Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01141992 - TC.1 7"� 1 . TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE , $" cr'i7 c rT� DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Report on Iron Horse Trail Alignment Options Through San Ramon SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Direct the Director of Public Works to draft an agreement with the East Bay Regional Parks District ("District") for the Board' s consideration that allows construction of the Iran Horse Trail ("trail") west of the center 40 (forty) feet of the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way ("SPROW") between Ballinger Canyon Road and Montevideo Drive; 2. Direct the . Director of Public Works to report to the Transportation Committee by January, 1992, on the appropriateness of locating the trail west of the center 40 (forty) feet of the SPROW north of Norris Canyon Road; 3 . Approve and authorize the Chair of the Board of. Supervisors to sign a letter addressed to the Chair of the City-County Engineers Committee requesting an extension of the Transportation Development Act grants awarded to San Ramon ("City") for construction of the Iron Horse Trail; and 4 . Authorize the Transportation Committee to meet with the County's State and Federal legislative delegation to discuss the feasibility of constructing the trail on an interim basis down the center of the SPROW south of Montevideo Drive and allow future relocation of the trail from its interim alignment. to accommodate a mass transit project. FISCAL IMPACT None. All trail design, environmental, and construction costs are to be financed through the District and the City, and the only County costs will be for coordination activities which are already budgeted by the Public Works Department. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR XX RECOMMENDATION OF .BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : RoSchroder Tom Torlakson ACTION 'OF BOARD ON ,janUg y �, 1aQ2 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X_ See Appendix No. 1, attached, for the Board's approval and other actions. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED January 14, 1992 cc: GMED Agency PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS East Bay Regional. Parks District via CDD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR City of San Raman via CDD By DEPUTY Iron Horse Trail Alignment Options through San Ramon December 17, 1991 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The issue of alignment options for the trail through the City was referred to the Transportation Committee by the Board's East Bay Regional Parks District Liaison Committee. The central issue is a request by the City to build the trail along the railroad ballast of the SPROW. The recommendations of the Transportation Committee are based on the following investigation. County staff met with District staff to examine feasible trail alignments and their associated costs. There is minimal difference, $25, 000 to $75, 000 depending on the alternative, between the cost of providing a trail down the center of the SPROW or along the eastern or western edge. Any of these alignments would be acceptable to the District. With the District's concerns resolved, the City still advocates an alignment along the center of the. SPROW as a prudent measure to avoid the potential for health risks to trail users from electromagnetic fields ("EMF") created by the parallel PG&E power line. County staff has reviewed the "EMF" issues and found that there is inadequate information to determine if public health risks can occur from long term exposure to high EMF levels (see Exhibit A) . A recent article in the Contra Costa Times (see Exhibit B) states the most recent study of EMF effects provided contradictory findings. , The Transportation Committee requested staff to develop an option that would: 1. Meet the City's alignment request on an "interim" -basis; and 2 . Protect the County ,from any cost associated with relocating the trail from its interim alignment to accommodate a mass transit project. Such an option would involve an agreement between the County, the District and the City providing for; the future relocation of the trail if necessary to accommodate a mass. transit project. In the opinion of County Counsel, enforcing such an agreement could ,be subject to legal challenge by opponents of the trail relocation if federal funds are used for the mass transit project (see Exhibit C) . Discretion allowed under federal law could require modification of the mass transit project to avoid trail relocation by either modifying the project's design or using another alignment. The County' s agreement should include a provision to protect ' the County from legal costs associated with its enforcement. The opinion of County Counsel further indicates that even if a trail relocation agreement covers the County's legal costs against lawsuits, it would not protect the County against other potential expenses, unless the agreement contained specific language requiring the District or City to pay those expenses. Such expenses could include monies claimed by the State of California if the SPROW cannot be used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Beyond these expenses, County staff believes such an agreement, if challenged, could threaten the viability of a mass transit project through the San Ramon Valley by requiring costly modifications solely to avoid trail relocation. In recognition of the Committee' s concerns regarding the costs and consequences of an interim trail alignment, the City has agreed to a westerly alignment north of Montevideo Drive_ consistent with Recommendations 1 and 2 . This stretch is funded by Transportation Development Act grants that expire soon. The City has asked the County to support a request for an extension of these grants, which is consistent with Recommendation 3 . The City's greatest concern on the trail alignment is. south of Montevideo Drive through a largely residential area. The Committee requests the Board' s support, to investigate regulations or legislation to meet the City' s alignment request on an interim basis, allow future relocation of the trail from its interim alignment to accommodate a mass transit project, and protect the County and a project sponsor from future legal and financial liabilities associated with trail relocation for mass transit purposes. The Boards ' support for this approach would be granted by approving Recommendation 4 . Iron Horse Trail Alignment Options through San Ramon December 17, 1991 Page Three CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 would provide condition's for a License Agreement between the County and District to trail construction on various segments of the trail -through San Ramon. Without an agreement, trail construction cannot occur. Recommendation 3 would increase the likelihood of an extension of the grant, funding trail construction. Without the grant extension, trail construction cannot occur. Exhibit A: 11/5/91 Memo from J.. Cutler to B. Murphy Exhibit B: 11/29/91 Contra Costa Times article Exhibit C: 11/12/91 Memo from V. 'Westman to H. Bragdon APPENDIX NO. 1 TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT TC. 1 JANUARY 14, 1992 The Board APPROVED Recommendations 1 , 2 and 3 of the Transportation Committee Report TC1. Recommendation 4 was amended to read as follows: 4. Authorize the Transportation Committee to meet with the County' s State and Federal legislative delegation to discuss all options regarding the feasibility of constructing the trail south of Montevideo Drive. Recommendation 5 was added, as follows: 5. Authorize the County Administrator' s Office to work with the County' s Legislative Delegation to pursue necessary legislation to hold harmless the County in implementing any option related to the Iron Horse Trail. • r.'a•,� LCL-;1IIll R CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR"IEENT DATE: November S, 1991 TO: Bud Murphy FROM: Jim Cutler, Assistant Director of Comprehensive Planning' r E SUBJECT: ElectroMagnetic Force and The Ironhorse Trail At a recent meeting between you, me, Val Alexeeff and Mike Anderson of the EBRPD and the District's engineering consultants an issue was raised on concerns on the Electro Magnetic Force (EMF) from the adjacent high voltage transmission lines along the proposed trail location within the County owned Southern Pacific ROW. The EBRPD staff indicated this wasn't their issue but that of the City of San Ramon. I promised to do some research on this matter and report back to you. I have initiated a Iiterature search on the issue. One report indicated the summary results which are attached. Basically all researchers suggest that there is inadequate information to determine if public health risks can occur from the long term exposure to high EMF levels. There have been no studies which have identified a causal effect between short term exposure, e.g., use of an electric razor or walking along a trail to health impacts. It may be years before clarity is brought to this issue. The literature indicates that the subtle differences in exposure from large transmission lines for a additional few feet probably can't be measured. A trail along the middle of the right of way would have almost the same level of exposure as would a trail 10 or 15 feet easterly (see the attached graphic for a 500 kv line). If potential exposure is the concern, then a trail along the right of way would appear to be inappropriate wherever located within the right of way. Alternatively, some additional trail locations could be along the parallel San Ramon Creek maintenance roads. This might provide added setback from the transmission lines, if EMF is a serious concern. �L�1�7Z,1LY The expenditure of large sums to deal with the EMF concerns according to the literature would be a poor use of Public Funds.The nice things about trails is that should an EMF health risk be documented, the investment is low and the trail can be moved. Most trails aren't expected to wear for 10 years without major renovation in any case. m-jwclmltmurghr.nrcca '�tt. ffrCn4fh •��1�UEGtrI'G er+gt�+eG tc _ J � t+vd At d;fTarnt d.Ylarnnr4 ��"*Po.Kr l;.,r4 ane( 1prlutntlt- hes foo-woAeer i^ Asst Shaded( rr*;OnT. to,000 / JJ tppl,xnc�t Sev kV 000 r fsrtvif7 too gR1ri tierr ) !G ' i 0•t f.0 JO w /a00 tptGraO Thy fb.+t[� 7� SawC't t�tcrs) t . 1,000-- Soo kY 7rAA s�*i rt,a.� C+�aC . MawryGGc '/max /b0 t lE �.1 I c.. 10 . to X00 �ti'dU GC +rD N* SOtr4CL(rm G.$.rT� t 4 .12A—Contra Costa Times Wednesttay, Narember 20. 1991 a� BAY AREA Co ntradictorMdingS . study of EW eest 13Y Lee ,Siegel E3 MORE STATE NEWS - LOS ANGELES — A study that Finance report predicts$20 billion. ;seems to link childhood leukemia to budget gap by year M. 3B power lines, hair dryers and blacktwice - snd-White televisions also hints at may have the normal one-in. �ossrble risks from electric blah- 20.000 chance of getting leukemia, kers,curling irons, clocks and video Yet actual 24-hour measurements of games, scientists said Tuesday. EMFs in children's homes suggest. - Sponsored by the electric utility ed only a weak link between lecke- industry, the five-year. $1.7 nui ion arta and magnetic fields and no link study is the most comprehensive yet between the cancer and electric conducted on the possible.but tut- fields. }proven health risks of eiectromag- ''Me current study adds some petic fields, or EMFs — invisible support to the hypothesis that elec force fields generated by power tromagnetic fields increase child- Unes, appliances and everything hood leukemia risk but it doesn't tiectrical. resolve the controversy'," said Dr. EMFs became an issue in San John Peters, a co-author of the re- Ramon early this year when the port and occupational health direc- mother of a young boy claimed her for at the University of Southern son's cancer could have been California. caused by living in close proXiMitY As for possible cancer risks 20 overhead power lines. At the posed by appliances, "the main time,young Arthur Amador was re- thing this study does is raise this is- ceiving chemotherapy treatment for sue. It requires more study," Peters lymphoma, said. The controversy stirred by Laura Nevertheless. Peters endorsed a Amadoes charges spurred city offi- concept called"prudent avoidance, rials to form a task force to exariune ep of lessening possible hazards Which means reducing exposure to waysfor residents livingnear exposed electromagnetic fields when it is power lines. cheap and easy. Some scientists Findings in the study released have suggested avoiding electric Tuesday are somewhat cofttndic• blankets, moving clocks away from tory. It found that cMidren who Live beds and sitting at least arm's dose to high-current power lines length from computer screens. 1 , _ Summary of This Brochure Here's a brief summary of the key points in this brochure. • Electric and magnetic fields are found throughout nature and in all living things. They hold matter together.They are necessary for the operation of the nervous system. • 60 Hz(60 cycles per second)electric and magnetic fields come from electric power. They are found around all electrical appliances, house wiring, power lines in the street,and high voltage transmission lines. • There is clear evidence that 60 Hz fields can produce various hormonal and other changes in living things. It is not yet clear if these changes can result in risks to public health. • Possible risks of concern include the promotion of cancer(i.e. helping the growth of existing cancer); developmental abnormalities(i.e. birth defects); and various neurological effects such as chronic depression. e There have been many very good scientific studies of the possible health risks of fields.Taken together,the results are very complicated.Careful and responsible scien- tists do not yet agree on whether 60 Hz fields pose a risk to public health and, if they do, how serious that risk might be. • It is not clear what aspect of 60 Hz fields(if any)poses a risk.There is evidence that suggests that across the range of field strengths commonly encountered by people, stronger fields may not pose greater risks than weaker helds. This means that the usual assumption that"more is worse"may not be correct for the case of 60 Hz fields. With the scientific evidence that is now available, it is not possible to establish a"safe field"standard. I • If individuals and society are concemed about the possible risks from fields they can take prudent stens to avoid exposure to fields, while avoiding large unjustified expen- ditures. For example. individuals can stop using electric blankets, and society can try Ito avoid building new lines very close to people. • 60 Hz fields do not pose a significant risk to agriculture or to ecosystems. • There is a great deal of research going on to learn more about the possible health risks of 60 Hz fields. New evidence from this research should help to reduce some of the current uncertainty. 39 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: December 12, 1991 To: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development Attn: Steven L. Goetz, Transportation Planning Division From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: David F. Schmidt, Deputy County Counsel Re: Iron Horse Trail Alignment through San Ramon Summary: Unless the federal government has determined that the San Ramon segment of the Iron Horse Trail is exempt from section 4 (f) , section 4 (f) would present a formidable obstacle for the planning of a transit project along the Southern Pacific right-of-way, especially if the transit project could be constructed without displacing the trail. An agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District or the City of San Ramon, under which the district or the city agrees at its expense to relocate the trail as necessary to accommodate the transit project, would be enforceable between the parties to it. However, such an agreement would not prevent third parties from challenging relocation of the trail pursuant to section 4 (f) and would not protect the County against all potential expenses. Background: This memo responds to your November 19, 1991 memo, in which you asked two legal questions about the alignment of the Iron Horse Trail through San Ramon. The County presently owns the former Southern Pacific right-of-way, having acquired it for transit purposes with money provided by the State of California. Certain segments of the Iron Horse Trail have already been constructed along the right-of-way, and plans call for construction of the segment that passes through San Ramon as well . The East Bay Reqional Park District operates the Iron Horse Trail for use by pedestrians, equestrians and non-motorized vehicles pursuant to a long-term license agreement between the County and that district. According to your memo, the City of San Ramon is pressing the County to have the San Ramon segment of the trail constructed within the center 40-foot transit easement, which is the area the County envisions for future transit use. The Transportation Committee is considering whether to allow construction of an " interim" trail within the transit 'easement, but to require relocation of the trail as necessary to iccommodate any future transit project. County staff has been working to have the trail remain outside the center easement, and is concerned that construction within the center easement could hamper or prevent future transit use of the right-of-way. In particular, County staff is concerned that federal environmental laws (i.e. , section 4 (f) ) could prevent future relocation of the trail and that the State of California could attempt to recoup money from the County if the right-of-way cannot be used for transit purposes. Any future transit project would involve federal funding through the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) and, thus, would require compliance with federal environmental laws. Ouestion No. 1: Does the application of section 4 (f) of the National Environmental Policy Act (sic] eliminate the potential to use the San Ramon Branchline right-of-way for a transit system if it requires relocation of the Iron Horse Trail? Answer No. 1: Unless the San Ramon segment of the trail has been determined by the federal government to be exempt from section 4 (f) , section 4 (f) would present a formidable obstacle for the planning of a transit project, especially if the transit project could be constructed without displacing the trail. Discussion: Section 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation Act specifies that publicly-owned land from a park, recreation area, wildlife refuge, waterfowl refuge or historic site (referred to as "section 4 (f) lands") may be used for a federally-funded transportation program or project only if: (1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land; and (2) The program' or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the land resulting from such use. (49 U.S. C. §§ 303 and 1653 (f) ; 23 C.F.R. S 771. 135 (a) ( 1) (1991) . ) Identical provisions are contained in the Federal-Aid Highway Act. (23 U. S.C. S 138 . ) Section 4 (f) applies both to highway projects funded through the Federal Highway Administration and transit projects funded through the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. ' (23 C. F.R. S 771. 101 ; Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood organizations v. Coleman (E.D. Pa. 1977 ) 437 F. Supp. 1341, 1360-1361. ) 'From discussion with you, we understand that ycu havo checked with Caltrans and have confirmed that section applies to transit projects, as well as hiqhway projects . . For purposes of this memo, ,,ou have instructed us to assume th,it section -4'( t) IPPlies to transit projects ind that a trail -«ould qualify for protection under section 4 ( f ) . Before federal funding can be used for a project or program that would use section 4 (f) lands, a special evaluation must be prepared by the project proponent and approved by the federal government. (23 C.F.R. S 771.13,5.(b) ,, (i) , (k) and (1) . )' Where use of section 4 (f) lands cannot be 'avoided, the evaluation must demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives . that avoid social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes. (23 C.F.R. S 771. 135(b) . ) Section 4 (f) applies both to direct use and to constructive use of section 4 (f) lands. Constructive use occurs when a project does not directly use section 4 (f) lands, but the project's proximity impacts are so severe that they substantially impair the character of the affected section 4 (f) lands. (23 C.F.R. S 771. 135 (p) (2) . ) Constructive use does not occur when there are impacts to a proposed park, recreation area or wildlife refuge, but the proposed transportation project and the resource are concurrently planned or developed. (23 C.F.R. S 771.135(p) (5) (v) . ) The federal government determines the application of section 4 (f) and generally must concur in any exemption. (23 C.F.R. S 771. 135 (b) . ) Subject to the concurrence of the federal government, a 4 (f) evaluation is not required in the following situations: (1) when the federal, state or local officials having jurisdiction over a park, recreation area or refuge determine that the entire site is not significant; (2) when an historic or archeological site is not listed or eligible for listing on the National Register; or (3) when the property interest in the section4 (f) lands was acquired for transportation purposes prior to the designation of the section 4 (f) lands, provided that an adequate* effort was made to identify properties protected by section 4 (f) prior to acquisition. (23 C. F.R. S 771. 135 (c) , (e) , (g) (1) and (h) . ) Numerous cases have involved legal challenges against highway projects based upon section 4 (f) . Plaintiffs in these cases have included individuals and citizens ' groups, as well as government entities. (See, e.g, , Stop H-3 Association v. Coleman (9th Cir. 1976) 533 F. 2d 434 ; Town of Belmont v. Dole ( 1st Cir. 1985) 766 F. 2d 28 . ) Section 4 (f) has been applied not only to parks, but also to historic buildings, lakes, bridges, schools, playgrounds and petroglyph rocks. (Adler v. Lewis (9th Cir. 1982) 675 F. 2d 1085, 1092 ; Stop H-3 Association v. Coleman, supra, 533 F. -Id at -. 3") ; Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood organizations v. Colem,in, supr3 , 437 F. Supp. at 1361. ) In view of the similarity between piayqrounds and trails, we conclude that trails would probably be protected icy section 4 ( f) . -3- Generally, in reviewing section 4 (f) determinations made by the . federal government, the courts have upheld such determinations if they are based on a consideration of relevant factors and there has not been a clear error of judgment. (Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971) 401 U.S. 402; Adler v. Lewis, supra, 675 F.2d at 1091. ) Where section 4 (f) has not been complied with, the courts can issue an injunction stopping a project until section 4 (f) is complied with. (Stop H-3 Association v. Coleman, supra, 533 F.2d 434. ) Considering these materials, we are unable to say with certainty that section 4 (f) would not preclude use of the San Ramon Branchline right-of-way for transit purposes if this would involve relocation of the Iron Horse Trail. Should the federal government determine that the San Ramon segment of the trail falls under one of the exemptions to section 4 (f) , section 4 (f) would not be a problem. However, if the San Ramon segment of the trail is not exempt, section 4 (f) could present a formidable hurdle to be overcome in planning a transit project. If the transit project could be constructed without displacing the trail (i.e. , constructed on one or both sides of the trail) , it would appear difficult to satisfy the requirements of section 4 (f) . This could potentially prevent transit use of the area occupied by the trail (i.e. , the center of the right-of-way) . it should also be kept in mind that, even if the involved local entities are in agreement that the trail would be relocated, such agreement would not prevent . individuals, citizens' groups or even the federal government from raising section 4 (f) issues. Ouestion No. 2 : Can the County enforce an agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District that would require that district to relocate the trail at a future time in order to accommodate construction of a transit system on the right-of-way? Answer No. 2 : Such an agreement would be enforceable between the parties to it but would not prevent third parties from challenging relocation of the trail pursuant to section 4 (f) and would not protect the County against all potential expenses. Discussion: From discussion with you, we understand that the idea has been proposed for the County to enter into a written agreement with the East Bay Regional Park District or the City of San Ramon. Such agreement would provide for relocation of the trail at district or city expense in the event the trail area is needed for transit purposes in the future. Such an agreement would generally be enforceable against the district or the city. However, it ;ould not prevent third parties (e.g. , individuals,, citizens ' group s , -etc. ) from challenging relocation of the trail. Also, such an aqreemen-, would not . protect the County against other potential expenses , unl,,,- s the agreement contained specit-ic language requiring the district or the city pa,!! --hose expenses. These other oxpenses -, oul-t 1n(,. 1u;,,,, -4- the cost of defending any third-party litigation and could possibly include monies claimed by the State of California if the right-of-way cannot be used for the purpose for which it was acquired. cc: J. Michael' Walford, Public Works Director Attn: Joseph P. Murphy, Flood Control Division Transportation Committee (via Community Development) Val Alexeeff, G.M.E.D.A. atS\memos\irons,,e, r —7—