Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08162005 - C102 C TO: Board of Supervisors _ ..r... • Contra -- FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Costa (Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho, Chair) County DATE: August 8, 2005 SUBJECT: East Contra Costa Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension eBART) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVE comments on the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Bay Area Rapid Transit Extension into eastern Contra Costa County {eBART} as shown in Exhibit A, and AUTHORIZE the Community Development Department to transmit the comments to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), as recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee. FISCAL IMPACT None to the General Fund. Review and participation in BART's proposal for an extension of service into eastern Contra Costa County is included in the Department's budget. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On August 2, the Board of Supervisors referred the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed BART Extension into eastern Contra Costa County to the Transportation Water and Infrastructure {TWI) Committee. A copy of the notice is included as Exhibit B. On August 8,the TWI Committee reviewed the notice to determine if it was satisfied with the scope of alternatives and environmental issues that are proposed to be studied. The TWI Committee recommends sending a response to BART's Notice of Intent, as described in Exhibit A. CONTINUED ON ATTACH X YES RECOMMENDATION C LINTY 4INISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE T ER bl) SIGNATURES C- .5..M e or Nejedliy Pie ho hupervisor Federal D. Glover ACTION OF BOARD C3N 61f APPROVED AS'RECOMMENDED>IL. OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN YES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Steven Goetz (925/335-1240) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED J. Kennedy, CDD JOHN iWE"dEN, CLERK OF P. Roche, CDD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S. Kowalewski, PWD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY GATransportafion7WICTacket Information\20051August\ebart.noi.rpt.doc EXHIBIT A Community Contra Dennis M. Barry,AICP ment Develop Community Development Director Costa Department County County Administration Building ... L 651 Pine Street ��� 4th Floor,North Wing I . Martinez,California 94553-0095 g , , Phone: =_ .-• � S7'4,CO August 16, 2005 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District P 1 anning Department 3 00 Lakeside Drive LKS-16 Oakland , CA 94612 Attn: Ms. Ellen Smith Subject: Comments On Scope Of Alternatives and Impacts To Be Evaluated EISIEIR On Proposed BART Extension into East Contra Costa County (eBAR T) Dear Ms. Smith: Contra Costa County is in receipt of the Notice of Intent for a joint /Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) to be prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) for a proposed BART extension into eastern Contra Costa County. According to this notice, this project involves a proposal to extend rail transit service 23 miles from the existing terminus of the BART system at Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station through the communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood to a new terminus in Byron. Contra Costa County appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Intent. Contra Costa County offers the following comments regarding the environmental and planning concerns for the proposed BART extension into eastern Contra Costa County, and requests that these concerns be addressed in the forthcoming EIS/EIR: 1. Evaluate Potential To Attract Ridership From San Joaquin County The EIS/EIR should evaluate the potential to attract ridership q from San Joaquin County, particularly the fast developing communities of Mountain House and Tracy. The Mountain House community now under construction is approximately 7 miles southeast of the proposed Byron/Discovery Bay eBART station. The Mountain House community essentially sits along the Union Pacific Moccoco line, and when built out will be home to a population of 44,000 residents. The City of Tracy with a current population of 74,000 residents represents is another potentially significant source of riders for the eBART project because it too is along the Union Pacific Moccoco line. I Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month 2. Evaluate Station Access and Parking The EIS/EIR needs to evaluate the adequacy of the project's provisions for access to the eBART stations. This evaluation should address parking, and the provisions the project makes for eBART patrons to safely and conveniently arrive at these stations by car, bus, and bicycle, or as a pedestrian. The scope of the EIS/EIR needs to satisfy the environmental documentation needed for the construction of facilities in support of station access and parking. 3. Byron/Discovery Bay Station Area Access Using Byron Highway (State Route 239 The EIS/EIR's evaluation of existing and future conditions on Byron Highway will be critical since this road would provide the primary access to the proposed location for the Byron/Discovery Bay station. As currently proposed, this location will function as the end-of-the line station for the foreseeable future, though we understand that purchase of the entire rail line to its terminus in Tracy may be considered as part of this project. As noted in the preliminary review conducted to date,, extensive transit oriented development for the proposed eBART station in Byron/Discovery Bay would be limited. This indicates that a key planning issue will be station access and parking since the ridership will likely come from a fairly large "catchment" area, including potential ridership from San Joaquin County. To large extent patrons at this station will rely on Byron Highway as their primary access route so understanding traffic impacts associated with the station will be essential. See comments below about the future of Byron Highway under the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway Project. 4. Coordinate EIS/EIR with the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway Project (State Route 239) In terms of Byron Highway's future it will be vitally important that the EIS/EIR be coordinated with the forthcoming alignment study for the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway Project (State Route 239), which would connect the City of Brentwood to 1-205/1-580 near the City of Tracy. The Brentwood-Tracy Expressway (State Route 239) corridor generally runs parallel to the Byron Highway and the Union Pacific Moccoco line in the vicinity of Byron/Discovery Bay station area. It is noted that the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005 provides a $14 million earmark in Federal funds to perform an alignment study and environmental review for this inter-regional route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. 1 Enclosed for your reference is a fact sheet and maps for the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway Project(State 239). The recently passed Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005 describes the Route 239 Project as follows:"Conduct study and construct CA State Route 239 from State Route 4 in Brentwood area to 1-205 in Tracy area". 2 5. General Plan Consistency If BART chooses to consider alternative locations for the Byron/DiscoveryBay y station, the EIS/EIR should evaluate the consistency of such alternative locations with the County's General Plan policies. The evaluation of General Plan consistency should pay close attention to policies related to the area designated as the Agricultural Core (immediately adjacent to the Byron/Discovery Bay station area) and policies related to the County's Urban Limit Line. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020). Also you should be aware that residents and landowner interests in the Byron area prepared their own version of a General Plan in 1999 under the auspices of the Byron Municipal Advisory Council (MAC). While this document has no legal authority as a General Plan for the Byron community, it is nevertheless an important piece of information that should be evaluated in the EIS/EIR since it represents the vision and hopes of many in the community about how Byron should develop over the next twenty years. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Byron Township General Plan prepared by the Byron MAC. 5. eBART Transfer at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station The County is very concerned about the location and method of transfer between conventional BART train service and the eBART project. The existing BART station is located adjacent to Bay Point, an unincorporated community. The County, the City of Pittsburg and BART jointly prepared the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Area Specific Plan with the primary purpose of revitalizing the area and planning for transit oriented development. The Specific Plan did not anticipate construction of a transfer facility at this BART station. The EIS/EIR needs to evaluate the effect of the eBART project and its alternatives on the ability to implement this Specific Plan. Alternatives that increase the number of BART patrons arriving and departing by bus or car could significantly impact the ability to achieve a pedestrian friendly environment along Bailey Road, which is a key objective in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also proposes to develop the BART station site for mixed-use transit-oriented development. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the Specific Plan. 6. Alternative Transit Vehicle As part of the eBART project, the EIS/EIR needs to consider alternatives that minimize physical disruption to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station area. One alternative considered in the 2002 State Route 4 Transit Feasibility Study was use of a new transit vehicle that was compatible with conventional BART tracks, which could be coupled with a conventional BART train. This alternative eliminated the requirement for building a platform to serve passengers transferring between eBART vehicles and conventional BART trains, and made it 3 easier to upgrade eBART tracks to support conventional BART service in the future. Such an alternative minimizes disruption, delay, and inconvenience to BART patrons as well as the area surrounding residences and businesses in the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station area. Such an alternative transit vehicle warrants consideration in the EIS/EIR. 7. Evaluate Cumulative Effects - Other Nearby Projects The EIS/EIR should consider the actions of others in its evaluation of the cumulative effects of the proposed project. Such actions include construction of the State Route 4 Bypass by the State Route 4 Bypass Authority, widening of the freeway portion of State Route 4 through Pittsburg and Antioch by Caltrans, construction of Brentwood-Tracy Expressway (State Route 239) between Brentwood and Tracy, and implementation of the Byron Airport Master Plan by Contra Costa County. 8. Acknowledge East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan The EIS/EIR should acknowledge the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP). A draft of the HCP was released for public review and comment in June 2005 by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association (Association) and is available online at http//www.cocohcp.org. This association is a joint powers authority that includes most of the communities that will be served by eBART. The EIS/EIR should refer to this plan when impacts to biological resources are identified in jurisdictions that are participating in the Association. 9. County and Cities As CooDeratingjResiponsible Agencies The EIS/EIR needs to consider whether it should include the actions of the County or other jurisdictions that would be needed to implement the eBART project. Will the County or the cities need to take actions to permit the construction of the eBART project and will those actions require environmental review? If so, it may be appropriate to include the County and the cities as Cooperating Agencies/Responsible Agencies. 10. Coordinate Community Outreach Meetings With Supervisors During the course of the EIS/EIR process the County requests that BART coordinate all community outreach meetings for the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Byron/Discovery Bay station areas through the respective Supervisorial District Offices. The Pittsburg/Bay Point station area is within District V represented by Supervisor Federal Glover and the Byron/Discovery Bay station area is within District III represented by Supervisor Mary Piepho. 4 Staff from the Supervisorial. District Offices can assist in identifying appropriate meeting locations and provide a list of important community contacts that should be invited to outreach meetings. We also urge BART to consider having the respective Supervisor directly sponsor the community outreach meetings for the Pittsburg/Bay Point and Byron/Discovery Bay station areas. It has been our experience that a meeting sponsored by a member of the Board of Supervisors is a more efficient and effective way to reach out and communicate with residents in the unincorporated communities. 11. Scoping Report to the Federal Transit Administration As a final matter, we request that the County be provided with a copy of the Scoping Report, which will be provided to the Federal Transit Administration at the end of the comment period for the Notice of Intent (NOI). It is our understanding that this document will summarize comments on the NOI and will identify how BART, as lead agency, will address these scoping comments in the EIS. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIS/EIR for the proposed BART extension into eastern Contra Costa County. Should you have any questions regarding this comment letter, please contact me by telephone at (925) 335- 1242 or by email at proch@cd.cccounty.us. Sincerely yours, Patrick Roche Principal Planner Advance Planning Division Community Development Department Enclosures(4 items 1.Fact Sheet on the Brentwood-Tracy Expressway(State Route 239)Project 2.Contra Costa County General Plan(2005-2020) 3.Byron Township General Plan prepared by the Byron MAC 4.Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station Area Specific Plan cc: Members,Board of Supervisors CAO County Counsel CCC-Public Works Director Chair,Bay Point MAC and Chair Byron MAC Exec.Dir.,CCTA Chair,TRANSPLAN Committee City Mgrs.Antioch,Brentwood,Oakley and Pittsburg (all cc's w/o enclosures) 5 EXHIBIT B 39004 Federal Re ister/Vol. 70, No. 128/Wednes-day, July 6,1 2005/Notices REPORTING BURDEN—Continued CFR section Respondentuni- Total annual Average time Total annual Total annual verse responses per response burden hours burden cost —Subsequent Orders ....................... 9 equipment manu- 7.2 plans................. 60 hours 432 hours ........... 33,762 facturers. 238.203—Static End Strength: 22 railroads I petition..........0...... 100 hours ........... 100 hours ........... 5.500 Grandfathering of Non-Complaint Equipment. —Comments...................................... Unknown ................ 3 comments............ 20 hours ........ 60 hours ............. 3,300 238.237—Automated Monitoring .............. 22 railroads ............ 22 documents......... 2 hours ............... 44 hours ............ 1,496 —Display Regarding Defective 22 railroads ............ 100 tags ................. 3 minutes ........... 5 hours ............... 225 AlertorlDeadman Control. 238,303—Extedor Calendar Day Inspec- 22 railroads ............ 25 nofices................ 1 minute ............. .50 hour .............. 23 tion of Equip.. —Defective Dynamic Brakes on MU 22 railroads ........ 50 tags/cards.......... 3 minutes ........... 3 hours ............... 135 Locomotive. —Detective Dynamic Brakes on Con- 22 railroads ............ 50 tags/cards 3 minutes ........... 3 hours ............... 135 ventional Locos. —Records ......................................... 22 railroads ............ 2,017,756 records I minute ............. 33,629 hours ...... 1,143,386 238.305-4ntedor Calendar Day Mechan- 22 railroads ............ 540 tags ................. I minute ............. 9 hours ............... 324 ical Insp.:Tagging Req. —Records.......................................... 22 railroads 1.866,904 records I minute 31,115 hours 1,057,910 238.307—Periodic Mechanical Inspection 22 railroads ............ 5 notifications ......... 5 hours ............... 25 hours ............. $so of Pass. Cars: Notification of Alter- native tntervals. —Non-Complying Conditions ............ 22 railroads ............ 200 notices............. 2 minutes ........... 7 hours 236 —Records .......................................... 22 railroads ... 56,462 records 2 minutes 1,8W hours 63,988 —Reliability Assessments Con- 22 railroads ............ 5 documents........... 100 hours ........... 500 hours ........... 17,000 coming Alt.Inspection Interval. 3 minutes ........... I hour ................. 36 238.311—Single Car Test: Movement to 22 railroads ............ 25 tags ................... Nest Forward Location. 238.315--Class[A Brake Test ........ 22 railroads ............ 365,000 commu- 3 sewnds........... 304 hours ........... 0 nications. —Communication Signal Tests ......... 22 railroads ............ 365,000 tests.......... IS seconds......... 1,521 hours ........ 51,714 238.317--Class 11 Brake Test: Commu- 22 railroads ............ 365,000 tests.......... IS seconds......... 1,521 hours ........ 51,714 nication Signal System Test. 238.431—Brake Test.-Analysis .......... 1 railroad ................ 1 analysis ........... 40 hours ............. 40 hours 1.360 238.437---Emergency Comm. .................. 3 car manufacturers 3 sets of instruction 25 hours/10 min. 79 hours ............. 2,670 +25 decals. 238.441--Emergency Root Location........ 3 car manufacturers 3 sets-of instruction 25 hours/60 min. 100 hours ........... 3.300 +2.5 placards. 238.445—Automated Monitoring .............. 1 railroad ............... 10,000 alartstalarms 10 seconds......... 28 hours ............. 0 —Self-Tests:Notific. .......................... I railroad .............. 21,900 notifications 20 seconds ......... 1 122 hours ........... 0 Total Responses:5.076,058. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pit.tsburg/BayPoint,through the ,Estirnated Total AnBLI01 Burden: communities of Pittsburg,Antioch, 83,257 hours. Federal Transit Administration Brentwood,and Oakley.to a new Status:Regular Review. Environmental Impact Statement for terminus in.Byron.The corridor the East Contra Costa BART generally follows State Route 4 through Pursuant to 44 U.S.C.3507(a)and 5 Extension,California the eastern part of th©county.As an CFR '.Wxe ,1320.5(b), 13 .8(b)(3)(vi).FRA extension of HART service into Eastern - infom rs all interestedM parties that it Y AGENCY:Federal Transit AdmContra CostaCounty,the project, inistration, commonly referred to as"eBART."is not conduct or sponsor.and a U.S.Department of Transportation. respondent is not required to respond ACTION:Notice of intent to prepare an intended to improve travel in the to,a collection of information unless itEnvironmental Impact Statement(EIS). increasingly congested State Route 4 displays a currently valid OM[B control corridor by providing direct coordinated number. SUMMARY:The Federal Transit connections to the BART system.An Authority:44 U.S.C.3,1501-3520. Administration(FTA)and the San earlier planning and feasibility study Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit completed in 2002 evaluated a wide f.ssued in Washington,DC on June 29, District(BART)intend to prepare a joint range of alternatives and recommended 2005. Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) an innovative transit service concept, D.J..Stadder, pursuant to the National Environmental which employs light-weight,self- Dimctor.Office of Budget,Poderal Badroad Policy Act(NEPA)and Environmental propelled rail cars known as Diesel Administration. Impact Report(RIR)pursuant to the Multiple Units(DMUs)on right-of-way JFR Doc,05-13186 Filod 7-5-05;8:45 ant) California Environmental Quality Act to be acquired from the Union Pacific SILUNG CODE 4910-0--P (CEQA)for proposed transit service to Railroad.Service with DMUs is eastern Contra Costa County.The intended to provide a seamless project would extend service from tho connection to the existing BART sorvico it existing BART terminus station at but at a much lower cost. _..:.:.....,.»................. ....... ..... ........ Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 128/Wednesday, July 6, 2005 Notices 39005 000AWWAM The EIS/EIR will.evaluate the Di ,u also be obtained from the project Web Avenue using the Union Pacific line; alternative(the Proposed Action)and site,ht1p.-11www.ebartproje.ct.orS. extension of transit services using Bus will also evaluate a no build-alternative, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION-FrA and Rapid Transit technology;extension of a bus rapid transit alternative,and a BART invite interested individuals, transit.services using commuter rail; conventional BART extension to I and exp organizations,and federal,state.,and expansion of express bus service by Hillcrest Avenue in Antioch.Other local agencies to participate in defining Tri Delta Transit District.the.local alternatives-may also surface during the the alternatives to be evaluated in the transit operator.Through an iterative scoping process.Based on EIS/EIR anal the process of screening and refinement, presentation of the Proposed Action, identifying any significant involvinia public discussions, environmental issues related to the project alternatives,and breadth of the. alternatives.The meeting is also being engineering and.cost evaluations,and enviroranental analysis described advertised in the Son Francisco ridership estimates,the long list of belowt please let us.know of your views Chronicle,Contra Costa Times,Concord alternatives was winnowed down to regarding the scope and content of the Transcript,.South-east Antioch News, eight viable alteniatives refer-red to as EIS/EIR.Your suggestions can be Ledger Dispatch,Brentwood News.and Packages A through H.The Packages communicated at the scoping meeting or Oakley Nettig.During scoping, can be found on the project Web site in via email or letter to the contact person comments should focus on identifving the State Route 4 East Corridor Transit identified below. specific environmental impacts to,be S-tu4y-. DATES:Comment Due Date.-Written evaluated and suggesting-alternatives The study culminated in 2002 with a comments regarding the scope.of that have-fewer environmental.impacts unanimous recommendation by the alternatives and impacts to be while achieving the objectives noted Policy Advisory Committee,and considered should be sent to BART by below under Purpose and Need. direction from both the BART and August 20,200-5.Scarping M6eting.-A Comments should focus on tho'issues CCTA,Boards,to proceed to 0 public scopingenvironmental analyses and.preliminary meeting is scheduled for and alternatives-for analysis,and not on engineering.The highest rated triansit Antioch,July 19,2005 at 7 p.m.at the a preference for a particular alternative. alternative was DMU service in an Dallas Ranch.Middle School,and a Individual preference for a particular alignment-in the State Route 4 median second public scoping meeting is alternative should be communicated between the PiIttsburg/BaPolint BART scheduled for Brentwood,July 2.0,2005 during the comment period for the Draft at 7 p.m.at the Brentwood Council. EIS/EIR. Statiy on and Loveridge Road,and then to Chamber.See-ADDRESSES below. Byron via the Union Pacific Mococo T.Description of Study Area,,Project Line,with single track service between ADDRESSES:Written comments on Background and Scope the Hillcrest and Byron stations.This project scope should be sent.to Ms. The planning and development of alternative was-Package C-1 in the Ellen Smith,San Francisco Bay Area transportation improvements within-the feasibility study,and is now the Rapid Transit District,300 Lakeside State Route 4 East Comidar has been Proposed Action.This.23 mile corridor Drive,16th floor,Oakland,CA 94612. ongoing since the late 1980s.These was proposed to include five transit An Information packet describing the stations.The recommended rail purpose of the project,the proposed efforts have led to the"widening of State technology involves trains using lipht- alternatives,the impact areas to be Route 4 from Willow Pass Road in Concord to Railroad Avenue weight,self propelled rail cars known as evaluated,the citizen involvement. ue in. Diesel Multiple Units(DMUs). program,and the preliminary project Pittsburg.Plans and studies to continue Passengers on the DMUs would transfer schedule will be made available at:the the highway widening through the to the existing BART line,ideally with scoping meeting.Others may request the Loveridge Road interchange are a short walk across or along the BART underway under the direction of the scoping materials or to be placed on the hplatform.A train storage yard and mailing list to receive further Contra Costa Transportation Authority maintenance facility was proposed east information as the project.continues by (CCTA).In addition,the BART of Hillcrest Avenue.As proposed,the extension to Pittsburg/Bay Point opened contacting Ms.Ellen Smith at BART at eBART project would include new (51-0)287-4758 and at the above in 1996.The station serves over.10,000 grade separations in Antioch at address. persons entering and exiting the BART Somersville Road,A Street,and The scoping meetings will be hold at; system each weekday. Hillcrest Avenue.Also,local bus service Dallas Ranch Middle School,1401 Mt. In 2001,BART and CCTA commenced offered by Tri Delta Transit District Hamilton Drive,Antioch,CA 94531, the State Route 4 East Corridor Transit would be modified to eliminate routes Transit access is via Tri Delta Route 380. Studyto explore a series of alternative that duplicate eBART service, W Brentwood Council Chamber,734 3rd transit improvements.(The study is synchronize headways,with eBART available at the project Web site: schedules,and redefine routes to feed Street,Brentwood.,California 94513, Transit access Is via Tri Delta Routes http.-Ilwww.ebartproj"ect.org in the eBART stations. 300 and 391. Library section under"2002 Feasibility In 2004,local voters passed Regional The buildings for the scoping Study.")This feasibility study,steered Measure 2 and Measure J in Contra meetings are accessible to persons with by a Policy Advisory Committee of Costa County,supporting a local sales disabilities.People with special needs elected and appointed local officials and tax increase for transportation should call Ellen Smith at.least 72 hours a BART Board representative,started improvements.In addition.on March with a long fist of nearly 20 potentilil 239 2005,the Metropolitan prior to the scopinig meeting at the number listed in ADDRESSES. types of transit and transportation Transportation Commission approved improvements.Among these the use of funds from Regional Measure FOR FURTHER INFORMATIOU CONTACT:Ms. alternatives were continuation.of 2 for additional.study of transit service Lorraine Lerman,Community Planner, existing BART service in the median.of Improvements in:the East Contra Costa FTA Region IX 201 Mission Street, State Route 4 to Hillcrest Avenue; Corridor.In response to these Suite 2210,San Francisco,CA 94-105. continuation of existing BART service- developments,FTA and BART are now Phone:(415)744-3115.Fax:(415)744— in the median of State Route 4 to embarking an an EIS/EIR for the eBART 2726.1n.fortuation about the project can Loveridge Road and then to Hillcrest project. 39006 Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 128/Wednesday, July 6, 2005/Notices 11.Purpose and Need in the planning and implementation eliminate these impacts.Issues that will The East Contra Costa County study programs to achieve BARTs ridership be investigated in the EIS/ElR include area is the fi stest growing portion of the goals. transportation,traffic,and circulation. San Francisco Bay Region.Between the H1.Alternatives effects;land use compatibility and. years 2000 and 2.025,an additional As noted abovethe Proposed Actionconsistency with locally adopted plans 40,000 households and , p .63,000 jobs are including the Regional Transportation expected to be added in the East is the provision of DMU service in an Plan,the Transportation Improvement County.This growth in.population and alignment in the State Route 4 median Plan and the State Implementation Plan; jobs portend a dramatic increase in between the Pittsburg/BayPoint BART potential effects on local businesses and traffic delay and congestion an State Station and Loveridge Road,and then to employment-disturbance to sensitive Byron.via the Union Pacific Mococo Route 4,the primary access route to this Line,,with single track service between visual and cultural resources;effects of part of the Bay Area,with associated the Hillcrest and Byron stations. noise and vibration-,geologic and impacts an environmentar l resources Specific altenatives to the Proposed hydrology effects;potential disturbance including air quality and energy.Given. Action are expected to evolve during the to sensitive wildlife and vegetation the fore-seeable growth in the eastern environmental review process and in species and habitats;air and noise port-ion of the County,highway response to the public scoping process. emissions from project-related improvements alone cannot keep pace While a number of alternatives were construction and operation;public with the travel demand.or address discussed and evaluated as part of the health and safety concerns related to environmental impacts associated with earlier planning/feasibility study, exposure-.to hazardous materials; motor vehicle travel. project alternatives expected to be community service and utility demand- The purpose of the Proposed Action, evaluated in the EIS/EIR include: direct or indirect effects to public is to improve travel along the State 9 A No Build,or No Project, parklands,significant historic resources, Route 4-East corridor with direct, Alternative that considers the or wildlife refuges;and environmental coordinated connections to the existing consequences of not extending rail justice concerns from any BART system.In light of the reglonal transit services beyond the Pittsburg/ disproporl4onate impacts of the project and local need for an improved transit BayPoint BART Station.This alternative alternatives on low-income or ethnic connection,the Proposed Action would involve continuation of the minority neighborhoods. objectives are the same as those existing Tri Delta Transit District and Among the list of potential issues identified in the 2002 East County implementatio' n of additional express identified above,several will definitely corridor study: bus service from East County warrant detailed investigation based on Improve transportation service: communities to BART; an environmental reconnaissance • Maximize access to transit system; e A Bus Rapid Transit Alternative performed by BART as part of the • Maximize connectivity and that considers technical and operational previous planning/feasibility study searnlessness of transit system,both transit improvements using buses in the completed in 2002: from home to transit and from one farm same alignment as the DMU'project * Consistency with local general of transit to another; (freeway median.and railroad right of plans for potential land use conflicts; * Promote transit-oriented land use way).The system seeks to emulate the * Potential disturbance to surface initiatives and policies-, service levels provided by a fixed waters,since the corridor traverses the e Maximize economic benefits and guidaway rail system.Amenities would Contra Costa Canal,Kirker Creek,Los financial feasibility- be provided at stations,and portions of Medanos Waterway,Markley Creek,the * Balance short,medium.,and long- the route could be constructed with Mokelumne Aqueduct,Marsh Creek, term strategies to provide continual exclusive transit lanes or other transit. Main.Canal,Kellogg Creek,the Byron- improvements in transit services-and Bethany Irrigation Can-al,and unnamed e Protect or enhance the 41 preferential treatments in order to drainages; environment. bypass areas of localized traffic a Potential flood hazards related-to In particular,as the first new congestion;and overflowing of Kirker Creek,Marsh extension proposed since BART 9 A conventional BART Alternative Creak,Kellogg Creek:,and a .unnamed adopted.its System Expansion Policy in that using BART vehicles and systems n drainage north.of Lone Tree Way; 1999,the eBART pro'ect purpose in the same alignment as the DMU # Potential disturbance to seasonal I project(freeway median and railroad incorporates BART's goal of enhancing right of way).This alternative would wetlands and freshwater marsh areas, ridership by coordinating transit consist of an.extension of the including several seasonal wetlands east projects with local land use planning• electrically-powered,exclusive-use right of the existing BART station.and.south Jurisdictions within the eHART corridor of way BART system with one station at of State Route 4,a large wetland will commit to a process intended to Hillcrest Avenue and a yard facility. complex approximately I mile further attain a corridor-wide ridership target.. Effects east along State Route 4,several creeks IV.Probable The target is to be achieved by adopting atid drainages between Loveridge Road transit supportive land uses and makingThe purpose of the EIS/EIR is to fully and Hillcrest Avenue,a large wetland access improvements at transit stations, disclose the social,economic,and complex at the-bend of Highway 160, Ridership Development Plans environmental consequences of building and numerous drainages and irrigation incorporating land use changes and and operating eBART in advance of any ditches south of Oakley; access improvements are to be decisions to make substantial financial * Potential disturbance to federally completed and adopted.by the cities and or other commitments to its and state listed threatened and the County.BART,the cities,and the implementation.The EIS/EIR will endangered species and their habitats-, County will enter into a Memorandum explore the extent to which the project * Potential public health hazards of Understanding describing BART's alternatives result in potentially from exposure to soil and/or intent to move forward with the significant social,economic,and groundwater contamination associated environmental review process and the environmental effects and identify with highway and railroad operations, corridor communities"intent.to engage appropriate actions to reduce or as well as agricultural activities; Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 128/Wednesday, July 6, 2005/Notices 39007 • Givun the extensive industrial and and Part 581 Bumper Standard.Partial To date,Spyker has been unable to commercial development in the Grant of Application for a Temporary develop compliant bumpers and air bags corridor,historic resources evaluation Exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle for the C8 and has requested a three- and a high potential to encounter Safety Standard No. 108. year exemption from the applicable air historic archaeological resources:and SUMMARY.,This notice grants the Spyker bag and bumper requirements in order * Potential impacts to nearby Automobielen B.V.("Spyker") to develop compliant bumpers and air sen.sitive rec(:.,ptors to air and noise bags.The petitioner anticipates that the emissions, application for a temporary exemption from the requirements of 54.1.5.3 and funding necessary for these compliance V.FTA Procedures S14 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, efforts will come from immediate sales A Draft EIS/EIR for eBART will he Standard(FMVSS)No.208,Occupant of Spyker C8 in the United States.These prepared following FTA policy and all crush protection,and Part 581 Bumper sales would amount to approximately federal laws.regulations.and executivo Standard-This notice also partially 50 model C8 vehicles per year. orders affecting project development, grants the Spyker application for a If the exemption is granted,Spyker including but not limited to the temporary exemption from FMVSS No. has indicated that.it would be able to regulations of the Council an 108.Lamps.reflective devices.and sell fully compliant vehicles by 2008.If EnvironinentalQuality and I-rA associated equipmant.The exemptions the exemption is denied,Spyker has implementing guidance implementing apply to the Spyker.C8 vehicle line.In indicated that the company would be in NEPA(40 CFR parts 1500-1508,and 23 accordance with 49 CFR Part 555,the danger of going out of business. CFR part 771),the Clean Air Act, basis for the grant is that compliance section 404 of the Clean.Water Act, would cause substantial economic 11.Why Spyker.Needs a Temporary Executive Order 12898 regarding hardship to a manufacturer that has Exemption environmental justice,the National tried in good faith to comply with the Spyker indicates that it has invested Historic Preservation Act,the standard., While the exemption fTorn significant resources into making the C8 Endangered Species Act.,and section FMVSS No. 208 and Part 581 will be s 4(0 of the Department of Transportation effective for a period of three years,the compliant with applicable Federal Act to the maximum extent.practicable exemption from FMVSS No. 108 is regulations.However,because of the during the NEPA process. limited to the first 10 Spyker C8 limited resources as well as the After its publication,the Draft EIS/ETR vehicles imported and sold in the fluctuating value of the U.S.dollar,the will.be available for review and United States. petitioner argues that it cannot bring-the comment by interested public members The National Highway Traffic Safety C8 into compliance with FMVSS No. and local.state,and federal agencies, Administration(NHTSA)published a 208 and Part 581 without generating and public hearings will be held on the, notice of receipt of the application on immediate U.S.sales revenue:The Draft EIS/ETR.The Final EIS/EIR will March 29,2005,and afforded an petitioner indicates that it is consider the comments received during opportunity for comment.2 experiencing substantial economic the Draft ElS/EIR public review and will DATES:The exemption from FMVSS No. hardship.Specifically,the company's identify the preferred alternative, 208,and Part 581,Bumper standard,is consolidated balance sheet shows a not. Additional opportunities for public effective from June 15,2005 until June loss of E1,245,000(w$1,527,868)5 in involvement have been and.will 15,2008.The exemption from FMVSS 2002;a net loss of X4,216,000(-w continue to be provided throughout all No. 108 applies to not more than 10 $5,1.73,889)in 2003:and a net loss of phases of project development.FTA and Spyker Ca vehicles sold in the United. E4,912,000(w$6,028,022)in 2004.This -BART must approve the Final EIS/EIR States• represents a cumulative net loss for a prior to making any decisions regarding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: period of 3 years of f10t373.000 4 the project. George Feygin in the Office of Chief $12.,729,778).Since Spyker is a publicly Issued oa:June 29.2005. Counsel,NCC-112,(Phone:202-366- traded company,their financial 2992;Fax 202-366-3820;E-Mi ail: 1A�.-slie T.Rogers. George. dot.gov). nfon-nation is available to the public.6 Regional Adniinisirator. In short,the petitioner indicates that IFR Doc.05-13268 Filed 7-6-05;8:45 ami I.Background the cost of making the C8 compliant SILUNG CODE 4910-0-P Spyker is a small publicly traded with FMVSS No.208 and Part 581 is Dutch vehicle manufacturer established beyond the company's current in 2002.Spyker manufactures hand. capabilities.Spyker thus requests a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION built high-performance automobiles three-year exemption in order to similar to vehicles manufactured by develocompliant bumpers and National Highway Traffic Safety p 4 Administration Ferrari,Lamborghini,Saleen,and Other advanced air bags.The petitioner high-performance vehicle anticipates the funding necessary for (Docket No.NHTSA-2005-20455,Notice 21 manufacturers.3Spyker has these compliance efforts will come from Spyker Automoblefen B.V.-Grant of manufactured approximately 50 inodel immediate sales of the C8 in the United C8 vehicles,and has back orders States. Application for a Temporary approaching 80 vehicles.4 Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No.108,and 208;and I To view the petition and other supporting Part 581 Bumper Standard docusnents,please go to:hap.-Ildnis.dot.govIsearchl sdarchFannSimplexfin(Docket No.NII-ITSA-2005- AGENCY:National Highway Traffic 20455). 5 All dollar values are based on an exchanga rate Safety Administration(NHTSA),DOT. 2 See 70 FR 15 98 7. orf w$1.23 as of 6/5/2005. ACTION:Grant of Application for a 3 For more information on Spyker,see hup.-11 6 See hilp.-Iluww.spykawars.com/Meta/)nvastorsl owmspykerccrs.c*m/` pcifIFinancieellAnnual_fieporf_2004.pdf and hop.,11 Temporary Exemption from Federal 6 http://Www.spykorcon,contliiietalitive.vtorstp(tfl tvtvw.spykercars-conilmaialinvestorslpdfI Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.2083, ritiazicit-ollfint-halfioar-reporl_2004.pilf. Piiiancivellspykiyr-ottual_report_2003.pdfI