Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-23 City Council Agenda Packet 06/23/10 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers June 23, 2010 6:30 PM REVISED ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 1. Review Draft City Comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed Train Project CMR 293:10 and ATTACHMENT 2. City Council Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update CMR 240:10 and ATTACHMENT MEMO ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JUNE 23, 2010 CMR: 293:10 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Review of Draft City Comment Letter on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed Rail Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review and comment on the Draft City cover letter and comments on the HSR Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed Train Project. 2. Authorize the Mayor to work with staff and the High Speed Rail Committee (HSR Committee) to finalize and send the final cover letter and comments to the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) detailing Palo Alto's comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report on or before June 30, 2010. BACKGROUND The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was released for circulation and presented to the HSRA Board on April 8, 2010. Upon the urging of many local agencies, the HSRA extended their deadline for comments to June 30. HSRA staff will compile the comments into a report for the August or September HSRA Board meeting. DISCUSSION This report transmits the revised draft comment letter (Attachment A) on the AA Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the High Speed Rail Project. Staff requests that Council accept or modify the comments and authorize the Mayor to work with staff to finalize the letter, and submit it to the HSRA by June 30. The HSR Committee and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed the draft City comments at their respective meetings on Thursday, June 17. The draft minutes from both meetings are included in this report (Attachments C and D). The detailed PTC report, including CMR: 293:10 Page 1 of4 a copy of the technical Peer Review Report prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald, is provided as Attachment B. The HSR Committee and PTC both proposed changes to the initial City comments included in the PTC packet which have been incorporated into the attached revised draft comment letter. To facilitate Council review of the changes proposed by each body, the HSR Committee's comments are shown as underlined standard text and the PTC comments, as well as those of the public and of CAARD are shown as underlined italicized text. Staff made some editing changes, corrected typos, and provided a few format adjustments, which are not highlighted. The HSR Committee recommended that the City's comments include a cover letter to function as an executive summary to frame and underscore the City's position on key issues related to the HSR project and AA Report, including: 1) statement of the alternative HSR alignments and AA project alternatives the City supports or considers unacceptable; 2) reiteration of the fundamental flaws in the AA and the inadequacy of the information and tools provided by HSRA with which to compare the alternatives or make complete comments; 3) and expression of concern about economic impacts to the City and project impacts that could jeopardize the viability of major institutions in Palo Alto. The Committee stressed that due to these deficiencies, the comments should not be construed as being final and that the City would retain the right to provide additional comments as more information about the project becomes available. The HSR Committee recommended specific additions and more detailed discussion in several areas, including the following: • Physical and noise impacts to major institutions such Palo Alto High School and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation ,due to their proximity to the rail right-of-way, including the need for further examination of the impacts of the HSR alternatives relative to the State Education Code standards for noise and vibration impacts on classrooms • Overall impacts of noise and vibration impacts for sensitive receptors (schools, parks, etc.) throughout the City • Economic impacts to adjacent commercial properties, such as the Sheraton and Westin hotels and their viability should the HSR project impact the amount of parking on their properties or limit the number of available rooms • Impacts on City plans to move forward with construction of the water reservoir project in EI Camino Park before the HSR project alignment (vertical and horizontal) is determined . • Traffic and circulation impacts of potential taking of right-of-way from Alma Street, and impact to emergency response from Fire Station #1 on Alma Street The PTC Commissioners concurred with the recommendations of the HSR Committee and made further detailed comments that have been incorporated into the revised draft comments letter. In addition, Commissioners offered more general comments and observations for Council consideration outside the specific scope of the Alternatives analysis. Commissioner Fineberg commented that the HSRA project should keep Palo Alto whole financially. She further questioned if Caltrain were to cease operations, would HSRA be able to provide local commuter service on the Peninsula. Commissioner Lippert noted that everything in the AA is shown in plan view and that what is lacking is an understanding of the project in three dimensions relative to CMR: 293:10 Page 2 of4 the adjacent properties along the right-of-way. He further commented that the location of the mid-Peninsula HSR station would define the epicenter of Silicon Valley and would promote economic development in that community. Commissioner Martinez remarked that the HSR project should be viewed as an opportunity to address public safety issues, geographic divisions in the community, and quality of life issues in Palo Alto. He further recommended that the City should take the position that all roads should cross the railroad right-of-way at grade. Vice Chair Tuma commented that the Guiding Principles should state that the City would not support any project that is financially flawed or infeasible in terms of construction or operating costs. Commissioner Tanaka questioned whether the EI Camino Park water reservoir project should be delayed until the impact of HSR project is defined. He suggested it might lead to opportunities for co-development of underground structures. He supports having the City take a position on whether Palo Alto should be a HSR station. Chair Garber commented on the potential transformative impact of major rail projects on communities and recommended the City not be constrained by reaction to immediate issues nor lose sight of the opportunities of what HSR could mean to Palo Alto in the long term. He encouraged the City to engage Stanford University in discussions about a Palo Alto HSR st~tion. Staff included those comments specific to the AA in the comments (Attachment A), and the other comments above are provided to Council for information and/or are incorporated into the cover letter. High Speed Rail Economic Analysis At its June 17 meeting, the Council's HSR Committee recommended that the City Council authorize the preparation of a scope of work and budget for an economic· analysis of the various HSR alternative alignments. The study would be more extensive than just evaluating potential impacts on property values, covering mitigation needs (sound barriers, tree replacement, safety features, etc.); infrastructure demands; and potential land acquisition for right-of-way and for construction, among other needs. Staff will prepare a scope and budget for HSR Committee review prior to approval by Council. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Council policy direction related to the California High Speed Rail Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS A. Cover letter and summary from Mayor Pat Burt to' Don Leavitt Deputy Director HSRA B. Revised Draft Comments on Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report C. Planning and Transportation staff report dated June 17,2010 D. Draft Minutes for High Speed Rail Committee meeting of June 17,2010 E. Draft Minutes for Planning and Transportation Commission meeting of June 17, 2010 F. Comments from Linda and Tom Vlasic and Judith Wasserman (Note: The AA is available online at http://wv..W.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/iibrary.asp?p=8243) CMR: 293:10 Page 3 of4 June 3D, 2010 Mr. Dan Leavitt Deputy Director California High Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT Subject: California High Speed Rail Draft Alternatives Analysis Dear Mr. Leavitt: The City Council of the City of Palo Alto thanks you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose section of the California High-Speed Train project. This cover letter serves to summarize the City of Palo Alto's position on the alternatives analysis report, and to highlight the main deficiencies that the City has identified in the report. The City's extensive and detailed comments are attached. The City of Palo Alto recognizes that the High Speed Rail (HSR) project and the Caltrain electrification project provide a unique opportunity for the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), the Caltrain Joint Powers Board, the City of Palo Alto, and nearby communities to address transportation, quality of life, safety and economic issues surrounding the Caltrain corridor in a collaborative process. The project also, however, has considerable potential to seriously damage the character and community of Palo Alto if not carried out in an environmentally sensitive, cost-efficient, and community-minded manner. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto believes that the current Alternatives Analysis provides little assurance that these factors have been, or will be, considered by theCHSRA. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report focuses only on alignment alternatives on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. Accordingly, the attached comments document focuses solely on the City of Palo Alto's comments in that regard. Comments on this Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report however, should not be interpreted as any sort of tacit approval from the City of Palo Alto for any of the Peninsula alignment alternatives. The report provides a critical lack of sufficient information about many significant environmental, economic, right-of-way and other impacts and issues that are necessary to realistically compare the various alternatives. The City's attached comments should not, therefore, be considered exhaustive or binding. The City of Palo Alto expects to provide additional comments as more information about the proposed HSR project and alternatives becomes available. I, Mr. Dan Leavitt California High Speed Rail Authority June 30, 2010 Page 3 station configurations and associated financial and environmental impacts is substantially incomplete, rendering it premature for the City of Palo Alto to state a position in favor or opposition to a HSR station stop in Palo Alto. The City looks forward to reviewing additional information from CHSRA regarding station requirements and constraints in upcoming months. 5. The report lacks sufficient information on project costs and economic impacts to make a quantitative comparison of the various vertical alignment options based on financial issues. Some costs appear to be skewed excessively high or excessively low, while other costs appear to have been omitted altogether. Costs of right-of-way and for grade separations, as well as for project mitigation, are not included and are particularly critical to this kind of analysis. 6. The report lacks sufficient information regarding potential environmental impacts to allow for a meaningful comparison of the various vertical alignment options. Noise and vibration impacts are of particular concern to the City and its residents, and the report lacks sufficient information to compare the noise and vibration impacts of the various vertical alignment options. The report also lacks a discussion of mitigation measures that might be necessary for the various alignment options, and how such mitigation measures could affect project costs. 7. The report does not address how the various vertical alignment options could affect the viability of some key institutions and businesses in the City, such as the Palo Alto High School, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the Sheraton and Westin hotels near University A venue, the approved water storage reservoir in El Camino Park, Fire Station #1 on Alma Street, and other businesses and facilities. The various alignment options could result in the taking of land, changes to traffic routes and patterns, noise and vibration impacts, and other effects that could impair the continued viability of these institutions and businesses. 8. The report does not adequately address the direct and indirect impacts of right-of-way issues, particularly in portions of the corridor where the Caltrain right-of-way would need to be expanded to accommodate one or more of the vertical alignment options. Adjacent properties could be directly affected by eminent domain, and properties farther from the corridor could be affected by changes to traffic, the visual environment, noise and vibration, safety, and quality of life. The right-of-way needs and impacts of revised traffic patterns (during construction and after construction) on Alma Street are not addressed at all, although Alma is the City's second busiest east-west thoroughfare. 9. The report does not adequately address issues related to grade separation between the rail uses and autos, bicycles, and pedestrians. The report does not sufficiently discuss or identify Mr. Dan Leavitt California High Speed Rail Authority June 30, 2010 Page 4 the costs of grade separation, the footprint affected by the grade separation, land acquisition needs, and effects on adjacent development for each of the vertical alignment options. 10. The report uses flawed assumptions in establishing the ridership estimates, resulting in an exaggerated estimate of ridership and questionable financial conclusions for the project as a whole. The City of Palo Alto believes that ridership would be far lower than is currently predicted by the CHSRA, and that project options using fewer tracks and fewer daily HSR trains should be considered once a more reasonable and accurate ridership estimate is established. The City of Palo Alto opposes any HSR project that is financially infeasible, either for construction or operation. The City of Palo Alto again appreciates this opportunity to review and comment on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and hopes to continue to work with the CHSRA to develop a High Speed Rail project that is beneficial to California and to the City of Palo Alto. Sincerely, Patrick Burt, Mayor City of Palo Alto Attachment: City of Palo Alto Comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High-Speed Train Project cc: Peninsula Cities Coalition Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) City of Palo Alto Comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High-Speed Train Project The following discussion provides the City of Palo Alto's comments on the April 2010 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High-Speed Train Project. A. Introductory Comments The City of Palo Alto still believes that alternative alignments other than the Caltrain right-of-way remain viable options for evaluation. In particular, the Altamont Pass option to bring the high-speed train to the Bay Area is a feasible alternative that deserves more analysis by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). The City of Palo Alto would like to see an expanded alternatives analysis in the pending Draft ErR for this project that reopens the analysis comparing the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass options before settling on a high-speed train rail alignment that travels up the Peninsula. The City of Palo Alto also believes that other Peninsula alignments, particularly the Highway 101 alignment, are still viable and should be explored in greater detail by the CHSRA. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, however, focuses pnly on alignment alternatives on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. Accordingly, the remainder of this letter will focus solely on the City of Palo Alto's comments in that regard. Comments on this Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report should not be interpreted as tacit approval from the City of Palo Alto for any of the Peninsula alignment alternatives. The City's comments note that many significant environmental, economic, right-of-way and other issues still remain unknown about the project due to lack of sufficient information with which to compare the various alternatives. Therefore, these comments should not be considered exhaustive or binding. The City of Palo Alto expects to provide additional comments as more information about the proposed HSR project and alternatives becomes available. The City of Palo Alto has determined its preferable vertical alignments for the portion of the HSR/Caltrain corridor within Palo Alto, as well as the unacceptable vertical alignments. The preferable options for the City of Palo Alto include any vertical alignment options that place all HSR, Caltrain, and freight train tracks below grade and that maintain all existing at-grade roadways. These preferable options would have the least impact on the residents and businesses of the City of Palo Alto, including 1 avoidance of significant secondary impacts of and right-of-way needs for grade separations. Maintaining existing at-grade roadway crossings provides greater connectivity between neighborhoods on either side of the tracks, is more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and is less disruptive to the community. The City cannot yet state a position on the most preferred of the three below grade alternatives -open trench, covered trench, or deep tunnel -as insufficient information has been provided thus far to make a comparative assessment of these vertical alignment options. The City of Palo Alto also prefers options that allow for shared use of the tracks by HSR, Caltrain, and freight trains to the maximum extent possible, particularly if such shared use would result in a decrease in the number of tracks required. The unacceptable vertical alignments include the aerial viaduct, the elevated berm, and the at-grade options. The elevated berm option has been removed from further analysis by the CHSRA, and the City of Palo Alto agrees that the elevated berm option should not be brought forward for any additional consideration. The City of Palo Alto also opposes any alignment configuration that would require existing at-grade railroadway crossings to be elevated or moved underground. The City of Palo Alto has not yet taken a position on whether the City wishes to see a HSR station in Palo Alto. The information thus far provided by the CHSRA regarding possible station configurations and associated financial and environmental impacts is substantially incomplete, rendering it premature for the City of Palo Alto to state a position in favor or opposition to a HSR station stop in Palo Alto. The City looks forward to reviewing additional information from CHSRA regarding station requirements and constraints in upcoming months. On May 17, 2010, the City of Palo Alto City Council adopted the following guiding principles of the Council High Speed Rail Committee for the review and analysis of the High-Speed Train (HSR) project and any modifications to existing rail service in the City. These principles have guided the City in its review of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and in determining the City's preferred and unacceptable alignment options: 1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same basis with respect to vertical alignment impacts. 4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 2 5. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains dubious and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an independent ridership study to be prepared under its direction and controL 6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst's Office and State Auditor which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority's Business Plan on such matters as the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources, project management and operations of HSR. 7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation. of the Peer Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR. 8. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that are compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of the transit corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of our Comprehensive Plan. 9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and Caltrain that are effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail Program and the High Speed Rail Authority. 10. The High Speed Rail AuthOrity should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and should conduct sufficient outreach to affected communities to adequately identify and address their concerns and suggestions. 11. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide realistic renderings of the various alternatives and also provide simulations that would help to provide an understanp.ing of the potential sound and vibration impacts of the HSR. 12. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at present or improved levels of service. 13. Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present plans, independent of HSR. 14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium. 15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates the Palo Alto City Council's adopted written comments to the Authority and its Representatives. 3 B. Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not provide sufficient detail to determine whether any of the alignment alternatives comply with or conflict with the goals and policies outlined in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The City generally requires that any infrastructure or facilities installed in the City of Palo Alto must conform to and/or be consistent with and promote the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The City requests that the pending Draft EIR provide the details necessary to make this required consistency determination. In the meantime, the City of Palo Alto provides below a list of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that would apply to any rail alignment that passes through any portion of the City of Palo Alto. The following list is based on the limited information presently available from the CHSRA regarding potential HSR alignments that would affect the City of Palo Alto, and so is not exhaustive of potentially applicable goals and policies. Additional discussion of these or other goals and policies may be added later, particularly upon review of the pending Draft EIR. Please also note that the City of Palo Alto is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan, and it is likely that the updated Comprehensive Plan will contain new or revised goals and policies that directly relate to rail facilities in Palo Alto, particularly in regard to safety, aesthetics, traffic and transportation, noise, and quality of life. The updated Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to be approved by 2012. Land Use and Community Design Goal L-1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City. The environmental review for any alignment that would utilize aboveground structures (e.g., aerial rails, sound walls) in the City of Palo Alto (or any other affected community) must thoroughly identify and analyze the potential visual impacts of such structures, including whether these structures could obscure views of the foothills, the East Bay hills, ~d all other scenic features. It is likely that any above-grade options would block views of the hills from east-west streets. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. 4 The Caltrain alignment discussed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report travels through developed neighborhoods and commercial communities in Palo Alto. All rail infrastructure, particularly infrastructure that could be aboveground, must be evaluated for its compliance with Policy L-S. In particular, in many areas within the corridor are immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods, some of which are protected with single- story limitations or historic protection restrictions, and could be adversely impacted by aerial or at-grade alignment alternatives. Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each with Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The opportunities for increased east-west connectivity, such as by keeping all roadway crossings at grade, would support this policy. Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Some of the public gathering spaces within the City of Palo Alto are located in close proximity to the Caltrain alignment. The environmental analyses for the various vertical options along this alignment must thoroughly analyze each option's potential impacts to these public gathering spaces. On the other hand, an underground or trench HSR alternative could provide an opportunity for a linear park system along the rail right-of-way that would increase the number of public gathering spaces, and would support this policy. Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers that Offer a Variety of Retail and commercial Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City's Residential Neighborhoods and Employment Districts. Policy L-27: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station area to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center. Any proposal that would affect the existing University A venue Caltrain Station, including the possible addition of a Palo Alto station for the high-speed train, must enhance the link between these two commercial areas, consistent with the City's vision for these areas. Redevelopment of the area would provide an opportunity to create linkages and pedestrian connections between University Avenue/downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford University, and nearby residential neighborhoods. This area's reuse should optimize the effectiveness of the multi-modal transit center, protect nearby residential areas from potential adverse development impacts, improve both the City and University gateways, and enhance parkland and natural resources. By undergrounding the S trains in the downtown area, many east-west connections can be made that connect Stanford to downtown. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with . surrounding development and public spaces. Any Peninsula rail alignment passing through Palo Alto must be compatible with the surrounding development, and the environmental analysis for such an alignment must thoroughly evaluate its potential compatibility and incompatibility in these respects. Goal L-7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo Alto's Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts. Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory. Policy L-52: Encourage the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet contemporary needs, provided that the preservations standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied. Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. A number of historic and potentially historic buildings and features exist along the Caltrain alignment. The environmental analysis for any proposed Peninsula alignment must thoroughly evaluate its potential impacts to such historic resources, due to both construction and operation phases of the project. Goal L-8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and Enrich Public Life. Policy L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. Policy L-64: Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space, and community gardens that encourage and support pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to- person contact, particularly in neighborhoods that lack these amenities. 6 A number of community facilities are located in relatively close proximity to the Caltrain alignment. The environmental analysis for any HSR use of the Caltrain alignment must address its potential impacts on these community facilities. It is likely that any below grade option would provide opportunities to create public artwork, public open spaces, and other features that would comply with this policy. Goal L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of the City. Policy L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. It is likely that any above grade option would degrade the aesthetics of the street network, while below grade options would likely be less visually impactful and provide at-grade street crossings that better meet the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Policy L-68: Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and pedestrian/bicycle path system. If the train alignments pass below the creeks, the creeks can be daylighted as they cross the north- south bike and pedestrian paths. Such an exposure of creek areas would create more natural habitat, and provide an improved visual corridor. Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. It is likely that any above grade option would obstruct the views of the hills, and would not comply with this policy. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real, and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at EI Camino Real. The two existing Caltrain stations are important gateways into Palo Alto. Any modifications to these stations, as well as the addition of a Palo Alto station for the high- speed train, must enhance the character of the stations as community gateways, and the environmental review for any HSR facilities in Palo Alto must evaluate the consistency of the proposed facilities with these goals and policies. Policy L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. It is likely that any above grade option would at the very least be visually disruptive, and could be 7 considered a visual blight. Transportation Goal T-l: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. It is likely that any above grade options would have environmental and social costs that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, particularly in the areas of visual, noise, and transportation impacts. Such above grade alignment options would not be in compliance with this goal and policy. Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving. Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Program T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods. The City of Palo Alto supports public transit system improvements that provide for convenient and efficient transportation without adversely affecting residential neighborhoods. The environmental review and approval process for any HSR rail improvements to be located in Palo Alto must ensure that the potential impacts to existing residences are minimized, and that the benefits for Palo Alto residents outweigh any adverse impacts. Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi- modal transit stations. It is likely that any below grade options would increase the opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access in the east-west direction by keeping all roadway crossings at grade. Below grade options would also likely provide a north-south axis that connects to the Mountain View light rail in the south and Menlo Park in the north. 8 Policy T-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments. Policy T-16: Create connecting paths for pedestrians and bicycles where dead-end streets prevent through circulation in new developments and in existing neighborhoods. A key way to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation is to overcome barriers and provide more linkages between destinations. Detouring around obstacles like freeways and railroads is more significant to bicyclists and pedestrians than it is to drivers. The below grade alignment options would likely provide opportunities for increasing and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle circulation across the Caltrain corridor. Goal T-4: An Efficient Roadway Networkfor All Users. Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo Alto's policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians and ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. The below grade alignment options would likely increase the number of pedestrians and bicyclists and decrease the number of motorists by providing opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle paths parallel to the Caltrain corridor, as well as more favorable at-grade roadway crossings of the CaItrain corridor. Natural Environment Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto's Natural Resources and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents. Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. The environmental analyses for any rail alignment proposed within the City of Palo Alto must identify and thoroughly analyze its impacts to views of the hillsides and other scenic vistas. It is likely that any above grade options would severely impact the views of the hills. Goal N-2: Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities, Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of Community Design. Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully 9 reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks. The HSR environmental analyses for any rail alignment that passes over, under, or through a creek, riparian area, or watershed must thoroughly evaluate its impacts on bank stability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding. Goal N-3: A Thriving "Urban Forest" that Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto. Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. It is likely that any above grade options would severely impact the many large trees and other mature vegetation that lines Alma Street along the Caltrain right-of-way. Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. This program cannot be implemented with above grade options, especially in places where the existing right-of-way is narrow. Above ground alignment options would therefore generally not comply with this program. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Any proposed rail alignment in Palo Alto must be evaluated to identify its potential impacts on heritage trees, including El Palo Alto. Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto's groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. The extent to which the construction, operation and maintenance of HSR facilities in Palo Alto could adversely affect the regional groundwater basin must be determined and thoroughly analyzed in the pending Draft ElR. 10 Goal N-8: An Environment that Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise. Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility. • The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas with the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. • The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criteria shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. • Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. Noise exposure can be determined based on the noise contour map included in the Comprehensive Plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate. Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria: • The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; • The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; • The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. 11 Policy N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise. Construction and/or operation of HSR rail facilities in Palo Alto could produce an increase in noise levels in the City, particularly for elevated or at-grade alignments with a train traveling in each direction every three minutes. The environmental analyses for any such facilities must, for each potential alignment and vertical option, determine the anticipated increase in noise over existing conditions, compare the potential noise impacts of all the various route alignments and vertical options, and determine the extent to which each route alignment and vertical option may exceed the City's maximum noise thresholds for residences and other sensitive receptors. C. Technical Comments C.l General Comments The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the details provided in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and has compiled the following list of technical comments and questions. The City of Palo Alto understands that the CHSRA will respond to these comments either in a final version of the Alternatives Analysis Report or in the pending Draft ElR. • Comment C.l-l: The lack of adequate information regarding financial, environmental, and right-of-way impacts precludes a reasoned determination of preferred alternatives, both for the City and the public. In particular, the absence of any meaningful discussion of noise and vibration impacts makes it impossible to determine which vertical alignment options would have the least impact on the many sensitive receptors along the Caltrain right-of-way. The CHSRA must provide a more substantial analysis in the upcoming Draft ElR, and explore the potential environmental impacts of each option to allow for a meaningful comparison of alternatives. Similarly, the cost impacts (construction, right-of- way, grade separations, mitigation, and community disruption, etc.) and right- of-way needs leading to potential property "takings" must be fully addressed to understand the implications of each alternative. • Comment C.1-2: It appears that the CHSRA could significantly reduce the number of vertical alignment options under consideration based upon the feasibility of maintaining Caltrain operations during construction. Some of the alternatives appear to consume the entire proposed right of way, and would then preclude continued Caltrain operations during construction activities. At least one alternative, involving the four tracks cut and cover box, at 123 feet in width, consumes the entire existing Caltrain right of way and beyond. The CHSRA 12 needs to clarify how this and similar options can be constructed while Caltrain service is maintained at the surface. • Comment C.1-3: The report does not indicate how freight would operate on a four lane configuration. Would freight trains be limited to the tracks that serve Caltrain, or would they have the option of using the HSR rails as well? Rail grades and underground structure ventilation requirements would be driven by diesel freight train operation requirements. • Comment C.1-4: The report indicates that the costs for each of the vertical alignment options only represents the costs for the HSR infrastructure and not the costs for modifications to the Caltrain tracks. The report does not clearly indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain for each of the HSR vertical options, the corresponding costs for the Caltrain configuration, or any additional environmental impacts of the Caltrain configuration. The CHSRA and the public cannot make a reasonable comparison of the various vertical options and the feasibility of the associated mitigation measures without complete information on the required modifications to the Caltrain tracks, the costs of such modifications, and the potential environmental impacts associated with those modifications. For example, how can traffic impacts be feasibly mitigated by the project if the Caltrain configuration is to be retained at grade? • Comment C.1-5: The report does not discuss the potential reuse of land in the assessment of capital and operating costs. For the aerial, cut and cover, and deep tunnel options (and, to a lesser extent, the aerial option), opportunity exists to use the land at grade for additional uses, potentially creating a source of funds from increased land values and future tax increments. The CHSRA needs to evaluate the issue of the reuse of land for these various vertical alignment options to permit an informed and reasonable comparison of the various options and to assess the relative feasibility of the various options and associated mitigation measures. • Comment C.1-6: The drawing on page 8 of Appendix C indicates a 3-foot-wide walkway. NFP A 130 and the CPUC General Order 26-D require only a 2.5-foot- wide walkway. The adoption of the 3-foot-wide dimension may add considerable, unnecessary cost to the project. Please explain why this wider walkway was chosen for this option. • Comment C.1-7: The report indicates on Page S-l that each operator on the Peninsula corridor will have a different maximum speed, with Caltrain operating at a maximum speed of 110 miles per hour, and the HSR system operating at a maximum of 125 miles per hour. The CHSRA needs to clarify if the two systems 13 are intended to operate on the same tracks, and if so, in what portions of the corridor. • Comment Cl-8: The report indicates on Page S-l that transitions from one vertical option to another require approximately 3,000 feet of linear alignment, potentially requiring adjacent subsections to share a vertical alignment alternative. These potential transitions need to be described in greater detail by the CHSRA, including all transition options potentially available for each adjacent subsection, and where specifically those transitions would begin and end. For example, there is no aerial option in Subsection 6A, but there is an aerial option throughout the rest of the subsections in Palo Alto. For the aerial option, the location of the transition to aerial in Subsection 6A and/or 6B of the alignment in north Palo Alto would have significant environmental impacts that need to be fully described. • Comment Cl-9: The report provides a number of cross section options for each type of vertical alignment, but does not indicate where each of these cross section options would apply, or how they would be affected by transition points. More detail regarding these cross section options needs to be included in the analysis, particularly the cross section options at the transition points. Comment C.l-lO: The City strongly preJers that existing roadways be retained at grade level, rather than aligning Caltrain, HSR, or both at grade and then providing separate crossings Jar the roadways above or below the tracks. Grade separation oj the roads is likely to result in the need to "take" significant land, including many homes, parkland acreage, and Palo Alto High School property, in addition to that land that may be needed Jar expanded rail right-oj-way, adding substantially to the project costs and alteration of the character of these neighborhoods and public facilities. Such grade separations would also decrease the connectivity between neighborhoods and between residential, school, shopping, and employment centers, and create unknown traffic patterns. Maintaining existing at-grade roadway/rail cross{ngs (and potentially restoring such crossings at Oregon Expressway and/or other locations) provides greater connectivity between neighborhoods on either side of the tracks, is more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and is less disruptive to the community. • Comment C1-11: Some of the existing Palo Alto grade separations were constructed in the 1930s. These structures may be inadequate to accommodate the HSR project and may require upgrades to address vibration resulting from the higher speed operation of the HSR service. The CHSRA needs to identify the requirement for, and any costs or other impacts associated with, upgrading these existing structures, including impacts to the grade separations that may be considered historic resources, such as the University Avenue grade separation. These issues surrounding the existing grade separations further support the City 14 of Palo Alto's preference that the CHSRA reject any at-grade options in favor of a , completely below grade option. • Comment C.1-12: The report states on page 4-1 that HSR will operate up to 12 trains per hour per direction under a full build scenario, with Caltrain operating an additional 10 trains per hour per direction. In the peak hour there will be approximately 22 trains per direction per hour, or a train approximately every 3 minutes each direction. It is noted that the HSR Operating Plan and Caltrain service plan have not yet been integrated into a single operating plan. HSR and Caltrain need to reconcile their service plans to optimize the alignment and structure configurations. This reconciliation of service plans is necessary in order to determine the feasibility of the various vertical alignment options, and to determine which options best suit the operational needs of both rail services. The specifics of the reconciled service plans also h.as implications for safety issues, including safe train operations (particularly if Caltrain and HSR are sharing tracks at any point along the alignment). The City of Palo Alto would prefer a service plan allowing for maximum flexibility, with commuter and high- speed trains able to use all tracks and all station facilities. • Comment C.1-13: The City of Palo Alto requests that the CHSRA evaluate the merits of a three-track configuration versus the four-track configuration, with HSR, Caltrain, and freight trains sharing the use of these three tracks. The City of Palo Alto believes that the ridership estimates provided by the CHSRA are vastly inflated, and that far fewer HSR trains will be necessary to accommodate actual ridership. The City of Palo Alto therefore feels that fewer tracks may be necessary to accommodate the reduced number of trains that the project would actually require. The City of Palo Alto wishes to avoid a decrease in the level of commuter rail service in terms of travel times and headways, and believes that the CHSRA must investigate whether fewer tracks can be used to accommodate the HSR project while still maintaining Cal train service at current levels. The City of Palo Alto believes that any negative impact on commuter rail service should be considered a negative impact in the alternatives analysis. • Comment C.1-14. Map 7-1 oj Appendix B reJers to the cities oj Mountain View and Los Altos, whereas a portion oj Palo Alto also extends south oj Adobe Creek. Other areas oj Palo Alto also on this page do not immediately abut the rail right-oj-way but are likely to be impacted by noise and vibration and revised traffic patterns during construction and operation. The map should note that portions include land in Palo Alto, and other sections oj the Alternatives Analysis (e.g., page 3-18), should similarly note that correction. • Comment C.1-15: The City oj Palo Alto believes that the CHSRA should explore using maglev technology Jar the HSR project, as the maglev technology would allow Jar greater 15 train speeds and an ability to handle steeper grades than the currently proposed technology. The CHSRA must discuss this readily available technology, and explain why this technology is not being considered for the HSR project. C.2 Ridership Estimates • Comment C.2-1: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on ridership estimates that are incorrect and vastly inflated, as described in the following paragraphs. • Comment C.2-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on ridership estimates that were taken directly from the November 2005 Service Plan. This plan predicted system-wide ridership of 159,000 trips per day, with San Francisco boardings of 32,890 per day. In December 2009, CHSRA lowered its ridership estimates to reflect increased fares. System-wide ridership was lowered to 121,000 riders per day, and San Francisco boardings were reduced to 24)00 per day. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report was not modified to reflect these reduced ridership figures. Instead of basing the project design on 10 San Francisco departures per hour during peak hours, the departures per hour should have been reduced to 8 to be consistent. with the 2009 revised ridership estimates. Off peak departures should also have been appropriately reduced. Such a reduction may eliminate the need for double trains during peak periods, thus reducing the required length of station platforms in San Francisco and San Jose. This modification to the project would be particularly important in the design of the Trans Bay Terminal in San Francisco. • Comment C.2-3: It is highly unlikely that high speed rail demand will ever approach the level predicted in the December 2009 Business Plan. Independent experts have examined the 2009 ridership estimates and have judged them to be vastly overstated. This judgment is supported by worldwide high speed rail experience, where actual ridership is one quarter to one half of the predicted ridership. If the San Francisco Peninsula line carries only one quarter to one half of the traffic that CHSRA has predicted, it will be necessary to dispatch only two to three trains per rush hour from San Francisco. This level of traffic could easily be accommodated by the existing Caltrain tracks if station passing tracks are provided for local service and grade separations are completed. It is in the financial and environmental interests of both CHSRA and the Peninsula cities to use existing facilities to support high speed rait at least until travel demand shows these facilities to be inadequate. • Comment C.2-4: It appears that the ridership estimates include a large number of passengers crossing the Bay from Alameda and Contra Costa counties to 16 board HSR in San Francisco; If this is the case, then these crossings would be temporary because AB3034 requires that CHSRA provide service between Oakland and Los Angeles with a travel time of no more than 2 hours, 40 minutes. A BART or an AC Transit ride to the Transbay Terminal plus a high-speed rail ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles would take longer than 2 hours, 40 minutes. Thus, at best, the additional riders from Alameda and Contra Costa counties would be a temporary boost in San Francisco station ridership until the high-speed rail line to Oakland can be completed. • Comment C.2-5: High-speed rail in California would compete primarily with air travel, not with automobile travel, particularly since in California there is minimal public urban transportation service. One would then expect HSR ridership to be comparable with airline patronage. Using figures from the Program EIR, airline boardings in 2005 at SFO destined for LAX amounted to slightly more than 8,000 passengers per day. This number has declined since 2005 due to the current economic downturn and advances in communication technology. It is therefore unrealistic to expect travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles to gro,w at the rate suggested in·the Program EIR. It is not even certain that the California population will grow as CHSRA expects. It is also unreasonable to expect HSR to capture all of the San Francisco to Los Angeles airline traffic. Therefore, as some experts have predicted, the HSR boardings in San Francisco may not exceed 5,000 per day as late as 2030. • Comment C.2-6: If ridership does not exceed 5,000 passengers per day on the Peninsula route, there is even less need to build four tracks down the Peninsula. With Caltrain and HSR trains operating at comparable speeds, all HSR and Caltrain traffic could easily be accommodated by the two tracks that already exist as long as station sidings were added at all Cal train stations to accommodate stopping. CHSRA would stand to save a great deal of money, and the citizens of the Peninsula would avoid a great deal of environmental damage, if the existing two sets of tracks could be used to accommodate the realistic HSR ridership estimates. • Comment C.2-7: Current and near-future technological advances, such as telecommuting, teleconferencing, and autonomous cars, are reducing travel requirements. The CHSRA must discuss how such changes in technology would affect future ridership estimates. • Comment C.2-8: The CHSRA must address what would happen if the ridership estimates turn out to be greatly optimistic, and the actual ridership numbers are far below the estimate. What happens if the operation of the HSR system is greater than the income generated by ridership? Would Caltrain be negatively affected if the HSR system proves to be financially unviable? 17 C.3 Service Plan • Comment C.3-1: The proposed service plan is deeply flawed. The proposed HSR system is burdened with an excessive number of stations. Balancing the desire for limited intermediate stops against the requirement to serve all stations yields a service pattern that repeats only once per hour for most of the intermediate stations. A traveler seeking a particular service may only have hourly choices, no better than the airline service that is available today. The alternative is to settle for a slower trip, resulting in dissatisfaction and loss of passengers, as well as not meeting the service goals for the high-speed train system. C.4 Conceptual Cost Estimates • Comment C.4-1: The report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each of the vertical options have been calculated. This explanation should identify which cross sections were used as the basis for the conceptual cost estimates. The report should also provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements (e.g., support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork) so that the estimated costs can be verified. Without this information, the CHSRA and the City cannot adequately evaluate the costs of each alignment alternative or the feasibility of the mitigation measures required for each alternative. • Comment C.4-2: Although unit prices are provided for both rail and utility relocations, no such costs are included in the cost estimates. It is clear that the estimates also do not include ROW costs or the costs of environmental mitigation measures such as sound walls. The costs for relocating existing utilities, track relocations, ROW procurement for both temporary and permanent situations, and environmental mitigation measures need to be disclosed in the cost estimates. • Comment C.4-3: The report identifies a certain number of sensitive noise receptors for the aerial option, which indicates that noise mitigation measures would be required. The cross sections for the aerial option do not show any noise barriers, however, and noise barriers do not appear to be factored into the cost estimate for the aerial option. The analysis needs to indicate the degree of noise impact of the aerial option, the type of noise barriers that would be required to mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise barriers. Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation required for this option, or to make an informed and reasonable comparison of this option to the other options. • Comment CA-4: The report does not identify the number of sensitive noise receptors for the at-grade option, nor does the cost of noise barriers appear to be 18 factored into the cost estimate for the at-grade option. The analysis needs to indicate the degree of noise impact of the at-grade option, the type of noise barriers that would be required to mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise barriers. Without this information, it is not possible to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the mitigation required for this option, or to make an informed and reasonable comparison of this option to the other options. • Comment C.4-5: The report does not clearly indicate whether the costs of ancillary structures such as ventilation structures, egress structures (for all below grade options), and cross passages (for the tunnel option) have been accounted for in the estimated costs. This information is necessary to assess the feasibility of these options and to make an informed and reasonable comparison of the various options. • Comment C.4-6: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report indicates that the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment are approximately $75 -$290 million. However, Appendix L presents the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment as approximately $48 -$75 million. The CHSRA needs to address this discrepancy in pricing for the at-grade option. • Comment C.4-7: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report also does not clearly explain for Subsections 6C and 6D how the open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. The CHSRA needs to provide sufficient discussion to allow the report reader to understand how the ranges of costs in Table 4-9 have been derived. This information is necessary for the proposed infrastructure, construction, and operation costs, as well as for the costs of all associated mitigation, to enable the CHSRA and the public to make an informed comparison of the benefits and relative feasibility of each option. • Comment C.4-8: The estimated cost of $34,972,672 per mile for the aerial viaduct option translates to approximately $6,600 per linear foot. This figure appears low based on a comparison of similar rail structure types. For instance, Los Angeles Metro estimates that a twin track elevated structure for light rail transit would cost approximately $9,200 per linear foot. This cost is approximately 50 percent less more than the CHSRA figure, for a lighter vehicle. The CHSRA needs to provide the basis for the cost estimate and correct any cost discrepancies before completing the alternatives analysis. • Comment C.4-9: The CHSRA needs to confirm the price of the four track aerial viaduct option relative to the two track option. The cost difference between the two structure types appears to be incorrect. 19 • Comment C4-10: The unit prices for excavation and backfill for "the covered trench option ($6 each per cubic yard) seem very low. The report needs to provide some basis for the unit rates. The covered trench price of $262,492,160 per mile corresponds to a figure of $49,714 per linear foot. For the proposed width of the four track structure, this figure appears low, particularly as a premium cost will apply resulting from working in and around an operating railroad. The report should clearly identify what is included within this cost figure, and provide a table of principal unit rates used in the evaluation so that the reasonableness of the cost figures provided can be verified. • Comment C4-11: The report is unclear on how the four track structure in the covered trench option can be constructed without impacting existing Caltrain service. The cost estimates do not include any temporary or permanent track relocations for Caltrain. • Comment CA-12: The difference in price between the open trench option ($14,932 per linear foot) and the covered trench option ($49,714 per linear foot) is not justified in the report. The difference in the vertical profile between the two options would not be significantly different and the construction methods would be similar. The structures in these two options are the same width, and for a 7- foot cover depth, the depth of the covered trench is only slightly deeper than that for the open trench. It is not clear why the costs are an order of magnitude in difference. For instance, the excavation volume for the covered trench is 2.7 times that for the open trench, despite being only a fraction deeper. The covered trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs appears excessive and not justified by the information in the report. The document needs to explain the reason for the large disparity in cost between these two options. • Comment C4-13: The CHSRA needs to clarify whether the costs .of ancillary structures (such as ventilation structures and egress structures for all below grade options, and cross passages for any bored tunnel options) are included in the estimates. If they have not yet been included in the estimated costs for the covered trench and deep tunnel options, then the cost estimates need to be revised in order to disclose these costs. • Comment CA-14: The CHSRA has stated in the past that the HSR project could result in an economic boon to the area, particularly near a HSR station stop. This claim has thus far been unsupported in any of the CHSRA documents, or in real life examples of HSR projects elsewhere in the world. The CHSRA must provide a detailed description of the economic impacts of the HSR project during both construction and operation on the City of Palo Alto, and in particular on the downtown business area. 20 CS Alternative Comparisons General Comments • Comment CS-l: The alternative alignment comparisons presented in the report are qualitative and descriptive, making any ranking of these alternatives unreliable at best. The only two quantified measures, acres of land taken and alignment cost, appear to be grossly distorted. • Comment CS-2: Acres of land taken is an imperfect measure because the value of land depends on its location, its shape, its potential alternative use, and its impact on adjacent property. No costs have been included for the acquisition of right of way or temporary takes for construction support. Land values along the San Francisco Peninsula vary widely in cost per acre, with the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive land being a factor of 100 or more. • Comment CS-3: Costs are presented only for those alternatives that use the Caltrain corridor. Costs presented for the vertical alignment options using the Caltrain corridor appear to be distorted to favor at-grade construction. Costs for the at-grade option are based on only two tracks, while costs for elevated, open trench, covered trench, and deep tunnel options include four tracks. • Comment CS-4: The use of unit costs to estimate the relative costs of different vertical alignments is very problematic. Some issues and obstacles have been identified and been assigned costs, while other issues appear to have been ignored. Under actual construction, no two segments of the route will experience the same unit costs. • Comment CS-S: The "Alternatives Development Process" section on page 2-2 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report describes the objectives and criteria that were used to compare the various Caltrain corridor alternatives. The CHSRA has not defined Fire and Life Safety as specific analysis criteria, and both topics must be considered to adequately analyze and compare the various vertical alignment alternatives, particularly in densely populated areas such as the San Francisco Peninsula. • Comment C.S-6: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not adequately address life safety issues. The CHSRA needs to elaborate on the impacts of providing ventilation, egress, and other life safety systems for enclosed underground options such as the covered trench and deep tunnel options. In comparison with an at-grade or elevated option, an underground alternative should identify right of way requirements for ventilation and emergency egress structures. 21 • Comment CS-7: The CHSRA needs to explain how the vertical alignment of the trench and deep tunnel options was derived, as it appears that the vertical alignment of both alternatives is excessively deep. It appears that there is some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles, thereby reducing construction costs for either alternative. For example, the report indicates that a deep tunnel option would be bored to a depth of 8S feet, yet Appendix Band page B-1 suggests a cover of 1.5 tunnel diameters or 68 feet for a twin bore option, and engineering standards may allow for an even shallower depth that equals the diameter of the tunnel. For example, a 4S-foot diameter tunnel could potentially be bored at a depth of 45 feet. The report does not indicate why the deep tunnel option is proposed to be bored at a depth of 85 feet. The CHSRA needs to state whether a shallower deep tunnel or covered trench alignment is an option, and the difference in construction cost for a shallower alignment option. The CHSRA needs to also address whether a shallower tunnel would increase the feasibility of allowing for a station stop associated with a deep tunnel. • Comment CS-8: The CHSRA needs to provide a table or other clear presentation to indicate where each of the various cross sections provided in Appendix C would be proposed along the alignment. The CHSRA also needs to indicate which cross sections were used to develop the cost estimates for each of the vertical alignments. Elimination of I -280 and US 101 Alternatives • Comment CS-9: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report concludes that horizontal alignments that follow the Interstate 280 (1-280) and US 101 highway corridors are infeasible. This conclusion is drawn from a cursory review of potentially difficult interchanges, sharp curves, potentially liquefiable soils, and potential biological constraints that were identified. There appears to have been no serious look at opportunities to take adjacent land to avoid these obstacles. It should be noted that land adjacent to major freeways is much cheaper than land adjacent to the Caltrain corridor. Interchange~ can be passed on one side of the freeway or another, or by tunneling. Close access to the San Francisco and San Jose airports from a US 101 alternative could be used to great advantage. Existing access to the San Francisco Airport from the Millbrae Caltrain station, by comparison, is awkward, inconvenient, and time consuming. CHSRA must thoroughly and adequately investigate both of these highway corridor route alternatives in the alternatives analysis. 22 Right-af-Way Requirements • Comment C.S-lO: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not provide sufficient information about the additional right-of-way requirements for each of the vertical alignment options (or for the Interstate-280 and US 101 corridor options) to permit an adequate comparison of the various options. The analysis must consider not only the additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate any additional or modified tracks, but also the land needed for shoofly tracks to keep Caltrain running during construction, for construction access, for staging and construction equipment, and to provide Union Pacific access to its industrial tracks. Even if these right-of-way takings were temporary, significant environmental damage could result from the need for additional right-of-way, which would translate into increased costs for the project. • Comment C.S-ll: The right of way plans in Appendix J indicate a typical PCJPB Property width of 85 feet in the vicinity of Palo Alto. The CHSRA needs to clarify which cross sections are under consideration so that the City of Palo Alto can fully evaluate any additional right-of-way requirements (temporary or permanent), particularly in areas of proposed development such as at the Palo Alto High School. For example, the four track wide trench options would conflict directly with the proposed improvements to the high school football stadium. The CHSRA must consider construction alternatives that can be built entirely within the existing right-of-way. • Comment C.S-12: Alma Street is a vital arterial in the City of Palo Alto, second only to E1 Camino Real in the volume of traffic carried each day in the east/west direction. Any expansion of the Caltrain corridor that results in a narrowing of Alma Street would likely have a significant impact on traffic patterns and traffic levels in Palo Alto. In addition, the Palo Alto Fire Station #1 is located on Alma Street, and any narrowing of Alma Street could interfere with the ability of fire trucks and other emergency service equipment to maneuver in and out of the fire station and respond to emergency situations. The CHSRA must evaluate the impacts of any narrowing of Alma Street on traffic patterns, traffic levels, and emergency response. • Comment C.S-13: A mature tree canopy exists along the eastern boundary of the Caltrain right-of-way and Alma Street. This tree canopy provides a visual screen of the existing Caltrain operations and is an integral part of the visual setting in the area. Any project option that results in the loss of some or all of these trees could result in a significant visual impact. Any replacement vegetation would take many years to mature, resulting in a long lasting visual impact. The CHSRA 23 must evaluate the potential loss of these trees and their effect on the visual environment. Aerial Viaduct Option • Comment CS-14: The report states that an aerial option is considered for subsection 6C, and costs for this option are provided in Table 4-9 (see pages 4-S4 and 4-61 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report). However, the plan and profile drawings for Subsection 6-2 do not indicate an aerial alternative for Subsection 6C The CHSRA needs to resolve this inconsistency. Open Trench and Covered Trench Options • Comment CS-IS: The report does not indicate the extent of the impacts of liquefiable soils on the alignment with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover options. The presence of liquefiable soils can greatly add to the cost of covered trench and open trench structure options, requiring over-excavation to remove and replace the soils, ground improvement to modify the in-situ characteristics of the soils, or pile supports for the structures. The report needs to indicate whether liquefiable soils are present in the alignment, and how these liquefiable soils would be addressed. • Comment C.S-16: The report does not discuss the effects and impacts of trenching in areas where there are toxic plumes in the soil. Such trenching would have the potential to release the toxic material to the atmosphere, and expose both workers and the public to adverse health effects. Trenching within a toxic plume would also incur added expenses for the handling and disposal of the toxic materials. The CHSRA must identify locations of known or suspected toxic plumes within the Caltrain corridor, and address the impacts and expenses of trenching through such plumes. • Comment CS-17: For alignment subsections 6C and 6D, it is not clear how the open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. The cost difference between these two options must be explained in the report. • Comment C.S-15: The report does not indicate why the open trench option would cost approximately 40 percent of the cost of the covered trench option. The difference in the vertical profile between the two options would not be significantly different and the construction methods would be similar. The covered trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs appears excessive and not justified by the information in the report. • • Comment CS-18: Under the constructability heading in Table 4-9, it is not clear why the potential for disruption of existing rail service is indicated as "not applicable." The open trench and covered trench options in particular would 24 have impacts on Caltrain and freight rail service during project construction. In fact, the construction of either of these options could require the use of the entire right-of-way, and may preclude continued Caltrain and freight service during project construction. For example, the four track covered trench option would require an area 123 feet in width, which is wider than the entire Caltrain right-of- way at any point within the City of Palo Alto. A cessation of Caltrain and freight functions during project construction should be considered an unacceptable situation, and should make design options infeasible. • Comment C.S-19: In Appendix D, the table indicates that an 8.5-foot-wide box culvert crosses the proposed alignment at Matadero Creek (Caltrain milepost 32.306). The CHSRA needs to address the effects of this utility infrastructure on the costs and feasibility of the open trench and covered trench options. • Comment C.S-20: In Appendix F on page F-8, the report indicates that a comment was made at the San Carlos Open House on September 30, 2009 indicating the presence of a Hetch-Hetchy water pipe crossing the Caltrain alignment at Alma Street. The CHSRA needs to confirm the presence of this utility and address the effects of this utility infrastructure on the costs and feasibility of the various vertical options. • Comment C.5-21: The construction of the covered trench option across San Francisquito Creek and other waterways would have potentially significant environmental impacts in terms of biological resources, sedimentation, creek bank stability, and water quality. Any waterway crossed by a covered trench option would have to be diverted or temporarily dammed to permit construction of the covered trench across the creek. These potential impacts must be identified and analyzed as part of the CEQA review for this project. • Comment C.5-22: The individual covered trench structure bores at 2S.5 feet in width are considerably wider than indicated for the double track in tunnel section, which has an indicated width of approximately 20 feet. CHSRA should explain this apparent inconsistency in spatial requirements. • Comment C.S-23: The two-double track cut and cover box option (CCB-2 in Appendix C) should provide the opportunity to maintain Caltrain service at the surface while one box is constructed. The surface tracks can then be shifted to allow construction of the second box. The CHSRA needs to consider the elimination of one of the central shoring walls between the two boxes, such that the two boxes share an intermediate shoring wall. This elimination would reduce the additional right-of-way impacts and cost of this option. This same comment applies to TNCH-1 on page 17 of Appendix C. 2S • Comment CS-24: The double deck structure configuration in CCB-3 (page 8 of Appendix C) appears to permit continued operation of Caltrain service at grade during construction. However, the CHSRA needs to consider requirements for preventing hydrostatic uplift in the preliminary sizing of these structures. It would appear that the structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant. Additional structure mass or piling appears to be required to mitigate uplift from groundwater pressures. This is a technical issue that can be mitigated, but additional cost would be incurred in doing so. The CHSRA needs to confirm that all structures provide at least a minimum factor of safety against buoyancy. • Comment CS-2S: In areas with a high groundwater table, any kind of trench option is likely to be buoyant. The CHSRA needs to confirm that the cross sections indicated in TNCH-T-l on page 16 of Appendix C provide minimum factors of safety against uplift. Consideration needs to be made in the trench design for the inclusion of tie-down piles to prevent uplift. The depth of the tie down piles will help identify the requirements for the TBM profile. • Comment CS-26: The following comments pertain to TNCH-T-l on page 16 of Appendix C: o The dimension between track centers in the trench is shown as IS feet, but, with reference to comparable sections on drawing 17, the trench is drawn much wider. This inconsistency should be resolved. o As shown, the clearance between the trench invert and the top of the TBM tunnel may be inadequate for the long-term stability of the tunneL o With a IS-foot track spacing, the width of the excavation for the trench would be approximately 46.S feet. The width of the TBM is shown as 47 feet. To fit as shown, the TBM must be driven to exacting tolerances to avoid conflict with the trench support of excavation walls. Due to the size of the bore, and the minimal clearance (3 inches per side), this configuration may not be achievable unless the TBM profile is significantly deeper. • Comment CS-27: The trench in TNCH-T-2 on page 17 of Appendix C does not appear to be drawn to scale. With a IS-foot-wide track spacing, it is likely that the support of excavation wall for the trench would conflict with the TBM location. The CHSRA must confirm the required profile for the TBM to avoid the support of excavation walls. • Comment CS-28: On page 18 of Appendix C, the figure shows a design that is slightly narrower than the corresponding four track covered trench, but is still 26 wider than the corridor required by Caltrain to continue its service during construction. This open-trench concept appears to have no options to divert the existing Caltrain surface service other than with a temporary but expensive bridge structure. CHSRA must explain how Caltrain service would be maintained under this design option. • Comment C.S-29: In regard to the figure on page 20 of Appendix C, there is a considerable asymmetric load on this structure resulting from the adjacent berm. Please confirm the adequacy of the 3-foot-thick wall shown in the figure. Deep Tunnel Option • Comment C.5-30: The report indicates on page 3-23 that the construction of a deep tunnel station stop in Palo Alto is infeasible due to constructability problems and expense. Undoubtedly, an underground station is more expensive than an at-grade station, but underground stations connecting to deep bored tunnels are constructed globally. Either localized ground improvement could be undertaken to allow the ground cover over the tunnel boring machine (TBM) to be reduced at the station interface, or a short length of cut and cover tunnel can be provided to either side of the station, until sufficient cover exists to allow the TBM to resume. These methods of construction are feasible and should be recognized as such within the report, and considered by the CHSRA as part of the study. • Comment C.5-31: The report indicates that only CHRSA service would be allowed in the deep tunnel option, with Caltrain and freight services occurring in another type of vertical alignment. The report does not indicate what vertical Caltrain/freight options would accompany a deep tunnel option, and the City therefore cannot gauge the additional impacts and economic costs of the Caltrain/freight option. The City's preference would be to have the HSR, in a deep tunnel and the Cal train, and freight operations in a below grade optioncovered trench. The report must analyze completely below grade options this combination of deep tunnel and covered trench alignments to allow a comparison of this combination with the other alignment options described in the report. • Comment C.S-32: The report states on page 4-4 that the deep tunnel option would not cause any property displacements. The CHSRA must consider any property requirements for ventilation and egress structures, and for temporary construction staging for the deep tunnel option. The CHSRA must also confirm any additional property impacts for the potential Palo Alto station alternative. Mezzanine, ancillary facilities, and platform configuration may increase the width of the rights-of-way and easements required. 27 • Comment C.5-33: The report states on page 4-54 that the deep tunnel option is considered in all subsections in Palo Alto (6A-6D and 7 A). This statement is not consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2, which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be at approximately station 1900+00. This results in a covered trench and/or open trench construction within subsections 6C, 6D, and 7 A, and not a deep tunnel. The CHSRA needs to reconcile this apparent inconsistency in the report. The City of Palo Alto prefers a below grade option through the entirety of Palo Alto, including Subsections 6C and 6D, and to begin any transitions to other vertical alignments outside the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. A deep tunnel option specifically would not require the use of shooflys within Palo Alto, and would be less disruptive to the community. A deep tunnel option in Subsections 6C and 6D would also seem to solve the problem of alignment constraints experienced by the covered trench option at Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks. Also, once mobilized for tunneling, the incremental cost of increasing the bored tunnel length to the south would be relatively small. • Comment C.5-34: In reference to the deep tunnel portal on page 4-54, some staging can be remote from a portal area; however, in order to maximize the tunneling productivity, an area of approximately 2-3 acres should be provided for the contractor in the vicinity of the portal. The CHSRA should·indicate an appropriate staging area on the right-of-way plans for any portals, and account for the right-of-way cost ill the construction cost estimates. • Comment C.5-35: The transitions shown in Figure 4.3.7 on page 4-54 should be drawn to approximate scale so that their length can be understood and visualized. The deep bored tunnel schematic should also be added to the figure. This figure is intended to show potential profile and alignment constraints, yet there are other constraints noted later in the report that have not been included in this figure. The figure needs to be revised to include these other constraints. • Comment C.5-36: The notes on page 4-54 indicate that most of the transitions from open trench and covered trench to at grade seem to be infeasible at the locations investigated. In order for viable open trench and covered trench options to exist, some viable transitions need to be identified and evaluated as part of the alternatives analysis. The CHSRA must identify, study, and develop viable transition locations. • Comment C.5-37: The listed cost of the deep tunnel option represents only the cost for the HSR system to be underground (see pages 4-54 and 4-61 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and Table 4-9). The report does not clearly indicate which vertical alignment configuration is proposed for Caltrain, which of the various cross sections options are proposed, and any additional 28 environmental impacts that would result from the other Caltrain alignment option. The CHSRA needs to clarify how the total cost for each item presented has been derived. The report indicates that (with the possible exception of some localized grade separations) there is no option being considered that combines HSR service in a deep bored tunnel with Caltrain and freight service below grade in an open trench or covered trench. As mentioned previously, the preference for the City of Palo Alto would be to have the HSR, facilities in a deep tunnel with the Caltrain, and freight facilities stacked above in a covered trench or possibly an open trenchall placed below grade. The CHSRA must develop information for completely below grade alternatives this combined deep tunnel/covered or open trench alternative to the same degree as it has developed information for the other alignment and vertical option alternatives, so that the cost and feasibility of this combined alternative can be reasonably compared to the other alternatives being considered by the CHSRA. • Comment CS-3S: While the deep tunnel and other below grade options appear to generally minimize disruptions to communities and is the City of Palo Alto's preferable Caltrain alignment alternative, the CHSRA needs to address the design and location of surface penetrations (including ventilation buildings, vent shafts, and emergency egress) in order to allow a reasonable comparative impact evaluation with the other vertical alignment options. The design and placement of such surface penetrations would require significant community input from both a construction and visual aesthetic perspective. • Comment CS-39: In Appendix C, emergency walkways are shown to the outside of the tracks. The CHSRA needs to confirm how egress is facilitated in the event of an emergency incident in a tunneL Per NFP A 130, cross passages must be provided at a maximum of SOO foot centers, or egress to grade provided at 2,SOO foot centers. For a cross passage option based upon the configuration shown in CCB-1 and CCB-2, evacuees must cross the incident track and the opposite track, which will still be live, to reach a safe haven at the corresponding opposite walkway. Otherwise, additional right of way must be procured to construct egress shafts. The City of Palo Alto recommends that the CHSRA locate designated emergency walkways to either side of the interior walls separating each outer and inner bore. In the event of an incident in any bore, egress can be easily provided through cross passages to an adjacent walkway without patrons having to cross live tracks. • Comment CS-40: In reviewing CCB-T-2 in Appendix C, the depth of the bored tunnels may ultimately be determined by the required depth of the cut and cover tunnel support of excavation, which will be required both to support the excavation and to provide a barrier to prevent groundwater ingress into the excavation. The CHSRA must consider the location of the bores and the 29 sequencing of construction for this option to be feasible. The City of Palo Alto prefers an option that includes all rail facilities below gradea deep tunnel with a cut and cover structure above. • Comment CS-41: With the 3/1 configuration shown in S-CCB-2and AG-CCB-2 on pages 13 and 14 of Appendix C, the CHSRA needs to identify the benefits of vertically separating the service of one operator, as these benefits are not apparent. For this single cell tunnel to achieve compliance with NFPA 130, separate egress structures to grade must be provided. • Comment C.S-42: The text and figures describing the deep tunnel option in Palo Alto are misleading and must be clarified. The report lists deep tunnel as an option in subsections 6C and 6D, yet all figures show the deep tunnel transitioning within these two subsections to a trench or at-grade situation well before reaching the border with the City of Mountain View. In addition, the various figures show the open trench and covered trench options in subsections 6C and 6D occurring at a deeper elevation than the transitioning deep tunnel option. The CHSRA must explain why the deep tunnel option is shown at such a shallow level, and must clarify exactly where the deep tunnel option ends and shallower options begin in subsections 6C and 6D. The figures and text also need to be corrected to clearly indicate where deep tunnel is truly an option. HSR Station Options / • Comment CS-43: The station configuration showing Caltrain outboard (Figure 4-1 on page 4-1) eliminates the need for pedestrian underpasses or overbridges to provide platform access. Platform heights must comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and the CHSRA needs to indicate how the various platform configurations meet these ADA requirements. • Comment CS-44: HSR needs to identify how freight service will operate on the corridor, including in the vicinity of the various station locations. Will freight move to HSR tracks in the vicinity of Caltrain stations to permit level boarding? For shared freight operations, HSR needs to identify and address issues with clearances between freight trains and station infrastructure. • Comment CS-4S: The following comments pertain to the HSR station options on pages 3-S of Appendix C: o Station alternatives STA-8, STA-9, and STA-1S do not appear to consider how Caltrain will be maintained during construction. The CHSRA needs to identify how Caltrain service would be maintained during the construction of these station alternatives. 30 o The proposed train speeds through stations should be considered in the determination of appropriate clearances. It would appear that the 12.75- foot structure clearance indicated for option STA-8 is excessive for a ' Caltrain train moving at a station design speed. o Option STA-ll is similar in layout to Option STA-8. However, this option is wider, requiring more right of way, and is correspondingly more expensive than STA-8. This option appears to offer no advantages in comparison to Option STA-8, and should be considered for deletion. o Options STA-12 and STA-13 would be constructed with a single support of excavation system. The use of a pair of staggered walls as indicated in Appendix C is unlikely. The station floor slab could be the roof of the lower tunnel, and there is no need to separate the structures. o The CHSRA needs to confirm that the upper box of STA-13 is drawn to scale. The central1S-foot dimension appears to-be incorrect. C.6 Union Pacific Railroad • Comment C.6-1: The only vertical alignment alternative that gives the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) full access to its service tracks is the at-grade option. Even this option requires that UP trains cross high speed tracks to reach some service tracks. This crossing can be done at night, but it would be critical that switches are correctly set for high-speed train operation. • Comment C.6-2: Other vertical alignment options would either require separate UP tracks maintained at-grade (perhaps increasing the project to even more than the four sets of tracks currently proposed), or require long access leads for the UP tracks to reach grade. In either case, a great deal of additional land would be required to support UP operations under these other alignment options. The possible need for this additional land does not appear to have been considered in the report. Because the need to acquire land affects the relative feasibility and desirability of the various alternatives, this information must be included in the report before the CHSRA can make a fully informed and reasonable selection from among the various alternatives. • Comment <;:.6-3: There is no evidence in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report or any other documentation yet released for this project that serious negotiations have been conducted with UP. By the terms of its trackage rights, UP has the right to veto any intercity service over Caltrain rights-of-way. Unless 31 and until the CHRSA can secure agreements from UP to utilize this Peninsula alignment, the CHRSA must continue to consider other alignment corridors. C.7 General Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Comment C.7-1: The report's claims that high-speed rail would relieve congestion on other transportation arteries are vastly overstated. The 24,100 travelers per day projected to board and debark from high speed trains in San Francisco could easily be accommodated on one freeway lane in each direction or by a single airport runway. This additional marginal freeway and airport capacity could be built at a fraction of the cost of the high-speed rail system, including the costs for claiming additional right-of-way. • Comment C.7-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report claims that, by . using the Caltrain corridor, the high-speed rail project would have minimal impacts on Peninsula cities. However, the report offers no explanation or support for this claim. It is far more likely that the extensive land acquisitions and construction activity would severely disrupt transportation, commerce, and residential uses on the Peninsula for the ten years or more required for high- speed rail construction. • Comment C.7-3: Despite the report's claims, high-speed rail is unlikely to stimulate economic development along the Peninsula. Worldwide high-speed rail experience reveals that induced development is insignificant when compared with normal growth. The claims of beneficial economic impacts from the operation of high-speed rail are exaggerated and inaccurate. • Comment C.7-4: The definitions of impacted distances from the high-speed rail right-of-way are unacceptably narrow and include many assumptions. Although a 0.25-mile impact band for educational and cultural resources is stipulated by law, it is much too narrow a band to include all environmental impacts on these sensitive sites. Residential impacts extend well beyond the 300-foot distance for noise impacts and the 200-foot distance for vibration impacts used in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. Visual impacts can extend across an entire city and beyond. The distances used to assess the potential impacts of the project must be widened to cover all of the reasonably foreseeable potential impacts. • Comment C.7-5: The Peninsula communities are 100 to 150 years old, and are filled with large, beautiful heritage trees. Many of these trees have been planted near the Caltrain right-of-way as a screen against noise and visual impacts. Any enlargement of the right-of-way will require the removal of a large number of these valuable trees. There is no suitable mitigation for these losses except to 32 plant young trees and wait for them to mature, a process that would take decades. For this reason, great care should be taken to preserve as many of these trees as possible. • Comment C.7-6: The mitigation measures presented in the report are overly general and it has not been shown that they can effectively mitigate the project's significant impacts. For example, noise is not necessarily mitigated by walls and barriers. Years of experience with walls along freeways has demonstrated that noise behaves in varying ways, and is very difficult to contain. Mitigation for the significant impacts relating to vibration has not been addressed in the report at all; nor has the loss of heritage trees near the right-of-way. The pending Draft EIR must address all potentially significant impacts with mitigation measures that are quantifiable and can be proven to be effective at reducing impacts to a less than significant level. C.8 Site Specific Comments The following comments relate to potential impacts to Palo Alto High School (P AHS), located at 50 Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and the Caltrain right-of-way: • Comment C.8-1: The right-of-way required for the some HSR alignment options would may affect approximately three quarters of the campus, including all auto, bicycle, and pedestrian entrances and exits. Significant effects could potentially include the loss of land for HSR right-of-way, noise and vibration impacts in classrooms and outdoor use areas, and limitations on access due to the grade separation of either Embarcadero Road, Churchill Avenue, or both. A maintenance building would likely be directly affected and require relocation, as would the stadium and bleachers. The potential project impacts on the P AHS need to be ~xamined in detail and adequate mitigation measures developed and described in the report. The CHSRA must also analyze whether these impacts to P AHS (reduced land area, noise, access, etc.) would allow the site to even remain viable for continued use as a high school. • Comment C.8-2: The PAHS Master Plan includes four new facilities that will be in close proximity to the existing Caltrain right-of-way. These permanent facilities include: o A two-story general classroom building on the northeast end of the campus and approximately 100 feet from the Caltrain right-of-way o A media arts complex o A career tech center o A 600-seat theater 33 . The potential impacts to these proposed facilities must be identified and analyzed as part of the CEQA review of the HSR project. • Comment C8-3: Pedestrian, bicycle, and auto access to the high school could be affected by the project, particularly if the Caltrain corridor needs to be expanded to accommodate the HSR project. A bicycle path currently travels along the rear of the high school property along the Caltrain corridor, and would be eliminated if the Caltrain corridor is widened. The Embarcadero and Churchill entrances to the high school could be rendered impassable depending on the vertical alignment option chosen for the HSR project and the subsequent grade separation changes made at either or both of these two street crossings. Even the El Camino Real entrance to P AHS could be affected if either of the Embarcadero or Churchill entrances is altered in some way, forcing more auto traffic to enter and exit the site from the El Camino Real entrance. The CHSRA must evaluate all impacts to access to the P AHS site. • Comment C8-4: Schools are included as sensitive receptors when considering noise and vibration impacts. Construction noise and increased rail operations adjacent to the P AHS could have detrimental effects on students and faculty, and could violate noise thresholds for educational facilities. The CHSRA must fully evaluate noise and vibration impacts on P AHS and other sensitive receptors, and determine if the project impacts render the site unviable for continued use as a high school. The following comments relate to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (P AMF): • Comment C8-5: The P AMF operates a number of facilities in close proximity to the Caltrain right-of-way. These facilities include: o The Clark Building, located at 795 El Camino Real o The future Women Service Clinic, located at 49 Wells Avenue o The Main Clinic, located at 795 El Camino Real o A parking structure located at 87 Encina Avenue Due to the proximity of these P AMF facilities to the Caltrain right-of'-way, the construction and operation of the HSR project is likely to result in vibration, noise, and electrical interference impacts that would be detrimental to patient care and the operation of the clinics. All of these potential impacts must be identified and analyzed as part of the CEQA review for the HSR project. • Comment C8-6: The existing right-of-way narrows considerably at the western edge of the parking structure located at the southwest comer of the P AMF campus (87 Encina Avenue). The report is not clear whether additional right-of- 34 way will be necessary for any of the high speed rail vertical alignment options. If additional right-of-way will be necessary, then the report needs to indicate what impact the additional right-of-way will have on the Clark Building and the parking structure. • Comment C8-7: Four Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) units are located in relatively close proximity to the Caltrain right-of-way. These four MRI units are located at 87 Encina Avenue, 795 El Camino Real in Buildings C and D, and Wells Avenue. The clinics at these sites are considered "sensitive receptors" because of the sensitive imaging equipment housed there. The report needs to identify the potential vibration impacts to these sensitive units from project construction and operation. • Comment C.8-8: Noise impacts may have a detrimental effect on effective communication between patients, physicians, and staff. The report needs to clearly identify the noise impacts associated with each alignment option and any associated mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the noise impacts. • Comment C8-9: An elevated train next to the P AMF Clark Building appears to pose the greatest threat of noise and vibration impacts, and would also affect views from the Clark Building. The aerial design option should be deleted from further discussion in this segment of the alignment. • Comment C8-IO: Parking in the P AMF area is already heavily affected by various sources, including visitors to the adjacent Town and Country Village shopping center, downtown workers, existing Caltrain users, and Stanford University visitors and employees who park at the P AMF and use the Marguerite shuttle to access Stanford. If Palo Alto becomes the location for a station stop for the HSR system, then these parking issues would be further exacerbated by the additional HSR ridership. The report must analyze the parking impacts of a new station on the P AMF facility. The following comments relate to the HSR alignment Subsections SA, 5B, and 5C through .the communities of Menlo Park and Atherton: • Comment C8-11: The vertical alignment options presented for Subsection 5 are inadequate. Only an at-grade option is offered for the North Fair Oaks neighborhood, and therefore the grade change to a deep tunnel or aerial structure alignment option does not begin until reaching the Atherton border. The tunnel portal would not be reached until well south of the Atherton Caltrain station. As shown in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, the high- speed rail would not be underground through Atherton at alL It is noteworthy that the report uses a 1 percent grade to the tunnel for this approach, but in San 35 Jose, the report uses a 2 percent approach gradient to the tunnel. If the Atherton tunnel approach began immediately after the Dumbarton tum off and proceeded down a 2 percent gradient, Atherton could have the underground high-speed rail option that it prefers. • Comment C.8-12: At the conclusion of the October 2009 workshop, the residents of Atherton expressed a strong desire to have both high-speed rail and Caltrain placed below ground in a trench, with Caltrain stacked above high-speed rail. This preference has been omitted from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, yet it is offered in Subsection 6 in Palo Alto. The following comment relates to the approved underground water storage reservoir that will soon begin construction at the El Camino Park: • Comment C.8-13: A water storage reservoir has been approved for construction within the El Camino Park in Palo Alto. The existing park and approved reservoir are located immediately adjacent to the west side of the Caltrain right- of-way near the northern border between the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Construction of this underground water storage reservoir will be completed in 2012, well ahead of the construction of any HSR facilities in the area. The location of the water storage reservoir may prevent any temporary or permanent expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the west. If the HSR project expanded the Caltrain corridor to the west in such a way as to eliminate this reservoir, then the purchasing of the reservoir land, securing of an alternate location for a reservoir, and construction of a new reservoir would likely be prohibitively expensive. Similarly, while the location of the El Palo Alto heritage redwood tree to the east of the Caltrain right-of-way in the same vicinity, as well as the presence of a particularly narrow but vital portion of Alma Street, will may prevent expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the east. Therefore, the only alignment options possible in this portion of the Caltrain corridor are may be those that do not require any temporary or permanent expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way, i.e., a deep tunnel. The following comments relate to the existing Sheraton and Westin hotels located adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way in downtown Palo Alto: • Comment C.8-14: Both the Sheraton Hotel nor and the Westin Hotel provide the minimum number of parking spaces according to the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. Any loss of parking spaces for either of these hotels, such as through eminent domain and the expansion of the Caltrain corridor, would result in an inability of these hotels to provide adequate parking and could reduce the potential to rent out all of their existing rooms. This loss of rentable rooms would in tum result in a loss of income both for the hotels and for the City. The CHSRA 36 must clearly indicate whether any land taking would occur in the vicinity of these two hotels, what the direct and indirect impacts would be of such a taking, and how such impacts would be mitigated. • Comment C.S-iS: The most frequent complaints received by guests at the Sheraton and Westin hotels is the amount of noise and vibration disturbance caused by Caltrain operations. The CHSRA must address construc~on and operation noise and vibration impacts on these two hotels. The City of Palo Alto believes that placing all rail facilities below grade would help to reduce noise and vibration impacts, and depending on the configuration of the rail facilities, could also eliminate the need for an expanded right-of-way. 37 • The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSRlCaltrain in Palo Alto. • The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade. • All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by SHR should be treated on the same basis with respect to vertical alignments impacts. • Palo Alto strongly supports.Caltrain and the comniuter rail service at the present or improved levels of service. • Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present plans but independent of HSR. Two community· meetings were held on May 18 at JLS Middle School and on May 20 at Jordan Middle School to inform the community about the alternatives, present the findings of the peer review analysis, and accept comments, concerns, and opinions. Over 100 residents pa,r1:icipated in the two meetings. A summary of the public comments received at both meetings is provided as Attachment D. On June 7,2010, Mayor Burt sent a letter to the Peninsula Rail Project requesting that consideration of the AA be postponed until serious deficiencies in the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Toolkit are rectified (Attachment E). DISCUSSION Peer Review Report of Preliminary Alternatives Analysis The City retained the engineering firm Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) to conduct an independent peer review oftechnical conclusions in the AA, such as tunneling feasibility and other below grade options, impacts on grade crossings, costs, and railroad operations, etc. The scope of work included full technical review of the AA and its appendices and participation in meetings with the HSR Committee, City Council, and the community. The revised Dra:ft HMM Peer Review Report is provided as Attachment B. In Palo Alto, five alternative vertical alignments have been identified in the AA to be carried forward to further engineering and environmental analysis: 1) aerial structure, 2) at existing Caltrain grade, 3) open trench, 4) cut and cover tunnel, and 5) deep tunnel for HSTonly in a combination of two Caltrain tracks at grade or elevated. However, the HMM review confirmed that some alternatives will not be carried forward beyond the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis to the environmental and engineering phases: • Elevated Berm has been eliminated throughout Palo Alto • Aerial and Open Trench are eliminated in Section 6A (San Francisquito Creek) • Aerial structure is eliminated in Section 6C (California Station to Barron Creek) • Deep Tunnel is not proposed for South Palo Alto -The tunnel portal is shown at just south of Oregon Expressway and then trench or cut and cover to Adobe Creek -The Deep Tunnel is for High Speed Rail only and combined with At-grade or Aerial for Caltrain • No station is proposed at Palo Alto for the Deep Tunnel Option. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Other key findings from the HMM report include: • The AA report states that deep bored tunnel options that include a station should be avoided due to constructability problems and expense. Undoubtedly an underground station is more expensive than an at-grade station, but examples of underground stations, using cut and cover construction, connecting to deep bored tunnels exist globally. • The AA report states that the deep tunnel option is considered in all subsections (6A-6D). This statement is not consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2, which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be south of Oregon Expressway. This results in covered trench and/or open trench construction within subsections 6C and 6D (covering areas south of Churchill to Adobe Creek). • The vertical alignment of both the deep bore and trench alternatives appear excessively deep. It would appear that there is some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles, thereby reducing construction costs for either alternative. • The cost provided for the deep tunnel represents cost for HSR to be underground only. The'report does not clearly indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain, and any additional environmental impacts. • While the AA report presents numerous options for the construction of the alignment in Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections, it is not clear which of the typical sections have been used in the development of the alignment right of way requirements and cost estimates. • The feasibility of maintaining Caltrain service during construction of many of the suggested construction alternatives appears to be questionable. Options which cannot feasibly maintain Caltrain service during construction should'be rejected. • The cost estimates provided are exclusive of rail relocations, utility relocations, right of way (temporary and permanent) and environmental mitigation (noise barriers etc). Since these costs are potentially significant, HSR should provide these costs and consider them in the alternatives analysis. • The unit rates provided are typically at such a high level, e.g. cut and cover tunnel at $262-million per mile that it is not possible to adequately determine the reasonableness of the figures adopted. The cost estimates for the cut and cover alignments in particular appear to be higher than the expected range of costs for this type of construction. HSR should provide additional information supporting the unit rates adopted. • HMM recommends that the Alternatives Analysis report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each of the alternatives have been calculated-identifying usage of specific typical sections over defined lengths, and provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements -support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork etc., such that the appropriateness of the construction methods and the construction costs can be verified. HMM's conclusions and detailed comments have been incorporated into the City'S comment letter. Draft City Comment Letter The intent of this PTC meeting is to allow the Commission to review and provide comments to City of Palo Alto· Page 3 the City Council regarding the draft comment letter to the Peninsula Rail Program on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project (Attachment A). Staff requests that the Commission focus on the substance of the comments~ identify issues to add or modify~ or provide input ifthe nature of the comment is unclear. This draft will undergo further editorial review before it is forwarded to the City Council. The Commission's comments will be summarized in an "at-places" memorandum to the City Council on June 23~ together with the PTC draft minutes. Staff and the PTC representative will provide a verbal summary of the memorandum at the Council meeting~ with copies of any available written report at places. The draft comment letter is divided into three sections. The Introductory Comments section reiterates the City's belief that the Altamont Pass alignment should be studied further as an integral part of an expanded alternatives analysis in the Draft Project EIR. The letter further recites the Guiding Principles recently adopted by the City Council for the HST project. It affirms the City position that vertical alignments of the HSR project including aerial viaduct, elevated berm, and at-grade options are unacceptable to Palo Alto. Also any alignment that would require existing at grade rail crossings to be converted to elevated or underground crossings would be unacceptable. The second section, Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, describes the potentially applicable Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for HSR or any rail alignment that passes through any segment of Palo Alto. However, due to the lack of sufficient details in the Alternatives Analysis, it is unclear to what extent each of the alignment alternatives would comply or conflict with the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The final section, Technical Comments, contains the detailed technical/engineering comments based largely upon the Peer Review Report prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald. The technical comments have been divided into topic areas including general comments, ridership estimates, service plan, alternatives comparisons, Union Pacific Railroad issues, impacts and mitigation measures, and site specific comments (including Palo Alto High School issues). Within the alternatives comparisons are comments on the deficiencies, inadequacies, incomplete or erroneous information contained in the analysis of the various vertical alignments. NEXT STEPS The Alternatives Analysis is one of the early phases in the preparation of the Project level EIRIEIS. HSRA will consolidate comments on the Preliminary AA and submit a report to the HSRA Board in early August. The AA will be modified and published in the Draft Project EIR which is scheduled to be released in January 2011. Staff also expects HSRA to initiate discussions with the City on a potential Palo Alto HSR station in the coming months. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft City Comments on the San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. B. Hatch Mott MacDonald Draft Peer ~eview Report; June 2010 C. May 10 Guiding Principles for the High Speed Rail Committee D. Summary of Public Input from May 18 and May 20 Community Meetings City of Palo Alto Page 4 ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California . High-Speed Train Project This letter addresses the City of Palo Alto's comments on the April 2010 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section of the California High- Speed Train Project. A. Introductory Comments The City of Palo Alto still believes that the Altamont Pass option to bring·the high-speed train to the Bay Area is a viable alternative that deserves more analysis by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). The City of Palo Alto would like to see an' expanded alternatives analysis in the pending Draft EIR for this project that reopens the analysis comparing the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass options before settling on a high-speed train rail aligrunent that travels up the Peninsula. This Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, however, focuses only on alignment alternatives on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. The remainder of this letter will focus on the City of Palo Alto's comments in regard to the Peninsula alignment alternatives. Comments on this Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report should not be interpreted as tacit approval from the City of Palo Alto for any of the Peninsula alignment alternatives. On May 17, 2010, the City of Palo Alto City Council adopted the following guiding principles for the review and analysis of the High-Speed Train (HST) project and any modifications to existing rail service in the City: 1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same basis with respect to vertical alignment impacts. 4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 1 5. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains dubious and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an independent ridership study under its direction and control. 6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analysts Office and State Auditor which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority's Business Plan on such matters as the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources, project management and operations of HSR. 7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the Peer Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR. 8. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and vision of the transit corridor within our boundaries; HSRjCaitrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of our Comprehensive Plan. 9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and Caltrain that is effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail Program and the High Speed Rail Authority. 10. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected Cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions. 11. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide realistic renderings of the various . alternatives and also provide simulations that would help to provide an understanding of the sound and vibrations. 12. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or improved levels of service. 13. Palo Alto also supports the electrification of Caltrain pursuant to its present plans but independent of HSR. 14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium. 15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates Council adopted written comments to the Authority and its Representatives. Based on these guiding principles, the City of Palo Alto has determ,ined the preferable and unacceptable vertical alignments for the portion of the HSRjCaltrain corridor within Palo Alto. The preferable options for the City of Palo Alto include any vertical alignment options that place all HSR, Caltrain, and freight train tracks below grade, and that maintain all existing at-grade rail crossings. These preferable options would have the 2 least amount of impact on the residents and businesses of the City of Palo Alto. The deep tunnel option is preferable to the covered trench option, and the covered trench option is preferable to the open trench option. The unacceptable vertical alignments include the aerial viaduct, the elevated berm, and an at grade options. The City of Palo Alto is also opposed to any alignment configuration that requires that existing at grade rail crossings be modified to become elevated or underground crossings. B. Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not provide sufficient detail to determine whether any of the alignment alternatives comply with or conflict with the goals and policies outlined in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. It is hoped that the pending Draft EIR will contain the details necessary in order to make this assessment. In the meantime, the City of Palo Alto would like to provide the CHSRA with a list of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that would likely be applicable to any rail alignment that passes through any portion of the City of Palo Alto. This list below is not an exhaustive list of potentially applicable goals and policies; depending on the contents of the pending Draft ElK additional goals and policies may be added to this list. Land Use and Community Design Goal L-l: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of ~he City. Aboveground structures (e.g., aerial rails, sound walls) associated with any of the route alternatives in Palo Alto will need to be evaluated on their visual impacts, including whether these features obscure views of the foothills and East Bay hills. ' Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City, Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The Caltrain alignment discussed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report travels through developed neighborhoods and commercial communities in Palo Alto. Rail infrastructure, particularly those project elements that will be aboveground, will need to be evaluated for their compliance with Policy L-S. 3 Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each with Its own Distinct Character and within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Some of the public gathering spaces within the City of Palo Alto are located in close proximity to the Caltrain alignment. The various vertical options along this alignment will need to be evaluated on their impacts to these public gathering spaces. Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers that Offer a Variety of Retail and commercial Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City's Residential Neighborhoods and Employment Districts. Policy L-27: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station area to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center. Any redevelopment of the existing University Avenue Caltrain Station, including the . -possible addition of a Palo Alto station for the high-speed train, will need to be evaluated on whether the redevelopment enhances the link between these two commercial areas. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Any Peninsula rail alignment passing through Palo Alto will need to be evaluated in regard to its compatibility with surrounding development. Goal L-7: Conservation and Preservation of Palo Alto's Historic Buildings, Sites, and Districts. Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences fisted in the Historic Inventory. Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. A number of historic and potentially historic buildings and features exist along the Cal train alignment. Any project alignment alternative will need to be evaluated on its 4 impacts to such historic resources, during both construction and operation phases of the project. Goal L-8: Attractive and Safe Civic and Cultural Facilities Provided in All Neighborhoods and Maintained and Used in Ways that Foster and Enrich Public Life. Policy L-61: Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. A :t:tumber of community facilities are located in relatively close proximity to the Caltrain alignment. Any rail options within this alignment will need to be evaluated based on their impacts to such community facilities. Goal L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of the City. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at highway 101, EI Camino Real, and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real. The two existing Caltrain stations are important gateways into Palo Alto. Any modifications to these stations, including the possible addition of a Palo Alto station for the high-speed train, will need to be evaluated on whether they strengthen the identity of the City. Transportation Goal T-2: A Convenient, Efficient, Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving. Policy T-7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link-Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Policy T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Goal T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods. The City of Palo Alto supports public transit system improvements that provide for convenient and efficient transportation without adversely affecting residential 5 neighborhoods. Any rail alignment in Palo Alto will need to be evaluated on its ability to provide public transit services with a minimum of impact to existing residences. Natural Environment Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto's Natural Reso7!rces and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents. Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views 'of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Any rail alignment in Palo Alto will be evaluated on its impacts to views of the hillsides. Goal N-2: Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities, Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of Community Design. Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks. Any rail alignment that passes over, under, or through a creek, riparian area, or watershed will need to be evaluated in regard to impacts on bank stability, erosion, downstream sedimentation, and flooding. Goal N-3: A Thriving "Urban Forest" that Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto. . Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Any rail alignment in Palo Alto will need to be evaluated in regard to impacts on heritage trees, including El Palo Alto. 6 Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto's groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. The construction and operation/maintenance activities of any rail alignment passing through Palo Alto could have a negative effect on the quality and quantity of grollildwater. These potential effects will need to be evaluated in the pending Draft EIR. Goal N-8: An Environment that Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise . . Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table tiLand Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility. • The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas with the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. • The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criteria shall also apply to new singlefamily homes in Palo Alto. • Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. Noise exposure can be determined based on the noise contour map .included in the Comprehensive Plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate. 7 Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria: • The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; • The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; • The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. Policy N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise . . Any rail alternative proposed in Palo Alto will result in some level of noise impact. All route alternatives and vertical options will need to be evaluated on their level of noise impact compared to both baseline conditions and maximum noise thresholds for residences and other sensitive receptors. c. Technical Comments C.l General Comments The City of Palo Alto has reviewed the detClils provided in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and has compiled the following list of technical comments and questions. The City of Palo Alto understands that the CHSRA will respond to these comments either in a final version of the Alternatives Analysis Report or in the pending Draft BIR. • Comment C.1-1: It would appear that the CHSRA could significantly reduce the number of vertical alignment options under consideration based upon the feasibility of maintaining Caltrain surface operation during construction. Some of the alternatives consume the enfu:e proposed right of way, and appear to disregard how Caltrain would continue to operate during construction activities. For instance, the four tracks cut and cover box, at 123 feet in width, consumes the entire existing Caltrain right of way and beyond. The CHSRA needs to clarify 8 how this and similar options can be constructed while Caltrain service is maintained at the surface. • Comment C.1-2: The report does not indicate how freight would operate on a four lane configuration. Would freight trains be limited to the tracks t,hat serve Caltrain, or would they have the option of using the H5T rails as well? Rail grades and underground structure ventilation requirements would be driven by diesel freight train operation requirements. • Comment C.1-3: The report indicates that the costs for each of the vertical alignment options only represents the costs for the H5T infrastructure and not . the costs for modifications to the Caltrain tracks. The report does not clearly indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain for each of the H5T vertical options, the corresponding costs for the Caltrain configuration, and any additional environmental impacts of the Caltrain configuration. A true comparison of all options cannot be made a consistent baseline is used. For example, how can traffic impacts be improved by the project if the Caltrain configuration is to be retained at grade? • Comment C.1-4: The report does not discuss the potential reuse of land in the assessment of capital and operating costs. For the aerial, cut and cover, and deep tunnel options, opportunity exists to use the land at grade for additional uses, potentially creating funds from land values and future tax increments. The CH5RA needs to address the issue of the reuse of land for these various vertical alignment options. • Comment C.1-5: The drawing on page 8 of Appendix C indicates a 3-foot-wide walkway. NFPA 130 and the CPUC General Order 26-D require only a 2.5-foot- wide walkway. The adoption of the 3-foot-wide dimension may add considerable unnecessary cost to the project. Please explain why this wider walkway width was chosen for this option. • Comment C.1-6: The report indicates that each operator on the Peninsula corridor will have a different maximum speed, with Caltrain operating at a maximum speed of 110 miles per hour, and the H5R system operating at a maximum of 125 miles per hour (see page 5-1 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report). The CH5RA needs to clarify if the two systems are intended to operate on the same tracks, and if so, in what portions of the corridor. • Comment C.1-7: The report indicates on Page 5-1 that transitions from one vertical option to another require approximately 3,000 feet of linear alignment, potentially requiring adjacent subsections to share a vertical alignment alternative. These potential transitions need to be described in greater detail by 9 the CHSRA, including all transition options potentially available for each adjacent subsection, and where specifically those transitions would begin and end. For example, there is no aerial option in Subsection 6A, but there is an aerial option throughout the rest of the subsections in Palo Alto. For the aerial option, the location of the transition to aerial in Subsection 6A and/or 6B of the alignment in north Palo Alto would have significant environmental impacts that need to be fully described. • Comment C.l"8: Moreover, the report provides a number of cross section variations for each type of vertical alignment, but does not indicate where each of these cross section options would apply, or how they would be affected by transition points. More detail regarding these cross section options needs to be included in the analysis, particularly the cross section options at the transition points. • Comment C.l"9: Some of the existing Palo Alto grade separations were constructed in 1930s. These structures may require upgrades to address vibration resulting from the higher speed operation of the HSR service. The CHSRA needs to identify the requirement for, and any costs or other impacts associated with, upgrading these existing structures, including impacts to the grade separations that are considered historic resources, such as the University A venue grade separation. • Comment C.l"10: Curve superelevation and underground structure ventilation requirements will be dictated by the diesel locomotives for freight service. HSR needs to clearly state how freight service will continue to operate on the four track right of way. Will freight be limited to operating upon tracks dedicated to Caltrain service? The CHSRA needs to confirm that with any shared service alternatives, the track superelevation must be designed for slower traffic. • Comment C.l-11: The report states on page 4"1 that HSR will operate up to 12 trains per hour per direction under a full build scenario, with Caltrain operating a further 10 trains per hour per direction. In the peak hour there will be approximately 22 trains per direction per hour, or a train approximately every 3 minutes. It is noted that the HSR Operating Plan and Caltrain service plan have not yet been integrated into a single operating plan. HSR and Caltrain need to reconcile their service plans to optimize the alignment and structure configurations. This reconciliation.of service plans is necessary in order to determine the feasibility of the various vertical alignment options, and to determine which options best suit the operational needs of both rail services~ ~e preferable service plan for the City of Palo Alto would be to allow for maximum flexibility, with all trains able to use all tracks and all station facilities. 10 • Comment C.1-12: The City of Palo Alto requests that the CHSRA evaluate the merits of a three-track configuration versus the four-track configuration. The City of Palo Alto wishes to avoid a decrease in the level of commuter rail service in terms of travel times and headways. The City of Palo Alto believes that any negative impact on commuter rail service should be a considered a negative impact in the alternatives analysis. C.2 Ridership Estimates • .. Comment C.2-1: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on ridership estimates that are incorrect and vastly inflated, as described in the following paragraphs. • Comment C.2-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report is based on ridership estimates that were taken directly from the November 2005 Service Plan. This plan predicted system-wide ridership of 159,000 trips per day, with San Francisco boar dings of 32,890 per day. In December 2009, CHSRA lowered its ridership estimates to reflect increased fares. System-wide ridership was lowered to 121,000 riders per day, and San Francisco boardings were reduced to 24,100 per day. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report was not modified to reflect these reduced ridership figures. Instead of basing the project design on 10 San Francisco departures per hour during peak hours, the departures per hour should have been reduced to 8 to be consistent with the 2009 revised ridership estimates. Off peak departures should also have been appropriately reduced. Such a reduction may eliminate the need for double trains during peak periods, thus reducing the required length of station platforms in San Francisco and San Jose. This modification to the project would be particularly important in the design of the Trans Bay Terminal in San Francisco. • CornmenlC.2-3: Moreover, it is highly unlikely that high speed rail demand will ever approach the level predicted in the December 2009 Business Plan. Unbiased experts have examined the 2009 ridership estimates and have judged them to be vastly overstated. This judgment is supported by worldwide high speed rail experience, where actual ridership is one quarter to one half of the predicted ridership. If the San Francisco Peninsula line carries only one quarter to One half of the traffic that CHSRA has predicted, it will be necessary to dispatch only two to three trains per rush hour from San Francisco. This level of traffic could easily be accommodated by the existing Caltrain tracks if station tracks are provided for local service and grade separations are completed. It is in the financial and environmental interests of both CHSRA and the Peninsula cities to use existing facilities to support high speed rail at least until travel demand shows these facilities to be inadequate. 11 • Comment C2-4: It appears that the ridership estimates include a large number of passengers crossing the Bay from Alameda and Contra Costa counties to board HSR in San Francisco. If this is the case, then these crossings would be temporary because AB3034 requires that CHSRA provide service between Oakland and Los Angeles that requires no more than 2 hours, 40 minutes of travel time. A BART or an AC Transit ride to the Transbay Terminal plus a high- speed rail ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles would almost certainly take longer than 2 hours, 40 minutes. Thus, at best, the additional riders from Alameda and Contra Costa counties would be a temporary boost in San Francisco station ridership until the high-speed rail line to Oakland can be completed. • Comment C2-5: High-speed rail in California would compete primarily with air travel, not with automobile travel, particularly since in California there is minimal public urban transportation service. One would then expect to be able to compare HSR ridership with airline patronage. Using figures from the Program EIR, airline boardings in 2005 at SFO destined for LAX amounted to slightly more than 8,000 passengers per day. This number has declined since 2005 due to the current economic downturn and advances in communication technology. It is therefore unrealistic to expect travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles to grow at the rate suggested in the Program EIR. It is not even certain that the California population will grow as CHSRA expects. It is also unreasonable to expect HSR to capture all of the San Francisco to Los Angeles airline traffic. Therefore, as some experts have predicted, the HSR boardings in San Francisco may not exceed 5,000 per day as late as 2030. • Comment C2-6: If ridership does not exceed 5,000 passengers per day on the Peninsula route, there is even less need to build four tracks down the Peninsula. With Caltrain and HSR trains operating at comparable speeds, all HSR and Caltrain traffic could easily be accommodated by the two tracks that already exist as long as station sidings were added at all Caltrain stations to accommodate,stopping. CHSRA would stand to save a great deal of money, and the citizens of the Peninsula would avoid a great deal of environmental damage, if the existing two sets of tracks could be used to accommodate the realistic HSR ridership estimates. C.3 Service Plan • Comment C.3-1: The proposed service plan is deeply flawed. The proposed high speed rail system is burdened with an excessive number of stations. Balancing the desire for limited numbers of intermediate stops against the requirement to serve all stations yields a service pattern that repeats only once per hour for most 12 of the intermediate stations. A traveler seeking a particular service may only have hourly choices, no better than the airline service that is available today. The alternative is to settle for a slower trip, resulting is trip dissatisfaction and loss of passengers, as well as not meeting the service goals for the high-speed train system. C.4 Conceptual Cost Estimates • Comment C.4-1: The report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each of the vertical options have been calculated. This explanation should identify which cross sections were used as the basis for the conceptual cost estimates. The report should also provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements (e.g., support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork) so that the estimated costs can be verified. Without this information, the City cannot evaluate the costs of the alignment alternatives. • Comment C.4-2: Although unit prices are provided for both rail and utility relocations, no such costs are included the cost estimates. It is clear that the estimates also do not include ROW costs or the costs of environmental mitigation measures such as sound walls. The costs for relocating existing utilities, track relocations, ROW procurement for both temporary and permanent situations, and environmental mitigation measures need to be included in the cost estimates. • Comment C.4-3: The report identifies the number of sensitive noise receptors for the aerial option, which would suggest that noise mitigation measures will be required. The cross sections for the aerial option do not show any noise barriers, however, and noise barriers do not appear to be factored into the cost estimate for the aerial option. The analysis needs to indicate the degree of noise impact of the aerial option, the type of noise barriers that would be required to mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise barriers. • Comment C.4-4: The report does not identify the number of sensitive noise receptors for the at grade option, nor does the cost of noise barriers appear to be factored into the cost estimate for the at grade option. 'The analysis needs to indicate the degree of noise impact of the at grade option, the type of noise barriers that would be required to mitigate this impact, and the cost of the noise barriers. • Comment C.4-5: 'The report does not clearly indicate whether the costs of ancillary structures such as ventilation structures, egress structures (for all below grade options), and cross passages (for the tunnel option) have been accounted for in the estimated costs. 13 • Comment C.4-6: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report indicates that the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment are in the range of $75 -$290 million. However, Appendix L presents the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment as being in the range of $48 -$75 million. The CHSRA needs to address this discrepancy in pricing for the at grade option. • Comment C.4-7: Page 4-55 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report also does not make it clear for Subsections 6C and 6D how the open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. The CHSRA needs to provide sufficient discussion to allow the report reader to understand how the ranges of costs in Table 4-9 have been derived. • Comment C.4-8: The estimated cost of $34,972,672 per mile for the aerial viaduct option translates to approximately $6,600 per linear foot. This figure appears low based on a comparison of similar rail structure types. For instance, Los Angeles Metro estimates that a twin track elevated structure for light rail transit would cost approximately $9,200 per linear foot. This cost is approximately 50 percent less than the CHSRA figure for a lighter vehicle. The CHSRA needs to should provide the basis for the cost estimate and correct any cost discrepancies before completing the alternatives analysis. • Comment CA-9: The CHSRA needs to confirm the price of the four track aerial viaduct option relative to the two track option. The cost difference between the two structure types appears to be incorrect. • CommenfCA-lO: The unit prices for excavation and backfill for the covered trench option ($6 each per cubic yard) seem very low. The report needs to \ provide some basis for the unit rates. The covered trench price of $262,492,160 per mile corresponds to a figure of $49,714 per linear foot. For the proposed width of the four track structure, this figure appears low, particularly as a premium cost will apply resulting from working in and around an operating railroad. The report should clearly identify what is included within this cost figure, and provide a table of principal unit rates used in the evaluation so that the reasonableness of the cost figures provided can be verified. • Comment CA-11: The report is unclear on how the four track structure in the covered trench option can be constructed without impacting existing Caltrain service. The cost estimates do not include any temporary or permanent track relocations for Caltrain. • Comment C.4-12: The difference in price between the open trench option ($14,932 per linear foot) and the covered trench option ($49,714 per linear foot) 14 are not justified in the report. The structures in these two options are the same width, and for a 7-foot cover depth, the depth of the covered trench is only slightly deeper than that for the open trench. It is not clear why the costs are an order of magnitude in difference. For instance, the excavation volume for the covered trench is 2.7 times that for the open trench, despite being only a fraction deeper. The document needs to explain the reason for the large disparity in cost between these two options. • Comment C.4-13: The CHSRA needs to clarify whether the costs of ancillary structures (such as ventilation structures and egress structures for all below grade options, and cross passages for any pored tunnel options) are located. If these costs have not yet been included in the estimated costs for the covered trench and deep tunnel options, then the costs estimates need to be revised in order to include these items. C.5 Alternative Comparisons General Comments • Comment CS-l: The alternative alignment comparisons presented in the report are qualitative and descriptive, making any ranking of these alternatives unreliable at best. The only two quantified measures, acres of land taken and alignment cost, appear to be grossly distorted. • Comment CS-2:' Acres of land taken are an imperfect measure because the value of land depends on its location, its shape, its potential alternative use, and its impact on adjacent property. No costs have been included for the acquisition of right of way or temporary takes for construction support. Land values along the San Francisco Peninsula vary widely in cost per acre, with the difference between the cheapest and the most expensive land being a factor oHDO ormore. • Comment CS-3: Costs are presented only for those alternatives that use the Caltrain corridor. Costs presented for the vertical alignment options using the Caltrain corridor appear to be distorted to favor at grade construction. Costs for the at grade option are based on only two tracks, while costs for elevated, open trench, covered trench, and deep tunnel options include four tracks. • Comment CS-4: The use of unit costs to estimate the relative costs of different vertical alignments is very problematic. Some issues and obstacles have been identified ahd been assigned costs, while other issues appear to have been ignored. Under actual construction, no two segments of route will experience the same unit costs. 15 • Comment C.5-S: The "Alternatives Development Process" section (see page 2-2 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report) describes the objectives and criteria that were used to compare the various Caltrain corridor alternatives. The CHSRA has not defined Fire and Life Safety as specific analysis criteria, and both topics need to be used to further analyze and compare the various vertical alignment alternatives. • Comment C.5-6: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not adequately address life safety issues. The CHSRA needs to elaborate on the impacts of providing ventilation, egress, and other life safety systems for enclosed underground options such as the covered trench and deep tunnel options. In comparison with an at-grade or elevated option, an underground alternative' would require additional right of way for ventilation and emergency egress structures. • Comment C.5-7: The CHSRA needs to explain how the vertical alignment of the trench and deep tunnel options was derived, as it would appear that the vertical alignment of both alternatives is excessively deep. It would appear that there is some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles, thereby reducing . construction costs for either alternative. For example, the report indicates that a deep tunnel option would be bored to a depth of 8S feet, yet Appendix B and page B-1 suggests a cover of 1.5 tunnel diameters or 68 feet for a twin bore option, and engineering standards may allow for an even shallower depth that equals the diameter of the tunnel. For example, a 45-foot diameter tunnel could potentially be bored at a depth of 4S feet. The report does not indicate why the deep tunnel option is proposed to be bored at a depth of 85 feet. The CHSRA needs to state whether a shallower deep tunnel or covered trench alignment is an option, and what the difference in cost would be to construction a shallower alignment option. The CHSRA needs to also address whether a shallower deep tunnel would increase the feaSibility of allowing fora station stop associated with a deep tunnel. • Comment C.S-8: The CHSRA needs to provide a table or other clear presentation to indicate where each of the various cross sections provided in Appendix C would be proposed along the alignment. The CHSRA also needs to indicate which cross sections were used to develop the cost estimates for each of the vertical alignments. Elimination of I -280 and US 101 Alternatives • Comment C.S-9: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report takes only a cursory look at the oppor~ties offered by horizontal alignments that follow the 16 Interstate 280 (1-280) and US 101 highway corridors. These alternative alignments were dismissed from further consideration as soon as difficult interchanges, sharp curves, potentially liquefiable soils, and potential biological constraints were identified. There appears to have been no serious look at opportunities to . take adjacent land to avoid these obstacles. It should benoted that land adjacent to major freeways is much cheaper than land adjacent to the Caltrain corridor. Interchanges can be passed on one side of the freeway or another, or by tunneling. Close access to the San Francisco and San Jose airports from a US 101 alternative could be used to great advantage. Existing access to the San Francisco Airport from the Millbrae Caltrain station, by comparison, is awkward, inconvenient, and time consuming. Both of these highway corridor route alternatives deserve a more 'serious investigation in the alternatives analysis. Right-oj-Way Requirements • Comment C.S-l0: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report does not adequately address th~ additional right-of-way requirements for each of the vertical alignment options (or for the Interstate-280 and US 101 corridor options) in order to allow for a reasonable comparison of the various options. The analysiS needs to consider not only the additional right-of-way that would be needed to accommodate any additional or modified tracks, but it also needs to consider the land needed for shoofly tracks to keep Caltrain running during construction, for construction access, for staging and construction equipment, and to provide Union Pacific access to its industrial tracks. Even if these right-of- way takings were temporary, significant environmental damage could result from the need for additional right-of-way, and at least some of this damage would translate into increased costs for the project. • Comment C.5-tt: The right of way plans in Appendix J indicate a typical PCJPB Property width of 85 feet in the vicinity of Palo Alto. The CHSRA needs to clarify which cross sections are under consideration so that any additional right of way requirements (temporary or permanent) can be fully evaluated, particularly in areas of proposed development such as at the Palo Alto High School. For example, the four track wide trench options would conflict directly with the proposed improvements to the high school football stadium. The CHSRA needs to consider construction alternatives that can be built entirely within the existing right of way. Aerial Viaduct Option • Comment C.5-12: The report states that an aerial option is considered for subsection 6C, and costs for this option are provided in Table 4-9 (see pages 4-54 and 4-61 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report). However, the plan 17 and profile drawings for Subsection 6-2 do not indicate an aerial alternative for Subsection 6C. The CHSRA needs to resolve this inconsistency . . Open Trench and Covered Trench Options • Comment CS-13: The report does not indicate the extent of the impacts of liquefiable soils on the alignment with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover options. The presence of liquefiable soils can greatly add to the cost of covered trench and open trench structure options, requiring over-excavation to remove and replace the soils, ground improvement to modify ,the in-situ characteristics of the soils, or pile supports for the structures. The report needs to indicate whether liquefiable soils are present in the alignment, and how these liquefiable soils would be addressed. • Comment CS-14: For alignment subsections 6C and 6D, it is not clear how the open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. • Comment C.5-1S: The report does not indicate why the open trench option would cost approximately 40 percent of the cost of the covered trench option. The difference in the vertical profile between the two options would not be significantly different and the construction methods will be similar. The covered trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs appears excessive. ' • Comment CS-16: Under the constructability heading in Table 4-9, it is not clear why the potential for disruption of existing rail service is indicated as /lnot applicable". The open trench and covered trench options in particular would have impacts on Caltrain and freight rail service during project construction. In fact, the construction of either of these options would require the use of the entire right-of-way, and appear to preclude continued Caltrain and freight service during project construction. For example, the four track covered trench option would require an area 123 feet in width, which is wider than the entire Caltrain right-of-way within the City of Palo Alto. A cessation of Caltrain and freight functions during project construction would make such design options infeasible. • Comment CS-17: In Appendix D, the table indicates that an 8.5-foot-wide box culvert crosses the proposed alignment at Matadero Creek (Caltrain milepost 32.306). The CHSRA needs to address this utility impact as a constraint to the open trench and covered trench options. • Comment CS-18: In Appendix F on page F-8, the report indicates that a comment was made at the San Carlos Open House on September 30, 2009 18 indicating the presence of a Hetch-Hetchy water pipe crossing the Caltrain alignment at Alma Street. The CHSRA needs to confirm the presence of this utility m:td indicate the utility as a constraint to the open trench, covered trench, and/or deep tunnel options as necessary. • Comment C.5-19: The construction of the covered trench option across San Francisquito Creek and other waterways would have potentially significant environmental impacts in terms of biological resources, sedimentation, creek bank stability, and water quality. Any waterway crossed by a covered trench option would have to be diverted or temporarily dammed to permit construction of the covered trench across the creek. These potential impacts need to be addressed in the CEQA review of this project. • Comment C.5-20: The individual covered trench structure bores at 25.5 feet in width are considerably wider than indicated for the double track in tunnel section, which has an indicated width of approximately 20 feet. The reasons for this apparent inconsistency in spatial requirements need to be provided. • Comment C.5-21: It is intuitive that the two-double track cut and cover box option (CCB-2 in Appendix C) provides the opportunity to maintain Caltrain service at the surface while one box is constructed. The surface tracks can then be shifted to allow construction of the second box. The CHSRA needs to consider the elimination of one of the central shoring walls between the two boxes, such that the two boxes share an intermediate shoring wall. This elimination would reduce the additional right of way impacts and cost of this option. This same comment applies to TNC~-1 on page 17 of Appendix C. • Comment C.S-22: The double deck structure configuration in CCB-3 (page 8 of Appendix C) appears to permit continued operation of Caltrain service at grade during construction. However, the CHSRA needs to consider requirements for preventing hydrostatic uplift in the preliminary sizing of these structures. It would appear that the structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant. Additional structure mass or piling appears to be required to mitigate uplift from groundwater pressures. This is a technical issue that can be mitigated, but additional cost would be incurred in doing so. The CHSRA needs to confirm that all structures indicated provide at least a minimum factor of safety against buoyancy. • Comment C.5-23: ill areas with a high groundwater table, any kind of trench option is likely to be buoyant. The CHSRA needs to confirm that the cross sections indicated in TNCH-T-1 on page 16 of Appendix C provide minimum factors of safety against uplift. Consideration needs to be made in the trench 19 design for the inclusion of tie-down piles to prevent uplift. The depth of the tie down piles will help identify the requirements for the TBM profile. • Comment C.S-24: The following comments pertain to TNCH-T-l on page 16 of AppendixC: o The dimension between track centers in the trench is shown as IS feet, but, with reference to comparable sections on drawing 17, the trench is drawn much wider. This inconsistency should be resolved. o As shown, the clearance between the trench invert and the top of the TBM tunnel may be inadequate for the long-term stability of the tunnel. o With a IS-foot track spacing, the width of the excavation for the trench would be approximately 46.S feet. The width of the TBM is shown as 47 feet. To fit as shown, the TBM must be driven to exacting tolerances to avoid conflict with the trench support of excavation walls. Due to the size of the bore, and the minimal clearance (3 inches per side), this configuration may not be achievable unless the TBM profile is significantly deeper. • Comment C.S-2S: The trench in TNCH-T-2 on page 17 of Appendix C does not appear to be drawn to scale. With a IS-foot-wide track spacing, it is likely that the support of excavation wall for the trench would conflict with the TBM location. The CHSRA needs to confirm the required profile for the TBM to avoid the support of excavation walls. • Comment C.S-26: On page 18 of Appendix C, the figure shows a design that is slightly narrower than the corresponding four track covered trench, but is still wider than the corridor required by Caltrain to continue its service during construction. The open-trench concept appears to have no options to divert the existing Caltrain surface service other than with a temporary but expensive bridge structure. Please explain how Caltrain service would be maintained under this design option. • Comment C.S-27: In regard to the figure on page 20 of Appendix C, there is a considerable asymmetric load on this structure resulting from the adjacent berm . . Please confirm the adequacy of the 3-foot-thick wall shown in the figure. Deep Tunnel Option • Comment C.S-28: The report indicates that the deep tunnel option in Palo Alto would preclude the construction of a station stop in Palo Alto due to 20 constructability problems and expense (see page 3-23 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report). Undoubtedly, an underground station is more expensive than an at grade station, but underground stations connecting to deep bored tunnels are constructed globally.TItis method of construction is feasible and should be recognized as such within the report, and considered by the CHSRA as part of the study. Either localized ground improvement could be undertaken to allow the ground cover over the tunnel boring machine (TBM) to be reduced at the station interface, or a short length of cut and cover tunnel can be provided to either side of the station, until sufficient cover exists to allow the IBM to resume. • Comment C.S-29: The report indicates that only CHRSA service would be allowed in the deep tunnel option, with Caltrain and freight services occurring in another type of vertical alignment. The report does not indicate what vertical Caltrain/freight options would accompany a deep tunnel option, and the City therefore cannot gauge the additional impacts and economic costs of the Caltrain/freight option. The City's preference would be to have the HSR in a deep tunnel and the Caltrain and freight operations in a covered trench. • Comment C.S-30: The report states on page 4-4 that the deep tunnel option would not cause any property displacements. The CHSRA needs to consider any property requirements for ventilation and egress structures, and for temporary construction staging for the deep tunnel option. The CHSRA needs to also confirm any additional property impacts for the potential Palo Alto station alternative. Mezzanine, ancillary facilities, and platform configuration may increase the width of the rights-of-way and easements required. • Comment C.5-31: The report states on page 4-54 that the deep tunnel option is considered in all subsections in Palo Alto (6A-6D). This statement is not consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2, which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be at approximately station 1900+00. TItis results in a covered trench and/or open trench construction within subsections 6C and 6D, and not a deep tunnel. The CHSRA needs to reconcile this apparent inconsistency in the report. The preference for the City of Palo Alto would be to allow for a deep tunnel option through the entirety of Palo Alto, including Subsections 6C and 6D, and to begin any transitions to other vertical alignments outside the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. A deep tunnel option would not require the use of shooflys within Palo Alto, and would be less disruptive to the community. A deep tunnel option in Subsections 6C and 6D would also seem to solve the problem of alignment constraints experienced by the covered trench option at Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks. Also, once mobilized for tunneling, the incremental cost if increasing the bored tunnel length to the south would be relatively small. 21 • Comment C.5-32: In reference to the same deep tunnel portal on page 4-54, some staging can be remote from a portal area; however, in order to maximize the tunneling productivity, an area of approximately 2-3 acres should be provided for the contractor in the vicinity of the portal. The CHSRA should indicate an appropriate staging area on the right of way plans for any portals, and account for the right of way cost in the construction cost estimates. • Comment C.5-33: The transitions shown in Figure 4.3.7 on page 4-54 should be drawn to approximate scale so that their length can be understood and visualized. The deep bored tunnel schematic should also be added to the figure. This figure is intended to show potential profile and alignment constraints, yet there are other constraints noted later in the report that have not been included in this figure. The figure needs to be revised to add in these other constraints. • Comment C.5~34: The notes on page 4-54 indicate that most of the transitions from open trench and covered trench to at grade seem to be infeasible at the locations investigated. In order for viable open trench and covered trench options to exist, some viable transitions need to be identified and evaluated as part of the alternatives analysis. The'CHSRA needs to study and develop viable transition locations. • Comment C.S-35: The listed cost of the deep tunnel option represents only the cost for the HSR system to be underground (see pages 4-54 and 4-61 of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, and Table 4-9). The report does not clearly indicate which vertical alignment configurafion is proposed for Caltrain, which of the various cross sections options are proposed, and any additional environmental impacts that would result from the other Caltrain alignment option. The CHSRA needs to clarify how the total cost for each item presented has been derived. The report indicates that (with the possible exception of some localized grade separations) there is no option being considered that combines HSR service in a deep bored tunnel with Caltrain and freight service below grade in an open trench or covered trench. As mentioned previously, the preference for the City of Palo Alto would be to have the HSR facilities in a deep tunnel with the Caltrain and freight facilities stacked above in a covered trench or possibly an open trench. The CHSRA needs to add this alignment alternatives to the alternatives evaluation. • Comment C.5-36: While the deep tunnel option appears to generally minimize disruptions to communities and is the City of Palo Alto's preferable Caltrain alignment alternative, the CHSRA needs to address the design and location of surface penetrations (including ventilation buildings, vent shafts, and emergency egress) iit order to allow a comparative impact evaluation with ,the other vertical 22 alignment options. The design and placement of such surface penetrations would require significant community input from both a construction and visual aesthetic perspective. • Comment C.5-37: In Appendix C, emergency walkways are shown to the outside of the tracks. The CHSRA needs to confirm how egress is facilitated in the event of an emergency incident in a tunnel. Per NFP A 130, cross passages must be provided at a maximum of 800 foot centers, or egress to grade provided at 2,500 foot centers. For a cross passage option based upon the configuration shown in CCB-1 and CCB-2, evacuees must cross the incident track and the opposite track, which will still be live, to reach a safe haven at the corresponding opposite walkway. Otherwise, additional right of way must be procured to construct egress shafts. The City of Palo Alto recommends that the CHSRA locate designated emergency walkways to either side of the interior walls separating each outer and inner bore. In the event of an incident in any bore, egress can be easily provided through cross passages to an adjacent walkway without patrons having to cross live tracks. • Comment C.5-38: In reviewing CCB-T-2 in Appendix C, the depth of the bored tunnels may ultimately be determined by the required depth of the cut and cover tunnel support of excavation, which will be required both ~o support the excavation and to provide a barrier to prevent groundwater ingress into the excavation. The CHSRA must consider the location of the bores and the sequencing of construction for this option to be feasible. An option that includes a deep tunnel with a cut and cover structure above is the preferred option for the City of Palo Alto. • Comment C.5-39: With the 3/1 configuration shown in S-CCB-2 and AG-CCB-2 on pages 13 and 14 of Appendix C, the CHSRA needs to identify the benefits of vertically separating the service of one operator, as these benefits are not apparent. For this single cell tunnel to achieve compliance with NFPA 130, separate egress structures to grade must be provided. HSR Station Options • Comment C.S-40: The station configuration showing Caltrain outboard (Figure 4-1 on page 4-1) eliminates the need for pedestrian underpasses or overbridges to provide platform access. Platform heights must comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and the CHSRA needs to indicate how the various platform configurations meet these ADA requirements. • Comment C.5-41: HSR needs to identify how freight service will operate on the corridor, including in the vicinity of the various station locations. Will freight 23 move to HSR tracks in the vicinity of Caltrain stations to permit level boarding? For shared freight operations, HSR needs identify and address issues with clearances between freight trains and station infrastructure. The preference for the City of Palo Alto is to allow freight trains to have the maximum flexibility to use all tracks and all station locations. • Comment C.5-42: The following comments pertain to the HSR station options on pages 3-5 of Appendix C: o Station alternatives STA-8, STA-9, and STA-15 do not appear to consider how Caltrain will be maintained during construction. The CHSRA needs to identify how Caltrain service would be maintained during the construction of these station alternatives. o The proposed train seeds through stations should be considered in the determination of appropriate clearances. It would appear that the 12.75- foot structure clearance indicated for option ST A-8 is excessive for a Caltrain train moving at a station design speed. o Option STA-ll is similar in layout to Option STA-8. However, this option is wider, requiring more right of way, and correspondingly more expensive than STA-8. This option appears to offer no advantages in comparison to Option STA-8, and should be considered for deletion. o Options STA-12 and STA-13 would be constructed with a single support of excavation system. The use of a pair of staggered walls as indicated in Appendix C is unlikely. The station floor slab could be the roof of the lower tunnel, and there is no need to separate the structures. o The CHSRA needs to confirm that HSR the upper box of STA-13 is drawn to scale. The central 15-foot dimension appears to be incorrect. C.6 Union Pacific Railroad • Comment C.6-1: The only vertical alignment alternative that gives ~e Union Pacific Railroad (UP) full access to its service tracks is the at-grade option. Even this option requires that UP trains cross high speed tracks to reach some service tracks. This crossing can be done at night, but itwould be critical that switches are correctly set for high-speed train operation. • Comment C.6-2: Other vertical alignment options would either require separate UP tracks maintained at grade (perhaps increasing the project to even more than 24 the four sets of tracks currently proposed), or require long access leads for the UP tracks to reach grade. In either case, a great deal of additional land would be required to support UP operations under these other alignment options. • Comment C.6-3: There is no evidence in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report or any other documentation yet released for this project that serious negotiations have been conducted with UP. By the terms of its trackage rights, UP has the right to veto any intercity service over Caltrain rights of way. Unless and until the CHRSA can secure agreements from UP to utilize this Peninsula alignment, the CHRSA should continue to consider other alignment corridors. C.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Comment C.7-1: The report's claims that high-speed rail would relieve congestion on other transportation arteries is vastly over stated. The 24,100 travelers per day projected to board and debark from high speed trains in San Francisco could easily be accommodated on one freeway lane in each direction or by a single airport !Ullway. This additional marginal freeway and airport capacity could be built a,t a fraction of the cost of the high-speed rail system, including the costs for claiming additional right-of-way. • Comment C.7-2: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report claims that, by using the Caltrain corridor, high-speed rail project would have minimal impacts on Peninsula cities. This claim is grossly in error. At the very least, transportation, commerce, and residential uses on the Peninsula would be thrown into a state of chaos for the ten years or more required for high-speed rail construction. Unless the high-speed rail lines are placed underground and the Caltrain alignment placed below ground, the Peninsula cities would continue to be disrupted and disfigured in perpetuity. • Comment C.7-3: Despite the report's claims, high-speed rail is unlikely to stimulate economic development along the Peninsula. Worldwide high-speed rail experience reveals that induced development in insignificant when compared with normal growth. The claims of beneficial economic impacts from the operation of high-speed rail are therefore exaggerated and inaccurate. • Comment C.7-4: The definitions of impacted distances from the high-speed rail right-of-way are unacceptably narrow and include many assumptions. Although a 0.25-mile impact band for educational and cultural resources is stipulated by law, it is much too narrow a band to include all environmental impacts on these sensitive sites. Residential impacts extend well beyond the 300-foot distance for noise impacts and the 200-foot distance for vibration impacts used in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. Visual impacts can extend across an 25 entire city and beyond. The distances used to measure potential project impacts needs to be widened to cover the actual potential impacts of the project, and not . a truncated, narrow corridor of impacts. • Comment C.7-5: The Peninsula communities are 100 to 150 years old, and are filled with large, beautiful heritage trees. Many of these trees have been planted near the Caltrain right-of-way as a screen against noise and visual impacts. Any enlargement of the right-of-way will require the removal of a large number of these valuable trees. There is no suitable mitigation for these losses except to plant young trees and wait for them to mature, a process that would take decades. For this reason, great care should be taken to preserve as many of these trees as possible. ' • Comment C.7-6: The mitigation measures presented in the report are very general and not very convincing. Noise is not necessarily mitigated by walls and barriers. Years of experience with walls along freeways has demonstrated that noise behaves in strange ways, and is very difficult to contain. Vibration mitigation has not been addressed in the report at all. The loss of heritage trees near the right-of-way has also not been addressed. The pending Draft EIR will need to address all potentially significant impacts with mitigation measures that are quantifiable and can be proven to be effectiye at reducing impacts to a less than signifiCant level. C.B Site Specific Comments The following comm~nts relate to the Palo Alto High School (PAHS), located at 50 Embarcadero Road between EI Camino Real and the Caltrain right-of-way: • Comment C.8-1: The right-of-way required for the HST alignment options would affect approximately three quarters of the campus, including all auto, bicycle, and pedestrian entrances and exits. A maintenance building will likely be directly affected and require relocation, as will the stadium and bleachers. The potential project impacts on the P AHS need to be examined in detail. • Comment C.8-2: The PAHS Master Plan includes four new facilities that will be in close proximity to the existing Caltrain right-of-way. These permanent facilities include: o A two-story general classroom building on the northeast end of the campus and approximately 100 feet from the Caltrain right-of-way o A media arts complex o A career tech center o A 600-seat theater 26 The impacts to these proposed facilities needs to be included in the CEQA review of the HST project. The following comments relate to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (P AMF): • Comment C.8-3: The PAMF operates a number of facilities in close proximity to the Caltrain right-of-way. These facilities include:· o The Clark Building, located at 795 El Camino Real o The future Women Service Clinic, located at 49 Wells Avenue o 'The Main Clinic, located at 795 El Camino Real o A parking structure located at 87 Encina A venue Due to the proximity of these P AMF facilities to the Caltrain right-of-way, the construction and operation of the HST project is likely to result in vibration, noise, and electrical interference impacts that would be detrimental to patient care and the operation of the clinics. • Comment C.8-4: 'The existing right-of-way narrows considerably at the western edge of the parking structure located at the southwest comer of the P AMF campus (87 Encina A venue). The report is not clear whether additional right-of- way will be necessary for any of the high speed rail vertical alignment options. If additional right-:of-way will be necessary, then the report needs to indicate what impact the additional right-of-way will have on the Clark Building and the parking structure. • Comment C.8-5: Four Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRJ) units are located in relatively close proximity to the Caltrain right-of-way. These four MRI units are located at 87 Encina Avenue, 795 El Camino Real in Buildings C and D, and Wells Avenue. 'The clinics at these sites are considered "sensitive receptors" because of the sensitive imaging equipment housed there. The report needs to identify the potential vibration impacts to these sensitive units from project construction and operation. • Comment C.8-6: Noise impacts may have a detrimental effect on effective communication between patients, physicians, and staff. The report needs to clearly identify the noise impacts associated with each alignment option and any associated mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the noise impacts. • Comment C.8-7: An elevated train next to the P AMF Clark Building appears to pose the greatest threat of noise and vibration impacts, and would also affect 27 'j i' I views from the Clark Building. The aerial design option should be deleted from further discussion in this segment of the alignment. • Comment C.8-8: Parking in the P AMFarea is already heavily affected by a number of different sources, including visitors to the adjacent Town and Country Village shopping center, downtown workers, existing Caltrain users, and Stanford University visitors and employees who park at the P AMF and use the Marguerite shuttle to access St~ord. If Palo Alto becomes the location for a station stop for the HST system, then these parking issues will be further exacerbated by the additional HST ridership. The report needs to analyze the parking impacts of a new station on the PAMF facility. The following comments relate to the HST alignment Subsections 5A, 5B, and 5C through the communities of Menlo Park and Atherton: • Comment C.8-9: The vertical alignment options presented for Subsection 5 are inadequate. Only an at-grade option is offered for the North Fair Oaks neighborhood, and therefore the grade change to a deep tunnel or aerial structure aligmnent option does not begin until reaching the Atherton border. The tunnel portal would not be reached until well south of the Atherton Caltrain station. As shown in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, the high- speed rail would not be underground through Atherton at all. It is noteworthy that the report uses a 1 percent grade to the tunnel for this approach, but in San Jose, the report uses a 2 percent approach gradient to the tunnel. If the Atherton tunnel approach began immediately after the Durnbarton tum off and proceeded down a 2 percent gradient, Atherton would have the underground high-speed rail option that it prefers. • Comment C.8-10: At the conclusion of the October 2009 workshop, the residents of Atherton expressed a strong desire to have both high-speed rail and Caltrain placed below ground in a trench, with Caltrain stacked above high-speed rail. This preference has been omitted from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, yet it is offered in Subsection 6 in Palo Alto. The following comment relates to the approved underground water storage reservoir that will soon begin construction at the EI Camino Park: • Comment C.8-11: A water storage reservoir has been approved for construction within the EI Camino Park in Palo Alto. The existing park and approved reservoir are located immediately adjacent to the west side of the Caltrain right- of-way near the northern border between the cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Construction of this underground water storage reservoir will be completed in 2012, well ahead of the construction of any HSR facilities in the area. The location 28 of the water storage res~rvoir will prevent any temporary or permanent expansion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the west, while the location of the El Palo Alto heritage redwood tree to the east of the Caltrain right-of-way in the same vicinity will prevent expa;nsion of the Caltrain right-of-way to the east. Therefore, the only alignment options possible in this portion of the Caltrain corridor are those that do not require any temporary or permanent expansion of the Caftrain right-of-way. 29 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .. : ............................................................ : ................................................... 1 2.0 Peer Review .................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 Summary .. , ................................................................................................................... 11 1.0 Introduction The Alternatives Analysis Report (AAR) presents construction alternatives to be carried forward and evaluated as part of the California High Speed Rail Authority's (CHSRA) Project Environmental Impact Reportl Environmental Impact Statement for a four track, grade-separated combined use (CHSRA and Caltrain) Peninsula rail corridor, between limits of San Francisco and San Jose. The report presents numerous options for at-grade, above-grade and below-grade rail alignment for the Peninsula Corridor. The feasibility of any parti~lar alignment option is location specific . . Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) has performed a review of the AAR, focusing On the design and construction issues pertinent to the City of Palo Alto. As indicated in the project scope of services, review is based exclusively upon materials provided by CHSRA, and comprises a factual, impartial review of the AAR, and the completeness and fairness of the methods used for the evaluation of the alternatives. The City of Palo Alto is deSignated as Subsection 6 within the AAR, extending from existing Caltrain Milepost 29.72 to the North of the San Mateo County I Santa Clara County Line, to Milepost 33.61, to the north of Adobe Creek. The tota1length of Subsection 6 is 3.89 miles. Subsection 6 is further subdivided into the following subsections: Sub-· Milepost Location section 6A 29.72 -30.94 North of San Mateo County I Santa Clara County Line to south of Embarcadero Road 6B 30.94 -31.63 South of Embarcadero Road to South of Churchill Avenue 6C 31.63 -33.04 South of Churchill Avenue to North of East Meadow Drive 6D 33.04 -33.61 North of East Meadow Drive to North of Adobe Creek A potential mid-Peninsula Station is indicated within Subsec~on 6A on the site of the existing Caltrain Palo Alto Station. The limits and location descriptions of each subsection are consistent with the AAR Table 3-9. However, as evidenced by the Appendix J -Right of Way plans, the location descriptions are not particularly accurate in defining the mileposts. IIPage 2.0 Peer Review The peer review included a review of each alternative within Subsection 6 of the preliminary AAR. The review was undertaken by technical specialists in the disciplines of structural and tunnel engineering, rail engineering and fire/life safety. The review focused on the following specific issues: • The clarity of the information provided • The type and extent of each the various construction alternatives and the reasonableness of the assumptions relative to options being continued to further study or rejected. .. The physical operation of the shared corridor • Technical issues with a direct impact upon project cost • The scope, consistency and reasonableness of the alternative cost estimates The comments generated from the Peer Review are included in the following Table, and are provided in sequence relative to specific report sections. No. Pg AAR Comment Section Main Report 1 8-1 5.1 As the report indicates that each operator on the Peninsula Corridor will have a different maximum speed -Caltrain 110 miles per hour, and HSR 125 miles per hour, HSR should clarify where and if they intend to operate on ·the same tracks as Caltrain. 2 8-1 5.1 The report clearly indicates that transitions from one vertical option to another -from aerial to underground for instance, requires approximately 3,000 feet of alignment, potentially requiring adjacent subsections to share an alternative. This is an important consideration. Cities and Subsections cannot be considered and reviewed in isolation - a more holistic approach is necessary. For example there is no aerial option in segment 6A, but there is an aerial option throughout the rest of Palo Alto. For the Aerial option, the location of the transition to aerial in Section 6A andj or 6B of the alignment in north Palo Altoi will have significant environmental impacts that need to be fully described. 3 2-2 2.4 The "Alternatives Development Process" section describes the objectives and criteria on which the selections are made. While HSR has not defined Fire and Life Safety as specific criteria, this should be identified as a subsequent input on the choice of whether an aerial, at- grade or tunnel option is chosen for Palo Alto. 4 3-8 3.3.2 Some Palo Alto grade separations were constructed in 1930's. These structures may require upgrades to address vibration resulting from higher speed operation of the rail service. Some of these structures 21Page No. Pg AAR Comment Section have historic value. HSR should identify the requirement for, and any costs or other impacts associated with upgrading these existing structures. 5 3-21 3.3.4 Life safety is mentioned with reference to Teclmical Working Groups. and ventilation is specifically mentioned for tunnel and trench options. HSR should elaborate on the impacts of providing ventilation and other life safety systems for enclosed underground options. In comparison with an at-grade or elevated option, a tunnel alternative would require additional right of way for ventilation and emergency egress structures. 6 3-23 3.3.4 The report states that deep bored tunnel options that include a station should be avoided due to constructability problems and expense. Undoubtedly an underground station is more expensive than an at- grade station, but examples of underground stations, using cut and cover construction, connecting to deep bored tunnels exist globally. This~method of construction is feasible and should be recognized as such within the report, and considered by HSR as necessary as part of the study. The costs of an underground station can be minimized by minimizing the depth of the adjacent tunnels. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. Underground station construction can be made feasible through the use of localized ground improvement, undertaken to allow the ground cover over the tunnel boring machine (IBM) to be reduced at the station interface, or through the incorporation of a short length of cut and cover tunnel to either side of the station, until sufficient cover exists to allow the TBM to resume. 7 3-23 3.3.4 It is noted that for deep tunnel alternative, only HSR service will be within the deep tunnels. Caltrain and freight service will be in another vertical configuration. HSR sh6uld clearly identify the configurations proposed for Caltrain and freight service in conjunction with the deep tunnels, and clearly state the total costs for each option. 8 3-23 3.3.4 As design criteria including track vertical profile, curve superelevation and underground structure ventilation requirements will be dictated by the diesel locomotives for freight service. HSR should clearly state how freight service will continue to operate on the four track right of way. Will freight be limited to operating upon tracks dedicated to Caltrain service? 9 4-1 4.1.2 The report states that HSR will operate up to 12 trains per hour per direction under a full build scenario, with Caltrain operating a further 10 trains per hour per direction. In the peak hour there will be approximately 22 trains per direction per hour, or a train every 3 minutes. It is noted that the HSR Operating Plan and Caltrain service plan have not yet been mtegrated into a single operating plan. HSR and Caltrain should reconcile their service plans to optimize the alignment and structure configurations. Palo Alto wish to have the merits of 3 tracks versus 4 evaluated. Also, Palo Alto wish to avoid a decrease in 31Page No. Pg AAR Comment Section the level of commuter rail service in terms of travel times and headways. Any negative impact on commuter rail service should be a ~ considered a negative impact in the alternatives analysis. 10 4-1 4:1.2 The station 'configuration showing Caltrain outboard (Figure 4-1) Fig 4-1 eliminates the need for pedestrian underpasses or overbridges to & Fig 4-provide platform access. For Caltrain platform heights and Americans 2 with Disabilities Act compliance HSR should identify how freight service will operate on the corridor. Will freight move to HSR tracks in the vicinity of Caltrain stations to permit level boarding? For shared freight operations, HSR should identify and address issues with ciearances to station infrastructure. 11 4-4 4.2.2 The report states that the deep tunnel option would not cause any property displacements. HSR should consider any property requirements for ventilation and egress structures, and for temporary construction staging for the deep tunnel option. HSR should also . confirm any additional property impacts fO.r the potential Palo Alto station alternative. Mezzanine/ancillary facilities/platform configuration may increase the width of right of way/easement required. 12 4-4 Table 4-HSR should clarify how the extent of liquefiable soils on the alignment 2 has been addressed with respect to the trench and cut-and-cover options. Potential mitigations include over-excavation to remove and replace the soils, ground improvement to modify the in-situ characteristics of the soils, or pile supports for the structures. However, each of these mitigations can greatly add to the cost of cut and cover and trench structure options .. 13 4-54 4.3.7 The report states that the deep tunnel option is considered in all subsections (6A-6D). This statement is not consistent with the Appendix B Plan and Profile Drawings for Subsection 6-2, which indicates the deep tunnel portal to be at station 1900+00 approximately. This results in covered trench and/ or open trench construction within subsections 6C and 6D. HSR should reconcile this apparent inconsistency in the report. Palo Alto wishes to have the option of deep bored tunnel extending all the way through Palo Alto included in the Alternatives analysis. This would seem to solve the problem of alignment constraint conflict with the covered trench option at Matadero, Barron and Adobe Creeks. Also, once mobilized for tunneling, the incremental cost if increasing the bored tunnel length to the south is relatively small. 14 4-54 4.3.7 The transitions shown should be drawn to approximate scale so their Figure length can be understood and visualized. The deep bored tunnel schematic should be added to the figure. This figure shows potential profile and alignment constraints. There are others noted later in this report that should be added to this figure. 15 4-54 4.3.7 The notes on 4-54 indicate most of the transitions from below grade 41Page No. Pg AAR Comment S~ction Figure trench and covered trench to at grade seem to be infeasible at the locations investigated. In order for viable below grade trench and covered trench options to exist, some viable transiti()ns need to be . identified and evaluated as part of the alternatives analysis. HSR needs to study and develop viable transition locations. 16 4-54 Table 4-The report states that an aerial option is considered for subsection 6C, &4-9 and costs for this option are prOVided in Table 4-9. However, the plan 61 and profile drawings for Subsection #6-2 do not indicate an aerial alternative for subsection 6C. HSR should resolve this inconsistency. 17 4-55~ Table 4-It is noted that the cost of the deep twmel represents cost for HSR to be 4-63 9 underground only. The report does not clearly indicate which configuration is proposed for Caltrain, and any additional environmental impacts. The reader must refer to the appendices to understand how the cost is derived. HSR should clarify how the total cost for each item presented has been derived. It is understood that except possibly at localized grade separations, there is no option being considered that combines HSR in deep bored tunnel with Caltrain below grade in trench or covered trench. Palo Alto wish for this comination to be considered in the Alternatvies evaluation. 18 4-55 Table 4-Costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment are stated to be in the 9 range of 75 -290 million. However, Appendix L presents the costs of the Subsection 6A at-grade alignment as being 48 -75 million. It is also not immediately clear for subsections 6C and 6D, how the open trench option would be less expensive than the at-grade option. HSR should provide sufficient discussion to allow the report reader to understand how the ranges of costs in Table 4-9 have been derived, . 19 4-55-Table 4-Design Objectives 4-63 9 The potential reuse of land does not appear to be included in the assessment of capital and operating costs for Subsections 6A -6D. For below grade options opportunity exists to resell right of way for development, creating funds from land values and future tax increments.HSR should consider this potential revenue stream in their evaluation. 20 4-55-Table 4-Capital Cost 4-63 9 HSR should indicate which aerial and tunnel cross sections have been adopted as the basis of the cost estimate in each case. 21 4-55-Table 4-Capital Cost 4-63 9 It is not clear why the open trench options cost approximately 40% of the covered trench options. The alignments (vertical profile) will not be significantly different and the construction methods will be similar. The covered trench also provides greater flexibility for relocation of existing tracks during construction. The difference in costs appears excessive. HSR should resolve this apparent discrepancy 51Page No. Pg AAR Comment Section r 22 4-55-Table 4-Constructability: 4-63 9 HSR should clarify why the constructability issue related to disruption of existing railroads is indicated as 'not applicable' for the open trench, covered trench/ tunnel and deep tunnel options. All, especially the open trench and covered trench/tunnel options will have impacts on Caltrain service during construction. 23 4-56 Table 4-Disruption to Communities 9 While the tunnel options seem to generally minimize disruptions to communities, HSR should confirm that design of surface penetrations including ventilation buildings and vent shafts will'require significant community input from both a construction and visual aesthetic perspective. 24 4-55 -Table 4-Environmental Resources: 4-63 9 HSR should identify the construction of the covered trench/tunnel option across San Francisquito Creek, and other waterways as potentially significant enviro~ental impacts. The waterway will have to be diverted or temporarily dammed and over-pumped to permit construction of the cut and cover tunnel across the creek, Appendix B: Plan & Profile Drawings 25 B-1 HSR should confirm that with shared freight and Caltrain service the track superelevation must be designed for slower traffic. HSR should explain how the vertical alignment of the trench and deep tunnel options was derived, as it would appear that.the vertical Subsec' alignment of both alternatives is excessively deep. It would appear that 26 n#6-2 there is some opportunity to raise the tunnel and trench profiles, thereby reducing construction costs for either alternative. Appendix B, page B-1 suggests a cover of 1.5 tunnel diameters or 68 feet for twin bore option. A portal for the deep tunnel option is indicated at Station 1900+00 approximately. At this portal the tunnel boring machine (TBM) will be launched or recovered. To facilitate the TBM operation, significant Subsec' construction staging area will be required. While some staging can be 27 n#6-2 remote from the portal area, to maximize the tunneling productivity, an area of approximately 2-3 acres should be provided for the contractor in the vicinity of the portal. HSR should indicate an appropriate staging area on the right of way plans, and account for the right of way cost in the construction cost estimate. Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections 28 General HSR should include a table, or other means, to indicate where each of the cross sections shown is proposed on the alignment. 29 General The cross section drawings indicate a 3'-0" wide emergency walkway. Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Life Safety Code NFP A 130 and the California Public Utilities Commission 61Page No. Pg AAR Comment Section (CPUC) General Order 26-D require only a 2'-6" walkway. HSR should consider the adoption of A 2'-6" walkway to help minimize project cost. 30 Min. It would appear that HSR could significantly reduce the number of . RO.W. options under consideration based upon the feasibility of maintaining Exhibits Caltrain surface operation during construction. Some of the alternatives consume the entire proposed right of way, and appear to 'wish' the construction into place with no consideration of how Caltrain will continue to operate. For instance the four tracks cut and cover box, at 123' in width, consumes the entire existing Caltrain right of way and beyond. HSR should clarify how this and similar options can be constructed while Caltrain service is maintained at the surface. 31 4/7 T-1/ . The width of individual cells of the cut and cover structure boxes, at CCB-i 25' -6" are considerably wider than indicated for the double track in tunnel section, which has an indicated width of approximately 20'-0". HSR should provide an exp~ation for this apparent inconsistency in the spatial requirements. 32 5 T-2 Emergency walkways are shown to the outside of the tracks. HSR should confirm how egress is facilitated in the event of an emergency incident in the tunnel. Per NFP A 130 cross passages must be provided at a maximum of 800 foot centers, or egress to grade provided at 2,500 foot centers. For a cross passage option based upon the configuration shown, evacuees must cross the incident track and the opposite track, which will still be live, to reach a safe haven at the corresponding· opposite walkway. Otherwise additional right of way must be procured to construct egress shafts. 33 CCB-1 Per comment on T -2 above, it is recommended that HSR locates CCB-2 designated emergency walkways to either side of the interior walls separating each outer and inner bore. In the event of an incident in any bore, egress can be easily provided through cross passages to an adjacent walkway without patrons having to cross live tracks. 34 7 CCB-2 With reference to comment # 30 it is intuitive that the two-double track cut and cover box (CCB-2) provides the opportunity to maintain Caltrain service at the surface while one bo?, is constructed. The surface tracks can then be shifted to allow construction of the second box. HSR should consider the elimination of one of the central shoring walls, such that the two boxes share an intermedi,ate shoring wall. This will reduce the additional right of way impacts aJld cost of this option 35 8 CCB-3 The double deck structure configuration appears to permit continued operation of Caltrain service at grade during construction. However, HSR should consider requirements for preventing hydrostatic uplift in the preliminary sizing of their structures. It would appear that the structure, as shown, is likely to be buoyant. Additional structure mass or piling appears to be required to mitigate uplift from groundwater pressures. This is a technical issue which can be mitiJiated, but 71Page No. Pg AAR Comment Section additional cost will be incurred in doing so. HSR should confirm that all structures indicated provide at least a minimum factor of safety against buoyancy. 36 12 CCB-T-The depth of the bored tunnels may ultimately be determined by the 2 required depth of the cut and cover tunnel support of excavation, which will be required both to support the excavation and to provide a barrier to prevent groundwater ingress into the excavation. HSR must consider the location of the bores and the sequencing of construction for this option to be feasible. 37 13/ S-CCB-With the 3/1 configuration HSR should identify the benefits of 14 2 vertically separating the service of one operator, as these are not AG-apparent. For this single cell tunnet to achieve compliance with NFPA CCB-2 130, separate egress structures to grade must be provided. . 38 16 TNCH-With a high groundwater table, any kind of trench option is likely to be T-l buoyant. HSR should confirm that the cross sections indicated provide minimum factors of safety against uplift. Consideration should be made in the trench design for the inclusion of tie-down piles to prevent uplift. The depth of the tie down piles will help identify the .requirements for the TBM profile. 39 16 TNCH-· The dimension between track centers in the trench is shown as 15'-0", ., T-l but, with reference to comparable sections on drawing 17, the trench does not appear to be to scale. HSR should resolve this inconsistency. As shown, the clearance between the trench invert and top of the TBM tunnel may be inadequate. HSR should confirm the TBM tunnel is stable against uplift. With a 15'-0" track spacing, the width of the excavation for the trench will be approximately 46'-6". The width of the TBM is shown as 47'-0. As the TBM width exceeds the trench width, HSR should confirm that the configuration shown is feasible. Due to the size of the bore, this configuration may not be achievable unless the TBM profile is significantly deeper. 40 16 TNCH-Per comment on configuration TNCH-T-l, the trench does not appear T-2 to be drawn to scale. With a 15'-0" track spacing it is likely that the support of excavation wall for the trench will conflict with the TBM location. HSR should confirm the required profile for the TBM to avoid the support of excavation walls. 41 17 TNCH-Per comment on configuration CCB-2, the right of way required to 1 construct this option can be reduced by elimination of one of the separating shoring walls. HSR should consider a configuration that permits the two trench structures to share an intermediate shoring wall. 42 18 S-While slightly narrower than the corresponding four track covered TNCH-trench, HSR should consider how Caltrain is maintained at grade 1 during this construction. With either concept, there is nowhere to TNCH-divert the existing surface service other than with a temporary, and 2 expensive, bridge structure, or through acquisition of considerable additional right of way. 81Page No. Pg AAR Comment Section 43 20 RF-There is a considerable asymmetric load on this structure resulting TNCH-from the adjacent berm. HSR should confirm the adequacy of the 1 typically shown 3'-0" wall thickness under static and seismic loading conditions. Appendix C: Typical Station Drawings 44 3 STA-8 HSR should demonstrate how these station alternatives maintain STA-9 Caltrain service during construction. STA-15 45 3 STA-8 HSR should consider proposed train speeds through stations in the determination of appropriate clearances. It would appear that the 12'- 9" structure clearance indicated is excessive for a Caltrain train moving at a station design speed. 46 4 STA-ll This option is similar in layout to Option STA-8. However, this option is wider, requiring more right of way, and correspondingly more expensive than STA-8. HSRshould identify what if any advantages this option has in comparison to Option STA-8; otherwise it should be considered for deletion. 47 '5 STA-12 HSR should clarify why two support of excavation systems are STA-13 necessary. Either station option would be constructed within a single support of excavation system, The use of a pair of staggered walls as indicated is unlikely: The station floor slab could be the roof of the lower tunnel, there is no need to separate the structures. 48 5 STA-13 HSR should confirm that the upper box is drawn to scale. The central 15'-0" dimension appears to be incorrect. Appendix D: Utilities 49 The table indicates an 8.5 foot wide box culvert crossing of the proposed alignment at Matadero Creek (Caltrain milepost 32.306). HSR should identify this utility impact as a constraint to the open trench and' covered trench/ tunnel options in the main report. Appendix F: Outreach & Scoping 50 A comment made at the San Carlos Open House on September 30, 2009 indicates the presence of a Hetch Hetchy water pipe crossing the F-8 alignment at Alma Street. HSR should confirm the prese~ce of this utility and indicate the utility as a constraint to the open trench and covered trench/ tunnel options as necessary. AppendixJ:RlghtofVVay The right of way plans indicate a typical PCJPB Property width of 85'- 0" in the vicinity of Palo Alto. HSR should clarify which cross sections are under consideration such that any additional right of way 51 requirements -temporary and permanent-can be fully understood, particularly in areas of proposed development, such as at the Palo Alto High School. As the 4-track wide trench options will conflict directly with the proposed improvements to the high school football stadium, HSR should consider construction alternatives that can be built within 91Page No. Pg 52 AM Section COmlnent the existing right of way. A planned water storage reservoir will be built by the City of Palo Alto in EI Camino Park butting up against the existing Caltrain right-of-way. Construction is planned to be complete by 2012. This should be identified as a right-of-way constraint and HSR should consider alternatives that can be built within the existing right of way. Appendix L: Conceptual Cost Estimates 53 The report should indicate which alignment cross sections are used to provide the basis for the estimates. 54 55 56 57 The construction cost estimates do not include the following items: • Rail relocations • Utility relocations • Right of way (temporary and permanent) • Environmental mitigation (noise barriers etc) The costs for each of these categories will vary depending upon the particular construction alternative. To allow a proper comparison of the costs of the various alternatives, the costs of these elements must be included. Aerial Structure The cost per mile of aerial structure of $34,972,672 translates to approximately $6,600 per linear foot. This figure appears low based on a comparison of similar rail structure types. For instance Los Angeles Metro estimates twin track elevated structure for light rail transit to cost $$9,200 per foot. This is approximately 50% less than the HSR figure for a lighter vehicle. HSR should provide the basis for their figure, and correct any cost discrepancies before completing alternatives analysis. Aerial Structure HSR should confirm the price of the 4-track aerial structure relative to the two track structure. The cost difference between the two structure types appears to be incorrect. Covered Trench The unit prices for excavation and backfill, at $6 each per cubic yard seems very low. HSR should provide some basis for the unit rates adopted. The covered trench structure price of $262,492,160 per mile corresponds to a figure of $49,714 per linear foot. HSR should provide justification for the use of this figure relative to a particular structure configuration. The report should clearly identify what is included within the cost figure, and provide a table of principal unit rates used in the evaluation, such that the reasonableness of the figures provided can be verified. It is not clear how the four track structure can be constructed without impacting existing Caltrain service, yet the costS do not include any temporary or permanent track relocations. HSR should include costs for maintaining Caltrain service during construction. lOIPage No. Pg AAR Comment Section 58 Open Trench/ Covered Trench HSR should justify the difference in price between the open trench, at $14,932 per foot versus the covered trench at $49,714 per foot. The structures are the same width, and for a 7' cover depth, the depth of the covered trench is only slightly deeper that that for the open trench. It is not clear why the costs are an order of magnitude in difference. For instance the excavation volume for the covered trenc~ is 2.7 times that for the open trench, despite being only a fraction deeper. 59 Covered Trench/Deep Tunnel HSR should clarify where costs of ancillary structures -ventilation structures, and egress structures for all below grade options, and cross passages for the mined tunnel are located. 3.0 Summary The CAHSRA Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report concludes that various at-grade, above grade and below grade alignments through the CitY of Palo Alto are feasible to construct. The report provides an evaluation of each of th~se alignments, based upon a defined Development Process, with clearly stated Design Objectives and Evaluation Measures. The extent of each of the alignments is indicated upon the Appendix B: Plan and Profile Drawings. In some cases the alignment is not specific to Palo Alto, as in the case of the below grade trench and deep tunnel options which continue into the adjacent Subsections of Atherton/Menlo Park and Mountain View/Sunnyvale. While this HMM review has generated a number of comments on the work undertaken, the CHSRA approach to the development and review of the alternatives has been clear and consistent. However, we offer the following primary concerns wi~ the preliminary alternatives analysis for the consideration of the City of Palo Alto and HSR: • . While the report presents numerous options for the construction of the alignment in Appendix C: Typical Cross Sections, it is not clear which of the typical sections have been used in the development of the alignment right of way requirements and cost estimates. This clarification should be added to the report. • The feasibility of maintaining Caltrain service during construction of many of the suggested construction alternatives appears to be questionable. Options which cannot feasibly maintain Caltrain service during construction should be rejected. • The cost estimates provided are exclusive of rail relocations, utility relocations, right of way (temporary and permanent) and environmental mitigation (noise barriers etc). Since these costs are potentially significant, HSR should provide these costs and consider them in the alternatives analysis. lllPage . • The unit rates provided are typically at such a high level, e.g. cut and cover tunnel at $262-millionper mile that it is not·possible to adequately determine the reasonableness of the figures adopted. HSR should provide additional information supporting the unit rates adopted. HMM recommend that the report should explicitly state how the cost figures for each of the alternatives have been calculated -identifying usage of specific typical sections over . defined lengths, and provide a list of unit prices for significant cost elements -support of excavation walls, structural steel, concrete, formwork etc., such that the appropriateness of the construction methods and the construction costs can be verified. 12\ Page ATTACHMENT C ROLE AND GUIDING PRINICIPLES OF THE HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Adopted May 17, 2010 Background In November 2008 California voters approved a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure, the primary purpose of which is to develop high speed rail (HSR) service from los Angeles to San Francisco. The High Speed Rail Authority has decided that the route HSR will take from San Jose to San Francisco is along the Caltrain right of way (ROW), inCluding the portion of the ROW that runs through Palo Alto. However, the Environmental Impact Report used by the Authority ir:- making this decision has been de-certified per court order. Many issues, such as the vertical alignment of the HSR, remain undecided. Recognizing that HSR could have many impacts on Palo Alto, some quite negative, and that swift City action might be needed in many .circumstances the City Council on May 18, 2009 created an ad hoc High Speed Rail Subcommittee of four Council Members, (since changed to a standing committee and renamed the High Speed Rail Committee). The Council also adopted a set of Guiding Principles which allowed the Committee to take a variety of actions in the name of the City without action of the full Council. During the past year the Committee---indeed the entire community---have learned a great deal about HSR and many HSR related actions have taken place. The City Council therefore, adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and actions of the Committee: Role and Authority of the High Speed Rail Committee The Committee shall advise the City Council on HSR and related rail transit matters and provide the community with appropriate forums for the discussion of such issues. The Committee shall keep the full Council informed on a regular basis. The Committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the City on HSR and related rail transit matters when there is not sufficient time to refer a particular issue to the full City Council before action is needed; however, the Committee shall forward their decision to the Council for final action if the Committee determines that it is feasible to do within the time available. Such actions by the Committee shall include, but not be limited to, testimony before the state legislature, the HSR Authority, Congress and other pertinent governmental agencies and advocacy (oral or written) pertaining to pending or desired legislation. Such actions by the Committee shall be consistent with the following policies of the City: Guiding Principles 1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City's preferred vertical alignment of HSR in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR should be treated on the same basis with respect to vertical alignment impacts. 4. The City believes that the pending program EIR for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the HSR Authority should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 5 .. The City further believes that the ridership study used by the Authority contains dubious and erroneous assumptions and that the Legislature should order an independent ridership study under its direction and control. 6. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst's Office and State Auditor which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority's Business Plan on such matters as the identification of sufficient, reliable funding sources, project management and operations of HSR. 7. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the Peer Review committee authorized by AB 3034 with respect to HSR. 8. Palo Alto supports transit ·and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation 'goals, and vision of the transit corridor within our boundaries; HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of our Comprehensive Plan. 9. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related td HSR and Caltrain that is effectively funded and implemented by the Peninsula Rail Program and the High Speed Rail Authority. 10. The High Speed Rail Authority should provide sufficient funding to affected Cities to . allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions. ATTACHMENTD High Speed Rail-Community Meeting Peer Review of Alternatives Analysis May 20, 2010. JLS Middle School . Public Comments • What are infrastructure impacts? • Right-of-way not included • Why not condemn freight trains? • . Study Hybrid Locomotives • Don't trade off ridership with quality of life impacts to community • Study stopping HSR in San Jose • Derailment and seismic safety concerns • Criteria is questionable • What are Construction and access impacts if HSR uses part of Alma Street? • Need real costs for cut/cover and trench plus dual rolling stock options • Can we allow degraded service during construction using a single shoo fly? • . Concern using Alma re: traffic impacts (loss of lanes on Alma Street) • Concerns about noise impacts during construction • Why not run HSR in another route, i.e. by the Bay • How can we comment on the AA when the Program EIR is not certified? • Let the public know how unprofessional HSR is • Include an alternative with HSR in tunnel and Caltrain in trench • What train speeds require grade separations? • Alma Street impacts on emergency vehicles • Concerns about temporary takings for construction • Look at shared North/south platform with HSR + Caltrain -Palo Alto as "mini stop" • Don't use Alma • Concerns about School impacts (Palo Alto High). Move ROW away from neighborhoods • Concerns about noise impact at Palo Alto High School • Deep bored tunnel preferred through all Palo Alto • What is the construction period for the Palo Alto segment? • What time period is used for environmental domain value? • Traffic analysis needed • Horns at station after grade separations? • Advertise Council Meeting High Speed Rail -Community Meeting Peer Review of Alternatives Analysis May 20, 2010 Jordan Middle School Public Comments • How will the segments be phased San Jose to Los Angeles -what is the schedule? • What is the best way to comment on the alternatives analysis? • What are the emergency preparedness issues? • Why doe HSR need to go through Palo Alto -what is Palo Alto's position on the HSR? • Why are be being asked to participate when there is no substantive information available? • Concern that controversy will destroy HSR. They should consider less impactful alternatives to connect Southern and Northern California. • Why has R.O.W. requirement increased from the earlier plans? • Need better explanation of costs for cut and cover. • What does the community have to do to get an alternative route considered? • How long is the construction period? What happens to Caltrain service during construction? • What is the full impact of construction? • Who is in favor of HSR in Palo Alto? • Deep tunnel preserves trees and lessens impact on community • Need to treat all sections equitably • Need vote on whether we want HSR • How much R. O. W will be needed at Peers Park? Can this be off set by added park land? Is there a requirement to off set like the highway codes? • Consensus of group meeting "we don't like any alternatives" • Most residents don't want HSR. Tunnel and cut/cover are best compromise need to preserve quality of life • Both Caltrain and HSR need to be underground • Who will run HSR after it's built? • Need to consider HSR in tunnel & Caltrain in cut and cover trench • Need to summarized all comments • NEED TO EMPHISIZE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT THIS • Need to consider cost benefit in alternatives. Baby Bullet get from San Jose to San Francisco in one hour with five stops • What is the impact on the Palo Alto High School track and the Bike Path along the railroad ROW? • Straw Poll at the end of the meeting: Vote for preferred Alternative: o Bored Tunnel: two tracks 0 votes o Cut/cover trench: four tracks 13 votes o At-grade: four tracks 0 votes o Elevated: four tracks 0 votes o No Build 15 votes o Trench o votes June 7, 2010 Robert Doty; Program Director Peninsula Rail Program 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94705 Dear Mr. Doty: ATTACHMENT t,t Ci~of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council The City of Palo Alto requests that the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) postpone consideration of the Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the San Jose to San Francisco segment until the numerous deficiencies in it and the CSS Tool Kit are corrected and the documents then resubmItted to stakeholders. The AA and the C5S Tool Kit at preserit are so flawed that any responses will have limited vahie. .' While Palo Alto will soon be submitting a more detailed letter specifying the missing arid erroneous information in the CSS Took Kitan'd the fAA, the following examples areprovlded to highlight our concerns with the present process: . . ,': . 1. The cost estimates in the AA for trre aeri~1 alignments are based on a two track system although four tracks are called for in this alternative. 2. There is a Significant discrepancy between thetre'nch and the 'cut and cover alternatives which is not explained in the:-¥-. . 3. No detail is given as towhat properties may need to be purchased under different alternatives and at V{hat cost. No impacts on properties values adjacent to the Right-of- Way were inclljded.· 4. The CSS To 0'. Kit does n9t provide a clear timeline or process for effective decision making; it lacks a m;ethod610gy for evaluating preferred alterhatjves and provides no milestones. . .. 5. The Values, Issues and .Goals Matrix is extremely cumbers.omeand confusing to use. Stakeholders should be given the opportunity to particip.~te in. defining community values and not have them determined by the HSRA. . 6. The Tool Kit limits the range of alternatives and ignores th.e: fundamental CSS precept which involves the com.munity In the identificatIon of solutlo.ns;· . 7. It is not clear that there is complete and timely inclu~lo.n of important stakeholders. The Tool Kit relies on voluntary stakeholder identification and ignores the fact that cities do not have sufficient resources to supplement what shouJdbea HSRAresponsibility. , . . . We appreciate that HSRA believes that1t must meet certain time lines if it is' to obtain federal funding. However, this artificia1 deadline must be subordinate to doing properly the largest transportation project in Califorriia history. We have confidence that if this project is done properly federal funding will be available. We have confidence that if it's not done properly, merely meetIng a deadline will not assure federal financing. We have heard that this is an iterative process and that corrected information and more detail will be provided in the next iteration. Such an argument misses the point. The Alternatives 'Analysis is meant to reduce the number of alternatives to be studied; an alternative eliminated· P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i ! Attachment E PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Special Meeting of Wednesday, June 17, 2010 Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor ROLL CALL: 6:05 PM Commissioners: Daniel Garber -Chair Samir Tuma -V-Chair Susan Fineberg Eduardo Martinez Arthur Keller -absent Lee 1 Lippert Greg Tanaka AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1. High Speed Rail 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy City Attorney Gayle Likens, Management Specialist Zariah Betten, Admin Associate Chair Garber: I start us off. Welcome everyone to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for Thursday, June 17,2010. Would the Secretary please call roll? Thank you. 26 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members ofthe public may speak to any item not on the agenda 27 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 28 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 29 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 30 minutes. 31 32 Chair Garber: Now would be the time for anyone who would like to speak on items not on our 33 agenda to speak. I would actually like to invite Mr. Myerson if he would like to speak now he 34 may. Mr. Myerson. You will have three minutes. 35 City 0/ Palo Alto June 17,2010 Page 1 0/71 1 Mr. Stanley Myerson, Palo Alto: This is relevant to Planning. You have to have some kind of 2 projection like an operation analysis of what is going to be. In order to do that because this place 3 is going to grow, I just happen to be an analyst, a systems analyst and I have to project and make 4 it right. So I would like to speak on that subject. At least a five to ten year projection and how 5 to do it. That is all that you need. I will do it for nothing. I am well trained, New York 6 University, etc., etc., Operations Analyst, they call me a Strategic Analyst because they were 7 military where everything has to come together and the mission has to work. So I would like to 8 address that problem, at least the ten-year projection because it is a definition of Palo Alto. What 9 is the vision? What do you want it to be? That will determine your place. What I found was 10 that congestion is going to be -you have to get the cars off the street. I can get all the money 11 you need to be a model city. I work between Stanford and here. So think not of money, it is 12 right there. Think of what Palo Alto is and what you think it is, and your part in it. That's all. 13 14 Let me give you one example. You are going to take one policeman who handles traffic, a 15 supervisor, you have to think of an expansion and a good one too. I guarantee you all the money 16 you want if you will get rid of the cars. All the money you need. I have access to the President 17 of the United States that is a true fact. 18 19 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items 20 added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 21 22 AT6:00PM 23 24 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let's move to item number one, High-Speed Rail. The Review and 25 recommendation to Council regarding draft City comments on the Preliminary Alternatives City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 2 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Analysis Report for San Francisco to San Jose Section High Speed Rail Project. Does Staffhave a presentation? NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearing: 1. High Speed Rail: Review and recommendation to Council regarding draft City comments on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for San Francisco to San Jose Section High Speed Rail Project. Ms. Gayle Likens, Management Specialist, Planning and Transportation Division: Yes, thank you Chair Garber we do have a presentation. We are going to work off of the paper copies if you don't mind until we can get the PowerPoint up and running. It is there but it is not advancing. I apologize for that. 16 We are here tonight to ask for the Commission to review and comment on the draft comments on 17 the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose High-Speed Train 18 project, which was included in your packet. Your comments are going to be forwarded to the 19 City Council for their meeting next Wednesday, June 23, 2010. 20 21 I would like to start out with a little bit of background and this may sound familiar to those of 22 you who have been following this project very closely. I did want to give a little bit of 23 background for the audience and anybody who is watching. As you may know in November of 24 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition lA, which was funding in the amount of$10 25 billion for the High-Speed Program. Very shortly after that the High-Speed Rail Authority , 26 began to initiate their work all of the segments within California including the segment of the 27 project that is the San Francisco to San Jose project. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 3 of71 1 2 For the San Francisco to San Jose project High-Speed Rail and Caltrain entered into a 3 Memorandum of Understanding that Caltrain, or the Peninsula Rail Program, would become the 4 project manager for the San Francisco to San Jose segment. So we are working closely with the 5 High-Speed Rail as the statewide entity but the project is also being managed by the Caltrain 6 Peninsula Rail Program. 7 8 In December of 2009 the High-Speed Rail Authority decertified the Environmental Program EIR 9 that concluded with the recommendation the preferred alternative coming to the Bay Area from 10 the Central Valley was to come through the Pacheco Pass Alignment. That was the Bay Area to 11 Central Valley Program ErR. That Program EIR was decertified because of court cases. The 12 City did provide comments on the recirculation of the Program EIR challenging many of the 13 assumptions in it, and this Commission also reviewed those comments. Those were submitted in 14 Aprilof2010. Shortly before eVen submitting those comments on the Program ErR High-Speed 15 Rail Authority released the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose Project, and 16 that was released in April. Originally we had a fairly short timeline, a 60-day turnaround. High- 17 Speed Rail Authority did extend their preferred comment period to the end of June in response to 18 concerns voiced by the City of Palo Alto, the Peninsula Cities Coalition, and many other 19 agencies who found the timeline too tight. In essence, although the High-Speed Rail Authority 20 will accept comments whenever they receive them in order for the comments to be collated and 21 addressed they have asked us to provide the comments by the end of this month, which we are 22 going to do. 23 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 4 of 71 1 We are in the middle of the review period for the Alternatives Analysis and during the course of 2 the last two months the High-Speed Rail Council Committee has been meeting regularly, bi- 3 weekly if not weekly, on this issue and many others. We held two community meetings in May, 4 one at JLS for residents of South Palo Alto or anybody who could attend, and on May 20 at 5 Jordan in North Palo Alto. Both meetings were very well attended. We had high turnout. Lots 6 of people were very engaged. We took those comments and tonight we are accepting your 7 comments on the Alternatives Analysis. Your comments will be forwarded to the City Council. 8 They will have their discussion on June 23 and then our comment letter will be finalized and 9 submitted by June 30, 2010. So that is within the next two weeks. 10 11 The next steps after that, just looking forward, are that High-Speed Rail will collect all the 12 comments received by the June 30 deadline, and they are intending to issue a Supplemental 13 Alternatives Analysis for presentation to their Board either in August or in September. It is a 14 little bit of a fluid deadline at this point. There are meetings that are occurring today, both this • 15 afternoon and this evening, of the Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy Advisory 16 Committee for the San Jose to San Francisco Project. I think the time line is going to be fleshed 17 out a little more. At this point, other than knowing that they are going to issue a Supplement , 18 AA, I am not quite sure or we have not be told exactly what form that is going to take and what it 19 will actually include, but maybe that information is being provided at the meetings today. 20 21 The High-Speed Rail Authority is also going to be initiating discussions with the local agencies 22 that are prospective high-speed rail stops later this year. We think this will begin in the fall. 23 Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Mountain View are potential high-speed rail stations on the Mid- City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 5 of 71 1 Peninsula, and of course San Francisco, Millbrae, and San Jose are definite high-speed rail stops. 2 Each one of those cities will have a special study done and the agency will want to meet with us, 3 but that is not going to occur until the fall. 4 5 The Alternatives Analysis will feed into the actual Draft EIR. The final version of the 6 Alternatives Analysis will be included in the Draft EIR, which is scheduled to be circulated for 7 review in early 2011, so shortly after the first of the year unless the schedule does change. 8 9 The Alternatives Analysis does include the initial engineering and the feasibility of the vertical 10 grade alignments. In Palo Alto they are considering an aerial viaduct, at grade, an open or 11 covered trench, and a deep tunnel for high-speed rail. At this point our consultant Dave Young 12 from Hatch Mott MacDonald will discuss this in more detail. 13 14 They have taken off the table, for Palo Alto, an aerial berm. So that is not one of the alternatives 15 they are considering at this point. That was done largely in response to community input and 16 dissatisfaction with the aerial berm option. 17 18 Our Peer Review Consultant, Hatch Mott MacDonald did a detailed peer review that is attached 19 to your Report I believe. It includes a review of the alignment and typical sections, review of the 20 construction impacts, reyiew of rail operations, and considerations with regard to how the whole 21 system, both Caltrain and High-Speed Rail, will be operated on the Caltrain alignment, and 22 review of the basis for the costing and issues associated with the cost comparisons that they 23 provided. I would like to introduce our two consultants who are in the audience tonight, Dave City of Palo Alto June 17,2010 Page 6 of 71 1 Young of Hatch Mott MacDonald, the project manager for this project. He is going to give his 2 own presentation in detail. Also in the audience is Jeff Smith from RMT Consulting Services 3 who has drafted and been the primary author of our Alternatives Analysis comments. He will be 4 available for comments and questions when we get to the actual comments themselves. At this 5 point, you have not seen this presentation, it has been largely given at the community meetings, 6 the Council saw an earlier version of this presentation, but the Commission has not. We thought 7 it would be useful to take the time to go over the detailed peer review. 8 9 Chair Garber: You may want to lift the microphone and then introduce yourself before you start. 10 11 Mr. Dave Young, Hatch Mott MacDonald, Consultants: Hatch Mott MacDonald did a peer 12 review ofthe Alternatives Analysis Report that was circulated by the High-Speed Rail Authority. 13 So we are just bringing that presentation up on the screen now. I will go through the basic 14 elements of our review and our findings. Also, I will start out with just describing what is shown 15 in the Alternatives Analysis Report as far as what the alternatives are. 16 17 Just a little bit of background on the Alternatives Analysis Report. It is early days in the 18 engineering definition of the alternatives. There is not a lot of detail. It doesn't all paint a clear 19 picture of what is being proposed. There is some kind of general information in there, and it 20 could use a lot more definition to try and understand for example where the deep tunnel option 21 begins and ends, and what that would look like, and what would be entailed with maintaining 22 Caltrain service while things are being constructed. I will illustrate that if we can get the 23 PowerPoint presentation going. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 7 of 71 1 2 In the Alternatives Analysis Report, Section 3 gives a general overview of what the alternatives 3 are and then Section 4 does an evaluation of the alternatives and looks at the cost. The cost is 4 developed in one of the Appendixes based on some more detailed plan and profile sheets in 5 Appendix B of the Alternatives Analysis Report. That is what we have up on the wall over there. 6 So Palo Alto is Section 6 of the Peninsula Alignment, which is divided into 6A and 6B, which 7 are the middle two sheets on the wall. Then there are a lot of typical cross-sections that are 8 developed for example the deep tunnel option, the cut and cover option, the viaduct options, and 9 also for the stations that would go with those configurations. What is not clear in the report is 10 which typical cross-sections were used as a basis for developing the cost estimates. That linkage 11 has not been described yet in there. We are thinking that may be something that is provided in 12 more detail at the Draft EIR stage. 13 14 Chair Garber: Mr. Young, I am going to interrupt for just a moment. Would it be helpful to take 15 a break for perhaps ten minutes to see if we can get our visual aid operating? 16 17 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Yes, it may even be 18 preferable to connect your laptop to the computer. This is just such a big file and for some 19 reason going through out system is too slow. 20 21 Chair Garber: Why don't you take a moment? 22 23 Mr. Williams: Sorry about that. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 8 of 71 1 2 Chair Garber: If anybody needs to go someplace for five minutes take the time. 3 4 Mr. Williams: Thank you for indulging us on our technological gambit. 5 6 Chair Garber: Mr. Young, would you like to start over? 7 8 Mr. Young: Yes, please. This is the scope of the peer review that Gayle had already gone over. 9 We reviewed the alignment and the typical sections. We reviewed the construction impacts from 10 the different types of construction that were being proposed in the Alternatives Analysis. We 11 reviewed rail operations considerations, what information there is in there, and I will touch on 12 that. We reviewed the costing. We produced a draft report and we will also produce a final peer 13 review report once we are done with this process. 14 15 Now if you go to the next slide. This is what I was describing earlier where in Section 3 there is 16 sort of course detail about what the different alternatives are for the Palo Alto section, Section 6. 17 So the blue is elevated, the green is at grade, and the orange is below grade. It doesn't 18 differentiate between trench, cut and cover, or deep bored tunnel when it says below grade. That 19 information is provided in more detail later on and I will show you that. This is one place where 20 it identifies what is still being considered, and what has been removed from further 21 consideration, and I will summarize that later. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 9 of 71 1 Next slide. So this is in Section 4 where they do the alternatives evaluation. So there is more 2 detail here about what is being considered for the Palo Alto section, and also what are shown 3 here that was not described earlier are the transitions from the different elevations so the orange 4 is below grade. It still doesn't say whether that is deep bored tunnel, or cut and cover, or trench 5 in this section. What it does describe is if we are below grade where could they transition back 6 to grade, and also when you are at grade where could you transition to elevated. This helps to 7 understand how you could combine the different alternatives together. You could have deep 8 bored tunnel or below grade in one portion and then have it transition back to a different level, 9 whether it is at grade or above grade. It is important to consider that because of the alignment 10 constraints for high-speed rail and also just for normal rail that transition to different elevations 11 takes a long distance to occur because of the grade liinitations. So these are 3,000 to 4,000 foot 12 long transitions from one elevation to another. 13 14 Now if we go to the next couple of slides. Here is the north end of Palo Alto from Appendix B. 15 This provides the greatest level of detail of what was considered in the cost estimates. Still no 16 direct connection to which cross-section was being used for the different alternatives, but it does 17 show a deep bored tunnel is the lowest elevation one there in the profile down below in the plan 18 view. So that deep bored tunnel extends further north of Palo Alto. 19 20 Then also on the south that transitions over to the next slide. What this shows here is where the 21 deep bored tunnel would transition back to grade. What is indicated there is the tunnel portal is 22 right in the middle of the bottom there, right where Gayle is pointing right now. So for the basis 23 of their estimate they assumed that the deep bored tunnel ended right there. Then further on City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 10 of 71 1 south while that may be called deep bored tunnel in some of the other figures it is actually part of 2 the incline that is transitioning from grade to below grade. So that is constructed in an open cut, 3 or cut and cover configuration. So that is either going to be a trench or cut and cover section that 4 is in the approach to the bored tunnel. So that is right in the middle of Palo Alto right now. 5 6 So these were the options that were identified as not being carried forward. There was a high 7 berm all the way through Palo Alto before. There are still some elevated berm sections but I 8 don't believe they are as high as they were before. So they have really toned down that elevated 9 berm option from what was considered in the programmatic ElR. They have also eliminated the 10 aerial and open trench option for the northern most end of Palo Alto and the vicinity of San 11 Francisquito Creek. Then similarly between California Station to Barron Creek there is no aerial 12 section tJ;1ere anymore. I think they realized there were already grade separated structures there 13 and there was no need to carry the elevated option for that section. 14 15 Next. So more about the options that are not carried forward. For the deep bored tunnel, and 16 when I talk about the deep bored tunnel option what the High-Speed Rail Authority is saying is 17 they are only looking at putting the two tracks for high-speed rail in the deep bored tunnel. 18 There is no consideration for a twin deep bored tunnel where Caltrain and high-speed rail are 19 both in a deep bored tunnel. They are not looking at that. They are only looking at putting the 20 high-speed rail tracks, those two tracks, in a deep bored tunnel. So whenever I am talking about 21 deep bored tunnel that has to be combined with grade separation of the Caltrain. So that will be 22 either elevated or at grade with grade separation structures for Caltrain. 23 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 11 of71 1 What they have said for the deep bored tunnel is that it would make a Palo Alto station too deep. 2 So they are not looking at Palo Alto station for the deep bored tunnel option right now. 3 4 Next. These are some alignment constraints that they have recognized correctly in their report. 5 The deep bored tunnel and the cut and cover tunnel are constrained by the creeks. So that is a 6 vertical constraint that you either have to go under those or over them but not through them. I 7 think there is a little bit of tidying up to do on their alignments at one or two of the creeks, but 8 they have kind of recognized that those are going to constrain the options that they look at. 9 There is a cons~raint with liquefiable soils, and that would impact buried structures that are in the 10 liquefiable zone near the surface, so mostly impacting cut and cover structures and trench type 11 structures. Also, the gravity sewers and stormwater channels are constraints in the alignment. 12 13 A little bit on the typical sections that they have talked about in there. The deep bored tunnel 14 option they are actually showing two types of structures. There could be a single bore, I call it, 15 with the two tracks inside of one bore, or there could be twin bores where there is a set of tracks 16 in each bore. So they have shown both typical sections in Appendix C and it is not crystal clear 17 which one they are proposing at this point. Maybe they are still looking at both, I am not sure. It 18 looks like from Appendix B that what is being shown is the single bore option just by scaling the 19 bored tunnel size that they are showing there. 20 21 This has impact on the cover criteria. So they have established that we need a certain amount of 22 cover above the bored tunnels for protecting for settlement and various things. So the diameter City of Palo Alto June ]7, 2010 Page 12 of71 1 that they assume affects how deep the tunnel has to be. So that is not all that well detailed at this 2 point. 3 4 The deeper the alignment the more expensive it will be. There is also the tradeoff of single bore 5 versus twin bore. There are a lot of factors in that including cost and operation and maintenance 6 type issues as well. 7 8 The cut and cover structures that are shown in Appendix C don't have a consistent clearance 9 envelope to the bored tunnels. So they look like they are providing a bigger clear space 10 underground for some reason, which is driving the cost of those cut and cover structures up. 11 They are making bigger structures than it seems like maybe they need to be if the clearance 12 envelope for the bored tunnel is adequate then why can't that be applied to the cut and cover 13 structures and making smaller cut and cover structures, and bringing the cost of the cut and cover 14 structures down a bit. So that is something that we could ask for clarification on. 15 16 There is a lot of mitigation that would happen to construct a major project like this in the middle 17 of town. There would be a lot of noise, and dust, and traffic, and there would be mitigation 18 measures for a lot of that. For example sound walls would be part of the work. None of that 19 mitigation stuff is priced in their cost estimate at the moment. They have not really evaluated the 20 impacts. I think that is normally part of the EIR process, so at this point they are just giving us a 21 section out ofthe future EIR and just describing the project but not the impacts yet. So 22 consequently those impacts have not been factored into the cost but once they are that would 23 provide you a better idea of what the relative costs are. If you are interested in let's say City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 13 of 71 1 tunneling for example there would be maybe less impacts than cut and cover or elevated type 2 construction. So the elevated and cut and cover type structures would have a higher mitigation 3 cost associated with them, which would bring the differential down. 4 5 We looked at the right-of-way at the Palo Alto station. So currently it is shown to be in that 6 range there of 160 to 187 feet. There are typical sections for stations in Appendix C. The width 7 of those stations from the Appendix kind of fits within the range of space that is available there. 8 So it seems like from a space standpoint at least the width is feasible to have a station. 9 10 Next. One of the constraints in the vertical alignment is San Francisquito Creek and how much 11 cover to provide from the structure to the bottom of the creek. For the cut and cover tunnel if 12 this was excavated as a trench and a structure built and then backfilled then there would be a lot 13 of disruption to the creek. There would not need to be 20 feet of cover between the creek and 14 that structure. It could be made a lot shallower and reducing the depth would reduce the cost. 15 So there may be a plan to do some sort of a short tunnel there and that is why they provided that 16 20 feet of cover. Definitely raising the tunnel for both the bored tunnel and the cut and cover 17 raising the depth up could save cost for the underground options. 18 19 As I mentioned, there is not a lot of discussion about construction impacts. The main one is how 20 to maintain Caltrain service while the cut and cover options are being built, and that is not 21 described in there and the costs are not provided for that. So that is a biggie that needs to be 22 addressed. There is a limited amount of right-of-way. What is the plan? Are they talking about 23 getting more right-of-way temporarily to move the Caltrain tracks so we can build the structure City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 14 of 71 1 or will it be built one piece at a time and the tracks moved around a lot within the existing right- 2 of-way? So that all needs to be described just so that the temporary construction easement can 3 be defined. There are other impacts listed there as well such as business loss, disruption, haul 4 routes, soil disposal, work hours, and that kind of thing. 5 6 There is not a whole lot of discussion about rail operations because at this point they have not 7 developed ~n integrated rail operation plan for Caltrain and High-Speed Rail. What they have 8 said is that Caltrain can continue to operate ten trains per hour on two tracks. They will add two 9 more tracks so that High-Sp,eed Rail can operate ten trains per hour. They will be able to share 10 tracks. That is the current concept. It is a joint use corridor. So High-Speed Rail can use any of 11 the four tracks, same with Caltrain, and to provide that extra flexibility they feel like and it is a 12 logical assumption that that will be enough tracks. They have not developed a detailed operating 13 plan that integrates the two rail systems to confirm that. So that is probably one of the future 14 steps they have to do. 15 16 The freight operates at night so it is not impacting during the daytime. It seems like from the 17 indications in the report that the Baby Bullet service could continue and that the Caltrain service 18 that is in place now would continue to operate. 19 20 The dark part of the slide are costs that we developed awhile ago, and then we added the red to 21 indicate what is currently being used for costs in the Alternatives Analysis to see where they are 22 in comparison to what we thought they might be using. Everything seems like it is in the ' 23 ballpark. There is some uncertainly on the viaduct costs that they are using .. There is a two track City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 15 of 71 1 viaduct and a four track viaduct and the four track cost is clearly too low. I think that has already 2 been recognized. So that needs to be corrected. Also, there is something going on with the cut 3 and cover cost, which is quite high. I am not sure exactly why that is but that should be 4 questioned. 5 6 Next. So just summarize the at grade, above grade, and below grade alignments are feasible 7 from an: engineering viewpoint, but more information is needed to define exactly what they are 8 talking about so that we can look at what the impacts would be and consider those. The extent of 9 each option is in Appendix B but not what typical sections are being assumed. In some cases the 10 alignment is not specific to Palo Alto. There is a 3,000 to 4,000 foot length involved with 11 transitioning from deep tunnel to at grade and so that extends either within Palo Alto or beyond 12 the limits. The Palo Alto station is ruled out for the deep tunnel option. The San Francisquito 13 Creek elevation controls the depth of the underground options in Palo Alto. So the cover that 14 they are assuming that needs to be required between the structure and the creek is important, and 15 making that not any more than it needs to be will reduce the cost of the underground structures in 16 Palo Alto. Lastly, the cut and cover costs seem high. Okay, that's it. 17 18 Ms. Likens: I would just finish the presentation and then a CARRD representative would like to 19 make a presentation. 20 21 . So based on the peer review and other input we received from the Council High-Speed Rail 22 Committee, our own Staff evaluations, input from outside representatives like CARRD, and all 23 the communications we have received from the public we developed the comments on the City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 16 of 71 1 Alternatives Analysis that are included in your packet. We can go into as much detail as you 2 would like about them. 3 4 Just as an overview, the comments are divided into three sections. The first is the Introduction, 5 which includes kind of our major high policy comments that the Council has directed that we 6 include. It also includes the Council's Guiding Principles which they adopted in May, a revised 7 version of the Guiding Principles wherein they set out some direct policy direction to the High- 8 Speed Rail Committee, but it is policy direction for Staff and everyone else with regard to how 9 the City responds to the High-Speed Rail Alternatives Analysis. The second section is a 10 compendium of Comprehensive Plan policies that may not be as exhaustive and as complete as 11 the entire Comprehensive Plan but the key policies, programs, and goals of the Comprehensive 12 Plan that would have bearing on how we review the Alternatives Analysis. Thirdly is the 13 technical comment section of the report, which covers much of what Dave has written in his peer 14 review report and discussed here tonight. 15 16 With regard to the Council's policy direction I think there are some things that have been written 17 down and some things that are more verbal. I just wanted to remind you that we do have the 18 Guiding Principles in which they have concluded that any vertical alignments, anything that is 19 above grade, is really not what Palo Alto would like to see. We do not want any aerial 20 structures, or elevated structures, or at grade. We see that undergrounding is the preferred option 21 in Palo Alto for both Caltrain and for High-Speed Rail. 22 City o[ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 17 0[71 1 The Council has also identified the fact that because the Alternatives Analysis is so inadequate in 2 so many ways and so much information has not been included that it is very, very difficult for 3 the City to provide complete, comprehensive response to such an inadequate document. Weare 4 proposing to make these comments to meet the deadline, but the Council I am sure on 5 Wednesday confirm that this does not constitute the City's final comments, and that we would 6 want to reserve the right to make further comments in the future if more information is made 7 available that would bear upon how we would react to the Alternatives Analysis information. 8 9 The Mayor has sent a letter, and it was included in your packet I believe, asking for a 10 postponement by High-Speed Rail of any real consideration of the Alternatives Analysis until 11 such time as the information we have requested andthe complete information is made available. 12 I don't think we have a written response to that at this point. With that we are available to 13 answer any questions, and to go in whatever direction the Commission would like to go to. Our 14 consultant from RMT is here to answer any detailed comments or questions. 15 16 Chair Garber: I think we will go to the public hearing. We have one card from Tony Carrasco 17 and then I believe we also have one card from CARRD that would be Ms. Armstrong. You will 18 have five minutes. 19 20 Mr. Tony Carrasco, Palo Alto: Commissioners, I just wanted to talk to you about a general 21 overall approach and direction that this idea of undergrounding that we all prefer should come 22 from. As you know, in the document it states that Caltrain will have ten trains per hour in each 23 direction. High-Speed Rail plans eight to ten trains in addition to that. Ten trains per hour is one City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 18 of 71 1 train every six minutes, just Caltrain, in each direction that would be one every three minutes if [ 2 you are at a bad intersection. That would mean that the gates are down one-third of the time 3 hopefully if the gates last one minute. That creates gridlock on several of our streets, and that 4 should be an unacceptable condition if Cal train were to be separated from High-Speed Rail. 5 High-Speed Rail has budgeted for both Caltrain and HSR about $6.0 billion from San Jose to 6 San Francisco. The ARRA funds are around $2.25 billion. Most of it will be spent on Diridon 7 and the Trans Bay Terminal leaving Caltrain with little money to be able to do it right. What I 8 am asking you to do is look at the context of this report and do it right for both Cal train as well 9 as for High-Speed Rail. We have to do both,actually. Those are my comments. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ms. Armstrong and Ms. Naik does it matter who goes first? 12 13 Ms. Sara Armstrong, CARRD: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak tonight. How 14 are we going to advance the slides? I want to start off by saying that I am not a transportation 15 expert and I am not here to opine on whether or not the High-Speed Rail Authority is actually 16 going to implement this particular alternative. As you know they have not made any alternative 17 decisions. So the purpose of this presentation is just to give you an idea and some visualizations 18 about one of the alternatives that they are considering based on the information that is available 19 in the AA overlaid into our own context here in Palo Alto. 20 21 As was just mentioned, one of the alternatives is an at grade solution which means that the four 22 at grade roads in Palo Alto would nedl to be separated as a road project as opposed to a train 23 project. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 19 of 71 1 2 If you can go to the next slide. The preliminary AA specifies the typical impacts for a grade 3 separation for both an underpass and an overpass on page 51. That is Table 4-5. If you look 4 over to the right where you have sort of the green hatch marks those are sort of the specifications 5 for how to look at the implications of an underpass for the road. I did the underpasses because 6 the overpasses actually take a little bit more space. So the underpass has a little bit less impact. 7 The color scheme is that the yellow are full parcel acquisition, the blue are partial impacts 8 whether that is temporary or partial is unknown. The key here is access to the property based on 9 elevations. 10 11 If you can go to the next slide. You can see the assumptions where an eight percent road grade 12 and a 22 foot vertical separation between the road and the track. The key assumption in terms of 13 property acquisition was that if there was a change of greater than two feet from the existing 14 driveway to the new roadway that would indicate a full parcel acquisition. The High-Speed Rail 15 Authority has stated on multiple occasions that they would not consider a road closure unless the 16 cities actually request that. So they are working under the assumption that those roads would 17 need to be maintained as is. 18 19 So if we look at what those assumptions mean laid on our own at grade crossings, if you click 20 over we can look at Charleston. I used a combination of Google Earth Maps, the City's parcel 21 maps, and then the specifications from the High-Speed Rail Authority. All of the specifications 22 talk about doing 475 feet from the centerline ofthe track. So you can see on the west Charleston 23 side the blue mark is where 475 feet is. On the east side for the neighborhoods of Green City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 200f71 1 Meadow and Fairmeadow you actually end up having to go a little bit further because Alma is a 2 major street, and you can't have the road separation at Charleston go down and then immediately 3 back up. Alma and Charleston have to sort of marry in the middle there and then you start your 4 gradual incline back up to grade after the intersection. So this is just an idea of what we are 5 looking at for Charleston. 6 7 If you click on the next slide. Those neighborhoods impacted would be Charleston Meadows, 8 Green Meadow, and Fairmeadow. We counted 23 full parcel acquisitions, those are all R-1, and· 9 16 additional R-1 parcels that would have some property impact. Plugging that into Zillow that 10 comes out to a monetization just for those that were the full parcel acquisitions for the residential 11 at $26 million. 12 13· If you go to the next slide, we can see Meadow. I am running out of time so maybe we should 14 zoom through these quickly. A bit more impactful because the streets are a little bit closer. If 15 you click onto the next slide you will see that that was 24 full parcel acquisitions including one 16 of the RM-30s and a CN, which is the dentist's office there near Alma Plaza, $21 million was the 17 estimate. Again, these estimates, obviously that is just what Zillow is saying for those 18 properties. It would be more than that and of course the value of someone's home is more than 19 what is on Zillow. 20 21 If you can click over to Churchill you can see that in North Palo Alto because there are so many 22 parcels where the driveways are on Alma and there are a number of flag lots you start to get a lot 23 more acquisition on that eastern side of Churchill. City a/Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 21 0/71 1 2 If you go to the next slide you can see that that looked like 36 full parcel acquisitions, a mix of 3 R-ls, R-2s, and RM-15s, and a rough estimate of$50 million. 4 5 If you go to the next slide I just wanted to sort of have that be in your heads because most of the 6 numbers or all of the numbers actually that the High-Speed Rail Authority gives are only 7 construction based. They don't talk about parcel acquisitions. Although they consider the at 8 grade solution sort of the cheapest alternative you can see that it sort of has this collateral 9 damage out into a lot of our neighborhoods. So we have to bear that in mind when you are doing 10 that sort of consideration. 11 12 Just very quickly, this doesn't take into account any right-of-way width differentials in the 13 neighborhoods where we have constrained right-of-way, just for the grade separations. 14 15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Nadia. 16 17 Ms. Nadia Naik, CARRD: Hi. I am going to sort of reiterate the comments that I made at the 18 subcommittee today when we discussed the AA. There is a lot of wiggle room in the wording of 19 denotes a full property take and a partial property take. Some of it sort of has to do with the 20 landowner's concept of utility. So for instance if you had a circular driveway and they cutoff 21 your circular driveway on one side is the property no longer usable the way you imagined? So 22 the point is as we look at the kinds of comments we are going to write we should consider what City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 22 0/71 1 those wiggle room kind of word are to make sure that we are covering the full scope of full and 2 partial acquisitions that there may be. 3 4 For instance at Paly they are looking at taking pieces of athletic field but they are also looking at 5 some open spaces, which might be places where for instance classrooms gather if it is a hot day 6 and a teacher wants to have class outside and they are not necessarily looked at as a normal 7 usable space. So we should consider how to couch our comments appropriately. 8 9 Second, I just wanted to bring to the attention of the PTC that we had this issue with the water 10 supply. I know it has been a very contentious issue of where it is going. It has been a long 11 battle. The general thought might be well, let's just build it where it is supposed to go and where 12 it has been zoned for and if we have to move it later the Authority will pay for it. I think we 13 should keep our minds open to the fact that we may decide from a design perspective that we 14 need to move it but it doesn't actually lie within the right-of-way so it would not be something 15 the Authority has to pay for. So we may want to think about holding off on what to do with that 16 until we have really flushed out whether Palo Alto wants to be a station for instance or not, 17 because it may have design flexibility issues with whether we have a trench or not or have a 18 tunnel or not, and the placement of that particular thing is very important. Obviously it is on 19 Stanford land so we need to sort of think about if that would be a place for eventual TOD, what 20 do we consider? I know we are pretty far down the path so I don't know what the implications 21 are. Could you stop the EIR at this point? Would you have to recirculate? What do you do? I 22 think you should be aware that that is an issue. 23 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 23 of71 1 . I think also we have to think about the fire station that is on Alma as well. If there is 2 construction on Alma downtown by the station how are those fire trucks going to get in and out 3 and are we properly commenting to make sure that we have the right access there. 4 5 I think lastly we want to be very careful not to back ourselves into any specific type of 6 construction. We want to think broadly about yes, we prefer a trench or we prefer this, but not 7 back ourselves into the point where we are saying specifically how we want the tracks 8 necessarily run because there may be flexibility there. So our comments in that regard might 9 need to be a little bit more broad. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Hinda Sack, our last speaker. 12 13 Ms. Hinda Sack, Palo Alto: Thanks, Nadia and thanks Sara, again, and again, and again. I just 14 have a few very brief comments. I have never heard anybody talk about the possibility of a high- 15 speed rail station, if we even want one, at California Avenue. I don't know exactly why that has 16 never come up in any discussion except some comment I made a long time ago. Just throwing it 17 out there as consideration. 18 19 I am also wondering about the changes in possibilities for South Palo Alto with the changes in 20 Mountain View's approach to the vertical alignment as well. Nothing here has been said about 21 that. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 24 of 71 1 I want to make a comment that all of the issues about roadway separation corne up whether or 2 not we have High-Speed Rail, because even with Caltrain alone it is really not acceptable to have 3 our current grade crossings. 4 5 Another thing about partial acquisition. I live on Park Boulevard not very far from Meadow. I 6 bought the house because I could basically walk in without any stairs. If the roadway is lowered, 7 I think my house would be taken anyway, but if the roadway is lowered and I have to have stairs 8 my accessibility to my own horne would be a problem. So changing it, reconfiguring it so that it 9 is no longer accessible for me is an issue. I don't know how you can comment on that but as you 10 are talking about those things I would appreciate it if you kept that in mind. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let us return to the Commission here. Commissioners, let me just 13 see if I can get a time check. Do you think we can get through our comments in sayan hour and 14 a half? That would give us each 15 minutes, three sets of five minutes. Questions and 15 comments. 16 17 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber, Gayle didn't have an opportunity before to just update you on a 18 few of the key comments that were made at the High-Speed Rail Committee meeting this 19 morning, which represent some changes that we will be making to the letter. 20 21 Chair Garber: Okay, that's great. Let's do that. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 25 of7l 1 Ms. Likens: Ijust wanted to follow up because some of the members ofthe public mentioned 2 these same items to you tonight. The issue of the water reservoir, which is already included in 3 our comments, I think it is almost on the last page. The Council Committee wanted us to get a 4 little bit more specific and work with our Utilities Department to understand more exactly where 5 that project is and what options there are with regard to moving forward with that project before 6 High-Speed Rail makes their decisions. The EIR has been certified and the Utilities Department 7 is moving along to finalize the design and go out to bid and build the project. So we are 8 following up with Utilities and we will have more detailed comments that will go to the Council. 9 10 The issue of the fire station and the impact on Alma Street if some right-of-way were required 11 either in North Palo Alto or South Palo Alto and the impact on a major arterial in our 12 community, the second most busy city, well Alma Street is the busiest city arterial second to EI 13 Camino and Oregon Expressway. So that was one of the issues. As well the impact specifically 14 on Fire Station 1 should some of the Alma Street right-of-way be taken by High-Speed Rail and 15 how that would affect emergency response from Fire Station 1 was an additional comment. 16 17 The Committee is also very concerned about the impact on some of our other major institutions 18 including Palo Alto High School, and the impact of this project on it. We did receive comments 19 from the school district about their initial comments on the impact of this project on their site in 20 particular. We are following up with Bob Goulton and the school district to clarify some of their 21 comments and to further elucidate the High-Speed Rail on the specifics of the impacts on Palo 22 Alto High School. 23 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 26 of71 1 We want to delve a little more deeply into the issue of noise and vibration. What the standards 2 are with regard to school sites and noise and vibration and how this project could affect them. 3 Similarly, the Palo Alto Medial Foundation, which is very close to the right-of-way, has very 4 sensitive instruments that are of concern to them. Those comments have been captured in our 5 comments but if there is additional information that we can get from Palo Alto Medical 6 Foundation we would do so. Council is also concerned about the impact of this project on the 7 hotels just south of the station and potential loss of parking and what it would mean for the 8 viability of those hotels to operate, and make rooms available ifthe project impacted their 9 parking and other aspects of their operation. I think those were the main points that were 10 covered. Noise and vibration in general the Council Committee would like us to be much more 11 forceful in our discussions of noise and vibration not just for Palo Alto High School but in 12 general the impact noise and vibration would have throughout the city. 13 14 Of course the grade separations that Sara mentioned. So we will be including more detailed 15 comments. I just wanted you to be aware of that issue formally as you formulate your own 16 comments. 17 18 Chair Garber: Alright let's come back to the Commission with comments. I don't see any 19 lights. Commissioner Fineberg. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start by thanking Staff, several of our consultants, and 22 members of the public. It is very apparent to me that a lot of work, a lot of time, and City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 27 of71 1 considerable thought has gone into drafting the draft. Frankly, I think it is one of the best draft 2 documents I have seen our Staff produce in a couple of years. So thank you and good work. 3 4 That said, it is wonderful that this is the kind of process that the more eyeballs, the more different 5 people with different experiences, with different perspectives can add to the richness of the 6 comments. So I appreciate the opportunity that we have tonight to make comments, and I 7 appreciate that Staff continues to collect comments as they come in. It is just a great process. 8 9 I want to start by focusing in Appendix B on Map 7, Section 1. The title in that map, this is a 10 very specific detailed comment, but as I continue this discussion you will see where I am going 11 with it. 12 13 Chair Garber: Page 3-177 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: No. I don't believe most Commissioners will have a copy of this. It is 16 in Appendix B and it is the map that is posted on the wall. I think it is the furthest right one. So 17 that basically shows just north of Adobe Creek down to the Sunnyvale border. It is the section 18 that is the southernmost section of Palo Alto. Let me read the descriptive text. It says, north of 19 Adobe Creek to north of Fairoaks Avenue, and then it has some codes. This subsection is 20 located in the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. There needs to be a comment specifically 21 stating that it should this subsection is located in the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and 22 Sunnyvale. In every city discussion, at every place we have a map, and every place where we City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 28 of71 1 comment we need to look at Section 7-1. There was a place tonight where the analysis and the 2 discussion stopped at Section 6. So that is one clear comment on this. 3 4 The other piece where that same comment needs to be made clear is in our Preliminary 5 Alternatives Analysis Report, page 3-16. I am sorry I flipped my pages, page 3-18, Subsection 6 7, North of Adobe Creek to Fairmeadow and again it says the cities of Mountain View and 7 Sunnyvale. 8 9 Ms. Likens: Which document are you working from? 10 11 Commissioner Fineberg: The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report. So page 3-18. It is 12 basically the other place where we in the text are describing Subsection 7. Palo Alto is in 13 Subsection 7. So that is clear. 14 15 I am not sure how to word this but one of the things that needs to also have sort of inclusion is 16 under the railroad tracks themselves I believe until Adobe Creek it is in Palo Alto and then 17 Mountain View starts on the other side of Adobe Creek. When you cross Alma, Palo Alto 18 continues to south of San Antonio. So if we are looking at noise, vibration, and other impacts we 19 need to look down including San Antonio Road, and in Palo Alto it is San Antonio Avenue, and 20 we need to go that next block including the Palo Alto portion of Mayfield Mall. We need to look 21 at that for impacts, for noise, for height, for all those things. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 29 of71 1 How am I on time? Thirty seconds, okay. We need to look at whether or not the impacts 2 throughout the city have been analyzed. The last time I saw the AA presentation the maps that 3 had sensitive receptors there were thousands ofthem, or hundreds, in North Palo Alto, and South 4 Palo Alto was blank. It didn't include public schools. It didn't include Mitchell Park. 5 Cubberley had one little preschool in it. It didn't include the parks and the amenities in Green 6 Meadow. It didn't include Green Meadow as an historic designation. It didn't include 7 Stevenson Senior House. It didn't include the churches and temples along Alma. Just a gross 8 blankness. I have not since that meeting at any of the places I have been seen those maps 9 presented again to the public for comment. So I don't know how but we have to get that richness 10 built in so that when the analysis continues they know where the sensitive receptors are. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez. 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: First of all, I want to thank the folks from CARRD. I think they have 15 done a stellar job in terms of identifying a whole other level of impacts and ways to look at this. 16 As a result I have a number of questions for Mr. Young from Hatch Mott MacDonald. 17 18 Your firm is I guess involved in this project at both ends. Your firm is doing work on the LA 19 portion of the project and you have a firewall or a Chinese wall to keep you from communicating 20 with your folks down there. I assume you have similar experience to the group that is working 21 down in Southern California in terms of doing this peer review. Do you want to step up to the 22 podium? 23 City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 300/71 1 Mr. Young: Yes and the team that has been supporting me in the peer review have other 2 worldwide high-speed rail experience. They are just not working on the contracts that we 3 currently have with High-Speed Rail. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so your familiarity with working with high-speed rail projects, 6 and in doing the peer review analysis there are obviously some shortcomings in the analysis that 7 has been provided to us. How does your firm deal with doing an analysis? Do you include 8 things that are missing from this analysis here? What I mean specifically are things like they 9 have looked at alternatives but they have excluded for instance like land acquisitions. I am sorry 10 I didn't want to be demeaning. I was going to say the folks from CARRD. If your firm was 11 doing this analysis would they include land costs? 12 13 Mr. Young: At some point the land costs have to be included but I think that typically comes in 14 the EIR and not in the Alternatives Analysis. So I think we will eventually see that. The fact 15 . that it is not in here now I am not sure if that represents a major deficiency. I think it is good that 16 the High-Speed Rail Authority has released this for comment. It is an ongoing process for them 17 and they are probably working on lots of different things concurrently with what we are doing. 18 At some point they just have to give us what they have. So some of the statements in the 19 document are that we have not looked at certain things and those will be looked at later. So they 20 have identified that in the document. 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: I think probably the most glaring aspect of the project is that even 23 though we are looking at a vertical alignment here there are actually width constraints that are a City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 31 of71 1 part of this program that are difficult to comply with. So if you look at for instance the 2 Downtown area, Alma Street, and the Southern Pacific right-of-way is much narrower and as 3 you get further south it actually broadens out. It is assumed that it is the right-of-way, of course, 4 and it runs from San Francisco all the way down the peninsula, but in fact it has a variety of 5 widths. It is not uniform in terms of width. So how do you begin to reconcile which alternatives 6 are appropriate if you cannot begin to understand what some of the underlying costs are in terms 7 of the solutions? 8 9 Mr. Young: I think I can help you answer that question. This step in the Alternatives Analysis is 10 to define what is going to be looked at in the EIR. So the next step for the High-Speed Rail 11 Authority is to take the alternatives that have been defined and then evaluate their impacts. One 12 of them is on right-of-way. So the greatest impact that we can have right now is to make sure 13 that they are looking at alternatives that we would like to see succeed. Then they will proceed on 14 their process of evaluating what the impacts for the alternatives are including right-of-way. 15 16 They do have in Appendix B a sort of preliminary analysis of what right-of-way width is 17 available. It is a color-coding scheme. So the legend for the color-coding is on the top of these 18 four posters on the wall. Then just below the plan view and above the profile is a color strip, and 19 that indicates the width of the existing right-of-way. Then if you go to the cross-sections in 20 Appendix C each cross-section has a color code associated with it meaning it is applicable to a 21 certain color shown on the drawings there in Appendix B. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 32 of71 1 So the next step, you can't just chop and change from one cross-section to the next when the 2 color changes, there are transitions to consider. For example, you can't just switch from a single 3 ,bore to a twin bore very easily in a deep tunnel. So the next step is to factor in all these 4 transitions and use the alignment constraints, or alignment design criteria that they have for 5 High-Speed Rail that limit the radius of curves and the grades that can be accommodated to 6 design in these transitions. Then at the end of that you have sort of a working system at maybe 7 the ten percent design stage. They say that they are at I think it was two or three percent design 8 stage right now. So it is early days in the design. I don't know if I helped answer that. 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, it helps. 11 12 Mr. Williams: If! could add just a comment. One of the first things I think Gayle indicated, and 13 in fact we are beefing up the early part of this letter. We will probably put a cover letter on it to 14 further emphasize that we feel like there is inadequate information here to really decide which 15 alignment is the best in each various segment. That is environmental information. That is 16 economic information. It is right-of-way information. It is all of those things. This is our 17 comments at this point but as we are able to obtain more of that information we will be able to 18 provide more response. So we want to emphasize that this is not in any way our final comment 19 on or response to the Alternatives Analysis or subsequently the EIR, but that we are particularly 20 concerned about being sort of asked which alternatives look better or worse without knowing a 21 lot of this information. So I think the point is well taken. Also, he is right, some of this 22 . information probably this is not the time that it necessarily would be available. We would hope City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 33 of 71 1 more of it would and that soon some of it would, and we would be able to provide supplemental 2 comments at that time. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: If I might follow up here and then I will wrap things up. When you have 5 lemons you make lemonade. In this case here it is a very difficult report to work with. I agree 6 that there is missing information. 7 8 Mr. Myerson: I have one thing, very short. I would expect the Mayor and the CEO's to present 9 the community with a vision that they could look at, see, and act on. It should be proactive. This lOis a vital community not one that is going to -so I would expect that of the MaY9r and you. You 11 are the best. That's all. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. As I was saying, when you have lemons you make 14 lemonade. So I guess the best we can do is to comment on the information that we have here. I 15 do see several significant deficiencies .. One of them is number one, it is a longitudinal stretch of 16 road, the right-of-way. It is latitudinal. We don't have any longitudinal sections through 17 showing the right-of-way and how wide it is. We have it in plan but we don't have it showing 18 the abutting properties or the abutting configuration along Alma Street. In some cases we have 19 multistory buildings. They might be further away from the Caltrain right-of-way. As you get 20 down towards South Palo Alto there are sound walls that abut Alma Street with single story 21 residences. On the other side there are people's backyards. So there is no understanding in 22 three-dimensions any of this information. In fact, it is very disjointed in terms of having a three- City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 34 of71 1 dimensional understanding of what the configuration of the right-of-way really is. J think that is 2 really crucial to analyzing and understanding this report. 3 4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez followed by Tuma and Tanaka. 5 6 Commissioner Martinez: I don't know ifthe Guiding Principles are sacrosanct, but it seems to 7 me like one of the most important principles we should state is that this High-Speed Rail Project 8 should either in its making or in providing an opportunity to correct some of the deep existing 9 public safety and quality of life issues in this corridor in Palo Alto. Now, I didn't state that well 10 but the concept is that we have issues of grade crossing, and splitting the community, safety of 11 our grade separations, age of our grade separations, non-grade separations, the speed of traffic, / 12 the congestion of traffic, noise. This project should allow us the opportunity to address those 13 problems. I think that somewhere it should be stated a little bit more succinctly that this is a 14 guiding principle for the City. 15 16 I wanted to ask our consultant a couple of questions if you could step up again. I don't recall 17 exactly the scope of the work that you put up. Was it ostensibly to focus on the alignment itself, 18 the corridor itself, without looking at the impacts of the different alternatives? 19 20 Mr. Young: One of the things we were going to look at is what was identified as impacts and 21 whether we thought those were realistic. Since there is not a lot there to review we haven't 22 really contributed much on that part of the scope to this point. 23 City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 35 0/71 1 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, but that we expect to come. 2 3 Mr. Young: Yes. 4 5 Commissioner Martinez: To follow up on a couple of things that Commissioner Lippert asked, 6 do you see the process, and I know it is different in different communities, but the process of the 7 way in which the planning of the High-Speed Rail Corridor and Alternatives is I don't want to 8 say logical but it is sort of following a sort of standard of the industry or is there a different route 9 that the process is going? 10 11 Mr. Young: Just to put a caveat on my answer before I answer. I am a civil engineer and I 12 specialize in tunnels. I work mostly on design and construction management. There is a whole 13 different discipline of expertise in the CEQA and the EIRiEIS process. So I am going to respond 14 just from my vantage point. I get involved with producing the two percent design, ten percent 15 design, and the cost estimates. I have done this on other EIR projects and from what I am seeing 16 here it is the typical process. I have not seen anything other than that. It is maybe a matter of 17 degree of how much detail gets provided at each step ofthe way. To do these cost estimates I 18 think there is probably a lot more engineering that has been done that is kind of behind the 19 scenes that hasn't been released to the public in this Alternatives Analysis Report. That is 20 probably because it is maybe not as fine-tuned and will be coming at the next step. That is 21 usually the way I operate. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 36 of 71 1 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that. I apologize for kind of putting you on the spot. I am 2 not a conspiracy kind of guy, but it seems to me that the way in which the process is working is 3 that the release of information, and these sort of oblique kind of alternative studies don't really 4 sort of address enough of well, if you do it this way the impact is that way. My sort of 5 immediate response is the same as the members ofCARRD, which is well, what happens at the 6 intersections? What is the impact of at grade? What is the impact of an overpass? It just seems 7 to me that just looking at dotted lines on a sheet really doesn't give us enough sort of feeling 8 about what is happening in this process. It seems to me that the next go around is going to 9 eliminate certain options without really giving us the chance to really see why. Okay. Thank 10 you. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Tanaka. 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question for Staff. I know that the LAO and the State Auditor did some 15 analysis on the business plan. Have we thought about, or planned to, or done any of our own 16 analysis, or peer review analysis, or something else that takes a look at what those folks did to 17 come to the sense or conclusion that we are happy with the numbers that they came up with, or 18 are we going to do any of our own financial analysis? 19 20 Ms. Likens: We have not done any financial analysis on the level of what the LAO has done. 21 Our High-Speed Rail Committee has been tracking all of the documents produced by the LAO 22 and for the most part is supportive of the critiquing. The LAO had basically mirrored many of 23 the comments that have raised by the High-Speed Rail Committee. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 37 of 71 1 2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but we are not planning on doing any sort of review of their analysis or 3 analysis of their analysis, if you will? 4 5 Mr. Williams: I don't think we are. Isn't there Cambridge or somebody that is doing some 6 further? 7 8 Ms. Likens: Well the High-Speed Rail Authority has retained basically the ITS Department at 9 UC Berkeley to critique the ridership assumptions and the ridership analysis that was prepared, 10 actually the assumptions of the ridership analysis that was done by Cambridge Systematics. 11 CARRD representatives have been tracking that very closely and I think we expect their work to 12 be completed and made public by the end of the month. Perhaps Nadia has an update on that. 13 14 Ms. Naik: I would say two things. One is Berkeley is not looking at the ridership assumptions. 15 Berkeley has been asked to peer review the model that was 'used to determine the ridership 16 forecasts. We are expecting that hopefully in the next week or two they are going to come out 17 with a report on what that is. 18 19 To go to what I think is your financial question, I think something that we have learned in the 20 subcommittees has been that at the policy working group where the Mayor has been in 21 attendance it became clear that the costing information that is in the Appendix ofthe AA shows 22 that the costing for the aerial structure is only for two tracks and not for four. That was very 23 significant. Basically the Caltrain folks and the Peninsula Rail Program people admitted that City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 380f71 1 was an error. The Mayor has since requested that that be clarified and further information be 2 given, and that has not come out. I am not sure that the Commission was aware of that so it is 3 important to note that essentially the costing numbers are completely off. 4 5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. Thanks for that. So the comment that I would make is that I read this 6 letter in detail and I was just so impressed with the amount of work that went in there. The one 7 section that seems to be lacking, and I think it even goes as far as to again, as Commissioner 8 Martinez said, questioning whether the Guiding Principles are sacrosanct. It seems to me that 9 there ought to be a Guiding Principle that says Palo Alto would never support a project that is 10 financially unfeasible. 11 12 I know that is sort of a blinding glimpse of the obvious but I think it highlights the fact that there 13 are a lot of real deep questions. The questions not only go to on the Cap Ex side whether there is 14 enough, what are the costing estimates to build this thing, but the Op Ex side when we get to 15 running this thing down the road. That is where the ridership issues come in front and center, but 16 there are going to be more than just the ridership issues. There are going to be how competitive 17 is it going to be, and all that sort of stuff. 18 19 So it seemed to me that the analysis that we have done and what we are putting forth in this 20 letter, and maybe appropriately so, the vast majority of it is focused on sort of the technical 21 aspects and the configurations and all that sort of stuff. I don't think we are strong enough in this 22 letter on the financial side. I think from the snippets and bits that I have heard from other City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 39 of 71 1 meetings, and from talking to Council Members and the Mayor and folks from CARRD there are 2 some serious, serious flaws that I think need to come out and we need to take a stronger position. 3 4 Here we are saying essentially we agree with the analysis that has been done by these other 5 groups, it is flawed, but I don't see the so what? To me the so what is therefore we cannot 6 support a project that is financially flawed. Now maybe it is implicit but I think we need to be 7 explicit. Again, financially flawed not only on the up-front costs but also on the operating costs. 8 One of my questions, not as a Commissioner but as a taxpayer and as a resident of the State of 9 California, is what the heck happens if they a) run out of money on the Cap Ex side when they 10 are building this thing, and b) down the road if the ridership doesn't materialize what does that 11 mean for us as taxpayers and residents? I want to know the answers to those questions. I know 12 that there are some discussions out there around that but perhaps putting some focus in this 13 document would be helpful. 14 17 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I first want to thank the public for coming out and of course 18 Staff for the work on this. First two point on the Guiding Principles. First of all, I do agree with 19 Commissioners Martinez and Lippert in terms of this is an opportunity for Palo Alto to actually 20 solve a lot of problems around this corridor that we probably can never do ever again, at least for 21 some time. So I think that is something that we should maybe consider heavily to add to the 22 Guiding Principles. 23 City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 400/71 1 The other part is that Palo Alto is known around the world as being an environmental leader. I 2 think as we find a lot of the issues in this project I think it is also important for us to emphasize 3 that yes, even though there are a lot of issues we are concerned about climate change and the 4 environment. 5 6 So some comments on the Alternatives Analysis. I think it does make a lot of sense to actually 7 delay some of the reservoir work not only to figure out whether this will impact the flexibility of 8 possibly having a station or the tracks, but perhaps since the reservoir looks like it is going to be 9 underground as well perhaps there could also be some cost savings if they are co-developed. 10 Where there is a way for the overall project to be reduced in cost as well, which is important for 11 Palo Alto right now where capital improvements are a concern. So that is one comment that we 12 may want to consider, or not necessarily a comment but something we want to internalize as we 13 plan out the reservoir project. 14 15 This is a question for Staff. Does Staff know how many freight trains we have right now on 16 Caltrain? 17 18 Ms. Silver: I don't know the exact number. I think there are two or three. 19 20 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, that is what I heard. It is very rare. It is like two or three or 21 maybe one or so but not very much. I think something to also perhaps have in the response here 22 is given that a lot of the heavy manufacturing, the Port of Oakland where a lot of the shipping 23 happens these days, and it is kind made obliquely in one the public comments, perhaps to City of Palo Alto June ]7, 2010 Page 41 of71 1 encourage the analysis of having freight trains on the East Bay only and not having them here on 2 the peninsula. That way we don't have to worry about diesel trains on the tracks here on the 3 peninsula. That could open more flexibility on the design. So if that could be done I think that 4 would be helpful, because that would open up opportunities. 5 6 So if you were able to get rid of the freight trains then perhaps all the trains could be in the 7 tunneling option thus perhaps lowering the cost versus having a tunnel and then a trench on top, 8 or a cut and cover on top. So this is another possibility to perhaps reduce the cost of the project 9 as well as going back to the earlier point that Commissioner Martinez made in terms of fixing a 10 lot of the grade separation issues and getting everything underground, and thus turning this 11 project into not just an okay project but a really great project that helps Palo Alto as well. So I 12 think that would be something that should also be considered if the freight trains in the East Bay 13 make sense given what has been happening on the peninsula. That's it for now. 14 15 Chair Garber: I have two very general comments before I come back to some more specific ones 16 on our next round or so. Interestingly, my comments are, although slightly different they do 17 share some of the comments that have been made by the public earlier this evening. When we 18 talk about High-Speed Rail what we are not talking about is, or when I talk about it at any rate, 19 we are talking about a lot of near and midterm impacts that can happen to Palo Alto and the pros 20 and cons of doing that. I was just doing a little research here, when Caltrain was first created and 21 it was not Cal train at that time that was in 1863 or thereabouts. That train drove the development 22 of the peninsula, and allowed people like Stanford to imagine creating a university and the City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 42 of71 1 surrounding towns that occurred there. Highway 101 was started in the mid 1920's. That was 2 some 63 years later. Then 280 completed in the mid 1960's or something of that sort. 3 4 Each one 6f these major transportation lines drove significant development and improvement to 5 the peninsula, to Stanford, to Palo Alto. What we are really talking about here is the next 50 to 6 60 years of what this city is going to become. We cannot lose sight of what the opportunities are 7 here for us as a result of that. So my initial comment here is in particular for our Council 8 Members is not to become constrained in their vision of what we can do here by the immediate 9 issues that we have in front of us and are trying to get through relative to grades and right-of-way 10 .and subsurface infrastructure, etc. 11 12 This brings me to the second point and that is just by way of example the Boston Big Dig, which 13 was started in 1985 or 1986, or something of that sort. At that time it was budgeted at $2 billion 14 and by the time it finished up in 2005 or so it was $22 billion, which tells you any number of 15 things but among them that we are talking about major dollars here, and you can do a lot with a 16 billion dollars, and that is just the starting point for what this project is going to be. As we talk 17 about mitigations, mitigations are not simply changing intersections for a project like this. The 18 amount of money that needs to be spent in order to allow these sorts of projects to occur is 19 enormous, and it is not as though Palo Alto would end up with a million dollars to try and spread 20 out to mitigate the sorts of impacts that this sort of project would have. 21 22 So by way of example, you end up with projects say like the parking garage over Grant Park in 23 Chicago, which is a two-story parking garage that is all below grade over 25 acres or something City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 43 of71 1 of that sort, and has a full park with mature trees and a band shell and any number of other 2 structures on top of it. That parking garage has significantly more than the 800 spaces that are 3 being required by a station. 4 5 So again, vision is extraordinarily important here. I only raise these two particular issu~s as a 6 way to help us remind ourselves that we can utilize this project for tremendous benefit on an 7 ongoing basis but we need to be flexible and open-minded enough to allow ourselves to see it. I 8 will get to some more very specific comments next time around. 9 10 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber, I wanted to make a comment that initially related to Mr. Martinez 11 and Mr. Tanaka's comments, but is particularly relevant I think to yours as well just as a sort of 12 sideline of information. All of you know when you met with the Council and talked about the 13 Comprehensive Plan and that, one of the issues on the table which the Council still has not acted 14 on or provided direction on is whether to or to what extent to incorporate the High-Speed Rail 15 into the Comprehensive Plan effort or develop some kind of a Comprehensive Plan component 16 of High-Speed Rail. Well, the subcommittee, the High-Speed Rail Committee has asked Staff to 17 put together sort of an outline of a scope of work for basically a rail corridor planning effort. We 18 have done that and they were going to talk about it this morning, but it was too late in their 19 meeting to really get into it. So they will talk about it in a couple of weeks from now. 20 21 The extent to which that will help inform the Alternatives Analysis is obviously very minimal, 22 but hopefully will be timely enough to at least provide input as the EIR is prepared, and as we 23 move forward and make further comments on the project down the line. The first thing we did City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 44 of71 1 was suggest dividing it up into three phases and the first one is having that vision discussion of 2 what are the opportunities and what are the constraints and obstacles associated with it. So 3 defining and being sure particularly to find those opportunities as well as the constraints. The 4 second phase is essentially a lot of the analysis that goes into developing perhaps alternatives 5 under the different alignment scenarios, and the land use, transportation, and urban design 6 elements of that. Then the third phase is basically selecting an alternative to move forward with, 7 the implementation measures, how that gets embodied in our Comprehensive Plan, etc., etc. So 8 there is not direction and money yet from the Council to do that but we are sort of moving that 9 way and I thought as background you should be aware of that. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Commissioners Fineberg and then Lippert. Sure, 12 Commissioner Martinez. 13 14 Commissioner Martinez: Planning Director, Williams, is there time to do that and fold it into the 15 High-Speed Rail process? Do we know? 16 17 Mr. Williams: To some extent that depends on how long each of these process take. How long 18 it takes for us to do that, how long it takes for the High-Speed Rail process to come to some 19 decision points. Our thought is that there can be some of that overall visioning and identification 20 of opportunities and such that is timely with at least the release of the EIR, and discussions that 21 pursue from there. If High-Speed Rail stays on the schedule that they say they are on we are not, 22 I don't think, going to have a plan developed by the time they make a decision. We will be 23 operating a bit more from the reactive mode in terms of what that is but still having an City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 45 of71 1 opportunity to then plan based on that. So they are going to be running somewhat parallel but 2 obviously High-Speed Rail is out in front of this effort right now. We can try and catch up but 3 frankly the money and time is not on our side to act very quickly but we can at least get started 4 on that and have some of those big picture discussions before the project moves too far down. 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Regarding Commissioner Tuma's comment about fiscal or 9 financial impacts, it might be worth adding some kind of comment also relating to keeping Palo 10 Alto whole financially. For instance, if we have certain grade crossings, let's say Charleston or 11 East Meadow or Churchill, and if High-Speed Rail is at grade there and they build an 12 undergrounded cross-street do they get to the end of their right-of-way, we have a nice 13 underground and then a road that is up at grade suspended in the air, and High-Speed Rail says 14 the cost of lowering your road is Palo Alto's responsibility? I have seeing from CARRD the 15 nodding heads, no. I have heard information --I believe it was High-Speed Rail Officials at 16 High-Speed Rail meetings saying their financial responsibility ends at the edge of their right-of- 17 way. So however that is handled we need an understanding of it, and we need to know that 18 whatever High-Speed Rail does leaves us as a city whole. Whether it is worded as 'whole' or 19 'no negative costs' however. 20 21 I want to take a giant step back and ask if we are at the right altitude on our comments. We have 22 been given the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, which has a limited scope of four or 23 five different vertical alignments. This analysis is being presented to us while the Program EIR City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 46 of 71 5 Mr. Williams: Right and that is also something that was discussed a little bit this morning. We 6 obviously made all those comments with the Program EIR comments. We do have in the 7 introductory section here indication that we would, in fact in like the very first paragraph talking 8 about revisiting the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass routes, and we are going to expand that to 9 talk a bit about 101 and other alternative things. So there will be a little more in here like that. 10 We don't want to focus too much on it. It is a bit outside and we don't want to lose the focus on 11 the alternatives themselves, but we did want to couch them in that context. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I was wondering about the 101 so thank you for saying you will 14 fill that out a little. 15 16 Okay, let me try and run through a bunch of things really quickly. Not sure, Staff will have to 17 decide if it is worth including a comment that there was less than clarity about the vertical 18 alignment for the deep bore tunnel. When one read the descriptive text in Chapter 3 and when 19 one looked at financial calculations it appeared as if a deep bore tunnel meant a deep bore tunnel 20 through, Palo Alto. There were no costs for the portal and the ramp, but yet when you get to 21 Appendix B hidden there you can·see that is clearly what the intent is. So I think it is worth a 22 statement saying 'misleading' or 'less than clear.' 23 City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 47 0/71 1 Also, regarding that on page 3-18, Section 7-A, it talks about the basis for removal of a below 2 grade option in the section north of Adobe Creek because it conflicts with Adobe Creek. I don't 3 understand that because if a deep bore tunnel is viable under San Francisquito Creek I don't 4 understand why a deep bore tunnel can't go under Adobe Creek. Isn't the reason it is being 5 eliminated is because they want to bring it to grade in Mountain View and it has nothing to do 6 with the creek? Then the creek happens to be sitting there if they are corning close to grade. But 7 it would be just as viable to stay way under Adobe Creek and corne up further south. That begs 8 the question of what heck does Mountain View want in Mountain View? 9 10 Ms. Likens: We had a preliminary staff-to-staffmeeting with Mountain View a couple of 11 months ago. The High-Speed Rail Committee has requested that Staff arrange for a joint policy 12 level discussion with the High-Speed Rail Committee in Mountain View to discuss transitions in 13 . particular, and to do the same thing with the City of Menlo Park. We need to understand what 14 each of those communities is interested in and how what would happen in Section 7-A because 15 of what they have determined in Mountain View in this document would affect Palo Alto and 16 vice-versa, especially 'if their thoughts in Mountain View have changed. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because if I can just finish this. If Mountain View wants, and I 19 have no reason to believe that this would be want they want, but if they want a deep tunnel the 20 deep tunnel continues. If they want trench maybe we can have a deep tunnel longer. I have 21 more particulars I will hold for my next round. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 48 of71 1 2 Commissioner Lippert: I stared out as very enthusiastic about High-Speed Rail coming through 3 our city and I am very quickly beginning to become very frustrated, and I am also becoming very 4 disenchanted with the process. What I think I am beginning to find is that the process is really 5 very opaque. There are efforts to make it in the public eye but ultimately what I am concerned 6 about is something that my colleague Commissioner Martinez said and he wanted to steer away 7 from conspiracy theories, they are out there. I guess what I am beginning to find and I am 8 becoming disenchanted about is that we can comment on this and talk about the deficiencies in 9 the report. We can comment on what our vision is. Ultimately somebody out ther~ is going to lObe making these decisions, and whether we look at a deep tunnel alternative, a surface 11 alternative, or a raised alternative, or even a trenched alternative somebody is going to be making 12 decisions. Both you and I as architects, and Commissioner Martinez know that behind every 13 engineering or architectural design project there are cost considerations. 14 15 What I see here are a couple of things. Number one, the lack of information, the detailed-ness of 16 the report. Number two, the cost analysis is flawed. When I say it is flawed I mean the numbers 17 are skewed. Either they are pushed exceedingly high in some areas but there is no reason given 18 as to why they are exceedingly high, or they are low-balled and there is no rationale as to why 19 they are low-balled. So what I am beginning to understand or beginning to think is maybe this 20 process is manipulated in a way that there is a certain outcome that has already been 21 predetermined. You don't have to look at the adjacent properties, and the reason you don't have 22 to look at the adjacent properties is that maybe the whole thing is going underground. Maybe it 23 is going away. Maybe it is not stopping in Palo Alto. Maybe it is coming out at a certain place City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 49 0/71 1 so that it can become at surface in a city that desires it to be at surface so that they can have a 2 transit node there. 3 4 Where I am going is that in some ways we may be spending a lot of time and a lot of effort on 5 something that in fact may be predetermined and it may be the thing that is a self-fulfilling 6 prophecy. We don't want to see it. We don't want to hear it. We don't want to know it is here 7 and it won't be here. The unfortunate thing about looking at that and saying that so publicly is 8 that what it doesn't allow us to do is do exactly what Chair Garber says, which is that this is a 9 game-changer to be able to determine how we are going to grow and what we want here in this 10 city. That is unfortunate. I have looked at this. I have spent numerous hours as to what I think 11 the vision for High-Speed Rail should be here, but unless I can get some understanding as to 12 what is behind the curtain and who is really pulling the strings, and who is doing this, we are 13 spending an awful lot of time on something that may already be predetermined. The same thing 14 with the High-Speed Rail Committee. 15 16 I don't know if there is a way for Staff to answer that or not, but it is definitely a concern of 17 mine. So maybe what you can answer is what the process really is at the state level. Who is 18 making these decisions, and what are they making the determinations on? Number two, there are 19 basis for making overriding considerations in terms of mitigations and who is going to be 20 making those kinds of determinations? Is it the same group of people? I guess in some ways, 21 and I hate to bring it up, the whole thing that is going on in the gulf right now with the giant oil 22 slick. We had the Department of the Interior and the Mineral Mines Department that had the 23 same oversight and regulation on the leases and relaxed the regulations. Is there a conflict of City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 50 of 71 1 interest here? An entity that is given the task of having high-speed rail go from San Francisco to 2 LA in two hours and 40 minutes, is that what it is, being the same group of people that are 3 reviewing the necessary public documentation behind that. Again, I don't want to say that there 4 is a conspiracy theory going on I just think it is just like the way the railroads were back in the 5 1800's with the robber barons. They decided that the railroad is going to go here, they are going 6 to build it, and there is no way that anybody is going to stop it. In this case, maybe it is the High- 7 Speed Rail Authority, and they are the new modem day robber barons. 8 9 Ms. Likens: I think you have asked a very complex question and that is somewhat evolving. 10 The High-Speed Rail Authority is the statewide authority that has been tasked with developing 11 this plan and implementing it. However, the legislature had great control over the financial 12 resources that are available. There has been a lot of political scrutiny of the business plan, of the 13 operating plan, of the High-Speed Rail Authority structure and the way they are operating right 14 now. So I think this is going to be evolving. 15 16 One thing that the City has taken the opportunity to do is to comment at every stage very 17 thoroughly and completely to get on the record, not be on the sidelines, to be engaged both 18 politically on the record and through all the other avenues that we have working with the 19 legislature, working with adjacent cities. But it is a complex thing and there are a lot of 20 deficiencies in the current status. There may be legislative changes that could occur in the 21 future. There are a number of bills being proposed for how the structure of High-Speed Rail 22 would operate, and what controls the legislature would like to put on them. So I guess I don't 23 have a definitive answer. City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 510/71 1 2 Mr. Williams: I would just add to that that the effort is we think worthwhile I think worst case, 3 yes, the High-Speed Rail Authority maybe in the end can override a lot of things, but there are a 4 lot of ideas being put forward and some of them inevitably have to catch and take hold and get 5 incorporated. So I think whatever is going to be an improvement over if we don't participate. 6 Then secondarily Gayle talked about the legislative component, which is very important, and we 7 have engaged in that dialogue with our legislators and other legislators at the state level and at 8 the federal level. Then I certainly would not minimize the unity of a lot of local voices as well. I 9 think that there are a lot of questions that are getting asked, and when they do then whether they 10 are on details like provide us the noise information and all that, or whether they are financial 11 questions about the viability, etc. that they have to respond at least to those. Some of them again 12 generate some better ideas, and some of them they might actually find out are useful for them. 13 While we don't have approval authority I think what Commissioner Fineberg mentioned as far as 14 like the streets, the intersections, and grade separations and that there is a big dollar ticket for 15 them to be providing all these grade separations. A lot of those, as was demonstrated by Sara's 16 map~, a lot of those are going to extend far outside the right-of-way of Cal train. When they do 17 the High-Speed Rail Authority I assume has two choices. One is that they pay to make that 18 happen or they somehow get the cities, or somehow do things for the cities that the cities want to 19 have done so that the cities are willing to incur some of that cost themselves. When I am talking 20 about that I am talking about the road improvements themselves not the homes and all that kind 21 of thing. 22 23 Chair Garber: Or three they choose a design that avoids that. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 52 of71 1 2 Mr. Williams: Right. Yes, good point. 3 4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just a brief comment. I don't disagree that there is some sense of lack of 7 control here but I think we have also seen things like through the efforts of residents and what 8 the City has been doing, if you look at some of the stuff in the reports tonight about options not 9 carried forward like the berm, aerial open trench over Section 6-A, aerial Section 6-C, even the 10 fact that we are using CSS as a process here that was something that was generated locally. So I 11 think that yes, we certainly don't have any control over the ultimate decision, but shaping it, 12 moving it forward, and getting it down a path that maybe more palatable has already shown to be 13 one of the outcomes along the way. So I think it is a very worthwhile process. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. Were you done Commissioner Lippert? 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: I will pass. 18 19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Tuma. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: Actually I had kind of a different take from Commissioner Lippert 22 about Chair Garber's comment. I was kind of inspired that yes there is great hope and great 23 possibility for this process. Ithink Vice-Chair Tuma kind of reinforced that as well. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 53 of71 1 2 Since the sage of the Commission is missing tonight I am going to take the role of giving the 3 quote of the day and quote Wayne Gretzky in that you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't 4 take. So I think we should put forth those items that will make this plan better as soon as 5 possible. For example, we should state that we want our roads to cross this right-of-way at 6 grade. The reason we do that is because it really reinforces the below grade options that would 7 make the project better for Palo Alto. It also makes the connectivity to our city better. 8 9 If you look at our grade crossings now those that go under Caltrain are terrible and don't work 10 for pedestrians. Probably the best crossing we have is University across El Camino, which is at 11 grade. It is kind of long but you see a lot of people doing it, and a lot of bicycles, and you see 12 less of that where there are these conflicts. So I would really stress the importance of that. 13 14 I don't know sort of where we are leaning on the Palo Alto station. I think it is kind of 15 contradictory to want to hold onto that since we are really trying to support and enhance Caltrain. 16 The ability to get on Caltrain and ride to San Jose to pick up High-Speed Rail seems clear. I take 17 Caltrain to the airport all the time. I don't expect the airplane to taxi down to my house to pick 18 me up. So I think we can really stress the things that really are going to work for Palo Alto. 19 Three thousand cars at California Avenue doesn't sound great and it probably wouldn't be. I 20 think we have lots of opportunities for development we don't need High-Speed Rail for that. I 21 think some clarity on sort of what we are looking for is really going to help the process move in 22 our direction. As Commissioner Tuma said, we are very strong and forthright about the elevated 23 structure and it looks like that will go away as well. So I think if we continue on the path of City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 54 of71 1 really stating what we want, what works, what makes the plan better, what we will support, what 2 will make it move faster I think we will begin to get some sympathy from High-Speed Rail 3 Authority. Thank you. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Tanaka. 6 7 Vice-Chair Tuma: I just have a brief comment. At the very beginning of this process, which 8 was well before any of us were talking about it in here, I voted for this thing. Chair Garber's 9 comments earlier sort of brought me I wouldn't say full circle but back to thinking about why I 10 voted for it. I voted for it because without a lot of detail coming forth about it, and probably just 11 my lack of understanding about what was going on, conceptually it seemed like a great idea. I 12 think today conceptually it still seems like a great idea. If you could sort of close your eyes and 13 envision this high-speed rail as part of the next 30,40,50 years of how we get around California 14 and hopefully other parts of the country it is interesting. So I think Council should very much 15 take to heart what Chair Garber was saying and continue to work along the lines that we have 16 been working along to make it better. I do stick with what I said earlier which is the financial 17 viability of the thing. If there is a way to make all of these pieces work together and get 18 something out of it that is probably never going to make everybody happy in terms of what we 19 yYant, but things that don't create the .destruction and havoc and really altering the community 20 that we all love, then there is room for a solution. So I think we should be critical, be forceful, 21 and forthright in what we want, but at the same time imagining a world where there is a 22 significant high-speed rail component to our overall transportation. We talk a lot in our family 23 and friend about how wonderful it is to get around Europe on trains. I spent a lot of time in City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 55 0/71 1 Japan on trains, the network that you have there. It has to start somewhere. So maybe there is a 2 solution here that works for everybody, Palo Alto right on out to the rest of the country. It is 3 something worth thinking about and I thank our Chair for sort of raising those thoughts again. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka and then Garber. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: I was thinking about what one of the members of the public mentioned 8 in terms of having a station at California A venue. I was thinking about my fellow 9 Commissioners' comments about should we even have a station and I realized that we are going 10 to have a deeper discussion about this in September. I think it may be beneficial for us to start 11 actually to think ahead of time about whether we want a station, what are the economic benefits 12 of having a station. I certainly know that Redwood City is vying for that and perhaps even 13 Mountain View. Generally by having a station it brings a lot of economic benefits and of course 14 associated impacts in terms of traffic, parking, etc. I think if we can make that decision sooner 15 than later and if the answer is we do want to have it then we should probably pursue it 16 aggressively since I imagine other cities will compete for it if they want it as well. 17 18 I thought this comment about having a station at California Avenue is actually quite interesting 19 for several different reasons. So perhaps that is something that can also be in the Alternatives 20 Analysis in terms of could there be a station at California Avenue. For one reason it looks like 21 the portal is actually starting to enter in around Oregon, it is a little hard to tell on the map, but 22 somewhere around that area. Maybe it wouldn't necessarily be California A venue maybe it City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 56 of 71 1 would an Oregon or Page Mill station, which actually has great access to 101, to 280, much 2 better than University. So actually that kind of is an interesting comment. 3 4 We are also looking at a concept plan for the California Avenue area, which would include 5 Oregon Expressway for that section. So it could be a good time to actually plan around that as 6 well. There is a lot of potential redevelopment in this area and it is actually the center of Palo 7 Alto, just about the geographic center of Palo Alto. So there are a lot of reasons to actually think 8 about that possible concept, to have a station at California A venue or maybe Oregon where there 9 could maybe be some parking like Chair Garber mentioned, underground with really nice trees 10 on top. 11 12 I think of course the first thing we have to figure out is would this be a net economic benefit for 13 Palo Alto. I think we should accelerate that decision fairly quickly if we 90uld. I think the 14 competition for the station will be competitive. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Garber: A couple of comments. Let me just state it this way, I support Commissioner 17 Tanaka's comments about the City and the interests the City should have in evaluating a station 18 and its pursuit of that. I believe that the key piece to that is engaging Stanford in that 19 conversation and that presentation that will eventually be made. That is the critical distinguisher 20 for us, and is the reason that we are the hub that we are today. 21 22 Relative to the letter, I think in the way that we have sort of put our foot down on above grade 23 alternatives we should put our foot down strongly on below grade ones, and that should be clear. City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 57 of 71 1 There should be some conversation, granted we are nowhere near the IR stage here, but the 2 conceptual cost estimates, and then the sort of mitigation conversations. Somehow we need to 3 be talking about, and mitigations sounds like such a small word, but what we are really talking 4 about are significant impacts that need to be accommodated here. Somehow we need to get that 5 language,into this letter. That those mitigations need to be made part of this project and part of 6 the consideration of this, and that they are not small. The nexus is enormous here even 7 compared to a project the size of Stanford. 8 9 Mr. Williams: Can I ask for clarification on that? Are you talking about the mitigations that 10 make below ground or below grade work? , 11 12 Chair Garber: That would make anyone of the alternatives that might be considered, but 13 perhaps particularly the below grade ones. If we were to have a station here and we were to meet 14 the requirements that the High-Speed Rail Authority has set forth as part of that in a conceptual 15 way, meaning all the roadwork, all the infrastructure work that is presumably a part of this same 16 project. It is not clear to me whether it is or not but if there are separations, all of the work that 17 would have to go into the construction, which will have tremendous impacts over some numbers 18 of years. There are a lot of dollars. There is rerouting streets, infrastructure. I have no idea but 19 there are a lot of peripheral secondary costs that I would look to be wrapping into this entire 20 project. Granted we are way early before trying to analyze any ofthat stuff, but we need to get 21 the consciousness raised on that topic. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 58 of7l 1 I would also like to emphasize there are comments regarding the elimination of the Interstate 280 2 and US 101 alternatives. I would like to emphasize those, because very early about a year or two 3 ago when we were talking about those alternatives origin~lly as it is set here briefly I think it is 4 worth adding a few more sentences about those, they present alternative routes that have 5 radically less impacts to our community. Relative to the High-Speed Rail Authority significantly 6 fewer communities to deal with. I recognize the advantage of dealing with Caltrain and going 7 that route because you have a clear right-of-way from point A to point B. As we are finding out 8 it ain't so clear. So utilizing the highways is a procedure that has been used in a variety of 9 strategies throughout the country, and it simplifies a lot. Relative to the impact to Palo Alto one 10 of the clear advantages there is that if we were to go down say for instance 101 is a station at San 11 Antonio would completely revitalize South Palo Alto and how we envision South Palo Alto and 12 the role it plays in the city. That was talked about or mentioned when it first came here. 13 14 One of the other things that is not addressed in here and this is further down the line, but is again 15 the plan that would have to be put in place during construction. I am not just talking about 16 dollars here. I am talking about how we actually go about that plan, how we put that plan 17 together, how it gets implemented and rolled out over a series of years. 18 19 If I may I am just going to walk through my other pieces here very quickly and then I will be 20 done. We have already talked about the water reservoir. Okay, that is good for me at the 21 moment. 22 City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 59 0/71 1 Commissioner Fineberg. This is our third round everybody. Let's see if we can make this our 2 last. So if you have comments that you want to roll up and complete let's see if we can do it this 3 time. Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert. 4 5 Commissioner Fineberg: Let me see start with some fine points and then I will wrap up with a 6 global comment. I think we need to beefup our comments on what the construction impacts will 7 be on traffic at the Alma corridor. I know there were some comments in the letter but 8 specifically, and I know we don't hav~ an EIR so there is not information, but specifically if 9 there are construction impacts on Alma where will those cars detour to? Then if the full build 10 out depending on the alignment includes a permanent taking of Alma and reduced capacity on 11 Alma where will those cars detour to? And, what will the impacts be given the Stanford Hospital 12 Project that is currently being developed? Much of their mitigations include reliance on Caltrain. 13 If Caltrain operations are ceased it will create negative impacts that have to be considered that 14 the High-Speed Rail Project is then causing. If Caltrain ceases existence and we have High- 15 Speed Rail and there is one stop in San Francisco and one stop in Mountain View what happens 16 to all of our local transit that is dependent on having local stations, whereas High-Speed Rail 17 won't? If High-Speed Rail replaces Caltrain are they going to introduce a local service? That is 18 a sort of bigger, thornier issue. I am not sure how it would work in but does the Alternatives 19 Analysis need to include cumulative impacts including I think it is hundreds of thousands if not 20 millions of square feet of office space being built in the County portion of Stanford and what 21 those traffic impacts would be along Alma during construction and at full build out. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 60 of 71 1 There is a comment C.5-23 in our letter that talks about the liquefaction of soils at Oregon either 2 with that or near that. I think there should be a similar comment about toxic plumes. It is 3 known, it is big. If you are bringing it up to grade and running it through a toxic plume what are 4 the dollar costs, and is it even viable? Obviously it would have to be for it to be pursued but are 5 they planning on an option that could be ruled out if there was some focus there? 6 7 Then in the south in Map 7-1 it has the deep tunnel option coming up higher than the trench 8 option. I don't understand why it is that way. Maybe can our consultant that is nodding his head 9 comment on that? 10 11 Chair Garber: Please introduce yourself as you begin. 12 13 Mr. Jeff Smith, RMT: Good evening. That is a question that we have been asking as well. The 14 maps perhaps are not accurate showing the elevations but yes, I see that cross point and deep 15 tunnel is actually higher than cut and cover or open trench, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: Did we ask that question in the letter? Did I miss finding it and it is in 18 there, or do we need to add that as a question/comment? 19 20 Mr. Smith: Don't think it is in there stated as clearly as that. We can make that clear in this 21 letter. 22 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 61 of71 1 Commissioner Fineberg: Please do that, thank you. Okay. We talked earlier about needing 2 more understanding of noise and vibration impacts. I think there needs to be some emphasis on 3 that in the areas where if there isn't a deep tunnel where it might be higher. So from Oregon 4 south what the differences would be. I know there still will be impacts from mechanical 5 equipment and ventilation with a deep tunnel. Specifically we have Green Meadow in the south 6 that has historic designation. There are peculiarities about the structures. They are Eichler 7 homes that have floor-to-ceiling single pane glass. There are restrictions on changing what the 8 exteriors look like. This would be true for Green Meadow and the circles to the north of 9 Charleston. The heating is in the floor. If you vibrate a 50-year old concrete slab with barely 10 functional pipes in it you cause leaks, you take out $25,000 heating systems. You can't retrofit it 11 for less than $30,000 or $40,000, significant, significant impacts that don't exist in normal 12 prevailing construction methods. I think it is worth specifically calling that out as something that 13 requires additional analysis and understanding both the historic designation in Green Meadow 14 and the construction methods of the Eichlers throughout the corridor. 15 16 In the same way that I think it was a wonderful analysis of the impacts at Palo Alto Medical 17 Foundation I think we need that same level of analysis, you talked about working with PAUSD 18 for Paly High School. I think we also need that for the historic Green Meadow neighborhood 19 and possibly for some of the parks that are within the impact zone throughout the corridor. 20 21 In Comment C.5-31 I referred to it earlier but this is the citation. It needs to include a discussion 22 of Subsection 7. 23 City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 62 of 71 1 Then one of the other specific comments is there is a curve in the track right by San Antonio. I 2 am hearing that that curve requires high-speed trains to slow down. It might be worth stating 3 that a benefit of a deep tunnel is that one avoids a curve. I don't know what the air rights rules 4 are but you could do a straight line and eliminate a curve. Just something that might be called 5 out for notice. 6 7 Okay, global comment. If one thinks of trains as a product it has a life cycle and it has ways they 8 are marketed. Trains are interesting because depending on whether you look at them as a metal 9 box that has an engine and it goes, or whether you look at it as something that moves people 10 trains replaced other modes of transportation. They put the buggies out of business. Then in the 11 1950's cars came along and our federal government invested in the automobile industry. It 12 invested in highway infrastructure, and it invested later in airlines. It heavily invested in airlines 13 subsidizing the airline industry with things like high-speed computing facilities, super computing 14 facilities, wind tunnels at Moffett, cities subsidize it by paying for big airports. Federal 15 government has huge departments of our government the FAA, TSA, and the airlines don't 16 necessarily bear all those costs all by themselves. We as a country made a decision that we were 17 going to stop dealing with trains and start dealing with cars and airplanes. 18 19 Now for various reasons congestion, carbon footprint, capacity we are going backwards and 20 finding that maybe now trains are better. But unless we can get cities, states, and our federal 21 government to invest again in the technology there just is no way to get the financing to afford 22 them. I understand that there is a $2 billion investment in stimulus money but that is not going to 23 go very far when you are talking about a San Francisco to LA trip. One of my concerns is that City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 63 of71 1 we are going to end up building a high-speed rail train from San Francisco to San Jose and then 2 run out of money, and maybe have another one on the other end. There is absolutely no logic to 3 me in building an express train from San Francisco to San Jose that costs a thousand times the 4 magnitude of every improvement we would want and what we already have now. How we do it 5 so that we don't end up with that is going to be what makes the entire project work or be a 6 colossal failure. The two ends, San Francisco and LA have to meet or having San Francisco to 7 San Jose doesn't matter. 8 9 I don't know what we can do. We are kind of visioning this forward-looking trains are good. 10 The beauty of the train on the Caltrain right-of-way is it follows the historic development path 11 when EI Camino Real was the anchor for all the little villages that sprang up. It is where the 12 people are. Ifwe are trying to get the people to walk to the train and get out of their cars, if all 13 the transit brings people to those stations along that path then that is the beauty of the system. 14 Having it be off somewhere else doesn't capture that kind of elegance in the system. Then the 15 curse of it is the impacts are then huge. The ways we have to work around the mitigations may 16 make it infeasible or certainly more difficult but to me it is worth trying to get those mitigations 17 right so that we can maintain the elegant routing. So that is it for me. 18 19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: First of all I would like to apologize to my fellow Commissioners. I had 22 gotten so low that you might think that I was supporting the deep tunnel alternative and got stuck City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 64 of 71 1 there, but I am a lot more resilient and a lot more enthusiastic about High-Speed Rail than I let 2 on in my last line of questioning. 3 4 This is really a game-changer that Chair Garber pointed out. This is really a century project. 5 This is a project that has the ability to change the whole complexion of not just Palo Alto but 6 also the State of California. Despite what we may do in this room it is going to get built. It is 7 going to be successful. It is going to wind up being something that is going to really meet a lot 8 of the demands of California. Probably the most significant thing is that it will help reduce 9 greenhouse gas emissions. 10 11 I want you to imagine for a second now, we all travel by air. We all fly to Southern California 12 and we drive to the airport. And we usually plan to be there an hour ahead of time, and we wait 13 around for another hour. Well, just in those two hours of getting to the airport and waiting for 14 our flight we could be three-quarters of the way to Los Angeles on high-speed rail. In addition 15 to that while air transportation is the most efficient per passenger mile of flying from point to 16 point, high-speed rail is far more efficient than that in terms of fuel consumption and eliminating 17 greenhouse gas emissions. 18 19 The reason I say this, and it is so important, is that there are three things that really define Palo 20 Alto. Number one, El Palo Alto. Portola and his men stopped here, they camped here on their 21 way traversing California, and put Palo Alto on the map. The second thing is Stanford 22 University. That was conceived and built by the railroad barons. Number three, Palo Alto is the City 0/ Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 65 0/71 1 epicenter of Silicon Valley. When people say Silicon Valley it is synonymous with Palo Alto. 2 You tell them you are from Palo Alto they say oh, Silicon Valley. 3 4 Now why do I say that? The reason I say that Palo Alto is the epicenter of Silicon Valley is that 5 where that train station is will be defined as the center of Silicon Valley and that is important in 6 terms of our economy here in Palo Alto. 7 8 Something that Commissioner Tanaka said that is very important and I have been thinking about 9 for a long time is that Palo Alto is in need of a station but it isn't a Downtown station. There are 10 too many impacts. We have the impact of an historic train station. We have the impact of EI 11 Palo Alto. California Avenue is a fresh canvas. It has several things that are very important. 12 Number one, a year and a half ago or two years ago we voted in PTOD, Pedestrian Transit 13 Overlay District. It has the potential of having increased growth and higher density in Palo Alto. 14 As we go through our Comprehensive Plan Housing Update we probably will begin to look at 15 that area in terms of increased housing density. The second thing that is important about 16 California Avenue is that it has parking lots, City-owned parking lots. The potential of those 17 City-owned parking lots is not necessarily what is built above them but what is built below them. 18 We need to be able to have adequate parking, adequate places where people can drive to park in 19 order to take high-speed rail. They can't do that in the Downtown. 20 21 What else is important about California Avenue is that we have one of the worst interchanges in 22 the entire city. Right now Alma Street and Caltrain bisects our city. What Commissioner 23 Martinez said in terms of being able to restore our surface streets to grade and have the train City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 66 of 71 1 tracks be somewhere else so that we don't have this barrier is very important. Right at the 2 intersection of Alma Street and Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway we happen to have a ditch. 3 It is the ideal location. It has already begun to be dug. That could possibly be where we could 4 have a new transition from a very deep underground railroad approaching surface, begin to get 5 just below grade a train station without having to excavate, and then begin to make daylight and 6 begin to come up at the surface. Not only that but we also have an increased right-of-way, 7 Southern Pacific right-of-way, along there that could possibly handle four tracks and surface. 8 9 So I see very positive opportunities here in terms of us being able to leverage and use High- 10 Speed Rail to make Palo Alto continue to be the leader in Silicon Valley and define Silicon 11 Valley. Now it takes certain risks but there 8;re also rewards associated with that, and they do 12 need to be flushed out. 13 14 In closing, I just want to say a couple of other minor comments here. California Avenue, if you 15 look at a train schedule we are approximately eight minutes to Mountain View which makes it 16 ideal in terms of high-speed rail, people getting off, and being able to take surface trains to 17 Mountain View where of course Yahoo and Google and other Silicon Valley companies are 18 currently located. It is 11 to 12 minutes from that point to Redwood City, again, very 19 approachable in terms of being able to take surface transit from California Avenue. 20 21 With regard to the whole notion of freight trains I want to borrow something from what happens 22 with cruise ships and other large ships. When a large ship comes into a harbor it isn't the captain 23 of the ship that steers the ship in it is actually a pilot, a pilot boat. It is a pilot who comes in on City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 67 of71 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. 2 3 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting on June 24, 2010 at 6:00 PM 4 5 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. 6 7 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. 8 9 ADJOURNED: 9:00 PM City of Palo Alto June 17, 2010 Page 71 of 71 ATTACHMENT F (Transmitted bv email June 17. 2010) Mayor Pat Bert, and Members of the City Council Office of the Mayor and City Council P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Linda and Tom Vlasic 1540 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, California, 94306 Subject: Proposed Comment Letter on the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) for Peninsula Section of the High Speed Train (HST) Project Dear Mayor Burt and members of the City Council, We greatly appreciate the time and effort that the City Council and city staff and consultants have, and are, spending on review of the inadequate AA prepared by the HST Authority. We've had a chance to review the City's draft AA comments document that you will be considering at your next meeting. As you may be aware, I have also been working with my Southgate neighbors to review the AA document and we have prepared a letter to the HST Authority stating our concerns. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to the council by separate transmittal. In Southgate we share essentially all of the significant concerns set forth in your draft, and particularly the comments about looking to alternatives for use of the CalTrain right of way. The draft comments are extensive and largely right on target. I do, however, want to take this opportunity to offer some suggestions for your consideration. My comments focus mainly on neighborhood concerns and my worry that some of the draft comments may convey an unintended meaning or suggest that some potential impacts are not as significant as others, again from mainly a neighborhood perspective. I have two general comments and then some more specific ones I hope you would consider before sending in the AA letter. I would like to see a very strong statement upfront that the city does not support any taking of private, single family residential property. Secondly, I ask that you consider adding site- specific comments relative to the single-family neighborhoods in the City along the train route. The comment letter is site-specific regarding Paly High, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Menlo Park and Atherton and EI Camino Park water storage reservoir. There should be similar site-specific comments for all of the single-family residential neighborhoods in the City along the rail corridor, where the established "neighborhood character" would be destroyed with several of the alternatives now being considered. Specific comments follow: Guiding principle 3. page 1. This says all neighborhoods should be treated the same with respect to the vertical alignments impacts, but it does not say how they should be treated. I ask that you add that, "the established single family character of these neighborhoods be protected and preserved." This is fully consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan. Goal L-3, page 3. This goal speaks directly to the "attractive" and distinctive character of the residential neighborhoods. The comment, however, speaks only to "public gathering spaces." The comment should be expanded to stress preservation of the "attractive and distinctive character of the residential neighborhoods." Policy L-61 , page 4. You mention protection of pubic facilities, but should specifically mention Peers Park. In other locations the comments mention Paly and other specific facilities, but not Peers Park. This is an important facility and should be highlighted. Palo Alto City Council, AA Comments, June 17, 2010 Page 1 Goal T-5. page 5. This essentially states that the transportation system should have minimal impacts on residential neighborhoods. But the comment states that the HST system "must ensure that the potential impacts to existing residences are minimized, and that the benefits for Palo Alto residents outweigh any adverse impacts." To me this reads that while the goal is to have minimal impacts, "adverse impacts" are acceptable if there is enough benefit. This just offers the HST Authority to chance to say, "the HS Train will get you from Palo Alto to LA fast, so that's benefit of destroying residential areas." I ask that the . comment be revised, as it is not in the best interests of the City's neighborhoods. Noise impact comments and conclusion on page 7. In general the comments are good, but the concluding paragraph on page 7 is weak. It only talks about the analysis and what should be studied for sensitive receptors. These comments while appropriate, don't speak to a specific position of the City regarding change in noise environment. I ask that you consider adding that the noise levels should consistent with the City's standards and less if the existing noise environment is less. There should be no increase in noise (and vibration), and this should take into account cumulative impacts from the projections for increased usage, i.e., based on accurate ridership models as the other comments call for. Comment C.1.4. page 8. This talks about potential for reuse of land. First, given the poor data in the AA, I find this comment premature and out of place at this point in the process. In some cases the right of way that currently exists is so narrow that any "reuse" could be a basis for significant impacts. Further, we are not certain where any HST right-of-way would start and it may have to take Alma and then have a traffic lane above a covered train system. Speculating on reuse should be done after the City is satisfied that there is a truly viable alternative and this is clearly not the case give the other statements in the comment document. Comment C5.11. page 15. This comment is about poor data on right-of-way widths. It mentions Paly High, but not the residential neighborhoods where right of way is even more constrained. It should also refer to impacts on Alma, as there will clearly be issues relative to Alma. In fact, there is minimum comment in the statements about where the right of way would start and how this could impact Alma during construction and over the long term. Comment C.7-2. page 21. This discusses land acquisitions and characterizes these as "severely disrupting transportation, commerce and residential uses." The comment sounds clinical when, in truth, it deserves more emotion, passion and force. In MHO the impacts won't "severely disrupt," they will destroy the neighborhoods. I would just like to see more power to this statement, but that is a very personal opinion. Thank you for the opportunity to share the above comments with you. And, thank you again for this great effort and all that the City is doing to be on top of the HST process. Sincerely, Tom Vlasic with Linda Vlasic Palo Alto City Council, AA Comments, June 17, 2010 Page 2 Williams, Curtis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Judith Wasserman [jwarqiteq@aol.com] Saturday, June 19, 20104:12 PM Williams, Curtis price gail; Emslie, Steve HSR and the Comp Plan Attachments: HSR and the Comp Plan.doc; ATT7886395.htm Curtis - .a. """0""" ~ V~ ~ I have done a comp plan analysis of the HSR alternatives that are under analysis now. Can you please see to it that it gets to the right people? Thank you very much, Judith 6/21/2010 High Speed Rail and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs that affect the HSR project. LAND USE AND DESIGN CHAPTER POLICY L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City. Any above-grade solution will block views of the hills from east-west streets. POLICYL-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Any above grade solution will overwhelm the scale of adjacent single -family homes. PROGRAM L-3: Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses. Any above-grade solution would be inappropriate in scale to surrounding uses. POLICY L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The opportunities for increased east-west connectivity will support this policy. POLICY L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. The opportunity for a linear park system along the rail right-of-way will increase the number of public gathering spaces. The terminus of University A venue at Alma Street was a graceful plaza, shown in this historic photo, until 1940 when it was displaced by a railroad underpass. The City and Stanford University are jointly exploring the possibility of reconstructing a civic plaza at this location. We can do this! POLICY L-27: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station area to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center. Redevelopment of the area will provide linkages and pedestrian connections between University Avenue/Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford University, and nearby Residential Neighborhoods. This area's reuse should optimize the effectiveness of the multi-modal transit center, protect nearby residential areas from potential adverse development impacts, improve both the City and University gateways, and enhance parkland and natural resources. By undergrounding the trains in the downtown area, many east-west connections can be made that connect Stanford to downtown. Bringing Quarry Road across the train right of way to Alma Street would make this connection very strong. PROGRAM L-26: Establish the following unranked community design priorities for the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station Area: • Improving pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections to create an urban link between University Avenue/Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center. • Creating a major civic space at the Caltrain Station that links University Avenue/Downtown and Palm Drive. • Infilling underutilized parcels with a mix of uses such as shopping, housing, office, hotel, and medical facilities. • Improving public park space. • Protecting views of the foothills by guiding building heights and massing. All of this can happen! POLICY L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory. Southgate may not be listed, but it has historic merit. POLICY L-52: Encourage the preservation of significant historic resources owned by the City of Palo Alto. Allow such resources to be altered to meet contemporary needs, provided that the preservations standards adopted by the City Council are satisfied. The train station and El Palo Alto fall into this category. POLICY L-64: Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space, and community gardens that encourage and support pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to-person contact, particularly in neighborhoods that lack these amenities. Any below grade solution will open many sites for these activities. POLICY L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Any above grade solution will degrade the aesthetics of the street network; any below grade solution increases the opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. POLICY L-67: Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. Any below grade solution creates more walkable spaces. POLICY L-68: Integrate creeks and green spaces with the street and pedestrian/bicycle path system. If the trains pass below the creeks, the creeks can be daylighted as they cross the north-south bike and pedestrian paths. POLICY L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. Any above grade solution obstructs the views of the hills. PROGRAM L-71: !<ecognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes. Except for Sand Hiil, 280 and Arastradero, views from all these roads would be impacted by any above grade solution. PROGRAM L-72: Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. If the rails go below San Francisquito Creek, there is an opportunity for an enlarged riparian park at the Menlo Park gateway. Close Alma at Everett and everything north becomes a park. Make the EI Camino-Alma connection at Quarry Road. POLICY L-73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection with new development projects. Consider incentives for including public art in large development projects. This must be considered for any alignment. If the trains are underground and there are requirements for exits and ventilation of the "enclosed spaces", public art can be included at each of these "events". POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastrufture. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Any above grade solution would be at the least visually disruptive; "unsightly" may be a matter of opinion. TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER POLICYT-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. Any above grade solution would have environmental and social costs that would probably be beyond mitigation. PROGRAM T-14: Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993-1994 design study. Here's our chance! PROGRAM T-17: Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. If Caltrain remains at grade, that will require grade separations that will require property takings. POLICY T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Any below grade solution will increase the opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access in the east-west direction, as well as providing a north-south axis that connects to the Mountain View light rail in the south and Menlo Park in the north. PROGRAM T-21: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. We never thought it could happen in reverse! POLICY T-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments. or public projects. POLICY T-16: Create connecting paths for pedestrians and bicycles where dead-end streets prevent through circulation in new developments and in existing neighborhoods. A key way to improve bicycle and pedestrian circulation is to overcome barriers and provide more linkages between destinations. Detouring around obstacles like freeways and railroads is more significant to bicyclists and pedestrians than it is to drivers. (Emphasis added.) POLICY T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Palo Alto's policy is to make necessary roadway improvements while providing for bicyclists and pedestrians and ensuring the safety of all roadway and sidewalk users. Below grade solutions that make both north-south bike paths and east-west crossings possible will increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists and decrease the number of motorists. GOAL T -5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods. Only below grade solutions meet this goal. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER POLICYN-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Any above grade solution severely impacts the views of the hills. GOAL N-2 Conservation of Creeks and Riparian Areas as Open Space Amenities, Natural Habitat Areas, and Elements of Community Design. Below grade solutions that take the trains below the creeks allow for daylighting and localized creek restoration. POLICY N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. Any above grade solution will severely impact the many large trees and shrubs that line Alma Street along the right of way. PROGRAM N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical to locate them onsite. This program cannot be implemented with above grade solutions, especially in places where the existing right of way is already too narrow. GOAL N-8: An Environment That Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise. Only below grade solutions meet this goal. POLICY N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility. The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. Above grade trains every 3 minutes are not compatible with residential uses. POLICY N-40: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. All above grade solutions will create noise pollution that cannot be sufficiently reduced. POLICY N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria: • The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; • The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; • The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. This evaluation would have to be done to reach a scientific conclusion. POLICY N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors, including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise. See the accompanying CSS map for sensitive receptors. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER MAY 12,2010 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 240:10 REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM SUBJECT: Joint City Council/Planning & Transportation Commission Review and Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update As requested, the attached packet for this item is provided two weeks in advance of the Joint City CouncillPlanning & Transportation Commission meeting on May 12, 2010 to provide the Council and Planning & Transportation Commissioners ample time to review the City Manager's Report and all the attachments. CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 12,2010 REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 240:10 SUBJECT: Joint City Council/Planning & Transportation Commission Review and Direction Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on the Comprehensive Plan amendment process is intended to enable the City Council to provide direction to staff and the PTC for their continuing work in completing the work program initially adopted by the City Council in 2006. On March 3,2010, ajoint study session with the City Council and PTC was held to update the Council on progress in completing the work program for the Comprehensive plan and to identify key issues requiring Council input. A follow-up session was planned to enable staff to return with additional information requested by the City Council and to identify specific questions for Council direction regarding key elements of the work program, most specifically: a) the approach to identifying housing opportunity sites in the housing element; b) proposed growth projections; c) the extent of revisions to the vision statements and key policies; and d) whether to expand the scope of the work program. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION Staff requests direction from the City Council on various work items on the Comprehensive Plan prior to moving forward with preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to undertake the suggested approaches to each key issue identified in this report. BACKGROUND The City Council initiated the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in 2006. Funding for the project was allocated in 2007 and a consultant team selected in 2008. For the past two years, staff has been working with the consultant team and the Planning Commission on several work program elements, including the update of goals, policies and programs, background reports on relevant baseline topics, and two concept area plans. On March 3,2010, the City Council and the PTC held a joint study session (see Attachments A and B) to discuss the status of the major components of the work program. At that study session, the City Council requested staff to 1) bring back to Council questions related to both the amendment and the Housing Element update that need further direction CMR: 152:10 Page 1 of8 from the Council and 2) provide specific information that could assist the Council in developing direction for staff. Specifically, the City Council requested background on the followirig items, which are attached to this report: • Summary of SB375 (Sustainable Communities Planning Legislation) • Implications of Housing Element non-compliance • Information regarding Housing Element "self-certification" • Housing Element status for neighboring jurisdictions • Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Data • City correspondence with Association of Bay Area Governments re: RHNA • Vehicular availability for households near transit • Estimated student generation from City's RHNA • LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) information DISCUSSION In this report, staff has framed several questions for the City Council related to different work elements of the Comprehensive Plan; each set of questions is followed by a "suggested staff approach" for Council consideration. The "suggested staff approach" contains the scope of work for specific items, the suggested timeframe for completion and any additional costs required to perform the tasks. A. Housing Element: Staff has made considerable progress in updating the City's Housing Element over the past year focusing on updating the population, household and housing data required for the Housing Element, evaluating of the effectiveness of the current element's programs and policies, conducting public outreach meetings through the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) process and analyzing strategies to identify effective housing inventory sites to meet the RHNA numbers. One of the most critical components of the Housing Element is the housing sites inventory list, which identifies parcels with zoning appropriate to allow for housing sufficient to meet the City's current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) which is included in Attachment E5. Also attached to this report in Attachment E2 are newspaper articles and a summary of recent case law affecting the City of Pleasanton regarding the legal mandates of state housing law and RHNA compliance. Specific direction is requested from Council on the following issues to fulfill the Housing Element requirements: 1. Should the City of Palo Alto draft a Housing Element with a primary goal o:{providing adequate sites to accommodate all of the City's RHNA allocation?? 2. Should the City use a ''bottoms-up'' approach to define what kind and amount of housing can best be accommodated, consistent with the principles of locating housing in areas close to support services and transit, regardless of whether it ultimately complies with the RHNA allocation? 3. What criteria should be used to identify sites to include in the housing inventory, e.g., housing type, size, location, existing zoning, proximity to transit and pedestrian-oriented areas? CMR: 152:10 Page 2 of8 4. Should the bulk of new multi-family housing be located near train stations and along EI Camino Real, focusing on areas served by transit? • Identifo existing sites zoned for housing or mixed use in proximity to transit and services. • Evaluate increased housing potential in the California Avenue area as part of the California Avenue Concept Plan. • Explore working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from the County to the City for housing sites allowed under Stanford's Community Plan and General Use Permit, in conjunction with or following the Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center expansion. • Explore potential housing inventory sites using LEED-ND (LEED for Neighborhood Development) criteria as a primary evaluation tool, particularly near transit and services (EI Camino Real, Stanford, and University Ave.) • Include policies and programs to develop a concept plan for downtown, focusing higher density housing near the University Avenue multi-modal transit station. •. Emphasize smaller size units and units for seniors to minimize housing impacts on schools and other public facilities. • Emphasize construction of affordable units. B. Growth Projections: I Staffhas identified three different potential growth scenarios for jobs and housing development in Palo Alto through 2020 for evaluation in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The first growth scenario would use ABAG Projections 2009 data (an additional 530 jobs and an additional 3,210 households) and the second growth scenario would use historic growth rates and "pipeline" (in process) projects for residential development (an additional 1,065 households) and employment projections recommended by the City's economic consultant based on ABAG Projections 2007 data which estimates an additional 5,321 jobs. The third scenario would be a low growth alternative that would be developed when the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is prepared and would result in no net new impacts. Staff requests that the Council provide guidance on the appropriate project scenario(s) to discuss with the public in a series of community meetings anticipated to be initiated later this year: 1. Should staff use ABAG Projections 2009 numbers to develop and analyze a project scenario with limited job growth and significant housing growth through 2020 or should CMR: 152:10 Page 3 of8 a proj ect scenario be prepared based on numbers generated by staff from the historical growth of population and pipeline projects of new housing development in the City and a forecast number for jobs recommended by the City's economic consultant? 2. Should the City's citywide growth limit for non-residential development be extended to 2020 as outlined in Policy L-8 ofthe 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan that currently allows for up to approximately 2.38 million additional square feet of new non residential development, at least for evaluation in the EIR, or should the City set a more restrictive citywide growth limit for non-residential growth through 2020? Suggested Staff Approach: • Use the Population, Housing and Jobs forecast number through 2020 developed by staff and the consultant that take into account the historical growth of population, past and pipeline housing development in the City and recent local and national economic conditions. • Use the Citywide growth limits for non-residential development outlined in Policy L-8 of the II 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. J C. Vision Statements, Goals, Policies and Programs: The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) has indicated through its review of the C~mprehensive Plan that significant revisions to the Comprehensive Plan format should be undertaken in order to create a clearer, more general, cohesive and less redundant policy document. This could substantially change the format of the existing plan and result in significant additional staff work and costs since the existing work program envisioned only limited changes to the current format and focused policy changes only on those specific areas identified by the work program. Staff requests that Council provide guidance on the following questions: 1. Should the Vision statements of the Comprehensive Plan and supporting policies and programs be modified comprehensively or should changes be limited to key substantive work program priorities and to update clearly outdated policies and programs? 2. Should staff and the PTC extensively "word-smith" policies and programs as well? I: Suggested Staff Approach: I • !I Revise the Vision Statements (in conjunction with the PTC subcommittee) as needed for clarity and key concepts. • Update the Policies and Programs for consistency with the Vision Statements and to eliminate or update obsolete policies and programs. Add new policies and programs where needed to reflect changes to the Vision Statements or to address new issues. CMR: 152:10 Page 4 of8 II I II :1 [I ~ ~ I I I I- I 4 II II I I I ! I ] Ii 11 ~ ! • Allow thePTC subcommittee and staff to detennine the need for fine grain word smithing. • Peifonn Comprehensive Plan re-organization and additional review with consultant support. Cost for this additional consultant work is estimated at $20,000. I D. Additional Scope of Work: In addition to the· potential to expand the work scope to provide extensive revisions to the Comprehensive Plan format, policies, and programs, other potential work program elements have been identified that are outside ofthe original scope of work and could add significant cost and time to the planning effort. Based on the outcome of the joint City Council and PTC meeting of March 3, 2010, staffhas outlined the following questions for Council to provide guidance. The suggested staff approach discusses the time frame and costs associated with each ofthese additional tasks. 1. Should staff give priority to reviewing/revising the South EI Camino Real Guidelines within the next year? 2. Should (or how should) LEED-ND (LEED for Neighborhood Development) be used in updating the Comprehensive Plan? 3. Should the following tasks be added to the existing work program? o University A venuelDowntown Area Concept Plan o South EI Camino Real Area (from Charleston to San Antonio Rd) Concept Plan o High Speed Rail land use scenarios o Sea-Level rise study and mitigation measures o Housing at Stanford Shopping Center site Suggested Staff Approach: • Modify 4-5 key components of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (setbacks for different streets, land uses, height step backs, break-up building length, and retailfrontage); estimate $25K-$30K design consultant cost. • Develop a policy for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan supporting preparation of a University Ave. /Downtown Area Concept Plan at a later date, and that restricts rezoningfor residential intensification unless/until the Concept Plan is approved. Approximate consultant cost for preparing the Concept Plan is estimated at $140K. • Develop a policy for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan supporting preparation of a South El Camino Real Area Concept Plan (from Charleston to San Antonio portion of El Camino Real) at a later date, and that restricts rezoning for residential intensification unless/until the Concept Plan is approved. Approximate consultant cost for preparing the Concept Plan is estimated at $135K. L_! __ Develop appropriate olides in the Com rehensive Plan to address k CMR: 152:10 Page 5 of8 • • • • (HSR) issues (coordination with other agencies, design parameters for review, position on a HSR station in Palo Alto, etc.) and revisit these in a year, to see how/if the HSR project progresses. Consultant cost for preparation of land use scenarios is estimated at $100+ K, if desired, and should be a separate work item from the Comprehensive Plan, given the HSR timeframe. Develop maps of potential sea-level rise and policies for future considerations, but not identify I mitigation measures at this point; provide direction for preparing appropriate studies within the Comprehensive Plan timiframe. ~, Identify policies in the Comprehensive Plan that are already consistent with the policies of I LEED-ND, and add policies if necessary. . Evaluate area concept plans under LEED-ND principles. Develop a policy for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan supporting preparation of a concept plan to include housing at the Stanford Shopping Center site at a later date. Approximate consultant cost for preparing the concept plan is $11 OK. PUBLIC OUTREACH Several community workshops and public meetings will be conducted throughout the rest of20 1 0 to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Housing Element update. The City also maintains a website (www.paloaltocompplan2020.org) that provides information about the Comprehensive Plan including the Housing Element. Meeting outreach will include neighborhood associations, business groups, the school district and other interested parties. Staff also intends to integrate the Comprehensive Plan effort into a City Facebook page to allow for real-time updates of Comprehensive Plan information. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Comprehensive Plan amendment work plan process enables the plan to be updated to focus on current City policy and to adequately reflect the City's vision consistent with or modified using the goals ofthe existing Comprehensive Plan. The updated plan is intended to provide an effective guide for future growth in the City. . RESOURCE IMPACTS The Council approved a budget of $850,000 in April 2008 for completing the amendment work program. The City Council's adoption of the 2010 budget extended the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work schedule by one year and decreased the Comprehensive Plan Amendment budget by $75,000 for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 201012011. Expansion of the work program would require additional resources as outlined above and would likely lengthen the schedule for completion. Funding is not currently available for these tasks. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report to the City Council is not considered a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. CMR: 152:10 Page 60f8 PREPARED BY: CHITRA MOITRA Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS ~9AMES KEENE ... J . -City Manager Attachment A: CMR: 152: 1 0 March 3, 2010 Joint Study Session regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and the Approved Work Program Attachment B: Synopsis of March 3, 2010 Joint Study Session meeting regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and the Approved Work Program Attachment C: Work Program Schedule Attachment D: Brief Summary of SB375, Joint Policy Committee Policies: The Bay Area Implementation of SB375 (September 2009) and League of California Cities, "Technical Overview ofSB375 (January 2009) . Attachment E: 1) Brief on Housing Element Non-Compliance 2) Articles regarding City of Pleasanton Housing Element Court Decision on Housing Caps and California Housing Community & Development (HCD) Press Release on the Court Decision on Housing Caps 3) Overview ofSANDAG's Housing Element Pilot Self Certification Process (Full report can be downloaded at: http://www .paloaltocompplan2020.org/ documentlsandag-housing-element- self-certification-report-Iegislature) 4) Housing Element Compliance Report of Neighboring Cities 5) Palo Alto Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 2007-2014 Attachment F: 1) Appeal Letter from Mayor to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and other City correspondence with ABAG re: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) CMR: 152:10 Page 7 of8 2) CMR: 389:07 October 15,2007 Study Session re: ABAG RHNA for Palo Alto and Housing Element Requirement Attachment G: City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Units Profile Attachment H: 1) Vehicular Availability for Households Near Transit (2000 Census) 2) Executive Summary of Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel, Transit Cooperative Program Research Report #128 (Full report can be downloaded at: http://www.paloaltocomru>Ian2020.orgldocumentleffects-tod-housing-parking- travel) Attachment I: Potential Student Generation data in relation to RHNA requirement Attachment J: 1) A review of LEED-ND Rating System and its Compatibility with Existing Green Building Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. 2) LEED-ND Checklist. CMR: 152:10 Page 8 of8 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 3, 2010 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION ATTACHMENT A DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 152:10 SUBJECT: JOINT CITY COUNCILIPLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE EXECUTIVE ,SUMMARY The purpose of the study session is for staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PrC) to update the City Council on progress in completing the work program for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City's zoning ordinance and development decisions, the Capital Improvements Program (eIP) , transportation programs, economic development efforts, environmental sustainability measures, and a host of other actions by staff, various boards and commissions, and the City Council. The City Council, in response to several issues and trends, particularly those related to a rapid increase in housing development and loss of commercial uses and land, initiated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in 2006. The Amendment was not intended to overhaul the Plan, but to focus on preservation of commercial uses and land, provision of retail and community services to support new residential growth, incorporation of sustainability concepts, update of the housing element, and preparation of concept plans for the East Meadow area and California A venuelFry' s area. The joint City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission study session provides an opportunity for the City Council and the PTC to discuss the status of the major components of the work program for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Housing Element update. Staff and the PTC have identified five primary areas of discussion for the study session: 1. Vision Statements, Policies and Programs 2. Growth Projections 3. Housing Element 4. Scope of Work 5. Concept Plans CMR: 152:10 Page 1 of 12 li !I II !I ] 11 II t '\'1 I I I I Brief summaries of each topic are provided in the report. At a follow-up study session, Council may then provide direction to staff and the PTC regarding these and other work items. Staff anticipates that the Concept Plans will be presented to Council in the spring or summer of 2010, a draft Housing Element will be prepared shortly thereafter, and the entire Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including the accompanying Environmental Impact Report, will be completed in early 2012. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose of the study session is for staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to update the City Council on progress in completing the work program: for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Housing Element. Key policy issues are identified as background for the study session, and a follow-up session is planned to allow for City Council direction regarding the implementation of the work program, most specifically in the areas of: a) the extent of revisions to vision statements and key policies; b) proposed growth projections; c) the approach to identifying housing opportunity sites in the housing element; and d) whether to expand the scope of the work program. No Council or Commission action is required or may be taken at a study session. Staff recommends that the Council and PTC discuss the work program and key issues, and provide questions and direction for a follow-up study session, to be scheduled within the coming two months. BACKGROUND The City's Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element are required planning documents under State law. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City's zoning ordinance and development decisions, the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) , transportation programs, economic development efforts, environmental sustainability measures, and a host of other actions by staff, various boards and commissions, and the City Council. State law requires that a general (or comprehensive) plan include a minimum of seven elements, such as Land Use, Circulation, and Housing. The Housing Element responds to State requirements to provide for adequate zoning to accommodate housing for households of varying income levels, as well as programs and policies to assure fair housing practices and housing services. Evaluation of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 The City's existing Comprehensive Plan covers the timeframe of 1998 to 2010, and provides for all State-mandated plan elements plus a Business and Economic Element. A Comprehensive Plan is usually in need of updating every 10 years or so, as circumstances change and policies and programs become obsolete or new ones are required. Many of the current Plan's goals, policies and programs remain relevant today and have been supported by improvements and projects over the past 12 years, but changed conditions and less successful projects led to the Council's direction to update the Plan. Examples of successful implementation of the existing Comprehensive Plan could include: • Creation of a significant number of affordable and senior housing projects • The redevelopment of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) to a mixed use, mixed housing, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly community • Additional recreation and cultural facilities, such as the Mayfield Soccer Complex, Heritage Park, and the Jewish Community Center • Preparation and initial implementation of the City's Climate Protection Plan • Pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as the Homer Tunnel and the Waveriey bridge • The approval of three new neighborhood grocery stores CMR: 152:10 Page 2 of 12 • Preservation and restoration of several historic structures using transferable development rights and other incentives On the other hand, examples of other projects and improvements were less than successful with some potential long-term adverse effects, such as: . • The loss of the Hyatt Rickey's Hotel and an attendant loss of transient occupancy tax revenue • Conversion of other commercial and industrial sites to residential projects, again reducing the City revenues and job base • Lack of a cohesive planning framework for new projects in south Palo Alto, resulting in development that is sometimes not well integrated into the community fabric of street connections or urban design • Lack of provision of commercial and public services commensurate with the new housing development • Little accommodation for significant economic development opportunities, particularly those that enhance City revenues Staff believes that the primary driver of some of these adverse changes was the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan focus on housing to the detriment of commercial and industrial uses. When that Plan was prepared, the City had a very strong office market and a weak: housing market, and the Plan compensated by placing a priority on housing shortly before housing became a highly profitable land use. Some of these concerns were addressed with zoning changes that arrested the change in land use from commercial to housing, but the overall Comprehensive Plan approach remains to be refocused. It will be important, as the City updates the Comprehensive Plan, to provide an appropriate balance of land uses, services, and economic development to lead the City to 2020. At the same time, climate change has become a major theme at the local, regional, statewide, and national level, altering lifestyles and development patterns over the coming 10 years of the updated Comprehensive Plan. State Senate Bill 375, in particular, will provide incentives (and possibly regulation) to encourage measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to facilitate compact, higher density development in walkable, transit adjacent areas. Work Program The City Council, in response to many of the changes and projects noted above, initiated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process in 2006 with approval of a Colleague's Memo that outlined the general parameters of the work program. Funding for the project was allocated in 2007 and a consultant team selected in 2008. At a joint study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held on July 28, 2008, City Council reviewed and finalized the work program (Attachment A). The primary purposes of the amendment were stated as: 1. to extend the horizon year of the Plan to 2020; 2. to update baseline data and growth projections; 3. to modify the vision statements, policies and programs as needed to address the focus of the Comp Plan Amendment; 4. to ensure the retention of sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail uses and commercial growth; . 5. to adequately mitigate impacts of increased housing on community services such as parks, libraries and schools; and CMR: 152:10 Page 3 of 12 6. to address the City's commitment to climate protection and sustain ability. The work program also called for the development of Concept Plans for the East Meadow CirclelFabian Way! West Bayshore area and the California Avenue area (including the existing Fry's Electronics site and adjacent properties) for inclusion in the amended Comprehensive Plan, to determine appropriate future land uses, circulation, and services in these two areas. Finally, updating the City's Housing Element was included as part of the work effort. The Council indicated at the time the work program was adopted that the amendment was to continue much of the direction of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan and to underscore its major themes, including: • Building Community and Neighborhoods • Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character • Reducing Reliance on the Automobile • Meeting Housing Supply Challenges • Protecting and Repairing Natural Features • Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs • Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership The Council allocated $850,000 for this work effort over a four year period, which has since been extended one year due to budget constraints. This budget and timeframe is premised on retaining the focused scope outlined at the time and further discussed below. The City's update of the Housing Element was also part of the work scope, but consultant funding was not provided, as the document is to be prepared by staff. Further background on the Housing Element update is provided in the discussion below. DISCUSSION The joint City Council and Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) study session provides an opportunity for the City Council and the PTC to discuss the status of the major components of the work program for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Housing Element update. At a follow-up study session, Council may then provide direction to staff and the PTC regarding specific work items that are in process. Staff has included a draft schedule (Attachment B) for the work program that identifies the major work scope components and a timeframe for their completion. Staff and the PTC have identified five primary areas of discussion for the study session: 1. Vision Statements, Policies and Programs 2. Growth Projections 3. Housing Element 4. Scope of Work 5. Concept Plans Each of these topics is discussed below, and the PTC members will further explain some of their specific concerns about the initial three key policy issues. Staff has identified the extent of the scope of work as an additional issue requiring clarification from Council. The status of the Concept Plans is also discussed below, and each will be coming forward to the Commission and Council in greater CMR: 152:10 Page 4 of 12 detail in the spring and summer of this year. More information about these items will be provided to the PTC and Council at the follow-up study session, along with responses to questions raised at this meeting. 1. Vision Statements, Policies, and Programs The PTC discussed the m~or themes and vision statements (Attachment C) of the existing Comprehensi ve Plan during two separate meetings, held in September and October of 2009, focusing on the overall framework of the plan and the interrelationship between the vision statements of each element of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners made specific recommendations for changes to each element's vision statement (Attachment D) and also made general recommendations regarding modifying the vision statements, including the following: • The style of the vision statements should be more cohesive; • Vision statements should be realistic and not overarching or too general; • The language of the vision statement should be clearer; and • The vision statements for each element should reflect a balance between existing conditions and future growth. As part of the review, the PTC has indicated that revisions to the Comprehensive Plan format should be undertaken in order to create a clearer, more general, cohesive and less redundant policy document. This could involve rearranging chapters and elements and substantially changing the format of the existing plan and would result in significant additional staff work and costs. The work program envisioned only limited changes to the existing format and focused policy changes only on those specific areas identified by the work program. The staff and consultant resources allocated to the work program are based on that direction from Council. 2. Growth Projections Staff discussed draft population, housing and employment growth projections to be considered in the Comprehensive Plan through 2020 at three separate PTC meetings in late 2008 and early 2009. Staff proposes to evaluate three different growth scenarios for jobs and housing development through 2020 and to evaluate those three scenarios in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). One growth scenario would use ABAG Projections 2009 data and a second growth scenario would use historic growth rates and "pipeline" (in process) projects for residential development and employment projections would be based on data developed by the economic consultant for the Comprehensive Plan, Advanced Development Economics. Each of these scenarios is further described below. A third scenario would be a low growth alternative that would be developed when the EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is prepared and would result in no net new impacts. ABAG Projections 2009, released last year, is the most recent edition of ABAG's long-term forecast of population, households, and employment. ABAG Projections 2009 adjusted the regions and local employment projections to reflect the economic climate during the last half of 2008. Table 1 shows ABAG's projected employment, population and households for the City's jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence (SOl) through 2020. CMR: 152:10 Page 5 of 12 Table 1 ABAG Projections 2009 City of Palo Alto 2000 2010 2020 EMPLOYMENT Jobs (City)* . 86,960 76,480 77,010 Jobs (SOij** 107,950 97,300 99,280 City of Palo Alto 2000 2010 2020 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS Population (City)* 58,598 61,600 70,400 Population (SOI)** 71,914 76,400 86,100 Households (City)* 25,216 26,700 29,910 Households (SOij** 28,424 30,350 33,870 * City Jurisdicti~n ** City Sphere of Influence ABAG 2009 projects minimal "net" job growth from 2010-2020, indicating the slow recovery from the current economic recession and that substantial employment growth will mostly occur after 2020. Staff notes that the Stanford University Medical Center expansion is scheduled for completion after 2020. Projections 2009 assumes a population growth rate of approximately 14% from 2010-2020, while historical Census data shows the City of Palo Alto's population has only grown by approximately 4.7% over the last 30 years (1970-2000 Census data). Although Palo Alto experienced significant new housing development from 2000 -2008, that growth rate has now decreased due to changing economic conditions. Staff has consistently maintained to ABAG the accelerated growth in the period from 1997-2008 is unlikely to be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and existing redevelopment potential, and thus proposes using the Population and Household growth in ABAG Projections 2009 as the high-growth scenario for the EIR. Based on historical development patterns, household and population estimates of the State Department of Finance from 2001-2008, and known past and "pipeline" residential development, staff forecasts a more modest population and household growth through 2020. Htstorical Census data shows the City's population grew 1.2% from 1980 to 1990 and an additional 4.8% from 1990 to 2000. Known residential projects either in the entitlement process or entitled that have not recei ved building permits will generate approximately 400 dwelling units in the next several years. Table 2 shows staffs developed total population, household and housing unit forecasts through 2020. . CMR: 152: 10 Page 6 of 12 Table 2 Staff Population and Household Projections Staff Projections for City of Palo Alto Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 Total Population* 58,598 62,700 65,400 Households** 25,216 26,913 27,978 Housing Units 26,048 27,800 28,900 * Total Population includes household population and persons living in group quarters. ** Staff projected Households data with the assumption that 3.2% of housing units in Palo Alto is unoccupied or vacant derived from civilian vacancy rate based on Census 2000 benchmark. , I Staff projects a 4.3% population increase from 2010-2020, which is indicative of historical population growth trends and purposes to use these projections as the "mid-growth scenario" for population and housing growth. Staff anticipates further input from the City's economic consultant (Applied Development Economics) regarding the,potential for job growth through 2020 prior to further discussion by the City Council and PTC. Previous forecasts prepared by the consultant did not reflect the full extent of the recent economic downturn. Staff will develop the third scenario of low growth alternative that would result in no new impacts during the preparation of the DEIR. A summary of the ABAG and staff proposed growth is detailed in Table 3. Table 3 Proposed IDgh and Mid Growth Scenarios for Comprehensive Plan Amendment DEIR City of Palo Alto *EMPLOYMENT 2000 2010 2020 Staff Jobs Growth (based on 2008 data)**** 86,960 76,774 82,095 ABAG Jobs Growth 86,960 76,480 77,010 City of Palo Alto *POPULA TION and HOUSEHOLDS 2000 2010 2020 High Growth Population** 58,598 ,61,600 70,400 Mid Growth Population** 58,598 62,700 65,400 High Growth Households 25,216 26,700 29,910 Mid Growth Households*** 25,216 26,913 27,978 High Growth Housing Units 26,048 27,552 30,864 Mid Growth Housing Units 26,048 27,800 28,900 City of Palo Alto Jurisdictional Boundary. Total Population includes household population and persons living in group quarters. * ** *** Staff projected Households data with the assumption that 3.2% of housing units in Palo Alto are unoccupied or vacant derived from civilian vacancy rate based on Census 2000 benchmark. CMR: 152:10 Page 7 of 12 **** To be updated by economic consultant 3. Housing Element Considerable progress has been made to update the City's Housing Element over the past year. Staff work on the Housing Element has focused on updating the population, household and housing data required for the Housing Element and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current element's programs and policies. An ad hoc Housing Element Technical Advisory Group (TAG), representing stakeholders and organizations concerned about housing growth and policy, was formed in late 2008 and has met regularly to discuss housing issues and policies, to evaluate housing strategies and programs, to assess impacts of various housing types and locations, and to enable ongoing public involvement in the Housing Element process. The PTC discussed the current Housing Element's vision, goals and key policies at two study sessions last year. Main policy concerns for the commissioners that were not sufficiently addressed in the current Housing Element included: • focusing new housing opportunities on underserved needs; • considering balancing housing needs with city and school resources and traffic capacity; • ensuring preservation of neighborhood character, particularly single family homes; and • changing the paradigm that housing is the preferred land use and should be located in most areas of the City. The latter concern is seen as implicit in the phrase "including converting non-residential lands to residential or mixed use" from the existing Housing Element vision statement. A critical component of the Housing Element is the housing sites inventory that identifies how the City will meet its current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) .. The State requires that housing elements demonstrate how the jurisdiction can accommodate the RHNA allocation by planning and zoning adequate sites, although the RHNA does not assume that the zoned residential lands will be built. The PTC has specifically requested direction from Council regarding criteria to identify sites to include in the RHNA inventory, and whether the City should attempt to comply with the RHNA allocation. The City contested the RHNA process and appealed the resultant RHNA allocation to ABAG in 2008 (Attachment E). Currently the City would need to identify sites for approximately 2,100 units in order to meet its RHNA allocation, as depicted in Table 4. There are approximately 315 units currently in the review process that could be placed on the inventory, which would reduce the RHNA to about 1,800 units. Staff has conducted a preliminary analysis of sites that have redevelopment potential and are zoned for higher density residential uses or are zoned to allow higher density residential development in a mixed use configuration and could be included in the sites inventory without a zone change (Attachment F). This excludes approximately 304 housing units from the Fry's site currently under evaluation as part of the California Avenue Concept Plan, since the site would not be available for redevelopment until after 2014, following the 2001-2014 housing evaluation period. CMR: 152:10 Page 8 of 12 Table 4 Status of Palo Alto's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) RHNA for City of Palo Alto (2007-2014 Housing Element) 2,860 units Housing Built or Building Permit Issued (since Jan 2007) 786 Housing currently In Process* 315 Potential Housing on existing Residentially Zoned Sites 369 Potential Housing in Zoning Districts that could accommodate Mixed Use Development 312 Total 1,782 units RHNA Deficiency 1,078 units * In process includes projects entitled without building permits, in the entitlement process or in the preliminary entitlement process. As Table 4 depicts, this leaves a deficiency of almost 1,100 units. Some options that could be considered to address this shortfall include: • Working with Stanford to reassign up to 600 units from the County to the City for housing sites allowed under Stanford's Community Plan and General Use Permit, in conjunction with' or following the Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center expansion; • Increasing housing potential in the California Avenue area as part of the California A venue Concept Plan; • Developing a concept plan for downtown and focusing higher density housing near the University Avenue multi-modal transit station; and/or • Evaluating other sites throughout the City for rezoning for higher density housing. Lack of a State-certified housing element has several potential implications, including litigation or loss of potential funding for affordable housing or transportation grants. Funding consequences will likely increase over the coming years as SB375 is implemented, but at this time are not seen as highly risky, given the lack of State funds available. Litigation is highly unusual, and is generally not pursued so long as a city is making a sincere attempt to prepare its housing element. Staff anticipates development of alternate housing scenarios and assessment of related impacts for presentation to the PTC and Council in the summer of 2010. 4. Scope of Work In addition to the potential to expand the work scope to provide extensive revisions to the Comprehensive Plan format, policies, and programs, other potential work program elements have been identified that are outside of the original scope of work and could add significant cost and time to the planning effort. These include: 1) providing concept plans for the downtown and/or South El Camino Real areas, 2) evaluating and incorporating High Speed Rail land use scenarios; and/or 3) providing details of potential mitigation of sea level rise impacts. Staff expects to develop general policy level guidance and future study of all of these items within the current work scope, but if a greater level of analysis and discussion is desired, budget and schedule would be affected substantially. Staff estimates that to fully address anyone of these work items would require increased budget of $75,000-$100,000 and could be considerably more, depending on the level of CMR: 152:10 Page 9 of 12 I technical analysis required. 5. Concept Plans Three neighborhood workshops and stakeholder meetings and interviews have been completed for both the East Meadow Circle (Attachment G) and California A venue (Attachment H) Concept Plan areas. A preferred land use alternative has been developed for the East Meadow Circle concept plan area and the PTC reviewed and commented on that alternative on February 10,2010. The preferred alternative focuses on enhancing non-residential development opportunities, limiting housing, and providing for critical pedestrian and bicycle connections to residential areas and to the Baylands. Staffwill be returning to the PTC in April or May with additional information and revisions to the alternative based on comments received at that meeting. It is anticipated that a PTC recommendation for the East Meadow concept plan will be forwarded to City Council in late spring. Three potential land use scenarios for the California A venue area were presented at a third and final community workshop held on February 2,2010. The alternatives generally include some increased housing density or mixed use development, but with different options regarding the level of intensity and the treatment of the Fry's site. Options are also outlined to provide additional parking and open space opportunities. These three land use alternatives for the California A venue Concept Plan area will be presented to the PTC this spring for their recommendation of a preferred land use alternati ve . with Council discussion anticipated this summer. The two draft Concept Plans will be incorporated in the Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment and evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Concept Plans also have implications for the Housing Element in that they will either provide opportunities for additional housing or further limit housing options. NEXT STEPS Attachment B outlines an anticipated schedule for preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Environmental Impact Report. Concept Plans The PTC is expected to complete its review and recommend to the City Council a preferred land use alternati ve for both Concept Plan areas by mid 2010. The land use concept plan for each area that is supported by the City Council will then be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Vision Statements. Policies. and Programs The PTC will craft text changes to the goals, policies and programs for each individual element, including developing new policies and programs to address the areas of concern identified in the work program. A major component of work in the next year will be to incorporate sustainability concepts into the existing Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element To encourage broad participation, two community-wide meetings will be held in mid-2010 to gather input from the general public on housing issues, goals, and policies and programs. Staff will also convene a focus group, consisting of housing developers, commercial "mixed-use" developers, architects and other housing development professionals, to discuss the effectiveness of existing and proposed programs. The City Council will review the draft Housing Element in the summer of 20 10, CMR: 152:10 Page 10 of 12 following PrC review. The draft element would then be forwarded to the State for an initial review for compliance with State regulations. Citywide Community Workshops The City will sponsor at least three citywide community workshops to engage the public in the amendment process by presenting information regarding the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, the fundamentals of sustainable growth and the availability of City services to accommodate future growth. In addition, as mentioned above, the City will hold two workshops on the Housing Element. These citywide community workshops will begin in the spring of 2010 and extend throughout the year. Speaker Series In addition to the community workshops, staff will continue over the remainder of the year to invite various experts in land use planning, transportation, and urban design to provide insight and guidance to both decision makers and the public prior to completion of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The presentations include such topics as recent state legislation regarding climate change, smart growth principles, infill development, urban design, and land use and transportation linkages. Draft Comprehensive Plan AmendmentIEIR Staff anticipates PrC and City Council review of the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2011 with hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (OEIR) in late 2011. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, including changes to the Housing Element, is scheduled to be adopted by the City Council in mid 2012. PUBLIC OUTREACH As noted above, several community workshops and public meetings will be conducted to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Housing Element update. The City also maintains a website (www.paloaltocompplan2020.org) that provides information about the Comprehensive Plan including the Housing Element. Meeting outreach will include neighborhood associations, business groups, schools, and other interested parties. Staff also intends to integrate the Comprehensive Plan effort into a City Facebook site to allow for real-time updates of Comprehensive Plan information. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Although this study sessions will result in no policy actions, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process enables the Comprehensive Plan to be updated to focus on current City policy and to adequately reflect the City's vision consistent with or modified from the goals of the existing Comprehensi ve Plan. The updated plan is intended to provide an effecti ve guide for future growth in the City. RESOURCE IMPACTS There are no fiscal impacts resulting from this report. The Council approved a budget of $850,000 in April 2008 for the amendment process. The City Council's adoption of the 2010 budget extended the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work schedule by one year and decreased the Comprehensive Plan Amendment budget by $75,000 for fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. Staff expects to complete the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work program within the current staffing structure CMR: 152:10 Page 11 of12 and revised budget. However, expansion of the work program would require additional resources and would likely lengthen the schedule for completion. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report to the City Council is not considered a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. PREPARED BY: R6LAND RIVERA .7 Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CMR: 323:08 Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program and the Approved Work Program Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: CMR: 152:10 Work Program Schedule Existing Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements PTC Comments on Vision Statements 2008 City Appeal Letter to ABAG regarding RHNA Allocation Existing Sites Zoned for Housing or Mixed Use East Meadow Concept Plan Area Map California A venue/Fry' s Concept Plan Area Map Page 12 of 12 Approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment Work Program 1. Update Base Conditions and Growth Projections • Incorporate recent planning studies/new data into base conditions • Identify a realistic growth rate for development through 2020 2. Amend Land Use Map and Land Use Designations • Prepare land use evaluation for East Meadow Circ1elFabian Way/ West Bayshore area; identify land use and zoning changes • Prepare land use evaluation for existing Fry's Electronics site and adjacent properties: identify land use and zoning changes • Evaluate existing definitions for non-residential land use designations and determine if housing should be restricted or disallowed under those designations 3. Review Pertinent Policies and Programs • Scan all programs for relevance and clarity • Focus on policies that allow conversion of non-residential land to residential uses • Add or strengthen policies that limit the loss of retail serving uses • Incorporate policies and programs addressing or strengthening provision of services where applicable • Incorporate Sustainability Goal with relevant policies and programs from City's Climate Protection Plan underscoring City's commitment to reduce global warming • Identify general areas for new parks and community facilities • Enhance and integrate a pattern of walkable neighborhoods • Update Housing Sites Inventory/Housing Element • Develop policy regarding design standards for private streets 4. Environmental Analysis • Prepare Environmental Impact Report for amendment • Provide thorough analysis of service needs to schools. parks and libraries resulting from project growth through 2020 • Integrate CEQA signif~cance thresholds used in EIR in appendix to Comprehensive Plan amendment October 2009 ATTACHMENT B March 3, 2010 Joint PTC/City Council Study Session on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Synopsis Curtis Williams, the Director of Planning and Community Environment, provided an overview of the purpose of comprehensive plans, discussed some of the positives and negative outcomes resulting under the City's 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, and recounted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment work program approved by Council in 2006. He outlined four key issues for City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) consideration for the Amendment, including: 1) growth projections, 2) the Housing Element, and particularly the housing allocation by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the City's approach to compliance, 3) the Vision Statements, goals, and policies of the Plan and the extent of potential revisions, and 4) possible components of the Amendment (e.g., area plans for downtown and south EI Camino Real, high speed rail, and sea level rise) that would be outside the current scope of work. Staff suggested that the Council and PTC ask questions about these topics and then return at a second session to provide direction to staff and the PTC. Six members of the public spoke relative to the study session topics, most with concerns about the (undesirable) type of development approved under the current Comprehensive Plan, the amount of housing the City should plan to build, and the validity of the population projections by ABAG and staff. The Council and Commission discussed the various issues extensively, including but not limited to the following general observations (and not intended to represent a consensus): • Most of the projects built under the current Plan, and those in south Palo Alto in particular, have been "neighborhood resistant;" the City should look at LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -Neighborhood Development) as a possible guideline for new growth; and the work effort should be more than an "amendment;" • The City should challenge the ABAG assumptions with respect to impacts on greenhouse gases, water conservation, etc., of increased development, especially for housing; • The City's approach to the housing element should be a "bottoms-up" methodology to define what we can do, building on what is already realistic and zoned, not a directive to find a way to meet the ABAG RHNA housing allocations; • The follow-up session should be treated as an action item (not a study session) so that votes may be taken to provide direction; • The South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines and associated Comp Plan policies and zoning codes should be considered and updated in the short term rather than awaiting completion of the Comp Plan effort; • There is a need to reconcile inconsistent vision statements and policies, and for some reformatting to make the Plan more user-friendly; and to provide more practical and "operational" statements and policies; • Area plans should be a more frequently-used tool than has been the case, to guide development; • The City should evaluate the potential for litigation if the City does not comply with housing element law, as well as preemptive measures to challenge those regulations; • The City should deal with the housing element issues before acting on the Stanford project or the concept plans; • The housing element should address the difficulty of providing "moderate income" units and the fact that the City was over its total housing allocation for the prior period with no "credit" for that; and that the City already has provided pedestrian-transit oriented zoning in advance of ABAG projections and SB375; and that ABAG should consider the least- cost methods for meeting greenhouse gas objectives; • The City needs to consider SB375 implications in its housing plans, and should "step up to the bar" to provide adequate housing for the area; and • Staff and the PTC should provide a list of questions for the Council to respond to, at least 2 weeks in advance of the next session. Many other detailed comments and questions were provided for response and direction at the follow-up session. Staff is to schedule a second study session followed by an action item to allow Council to provide direction on a number of these issues. The PTC would be involved in the study session portion of the deliberations. ~9fn~unitY ,1~YQIY~m~.lfil: Concept Plan Neighborhood Workshops (at least 3 for each Concept Plan Area) Citywide C,ommunity Workshops (at least 3) Growth Assumptions (PTC Public Hearings) Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment I DEIR (PTC Public Hearings) Final Comprehensive Plan and EIR (PTe Public Hearings) Planning & Transportatiqn Commission Review Work Scope, Work Program, Background Reports Review Programs and Policies Concept Plan Area Land Use Alternatives Growth Assumptions Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment I DEIR Final Comprehensive Plan and EIR City Council:" . ... Review Work Scope and Work Program Concept Plan Area Land Use Alternatives Growth Assumptions Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment I DEIR Final Comprehensive Plan and EIR March 2010 ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2020 SCHEDULE & KEY MILESTONES .. 2008 . ~~10 2011 January -F ebruary-J une December April - December March January -March October - December .( ..:<:; .. 2008 20;0;9 '20110 20,1'1 ;~ ..•... . ; . July -December January -July September -January - December March February-June March January -March October - December ~OO8 ··· ..... {'); " IO~f,i/, ... IF .2010 ·····-\,: , i •• 201 (f . July March May -August March March October - December 201 ••••••• .': .. ,I ; January -June 'f ; .... .1;} U' , .", .-......... January -June 2012 January -June ATTACHMENT D Brief Summary of SB 375 At the March 3 study session, Council and Commission members had a number of questions about the City's role and responsibilities in the implementation of SB 375, including the implications of potential environmental review exemptions. The following summary has been prepared by staff, consistent with the attached Joint Policy Committee's Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of SB 375 (September 2009). As reflected by the passage of SB 375, the California State Legislature recognizes the need to curb urban sprawl and to focus on smart compact growth within existing communities to reduce vehicle miles traveled for residents and employees. The bill is intended to implement portions of the State's adopted Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) and mandates an integrated regional land use and transportation planning approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. SB 375 requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks in each California region for 2020 and 2035. Draft CARB targets will be released by June 30, 2010 with CARB adoption of targets by September 30, 2010. SB 375 also requires that a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) be added to each region's regional transportation plan that specifically identifies areas within the region sufficient to accommodate twenty-five (25) years of future housing demand from all income categories. Before the SCS can be adopted, the reduction in GHG emissions projected to be achieved by the SCS must be quantified and any difference between the reduction and the CARB target must be identified. If the SCS is unable to reduce GHG to the targeted levels, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be prepared that describes how the GHG targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, new infrastructure or additional transportation measures or policies. The SCS or APS are expected to be adopted for each region by 2012. Environmental Review (CEQA) Under SB 375, builders would get relief from certain environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if they build projects consistent with the adopted SCS or APS. CEQA concessions are extended to two types of development projects: 1) a residential or mixed-use project consistent with an SCS or APS or 2) specifically defined "transit priority projects". A transit priority project (TPP) may be entirely exempt from CEQA if it meets several criteria, including: a) At least 50% residential use, with commercial floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; b) A minimum net density of 20 units per acre; c) Within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop of high quality transit corridor included in the Regional Transportation Plan; and d) Consistency with an SCS or ACS (emphasis added). There are further constraints outlined on such transit priority projects, regarding site and project size, availability of utilities, impacts on historic resources, energy and water efficiency, and provision of affordable housing. While projects in Palo Alto and other cities may. in some instances comply with virtually all of the TPP criteria, the CEQA exemption still requires that the project be consistent with the SCS or APS, so no exemption is likely if the City hasn't concurred with the regional strategy, and could not be granted at least until the SCS phase is completed in 2012. City Mandates Under SB 375 SB 375 explicitly provides that neither the SCS nor APS will regulate the use of land or supersede the exercise of land use authority of cities and counties. It further stipulates that there is no requirement that a jurisdiction's land use policies and regulations be consistent with the regional transportation plan including the SCS or APS; therefore, alignment of local land use policy with the SCS (APS) is voluntary. There will, however, be strong incentives to adopt plans consistent with the region's SCS. In particular, it is likely that regional and state grants for transportation projects (including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as roadway improvements) will be withheld from cities that do not plan consistent with the SCS. Likewise, cities or developers applying for affordable housing grants may not be eligible for such funding if the city's plans do not conform to the SCS for the region. Attachments: Joint Policy Committee's Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of SB 375 League of California Cities' "Technical Overview of SB 375 (January 2009) SB 375 Summary Page 2 Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Conservation and Development Commission Metropolitan Transportation Commission JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94607-4756 (510) 464-7942 fax: (510) 433-5542 tedd@abag.ca.gov www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 (Adopted September 18, 2009) Introduction SB 375 1 (Steinberg) was passed by the California State Assembly on August 25th, 2008, and by the State Senate on August 30th. The Governor signed it into law on September 30th, 2008. The bill mandates an integrated regional land-use-and-transportation-planning approach to reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles and light trucks. Within the Bay Area, automobiles and light trucks account for about 26 percent of our 2007 GHG inventory2 and about 64 percent of emissions from the transportation sector. The bill also expands regional and local responsibilities relative to state housing objectives. It requires that the region identify residential areas sufficient to accommodate all of the Bay Area's population, including all economic groups, for 25 years; and it requires that, within three years of amending their housing elements, local governments enact zoning to implement those elements. SB 375 explicitly assigns responsibilities to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G) and to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to implement the bill's provisions for the Bay Area. Both agencies are members of the Joint Policy Committee3 (JPC). The policies in this document were approved by the JPC and provide guidance to the two lead regional agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities in collaboration with their JPC partners, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Bay Area Climate-Protection Context On July 20th, 2007, the JPC approved a Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program4• This program has as a key goal: "To be a model for California, the nation and the world." Following from this key goal is a supporting goal: "Prevention: To employ all feasible, cost-effective strategies to meet and surpass the State's targets of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050." In pursuit of these goals, MTC's current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update, Transportation 20355, has 1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/biIVsenlsb 0351-0400/sb 375 bill 20080930 chaptered.html 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2008 (http://www.baagmd.gov/plnldocuments/regionalinventorv2007 003 OOO.pdf) 3 The Joint Policy Committee (JPC) is a regional planning consortium of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or the "Air District"), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 4 http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/JPC%20Action%20on%20Clirnate%20Protection.pdf 5 http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035planlindex.htm Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 2 evaluated transportation strategies and investment programs relative to a target of reducing OHO emissions from on-road vehicles in the year 2035 by 40 percent compared to 1990 levels. ABAG has established the same target for assessing alternative land-use scenarios in the development of the latest iteration of the region's policy-based forecast of population and employment: Projections 20096. The Bay Area's regional agencies have clearly recognized the primacy · of the climate-change challenge as a driver of public transportation and land-use policy, and we have embraced the urgency of GHG reduction. The momentum established by our policies and actions to date will carry over into our implementation of SB 375. We do not regard SB 375 as a vexatious new requirement, but rather as an instrument to assist us in continuing and accelerating the climate- protection journey upon which we have already embarked. We are genuinely concerned with making real and measurable progress in reducing the impact which motor-vehicle travel has on the global warming problem. That concern will be paramount in our approach to SB 375 and is reflected in the policies which follow. Policy Subject 1: Setting Targets SB 375 requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set GHG-reduction targets for cars and light trucks in each California region for the years 2020 and 2035. CARB must release draft targets by June 30, 2010 and adopt targets by September 30, 2010. To assist in establishing these targets, CARB is required to appoint a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) composed of representatives of Metropolitan Planning Organizations7 (MPOs), affected air districts8, the League of California Cities (the League), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), local transportation agencies9, and members of the public- including homebuilders, environmental organizations, environmental-justice organizations, affordable housing organizations, and others. The Advisory Committee is tasked with recommending factors to be considered and methodologies to be used in establishing the targets, not recommending the targets themselves-though MPOs are explicitly permitted to recommend targets for CARB' s consideration. In recommending factors to be considered and methodologies to be used, the Advisory Committee may consider any relevant issues, including, but not limited to, data needs, modeling techniques, growth forecasts, the impacts of regional jobs-housing balance on interregional travel and OHG emissions, economic and demographic trends, the magnitude of GHG-reduction benefits from a variety of land-use and transportation strategies, and appropriate methods to describe regional targets and to monitor performance in attaining those targets. The Advisory Committee shall provide a report with its recommendations to CARB no later than September 30,2009, and CARB must consider the report before setting the targets. After the publication of the Advisory Committee Report, MPOs are required to hold at least one public workshop in their region. In establishing the targets, CARB is also required to exchange technical information with MPOs and associated air districts. 6 hrtp:llwww.abag.ca.gov/planning/currentfcst/news.html 7 In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is MTC. 8 In the Bay Area, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 9 In the Bay Area, this might include Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), transit providers, and the transportation planning/streets-and-roads arms of local governments. Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 3 The prescribed GHG-target-setting process, including the multi-sector RTAC, creates a dynamic between need (i.e., the reduction required to contribute to the state's overall greenhouse-gas- reduction targets) and feasibility (i.e., the perceived probability of satisfying that need through available regional planning and implementation mechanisms.) That dynamic may be premature and limiting. Until one goes through the actual process of producing and evaluating a target- based plan, the feasibility of that plan, and the target to which it responds, is mostly just conjecture. The necessity to limit the target based on an a priori judgment of feasibility is also obviated by the legislation's provision of an escape valve, the Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), which provides a mechanism to identify additional measures if target achievement proves not to be feasible in the initial plan, the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). In the 2009 RTP update and in the Projections 2009 process, ABAG and MTC have established very aggressive GHG-reduction targets, based on the transportation sector's large contribution to the region's GHG inventory and on the science-based need to reduce GHGs to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The Bay Area's regional agencies are committed to achieving a significant reduction in transportation-related GHGs and are reluctant to constrain that reduction by setting targets that are too low and that do not provide sufficient challenge to business as usual. We also want to ensure our efforts are rewarded with observable progress, not just with well-intentioned but unimplemented plans. In addition to GHG-reduction targets, SB 375 effectively requires that the region set target levels for 25 years of housing growth based on accommodating all of the region's population, including all economic segments. These housing-growth targets need to be established early so they can accompany the GHG-reduction process throughout the planning process. ;pq1tcylt : ' ,.Ji~'~aYAre~ regi()nal agencieswillfullYiparticipate ~,qA.1p3'sregionaltiu"get-settil1gproces~.· :.Tlli,sp~cipati9Il wi1l6scl,lf,to the ,e~tent possible, . .Jhro~gh,the .RT#CJ)r9cess",thrOug~i!he exchange 'oL<i~ta/an~, •• inf0l1Ilation:Wi~/C~,>and"~through,,the .', authority ,giyetlMr9s 'to' independ~~tl~,rec()pUrtegdJarge~:.fdritlif:ir:I"egi()ils· ,?' ; '.:' , . " . " ,'.. / '~;~~~~~~~~~~~~fl~f~§~~~~~~I~#t~~~~¥s:I~W~il~ ;'.noting thatfeasi~jHt)r ' is:;~9stac~fu"at~ly:jiidged throtiR~.;thepto¢¢~s.()f:Pr..()dl.lcit:lg:tl1~SUstainable · .:Comm~~~§~F~!~gy iitself/;:.o' , . .;'~;:/~." :.,' . '·';i>:'~,' : In. consuli~hori ;~th16,caI ;partriifs}~iit~ili.'the }state.'I~epartni~ht';E£I1SU~th~l,aJ(i 'Cri~tirif~. Development (RCD), the regional agencies will establish 25-year housing-growth targets, bY; ec'ononuc group; no later that ,the release offmal GHG-targets.in September, 2010. ." .. . ~ ." . . .... The i~gional agencies will ' also seek un~biguous and accurate metrics' of target achievement, ~o t that perfonnance relative to the targets can be confidently arid· unarguably assessed. ' , Policy Subject 2: Modeling the Relationship between Transportation and Land Use Travel models (mathematical simulations of travel behavior relative to the regional transportation system and the distribution of land uses) are used to compare the impact of alternative transportation strategies, alternative investment packages and alternative land-use 1 II I Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 4 patterns. The land-use patterns that are fed into the travel models are also, in part, generated by mathematical models of economic and demographic trends. SB 375 requires that the California Transportation Commission (CTC), in consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and CARB, maintain guidelines for travel models. The guidelines must, to the extent practicable within resource constraints, account for: • The empirical relationship among land-use density, automobile ownership, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); • The impact of enhanced transit service on vehicle ownership and VMT; • Induced travel behavior and land development likely to result from highway or rail expansion; • Mode splits between automobile, transit, carpool, bicycle, and pedestrian trips; • Speed and frequency, days, and hours of operation of transit service. SB 375 also requires that MPOs disseminate the methodology, results, and key assumptions of their travel models in a way that would be usable by and understandable to the pUblic. ' Models will be key tools in developing and assessing the alternative transportation and land-use strategies required to implement SB 375 . MTC is currently replacing its travel model with a new instrument more attuned to the CTC guidelines. ABAG is about to update its land-use forecasting models. This is an opportune time to ensure that the region's models are integrated and can be used in an iterative manner, with not only the land-use models feeding into the travel model but with the travel model also feeding back into the land-use models so that the development impacts and requirements of various transportation measures and investments can be more confidently evaluated and so that a mutually reinforcing land-use and transportation strategy can be constructed. At present, the relationship is very linear and one-way, with the land-use forecast informing the travel model but the travel model only indirectly influencing how we forecast land use. Achieving two-way integration will require a much closer working relationship between ABAG and MTC staff engaged in modeling and forecasting than has heretofore been the case. While the models are very technical and complex, it is also a worthy and responsible objective to aim for more public transparency of model methodologies, assumptions and particularly limitations. . . . . " The Bay Area regional agencies will continue to work together wIth local partners and regiorial s~eI.?()lOers to ' construct 'an integnttedrnodeling system -~hic4, to !he -exte~t , poss!ble' within ,the a~ail~ble time and resources, achieves-these essential quali~es: .' . -' .~. ", ,,~.; '. _. ) ", .. ~ ~ .' -':7 . ~;" . .. _ , \ . '. r~ansparency-technical, deci"sion-maker and public understanding of how ,lanq-use :and _ transportation:de,cisions ' Car}' be coordinated so ' asio -reduce GRG emissions, faciti~ted . through open disclosure and expfailation of assumption'S and ~ethodologle.s, but 'without j <iyeJ."-~simplifying"qonlpl~xr~latioJ1~hjp~;·· . ' -, i !I fi 11 fI j II r !! II Ii II II I I i ! I II' ~ I I Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 5 Pollc),2( continued): • .c;~m"p"ebensivelless •.• ' .~ensi#vityto themavy factorS . t~atil1f1tiegqej~diVi411al)apd golfe:c~Fve 'I3l1~-Hse and .tr~~~?~ation .c,lioi9.es~ ...• includieg, •.. lJut .•. not.limit,ed .to:~eerID'prices:: .. ~~!ciirg .'. pI"igesand.av,"fability,/tratlSP?rl<lti()~' .. us~ge .cJlarges;·.tr~Yel-tirilf '90~pati~9gs 'ariio~tfg .'. ti·lf~~(ltive. J:l1()4~.~·,.~~ysimtaff()rd~Bil~tx,emp19Ym~h~.l9C(llipn~; .. p~rqeix~ds9hool qualitY~;. ,w~rc~ivedpvplicsifetyr ~4t~epr~~~hc~9r Jbselice 'of q9~~t~m,ept~y'·lls~s~<sl.1ppo11i~e. ~~~jgn (lIld oWer q01l1lPw¥ty~etPti~s ;orliabillfi~s; . . ..,. .... > ..... ". ..•. . .. ~ ..• ~:J .~\ • ·R~sijlup()Il ,'.\Sp~tial .aI1~·.teIl1Poiai ••• ~I~~aIJ~··.a#~Ysi~ .... ~t'.Jh~·.;bigh~st.p6ssi?i¢;1~yel;9f1~~il' ' .. ' i~~~di~~~~~~~i~~1'~~v~~i~~~~!~~gp~;~~I~f~~~1~~" • ·,···:iJ:iformi~' ••.•. · .•. F~t~,i~YOlve¥JIlt •. :~f •. ~·¥e .• '.Q~s·.· ••. ·~4, •. ~()~et~;~1l(»eIlgage'.fI1;2~~~pl~i1t~~t~ •.• "}Jlodelin.if·' ~ctiYil!e,s::to ,J~.cilltat~ ·"·cornIItollality ~aIld,::c01I).p~ti~mtY :.aIriong : rilp4el~.~d.t~' '9Rll~i~tenrmod~ling .~yste¥t\V~ch extel'lds1jeyo#dtl1e ;r~gt()q~lageri61.es;.' .. .., ..•.. ! ";:'." ;:;,","' -c"" I • . ··.·.··~npl"~pti~t,e·.· .•• iljs~.~~' •.....• ·· •• ~xklicit .• · ..• rec()~Ilitioll.,of •• tl1~ ... ·.li#pitiF>~.>,qf;:pi()#~I$.,ih:· .• ·acc,~~~~~li.·. gt~gi~tingth~ftl¥~and~tU(MIlg~\1()i~e . ('tp~y .... ~.~ ... r~~t~~~~~~ti()ns ,o(.P'?t~~ti~ re~riJ~t;~J;iot .·.:J:t(Cl!ity':.its.~1~.an4'f;lI"e.l.1~st~Wplo~e~,t(th~1J>~ifferenti~te .~()~g;'~tt~ffi~tiy~:~~~!.egies?;'~Rt~tO .. 'pr~4ictthe 'pr~'cis~.··re.sillfso.fasinglestrCltegy. 'i11eY 'ii1tormd.~,cisi()i1s; :t4~Ydonot·Lih~e , deCls~ons.).:( , ............•.•...••• "',.:; " .'. .... . , ""./ . ,. Policy Subject 3: Preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy and an Alternative Planning Strategy SB 375 requires that each MPO (MTC and ABAG in the Bay Area) prepare a sustainable communities strategy (SCS). This strategy is to, among other things, constitute the land-use forecast for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and must comply with federal requirements for that forecast, including most importantly that it be judged to be realistically attainable during the twenty-five-year period of the RTP. One criterion for judging realistic attainability is congruence with local-government general plans, specific plans and zoning. The SCS shall be adopted as part of the RTplO and shall: • Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the regIOn; • Identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period of the RTP (i.e., 25 years), taking into account net migration into the region, population growth (presumably referring to natural increase), household formation, and employment growth; 10 The next RTP update, and thefrrst to which SB 375 will apply, is scheduled to be adopted in March 2013. I I ~ i I! Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 6 • Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need; • Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region; • Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region; • Consider state housing goals; • Forecast a development pattern for the region, which when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will achieve, to the extent practicable, the targeted greenhouse-gas emission reduction from automobiles and light trucks, while also permitting the R TP to comply with the Clean Air Act; • In doing all of the above, consider spheres of influence that have been adopted by LAFCOs. Some believe that the SCS is just ABAG's Projections under another name and with slightly different prescriptions and constraints. It is much more than that. While the SCS will, in part, playa role similar to Projections in the RTP, it is not just a land-use forecast, but a preferred development pattern integrated with the transportation network and with transportation measures and policies. It approaches in intent and content a comprehensive land-use and transportation plan for the region. As such, it should playa more fundamental guiding role for the RTP than does Projections, which is mostly used now for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and for air quality conformity analysis accompanying the RTP. The SCS also performs an important role in housing planning, extending well beyond the current Projections series and the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. The SCS must specifically identify areas within the region sufficient to accommodate twenty-five years of future housing demand from all income categories. Before adopting the SCS, we will be required to quantify the reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions projected to be achieved by the SCS and identify the difference (if any) between that reduction and the CARB targets for the region. If the SCS is unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the targeted levels, then we must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) showing how the greenhouse-gas targets would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. The APS is a separate document from the RTP but may be adopted at the same time as the RTP. In preparing the APS, we are required to: • Identify the principal impediments to achieving the targets through the SCS; • Describe how the GHG targets would be achieved by the alternative strategy and why the development pattern, transportation measures and transportation policies in the APS are the most practicable choices for the achievement of those targets; • Ensure that the APS complies with all the federal requirements for an RTP "except to the extent that compliance with those requirements would prevent achievement of the GHG targets" (i.e., the APS is essentially exempted from the criterion of realistic attainability); it II II I, ,I " I' ~ •. j I Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 7 • Develop the APS in the same manner and consider the same factors as we would to develop an SCS. The APS is essentially a more aggressive GHG-reduction strategy than would be pennissible under the federal requirements for an RTP-i.e., financially constrained and with a realistic land- use forecast. As the SCS is an official part of the RTP, it is required by federal law to be internaUy consistent with the other parts of the RTP, including the financially constrained transportation investment package. This is what gives the SCS its potential power: transportation projects identified for funding in the RTP investment package must be consistent with the SCSll. As the APS is not included in the R TP and therefore does not influence transportation investment, its potential impact is much more limited. It serves essentially two purposes, the first explicit in the legislation, the second implicit: (1) to provide access to some California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concessions for qualifying development projects12, and (2) to provide a means through which the state can be informed of additional powers, authorities or resources required to meet regional GHG-reduction targets. The Bay Area's regional agencies are committed to making a real difference in reducing GHGs. Therefore, it is in our interest to achieve as much progress toward this region's targets in the SCS as possible. Those land-use changes, transportation measures and transportation policies which can only be identified in the APS are essentially those that we have conceded cannot be implemented; that is, we cannot provide the required assurances to the federal government that those changes, measures, and policies meet the realism test-at least not within the current distribution of authorities. If the changes, measures and policies are not real, then the GHG reductions are also not real. We will not attain the on-the-ground improvement we desire and need. Meeting the realism test for the SCS requires two preconditions: (1) alignment of local land-use policy with the preferred land-use pattern in the SCS 13 and (2) authority and resources to undertake the required transportation policies and measures. To maximize our probability of 11 The legislation specifically excludes a subset of investment projects from this requirement, including Proposition I-B projects and projects contained in the 2007 or 2009 Federal Statewide Transportation Program (STP) if programmed for funding on or before the end of 2011, Local funding for projects specifically listed in local sales tax measures approved prior to the end of 2008 is also exempt from the consistency requirement, though state and federal matching funds, if any, are not exempt. Further, the legislation does not require a sales tax authority to change the funding allocations approved by voters for categories in a sales tax measure adopted before the end of 2010. 12 CEQA concessions are extended to two potentially overlapping types of development projects: (1) a residential or mixed-use project consistent with an SCS or APS; and (2) specifically defmed "transit priority projects" (TPPs). Subject to incorporating mitigation measures from previous reviews, the EIRs for SCS-or APS-consistent projects will not be required to address growth-inducing impacts, global warming impacts, or regional transportation network impacts. Further SCS-or APS-consistent development projects will not have to prepare a reduced-density alternative to address local traffic impacts. TPPs will be exempt from CEQA review if they are consistent with an SCS or APS and comply with a long list of other mandatory and optional criteria. 13 SB 375 explicitly provides that neither the SCS nor the APS will regulate the use of land or supersede the exercise of the land-use authority of cities and counties. It further stipulates that there is no requirement that a city's or county's land-use polices and regulations, including its general plan, be consistent with the RTP (including the SCS) or with the APS. Therefore, alignment oflocalland-use policy with the SCS will have to be voluntary. Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 8 success, we need to be acquiring those preconditions now, building upon the momentum that we have established with the target driven RTP, Transportation 2035, with the performance-based Projections 2009 and especially with the Bay Area's voluntary development and conservation strategy, FOCUS14• Transportation 2035 has been instrumental in introducing climate protection as a core regional transportation planning objective. The Projections 2009 process has initiated a productive discussion with local-government officials on the impact that land-use and development has on transportation GHGs. FOCUS has provided mechanisms, priority development areas (PDAs) and priority conservation areas (PCAs), through which the regional ·· agencies and local governments can partner on achieving a land-use pattern that contributes to lower VMT and hence fewer GHG emissions. The PDAs also provide laboratories through which many of the assumptions underlying our models can be tested. To enable the region to prepare a genuinely effective SCS in association with the 2013 RTP, the cooperative policy discussions begun with the 2009 RTP and with Projections 2009 need to continue and accelerate over the next few years and into the formal beginning of the SCS process. A successful SCS will not be proposed and imposed by the regional agencies, but will be built and owned cooperatively at all levels by all the transportation and land-use authorities in the Bay Area. We also need to make substantial progress on the implementation of the FOCUS PDAs and PCAs, so that local governments have concrete examples upon which to draw when constructing local plans that are consistent with the SCS. And we need to establish trust among local governments that substantial regional and state assistance to PDAs and PCAs is truly forthcoming. Full local-government participation in the PDA and PCA initiatives is conditioned on the provision of incentive funding. In Transportation 2035 MTC established a $2.2-billionI5 Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) account to, in part, assist PDAs and transit- oriented development. Early programming of dollars in the TLC account can set a positive stage for an SCS that enjoys local-government support and, therefore, is more likely to be realistically attainable. In addition to incentives to facilitate supportive development, local governments and other local partners (such as CMAs and transit agencies) will require resources to participate fully and effectively in the process of developing the SCS and to undertake associated planning activities (e.g., specific plans for potential FOCUS PDA areas). The regional agencies have sponsored and advocated for SB 406 (DeSaulnier). If passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor, this will enable a small vehicle-license surcharge which will provide funds to regional agencies and local governments to undertake work on the SCS and related plans. With or without SB 406, the regional agencies are committed to advocating for and securing appropriate planning resources for their partners If we are successful in enlisting local governments and other local agencies as genuine partners in the construction of the SCS, then we should also be able to enlist those partners in some positive expression of their participation in the process and their comprehension of the results. While under the law, the SCS can only be adopted formally by ABAG and MTC, explicit council 14 http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/index.html 15 As a federal requirement, enumerated in escalated dollars of the day. Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 9 or board resolutions that acknowledge local implications would be highly appropriate and collectively would constitute one indicator of realism. The resolutions, similar to those required for the designation of PDAs, will need to be crafted in such a way as to not prejudge future local- plan and zoning amendments. However, they should occur in the context of local governments fully understanding their contribution to the realism tests applied by federal reviewing agencies. P6lic"l ,". .,)' ..... ' .J'l1~;~~Yi-¥e;i·iegioIi~i~gJncies.ar~;fQniliritt~d·t6 ~c11i~ving. the thr~ughtheSeS and will prepare an,"wPSon1y;a~a,;hlst;'resort. ,,'" .'" ·i'./,"'Y;\:/,>o'''', . .'" ' .. '. ." ··".'),;ii'.·;" .' T~)a,s~istin, th~ :prepara#pri;ofa;r~~listicanif~ttainabl~~~S, ~e regional aJ;;';;n"'1~3 >;;.;~;:< ; ;P~~I";'With :C~s, transit agencies"l?C~i !g~Y~r11lnents, and other 'cooperatively prepare an SCS', beginnii1.g;no late.t!han the end of2009; ;~'!;;In balaJb~",i!lt>2~er' programming p~~riti~~;Lb~~ln prograpuning and allocating 'funds from • <.the curf~nt ;~1!"§.'$2.2 billion TLC account no later tb,an fiscal year, 2010-1 r so as ·to .': 'demonstr~te,atangible corinnitm~nt '~Qpriqpty.development areas that assist in ' reducing ·;'G:HEf,~;·' '.'., ', .. ', ' ""'>', ·';I$ti~~H0~~i9~g of re~gRiti'~~imfy~g (e.g., Mi@.~a~~9j g~\;;j}~ '~chiey~syl)~rgi~s <U1~maxinrizei,9:9ijlbit1~.4i~p~St,; beginning with p110t ecff()t,1S 'DUilt upon th¢ ········:MTC 'SJ,iewc::limate~hange fiuid '~# tQe:A4i~ ])i~tPct' s TFCA,p!Q·gI;CWli c:':l).r .. . •.. ::Co.~i~f~ni~~{tlieciJrrent RTP~~fO~~~§l1'iitti discussions on~ew incentives for priority ' .• ,d~ve~,().1'r11ellt :~~as;iiYe'pr~.ority'f9~i~~r~~()llto'"~QS-supportive· incentive~,~c!he allocati911 /#tdpr~g~~~·of ne\V:~~ding(~:g .. ,th~f~der~f,stimirlll§,package),.~.itP~cQmes available'·' ;,.t?m~~~gioti~l~geI1ci~s;;:: C c· " .' .c·..... ". .~;, .. ,' .' ... ,. ',:' ..'~~te~rg~~,~,"'fUch are , intende~;t~;~Ji8Pll~~&¥'iJffil1 development and :l."1d .conservation; ,i 'aIid ,."dvocate'Jori the 'creation {)f {additionaFincentiyemechanismstltrgl,igh new 'state :legisiationin'adva~ce of the SCS; , ."'., . ," '. ' " idvoc;te for the re~toration of .more . stable funding to · transit operations, which will be essential to reducing VMTand GHGs; ,;' Continue to seek 'planning. resoUrces so that our local-goverimlent and CMA ,partners ,can share leadership roles With the regipnal 'ag~ncies in' 'the' Sc:~ process: ap.d' undertake:rdated planrung ,,"ctivities;. . " . " o • • • • • .,.", • -':: ", • '. \, '. • ' • l ..' • • • ~\ ~.'..:."...; " .'. • • • .' ,~ ; • Advocate for regiomli. transportation':-pricing,authorlti~s',iliat:cim 'Cdnp.:ibut~ ,toj reducing~vMT . ,per,capifa' 'and relat~d 'OH Gs,.~,6thadhese authorIties' cari~,be"aya:ilable t~ the SCSj;f Feqtiir~d::·',· " --",: '~ -' >: .. " ...;~ ... -".~;'-~:~' .,/ .... ~ .. :" :-': ", ~' , ..... ; .:,. , ..... >.; ... ' .... ' .-', :._, : !'.-' ... As,' a tangible dYQ1onstratitm., of ,partnership and to ' 'assist;.'reyi~Wihg; :age,ncies, . fu.',cis~es~ii1g : tpe, realism' of.tb~, SC~;L fu~ "regiop~1;agencies mil: s~~~~~c~~ci'l ~r',biru:d ,resol,!~i9lls 'fr~)1n :'?Ur'l~l~'a1 parth~rs¢li~g that they ;unde,r~wn~ ,the 'i¥pl~.cations J9f' th~ir j'!ris~~~oh~" .i»,the G'9riteX;~ <?f ' the realism 'criteria that wilrbe'appiied to th~!J:tTP and 80S:',. "" ". " I II .1 I I I. !I II :1 r , 11 11 Ii II If I Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 10 Policy Subject 4: Achieving Consistency with Adjacent Regions As referenced previously, the SCS will be required to identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, taking into account net migration into the region, natural increase, household formation, and employment growth. This is a substantial departure from present regional-planning practice, which has assumed some spillover of Bay-Area-generated housing and transportation demand into adjacent regions, particularly into the Central Valley. We can plan to accommodate all our population growth, but our plans are unlikely to be realized if they are not consistent with those of our neighboring regions, which may continue to plan on the basis of accommodating exogenous demand from the Bay Area. Early and frequent discussions with surrounding regions to coordinate assumptions, policies and targets are, therefore, required. 'J>olicy 4: '.. .... . • ... " . . . .., .' ·T1te. Bay Area regional agencies will initiate' discussions and consult with om: neighboring regions throughout the~odel-development and SCS planning processe'~ to facilitate consistenty in assUmptions and policies'.' . Policy Subject 5: Synchronizing and Conforming the SCS and the RTP with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) SB 375 requires that the RHNAlhousing element cycle will be synchronized and coordinated with the preparation of every other RTP update, starting with the first update after 2010 (i.e., 2013). RTP updates occur every four years, and housing elements must be adopted by local governments eighteen months after the adoption of the RTP. With a few exceptions, the region will now be on an eight-year RHNA cycle and local governments will be on eight-year housing- element cycles. In addition to synchronizing with the preparation of the RTP and the SCS contained therein, the RHNA allocation must be consistent with the development pattern included in the SCS, and the resolution approving the RHNA shall demonstrate that it is consistent with the SCS. Housing elements and associated local zoning adopted pursuant to the RHNA may be among the most important means for making the SCS real. SB 375 requires that local governments enact implementing zoning within three years of the adoption of their housing elements. The 2008 ABAG RHNA process was the first in the state to explicitly connect the regional housing allocation to the sort of focused-growth and transit-oriented development principles which are likely to be central to the SCS. We, therefore, have a head start on the consistency requirements of SB 375. However, many of jurisdictions that received higher RHNA numbers as the result of the newly applied principles also persuasively argued that they required additional resources to respond to the infrastructure and service requirements of more housing and population. A more intimate connection with the R TP will be required to assist resources to flow in the same direction as housing requirements, noting that those resources must respond not just to an eight-year RHNA but to a 25-year identification of housing growth areas. Existing law makes MTC responsible for the RTP and ABAG responsible for the RHNA. SB 375 makes both agencies jointly responsible for the SCS, though the SCS will also be adopted as ! I 1 Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 11 part ofthe RTP. To ensure coordination and complementariness and to ensure that both agencies are fully cognizant of their commitments to each other and of their joint commitments to other partners and the region, all three instruments-the R TP, the RHNA and the SCS-should be developed and adopted together as a regional-agency partnership. The structure of the SCS, itself, should also facilitate coordination. The fundamental expression of the Sustainable Communities Strategy will be a "vision" of the region we hope to become at the end of the twenty-five year planning period. While responding to the core housing and greenhouse-gas objectives of SB 375, the vision will also need to accommodate many other local and regional aspirations generally categorized under the three sustainability "e"s of economy, environment and equity. All policies, measures, and allocations contained in the SCS, the RTP, the RHNA will need to be at least consistent with the vision and ideally will contribute to its realization. To maximize the ability of the vision to drive coordination, it should be confirmed early in the SCS process. All consequential long-term and short-term decisions directed at both the 2020 and 2035 target years, as well as at the 2040 RTP and housing horizon, can then be tested against this long-term vision. Fortunately the vision need not be constructed from scratch; it can build upon a rich legacy of cooperative regional planning that has occurred continuously for most of the past decade and most recently through the FOCUS program. SB375 requires nominal consistency among the SCS, RTP and RHNA documents. Genuine consistency on the ground necessitates that we go beyond the law and that we do cooperative follow-up after the adoption of the various documents. Under the law, RHNA housing numbers are still only distributed at the jurisdictional level. As jurisdictional control totals, these jurisdictional distributions are nominally consistent with the SCS . However, to be effective in reducing GHGs, it is essential that actual housing development be distributed to partiCUlar sub- jurisdictional locations as identified by the SCS (e.g., in PDAs, near transit stations, employment centers and other activity nodes; and with regard to sub-regional commute sheds as defined by centers and corridors). The regional agencies should use their investments and other programs to assist local governments in ensuring that housing elements, implementing zoning, and actual projects are not only compliant with state housing law and with RHNA control totals, but are also consistent with the detailed SCS growth distribution. 'P0Hcy 5: "'Cd',' '. ·":,.t·}· . agency w9r~:!p!pgram,.develope~';~~ inl~J~ll1eh~~d~jI};partnership with the o~her regional ,agencies,r5grig~stion j managem~nt {"ggeucies, local governments, and 'non-governmentaL 'orgf1I1izatiQ:1!J~;y¢hich h,\ve a stake in the wo~K;~nd its outcome~. ' ' , I --. -' -.-' -,' ". ~ -.'" . Al(ptodu,cts in the cross-agency w.ork prqgram Will be' rep0rled in draft to the !p.e for a thorough infer'l.geri~y ,vetting before 'being 'referred with .fPC 'reco.,inmendatioris; for fmal decision '~Y the 'corrimittees, board,' and , commission fOrinally' respo~ible for ', each . of "the three .p~licy in.stiuments:MTC for the RTP, ABAG for the RHNA~ and both for the' SCS.· ... ' J ...' • ••••• ..: -r .. ·, The:WC and its member agencies will 'share draft materiai"with partnership groups, consultative. comnuttees and · ,advisory cOuhcils ai\g.i With'()l1e '~fll}oth~r to facilitate broad~~ed vetting of s~gpjj,Q~t ideas,an.4: ipitiatives~,/;',' .' . ",:, Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 12 Fr6mtirne to time, the ·JPC may initiate ' special task ' forces, widely . repre~enta~ive of affect~4' regional and local interests, to assist in the detailed draftipg 'ofcontentiousandcQllseqlientia:f polii;ies and measUJ;'es,~ , . . . .. ' , , . ~6the extent feasible, policy report,s aI).d adopting resohitiorts fore<l;chof:p~licyinstrumerits: ~li . 'referen~e implic~tio:ns . JOr the .. qther instruments ' so ,that ·, all . cl¢c~slons are · 'cognizant of ' int~rdep~nde11:Ri~s.', ;,' ' , Th~ process wilLbeginwithth.e cQnstfuctioll 8h4confmnatioIl df:'a twentY~fiv~~year vis'ion for the Bay Area. Tha(-vi$ion will resp~:>lid to the 2035, GHG targetand't ot he I5-year hous~g' groWth objective mahd~ied by SB 375 as well ;as to other desi[ed ec()nomic, environment, alid " equity qiUilities, 'Alllong~term arid >short-term stra!egic 'policieS,measl,ll'es, and allocations will be. assessed ag~inst this 'long-term visiQn~ : " . .' , , . -" -'-, ",' :.' -, ,~:<-,<>.'> .. -·-"-·:<;':;·\~.'--.u; ;-,:-,-~; '. After the adoption oftfJ.t?SCS, RTP, and rWNA,tlle regio~al agencies will, within the limits of their r~sou'rces " and alltliorities, ,.' assist 'l()cal .,govemnients iiI "adhi~vlng ,housing . elemttnts, unplemeritation zoning,;~dJ:i.()using 'projects which, in addition to' fullY ·C9mplYitIg with state ·liousing~e1ement law, are 96nslstent With thed¢tiiiled ,growthdistributionirifue ;S¢S.~ Assistance Will indude~ but ubt. be limited 'to, resolving ' infraStrhcture 'and'setyice issue~;~elate4 .to :the' pro'Vi~ion.ofhousing .. ' ' .. '. ' , '.' •..•. ; Policy Subject 6: Providing CEQA Assistance' SB 375 provides various levels of CEQA assistance to housing and mixed-use development projects based on their conformity with a number of criteria, including consistency with an SCS or APS. However, the legislation only vaguely defines "consistency" and then in manner which may not be compatible with current Bay Area regional land-use planning practice. One approach to clarifying "consistency" is the preparation of a programmatic environmental impact review (EIR) for the SCS (and for the APS, if required). Development projects, as well as infrastructure projects, might also be able to "tier off' this EIR, and thus become eligible for additional CEQA assistance in addition to that provided through SB 375. The feasibility of this approach, and of alternatives, requires the resolution of a number of technical and legal issues, including the relationship to the EIR presently prepared for the RTP. Work to resolve these issues needs to occur as soon as possible as it will clearly affect the manner in which we prepare the SCS/APS . . Policy 6: In consultation with appropriate CEQA authorities" the ·r~gional . agencies 'will 4eyelop, arid fina!ize, no , later ~h..ari June 20 i 0, a fwictional design for the structUre. etp.4 ,c~ntent ort~e ,SOS, 't~e APS' and ' aSsociated · envjrorubentai 'impact review do~uments suffiCient for ,these" ,to ,~be '. . . • • • 1-• .' • .' , •• 1" _ • ~ , • <. _ r ~ .cOnfidently ', employep ''':5 the basisfotdetermining :eligibi,lity ,for CEQA . assist~~e as contemplated in SB 375 arid,. it: J"easible, to prov~de additional .CEQ1\. assistance for projects which contribute positively to environmeritalobjectlves'for the region.' . ' Policies for the Bay Area's Implementation of Senate Bill 375 13 Policy Subject 7: Aligning Regional Policies While ABAG and MTC develop the region's first SCS, the Air District and BCDC will also be putting together policies and regulations that will affect the region's distribution of land uses and the placement of public infrastructure. Both agencies may, as well, propose projects which could be included in the RTP. In its effort to control criteria pollutants (e.g. ozone precursors and particulate matter), the Air District may, under existing authority, consider an indirect source rule (ISR) that regulates the construction and long-term transportation impacts of land development and requires mitigation or payments in lieu for development which does not meet established standards. Of particular concern is development which is deemed to increase automobile travel and hence vehicle emissions. The Air District may also seek to limit development in certain areas so as to reduce exposure to noxious particulate matter and other localized air toxins. Many of these areas overlap with FOCUS PDAs. BCDC will be preparing an adaptation plan to prepare for inevitable sea-level rise and storm surges affecting areas on and near the Bay shoreline. This will have implications for the location of future development and perhaps for the relocation of present development and infrastructure. It is essential that both the Air District's work and BCDC's be aligned with the SCS so that the regional agencies complement and do not contradict one another. Confusion will not contribute to the multi-level collaboration required to achieve a sustainable communities strategy that works. Policy 7: Staiti~g immediately,; and consistent with the JPC'sr~le 'as defmed instatelaw, all signlfjparzt 'regionru-a.gency policy documents affecting the location 'and intensityof'developmentot the Jocation and c;apacity of transportation infrastructure will ' b~vetted through the JPC and evaluated againSt the filter ofthe'~merging SCS .• ,', ' ".', ,',,",' ,: ' As 'with 'all regiorial~~gency policies 'affecting ' JocaJ land:-use di~creiiQnor local-level ' transportation investments,the polIcy ,'docfunents will be developed in partnership ;with the applicable local ,gove1l1li1~nts, congestion 'm,anagem:ent and tran~,it :agencies and ;with the' . participation of o!ber interested stakeholders.-' " ' " T4e fmal d~Risl~h ,~n'.anyjiegiona1SP6licf ~ilkcoIltiI111e to rest-With th~l'esp6risible regional board ot ~opm1ts&i()b to whichthe JPC is 'a<iM~so:ry. .... ~ OF CAlHORNIA ~~\ LEAGUE ", ··CITIES To: California City. Officials From: Bill Higgins! 1400 K Street, Suite 400. Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org . " Legislative Representative & Sr. Staff Attorney Date: , . JanuIDy 23. 20092 RE:!echnical Overview ofSB 375 (v 1.3i .. . '1 '· L; I ., . Ie . Introduction SB 375, by Senator Darrell Steinberg, builds on the existing regional transportation planning process (which is overseen by local officials with land use responsibilities) to connect the reduction ofgreenhousegas.(GhG),emissions from car$and light trucks to land use and transpo,rtation poliQY. In 2006, the J:-egislatul'e passed AB 32-The Global ; Warming Solutions Act of2006,-which requires the State of California to redu~e GhG .' . em,issions to 1990 leyels no later than 2020. Passenger v~hicl~s account for 31 percent of the state's total emIssions. In 1990 greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks were 108 million metric tons, but by 2004 these emissions had increased to 135 million metric tons. SB 37~ asserts that "Without improved land use and transpOltation policy, ~alifornia.will not-be able to achieve the gOals ofAB 3~."4 . . . .' . .' ~ '{.: ' . . : '. : .,' . . . . . AB 32 setthe stage forS:a375--or at least something like it. The issue was not "if' land use and ~ansportation policy were going to be connected to reducing greenpouse gas emis~io~s blft "how" alld "when." The issue was not "if',a governmental entity would I Acknowled~ement. The auth:~r acknowledges a~d is grateful for the very signiflcimt bontributions of the League's special counsel, Betsy Strauss, in preparing this document 2 This version includes mostly minor corrections to the September 19,2008 version. It updates Section Ill, subsection 4 related to the setting regional targets and the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the CEQA analysis insofar as it addresses local discretion in using the new CEQA streamlinin~ provisions. 3 Work in Progress Disclaimer. This memorandum is a work in progress; it is not and should not be considered legal advice. It represents oW' best thinking to date on the scope and major implementation issues related to SB 375. As additional information becomes available, we will update this document. Readers who are aware of issues not addressed here, identitY inadvertent errors, or want to make additional comments, should contact Bill Higgins at higginsb@cacities.ol'g or 916/658-8250 ' 4 SeeSB'375 (2008), Section l(c) [uncodifledj .. Technical Overview ojSB 375 (v. 1.3) League of California Cities Page 2 , l'egulate the car and lightwck seCtor in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -the , , ' CARB'ah'eady has that authority under AB 32 -but "how" and "when." SB 375 has three goals: (1) to use the regional transportation planning process to help achieve AB 32 goals; (2) to use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects which help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce GhG emissions; and (3) to coordinat~ the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional transportation planning process. ' To be sure, the League remains fundamentally concerned about keeping the line as bright as possible between regional planning and local land use authority. In the 'end, however, SB 375 answers the questions "how?" and "when?" by choosing regional agencies (controlled by cities and counties) rather than the CARB to lead the effort in this area; and by integrating the Regional Housing Neyds Allocation (RHNA) with transportation planning to allow cities and counties to align existing housing element requirements with transportation funding. Those cities and counties that find the CEQA streamlining provisions attractive have the 0ppOltunity (but not the obligation) to align their planning decisions with the decisions of the region. ' II. SB ·375in Context: AD 32, CARB; and Global Warming AB32granted CARB broad authority over any "source" ofGhG emissions.s The defirutionof"source" includes automobiles and light irucks,6 which account for more thati 30 pel'cent'ofthe state's GhG emissions. AB 32 authorizes the CARBto require "participation" in CARB's program to reduce greenhouse 'gas emissions and to "monitor cotnpiiarlce;' with the statewide'greenhouse gas emissions limit.7 SB375reptesents a "prpgram" for the automobile and lightttuck sector.8 It provides a means for achieving the AB 32 goals for ears and light trucks. , This is important to understanding why the agreement on SB 375 was reached: it provides more certainty for local govemtneIits and developers by framing how AB32' s reduction goal from transportation planning for cars and light truekSwill be established. It should be noted, however;thatSB j75 does not prevent CARB from adopting additional regulations under its AB 32 authority.9 (However, given the degree of consensus that emerged on SB 375, such actions should be politically difficult for CARB at least for the foreseeable future). . i , '. . '. . . . 1 .: S Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38560 6 Cal. I::Ieal~h & Safety Code § 38505(i) , 7 Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38562 and following 8C~I'. H~aith &. S~fety Cod,e § 38562. 9 This is because the scope of authority granted to CARB to regulate any "source" ofGHG emissions is very broad. 'f ] I' Ii I' I, ~ li II H ~ II II II I II Ii I) 1 Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) League o/California Cities Page 3 SB 375 requires the CARB to establish the GhG emission reduction targets for each regiori (as opposed to individual dties or households) and to review the region's det~rrnination that its plan achieves those targets. Each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must include a sustainable commuruties strategy (SCS) in the reg!onal transportation plan that seeks to achieve targeted reductions in,GhG emissions from cars and light trucks if there is a feasible way to_4o so. CARB establishes the targets for each region in accordance with the following: ---.. ," . • CARE must take other factors into account bef9re setting target. Before setting a reduction target for the reduction of GhGs from cars and light trucks, CARB must first consider the likely reductions that will result from actions to improve the fuel efficiency of the statewide fleet and regulations relating the carbon content of fuels (low carbon fuels). 10 _. --. -_ . - ! .. • Targets are set regionally. not locally. SB 375 assures that the targetto reduce GhGs ~-froincars and light trucks will be regional. (CARB has received many comments and suggestions on its Scoping Plan that it should adopt targets and enforce requirement on an agency-by-agencybasis). - • -Committee to advise CARE. A Regional Targets Advisory-Committee, Which includes representation from the League of-California Cities, California State _ Association of Counties, metropolitan planning organizations, developers, planning organizations and other stakeholder groups, will advise the Board o'n how to set and --enforce regional targets; • Exchange oftechnical information. Before settingthe targets for each region, CARB is tequiredto exchange technical information with the-MPO fOl'that region and with the affected air district. The MPO may recommend a target for the region. The CARB'srole in SB 375 is limited. Although the CARB retains its broad grant of authority to act independently under AB 32, SB 375 provides the framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the car and light truck sector through the tie between land use ana transportation planning. Moreover, SB 375 indirectly addresses another longstanding issue: single purpose state agencies. The League, among others, has argued that these agencies often fail to recognize other competing ~tate goals enforced by a different state agency. SB 375 takes a first step to counter this problem by connecting RHNA to the transportation planning process. As a result, SB 375 will require CARB to look at how new climate regulations could affect state and regional transit and housing policies; likewise, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)will have to consider the effects of houSing policy ?n state and regional effOlts to address climate change. lOCal. Gov't Code §,65080(b)(2)(A)(iii). Citations to Janguage in SB 375 is.to the section of the code as it proPQsec,i to be amended based on the August 22 version ofS8 375 that was approved by the Assembly and concurred with by the Senate. Technical Overview ofSB 375 (v. 1.3) League o/California Cities Page 4 III. "Planning for Greenhouse Gas Emission'ReduCtion within the RTP' Regional tl'anspb~tation plans have long been a part of the transportation planning horizon in California. Federal law requires regional transportationplans (RTPs) to inC1ud~,a land use allocation and requires the metropolitan pla,rtning organizations that prepare RTPs to make 'a co'nformity' finding that the Plan is consistent with the requirements of the federal . Clean Air Act. Some regions have also engaged in a regional "blueprint" process to . prepare the land use .allocation. . .' . . . 1. T.h'e:Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) SB 375. integrates AB 32's goal to reduce GhG emissions by requiring that a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) be added to the RTP. SB 375 recognizes that, because of the constraints of federal law and inadequate funding for infrastructure and public transit, an SCS may not be, able to achieve theregiop.'s targets. If the metropolitanplanning organization (MBO) I I detennines that the SOS cannot achieve the targets, then theMPO must develop an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) (see discussion below). The biggest single difference is that the SCS is part of the RTP and the APS is not. . To fully understand what an SCS is-and is not-it's worth taking a step back and look at what is required in existing regional transportation ,plans~ RTPs are regulated bya conglomeration of state and federal law. State law requires that an RTP include "clear, concise policy guidance to local and state officials" regarding transportation planning. 12 The fedel'allaw requires that RTPs, among other things, work toward achieving the goals of the CleallAir Act. To that end, RTPs must be based upon "current planning assumption~.,,13 ... A conformity finding is unacceptable if it is based upon planning assumptions which would keep the air clean but which will .nevel' occur because they are dependent upon, for example, the extension of public transit. . Thus; cun'ent RTPs include a likely or realistic forecasted development pattern for the region for the next 20 to 30 years. This estimate informs the decision~making process for transportation' funding. The forecasted growth p~ttern must be based upon "current planning assumptions" to assure that the air conformity provisions are meaningful. Put another way, if the growth pattern is not realistic, then the accompanying policies to ',j. '. ". ; ,t o II A metro~olita~ planning organization (M(lO) is "the policy boardofap. organization created and design,at~d to c~trY out metropolitan transportation planning." 23 CFR450J08 . l.: '.} '. '.' . : . . • 12 CaI",Gov't Code. § 65080(a). 13 See 40 CFR§ 93.110 (making Clean Air conformity detennination in federal actions). Particular attention should be paid to (a) 23 CPR § 450.104 (definitions); (b)23 CFR450.308(MPOs and transportation funding); (c) 23 CFR § 450.322 (development and content of transportation plan); (d) 23 CPR § 450.324 (development and content ofthe transportation improvement program -TIP); (e) 40 CFR § 93,100 (implementation of Clean Air Act in federal actions); and (t) 40 § CFR 93.110 (making Clean Air confonriity determin~tion in federal actions). This last reference that is-the source for the language that says that a SCS is "subject to [federal law ], including the requirement to utilize the most recent planning assumptions considering local general plans and other factors" (65080(b)(2)(B». . Technical Overview olBB 375 (v. 1.3) LeagufJ, of California Cities 'Page 5 achieve air quality conformity relating to air pollutants from traffic are not likely to work. If the , federal go.ve~ment determines that the projected growth development pattern is not realistic, it,can w~thhold federal transportation funding. 14 ' , The'contents ofth~ SCS are similarly constrained. SB 375 ~tates that the SCS IS ~'subject to" federal regulations under the Clean Air Act that include the requirement to use "the most r¥c~nt plan,ning assumptions considering local g~neral plans and other factors.,,15 • "",'" I • In addition,' the SCS n:iust .co~ider or address several additional factor$: 16 . ; , ..",. . . ~ . . • Co~si4er ,th~~pheres of influence that have been adopted by the local ag~ncy . ~ £o~atj:on comtnission (LAFCO).17 ' , ,. " • Identify the gener~l J<>;cation of uses, residential densities, and building intensities withintJ-te regio~;,' ' .! ' • Identify areas sufficient to house all economic segments the population of the region over the long term planning horizon of the RTP; • 'rdentify ateas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the 'regionai housing need for the region;" , .li' Id~~tirY. atranspol'tation'networ~ to service the transportation needs of the region; . ~ . . . . . , • 'Gather and·considel; the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and fatmlanCl in the region (note, there is no requirementto act on this , informatio1?-); ... :. " "','!_ . 'I . . . • . Seta forecasted:development pattern for the region, which, when integrat~d with the :transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the GhG'emissi011s from automob~les and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do 80/8 the GhG emission reduction targets approved by the state board: and 14 It is important to be aware that the SCS development pattern must be based upon "current planning assumptions" only because of the requirement that the Clean Air Act imposes on the adoption of a regional tr~n$portation plan. It i~ federal, not state law. It relates to maintaining air quality; not local land use principles derived from the police power. Ii is not based upon local land use autonomy. The APS, which is not a part of the RTP, is not required to be based on "current planning assumptions." IS Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(B) (referencing Part 450 of Title 23 of, and Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal Regulations). 16 Unless otherwise cited, these requirements are in Cal. Govlt Code § 65080(b)(2)(B). 17 GaL Govlt Code'§ 65080(b )(2) (F). 18 The definition of "feasible" is the same as that used in CEQA. But unlike CEQA, the MPO's determinatiori;of"feasibility" is a quasi.legislative act that is reviewable under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard (CCP § 1085) instead of the "substantial evidence" standard (CCP § 1094.5). As a I I il [I I I, Ii i 1 7;echnlcal Overview ofSB 375 (v. 1.3) League o/California Cities , Page 6 • " QuantifY the reduction in GhG emissions projected tb ,be achieved by the ses and, if ' the ses does not achieve the targeted reductions ill greenhouse gas emissions, set forth the difference between the amount that the 8eS would reduce GhG emissions , 'and the'targetfor the region. 19 " , . . . . . . ! .. Of all these requltements, the one that has generated the most concern is the requirement ' that the RTP developn;tent pattern must achieve the GhG emissions target~, if there is a , feasible way to do so. Again, it is important to emphasize that this developIhen(pattern must comply with federal law, which requires that any pattem be based upon "current planning assumptions" that inClude the information in !<>cal general plans arid sphere of influence boundaries. , If a certain type of development pattern isunlikeiy to emerge from local decision~making, itwill be difficult for the MPO to say that it reflects current planning' assumptions.2o Moreover, SB' 375 provides additional protections when it provides that the SCS cannot in any way supersede or require consistency for a local, general pl~, local specific plan, or local zoning?! " ' 2. The Alternative Planning Strategy In the caSe wh,ere the ses does not achieve th~ GhG emis~i(mreduction target, the MPO must develop in Alternative Planning Strategy (APS)?2'The',APS is a separate document from the RTp23 and therefore does not automatically affect the distribution of transportation ,funding. The APS must ,idemify the principal impediments to achieving the targets within'the scS. The APS must also itidude a number ofmeaSures-' such as ' a1tern~tiye deve,1~pmentpatterns,24 infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or p:olicl(;}S-:-:-that,tru,{en together, would achieve the regional target. ' " ' . . . j I . I !. ...• ~ ., # •• , !. : ' The APS must describe how the GhG emission reduction targets would be achieved and why the development pattem, measures, and policies in the APS are the most practicable choiCes'fortJ1~,achiev,ement of the GhG targets. Like'theSCS the APS does 'not directly affect .or s~pei'sede 10ca1land use decisions; no~ does it require that a local general plan, local specific plan,' ot local 'zoning be consistent with the APS?S , ' ~ " , . . : .. ' . • . , .. i . '. result. the decision whether or not it is feasible to achieve the regional target within the SCS will be afforded greater ~eference from courts . . . : " ')' "",: ," l?,Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(G). 20 TheCEQA changes made by the billl'equire residential projects to be consistent with the SCS in order to take advaritageof streanHined CEQA processing. ' , ' , 21 Cal. GQv1t Code § ,65080(b)(2)(J). '. ',' ;, . 22 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(H). 23 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(H), 24 The development pattern must still comply with the provisions of the SCS that require consistency with the RHNA distribution and other factors. 2S The CEQA changes ,made by the bill require residential projects to be consistent with the APS in order to take adVantage of streamlined CEQA processing. Technical Overview ofSB 375 (v. 1.3) L~ague ofCaii/ornia Cities Page 7 In addition, SB 375 provide~ that the APS does not constitute a land use plan, policy, or regulation and that the inconsistency of a project with an APS is not a consideration in determining whether a project may be deemed to have an environmental effect for purposes ofth,e ~alifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SOJ;nehave asked abou~ihe purpose of the APS: Why should an MPO spend the time to develop an,alt,ernative planning strategy if there is no requirement to actually implement it? ,The' answer is two-fold. First, a general cons'istency with a CARB approved plan- whether it's an SCS or APS-allows projects to qualify for the CEQA streamlining provisions in the bill (see Part IV, below). Second, it adds a new focus for the regional transPQrtation pl~lng and housing allocation: reductions in GhG emissions. . ' 3. CARB's Role in the Approval of the SCS or APS CARB'~ role in reviewing the SCS or APS is very limited. It can only accept or reject the,MP,o.~s ~eterm~nation that the plan would, if implemented, achieve t4e regional GhG emission reduction target established by CARB.26 CARB mUst complete its review within 60 days. It may not issue conditional approvals or otherwise interfere in any way with local decision~making. ' In addition, the process is designed so that there will be an extended exchange of informatioiibetween the MPO and CARB about the technical methodology that the . regio~' intends to use to estimate the GhG emissions reduction. SB 375 encourages the MPOto work \¥ith CARB until it concludes that the technical methodology it intends to use operates accurately. CARB must respond to such consultations in a timely manner. This ' type' of cominunication before the actual submission should 'reduce the chance that CARB Wiilfind a patiicular plan 'does not achieve the regional target. , . .... . " . . 4. Setting the Regional Target for GhG Emissions SB 375 requires CARB to set regional targets by Septemher 30, 2010 (draft targets will be released to the regions by June 30)?7 The target may be expressed in gross tons, tons per capita, toDs per household, or hi any other metric deemed appropriate by CARB. o •••••• ";' •• TheScoping Plan states that 5million metric tons (MMT) of emissions will be reduced as a restUt of trap$portation related planning programs, or almost 3%, of the 174 million m~tric ton reduction needed to achieve AB 32's 2020 target.28 This number, however, is ! . ',-. . ..". 26 S'e~ 6S080(b)(2)(~)(ii). 27 Cal. Gov't Code§ 6S080(b)(2)(A). 28 Cars and light trucks account for approximately 31 percent ofall GHG emissions in California. The Seoping Plan outlines programs that will reduce emissions by cars and light trucks by a propOltional 33 percent. These policies include reductions from light-duty vehicle standards (31.7 MMT). low carbon fuel standards (15 MMT). vehicle efficiency measures (4.5 MMT) and regional transportation related GHG targets (5 MMT). Together, these measures total 56.2 of the 169 MMT in needed reductions. I I I I, I Ii II ! Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) Ledgue of California Cities Page 8 more of a placeholder as the Scoping Plan states that the to~al target "will ultimateiy be detennined dllrifig the SB 375 process.,,29 .. .. ' .. , ··.f \ . • . SB 375 authorized CARB to appoint a Regional Targets Advisory Committee to recommend factors and methodologies to be \lsed for setting these targets.30 The committ~e' is made up of representa.tives· from the League ofCruifornia Cities, California · Staie Association of Counties, MPOs, affected air distdds;planners, homebuilders, affordable housing organizations, environmental justices organizations, and o!hers. The com,mittee will make 1ts repOlt to CARB by September'30~ 2009. . , . In addition, prior to settirig the target, CARB must exchange tecluiidru information with the MPO and air district. The MPO may also recommend its own target for the region. The MPO must hold at least one public workshop within the region after receipt of the repqrt from the Advisory Committee. C~ shall release drRft targets for each region no lat~r than June 30,20 i O. In setting these targets, CARB must first consider the GhO redu~tions that will be achieved from improved vehiCles emission standard~ (overall fuel efficiency improvements), changes in fuel coinpositlon(such as low carbon fuels) and otheirrieasmes 'thai CARBhas adopted tOl'educe GitGs from other emissions sources.3! The MPO may The MPO may recommend to the ARB a target for the region. Once set, 'tJie targets must be updated every 8 years, which is consistent with the new RHNA piannl~g cycle and two RTP planning cycles in ~oJ1-attainment areas.. T;he board can als(), at its 4i~creti(m, revise the targets every, four years based on changes in fuel efficiency, "se of low carbon fuels, or other factors th~t CARB can take into account in setting' the tB,rget32' Before revising or updating the regional targets, CAIrn must engage the 'primary stakeholders (Dept. of Transportations, MPOs? air districts, and local . governments) in a consu1tative process: The MPb may,'at'its discretion, recommend to the ARB a target for the region for CARB' s considerati;oIl.33 5. : 'What SB 375 means for transportation funding SB '315.fequire~ theR,.TP to be interpally consistent much like the internal cOnsistency requirement of a city 6r county's geilenil plan.· This means that the "action element" and the "financial element" of the RTP must be consistent with the SCS, since the SCS is part oftheRTP. (The "action element" and the "financial element" of the RTP, however, do not need to be cortslsterit With the APS', since theAPS is 'not part of the RTP.) This means that decisions about the allocation of transportation funds muSt be consistent with the SCS, its land use plan, and its transportation policies. The land use plan must be based upon the most recent planning assumptions. These are taken in part from local city 29 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (October 2008) p 49. 30 Cal. Govtt Code §'65080(b )(2)(A)(i) . . . , 31. CaI..Gov't Code§ 65080(b)(2)(A)(iii). 32 65080(b)(2)(A)(ivi .. 33 (65080(b)(2)(A)(ii». Technical Overview ojSB 375 (v. 1.3) Lea~ue f?jCalijornla Cities Page 9 and ,pounty general plans. As cities and counties use the CEQA streamlini~g in SB 375. ,their planning ~sul.nptions will align more closely with those in the SCS orAPSt 'whichever CARB agrees would achieve the region's GhG target, if implemented. 34 . '. . SB 375 makes explicit the authority that already exists in the law. MPOs already have authority to impose policies 01' condition transportation funding. The ·Metropolitan Transportation Commission, for example, does not fund certain types of transit projects unless they serve areas that meet minimum density standal'ds.3s Even without SB 375. MPO~ were likely to take additional steps in the direction of adopting policies related to reducingGhG emissions within their RTPs planning because the Califol'l1ia Transportation Commission recently amended its RTP Guidelines to require t4at MPOs consider GhG emissions as part of the RTP process. It ~s worth noting that-MPO decision-makers are made up oflocal elected officials. Accordillgly, MPOs are not likely to support measures that limit the discretion of cities and counties, particularly in those MPOs where every city and county in the region has a seat on the MPO board. Only two regions, Southern CalifomiaAssociation of Govemments.(SCAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), do not fit thatwodel. .. SB 375 provides an·exception for SCAG that allows for sub-regional development oftheSCS and APS, where iocal representation is more broadly reflected. 6. How are Lo~al Officials and the Public involved in Developing the SCSI APS Once the region has itstarget, the question turns toward developing a regional plan to achieve GhG reductions. SB 375 requires the following public and local official participation processes before the plan can be adopted: • Local Elected Official Workshops. MPOs must conduct at least two informational "m:eetirigsin each :coUtity for local elected officials (members of the board of . . supel'visors 'and City councils) on the SCS and APS, or alternatively, only one meeting . 'if ins attended by representatives representing the county and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorpoi'ated areas of that county. ). ' . • , Genera~ Public Participation.. Each MPO lllllst adopt a participation plan consistent with .the requireqlents of the participa,tion plan required, by federal law that includes a brpad range· of stakeholder groups .. These workshops must be sufficient to provide the public with a clear understanding of the issues and policy choices. At least one workshop shall be held in each county in the region, For counties with a population greater than 500,000, at least three workshops shall be held. Each workshop, to the . ", '.',' . 34 This is because the CEQA streamlining should act to change some of the projects as they are proposed to be built by developers. Assuming that the CEQA streamlining is sufficient to motivate developers to propose proj~cts that are consistent with the SCS or APS, this may impact the "curr~nt planning assumptions"for the region. Nothing requires local agencies to approve such proposals, but if local agencies indicate a willingness to support such proposals, the projected development pattern for the region will change accordingly. ' 35 See MTC Policy 3434 (www.mtc.ca.goylplanning/smart growthltodlTOD policy.pdt) Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) League o/California Cities Page 10 ext~nt practicable, shall include urban simulation computer modeling to cl'eatevisual representation;~ of the SCS and the alternative planning strategy. The MPO must also provide a 'process where members of the public can provide a single request to receive , notices, ,information, and updates. • Circulation ofDrafl SCSIAPS. A draft of the SCS and APS must be circulated at least 55 days before the adoption oftheRTP.' • Public Hearings; The MPO must hold at least thfee public hearings on the SCS and APS iri multiple, c'ounty regions, and two public hearings in single county regions. Th(( hearings should be in different areas to maximize participation opportunities. . . ~ ~. . , 7. Age~cies and Regions Affected by SB 375 SB 375 applies to the 18 MPOs in the state (including'the Tahoe MPO). Together, these organizations cover 37 counties and represent almost 98 percent of the state population. These'illclude four multiple county MPOs, including the Association of Monterey Bay Area Oovel'nmentS,(AMBAG -Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC -Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Marin, Napa;'Sonoina, San Francisco, San Mateo, an Santa Clara counties), Sacramento Area'Council of Governments (SACOO:':":Sacramento, Yolo, El Dorado, Placer, Yuba, and Sutter counties) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG- Los Angeles, Ventura, San:Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and Orange counties). Affecte4 single county MPOs include Butte, Fresno, Kern,. Kings, Made~a, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara,Shasta, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties. 8. Exempt transportation projects Tl'ansport~ti9n ~~~je~ts funded by the Ml'O must be consistent with the SCS except that projects progrannned for funding on or before December 31,2011 are not required to be cons~stent if(1)theyare,contained in the 2007 or 2009 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Progl:am; and (7) they are funded pursuant to Section 887920 pfthe , ' Government Code; or (3) were listed in a ballot measure prior to December 31, 2008 approving a sales tax measure for tl'anspoitatioh pUTposes. ill addition, a transportation sales'taxauthotity need hot change funding allocations approved by the voters for categories ott~ansp'6!1ation projects in a measure adopted prior to December 31,2010. 10. Exceptio os for the SCAG region SB 375 pr~vides ~ special set of exceptions for the development of the SCS/APS within the region of the Southern California Association of Govermnents (SCAG).36 Here, a subregional copncil of governments and the county transportation commission may work togeth¢rto propose a SCS or APS for the subregional area. Although SCAG may still address interregional issues in the SCS/APS, SCAO must include the subregionalSCS or APS to the extent that it is consistent with the requireinents of a regional transportation 36 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(C). Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) League. o/California Cities Page 1 I plan and federal law. SCAG is still responsible for creating an overall public participation plan, ensuring coordination, resolving conflicts and making sure that the plan complies with all applicable legal requirements. 11.~, 'Special Provision for the Eight San Joaquin Valley MPOs ,. In order to encourage regional cooperation among the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley, sa 375 specifically encourages two or more counties to; wbrk together to develop cooperative policies and develop a multiregional SCS or APS.' ' 12. MPOs in Attainment Areas and RTP As Not Within an MPO ,", ".;: ': .' . ': . .' There are, a few counties 'in the state that are actually in "attainment" for air quality purposes. Federal law requires that these regions update their RTPs.at least every five yeats instead of ever~ four years (the requirement for non-attainment MPOs). In addition, there are a number of other counties that are not included within an MPO at all. Given that SB 375 is based on a eight year cycle that includes one RHNA planning period and two RTP planning periods, the five year requirement would place attainment MPOEI out,ofsync with the non-attainment MPOs . . 1:':, ,'," . .: :-. . SB 37S'solves this by' allowing attainment MPOs, oj a regional tr~sportation planning agency (RTPA) not within an MIlO, to opt into an 8 year planning cycle.37 In other words, they may maintain their status quo with a five-year RHNA plaiming cycle that , mayor may not be aligned withtheir RTP plaiming cycle. Or' they ,may opt into the 8- ,year cycle upon meeting the following conditions: ' , '. ' • " Optirtg'tcr adopt a plan not less than every four years :; ..... '" . • This election must be made prior to June 1,2009 or atleast 54 months prior to the deadline for the adoption of housing elements for jurisdictions within the region (in order to afford Hen with sufficient time to develop and distribute an 8 year number). • 'Public heari'ng . '. ~ .. " 13. : Rural Sustain ability MPO or county transportation agency must consider financial incentives for cities and courities that have resource areas or farmland. The idea is th~tto the extent that SB 375 drives more transportation investments to existing urban areas, some consideration should be given to rural areas that nevertheless help address the emissions targets by not building. An MFO or county transportation agency shall alsO' consider financial assistance for counties to address cotJIltywide service responsibilities in counties that contribute towards the GhG emissions reductions targets by implementing policies for growth to occur within their cities. 37 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(L). I j Techniqal Overview ofSB j75 (v. 1.3) League o/California Cities IV. ' ' ,NEW!CEQA EXEMPTIONS AND STREAML:iNING .' The environmental impact report (ElR) prepared for aRTP will consider the impact of the Plan on global warming and the growth-inducing impacts of the Plan. SB 375's CEQA incentive eliminates the requirement toanaIyze the impacts of certain residential projects on global warming and the growth-inducing impacts of those projects when the projects achiev,ethe g~als of reduCing greenhouse gas emissions by their prqxlrnity to transit 01; bytheii'consistency with the SCS or APS.' '. .' . 1. Two Types of CEQA Streamlining SB 375 includes two tWes of CEQ A streamlining. One is for residentiai 'projects 'that are· consistent with the SCS (or APS) that CARB agrees is sufficient to achieve the ,GhG .. targets for the region if it was implemented.38 The other is for Transportation Priority Projects (which also must be consistent with·the:SCS/APS). Each of these is discussed in more ·detail below; . : .• ! I : 2. Projects Consistent with the SCS/APS A residential or mixed-use project which is conSistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a SCS/APS isnot'req\iired to reference, ~escribe, 'or discuss (1) growth-inducing. impacts; or (2) project specific or cumulative impacts fmin cars and light-duty'ttuck trips on global warming 'or th.~ :regi,On8.1 transportation network if'Ule project incorporates the mitigation meastires required by an applica~~e'~rior environmental document: In addition, an ErR prepared for this type of project is not requ,ired to reference, describe, or discuss a reduced residential density alternative to address the effects of car and light- duty truck trips generated by the project . . ~ . 3. Three Types of Streamlining for Transit Priority Projects SB 375 amends CEQA in three ways for "transit priority projects" (or TPPs). A TPP is a new type ofproject created by SB 375 that must meet the four requirements: (1) be consistent with an SCS or APS in which CARB has agreed would, if implemented, achieve the region's GhO target; (2) contain at least 50% residential use (commercial use, if anYdl1.ust have floor ar~a ratio of potic:}ss than 0.75); (3) have a minimum net density of20 units, per. acre; and (4) be located within one-half mile ofa major transit stop or high quality trans~t ~orridor~J;l.cluded in a RTP.39 . - • Total CEQA Exemption for a Sub-Set ofTPPs. A TPP is exempt from CEQA if it complies 'with a long list of criteria including the following: 38 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b )(2)(1) 39 "Major transit stop" is defined at Section 21064.3 of Public Resources Code and in SB 375 in Section 21155(b). "High quality transit COlTidor is defmed in SB 375 in Section 21155(b). I I I I I I I i i 1 Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) Lea~,e a/California Cities Page 13 -Not more than 8 acres and not more than 200 residential units -, Can be served by existing utilities ..:..: Does not have a significant effect on historical resources -'Buildings are 15% more energy efficient than required and buildings and landscaping is designed to achieve 25 percent less water usage ' - ' Provides EITHER a minimum of 5 acres per 1,000 residents of open space, OR ~O % housing for moderate income, or 10% housing for low income, 01' "5% housing for very low income (or in lieu fees sufficient to result in the , " development of an equivalent amount of units). 40 " • TPP: Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment. A TPP that does not qualify for a complete exemption from CEQA may nevertheless qualify for a sustaitiable communities environmental assessment (SCEA) if the project incoiporatesall feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from plior applicable envitonmental impact reports. A SCEA is similar to a negative deClaration in that the lead agency must find that all potentially significant or . significant effects of the project have been identified, analyzed and mitigated to a level of insignificance. There are four significant differences: , -Cumull:}.tive effects of the project that have been addressed and mitigated in prior environmental impacts need not be treated as cumulatively considerable. , , Growth-inducing impacts of the project are not required to be referenced, , , des'cribed 'oi' discussed. ' " .. -.,Projectsp~cific or cumulative impacts from cars and light duty truck trips on , global warming or the regional transportation network need not be referenced 'described or discussed. A seEA is 'reviewed' under the "substantial evidence" standard. The intent of the author was to eliminate the "fair argument" test as the standard of review for a sustaitiable communities environmental assessment. ' • 'Transit Priority Projects -Traffic Mitigation Measures. SB 375 also authorizes the :adopti6n of traffic mitigation measures that apply to transit priority projects. These measures may include requirements for the installation oftraffic control improvements, street or road impi'ovements, transit passes for future residents, or other measures that will avoid or mitigate the traffic impacts of transit priority ; projects~ A TPPdoes not need to comply with any additional mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of that project on streets, highways, intersections, or mass transit if traffic mitigation measures have been adopted. 40 This is a partial listing of the criteria. II II j Technical Overview ofSB 375 (v. 1.3) League of California Cities . Page 14 4. To Streamlirieor Not: Lead Agency Discretion over New CEQA Provisions A city or county that is concerned about the environmental impacts of a project defined by SB 375 as a TPP may elect to complete traditional or modified environmental review. SB 375 allows-, . as opposed to requiting-a local lead agency to take advantage of the CEQA streamlining provisions included in the bill. ' This~alysis is most straightforward for projects that are consistent with the SCS/APS: the language states that the lead agency "is not required" to reference, describe; or discuss gl'owth.induci,ng impacts,project specific cumulative impacts, or a reduced residential density alternative. The language is permissive; nothing prohibits the lead agency from maldng the decision to address these issues in the environmental documents for projects that are con~istent with the SCSI APS. A lead agency aJso has discretion in determining whether a proje~t meets all of the require;r:nents of a transportation priority project.41 When a project is statutorily exempt from CEQA, the language providing for the exemption begins with "Thisdiyision does not apply to. ~'.,."4~~~375 is consistent with this approach; it invites ("If the legislative body finds. ~ .. "), but does no( require, a lead agency to hold a public, hearing to determine whether the TPP meets the requirements for a statutory exemption.43 (If a public hearing was required it would, state that "the legislative body shall hold a public hearing .... "). Thus~ a writ 6fmandate could not be brought because the determination of whether to hold; the public heat'ing is within the discretion of the local agency. 'j; '; .•.. Likewise, nothing in SB 375 requires a lead agency to opt for a sustainable communities assessment or modified EIR. A TPP that has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria ofa prior applicable EIRs and adopted findings pursuant to Section 21081, is eligible for either a sustairiable communities environmental assessment or a modified EIR. 44 The statute does not direct the lead agency .tQ: cQmplete the sustainable communities assessment or modified EIR. i, ',' Finally, all three provisions (the exemption, assessment, ,and modified EIR) require that the TPP incorporate mitigation measures, performance standards, and other relevant informati~nfrom prior EIRs. This ,means, for example, that if an EIR for a general plan requires cert~n environmental standards (e.g., traffic generation or air quality standards) for projects withirithe jurisdiction, ,the city or county may need to complete environme:p.tal studies to determine whether those standards can be met by the TPP. 41 See Cai.:pul:i. Res. 'Code § 21155.1. The project must meet all of the provisions ofsilbdivisions (a) and (b) and one of the requirements ofslibdivision (c). If lead agency finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the TPP meets all of these requirements, then the project is a "sustainable communities project" and exempt from CEQA. 42 See. for example, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080.8 to 21080.33. 43 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155.1. 44 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155.2 II ~ '1 I; II II J :1 ~ !\ Ii \1 I I; 11 II II ~ II ~ :i ~ II [I n I, ii 'I Ii 'I II I[ I Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) Leagu~ofCalifornia Cities v. Changes to the Housing Element Law Page 15 Befor~ SB 375, federal and state law ignored the fact that in most areas in California, regional transportation plans and regional housing allocation plans are prepared by the same regional organization. Conflicting deadlines policies have historically caused a disconnect between regional transportation planning and regional housing policy. SB 375 eliminates this discol'lnection by requiring the RTP to plan for the RHNA and by requiring the RHNA plan to be consistent with the projected ,development pattern used in theRTP . . " ... This will make two significant changes in this regard. First, cities and counties in Clean Air Act non-attainment regions will have an eight-year planningperiod,45 which means thatthe,housing element must be updated every eight years ratIter than every five years . • I • " .'. ,', Secollq, Cities' and counties' RENA will change because ,consistency between the , regional housing needs allocation plan and the RTP means that the concept of "fair share" will change. Under 'existing law, the COG adopts the regional housing allocation plan. The plan distributes to each city and to each county its fair share of the regional housing need.46 Under SB 375 the plan must be consistent with the development pattern included in theSCS (although each jurisdiction still must receive an allocation).47 In trying to encourage a gro~h development pattern for residential housing that would reduce GhGs, SB 375 had to address the potential conflicts with the existing RHNA and, housing element goals and process. 1. Establishing an Eight Year Planning Period in Non-Attainment Regions Loc~l governments within a region classified as "non-a~riment" under the Clean Air Act and loc81 governments within a region that has elected48 to adopt a regional tran~portatioJ), plan every foul' years arerequil'ed to revise their housing element every eight years {instead of the current 5 years).49 All other local governments remain· on the five-year schedule (see" 12. MPOs in Attainment Areas and RTPA's Not Within an MPO" on page 11). I : . .':' . 4S SB 375 allows attainment regions to elect to prepare an RTP every four years which will then mean that cities and counties in that region to have an 8-year planning period. 46 sa '375 changes the methodology that ReD uses to calculate the existing and projected regional need. This number must now reflect "the achievement of a feasible balance between jobs and housillg within the region using the regional employment projects in the applicable regional transportation plan" Cal. Govlt Code § 65584.01 (d). 47 See Cal. Gov't Code § 65584.04(i) .. 48 Cal. Gov't Code § 65080(b)(2)(L). 49 See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65588(b). and (e)(7) Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) League o/Cali/ornia Cities 2. When the Eight Year Planning Period Starts Page 16 Local governments'in non-attainment areas 'are required to adopt their fifth revision of the housing ~lement no later than 18 months after the adoption of the' first RTP adopted after' September 30, 2010. Local governments that have elected to adopt the,RTP every four years are reqUired to adopt their next housing element 18 months after the adoption of the first regional transportation plan following the election. All local governnients within the San' Diego' Association of Governments (SANDAG) are required to adopt their fifth revision no more than 5 years from the fourth revision and their sixth revision no later than 18 months after adoption of the first RTP adopted after the fifth revision due date. 3. Timeline' for· RHNA Allocation and the Housing Element In 8.reas\vh~re the eight-year planning period applies, the MPO will allocate the RHNA number to the in~ividua1 cities and counties at approximately the same time it adopts the RTP (which Inchides the requirement that the SCS must aCcommodate the 8 year RHNA all6cationj. once'the city receives its RHNA.a.tlocation, it has 18 months to, prepare its, housf.tig element ~d submit it to the Department of Housing and Coinmunity Dtev~IQpineni (RCP):" " " , ' , " f' ~: ••••• • :. • • Alll(i~ ~~venitJ?~nts within the jurisdiction of an MPO, except those within SANDAG, shall' adopt its next 'hotishlg element 18, months after adoption of the first ItTP that is adopte(f~er'Sei)tember 30, 2010. ' . , 4. Consequence of Failing to Submit a Timely Housing El,ment • • ,; 'I," :, -, " Local agenqies $.at fail to submit a housing element to ReD within the 18 month timeline' fa1~ Qut 6f the eight year housing element cycle and must subinit their housing element eyerY 'fo~ years to HCD.50 TheSe agericies must still complete their zoning withitiihree'years and 120 days of the' deadline' for adoption of the housing element or be subJect to'the'sanctions'ptovislon described below. 51 : \ .'. ~', • ", ~ . • . '. ~ . • • . I 5. Timeline to Re-Zone Sites to Meet RHNA Need Each housing element includes an inventory that identifies sites to accommodate the jurisdiction's RHNA. Jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element must rezone sites to accommodate that portion of the RHNA not accommodated in the inventory no later than three years after the date the housing element is adopted or the date that is 90 days after receipt of.the, department's final comments, whichever is earlier ~ 52, Re~oni~g, of,the site~ includes adoption of minimum density and develop~ent standards. A local agency that cannot meet the 3 .. y~ar requirement may be eligible for a one-year extension if it can prove that it'has completed 75 percent of its zoning requirement and so Cal. Gov'tCode § 6SS88(b) Sl cill. Gov't Code § 6SS83(c)(1)(A) S2 Cal. Gov't Code § 65583(c)(1)(A). I I I ii I' tl 11 ~ j I I ! 1 I Technical Overview ojSB 375 (v. 1.3) Leagu~,ojCalifornia Cities Page 17 was unable to rezone for one. of , the following reasons: (1) because of an ~ction or inaction beyond the control of the local agency, (2) because of infrastructure deficiencies due to fiscal or regulatory restraints, (3) ,beCause it fillist undertake a major-revision to its general plan in order'toaccommodate the housing related policies of an SCS or APS.S3 l , 6. Scheduling Actions Required by the Housing Element Program Currentlaw~lsQ r~quires ,a,housing ele!1l~nt to include a program of actions that, the local agency illtellds to undertake, dUring the planning period to encourage that the needs of all econorn,ic segments .ofthe cOtnmunity will be me~. SB 375 requires local agencies to develop: ~. ~chedule and titpeline for implementation a~ to when spe'cific actions will have "bene:6.cial impacts" within the planningpel:iod. 54 ; " , 7. Public Hearing for HCD Annual Report Local governrrients mushiow hold a public hearing and provide an annual report on the progress ma.d~ duling the year on the programs within the housing element. This requirement to make this report on an offiCial form approved by HCP has been in the law since, 1995, but has not been, officially applicable because HCD has not yet finalized the form UIider the ,administrative rulemaking processS5. '.' ., " , 8. Extension of Anti-NIMBY for Affordable HOll~ing Projects , , . , ' SB 375 extends a strict anti:'NIMBY law protection {ilOW called the Housing Accountability' Act) for housing developmerttprojects, which are defined as projects where at least 49perceilt oftlie units are affordable to families of lower-income households. 56(In most circumstances, a development that meets the 49 percent threshold is a development where 100 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households). The new anti-NIMBY provision applies to an agency's failure to zone a site for low-and very low-income households within the three year time limit (four years if an agency qualifies for an extension). If an affordable project is proposed on that site and the project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, including design review standards, then the agency may not disapprove the project, nor require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary permit, or impose a condition that would render the proJect infeasible, unless the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactolily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. 53 Cal. GOy't Code § 65583(t). S4 Cat. Gov't Code §'65583(c); 55 Cal. GOY't Code§ 65400(a)(2)(B). 56 Cal. GOY't Code§65583(g) I 1 Technical Overview ojSB 375 (v. 1.3) League of California Cities 9. Potential "Sanctions" for Failing to Meet Zoning Timelinc ,'. Page 18 Any int~r~st€!dp~rson may bring an acti«;>n to compel compliance with the zoning . . deadline and requii;ements for, the new eig~t-year housing element. 57 if a court finds that a local agency failed to complete the rezoning, the court is required to issue an order or judgment, after cOD;sidering the equWes of the circumstanc~s. presente~ by all parties, compelling the local government to complete the rezoning within 60 days oi' the earliest time consist~nt With public hearing notice requirements in existence at the time the action was filed. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its Oloder or judgment is carried . out. If the cdurtdeterininesthat its order or judgmeht is not carried'out, the cOU1t is , . required to' issue further orders to ensul;e' compliance and may impose sanctions on the local agency, 58 but must consider the equities presented by allaffected parties before doing so. 10. Adqption,or Self Certification of Housing Element Remai~s ,the Same. Although SB 375 chariged the'housingelement planning period from five years to eight · years-for some jurisdictions,' and added time frames for completing certain actions which must be takeh during the planning period, SB 375 did not change either the way in whiCh . the housing element is adopted except to the extent that the regional housing allocation plan must be consistent with the SCS. The RHNA process remains itself. Self- certification of the housing element remains an option (and triggers the'three year requirement to zone).SB 375 did, nothing to alleviate the struggle that some cities and counties fac.e;in trying to p1anfor their entireRHNA except that ReD review of the housing eie-ment;yvill occur less frequently for jurisdictions that Ill:0ve to an, eight year planning period. -.'. , . , " . :.: 51 Cal. GOy't Code § 65587. 58 This proYision is similar to the requirement to file an annual housing element repolt on form approved through the state rulemaking process. See Cal. Gov't Code § 65400(a)(2)(B). A local agency that fails to file such a report is subject to sanctions. Most agencies are not familiar with this provision, however, because HCD has not yet formally adopted the forms that would trigger this requirement (though a draft of such a fonn is posted on the HCD website-it has not yet been formally approved). j :1 II i ~ I I Technical Overview ofSB 375 (v. 1.3) League of California Cities Page 19 KEy DATES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 375 .. December 31, 2008* January 1, ~009 Janu~ry 31,2009 June 1,2009 September 30, 2009 JuneJO,2010 September 30,2010 October 1, 2010 December 31, 2010* December 31, 2011 . . . . Projects specifically listed on a local ballot measure prior to this date are exempt from the requirement to be' consistent with the SCS CARB adopts Scoping Plan, which will include the total reduction of carbon in million metric tons from transportation planning CARB shall appoint a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to recommend factors to be considered and method91ogi~s to be used for setting reduction targets . MPOs in attainment areas and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies not within an MPO may elect to opt into the 8 year planning cycle. RTAC must report its recommendations to the CARB CARS must provide draft targets for each reg~on to review CARB must provide each affected region with a GhG emissions reductions target. Beginning this date, MPOs updatitlg their RTP will begin 8 year planning cycle that includes SCS-APS and alignment for the RHNA process. Transportation sales tax authorities need not change . allocations approved by voters for categories of projects in a sales tax measure approved by voters prior to this date. Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Projects programmed before this date are exempt from the requirement to be consistent with the SCS *' A p;oject category is different from a specifically listed project insofar as a local initiative may authorizefundingfor a certain type ofimpl'ovement without specifying a specific iocation. -':", Technical Overview o/SB 375 (v. 1.3) LeagUe o/California Cities ,,; NEW RTP-RHA PLANNING CYCLE · ,: (Underlined provisions indicates new law. Plain text represents current.Jaw). Page 20 Technical Overview ofSB 375 (v. 1.3) League of California Cities Page 21 KEY LEAGUE AMENDMENTS TO SB 375 Over the course of the SB 375 negotiations, the League identified a number of key amendments it required in order for the board to consider supporting it. This table summarizes many of those issues and explains the resulting outcome .of the negotiations. )ssm's SB 375 SB 375 Marl'll 2"', 200N Version Final Version Restrictions on Transportation investments within the The requirement for the SCS to identiiY resource lands Transportation RTP were based upon a set of . is gone. Local officials on MPO boards retain Funding? assumptions about resource lands that discretion over the funding within RTP. If the SCS did not necessarily reflect the content cannot achieve the regional GhG target, the region of local general plans. must create an APS that could achieve the GhG target. But the AIlS is not part of the RTP. Funding for projects must be consistent with the SCS, but 110t necessarily the APS. Meaningful CEQA CEQA provisions had several Contains two forms of CEQA relief. The first exempts Relier? preconditions that made it unlikely residential projects from reviewing the impacts related that they would broadly applied to cars and light trucks on projects that are consistent with a plan to reduce GhGs from that source. The second is for defined infill projects near transit choices. Mandatory Growth Required MPOs to do mandatory and Mandatory growth management has been removed and Allocations in SCS heavily prescribed growth the requirement in earlier drafts that a region "identiiY of Regional management within the regional resource lands" has been changed to "gather and Transportation b'ansportation plan (RTP), which consider the best practically available scientific Plan? came to be known as "concentric information about resource lands." circle" planning Sweeping Resource Resource definitions included new The ambiguous environmental land definitions have Land Definitions? ambiguous terms. been clarified to be consistent with current law. Role for local None MPO must adopt an outreach process that includes officials in workshops for local elected officials in each county. developing SCS? Local Participation Called for a top-down process f01' Bill now contains a fair process for setting regional Setting Regional setting GHG targets that was targets that includes a statewide advisory committee GhG Reduction unacceptable with League representation. CARB must hold Targets? workshops requirements in each region. Confusion between It was unclear how the new Connection between the "Supplement" (now called the existing federal "Supplement," (now the APS) and the "Alternative Planning Strategy or APS)" which is laws and SB 375? existing federal RTP requirements required when a region's RTP cannot meet the regional were related to each other. targets) and the RTP; i.e., the land use pattem in the Alternative Planning Strategy will not affect or be part of the RTP or its funding. RHNA Consistency The new goal of encouraging infill The bill achieves a three-year extension of the RHNA and Extension? through transpOltation investments procesS (from 5 - 8 years), making it consistent with and the RTP (4 year cycle) directly the RTP process of two four-year cycles. This achieves conflicted with existing RHNA fair a major League goal. share goals (5-year cycle). 1 ATTACHMENT E1 . Housing Element Non-Compliance At the March 3 study session, Council and Commission members had questions about the implications of not preparing a Housing Element in compliance with State law, as determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Council also asked about the potential to "self-certify" the City's Housing Element in lieu of State-determined compliance. A list of the status of housing elements in all Santa Clara County and San Mateo County cities is attached (HCD's Housing Element Compliance Report). In Santa Clara County, all cities except Palo Alto and Mountain View have submitted draft or final housing elements for the 2007-2014 timeframe, and 3 cities have received State certification. Staff understands, however, that Mountain View has now.also submitted its draft element. In San Mateo County, only the city of Menlo Park and the County have not yet submitted draft elements to the State, and 3 cities have received certification of their housing elements. Non-Compliance Non-compliance with Housing Element law exposes the City to two potential consequences of inaction or action contrary to the law: 1) litigation and 2) loss of funding for housing projects, planning grants, and transportation grants. 1. Litigation for the lack of an approved Housing Element has been an infrequent occurrence, with about a half-dozen California cities having been sued in the past decade. The litigation generally has been initiated by a nonprofit housing group, and has more recently been joined by the State Attorney General. Adverse actions to the cities have included directives to either cease issuing any building permits and/or to create a compliant housing element within, for example, 90 days (or the court will do so). These lawsuits have typically been brought when a city has shown clear disregard for the housing law, has enacted ordinances that prevent compliance, or has denied substantial housing projects. Of particular note is the recent City of Pleasanton case, where a nonprofit housing firm and the Attorney General challenged that city's residential growth cap by arguing they could not achieve a compliant housing element given the prescribed limits on housing. In March, a Superior Court judge in Alameda County ruled in the plaintiff's favor and directed that the cap must be removed, other regulatory barriers to achieving housing goals should be eliminated, and the city must stop issuing non- residential building permits until a compliant housing element is prepared. Two newspaper articles and a State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) memo are attached for further background and a link to the court decision is provided in the HCD memo. It appears that there may be substantial repercussions from this case for cities throughout the State. i : I i I 2. An increasing percentage of grants for affordable housing and smart growth infrastructure, including some transportation funding, are now only provided to cities with State-certified housing elements. This is likely to become a consistent requirement as the S8 375 sustainable community strategies are developed. One affordable housing developer in Palo Alto has already been told by the State that they are not eligible for housing funds since the City does not have a certified housing element. Staff is not aware of any transportation funds that to this point have been withheld for that reason, but staff has heard that some grants (e.g., MTC's Transportation for Livable Communities) are now tied to providing for increased residential densities in transit-related areas of the city, essentially what S8 375 and various other regional directives would prescribe. Self-Certification The process of self-certification of housing elements has changed over time. Currently, the only provisions for self-certification apply to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), allowing cities in that area to avoid HCD review by setting out affordable housing production goals, rather than just planning and zoning for affordable housing. The 2007-2014 cycle will be the third housing element cycle for which SANDAG cities have used the self-certification process. An "Overview of the SANDAG Pilot Self-Certification Process" is attached. It is notable that about half of the cities that self-certified also then submitted their elements to HCD as well. This is because the State only recognizes HCD certification to qualify for funding for affordable housing and smart growth infrastructure. Attachments: Housing Element Compliance Report, April 2010, HCD Articles (2) re: City of Pleasanton Litigation and Decision April 19, 2010 Memo from HCD re: City of Pleasanton Litigation and Decision Overview of the SANDAG Pilot Self-Certification Process Housing Element Non-Compliance Page 2 'I j [' I 'FGaIe.com i Print This Article Back to Article SFGale.oom Pleasanton housing cap violates law, judge says Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, March 16, 2010 (03-15) 17:43 PDT PLEASANTON --Pleasanton's voter-approved cap on the number of residences in the city, a measure intended to limit growth and congestion in the town, violates a state law requiring all cities to take on their share of regional housing needs, an Alameda County judge has ruled. The ruling is the first by a California judge to require a city to change its zoning to accommodate new housing, said attorney Richard Marcantonio of the nonprofit Public Advocates firm, which represented the plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the cap. Those plaintiffs said Pleasanton was welcoming employees to office parks and other businesses, but forcing other cities to house them. "Pleasanton imports workers to fill thousands of jobs but excludes those workers and their families from a chance to live in the community," Marcantonio said. ATTACHMENT E 2. "N ow there's a chance for people to live in the city that they contributed to building." Pleasanton can't comply with the state law requiring it to build its fair share of housing because of a ballot measure, passed in 1996 and reaffirmed by voters in 2008, that allows no more than 29,000 units in the city, Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said Friday. Pleasanton had 21,180 homes, apartment units and condominiums in 1996 and now has more than 27,000. Its population is 68,000. Roesch ordered the city to disregard the limit and remove regulatory barriers to construction of about 4,000 new housing units by 2014. At least three-quarters of them must be affordable for low-to moderate-income residents. The affordable housing includes about 800 low-cost units that should have been completed by 2007, according to the regional agency that sets minium housing requirements for Bay Area communities. 1 II II II II I I i Roesch told city officials to rezone enough land to build those units quickly. Pleasanton now has 40,000 weekday commuters, and the number is likely to grow because of a revised general plan the City Council approved in July. It calls for more office construction and the creation of 45,000 jobs by 2025. Pleasanton officials were reviewing the ruling Monday and had no comment, said city spokeswoman Joanne Hall. The city's lawyers have argued that the housing limit is a valid exercise of municipal land-use authority. The city could appeal the ruling. The suit was filed in 2006 by the nonprofit Urban Habitat Program and a schoolteacher seeking affordable housing. It was joined last year by state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who said Pleasanton's housing limits added to urban sprawl and led to increased vehicle use, air pollution and greenhouse gas emISSIons. The Association of Bay Area Governments, the organization oflocal officials that decides each city's housing allotment, assigned 5,059 housing units to Pleasanton for 1999-2007 and another 3,277 units for 2007-14. Roesch said the city had failed to meet the 2007 total and couldn't comply with the 2014 allotment if its housing limit remained in effect. "The city is in clear violation" of the state housing law, the judge said. He said the City Council took a small step in December to expand housing by approving the rezoning of unused land in the Hacienda Business Park, near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. But the ordinance allows city officials to reject construction plans for "good cause," a vague standard that could discourage development, Roesch said. The city "must implement non-illusory zoning changes," he said. E-mail BobEgelkoatbegelko@sfchronicle.com. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/16/BABRICG68S.DTL This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2010 Hearst Communications Inc. I Privacy Policy I Feedback I RSS Feeds I FAQ I Site Index I Contact SFGate,com i Print This Article I Back to Article SFGate.C<!m Alameda land-use ruling could reshape state John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer Wednesday, March 17,2010 When an Alameda County judge this month ruled that Pleasanton must loosen its development rules to allow large amounts of new housing for all income levels, he sent a message that could ricochet around the state. The ruling by Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found the prosperous city of 68,000 at fault for a voter- approved cap on the number of housing units allowed within its borders. Roesch based his decision on a California law that requires cities to make land available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs -and that is a standard that most municipalities don't meet. If the Alameda decision stands, and if other cities face legal challenges, the result could reshape the landscape of California suburbs and small cities -conceivably forcing them to reconsider height limits or increasing the density in their downtowns. "The next few weeks, everyone is going to take a look at this and see what it might mean," said Cathy Cresswell, the deputy director for housing policy development at the state's Department of Housing and Community Development. "Some might want to take another look at how they've addressed this very important state requirement." Cresswell was referring to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, a formula used since 1980 but, like many state edicts, often ignored. The idea is simple: Likely growth is determined regionally, with housing needs tied to job creation. Regional planners then break up this amount among cities and unincorporated county areas so housing is located near jobs. I Local governments then must demonstrate that they can allow such growth to occur . . ~ The decision by Roesch faults Pleasanton for capping its number of housing units at 29,000. There are II currently more than 27,000, yet the city's general plan clears the way for an additional 45,000 jobs by fi ! 2025· To meet the state requirement, Pleasanton was supposed to make room for 5,059 units between 1999 and 2006. Instead, the city issued 2,156 housing permits -43 percent of the desired amount. But if the cap on units is unusually blunt, Pleasanton's resistance to housing is typical of the region. ·1 ~ . II , ~ Ii 1\ l 1 Falling short of goal According to a study of housing production between 1999 and 2006 conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments, just 24 of 102 cities in the region produced more housing than requested by the state. In terms of housing for lower-income residents - a need also addressed in the formula -the results were even more lopsided: Of the 61,000 moderate-income units that ABAG hoped for in this period, 17,697 were built in the Bay Area. While Pleasanton attorneys have yet to comment on the ruling, plaintiffs are open about the larger message they seek to send. "The bottom line is, it's the law" that local government must respond to state edicts, said Wynn Hausser of Public Advocates, which argued the Pleasanton suit on behalf of Urban Habitat Program, a social equity advocacy group. The suit was joined last year by state Attorney General Jerry Brown. "Everybody has to share in the region's growth, the positives and negatives," Hausser said. "The law doesn't say everything has to be urban, but we're going beyond a point where communities can be enclaves." Concentrate the growth One way to accommodate growth in suburbia is to allow slightly taller apartment buildings and condominiums in the center of town, to concentrate it near BART or bus stops, and loosen zoning so that single-family neighborhoods can sprout cottages and "in-law" units. This sort of strategy has been touted for the past decade by advocates of what is called "smart growth." And, more recently, the message has been taken up by environmentalists who see compact development as a way to get people out of their cars and to preserve open space. "There certainly has been a demand for those sorts of ideas," said Paul Fassinger, the research director for ABAG. 'The trouble has been getting (local governments) to understand that this might be a good idea for them, not just for somebody else." If Roesch's ruling is upheld -and is applied elsewhere -those governments might have less wiggle room in the years to come. E-mail JohnKingatjking@sfchronicle.com. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17 /MNGH1CGQ9H .DTL This article appeared on page A -1 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2010 Hearst Communications Inc. I Privacy Policy I Feedback I RSS Feeds I FAQ I Site Index I Contact i !I ~ 'I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 1800 Third Street, Room 450 Sacramento, CA 95811 www.hcd.ca.gov (916) 445-4775 Fax (916) 324-5107 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: April 19, 2010 Contact: Jennifer Sweeney Director of Communications (916) 445-4775 jsweeney@hcd.ca.gov ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Goyernor The California Department of Housing and Community Development Comments on the Alameda Superior Court Decision on Housing Caps Sacramento -Last month, Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found a voter-approved housing cap in the City of Pleasanton to be a violation of state law. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) offers the following comments on the decision. State law requires all cities and counties to plan for their share of their regional housing needs. In the ruling, Judge Roesch was clear that state housing law superseded a local voter-approved measure that limited new housing construction in the City to 29,000 units. Judge Roesch ordered the City to remove the cap, to remove other regulatory barriers to construction of new housing units and to stop issuing non-residential building permits. "The court's decision confirms the preeminence of state housing law," said HCD Director Lynn L. Jacobs. "The ruling also reinforces the importance of each locality's efforts to plan for both its economic development and its residential housing demand." Every local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development ofthe community. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local general plan. Housing element law requires local governments to adequately plan for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. HCD works with every city and county in the state to help them comply with housing element law and address their housing and community development needs. Housing element law is also critical in promoting smart growth and sustainability. Effective housing elements promote development of higher density housing close to jobs and along transportation corridors. The links between a vibrant economy, environmental quality and an adequate supply of affordable housing have never been clearer or more important. This decision will ensure those critical relationships are reinforced and enhanced. "Adherence to state housing law has been an issue in courtrooms before, but this case was the first time the Attorney General's office has been as directly involved," Director Jacobs said . "This shows that there is now a greater understanding of the connection among housing, the environment and local economic issues." For a copy of the ruling, go to http://www.hcd.ca.gov/legal/Document 10.pdf. ATTACHMENT E 3 L Overview of the SANDAG Pilot Self-Certification Process In 1995, AB 1715 (Goldsmith), sponsored by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), created a pilot program that allows jurisdictions in the San Diego region to self certify their housing elements. Jurisdictions that choose the self-certification option are exempt from the HCD review requirement. The use of the self certification process is available only to SANDAG jurisdictions pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.1. The San Diego region's pilot program was born out of earlier statewide discussions and legislative proposals to reform housing element law. The idea of allowing jurisdictions to self certify their housing elements based on meeting some type of affordable housing performance goals was raised during these discussions, but consensus regarding how to set those goals could not be reached. The self-certification pilot program provides an incentive for actual production of affordable housing exempting local governments from state housing element review. This incentive was designed to help achieve the state's housing goals in a more cost effective manner. Because SANDAG had developed such goals in the past, had experience with self-certification as a part of its regional growth management work, and had a Housing Element Advisory Committee in place, legislation for a pilot self-certification program was pursued. The San Diego region wanted to place the emphasis on results (actual production of housing, especially affordable housing) rather than plan preparation and processes. San Diego jurisdictions view the housing element self-certification option as having three purposes: 1. To give jurisdictions more flexibility in how they meet affordable housing goals, 2. To focus on housing production rather than paper generation, and 3. To allow jurisdictions the option of self-certifying their housing elements, and therefore bypass HCD's review and "certification," based on the achievement of specific affordable housing goals. In addition to preparing a housing element that meets the requirements of state law, a jurisdiction must show that it has met its affordable housing goals, which are defined in the law as the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, acquired, rehabilitated, and preserved and the maximum number of units or households that can be provided with rental or ownership assistance to meet the needs of low, very low and extremely low income households during the preceding housing element cycle. Ten of the 19 jurisdictions in the region have self certified their housing elements. To self-certify the third housing element revision (due December 31, 1999) jurisdictions must have met their fair share of the regional housing needs during the 1991-99 housing element cycle, as determined by SANDAG. The fair share goals for each jurisdiction were set forth in SANDAG's 1990 Regional Housing Needs Statement. For the housing element due in 2004 (the fourth revision), the bill stated that jurisdictions must meet an affordable housing goal, which is based on available fmancial resources and regulatory measures. The work of the Housing Element Advisory Committee centered on the development of this goal. In developing the affordable housing goals, the Committee, working with a 9 consultant, took a number of factors into consideration including: the size of the jurisdiction, its financial resources (e.g. availability of redevelopment funds) both past and future, and past and future potential use of regulatory measures such as inclusionary housing progranlS. The goals set for the 1999-2004 housing element cycle are distributed into three income categories: low, very low, and extremely low as required by the law. Both SANDAG and HCD were required to agree on the methodology for setting the affordable housing goals that, if met, would allow jurisdictions to self-certify their 2004-09 housing elements. HCD Director Richard Mallory testified in support of the methodology and program at the time of adoption by the SANDAG Board in June 1998. In addition to preparing a housing element and meeting its affordable housing goal, jurisdictions must provide a statement with additional information on low-income housing dispersion; for example, they must document that additional affordable housing opportunities will not be developed only in areas where concentrations of lower income households already exist. Finally, to be eligible for self-certification, no local government actions or policies may prevent the development of the sites jurisdictions have identified as available to meet future housing needs. To complete the self-certification process, a jurisdiction is required to: 1. Hold a public hearing; 2. Make findings, based on substantial evidence, that it has met the relevant criteria for housing element self-certification (contained in Section 65585.1 of the Government Code); 3. Adopt the updated housing element; and 4. Submit a self-certification letter of compliance to the Department of Housing and Community Development along with its adopted housing element, for RCD's information, not approval. Not long after SANDAG adopted the self-certification implementation program in June 1998, an issue arose that undermined and seriously threatened the viability of the self- certification pilot program. At the beginning of 2000, SANDAG became aware that eligibility for certain state programs was contingent upon having a housing element found in compliance with state law by RCD. SANDAG brought this issue to the attention of HCD via a letter to Director Julie Bomstein. After meeting with SANDAG staff and Housing Element Advisory Committee members, RCD took the position that a self-certified housing element is not equivalent to an element reviewed and found in compliance with state law by RCD staff. A nunlber of funding sources for affordable housing and smart growth, including some administered by HCD, require applicants to have a housing element that has been found in compliance i 1 I I i I ~ by HCD, or give pnonty to cities whose housing elements have been found III compliance by HCD. Such requirements put cities that choose to self-certify their housing elements at a disadvantage for funds compared to those not self-certifying, and reduce their ability to produce affordable housing. The Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) position that self certified housing elements are not equivalent to housing elements that are found in compliance with state law damaged the viability of the pilot program. Six of the 10 jurisdictions that self certified their housing elements submitted their self certified elements to HCD for a finding of compliance to preserve their eligibility for state funds. In some cases these reviews took several months to complete, resulted in only minor changes to the housing elements, and required additional environmental review and public hearings. Status of Self-Certification Process In view of the issues surrounding the self-certification pilot program, SANDAG pursued two changes to state law regarding the housing element self-certification program: a) An extension of the sunset date to allow jurisdictions to self-certify their 2009- 14 housing elements (an option that does not exist under the current law), and b) Granting full eligibility for all state funds and programs to jurisdictions that self-certify their housi!lg elements. SANDAG and the Regional Housing Task Force believed that the pilot program should be allowed to operate for another housing element cycle in order to allow a more thorough and complete evaluation of its effectiveness and success. SANDAG prepared a report to the Legislature on the progress of the self-certification program in April 2003. The report makes the following findings and conclusions about the self-certification program: 1. Eleven of the 19 jurisdictions in the region have self-certified their housing elements. These include: Chula Vista, Coronado, EI Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, San Marcos, Santee (processing housing element with general plan update), and Vista. 2. Jurisdictions that self-certified their housing elements met a higher percentage of their affordable housing needs during the 1991-99 housing element cycle than jurisdictions that did not self-certify. 3. The self-certification pilot program provides an incentive for actual production of affordable housing: exemption of local governments from state housing element review. This incentive is a powerful tool to help achieve the state's housing goals in a more cost- effective manner. 4. The Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) position that self- certified housing elements are not equivalent to housing elements that are found In compliance with state law damaged the viability of the pilot program. 5. Six of the 11 jurisdictions that self-certified their housing elements submitted their self-certified elements to HCD for a finding of compliance to preserve their eligibility for state funds. In some cases these reviews took several months to complete, resulted in only minor changes to the housing elements, and required additional environmental review and public hearings. 6. The process of establishing the self-certification program focused attention on the need for, and the ability, of jurisdictions to provide affordable housing for low income households and families. 7. The self-certification program provides a cost savings for both state and local government, which is important in light ofthe state's current budget crisis. 8. Continuation of the program would draw attention to an often ignored need: the actual provision of housing for low income households and families. The current status ofthe program is that it is no longer being pursued by SANDAG. The Housing Element Working Group including the COGS, League of Cities, Local Realtors have not been supportive of the self certification process. The housing advocacy groups prefer the state review process by HCD. The full SANDAG Report is available on the federation website on the new Policy Page: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid 871 2004.pdf I i I I i I 1 j I: Ii II Ii ~ I !) i County SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA ATTACHMENT E4 HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE REPORT 04/13/2010 Jurisdiction Adopted In Process of 2007-2014 Review Housing Element Not Submitted Atherton X Belmont X Burlingame X Menlo Park X Redwood City X San Carlos X San Mateo X San Mateo County X Campbell X Cupertino X Los Altos X Los Altos Hills X Mountain View X Palo Alto X San Jose X Santa Clara X Santa Clara County X Sarato~a X Sunnyvale X ATTACHMENT E 5 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Table 2007 -2014 cycle (rev 03/10) Income Le'vel Very Low Low Moderate §l:JlBr0:r~L Above Moderate Need 690 543 641 1,874 986 2,869 Entitled 148 18 102 26'8 744 Building Permit Issued 2007-2014 57 2 91 160 639 7813 . *Unmet need = "Need" minus "Building Permit Issued" Very Low-Income: Households with incomes between 0 and 50 percent of County median family income. State 2009 limit for a family of 4: $53,050 Low-Income: Households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent of County median family income. State 2009 limit for a family of 4: $84,900 Moderate Income: Households with incomes between 81 and 120 percent of County median family income. State 2009 limit for a family of 4: $126,600 Above Moderate Income: Households with incomes above 120 percent of County median family income. State 2009 limit for a family of 4: over $126,600 2009 State Santa Clara County Area Median Income (AMI) = $1 05,5~0 The City uses State (HCD) Income Limits in determining eligibility for housing-related programs and activities. Unmet Need* 633 541 550 347 .2.1971 January 9,2008 ABAG Executive Board clo Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: ATTACHMENT Fl ~!ty ~!ralOA!~~ Department of Planning and Community Environment The City of Palo Alto thanks you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the revised Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which was adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on November 15, 2007. The City acknowledges ABAG's modification to Palo Alto's RHNA to address the City'S Sphere of Influence circumstance with the CountY,of Santa Clara and Stanford Upiversity.However, our City Council, the Planning and Transportation Corru.nission and staiIhave all,dete1'1l1ined. that the RHNA of 2,860, even after the reduction of 645 Units" is completely unachievable in Palo Alto given the lack of available land, the high 'cosf of land a¢quisition,andthe impacts of that amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods and infrastlucture. Setting these requirements that cannot be achieved threatens the credibility and viability of important public institutions and becomes simply an exercise ~in futility. Palo Alto has an extensive and long history of leading and implementing affordable housing in an area highly impacted by the 'high cost of housing. We V\feie:'the first to implement inc1usionary zoning in this region a,n.dPalo Alto Housing Corpor~t!q:nwas established back in 1970 as a non-profit affordable housing provider. Although the ,Cily6f Palo Alto has adopted zoning and programs supporting core concepts behind the allocaupn method such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rural#¢Mtiesgicting urban sprawl, and transit oriented develOpment, there should be a reasonable e:xpedt~dbn.ofsuccess in meeting goals when assigning allocations to cities. . ...... ' ... , ... ' .. . . ,. ".",.:" ~ " .. . Factors such as essential itiftastructUre needs and service reqti.it¢ment~,'~lgd:'il¢~~ to be taken into consideration. Many components of the City's infrastructure~i~,;alig~aYi:ltcapacity and another critical factor is the capacity limitations of the Palo Alto UnitledS¢Q.Qol :Qi~trict. Thecur.rent school popUlation has airea.cly pushed the present facilitIes beyol1d capacity so that every elementary school now has multiple p()rtables. Students fr()m an additional 2,86Q,housillgunits simply cannot be accommodated With;the distip.g·fadlitie~a:ndbudget. Given thaf'the sqhool district is at capacity, and there is nO availably funding 'toaccommddate the increased stUdent . popUlation from the allocation, these i-equirem~nts would amount to' an Unfundedfrtandate for Palo Alto. - Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue p.o. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.617.3108 BUilding 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329:2240 II II 1 !: 11 \1 Mr. Henry Gardner Page 2 of4 January 9, 2008 As staff has indicated previously in transmittals to ABAG, the population and household growth projections for Palo Alto will not be realized and should be adjusted to reflect a population growth rate of approximately 3.0 % over the next RHNA period within our jurisdictional boundary. ABAG's Projections 2007 assumes a popUlation growth rate of approximately 7% during the next 7 years in our jurisdictional boundary. Historically, the City of Palo Alto's popUlation has grown only by approximately 4.7% over the last thirty years. We understand that the methodology uses Sphere of Influence popUlation projections but we believe that the popUlation trend within our Sphere of Influence is proportional to the historic jurisdictional boundary population trends. Although the City has experienced a growth rate of approximately 8% during the last seven years, this has been a period when Palo Alto has constructed significant new housing development well in excess of historic averages and that rate cannot be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. Therefore, it's very likely that the. City's population growth will remain far below ABAG's projections since it will be very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development it has experienced in the last seven years. During the last RHNA period, the City's population growth was largely attributable to a single development of approximately 1,000 units on the City's only remaining vacant large residential site. This City's housing growth occurred during a temporary period of substantial decline in the market for commercial development and increasing demand for housing. Taking this anomaly and extrapolating this into the future is not appropriate. By using its own overestimated Projections 2007 population numbers, the RHNA methodology compounds this error by assigning a 45% weight to the population projections that ABAG itself created. This logic appears circular in that the driver behind this growth appears to be the mandate from ABAG. Additionally, the City should receive credit in this RHNA cycle for the 1,036 units that were built during that last RHNA period that exceeded the City's assigned allocation. The City exceeded its above moderate allocation by 1,282 units and its low allocation by 14 units with a deficit of 51 units in the very low category and 208 in the moderate category. Palo Alto has also protected and retained existing units that are more affordable and should receive further credit to offset the City'S RHNA requirements. The City also continues to oppose the inclusion of an additional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD, in effect penalizing cities that have developed smart growth policies. Additional growth requirements for built out cities like Palo Alto should be predominantly TOD housing, not the core ABAG allocation plus TOD housing. The emphasis of transit use in the methodology is unrealistic at least for Palo Alto. Transit at the University and California Avenue stations is used more efficiently by commuters and not Mr. Henry Gardner Page 3 of4 January 9, 2008 .so efficiently by residents; many more people take transit TO Palo Alto than FROM Palo Alto. A greater concentration of jobs in the vicinity of transit will promote mass transit in Palo Alto more effectively than the concentration of housing. Furthermore, Palo Alto has been assigned additional units · based on transit access from the San Antonio Avenue station. However, this station is located in and serves primarily Mountain View, not Palo Alto. Also, Caltrain only services the San Antonio Caltrain station once per hour during rush hours further reducing its TOD effectiveness. Palo Alto has promoted smart growth in its Comprehensive Plan policies and its Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning all in the midst ofVTA reducing bus services to Palo Alto neighborhoods and with little or no projected additional funding for transit to support the TOD aspects ofRHNA. However, Palo Alto's diligence and success in implementing smart growth policies appear to have led ABAG to assume that the City has no limit to further intensifying with infill development. Given the RHNA mandate to provide housing for all income levels, it is impossible for the City to provide the 1,875 units assigned for below market rate income levels. Palo Alto prioritized affordable housing as one of the City's top five goals and built over 90 percent of the City's very low and low income housing allocation for the last RHNA cycle. However, the current RHNA methodology uses 2000 Census income distribution data for allocating housing based on affordability, and does not reflect the City's success in building affordable housing over the last seven years. Instead, the current methodology allocated more affordable housing to Palo Alto compared to the region as a whole. Additionally, due to the extraordinary cost of land in Palo Alto, all very low and low income rental housing that has been developed recently has required significant City subsidy. The cost of low and very low income projects in Palo Alto are averaging $400,000 to $500,000 per unit. Recently the City has had to subsidize approximately 50% of the project cost for most low income and very low income projects .. This is in large part due to the exorbitant land costs in Palo Alto which average $10 million an acre but have been as high as $16 million an acre. In order to develop the assigned 1,234 units of low and very low income housing under current funding conditions, the City would be expected to provide a subsidy of approximately $245 to $310 million, which is clearly unrealistic and unattainable as the City struggles to maintain revenues adequate to support basic services to its residents and businesses. Given state subsidy restrictions, and because of the high land costs in Palo Alto, moderate income units are achieved only through the City's inclusionary zoning program, which requires 15 -20% affordability. As a result, approximately 70% of the ABAG allocation would need to be subsidized by Palo Alto. In order to provide the assigned 641 moderate income level units, the City would have to develop 3,205 -4,272 market rate units. The high cost to the City of providing this housing as well as supporting services and facilities, schools, transit and parks, is an unfunded state mandate. There may also be insufficient water resources available to serve this additional popUlation. Until there is state Mr. Hemy Gardner Page 4 of4 January 9, 2008 subsidy available for affordable units, identifying adequate sites to meet proposed RHNA housing for lower income levels in communities like Palo Alto will be a paper exercise. The City requests that you confirm that the job growth anticipated with the proposed Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Facility expansions are included in ABAG's projections for the City's job growth for the 2007-2014 period, and the City will not be assigned these jobs a second time in a future RHNA regardless of those projects' occupancy dates. Finally, much discussion has occurred about the impact of commute emissions on climate change. Palo Alto has just concluded a comprehensive climate change impact analysis. A significant finding of that report is that 11 % of Palo Alto's C02 emissions are attributable to trips into Palo Alto. Consequently, the report indicates that even an additional 2,860 units with similar commuting characteristics would impact Palo Alto C02 emissions by less that 0.1% or 1/1000th Palo Alto's total C02 In closing, the City requests that ABAG revise Palo Alto's RHNA to reflect a 3% popUlation growth over the seven-year RHNA period, exclude the San Antonio station from our transit factor, adjust the transit factor to eliminate any "double counting" and credit the City with the 1, 036 units the City built in excess of our last RHNA assignment. The City also urges ABAG to consider factors such as land costs and availability as well as community needs to provide adequate open space and essential services in developing a realistic RHNA. Given that there was no representative from the 250,000 residents of North Santa Clara County on the Housing Methodology Committee, we were not adequately represented and, therefore, unique factors prevalent in our area were not sufficiently considered in the ABAG allocations. If ABAG adopts more realistic and achievable RHl'~~A allocation goals, this will enable cities to focus on actually providing adequate housing for a diverse population, a goal strongly supported by the City Council and the Palo Alto community. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our appeal of the assigned allocation. Sincerely, ........... " ..... _-.,,, ~-J)e.. Larry Klein Mayor cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director February 21,2008 Ira Ruskin 5050 El Camino Real Suite 117 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Assemblyman Ruskin, This is a follow-up letter to our discussion on January 25th regarding state housing element law and possible legislative amendments. As we emphasized at the meeting, Palo Alto's assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of2,860 units is clearly unachievable given the lack of available land, the very high cost of land acquisition, and the negative impacts of that amount of growth on the City's neighborhoods, schools and infrastructure. The City believes that emphasis in housing elements should be placed on cities' support of core smart growth concepts such as encouraging infill development and transit oriented development, protection of open space and rural areas and restricting urban sprawl, and not on an arbitrary number. If the RHNA is to be used it should be a goal rather than a requirement for cities' compliance with the housing element law. Palo Alto staff has identified the following potential changes to housing element law that would address several of the issues and concerns raised by our citizens and decision makers. • Make RHNA a goal not a requirement • Adequate water availability demonstrated to serve increased demand from additional housing should be a factor • Whether there is sufficient vacant or underutilized land available for new housing must be considered • Adequate provision of supporting infrastructure such as schools and parks must be available • Guaranteed state subsidy for affordable housing projects I appreciate the time you spent with us and your commitment to consider potential legislation to address our issues. Please feel free to contact me or Steve Emslie, our Planning Director, at (650)329-2354 if you or your staff would like to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, Larry Klein Mayor City of Palo Alto September 13, 2007 ABAG Executive Board clo Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: ~!ty_2!.P~Q_~t9 Department of Planning and Community Environment Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which was adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on July 19,2007. The City of Palo Alto (City) supports the main concepts behind the draft allocation method such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rural areas, restricting urban sprawl, and transit oriented development. The City also appreciates ABAG staff's recent recommendation to modify Palo Alto's RHNA to address the City's unique Sphere of Influence circumstance with the County of Santa Clara and Stanford University which is outside the City boundaries but within its Sphere of Influence. ABAG staff's recognition that the City of Palo Alto does not have "land-use pennitting" authority outside its boundaries and the resultant detennination that 645 dwelling units are outside the City's boundaries and should be assigned to the County is very much appreciated. The City, therefore, request that ABAG adjust . the City of Palo Alto's Regional Housing Needs Allocation to 2,860 units and transfer the remaining 645 units to the County of Santa Clara. The City would also like to comment on circumstances specific to Palo Alto we believe should be taken into consideration both in the Projections 2007 figures and in the allocation methodology. Comments on Projections 2007 As you know, the Projections 2007 forecast was critical in determining the RHNA for individual jurisdictions. City staff has discussed with your staff on several occasions constraints on future housing production within Palo Alto. As we have stated in various email correspondence and on response to ABAG's Survey of RHNA Data, we believe that the population and household projections for the City of Palo Alto are not achievable. Projections 2007 assumes a growth rate of 26.6 % by 2035 in our sphere of influence while historical Census data shows the City of Palo Alto's population has only grown by approximately 4.7% over the last 30 years. Although in the last 7 years, Palo Alto has experienced significant new housing development resulting in approximately an 8% increase in population, this is still far below ABAG's projections and this growth cannot be sustained given Palo Alto's limited land availability and redevelopment potential. 250 Hamilton Avenue p.o. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 1 1 ~ " t: i' Mr. Henry Gardner Association of Bay Area Government Page 2 of3 DurIng the last RHNA period, the City made significant efforts to identify lands that could convert to housing and to encourage that conversion, Palo Alto approved approximately 2,550 units including a single project that added about 1,000 units on one of the City's last undeveloped lands. In a memo to the ABAG Executive Board from Paul Fassinger dated last November, Mr. Fassinger explained the household, population, and employment revisions to the Projections 2007 and why ABAG chose to revise the projections for several jurisdictions. ABAG staff revised and lowered ABAG Projections 2007 household and population projection for the City of San Leandro because they "pointed to the fact that its recent success in developing housing could not be sustained ... " Similar to the City of San Leandro, it would also be very difficult for Palo Alto to continue the housing development Palo Alto has experienced in the last 7 years given Palo Alto's very limited land available for new development. ABAG's revised technical document states that; "Household growth in ABAG's Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological constraints." Yet Projections 2007 does not reflect the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipated population growth or recognize that Palo Alto has approximately 65 percent of its 26 square mile land area dedicated to protected open space, parks and preserves and the City's boundaries are fixed on all sides by neighboring cities, hence, no "new" lands are available. Atherton's · household and population projection were also revised and lowered in Projections 2007 because ABAG staff agreed that "Atherton has no capacity to expand beyond it's existing town limits. The town has almost no vacant lots." Palo Alto also does not have any capacity to expand beyond its existing jurisdictional boundary and has less than 0.5 percent vacant land, yet the City's population and household projections in Projections 2007 remain unrevised. Comments on Allocation Methodology The City opposes the inclusion of an additional Transit Oriented Development (TOD) factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD. Palo Alto recently adopted the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District, which is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings within a walkable distance of the California A venue Caltrain Station. ABAG staff revised and lowered the City of Larkspur's population and household projections for Projections 2007 because "The city implemented . smart growth concepts when the ferry tenninal was developed and the density in that area is much higher than the remainder of the city." Palo Alto's circumstances are very similar. Over half of all residential approvals and construction in the City of Palo Alto (approximately 1400 dwelling units) within the last 5 years are within a mile of either the University Avenue or California II I iI " Mr. Henry Gardner Association of Bay Area Governments Page 3 of3 Avenue train station. A majority of the remaining residential entitlements or construction is along EI Camino Real, which is served by major bus routes. The remainder of the City, which consist mainly of developed and established single-family neighborhoods or approximately 16,000 detached single-family homes, cannot support the higher densities. Nonetheless, the City of Palo Alto's population and household projections were not revised for Projections 2007. Furthermore, we understand that the draft Projections 2007 already takes into account likely development along transit lines through its underlying assumptions and imposing an additional TOD factor penalizes cities that have developed smart growth policies. The City would also appreciate a detailed explanation on how the methodology addresses household and employment growth near transit if the fixed transit station is at or very near its jurisdictional boundary. In the case of Palo Alto, a Caltrain station is located at the Mountain ViewlPalo Alto jurisdictional boundary. The revised technical document does not clearly explain how the methodology reapportions the 5% household and employment growth within a half mile radius of the transit station if the half mile radius crosses jurisdictional boundaries. In conclusion, the City urges ABAG to consider factors such as adequate open space provision, lack of land availability and suitable sites, and sufficient service provision and availability in ,developing a realistic RHNA. If ABAG adopts more achievable goals, this will enable all cities, including Palo Alto, to focus on the provision of adequate housing for a diverse population. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our requests. Sincerely, Director of Planning and Community Development cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director I i i Ii I January 17,2007 ABAG Executive Board c/o Henry Gardner, Secretary -Treasurer Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Gardner: Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation methodology, which was authorized for release by the ABAG Executive Board on November 16, 2006. The City of Palo Alto supports the main concepts behind the draft allocation method such as smart growth, infill development, protection of open space and rural areas, restricting urban sprawl, and transit oriented development, but would like to comment on circumstances specific to Palo Alto we believe should be taken into consideration both in the Projections 2007 figures and in the allocation methodology. Comments on Projections 2007 City staff has discussed with your staff on several occasions constraints on housing production within Palo Alto. As we have stated on our email correspondence and Survey of RHNA Data sent to ABAG, we believe that the population projections for the City of Palo Alto are not achievable. Projections 2007 assumes a growth rate of 26.6 % resulting in a population increase of20,100 by 2035 in our sphere of influence. The City of Palo Alto's population has only grown by approximately 4.7% over the last 30 years resulting in a net population increase of approximately 2,600 people from 1970 to 2000 according to historical Census data. Even though Palo Alto has very limited land available for new development, during the last RHNA period the City made significant efforts to identify lands that could convert to housing and to encourage that conversion. Between 1998 and 2010, the City anticipates adding 2,700 units to its housing stock; 2,550 units have been approved to date. In the future it will be even more difficult to identify appropriate housing sites since the City is almost fully developed and has almost no vacant land available for new development and limited underutilized property for redevelopment. Palo Alto is approximately 26 square miles but approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves. Another 15 percent consists of open space uses. About 25 percent of the remaining land area consists of developed and established single-family neighborhoods or approximately 16,000 detached single-family homes. As the City's boundaries are fixed on all sides by neighboring cities, no "new" lands are available. Mr. Henry Gardner Association of Bay Area Governments Page 20f3 Comments on Allocation Methodology The City opposes the inclusion of an additional TOD factor in the allocation methodology to the extent that it would disproportionately assign housing to cities like Palo Alto that have shown a commitment to TOD. Palo Alto recently adopted the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District, which is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain Station. This district will allow multifamily residential development of up to 40 dwelling units per acre. Over half of all residential approvals and construction (approximately 1400 dwelling units) within the last 5 years are within a mile of either the University Avenue or California Avenue train station. A majority of the remaining residential entitlements or construction is along El Camino Real, which is served by major bus routes. We understand that the draft Projections 2007 already takes into account likely development along transit lines through its underlying assumptions and to impose an additional TOD factor would be considered "double counting". The methodology also does not distinguish between newly constructed transit stations and older transit stations where the surrounding areas are well developed with established commercial and residential uses. Palo Alto's University Avenue Caltrain Station is adjacent to a fully developed area whereas an area such as the Baypoint BART Station has acres of parking lot and vacant land surrounding the BART station yet both of these areas are evaluated under the proposed methodology equally. The other area that the methodology does not adequately address is the jobslhousing ratio. Although the term "jobslhousing balance" implies a relationship between jobs and housing units within a community, the key relationship is between jobs and the number or'employed residents within a community. The City of Palo Alto would like ABAG to take into consideration the jobs/employed residents ratio as opposed to the jobslhouseholds ratio as a better measure of the relationship between jobs and housing within a jurisdiction. For example, the City of Palo Alto has a 2.77-jobs/employed residents ratio compared to a 3.45 jobslhousehold ratio. The City of Palo Alto continues to be committed to the provision of affordable housing and has adopted numerous policies supporting this commitment. Palo Alto's Housing Element was revised in 2002 to encourage affordable housing and the provision of higher density housing. As mentioned above, the City's zoning ordinance was revised this year to include a transit oriented zoning district to maximize housing development along transit corridors. The City has worked hard to implement these policies by funding non-profit housing developers to acquire sites and develop affordable housing. Ii j, il Ii I' ] ~ i",.,I' i i Mr. Henry Gardner Association of Bay Area Governments Page 3 of3 Please consider factors such as adequate open space provision, lack of land availability and suitable sites, and our shared goal of creating a balanced community in developing a realistic RHNA. If ABAG adopts achievable goals, this will enable all cities, including Palo Alto, to focus on the provision of adequate housing for a diverse population. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of our requests. Sincerely, STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Development cc: Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director Association of Bay Area Governments Survey of RHNA Data September 2006 Jurisdiction: ____ ..;:;C;.:.ity~o:;.:f:..:P::..;a:=::l~o..:.A.:;:I;.;.;to~ _____________ _ Namerritle: Roland Rivera/ Planner --------~~~~~~~~~~----------------------- Instructions: The draft Projections 2007 forecast includes information pertaining to each jurisdiction's households and employment, its jobs-housing relationship, and housing sales price information. This data relates to the factors with an asterisk (*) below. We are requesting that local governments review this information and provide feedback toABAG. Also, please send ABAG any additional data related to these issues as well as any data related to the other factor(s) outlined below. If you prefer, this survey can be filled out electronically and returned to RHNA@abag.ca.gov. The form can be downloaded from ABAG's website at http://www.abag.ca. gov /planning/housingneeds/method2 .html. (1) Your jurisdiction's jobs and housing relationship. * Although the term "jobslhousing balance" implies a relationship between jobs and housing units within a community, the key relationship is between jobs and the number of employed residents within a community, because some households have no workers and many have more than one worker. The City of Palo Alto would like ABAG to take into consideration the jobs/employed residents ratio as opposed to the jobslhouseholds ratio as a better measure of relationship between jobs and housing within a jurisdiction. For example, the City of Palo Alto has a 2.77- jobs/employed residents ratio using the ABAG 2005 projections and Census 2000 data compared to a 3.45 jobslhousehold ratio using the ABAG 2005 projections. (2) Constraints due to sewer, water, land suitability or preservation . ./ The City of Palo Alto has approximately 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves including special conservation areas such as the Baylands east ofHwy 101 and the Foothills Open Space area west ofI-280. Another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses . ./ Palo Alto has a rich stock of historic buildings and identifies approximately 400 buildings protected under our historic preservation ordinance. Palo Alto also has two protected Historic Districts (Professorville and Ramona St) with a combined area of approximately 66 acres. ! \ ~ I " RHNA Survey September 2006 Page 2 Palo Alto has sufficient water supply to accommodate anticipated growth under the current Comprehensive Plan; however, there may not be adequate water supply to accommodate additional housing development for an overall population exceeding a projected buildout population of 64,000. (3) The distribution of household growth that provide opportunities to maximize the use of public transportation and existing transportation infrastructure. Palo Alto recently adopted the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District, which is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings within a walkable distance ofthe California Avenue Caltrain Station. The PTOD District is approximately 64· acres and will allow multifamily residential development of up to 40 dwelling units per acre. (4) The market demandfor housing. * . Indications from the Real Estate Infolink and Dataquick show a slowing trend in market demand for housing in Palo Alto. According toREInfolink, Single Family Homes stayed on the market for an average of 49 days for September of2006 compared to as low as 20 days in early 2005. Dataquick, on a recent article, reports sales of homes in the Bay Area were at their lowest in five years. According to the article, 2,689 homes were sold in Santa Clara County for the month of September last year compared to 1,867 homes sold in Santa Clara County for the month of September this year, or about a 30.6% decrease from last year. (5) Agreements between a county and cities in a county to direct growth toward incorporated areas of the county. The Stanford University Community Plan adopted in 2000 and supported by the City of Palo Alto identifies the unincorporated Stanford campus area adjacent to Palo Alto should provide student housing for Stanford University. The Plan called for 3,000 units to be developed to accommodate housing needs ofthe university. (6) The loss of units contained in assisted housing developments. There are no loss of units contained in assisted housing developments in the City of Palo Alto. All Section 8 contracts in the City remain in place. (7) High housing cost burdens. * Housing Costs continues to increase in Palo Alto but shows signs of becoming more stable. The median price for a Single Family Home through June of2006 is $1,395,000, a slight increase from the median price of a Single Family Home the same time last year at $1,350,000. The median price of a housing unit in Palo Alto was $811,800 according to the Census 2000 data. II II I i Ii II II I RHNA Survey September 2006 Page 3 (8) The housing needs of farm workers. nla Palo Alto has no discernible agriculture industry or farm worker population. (9) Any other factors that you believe should be considered . ./ Historical Data The City of Palo Alto's population has only grown by approximately 2,632 people from 1970 to 2000. The Census Bureau's population data for the City of Palo Alto was 55,966 for 1970, 55,225 for 1980, 55,900 for 1990 and 58,598 for the year 2000 . ./ Approved and Projected Housing from 2000 -2020 The City of Palo Alto has approved/entitled approximately 677 dwelling units from 2000 -2005. The City of Palo Alto also has approximately 1,270 new dwelling units either approved or currently processing for the 2005-2010 timeframe. It is anticipated that approximately 750 dwelling units will be processed/entitled between the years 2010 through 2020. This totals approximately 2,700 new dwelling units approved and projected for the 2000-2020 timeframe. Using an average of2.3 persons per household, 2,700 new dwelling units would be equal to about 6,210 growth in population through the year 2020 or a population projection of approximately 64,808 for the City of Palo Alto (2000 census population of 58,598 + 6,210 growth through 2020 = 64,808 population for 2020) . ./ City Council's recent policy changes and current direction of protecting commercially zoned sites from developing at 100% residential. The current direction of the City Council is to restrict housing in non-residential zones as opposed to allowing "stand alone" housing by right in these zones. Housing will still be allowed in some of these zones within mixed use projects. These proposed policy changes are predicated on the limited availability of commercially-zoned property in the City and the need for retail- serving uses in the community. Last October, Council members changed the "General Manufacturing" zones to prohibit housing. Staff has also been directed to return to Council with changes to the City's commercial zones that would allow housing only in mixed use projects. The recent policy changes and current City Council direction will most likely affect future housing production since much of the new housing development the City approved from 2000- 2006 was "strictly residential" developments on commercially zoned sites . ./ Almost Zero Vacant Land Inventory The City of Palo Alto is fully developed and has almost no vacant land inventory. I I r RHNA Survey September 2006 Page 4 If you have additional comments, please add pages as needed. Return survey to: Kenneth Kirkey ABAG P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Background information on the 4th RHNA revision: htlp:llwww.abag.ca.gov/planninglhousingneeds/. -----Original Message----- From: Rivera, Roland Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:55 PM To: Patricia Perry (E-mail) Subject: City of Palo Alto comments on the upcoming Projections 2007 Ms. Perry, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the data which will be used in your upcoming Projections 2007. The City of Palo Alto would like to have the following information taken into consideration for your upcoming Projections 2007. 1) Do the 2020 population and job estimates seem reasonable for your city? -per our phone conversation, you mentioned utilizing the Projections 2005 data for our jurisdiction and giving you feedback on whether or not the projections are reasonable for the year 2020 and 2030. -ABAG Projections 2005 projects the City of Palo Alto Uurisdictional boundary) to have a population of 70,900 by the year 2020 and 75,500 by the year 2030. -The City of Palo Alto Planning Department believes that the ABAG Projections 2005 projections for the year 2020 and 2030 are high for four reasons. a) Historical Data The City of Palo Alto's population has only grown by approximately 2,632 people from 1970 to 2000. The census bureau's population data for the City of Palo Alto was 55,966 for 1970, 55,225 for 1980, 55,900 for 1990 and 58,598 for the year 2000. b) Approved and Projected Housing from 2000 -2020 The City of Palo Alto has approved/entitled approximately 677 dwelling units from 2000 -2005. The City of Palo Alto also has approximately 1,270 new dwelling units either approved or currently processing for the 2005-2010 timeframe. We also expect approximately 750 dwelling units to be processed/enttitled between the years 2010 through 2020. This totals to approximately 2,700 new dwelling units approved and projected for the 2000-2020 timeframe. If we used the average of 2.3 persons per household, 2,700 new dwelling units would be equal to about 6,210 growth in population through the year 2020 or a population projection of approximately 64,808 for the City of Palo Alto (2000 census population of 58,598 + 6,210 growth through 2020 = 64,808 population for 2020). c) City Council's recent policy changes and current direction of protecting commercially 1 zoned sites from turning over to 100% residential. The current direction of the City Council is to restrict housing in non-residential zones as opposed to allowing "stand alone" housing by right. Housing will still be allowed in some of these zones within mixed use projects. These proposed policy changes are predicated on the limited availability of commercially-zoned property in the City and the need for retail-serving uses in the community. Last October, Council members changed the "General Manufacturing" zones to prohibit housing. Staff has also been directed to return to Council with changes to the City's commercial zones that would allow housing only in mixed use projects. The recent policy changes and current City Council direction will most likely affect future housing production since much of the new housing development the City approved from 2000-2006 was "strictly residential" developments on commercially zoned sites. d) Almost Zero Vacant Land Inventory The City of Palo Alto is fully developed and has almost no vacant land inventory. The City of Palo Alto would appreciate ABAG Projections 2007 to take into consideration the information above and project the City's population to a lower estimate more consistent with the City's historical growth patterns. We believe a projection of 65,000 -66,000 total population for the year 2020 and 67,000 -68,000 for the year 2030 would better reflect a population projection based on the best available information for the City. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your consideration of our request. The City of Palo Alto appreciates the opportunity to collaborate with ABAG for Projections 2007. Sincerely, Roland Rivera Planner City Of Palo Alto (650) 329-2541 2 ATTACHMENT F 2. TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEP ARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2007 CMR: 389:07 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING ABAG REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION FOR PALO ALTO AND HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENT. This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND Periodically (usually every seven years), the state requ.ires allj~.sdictions in the state to update their General Plan (Comprehensive Plan) Housing Elements. W thin its Housing Element, each jurisdiction must plan for its share of the region's housing need r residents of all income categories. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for is determined by state housing policy. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is each jurisdiction's assigned share of the region's total housing need based on a methodology developed by individual Councils of Government. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined that the Bay Area needs to plan for 214,500 housing units during the 2007 -2014 planning period. HCD also determined how many ofthese units are needed across four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. With this assignment of the overall regional need by the state, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was responsible for allocating the total regional need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area as mandated by state law. The RHNA methodology developed by ABAG, working with a Housing Methodology Committee (comprised of members representing thy entire ABAG region) was approved by the ABAG Board in January, 2007. It used the following factors and weights to develop the allocation: • Household growth (45%) • Existing employment (22.5%) • Employment growth (22.5%) • Household growth near existing transit (5%) • Employment growth near existing transit (5%) Household growth, existing employment and employment growth assumptions were derived from ABAG's regional household and employment forecasts, Projections 2007. CMR:389:07 Page 1 of3 i ~ 1\ ~ I I. 1 I I , ~ I' II II I I On September 26, 2007, City staff met with the Planning Commission to discuss the ABAG numbers, allocation methodology and Housing Element process. DISCUSSION On July 19,2007, ABAG's Executive Board adopted the draft RHNA allocations for jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area by income category for the 2007 -2014 RHNA cycle. Palo Alto's current total draft allocation is 3,505 units, including 846 very low, 666 low, 786 moderate, and 1,207 above moderate income units. Jurisdictions had until September 18, 2007, to request revisions to their allocations. Palo Alto sent the attached letter (Attachment A) to ABAG on September 13,2007, requesting adjustments to the City's assigned allocation based on several factors. The City requested that the allocation should be based on projected growth within Palo Alto's jurisdictional boundary not its sphere of influence, since the City does not have land use control over unincorporated properties within Santa Clara County. Staff has met with ABAG, County and HCD staff to discuss this possible adjustment. ABAG staff has indicated willingness to support a reduction of 645 units to Palo Alto's allocation and reassign those units to the County based on projected growth on the Stanford campus. The City also contested the population forecasts for Palo Alto in Projections 2007. Given Palo Alto's limited remaining vacant land and the City's historic growth rates, the Projections 2007 growth rate of26.6% by 2035 is unrealistic. The City also objected to the allocation methodology that penalizes jurisdictions that have implemented smart growth policies by assigning additional growth to transit-oriented areas where increased growth has already been factored in long range plans. ABAG staff has 60 days to respond to the City's requests for revisions. After receiving ABAG's response, the City will have an additional 60 days to further appeal the RHNA numbers. In early 2008, ABAG will hold a public hearing on any appeals regarding the assigned allocations. Based on state requirements, the fmal RHNA will need to be adopted by ABAG's Executive Board prior to June 2008 Also attached is the publication A Place to Call Home (Attachment B), prepared by ABAG, that provides an overview of the Bay Area housing situation and on pages 8-12 summarizes the RHNA process and methodology for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle. This publication also provides on pages 35 -39 an overview of the performance of each city in the Bay Area in meeting its allocation for the 1999 -2006 RHNA cycle. This should provide the Council with background information that should be helpful in the study session discussion. PREP ARED BY: Julie Caporgno Chief Planning and Transportation Official CMR:389:07 Page 2 of3 DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Steve Emslie Director of Planning and Community Environment Emily Harrison Assistant City Manager Attachment A Letter to ABAG dated September 13, 2007 Attachment B A Place to Call Home, ABAG, 2007 (for Council members only) CMR.:389:07 Page 3 of3 'I 'I 'I II j II !I 'I Ii I I ATTACHMENT G City of Palo Alto's Existing BMR Profile BMR Rental Units by Unit Types Studio • 189 Rental BMR units in the City for seniors and families. Three types of BMR Units, Studio, I-Bedroom, 2-Bedrooms and 3-Bedrooms. I-Bedroom 2-Bedrooms 3-Bedrooms 12 Senior units 17 Senior Units 74 Family Units 14 Family Units 4 Family units 68 Family Units • Affordability of Rental Units 1 unit affordable to very low income households (35%-50% Area Median Income) 167 units affordable to low income households (50-80% Area Median Income) 21 units affordable to moderate income households (80%-120% Area Median Income) BMR Ownership Units by Unit Types Studio 1 • 237 total ownership BMR units in the City of Palo Alto. I-Bedroom 2-Bedrooms 3-Bedrooms 4-Bedrooms 53 89 86 8 • Affordability of Ownership Units Affordable to moderate income households (80%-120% Area Median Income) BMR Waitlist Information by Household Size • Total Number of Households on waitlist for BMR Ownership Units: 495 I-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person households households households households households households 19% 22% 25% 23% 9% 2% 1 ~ I: I II " BMR Wait Period • 3 months to 3 years for rental units • 5 years average for ownership units Breakdown by Household Income Levels for Ownership Units • 332 Households (67%) earning less than 80% Area Median Income • 99 Households (20%) earning 80% -100% Area Median Income • 50 Households (10%) earning 100% -120% Area Median Income • 15 Households (3%) earning more than 120% Area Median Income Santa Clara County Income Limits -2009 Very Low Low Income Moderate Income Household Income Size Up to 100% AMI Up to 120% AMI Up to 50% AMI Up to 80% AMI (Lower) (Higher) 1 $37,000 $59,100 $73,900 $88,600 2 $42,200 $67,500 $84,400 $101,300 3 $47,500 $76,000 $95,000 $113,900 4 $52,800 $84,400 $105,500 $126,600 5 $57,000 $91,200 $114,000 $136,700 6 $61,200 $97,900 $122,400 $146,900 7 $65,400 $104,600 $130,800 $157,000 8 $69,700 $111,400 $139,300 $167,100 Notes: AMI = Area Median Income for Santa Clara County is $105,500 for a 4-person household as of 4/03/09 as published by State HCD; all income limits are derived from $105,500 rounded to nearest $100. 2 ""='==-~~----==---:::::-_~·=--:t:;;:,""=r-=-_-=---==-'±::::::~-=--="b .... -=,,,"_~:::::,~.:!C-!~::-:: .... -:::::=~,.==--~_-::-=---. -.:.......~-...• .:.!.==T::: •• -. -·-·'1==,:::,,~·..:.=-~-:-:::~-::=_ .. ~ .... ~~..:'------=-.c~·'::":·2::::.==.:~,,·.:..~'!....'--: ~.=J..,::~',~:'.c:::.;;::::...:.:::.~=,.·'.::..:.::.1~~_==----",,::=.-.t, 20.00 No vehicle available Household Vehicle Availability Comparison 1 vehicle available 2 or more vehicles available • Palo Alto Households in Block Groups within 2,000 ft of Transit Station • All Palo Alto Households o All Santa Clara County Households The percentage of Palo Alto households with one or no vehicles available tends to be higher in Palo Alto households near transit. Source: .. Table H44 -Tenure by Vehicles Available Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) ~ """I » n :I: 3: m Z """I ::I: ..... i I I !I ~I ~ 'I I ~ I ~ Ii I II I I I I ~ R 6S·EA,R:C}1fINt)rNG~ Effects Qf10 P,'OllBo\Js::ing" Parkin,g, and,'Travel ,'. YeRP 'Report '128 ope PlqceMakihg .Robert C.erverQ PhlJ)~ .C.Emter for Tto'hsrf Qrlented 'Development' "Urban Lana Institute .. ... TCRP REPORT BEGINS ON PAGE 4 TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel Literature Review and Case Studies 1. Executive Summary This research helps confirm what had been intuitively obvious: in the four metropolitan areas studied, TOO- housing produced considerably less traffic than is generated by conventional development. Yet most TOOs are parked on the assumption that there is little difference between TOO and conventional development with respect to the traffic they generate and the parking spaces they are built with. One likely result of this fallacious assumption is that fewer TOO projects get built. Those TOO developments that do get built are certainly less affordable and less sustainable than they might be, because they are subject to incorrect assumptions about the traffic impact they generate. Therefore many of the hoped for benefits (Le., less time stuck in traffic and lower housing costs to name two), from the nearly $75 billion in public dollars invested in rail transit over the past 11 years, are not being realized. The policy value of transit-oriented development (TOO) projects (e.g. less automobile travel) is well understood. Those potential benefits are muted since most U.S. TOOs are parked oblivious to the fact that a rail stop is nearby. This study looks at the most recent literature on the subject and the actual transportation performance of 17 built TOO projects. The report is divided into two sections: • Section 1 -Literature Review • Section 2 -Research Findings 4 TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel Literature Review We now know a lot more about the travel performance of TaOs. Whereas the first generations of TOO focused primarily on advocacy and assisting early adopters, there is now increased measurement and understanding of TOO travel outcomes. Some key findings in this literature review include: • Between 1970 and 2000, transit ridership for work trips increased in TOO zones, whereas ridership declined markedly in the metro areas surrounding TaOs. • TOO households are twice as likely to not own a car, and own roughly half as many cars as comparable households not living in TaOs. • Among the factors that attract households to TOO, households consistently place high value on neighborhood design, home prices and perceived value, and transit proximity. • Access to high quality transit is becoming increasingly important to firms trying to attract "creative class" workers in the knowledge economy. The literature review focused on nine questions related to TOO travel characteristics, transit system and land use influences, TOO ridership strategies and TOO resident/tenant characteristics. The most current knowledge on TOO was analyzed. The following is a summary of the key conclusions for each question. TOO Travel Characteristics i) What are the travel characteristics (e.g., frequency of travel by different modes) of people who live or work in a TOO? ii) What was the travel pattern of the TOO resident prior to moving to the TOO? TOO commuters typically use transit 2 to 5 times more than other commuters in the region. TOO transit mode share can vary from 5% to near 50%. The findings are similar findings for non-work trips: transit share is 2 to 5 times higher, although mode shares are typically lower than commute trips (2% to 20%) The primary reason for range is that transit use is heavily influenced by relative travel times with automobile and extensiveness of transit service, which can vary markedly across regions. As the transit network links to more job centers, educational opportunities and cultural facilities, transit use increases. From this perspective, TOO type (e.g., suburban neighborhood versus suburban center) is less important than specific location within the region and the quality of connecting transit service. Although one could reasonably infer the approximate transit mode share of a hypothetical new TOO by comparing it to similar TODs in the same, existing system, there is no rule of 5 i II 1 I II TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel thumb or single mode share number that can be easily applied to a hypothetical new TOO along a new rail or bus system. This is due to widely varying local travel conditions and employment distributions. A primary reason for higher TOO transit use is self selection. Current transit users and those precluded to use transit seek out TOO. The travel pattern of TOO residents prior to moving to the TOO depended on their previous access to transit. When work location was unchanged, often a significant percent (e.g., 50%) were transit users. Among commuters with no previous transit access, transit use increased (up to 50%). Transit System and Land Use Influences i) What levels of transit connectivity to desired origins and destinations are required to promote transit ridership at TaOs? ii) What TOO land-use and design features (e.g., mixed land-use, traffic calming, bus bulbs, short blocks, street furniture) have had an effect on travel patterns, transit ridership, or the decision to locate in a TOO? Research shows that system extensiveness is positively correlated with transit ridership. Extensive transit networks are also most often found in cities with worse traffic congestion (i.e., slow auto trip times) and higher parking costs, and these 3 factors work together to increase TOO transit ridership. The general consensus is that transit service headways of 10 minutes is ideal to support a transit lifestyle. There is no single, definitive threshold for connectivity ,and measures such as "track miles" and "number of transit stations" are not the best predictors of ridership on their own. What matters is transit travel times relative to auto travel times. For example, an extensive but very slow transit system will likely attract few riders if highway congestion is not severe. Conversely, a single fast rail corridor adjacent to a highly congested auto corridor will likely attract high ridership. The location of jobs accessible by transit influences transit ridership. Systems that generate the highest commute ridership have a high percentage of regional jobs accessible by fast transit. For work trips, proximity to rail stations is a stronger influence on transit use than land use mix or quality of walking environment. Thus, the most effective strategy to increase TOO ridership is to increase development densities in close proximity to transit. Employment densities at trip ends have more influence on ridership than population densities at trip origins. It is critical to locate jobs near transit in order to attract households to TaOs. However, Relative travel time (transit v. auto) is still more important than any land use factor (density, diversity of uses, design) in ridership. 6 j ~ I TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel Mixed uses in TaOs allow the transit service to be used for a variety of trip purposes throughout theday and week, but as a travel benefit, this is not a primary consideration for prospective TOO residents. Employment access is a primary consideration. Mixed uses (e.g., local restaurants) and urban design treatments (e.g., pedestrian pathways) are important for their amenity and design value in attracting residents and visitors/customers. TOO residents highly value "good" neighborhood design in addition to transit access to work. Urban design and the local land use mix may influence which TOO prospective residents choose to live in. Good design may also make a TOO a more desirable location to travel to. TOO Ridership Strategies i) What motivates or impedes transit ridership in a TOO? ii) What strategies have been effective in increasing transit ridership at TaOs? iii) What steps should transit agencies take in supporting TaOs to maximize transit ridership? Factors that most influence transit ridership are station proximity, transit quality and parking policies. Fast, frequent, and comfortable transit service will increase ridership, as will high parking charges and/or constrained parking supply. The availability of free or low-cost parking is a major deterrent to transit ridership. Successful ridership strategies include: TOO transit pass programs, parking reductions, and car-sharing programs TOO transit programs will be similar to other transit programs. That said, because TOO residents and households are by definition the nearest to transit, TaOs should be among the first locations that transit agencies implement specialized programs. TOO (e.g., mixed uses, high densities, reduced parking) is still "illegal" around station areas in many cities and transit districts, creating a barrier for development. Steps that transit agencies are taking to promote TOO include: reconsidering replacement parking requirements at park and rides, advocating for zoning changes with TOO entitlements, land assembly, joint development, and educational efforts (e.g., producing TOO guidebooks). TOO ResidentlTenant Characteristics i) What are the demographic profiles of TOO residents and employers? il) What motivates residents or employers to locate in TaOs? Examples of motivators may include the quality of schools, access to jobs, housing affordability, presence of transit services, neighborhood services and amenities, and community perception. 7 TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel The majority of TOO residents along new transit systems are childless singles or couples. The age spectrum is wide: often younger working professionals, or older "empty-nesters". TOO residents may have low, medium or high incomes; this is driven by the design and price of the specific TOO housing, and TOO developers will target/be able to predict their market. More higher incomes are being served as the US continues to go through a robust construction phase of denser urban residential product. TOO households typically own fewer cars because they have smaller households, and because they may forgo "extra" cars due to transit's proximity. TOO households are almost twice as likely to not own any car, and own almost half the number of cars of other households. The top 3 reasons households give for selecting a TOO are housing/ neighborhood design, housing cost, and proximity to transit. TOO Housing Transportation Performance The actual transportation performance of 17 built TOO projects was assessed by counting the passage of motorized vehicles using pneumatic tubes stretched across the driveways of 17 transit-oriented housing projects of varying sizes in four urbanized areas of the country: Philadelphia/N.E. New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; metropolitan Washington D.C.; and the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. To help understand the physical implications of the research, 8 residential TOO site plan case studies were developed to test some of the physical implications of reducing residential parking ratios at a range of potential densities on a theoretical 8 acre TOO. One motivation for this research was to provide orig'inal and reliable data to help seed an update of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation and parking generation rates from which local traffic and parking impacts are typically derived, and impact fees are set. Some analysts are of the opinion that there is a serious "suburban bias" in the current ITE rates. Typically the empirical data used to set generation rates are drawn from suburban areas with free and plentiful parking and low-density single land uses. Moreover, since ITE's auto trip reduction factors, to reflect internal trip capture, are based on only a few mixed-use projects in Florida; there has been little or no observation of actual TaOs. The end result is that auto trip generation is likely to be overstated for TaOs. This can mean that TOO developers end up paying higher impact fees, proffers, and exactions than they should since such charges are usually tied to ITE rates. The results of this research clearly show TOO-housing results in fewer trips in the four urbanized areas that were studied. The research confirms the ITE trip 8 TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOO on Housing, Parking, and Travel generation and parking generation rates underestimate automobile trip reduction for TOO housing. The ITE manual presents "weighted averages" of trip generation. The weighted average vehicle trip rates for this study were computed for all 17 projects combined for weekday, AM peak, and PM peak. Over a typical weekday period, the 17 surveyed TOO-housing projects averaged 44% fewer vehicle trips than that estimated by the ITE manual (3.754 versus 6.715). The weighted average differentials were even larger during peak periods -49% lower rates during the A.M. peak and 48% lower rates during the P.M. peak. To the degree that impact fees are based on peak travel conditions, one can infer that traffic impacts studies might end up overstating the potential congestion-inducing effects of TOO-housing in large rail-served metropolitan areas, such as Washington D.C., by up to 50%. One implication of the research is that parking ratios for residential TaOs are also likely to be overstated by the same order of magnitude s'ince they are also based on ITE data. Some of the cumulative impacts of over-parking TaOs are illustrated in the site plan case studies. The TOO site plan case studies help to demonstrate that under the right conditions lowering residential parking ratios by 50% for TaOs in station areas with quality transit service can result in: • An increase in the potential density of a residential TOO by between 20 to 33% depending on the residential building type • Savings on residential parking costs ranging from 5 to 36%, after accounting for increases in the number of units to be parked resulting from increased residential density, and • Potentially greater developer profits and/or increased housing affordability coming from achieving higher densities, lower capital costs for parking, and reduced traffic impact fees. Right-sizing parking ratios and traffic generation to the actual performance of TOO is likely to result in some important implications on the physical form and performance of TOO developments: • Local officials and neighborhoods may be more apt to support increases in residential densities near transit if they are shown proof fewer trips result from TaOs than in conventional development. • TOO developers will have easier development approvals and the benefits of TOO will not be compromised away. • TOO developers would likely pay lower traffic related impact fees and exactions. Those savings can be passed on to consumers in the form of lower housing costs. • With lower levels of traffic being generated from TaOs it can be argued it simply makes no sense to construct roadway improvements for TOO related traffic that is likely not to materialize. 9 TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel • Right-sizing new road and intersection improvements to reflect the actual transportation performance can result in more compact development patterns and a higher quality pedestrian environment since less land may be used for road improvements. • The potential for higher densities in TODs because of the decreased amount of land dedicated to parking and the reduced cost of parking. Smart growth requires smart calculations, thus impact fees, parking ratios and road improvements need to account for the likely trip reduction effects of TOD. The research $tudy results indicate that residential TOD parking ratios can be tightened and, thus, fees lowered to reflect the actual transportation performance of TODs. Given that TODs have historically been over-parked, the incorporation of the research results into revised parking ratios is an important next step toward national recognition of the expected community benefits of TOD. 2. Literature Review For the TCRP H-27A project, the panel identified a number of fundamental questions pertaining to transit ridership and TOD. For this literature review, the research team has taken the liberty to divide these questions into four general areas: 1) TOD Travel Characteristics; 2) Transit System and Land Use Characteristics; 3) TOD Ridership Strategies; and 4) TOD Resident/Tenant Characteristics. Fi(ldings related to these topic areas and specific questions follow. To briefly summarize, the existing research provides a LargeLy compLete story about transit ridership and TOD. There is significant and very detailed information about specific TOD projects in places such as Portland, Oregon, Arlington County in suburban Washington, D.C., and the San Francisco Bay Area, where a significant amount of travel behavior data has been collected via resident surveys (and as the product of academic research). At the "macro leveL", US Census data has also been thoroughly anaLyzed to reveal differences between TOD households and other households with respect to travel behavior and demographics. All of these findings are consistent with each other, and consistent with economic and behavior studies that explain why people travel as they do. For many cities there still remains a Lack of detailed primary (survey) data. That said, it is reasonable to assume that the transportation and economic forces that shape TOD residency and traveL behavior in California, for instance, would aLso apply to other settings (e.g., Dallas). 10 =1= :;:l~·"·........../·-....., Income Level Need (units) Very Low 690 Low 543 Moderate 641 SUBTOTAL 1,874 Above Moderate 986 TOTAL 2;860 . "" =~===~.=.-,"==~=--=J '~~~-""'" ······,,·==c= •. Potential Student Generation of RHNA Potential Student Potential Student Potential Student Generation of Generation of Entitled Generation of Entitled Projects and Unmet RHNA Entitled (units) Projects Unmet Need Unmet Need need 148 36 542 148 184 18 13 525 368 380 102 69 539 404 474 268 118 1,606 920 1,038 744 431 242 182 613 I '1,012 .' '549 ..... 1 ;a~8 > .... 1;.101 .·.'t" 1tS'$0 ;·>i'· ~ -4 » C') ~ 3: m z -4 1 ATTACHMENT J1 A review of LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development) Rating System and its compatibility to existing Green Building Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) released a pilot program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development, LEED-ND, in July 2007. LEED-ND recognizes development projects that successfully protect and enhance the overall health, natural environment and quality of life in communities. Specifically, LEED-ND is designed to certify exemplary development projects that perform well in terms of smart growth, urbanism, and green building. There are a few ways LEED-ND could be applied during City planning and development activities as discussed below, but first it is important to note some characteristics of LEED-ND's current use. LEED-ND is a rating system, with accompanying 3rd part certification for projects with a "boundary". A projects boundary may constitute whole neighborhoods, portions of neighborhoods, or multiple neighborhoods. Projects are often mixed-use, though small single-use projects that complement existing neighborhood uses may also use the rating system. The rating system remains a pilot with over 200 projects nationally. The average project size is 298 acres; the median project size is 30 acres. The rating system has three key sections: • Smart Location and Linkage encourages communities to consider location, transportation alternatives, and preservation of sensitive lands while also discouraging sprawl. • Neighborhood Pattern and Design emphasizes vibrant, equitable communities that are healthy, walkable, and mixed-use. • Green Infrastructure and Buildings promotes the design and construction of buildings and infrastructure that reduce energy and water use, while promoting more sustainable use of materials, reuse of existing and historic structures, and other sustainable best practices. Can LEED-ND be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan? Given the background above, there are two main differences between LEED-ND and the City's Comprehensive Plan. • LEED-ND is designed to be implemented by a single responsible party for an individual project with a "boundary". The Comprehensive Plan is designed to be a general City planning tool with multiple responsible parties. • LEED-ND is designed in most cased to be quantitatively verifiable, therefore goes into much greater detail per strategy on exactly what constitutes achievement and how to show compliance. The Comprehensive Plan while outlines program and implementation procedures, is not intended to be quantified or verified for compliance. I ! What portions ofLEED-ND is already addressed in existing Comprehensive Plan For the majority of the strategies in LEED-ND which are covered in the Comprehensive Plan, the primary consideration will be the degree to which the strategy should be defined and quantitatively measured. LEED-ND includes greater detail per strategy since the "project" must be verifiable, as opposed to an overarching City goal. The remaining strategies in LEED-ND which are not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan will need to be reviewed for applicability in the Plan. Can LEED-ND be incorporated into the Green Building Regulations? Since LEED-ND was designed for use on specific development projects it may be applicable to include LEED-ND in the City'S Green Building Regulations. As discussed at the ARB meeting, if the City was to require LEED-ND, it would need to provide the regulatory framework to support it (i.e. zoning and parking requirements and policies may need to be adjusted). In addition support areas where the projects needs go beyond the scope of its boundary, or the control of an individual developer, such as access to public transportation. An ARB member supported the idea of using LEED-ND in the Green Building Regulations and beyond, as a tool to measure progress at achieving goals in the Comprehensive Plan and to limit new unconnected developments. Since the City is already largely built out, to comply with the LEED-ND rating system the project would need to be mixed use, and the green building trigger points would need to be considered carefully. The ARB discussed possible trigger points for a project that covered a certain amount of land, or that was at a certain scale (such as 30 dwelling units) or that was located in a particular part of the City. An ARB member mentioned the idea of having a voluntary pilot program for projects that were triggered by certain requirements as a starting point to make the community more aware of the goals, noting that a similar approach was followed when the City's green building program was initiated. PREPARED BY: Kristin Parineh Sustainabilityl Associate Planner LEED for Neighborhood Development Pilot Draft Project Checklist Project Name: Project City: Project State: ATTACHMENT J2. *Note: Registration for the LEED for Neighborhood Development Pilot Program is closed; registration for the fully launched program is planned to open in late 2009, pending USGBC member ballot approval. Yes ? No Yes ? No ___ Smart Location & Linkage 30 Points Prereq 1 Smart Location Required Prereq 2 Proximity to Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Required Prereq 3 Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities Required Prereq 4 ~etland and Water Body Conservation Required Prereq 5 Farmland Conservation Required Prereq 6 Floodplain Avoidance Required Credit 1 Brownfield Redevelopment 2 Credit 2 High Priority Brownfields Redevelopment Credit 3 Preferred Location 10 Credit 4 Reduced Automobile Dependence 8 Credit 5 Bicycle Network Credit 6 Housing and Jobs Proximity 3 Credit 7 School Proximity Credit 8 Steep Slope Protection Credit 9 Site Design for Habitat or Wetlands Conservation Credit 10 Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands Credit 11 Conservation Management of Habitat or Wetlands l>"we,ed by Adobe· LiveCycle'" Last Modified: May 2008 1 of 3 Yes LEED for Neighborhood Development Pilot Draft Project Checklist ? No ___ Neighborhood Pattern & Design 39 Points Prereq 1 Open Community Required Prereq 2 Compact Development Required Credit 1 Compact Development 7 Credit 2 Diversity of Uses 4 Credit 3 Diversity of Housing Types 3 Credit 4 Affordable Rental Housing 2 Credit 5 Affordable For-Sale Housing 2 Credit 6 Reduced Parking Footprint 2 Credit 7 Walkable Streets 8 Credit 8 Street Network 2 Credit 9 Transit Facilities 1 Credit 10 Transportation Demand Management 2 Credit 11 Access to Surrounding Vicinity Credit 12 Access to Public Spaces Credit 13 Access to Active Public Spaces Credit 14 Universal Accessibility 1 Credit 15 Community Outreach and Involvement Credit 16 Local Food Production I'aw.,..,dby Adobe· LiveCydem Last Modified: May 2008 2 of 3 ~l U q \1 II ~ I II Ii II il \1 II 11 'l' I, 1 ~ II I !1 I II i' Ij I Yes LEED for Neighborhood Development Pilot Draft Project Checklist ? No ___ Green Construction & Technology 31 Points Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Credit 1 LEED Certified Green Buildings 3 Credit 2 Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3 Credit 3 Reduced Water Use 3 Credit 4 Building Reuse and Adaptive Reuse 2 Credit 5 Reuse of Historic Buildings Credit 6 Minimize Site Disturbance through Site Design Credit 7 Minimize Site Disturbance during Construction Credit 8 Contaminant Reduction in Brownfields Remediation Credit 9 Stormwater Management 5 Credit 10 Heat Island Reduction 1 Credit 11 Solar Orientation Credit 12 On-Site Energy Generation Credit 13 On-Site Renewable Energy Sources Credit 14 District Heating & Cooling Credit 15 Infrastructure Energy Efficiency Credit 16 Wastewater Management Credit 17 Recycled Content for Infrastructure Credit 18 Construction Waste Management Credit 19 Comprehensive Waste Management Credit 20 Light Pollution Reduction Yes ? No • ___ Innovation & Design Process 5 Points '.' Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title , .,:. , Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title : Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 . \ Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title Credit 1.5 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title Credit 2 LEEDs Accredited Professional P"<lwered by Adobe* LiveCycle'" Last Modified: May 2008 3 of 3