open house summary - home - city of elk grove · open house summary introduction on thursday,...

Elk Grove Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study Community Open House #3

November 16, 2017 | 7:00 – 8:30pm Franklin High School Cafeteria

6400 Whitelock Parkway, Elk Grove, CA 95757

of 17

Open House Summary Introduction

On Thursday, November 16, 2017, the City of Elk Grove (City) held a third Community Open

House for the Elk Grove Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study. More than 60 community

members attended the open house at the Franklin High School Cafeteria, located at 6400

Whitelock Parkway in Elk Grove from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.

Project Team

The following project team members were

present at the open house:

• Mike Costa, City of Elk Grove

• Tom Metcalf, City of Elk Grove

• Kevin Bewsey, City of Elk Grove

• Adam Dankberg, Kimley-Horn

• Jake Hermle, Kimley-Horn

• Krista Pederson, Kimley-Horn

• Daniel Harrison, Kimley-Horn

Project Overview

Commuters traveling between Elk Grove and the Sacramento region currently have the

option of driving, carpooling, taking the e-Tran express bus, or driving to a Regional Transit

station in Sacramento. The provision of a multi-modal facility in Elk Grove may allow for a

new commuter rail (Amtrak) station, providing commuter service between Sacramento and

Bakersfield, as well as a convenient location to access and transfer between transit services

such as local and commuter buses.

In the future, the multi-modal facility may include services such as light rail or bus rapid

transit (BRT). The City is studying the potential for a multi-modal facility to provide access

to these alternative transportation options at one location.




of 17

The Elk Grove Multi-modal Facility Feasibility Study will:

• Identify and assess the feasibility of potential locations for a multi-modal facility

• Evaluate potential reductions to commuter traffic

• Identify potential site locations and select a preferred location using a detailed evaluation

process

• Inform future planning and funding efforts for a multi-modal facility

Open House Purpose

The community open house provided an opportunity for community members to learn about the

study, ask questions, and provide their input on the two preferred site locations of the multi-

modal facility.

Open house objectives included:

• Provide an overview of the feasibility

study, its purpose, and objectives

• Present the results of the draft

feasibility study

• Identify first and second preferred site

locations

• Discuss and gather input from

community members about the study

and preferred site locations

Open House Format

The open house included a presentation by Mike Costa, City of Elk Grove Acting Transit Manager.

The presentation included an overview of the goals and objectives for the study, the study

process, and the results of the draft feasibility study.

Presentation

Project Process

The Project process began by identifying potential site locations, estimating potential ridership

and congestion relief at those locations, and evaluating locations based on a set of evaluation

criteria. The City and Project team is now revising and recommending sites based on public

input. The study is on an eight to nine month schedule and is estimated to be completed in

January or February 2018.




of 17

Partnering Agencies

Partnering agencies in this study include the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA),

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), and Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT).

About the Multi-Modal Facility

A multi‐modal facility in Elk Grove could provide a consolidated access point for bus, heavy rail,

and light rail transit. It could improve connectivity between different modes of transportation

while enhancing access to transportation alternatives to reduce traffic congestion and emissions.

Additionally, a facility could generate economic development and activity nearby by establishing

the facility as a destination in Elk Grove and by significantly enhancing transportation

connectivity for the area around the site.

Project Update

The City provided a status update to City

Council on October 25th. City Council directed

staff to focus on recommending potential sites

along the UPRR west side line (also known as

the Sacramento Subdivision), as this line is

where the SJJPA is planning to provide

passenger rail service. The SJJPA is planning

this because the east side line that they

currently use cannot add any more trains; in

order to increase the frequency of rail service,

the west side line must be used.

Site Requirements

The future site of a multi‐modal facility will need to meet certain requirements: enough space

for a 1,000‐foot long platform along rail tracks; five to ten‐acres for facilities such as parking;

connectivity to the existing transportation network including roads, bus lines, bike facilities, and

sidewalks; and minimal major environmental issues such as wetlands or soil contamination. The

Project team is also taking into consideration if a lot is already vacant or has low real estate

impacts, and estimated site design and construction costs.




of 17

Site Locations

The City had previously selected four site locations for further evaluation; two of these were not

along the west side line. Per Council direction, the City focused its evaluation on the two sites

adjacent to the west side line (sites W1 and W2) and added two additional sites for further

consideration (sites W3 and W4). The four sites for consideration are:

• Site W1 – Adjacent to the railroad tracks, north of Bilby Road

• Site W2 – Near the southwest corner of the Elk Grove Boulevard and Franklin Boulevard

intersection

• Site W3 – Adjacent to the railroad tracks, at the northeast corner of Laguna Boulevard

and Dwight Road

• Site W4 – Bounded by the railroad tracks to the east, Dwight Road to the west, and the

Elk Grove City limit to the north




of 17

Previous public input on site W1 received included comments that it was not in a central

location, would be most viable for commuting to Sacramento, and concerns regarding traffic,

crime, home values, and train noise. Input on site W2 included concerns about impacts to the

Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, view shed impacts, and concerns regarding traffic, crime,

home values, and train noise.

Next Steps

Next steps in the study will be to incorporate public input into the evaluation of potential sites

along the west side line, finalize the study report, and present the results to City Council.

Information Stations

Before and after the presentation, community members were encouraged to stop by three

information stations to learn more about the study and provide their input.

• Project Site Locations: This station provided an overview map of Elk Grove and the fourpotential site locations, sites W1 through W4.

• West Side Line Map: This station provided a zoomed-in, detailed map focusing on thearea immediately surrounding the west side rail line, and showed potential site locationsW1 through W4.

• Comments: This station provided community members with comment cards and pens to

provide questions and comments about the study.

Notification

To notify the community about the Community Open House, postcards were mailed to more

than 9,700 residents and property owners who live or own property in a neighborhood within

proximity to one of the sites potentially being considered for a future multi-modal facility. Email

notifications were sent to more than 210 interested community members. The Project team

reached out to neighborhood associations and homeowners associations near the proposed

potential multi-modal facility locations to share information about the open house with their

organizations and on their social media channels and newsletters if applicable.

Information about the open house was also featured on the City of Elk Grove’s website,

Facebook, and Twitter.




of 17

How did you hear about this open house?

Upon arrival at the open house, community members were asked to identify how they heard

about it. The graph below shows their responses.

Questions & Answers

After the presentation, the project team facilitation a Question and Answer discussion to address

community questions and comments. Below is a summary of the discussion.

• Question: Why do we need this? Is this a need or want?

o Response: There are multiple opportunities to connect to other cities; explore

opportunities; there is potential funding now; and the city would not fund it

entirely on its own.

• Question: We see that ACE may be a potential service here, but what are the multimodal

services that will be offered day 1 vs 5 years from now and how will we attract further

modes of transportation?

o Response: There is an existing Amtrak service that goes through Elk Grove already

operated by the San Joaquin Joint Powers authority (SJJPA). Its current service

utilizes one rail corridor that goes through Elk Grove and is in the process of

moving service to the west-side rail line. Once this Amtrak service is moved to the

west side line, it could immediately serve the Elk Grove station. The SJJPA also

works closely with ACE which would help advance the introduction of ACE service

54%

13%

12%

9%

6%4%

2%

Mailer

Nextdoor

Email

Friend/Family

Neighbors

Social media

City Council Meeting




of 17

to Elk Grove. Locations on the west side rail corridor would not be served by Sac

RT bus or light rail, but E-tran bus service could adjust to serve these routes to

connect to the facility.

• Question: Can we refuse service to a company? For example, can we say “no Grey Hound

buses?”

o Response: We cannot answer that question at this point. This will be further

explored when site is selected.

• Question: How is this going to get commuter traffic going to Sacramento off the main

road? Are we funding intermodal transportation so Bay Area employees can afford to live

here instead?

o Response: The primary focus of this facility is not on reducing congestion, but

more on providing connections to other cities outside the Sacramento region and

to give people choices to use different modes of transportation. The intent of the

study is mainly to determine where a station should be located.

• Question: Can you define “centralized” access? What is the point of providing bike and

pedestrian access when it would take so long to get to these locations?

o Response: A centralized location, in our case, does not mean a geographic

centralized location, but a location where different modes can connect at one

point. Pedestrian traffic and bike access are not necessarily intended to provide

commuter relief, but give people more choices when it comes to transportation

modes.

• Question: Are real estate impacts a concern?

o Response: This is still something to consider. When we reported to council, the

feedback we received from them was that we should expand our options and

consider sites that we had previously ruled out because of possible real estate

constraints. These constraints will still be factored into the selection.

• Question: Is passenger rail service to the east not being considered any longer?

o Response: Correct; this is because there is a limit on the amount of passenger rail

service that could be provided on the east line. The line is owned by Union Pacific

Railroad and there is a lot of freight activity on that line, and Union Pacific is not

willing to accommodate any more passenger rail service than what is currently

provided, which is two trains in the morning and two trains in the evening.

• Question: Could the City decide to pick none of the sites?

o Response: City could direct staff to pick a preferred location or select multiple

locations for further study. It should be noted that the City has say on potential

station locations, but does not have jurisdiction over rail service. If we were to

progress toward building a station there would be further elements of the station




of 17

that would need to be negotiated with the rail corridor owner and the rail service

providers.

• Question: How much of the estimated cost is coming from City? Would any grant funding

commit us to specific modes, i.e. could this site be a park & ride?

o Response: We have not yet identified specific funding sources for the project. It

could potentially be fully funded through grants. Yes, the site could serve other

modes such as park & ride bus service. Further study needs to be done. West side

line runs through midtown to SMF which is a pro.

• Question: How was the traffic study made? Can the city have that much control over the

site?

o Response: All will be negotiated and agreed. We need to select a site, further

study it, and conduct further analysis.

• Question: You say it might not alleviate traffic, but “alleviating traffic” is in the RFP?

o Response: We have not yet made a determination on traffic impacts; these will be

determined based on ridership estimates which are not yet finalized.

• Question: Was a final study submitted at the October 25th council meeting? Did they vote

on October 25?

o Response: Council did not vote on October 25th; City staff provided a presentation

but did not submit any documents to Council. The draft report is not yet finalized.

• Question: Have the citizens be surveyed? How did they determine the City residents want

this?

o Response: The City General plan indicates that it should investigate opportunities

to provide multi-modal transportation options. For example, the City provides

local and commuter bus service. Additionally, City Council has asked staff to look

into the possibilities of light rail or passenger rail service in the City. The study is

focused more on what the site location should be in the event that it decides a

facility should be built.

• Question: The focus used to be getting jobs here not just beds here. Did that focus

change?

o Response: While this study is focused just on transportation, City Council is

looking at the Southeast Policy Area as an opportunity to provide employment in

the City. Additionally, the facility could potentially enable more access to jobs and

other destinations within Elk Grove.

• Question: Are you going to address the potential negative impacts of this facility on

crime? I read in USA Today that 21 of the 26 central station neighborhoods have crime

that is four times the national average. You need to address the potential negative

impacts.




of 17

o Response: We could look at those crime impacts. It’s hard to say an absolute

about any of them.

• Comment: The map on the far right is a mirror image of the community. I do not like sites

1 and 2; they are not in a central location. I’m concerned about the impacts of travelers

headed to the casino planned nearby.

• Question: What does the wildlife refuge have to say about Site 2? Have you looked at

cost of environmental mitigation?

o Response: We did reach out to the wildlife refuge and they did express concerns

about that location. We would definitely need to have further discussions about a

site at the refuge. Right now, at a high level, we have determined that there is

some level feasibility of putting a site there, but it would require further study.

There would definitely be challenges to locating a facility at that location.

• Question: Is there a conservation easement on that site?

o Response: There are some easements; it would have to be further explored.

• Question: What was the report that I read on October 25?

o Response: The report was a staff report to council to summarize the information

presented; it is not the final study.

• Question: How will freight allow passenger trains?

o Response: The SJJPA would have to negotiate the number of passenger trains

allowed on the rail corridor with Union Pacific.

• Comment: There are a lot of grant opportunities, that doesn’t mean we need to go after

this Project. I appreciate the addition of sites 3 and 4, because near sites 1 and 2 are

schools, community parks, and houses. I’m worried about the impact of hourly trains on

this community. The residents near these sites should not pay for those sites. The City

should consider the large impact that a station would have on the neighborhood. I think

site 4 has slightly less impacts.

• Question: Are you accepting written public comments? Who should we send them to and

is there a deadline?

o Response: Yes, we are accepting written public comments. You can send them to

the address on the board or submit them in the comment box. Watch our website

for a deadline; we do not have a definitive deadline for comments at the moment.

• Question: Did you contact Monterey Village HOA, or all HOA?

o Response: We contacted as many HOA as we could find contact information for.

The meeting announcement was posted to the citywide newsletter, websites, and

any social media, and 9,700 postcards were sent out to announce the meeting.

• Comment: People don’t know what multi-modal means. Tell people what it is. Tell

neighborhood watch captains and put flyers in local coffee shops.




of 17

• Comment: Regarding Site 2, there is an endangered burrowing owl species that was

relocated to Site 2 as a result of development in another location and I wanted to make

you aware of it.

o Response: For any site, we would do further environmental studies which would

consider wildlife impacts.

• Question: Would you analyze noise impacts to residents?

o Response: Noise impacts would need to be analyzed in the future; it is not within

the scope of this study.

• Question: If the facility is built, but less people use it than is expected, what kind of

obligation does the City have to make up the difference?

o Response: No, the City would not have to guarantee that a certain number of

riders would use the rail service. In that case the rail service agency could decide

to not provide rail service, which we would not have control over.

• Question: Why does this need to be in the City of Elk Grove? Why can’t it be just outside

the City limits, such as near Kammerer Road and SR-99?

o Response: We have considered sites outside of City limits, including a site owned

by Sacramento Regional Sewer. The primary challenge of sites outside of the City

limits is that we do not have jurisdiction over it. There are some pieces of land in

unincorporated parts of the county that have restrictions under Williamson Act

protection. This doesn’t mean the sites chosen don’t have constraints, but that is

why we couldn’t pick any sites other than the ones shown in this study.

• Comment: This study should consider impacts to property values and also consider the

opportunities of the sites. Site 1 and 2 have no potential for economic activity. Sites 3 and

4 have more opportunities for economic development while sites 1 and 2 have additional

risks.

• Question: What real estate impacts would be looked at if a site were selected for future

study?

o Response: There would need to be further analysis done to assess impacts to

property values. There is possibility it will go up or down; it is uncertain.

• Question: Can residents vote on this? Is it worth building this facility if it would destroy

neighborhoods?

o Response: This is just a study and does not guarantee that anything will happen.

We encourage you to continue providing feedback by attending meetings and

sending e-mails.

• Comment: Because of the new housing and traffic coming in to Elk Grove, I need to take

my kids to a different school. I refuse to drop them off at the previous school because of




of 17

the traffic. No matter which way I go, I am going to be stuck in traffic so I’m going to have

to move.

• Comment: It feels like you’re doing things behind closed doors. Studies lead to things.

• Question: Will the responses to the comment form be online and published?

o Response: All comments are documented, and will be noted tonight. We will

develop a FAQ document to answer questions that people have been asking.

• Comment: You guys have impacted everything for people commuting to Sacramento - we

go to work late now, buses are congested. You tried to get people who are going

downtown to use the light rail and now we have to pay more to commute. You have

impacted a lot of people and this facility will cause additional hardship.

• Comment: Thank you to council for having this meeting. Yes, this is a high-level study, but

a feasibility study is considering the feasibility of a location. You can say this is a high-level

study but you need to consider traffic, crime, property values. You should consider pros

and cons of each site, and I don’t see how Sites 1 or 2 are even feasible

• Comment: I understand that council wants to bring more opportunities to this town, but I

do not want to consider bringing bay area people to Elk Grove. If council pursues this, the

City will have to compete with other cities as a commuter town for bay area commuters.

It should be for people going to Sacramento. What is the current capacity of the train

headed toward Fresno?

o Response: The current passenger rail service that runs through Elk Grove is

constrained by freight traffic. As rail service providers consider adding service to

Elk Grove and say to us “we want to build a station in Elk Grove, where could we

put it?” – we want to be able to answer that question with a list of sites and their

opportunities and constraints.

• Comment: A study like this should have done research already on how many people

might ride this.

o Response: Ridership projections are being developed as a part of this study.

• Comment: I’m not going to use any public transportation. I have had bad experiences

before.

• Comment: You need to consider the last mile transportation when considering adding

public transportation. The first step shouldn’t be this study, it should be whether or not

we need this.

• Question: Why would you consider putting this station in a residential area? Would you

want to live where the train station is?

o Response: This is just a study to provide information, and preliminary checks, sites

that are developed or undeveloped. The findings will be presented to elected

officials who will make the decision.




of 17

• Question: What are the next steps of the study? Will we get a chance to look at the draft

report before it is presented to council? Will you provide a notification to people who

provided their e-mail addresses as to when the report will be presented to council?

o Response: Every document for final review gets published and can be reviewed.

Council will consider comments on the document; you can submit comments in

written format in-person. We post all comments on website. We can send an

email blast with direct links to staff report. We can send out an e-mail blast to

everyone who signed in to the meeting today and provided their e-mail, or

anybody who e-mails us asking to be added to the list.

• Question: Are you an outside company? It seems backwards that the City is paying for an

outside company when we as citizens didn’t ask for it.

o Response: The study is worked on by City staff and private consultants. The study

is funded by a federal grant.

• Comment: This shouldn’t be the last thing on the agenda when it comes before the

council; the meetings run late and in the previous meeting I had to leave to go to bed.

We cannot trust the City council who does not know about the project to vote on it.

o Response: If and when this goes to council we will notify you.

• Comment: I live near Site W1. It will cause noise, crime, and a lot of other things. There is

already a church proposed at that location. We need to tell council that we do not want

this multi-modal facility. It should be located farther away in farmland.

• Comment: I just think this feasibility study should not have existed in the first place. I

think the best thing for everybody to do if they are concerned is to submit written

comments to councilmembers and the people working on the study to express their

concerns.




of 17

Feedback

Below is a summary of all the input received from community members via comment cards and

emails.

Comment Cards

• After listening to the presentation, it is clear that residents should vote on this Project. It

is a huge cost, a huge facility and a huge impact on residents. Let the community have a

say in it. Let them vote, if they want a multi-modal facility, especially not in Site 1 or 2.

Doesn't sound like this Project will relieve commuter traffic, so there is no point to it.

• I'm not in favor of the Project because of potential negative externalities that may be

associated with quality of life issues. I'm also concerned about greater city debt and/or

possible local tax increases.

• It makes so much more sense to locate any potential multi-modal facility in an area that

already has commercial development. It makes no sense at all to locate it in the far

southwest corner of Elk Grove near the parks and within a residential area. If this goes

forward, it should be at Site #3 or Site #4.

• Beyond the grant funding, how much more money will be needed? Where will the

money come from?

• Suggestion: the train station at San Luis Obispo, CA is a very pleasing design and might be

one to look at. Have someone there take a series of photos and e-mail them to your

offices here. People are afraid of change. Growth will happen and no one can stop

growth. Train service would be a good thing. As commuters (people) move into this City

they will look to the ability of public transportation.




of 17

Emailed Comments

• Thank you for being there at the community open house to hear our comments and I

hope you understand our desired not to have a Multi-Modal facility on either Site 1 or 2.

It would have been nice to have Mr. Patrick Hume there to answer our concerns. Since

he is a board Member of San Joaquin Joint Power Authority. If you have time in your

schedule please contact me.

• Thank you for setting up this 3rd Community Open House session. First off, as a member

of the community, a homeowner of a single-family home, a person who lives not even a

quarter-mile away from Site W-1, has 2 little girls (one of which goes to Franklin

Elementary), and takes his family frequently to Buscher Park, I have evaluated the Elk

Grove Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility Study and DO NOT SUPPORT PROJECT LOCATION

SITE W-1. I fully understand that this Project is still in its infancy and all work done was

simply to find a feasible location for the project. With that being said, I do not believe

Site W1 should be the location of choice. While it makes sense from a fiscal standpoint,

there are just too many socioeconomic factors that cannot be overlooked. Being such a

controversial project, to no one’s surprise, last Thursday’s open house was emotionally

charged and could be viewed as hostile at some points. Nevertheless, many of the

concerns that were being brought up by community members, were legitimate and

shared by me and my family. Below are my family’s concerns. I would appreciate

genuine responses to each. Thank you. CONCERNS:

1. Crime: I think it was a bit misleading to try and persuade the group with select

studies of how crime could get better due to this facility being built at this location. I

don’t think anyone really bought it (I’m sure you would agree). I don’t know of any

homeowners in the City of Elk Grove who would want this type of facility built in their

backyard. It is simply too close to neighborhoods, families, and an elementary school.

I’m sure I could do a Google Search (probably similar to what was done) and provide links

over links on studies that showed an increase in crime after a facility of this nature was

put in operation. If the City and its consultants are going to provide data, the data should

illustrate both sides of the argument so residents can formulate better educated

opinions. I get it, this is a feasibility study and the question of “Can it be done?” is being

asked. But it seems in this situation with so many families being potentially impacted, I

think the question that should be asked is, “Should this be done?” In this case, I would

say no.

2. Property Value: My family and I have lived in the Bilby Ranch/Elk Grove Meadows

neighborhood for about 8 years now. From the downturn in 2008/2009, property values




of 17

have steadily risen back to market values any homeowner would be proud of. With the

crime increase due to this facility , even if it is just a perceived crime increase, I would

fully expect home values to decrease. My wife and I will not live next to this type of

facility with our small children. We have discussed this Project and have decided that if

this facility becomes a reality, we will be moving out of the area.

3. Buscher Park: This park is great. It is a 5 minute walk from our house on Stockmen

Way and our kids love going multiple times a week (weather permitting). There is little

crime/graffiti/”punk kids” at this park. The park seemed to be designed for smaller

children and we absolutely love it. Sorry to say, but it seems that most of the misfit

kids/teens end up at the bigger Kunsting Park off of Whitelock. Site W-1 is literally right

across the street from this family park. I for one do not want homeless/transients/or

people of that nature with such easy access to our local park. There is also a bridge

structure on Willard Parkway just between the park and Canadeo Circle that would be a

great spot for homeless to reside (shall they find this place).

4. Franklin Elementary: Site W-1 is a half-mile walk from my 5 year old’s Elementary

School (Franklin Elementary). With all that is happening in the world these days, the last

thing that I want to do is introduce random individuals more access to an elementary

school. There is no way to regulate what type of person rides these trains. Understood,

that if bad people wanted to do bad things, they could drive up and do so. But why

introduce more probability of “stranger danger” to our children? One a side note, there

are many kids who walk the dangerous trek along Bilby Road to their homes across the

tracks. I would rather see City money spent on a feasibility study for a safer route to for

these children, and all pedestrians for that matter, to cross the tracks. Currently, Bilby

Road (between Willard Parkway and Franklin Boulevard) has a 20’ traveled way with

gravel “shoulders.” I frequently see children walking these gravel “shoulders” and am

concerned that one day I will turn on the news and see a story about a child killed on this

way home from school.

5. Noise/Light: I understand that this study is still preliminary, but to me there will be

a significant increase in noise and light pollution to residents if this facility was built at

Site W-1. As stated by a community member in last week’s meeting, we can already hear

the train as it goes past our neighborhood. This station would introduce the following

additional noises: braking of trains (hourly perhaps), traffic due to the parking lot, people

who use and operate the facility, and traffic due to an assumed new signalized

intersection. Additionally, there are residents in this area who appreciate the night sky.

We are on the outskirts of the City of Elk Grove and do not see as much ambient light as




of 17

others deeper in the City. We can frequently look up at the night sky and see stars.

While this isn’t the biggest deal, adding this facility would be similar to a neighbor leaving

on their backyard flood lights all night long (which has happened recently).

6. Type of Traffic: While is has been communicated that this track is only for “heavy

rail,” is there a way to guarantee that this indeed stays the case? Are there some types

of mandates that the City could propose to ensure that happens? Just curious on how

the use of this facility can be limited/controlled.

7. Pollution: Obviously this type of facility would increase the amount of pollution in

the area. When this is evaluated, is there a threshold the City has to determine if the

amount of increase in carbon footprint that is deemed unacceptable? Basically, what

increase in carbon footprint or some other pollution factor will end this project from

further study? Thank you for your time. My family and I are looking forward to your

responses and seeing the requested "Response to Comments" from everyone's inquiries

at the public meeting last Thursday. Thank you.

• I am a concerned citizen of Elk Grove living in the Meadows area. I attended the last open

house on Nov 16th and I was reading the council staff report from October 15th where it

says the Multi-Modal Facility Feasibility will be proposed for approval. But the website

says “to be determined.” Will this issue be approached on December 13th after all?

Thank you for your attention.

• We do not want a heavy rail station in our nice town of Elk Grove!!! Elk Grove city is

about family and sports and parks and quality of lifestyle. You have made many great

decisions on planning in those areas. Aquatic center, civic center, soccer complex even

the casino will be a "getaway place" and provide entertainment. Heavy rail in a

residential area with buses and Ubers, all that traffic and congestion, and noise, is not a

good fit for us. To take a neighborhood or wildlife preserve and turn it into that - no way-

very bad, ugly , greedy - UNSAFE!! The way this "feasibility study" has been handled so

far is smelling like a rat!! You have been very sneaky in the way it’s being presented.

First of all, many many people did not even know about it and then you show pictures of

a nice train stop in Tracy, NOT what the reality of multi-modal would look like. With

traffic jams and busses and homeless people hanging around. That's dirty politics. Dirty.

Give people a real picture and let us decide. You are trying to do this behind our back!!

Why are you not working on a way to provide a solution to something the residents of Elk

Grove really want and need? And that is to lessen the congestion on Highway 99. It's

getting worse and worse. I see this Project not really helping this at all. It's not a solution

for daily commuters. A heavy rail station in Elk Grove is not feasible!! Can you look




of 17

further south – Kammerer Road – where it will not destroy quality of life for so many

people?? Reasons why my family will never ride the heavy rail: it's expensive - more

costly than airline travel; it takes forever to get somewhere; no means of transportation

when you get there; scary people hang around train stations, getting on and off, scary

people everywhere; a heavy rail station does not belong in the "family" City of Elk Grove.

Appendix

• Direct Mail Notification

• Flyer

• Presentation

• Display Boards

• Informational Brochure

• Comment Card

open house summary - home - city of elk grove · open house summary introduction on thursday,...

Documents