop more than half off that amount and spend $244 million to build the tracks aboveground through the 2.7-mile stretch between wealthy properties.
San Mateo Councilman David Lim, whose city wants a trench through the northern half, asked the board to "reject the urge to go with the lowest common denominator."
"Without a trench system, you would destroy a lot of the vitality and character of our downtown San Mateo area," Lim said in an interview. "The support for the project among residents goes down precipitously if you take away the trench option."
Exacerbating the cost issue is the fact that the rail authority still needs to raise three-fourths of the money it has budgeted for the high-speed system.
Project officials will continue to study the trench idea and are not yet sure whether they can afford to build underground, local project manager Bob Doty said. The rail authority board will likely select the alignment next year.
"Not everybody is getting what they want," Doty said. "But we're getting bloody close."
Michael Brownrigg, a councilman in Burlingame, another city that wants a trench, said he suspects some officials have already made up their minds.
"There are some who believe that they need to save every nickel they can because this is going to be more expensive and who don't care that much about the Peninsula," he said.
Meanwhile, some other cities that will not have underground tracks studied said they were flabbergasted.
"I don't know why anyone got the idea that we wanted to continue with an aerial alignment," said Christine Wozniak, mayor of Belmont, which is opposed to the project if the tracks are raised.
Redwood City Councilwoman Barbara Pierce said her city was "very upset" the trench option was removed in her city.
In San Francisco, the high-speed rail tracks will run underground, while the Caltrain tracks will stay where they are.
Millbrae will have one high-speed rail track run underground into its station, while the second bullet-train track will be added alongside the Caltrain line.
Finally, it is also possible that the two high-speed rail tracks will be buried in a tunnel in Santa Clara as they approach the high-speed rail stop in San Jose.
Construction on the project is expected to begin in 2012 and trains would start running by 2020.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
High Speed Rail Meeting in San Francisco TOMORROW - Aug. 5, 2010
Tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM, the Board of the California High Speed Rail Authority is scheduled to meet in San Francisco to make a decision on how high speed rail will run through our community: Trenches, tunnels, an aerial structure, or a combination of all three.
Contrary to what you may be hearing, I have been assured that no final decision has been made on which option to pursue.
Just a few minutes ago, I got off the phone with Rail Authority Board Member Richard Katz. Mr. Katz reiterated that the Board will take up the matter tomorrow morning, review all the information, and then and only then will they make a decision.
As you know, the City of San Mateo's official position on high speed rail is supportive of the concept, but adamant that an underground option for high speed rail is the only acceptable option to maintain the character and well-being of our downtown area and residential communities. The narrowest right-of-way along the entire state's rail corridor is in downtown San Mateo, and therefore an aerial option would be devastating to our communities and is unacceptable.
In my phone conversation with Mr. Katz, and in messages to the remaining Board members on the High Speed Rail Authority, I have continued to reiterate San Mateo's position.
Tomorrow's meeting is an important milestone in setting the vision for how high speed rail will affect our community. I am taking the morning off from my full-time job to be at the meeting in San Francisco. Councilmember Brandt Grotte and Public Works Director Larry Patterson, who together have spearheaded the City's efforts on this issue, will also be at the meeting to represent the interests of our City.
However, more help is always appreciated. If you are interested in attending the meeting tomorrow morning, please send me an email or call me to let me know you plan to attend. Or send me your thoughts about the project. Armed with this information, I will be able to let the Board know how many San Mateo residents are in attendance, or who have expressed concern about this issue.
The address and agenda for tomorrow's meeting can be found by clicking HERE.
As I have done since taking office in November, I will continue to represent the citizens of San Mateo on this very important issue not only tomorrow, but moving forward as well.
Contrary to what you may be hearing, I have been assured that no final decision has been made on which option to pursue.
Just a few minutes ago, I got off the phone with Rail Authority Board Member Richard Katz. Mr. Katz reiterated that the Board will take up the matter tomorrow morning, review all the information, and then and only then will they make a decision.
As you know, the City of San Mateo's official position on high speed rail is supportive of the concept, but adamant that an underground option for high speed rail is the only acceptable option to maintain the character and well-being of our downtown area and residential communities. The narrowest right-of-way along the entire state's rail corridor is in downtown San Mateo, and therefore an aerial option would be devastating to our communities and is unacceptable.
In my phone conversation with Mr. Katz, and in messages to the remaining Board members on the High Speed Rail Authority, I have continued to reiterate San Mateo's position.
Tomorrow's meeting is an important milestone in setting the vision for how high speed rail will affect our community. I am taking the morning off from my full-time job to be at the meeting in San Francisco. Councilmember Brandt Grotte and Public Works Director Larry Patterson, who together have spearheaded the City's efforts on this issue, will also be at the meeting to represent the interests of our City.
However, more help is always appreciated. If you are interested in attending the meeting tomorrow morning, please send me an email or call me to let me know you plan to attend. Or send me your thoughts about the project. Armed with this information, I will be able to let the Board know how many San Mateo residents are in attendance, or who have expressed concern about this issue.
The address and agenda for tomorrow's meeting can be found by clicking HERE.
As I have done since taking office in November, I will continue to represent the citizens of San Mateo on this very important issue not only tomorrow, but moving forward as well.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Next Steps in Addressing High Speed Rail in San Mateo
Last night, the San Mateo City Council met to discuss the next steps in part of their long-term planning process to address High Speed Rail in San Mateo.
You can read an article in today's Daily Journal about last night's meeting. However, a summary of yesterday's meeting include:
You can read an article in today's Daily Journal about last night's meeting. However, a summary of yesterday's meeting include:
- The City of San Mateo will begin a public outreach process designed to give all citizens in our City a chance to weigh in on this very important issue. All members of the community are invited to the first meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 17. Time and location TBD.
- City Staff will continue working on developing "construction-ready" projects to take advantage of the $2.25 billion in funding recently awarded the State of California to work on high speed rail projects. Independent of what you think of the long-term impacts of high speed rail, the fact is that this money has been allocated, and if San Mateo does not aggressively pursue this money, other municipalities will scoop it up. This money could be used to help create grade separations at our intersections as well as other improvements.
- As your City Councilmember, I will begin actively lobbying the California High Speed Rail Authority to make them aware of what the City of San Mateo stands to lose if high speed rail is not implemented properly. This means listening to our neighbors, and conforming to the City's general plan, rail corridor plan, and sustainability plan.
**************************
| City looks for high-speed rail benefits | ||
| March 02, 2010, 02:56 AM By Bill Silverfarb | ||
The recent release of $2.25 billion in federal stimulus money for high-speed rail could be a benefit to the city of San Mateo, prompting Councilman David Lim to suggest last night the city court the board that oversees the money now. “San Mateo is one of hundreds of voices to be heard,” Lim said. “The $2.25 billion is already there. Let’s all be a little selfish and find ways to get San Mateo some of that money. We are in a position to work collaboratively with HSR to achieve our goals.” And while many cities along the Peninsula are trying to find ways to relate their preferences for high-speed rail, the city of San Mateo has quietly anticipated the impact of such a project for years and has already strongly expressed its interest in an underground section in the city’s historic downtown. The council favors high-speed rail and the benefits it will add to the city, including grade separations at all rail crossings and the eventual electrification of Caltrain, which will make for quieter, more environmentally-friendly trains. “We didn’t just open the can today,” said Mayor John Lee. “We’ve been working on it a long time.” The San Mateo City Council voted last night to conduct several workshops in the coming months to give residents a greater voice in the high-speed rail discussion as it waits for a key document from the California High Speed Rail Authority on its alternatives analysis for the stretch of track between Gilroy and San Francisco, a document that has been delayed for months. The alternatives analysis is meant to give cities along the Caltrain corridor a better idea of what possibilities exist regarding the track’s alignment, including below grade, bored tunnels, cut and cover trenches or elevated berms such as the ones in San Carlos. The city started studying rail issues in downtown going back to 1994. It also commissioned a study of the rail alignment between the Hillsdale and Hayward Park rail stations in 2001 and adopted its Rail Corridor Plan in recent years that puts an emphasis on building transit-oriented development along the corridor. The corridor plan and resulting Downtown Plan specifically indicates the city’s preference for undergrounding any future rail projects in the downtown and to raise the elevation of the tracks at the Hillsdale Caltrain Station and the stretch near State Route 92. “The city has been very proactive with this issue,” said Public Works Director Larry Patterson. “Many impacts have already been considered and a below-grade alignment for downtown is preferred.” Patterson sits on the Technical Working Group made up of city staff from many cities that is conducted by the Peninsula Rail Program, an arm of the rail authority. Councilman Brandt Grotte represents the city on the Policymaker Working Group. “HSR knows what San Mateo’s position is,” Patterson said. Last week, Authority Board President Curt Pringle and many other officials took a tour of the tracks between Belmont and South San Francisco. It was Pringle’s first look at the Peninsula corridor, a fact that shocked Councilman David Lim. Lim suggested the council take a more direct approach with the California High Speed Rail Authority Board itself to show what the potential impacts of the project will have on the city. The board is made up of nine members, four from Northern and Southern California each and one from the Central Valley. The board will eventually decide the fate of how trains will pass through each city in the proposed $45 billion project. The federal government released $2.25 billion in stimulus money to the state recently for construction-ready projects and Lim wants the city to start reaching for that money now, before municipalities in Southern California do. Lim also said lawsuits are not the answer in battling the project. Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto have already sued the authority to try to divert trains over the Dumbarton Bridge rather than the already-approved Pacheco Pass. Other cities have also threatened lawsuits or have earmarked hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to try to influence the board. “Louder is not necessarily better,” Lim said about the recent actions of neighboring cities. “We are in a fight with Southern California for this money. We need to introduce the board to San Mateo and show what is special and unique about the city. Otherwise, we will likely be streamrolled.” The authority is planning a route with electrified bullet trains traveling up to from Los Angeles to San Francisco. It received a significant boost when voters approved a $9.95 billion bond in November 2008. The announcement of $2.25 billion in federal stimulus money is speeding up the planning process with environmental review completed by September 2011. The alternatives analysis was intended to be released in February but got pushed back until March. That delay will now reach into April. Once the document is released, cities will have 45 days to comment on it. Councilman Jack Matthews is concerned the 45 days will not be enough time to respond to the document. Matthews questioned whether the process is driven by a timetable for federal funding. “This is a short time frame to make decisions on a project that will have a significant impact on the community,” Matthews said. Matthews is hoping the rail authority will extend the response time for cities. “We’ve already looked at this as a community but is the community comfortable with what we’ve come up with,” Matthews said regarding the city’s rail corridor plan. Councilman Robert Ross wants greater detail on what land acquisitions would be required to move the project through the city and what potential property tax losses the city might face. |
Friday, February 26, 2010
High Speed Rail Discussion Moved to Full City Council Meeting
The meeting on high speed rail scheduled as a study session this Monday, March 1 has been moved to the full meeting at 7:00 PM as a full hearing item. To see the staff report on this issue, go to:
http://www.ci.sanmateo.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=6297
http://www.ci.sanmateo.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=6297
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Study Session on High Speed Rail
Many residents of San Mateo have asked when the City Council will hold another hearing on High Speed Rail. Please note that the City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a study session on "High Speed Rail Context Sensitive Solutions & Project Update" on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM at San Mateo City Hall.
Please note that the study session is open to the public, but is not part of the main City Council session, so please be sure to be there at 5:30 PM.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Please note that the study session is open to the public, but is not part of the main City Council session, so please be sure to be there at 5:30 PM.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)