HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3562
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3562)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/13/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: SB 1029 Clean-Up Legislation Comparison Table
Title: SB 1029 Clean-Up Legislation Comparison Table and Background
Information
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee review the information below
and use it as the basis for the submission of comments to State Legislators on desired SB 1029
clean-up legislation.
Executive Summary, Background, and Discussion
In July 2012 California Senate Bill (SB) 1029 was signed into law and authorized the expenditure
of approximately $8 billion on California High-Speed Rail (HSR) for the initial construction
segment (ICS) of the system in the Central Valley and the commuter rail improvements in the
Northern and Southern Bookends of the system. At the July 5, 2012 Senate Budget & Fiscal
Review Committee hearing a number of assurances were given to elected officials and the
general public. These assurances would not be incorporated into the initial legislation, but
would be clarified in the future through a variety of means including “clean-up legislation.”
While clean-up legislation has yet to be introduced or approved, the City recently received a
draft version of SB 1029 clean-up legislation.
At the January 31, 2012 Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee, staff was directed to compare
the draft SB 1029 clean-up legislation (Attachment A) to statements made by Senator Simitian
(Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee member), Senator Leno (Senate Budget & Fiscal
Review Committee Chair), and California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) CEO Jeff Morales at
the July 5, 2012 Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee hearing.
The first section of the table below (Table A) details provisions within the draft SB 1029 clean-
City of Palo Alto Page 2
up legislation. The table then notes whether Simitian, Leno, and/or Morales expressed support
for the particular provision at the July 5th hearing. The second section of the table details other
relevant statements made by officials at the July 5th hearing, and whether those statements
were supported by other officials (Simitian, Leno or Morales). A link to the July 5th hearing is
provided below and the table notes the specific time in video where the comment was made.
TABLE A
#
Provisions within Draft SB 1029 Clean-up
Legislation
Supported at the 7/5/2012
Senate Budget & Fiscal Review
Committee Meeting
Simitian Leno Morales
1 Of the $1.1 billion appropriated pursuant to Item
2665-rc4-6043 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of
2072, $600 million shall be allocated solely for
purposes of the MTC MOU, as approved by the
CHSRA on April 12, 2012, in CHSRA Resolution 12-11
X X X
2 Transfers from item 2665-104-6043 of Section 2.00
of the Budget Act of 2012 Pursuant to Provision 2 of
that item to ltem2665-A04-6043 or Item 2665-306-
6043 shall be limited to temporary transfers for
account management purposes
3 Funds appropriated by ltem 2665-104-6043 of
Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2012 shall not
otherwise be used in HSR project segments other
than the segments that are the subjects of the two
memoranda of understanding
X X X
4 Funds appropriated pursuant to Items 2660-104-
6043,266A404-6043, and2665-704-6043 of Section
2.00 of the Budget Act of 2012,to the extent those
funds are allocated to projects in the San Francisco
to San Jose segment, shall be used solely to
implement a rail system in that segment that
primarily consists of a two-track blended system to
X X
City of Palo Alto Page 3
be used jointly by high-speed rail trains and PCJPB
commuter trains (Caltrain), with the system to be
contained substantially within the existing Caltrain
ROW
5 The project-level environmental documents
certified for the San Francisco to San Jose segment
for HSR shall be consistent with the blended system
approach of the Revised 2012 Business Plan
approved by the CHSRA in April 2012, and shall not
reflect the four-track system in the program-level
environmental document for that segment
X X
#
Statements from 7/5/2012
Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee
Meeting
Supported at the 7/5/2012
Senate Budget & Fiscal Review
Committee Meeting
Simitian Leno Morales
6 Morales (33:13): “There is criteria in Prop. 1A that
spells out what are eligible uses of the funds. Prior
to a commitment to expend money on any of those
projects we would go through a process and there
are requirements included in this bill to do that to
establish some front-end process to ensure
eligibility and we would have opinions from
presumably the Attorney General, and quite
possibly the Legislative Counsel as well, as to the
legality going forward.”
X
X
7 Simitian (37:06): “That [a Blended System] could be
done with three critical agreements from the High
Speed Rail Authority; number one, abandon the
idea of a 60 foot viaduct up-and-down the corridor;
number two, stay within the existing right-of-way;
and number three, abandon the EIR that called for
the eventual construction of a full-blown mega
project over time so that businesses and
homeowners up-and-down the corridor could
reasonably plan for the future of their properties.”
X X
(40:46)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
*SEE ELABORATIONS BELOW
8 Simitian (37:34): “It took some struggle but over
time the reaction we got, or the response we got,
was yes we can adopt the Blended System and we
will number one not do a 60 foot viaduct until or
unless somebody tells us they’d like it in their
neighborhood, some city, or some unincorporated
county.”
X
X
(40:46)
9 Simitian (37:57): “Number two, we can stay
substantially within the existing right-of-way.
Substantially of course being in the eye of the
beholder so we had a little conversation about what
substantially meant and the answer was within 5 or
10 extra feet of the existing right-of-way.”
X X
(40:46)
10 Simitian (38:06): “And number three, an issue
where we got stuck for a while was the issue of the
programmatic EIR moving forward with a full-blown
mega project, a four-track system, and a concern
that any alteration there could set the project back,
but an understanding or commitment that the
project level EIR would move forward with no
notion of a mega project in mind.”
X
X
(40:46)
11 Simitian (42:01): “The language, and I appreciate it
that [what] Mr. Morales correctly comments on is
contained on pages two, pages three, and pages
four, and indicates that the funding being allocated
quote ‘shall not be used to expand the Blended
System to a dedicated four-track system.’ That
being said there’s no commitment in that language
to further funding, and since we’re talking about an
allocation of 10 or 15 percent of the total project
cost that means that 85 or 90 percent of the funds
will be forthcoming at some point in the future
from some other source and of course the language
that is there now doesn’t provide any assurances
that those funds wouldn’t be used to expand the
X
(43:32)
“None
whatsoever”
City of Palo Alto Page 5
project in a way that was inconsistent with the
understanding that I think we do have. So I think
Mr. Chairman if you could play a constructive role if
you were willing, and I was going to say I don’t
mean to put you on the spot but of course that
would be inaccurate because of course I do mean to
put you on the spot and that has to do with a letter
to the Journal , the commitment to provide a letter
to mayors of the relevant jurisdictions up-and-
down the corridor, and some kind of language, and
at this point I gather it’s not going to be
forthcoming between now and the end of session
tomorrow but, some kind of language before the
end of our session that at least memorializes in a
statue the intent of the legislature that this is the
set of limitations that shall apply consistent with a
decision to move forward on high-speed rail should
that be the will of the Legislature. Mr. Morales is
there a reason why that would be problematic?”
12 Simitian (54:25): “And a project that is run through
a consulting contract for management, which is
overseen by another consulting contract for
oversight of the management, and when I tried to
talk to the folks from T.Y. Lin who came to my office
it was a relatively short conversation because they
indicated on several occasions that they really
couldn’t answer my questions because they were
precluded from doing that by virtue of the
confidentially clauses in their agreement. And
finally in some bewilderment and dismay I said, ‘Do
you mean to tell me that as I sit here as Chair of the
Senate Budget Subcommittee on Resources,
Environmental Protection, Energy & Transportation,
and as an elected member of the State Senate, I
can’t get you to answer for me basic questions
about how public funds are spent’ and they said,
‘Senator apologetically were precluded from
answering your questions by the provisions of the
contract.’ Now at that point I think you can
understand why someone is anxious about signing
off, particularly since contrary to the specific advice
X
X
(1:22:18)
“This was the
first I’ve
heard of it I
don’t know
what that
provision is. I
can
guarantee
you I will
look into it
and if it is
there we’ll
remove it or
amend it or
do
something to
ensure that
there is
accountabilit
City of Palo Alto Page 6
from our LAO we’re simply writing a check for the
amount in full, or authorizing the writing of a check
for the amount in full, rather than for just the
contracts in the coming year. What can you say [Mr.
Morales] that is going to make any of us feel more
confident that there’s going to be some
accountability going forward?”
y”
13 Simitian (57:41): “CEQA in particular, the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Administration a
few weeks back indicated a desire to have I believe
three key CEQA issues addressed in legislation,
backed away from that, but then acknowledged and
frankly I appreciate the Administration’s candor
about the fact they were going to be coming back
to the Legislature at a later date for some kind of
exemptions or exceptions to the provisions of
CEQA. Now there’s some irony here because I
know that some of my colleagues are not
enthusiastic about the application of CEQA here in
California but as this project moves through five,
six, seven-hundred miles of California’s businesses,
homes, farms, open-space, I suspect everybody is
going to want to make sure that they have certain
process protections and again acknowledging your
recent arrival [Mr. Morales] I think that’s
particularly the case given some of the ill will the
Authority has unfortunately created to date. We’ve
gotten mixed messages in previous conversations
with the Authority about whether or not CEQA
exemptions or exceptions were or were not part of
the plan going forward and I think if you could
provide some clarity where it stands right now in
my recollection is the Administration has said yes
we are going to come back and ask for a waiver on
at least some of the rules, some of the provisions in
CEQA in order to quote ‘expedite the process.’
Where are we [Mr. Morales]?
X X
14 Simitian (1:02:51): “Is there any reason why it
would be inappropriate to put a letter in the Journal
indicating that the intent of that language is that no
X X X
(1:03:08)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
funds appropriated in this item shall be
encumbered for construction of a project prior to
compliance with CEQA and NEPA?”
“That’s the
intent so I
would see no
problem in
doing that”
15 Morales (1:33:31): “I think it [meaning assurances
that money identified for improvements to the
Northern Bookend cannot be transferred from that
project segment] is in writing but yes something
separate in writing if it would be helpful to you
[Senator Alquist] in any way we can do that, yes.”
X X X
16 Alquist (2:41:48): “I’d appreciate it Senator Leno if
you would send a letter to the Journal that would
be submitted that would include language that
states that the $600 million from the Bookend
investments and the connectivity investments for
Caltrain electrification in the counties of Santa
Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco cannot be used
for any other purpose such as funding other
segments of the project.”
X
X
(2:42:56
)
X
(2:42:42)
“We would
support a
letter to the
journal along
those lines
and provide
you
whatever
assurance
you need on
that so
there’s
absolutely no
question of
how of how
those funds
will be used”
17 Leno (2:52:27): “For a greater comfort level for
Senators we’ve all agreed there will be letters to
the Journal.”
X X
18 Morales (2:59:49): “There’s no question with any
project you have to work through issues of impact.
A project of this scale, the impacts are to scale, and
there’s no question that the Authority over time
has not done an adequate job, has not done a good
X X
City of Palo Alto Page 8
job, of interacting with effected individuals and with
communities. I think most observers say that there
has been a turn-around in recent months due to the
direct engagement of the new Board members.
That now becomes my responsibility to execute and
I commit to you and to them that I will do that
spend time in the communities but most
importantly make sure that we are doing everything
that we can, that we need to, [so] that we can to
make sure we address the concerns that they have
and that their voices are heard and that we take
every reasonable step to address those concerns.”
19 Leno (3:00:46): “So colleagues as we conclude this
informational hearing I just want to recap the
commitments that have been made both by Mr.
Morales and the issues that will be addressed
through letters to the Journal which will come
through the Chair of the Budget Committee to the
Journal but then also there was an additional
commitment by Mr. Morales for his own letter to
the Journal from the Authority. So first we have
relative to Senator Simitian’ s questions specifying
restrictions of use of funds in the Peninsula the
intent regarding consistency with CEQA and NEPA
requirements and standards and process and then
per Senator Alquist’s concerns and questions
[about] restriction regarding use of the $1.1 billion
Bookends [funding] only for Bookend
improvements not for the spine in the Central
Valley. And then I think Mr. Morales you had agreed
additionally a letter from the Authority regarding
use of the $1.1 billion [for the] Bookends
themselves.”
X X X
20 Simitian (3:01:59): “Mr. Morales was kind enough
as I believe you were Senator Leno to indicate that
not only a letter to the Journal would be
forthcoming, as well as a letter to the local mayors
up-and-down the corridor and the three affected
counties in the Caltrain service but also to indicate a
willingness to place in statute intent language
X
City of Palo Alto Page 9
which would codify the basic underpinnings of the
Blended System so that it is not just the one letter
to the Journal, it is not just the letter to the mayors,
it is also the statutory, and historic therefore,
record of what the intent was if in fact the Senate,
the Legislature, moves forward to approve the
funds. And I believe that’s important. To pick up on
the analogy that Senator Alquist used in this case
I’m not asking not only for a belt, suspenders, but
another belt as well and the exec here has been
kind enough to agree and I appreciate that.”
A video of the 7/5/2012 Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee meeting referenced in this
table can be found at:
http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=608
Additionally, at the July 5th hearing it was requested that Morales send a letter to Peninsula
mayors reiterating assurances he had given the Committee about the direction and scope of
the project for the San Francisco to San Jose segment. The relevant passage from that letter is
as follows:
“The state funding is being matched by regional funds, under a memorandum of understanding
between the Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The blended
approach implemented through SB 1029 funding will be primarily a two-track system, with
limited passing tracks; will be designed and built primarily at or below grade; will be
substantially within Caltrain’s existing right of way; and will adhere to the terms and conditions
included in the May 3, 2012 resolution by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for high-
speed rail and Caltrain electrification. That resolution made it clear that the JPB will exercise its
authority as the owner of the corridor to preserve and protect the integrity of the corridor for
the benefits of its constituents and that the project will be “planned, designed and constructed
in a manner that respects community partners and stakeholders and actively seeks
participation by affected parties and interests.” Consistent with the revised business plan, the
project-level environmental documents certified for this segment will not reflect the four-track
system in the program-level environmental document.
In finalizing environmental and preliminary design work, the Authority will also be guided by
the necessity to meet the performance requirements in Streets and Highways Code 2704.09
(provisions of Proposition 1A), the necessity for environmental mitigation, and the need to
City of Palo Alto Page 10
address any design constraints caused by existing infrastructure.
The blended approach on the Peninsula will be implemented jointly by the Authority and
Caltrain, working closely with the communities along the corridor. We look forward to working
with you to make the blended service a reality and to deliver long-sought benefits to the
Peninsula.”
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft SB 1029 Clean-Up Legislation, August 3, 2012 (PDF)
88956
08/03112 04:07 PM
RN 1220895 PAGE 1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
Bill No.
as introduced, ---
General Subject: High-speed rail.
Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority ~ith specified powers and
..
duties relating to the development and implementation of an intercity high-speed rail
system. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond
Act for the 21st Century, authorizes $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for
high-speed rail development and other related purposes. Existing law appropriates
specified funds from the High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Fund and from federal
funds for high-speed rail and connecting rail projects.
This bill would clarify certain provisions governing expenditure of certain of
those appropriated funds. The bill would specify that of the $1,100,000,000 appropriated
for early high-speed rail improvement projects, $600,000,000 and $500,000,000 shall
be allocated solely for purposes of specified memoranda of understanding approved
by the High-Speed Rail Authority for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
88956
08/03/12 04:07 PM
RN 12 20895 PAGE 2
region and the southern California region, respectively. The bill would limit fund
transfer authority between certain appropriations to temporary transfers for account
management purposes. The bill would restrict use of certain appropriated funds, to the
extent they are allocated to the San Francisco-San Jose segment of the high-speed rail
system, to implement a rail system in that segment that primarily consists of a 2-track
blended system to be used jointly by high-speed trains and Caltrain commuter trains,
with the system to be contained substantially within the existing Caltrain right-of-way.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local
program: no.
.' ,
88956
08/03/12 04:07 PM
RN 1220895 PAGE 2
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2704.76 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to
read:
2704.76. (a) (1) Of the one billion one hundred million dollars ($1,100,000,000)
appropriated pursuant to Item 2665-104-6043 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of
2012, six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) shall be allocated solely for purposes
of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Memorandum of Understanding, as
approved by the High-Speed Rail Authority on April 12, 2012, in High-Speed Rail
Authority Resolution 12-11, and five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) shall be
allocated for purposes of the Southern California Memorandum of Understanding, as
approved by the High-Speed Rail Authority on April 12, 2012, in High-Speed Rail
Authority Resolution 12-10. ,. ,
~
(2) Transfers from Item 2665-104-6043 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of
2012 pursuant to Provision 2 of that item to Item 2665-004-6043 or Item 2665-306-6043
shall be limited to temporary transfers for account management purposes. Funds
appropriated by Item 2665-104-6043 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of2012 shall
not otherwise be used in high-speed rail project segments other than the segments that
are the subjects of the two memoranda of understanding referenced in paragraph (1).
(b) (1) Funds appropriated pursuant to Items 2660-104-6043,2660-304-6043,
and 2665-104-6043 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2012, to the extent those
funds are allocated to projects in the San Francisco to San Jose segment, shall be used
solely to implement a rail system in that segment that primarily consists of a two-track
blended system to be used jointly by high-speed rail trains and Peninsula Joint Powers
=
~
~ --iiiiiiiii ===== ~ ~
88956
08/03112 04:07 PM
RN 1220895 PAGE 3
Board commuter trains (Caltrain), with the system to be contained substantially within
the existing Caltrain right-of-way.
(2) The project-level environmental documents certified for the San Francisco
to San Jose segment for high-speed rail shall be consistent with the blended system
approach of the Revised 2012 Business Plan approved by the High-Speed Rail Authority
in April 2012, and shall not reflect the four-track system in the program-level
environmental document for that segment.
-0-