HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3649
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3649)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/28/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Rail Guiding Principles Update
Title: Proposed Updates to the Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee Guiding
Principles
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Rail Committee recommend that the City Council approve the draft
revisions to the Rail Committee Guiding Principles following Rail Committee discussion and
direction related to the preferred language for Guiding Principle 16.
Executive Summary
On October 11, 2012, the Rail Committee directed staff to propose updates to the Rail
Committee Guiding Principles to reflect changes to the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) and
Caltrain Modernization projects that occurred subsequent to when the City Council last revised
the Rail Committee Guiding Principles in December 2011.
The Rail Committee, in subsequent meetings, refined those updates and sent them to the City
Council for approval on January 22, 2013. At that meeting, however, alternative language for
Guiding Principle 16 was also proposed for Council consideration. After consideration, the
Council unanimously voted to send them back to the Rail Committee for further deliberation.
Therefore, four documents are now attached for Rail Committee review:
1. The most recently adopted version of the Rail Committee Guiding Principles approved
by the City Council on December 19, 2011 (Attachment A)
2. A redlined version of the most recently adopted version of the Rail Committee Guiding
Principles reflecting all proposed revisions and alternatives (Attachment B)
3. A clean version of the Rail Committee Guiding Principles reflecting proposed revisions
Packet Pg. 26
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and alternatives (Attachment C)
4. The staff report from the January 22, 2013 City Council meeting that provides additional
background information on the project and Guiding Principle updates to date
(Attachment D)
Attachments:
-: Attachment A: Rail Committee Guiding Principles_12-19-2011 (PDF)
-: Attachment B: REDLINED DRAFT - Rail Committee Guiding Principles_1-31-2013
(PDF)
-: Attachment C: CLEAN DRAFT - Rail Committee Guiding Principles_1-31-2013
(PDF)
-: Attachment D: Rail Committee Guiding Principles CMR_1-22-2013 (PDF)
Packet Pg. 27
1
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Role and Authority of the Rail Committee
The Committee shall advise the City Council on high speed rail (HSR), Caltrain 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, Caltrain 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 recommendations
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, advocacy to
the state legislature, the HSR Authority, Caltrain Joint Powers Board, Congress and other
pertinent governmental agencies. Such actions by the Committee shall be consistent with the
following policies of the City:
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved Prop 1A, a nearly ten billion dollar bond measure,
the primary purpose of which is to develop HSR service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The
High Speed Rail Authority (the 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 in
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 significant impacts
on Palo Alto, 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 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.
Subsequently, the Committee‐‐‐ indeed the entire community‐‐‐ has learned a great deal about
HSR and many HSR related actions have taken place.
The Authority has selected the central valley as their first construction segment which allows
for more a more deliberative and collaborative consideration of alternatives on the peninsula.
Additionally, an alternative for a limited “blended” rail system along the Caltrain corridor has
6.a
Packet Pg. 28
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
2
-
1
9
-
2
0
1
1
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
2
been proposed along with a corresponding limited EIR. This proposal limits the scale of rail on
the peninsula. The Authority in November 2011 issued its revised Business Plan showing that
the cost of HSR would be $98 billion dollars. In the revised Business Plan the Authority used the
same ridership forecast model as it had in the past and did not address numerous flaws
identified by many experts who found the Authority’s projections to be unfounded and
unreliable.
Guiding Principles
The City Council therefore, adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making
framework and the actions of the Committee:
The City of Palo Alto believes that the High Speed Rail (HSR) Project should be terminated for
the following reasons:
1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under
Prop. 1A in 2008.
2. The Business Plan is fatally flawed and not credible.
In November 2008, the voters passed a bond measure for a HSR project based on:
• Grossly understated construction costs,
• Understated fares and overstated ridership,
• Operating without a government subsidy, and
• A Funding Plan legally required to identify funding sources and achieve environmental
review prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment (IOS).
Since the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job
creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given
accurate information during the 2008 election to make an informed decision on a HSR project
for the State of California.
If the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding Principles shall
apply to the City’s positions on HSR:
1. The City is opposed to an elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR/Caltrain should be treated with equal
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
6.a
Packet Pg. 29
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
2
-
1
9
-
2
0
1
1
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
3
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 supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor and the
HSR Peer Review Committee which question the viability and accuracy of the Authority’s
Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, identification of sufficient
and reliable funding sources, project management, and operations of HSR.
6. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the HSR Peer
Review Committee authorized by AB 3034.
7. 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.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions related to HSR and Caltrain
that is effectively funded and implemented by the Authority.
9. 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.
10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the Authority or Caltrain should
provide realistic renderings of the various alternatives and also provide simulations that
would help to provide an understanding of the sound and vibrations.
11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
12. Palo Alto also supports the modernization of Caltrain, and/or as the lead agent for a
phased alignment with but independent of HSR.
13. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern through vehicles such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
14. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain active. In the event that the
modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train service from current 2011 levels,
Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow,
6.a
Packet Pg. 30
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
2
-
1
9
-
2
0
1
1
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
4
and East Charleston crossings that are effectively funded and implemented by the lead
agency
15. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted
written comments to the Authority, the Caltrain Joint Powers Board, and other relevant
agencies. In case of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.
Updated: December 19, 2011 (previously updated October 12, 2011 and May 17, 2010)
6.a
Packet Pg. 31
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
2
-
1
9
-
2
0
1
1
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Background (not shown in redline format, as Background section was completely revised)
In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for
High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco
segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now
proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right‐of‐way and
track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains,
partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended
system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated.
The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at
approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost
estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition
1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also
continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not
address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business
plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and
environmental review of the HSR system.
Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In
July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal
money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California
commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as
part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains
necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important
funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to
final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex,
blended San Jose to San Francisco segment.
Guiding Principles
The City Council therefore, adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making
framework and the actions of the Committee:
The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following
reasons:
6.b
Packet Pg. 32
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
R
E
D
L
I
N
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters
under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly
underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated
fares. The voters also requiredexpected that HSR could operate without a subsidy and
that funding sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete
prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment.
2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected
ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that
the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary
to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California.
The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make
HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. Tthere are many evolving component and
many aspects of HSR, however, that have not yet been studied or decided.
Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding
Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR:
1. The City supports a non‐elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
2.3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention
shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be
proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies.
3. All neighborhoods in Palo Alto affected by HSR/Caltrain should be treated with equal
consideration with respect to vertical alignment impacts.
4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central
Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should
reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the
HSR Peer Review Committee which questionregarding the viability and accuracy of the
CHSRA’s Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of
sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR.
6. The City favors legislation which would enable effective implementation of the HSR Peer
Review Committee authorized by AB 3034.
6.b
Packet Pg. 33
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
R
E
D
L
I
N
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision of the
transit corridor within our boundaries. HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals
and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and
Caltrain that is effectively funded and implemented by the CHSRA.
9. The CHSRA 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.
10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide
both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help
provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts.
11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. but However, whether or not that
includesthe City supports electrification is still cannot be undetermined until all
potential impacts are identified, studied and suitable mitigation measures are
implemented.
13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the
Caltrain corridor.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agenciesvehicles such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain activeopen to automobiles, bicycles
and pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases
train service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions
for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. that areThese
improvements must be effectively funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external
funding sources and implemented by the lead agency.
15. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐
6.b
Packet Pg. 34
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
R
E
D
L
I
N
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
16. Under no circumstances should HSR or Caltrain be exempted in any way from theA
detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must be
completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) andor the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including any amendments.) shall not be
modified in any way that affects the HSR or Caltrain Corridor environmental review
process as currently required by law.
OR
A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements
must be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1)
exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2)
reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct
a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential
impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently
required by law.
16. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental
Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The
second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for
HSR operation in the corridor.
17.18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of
Caltrain ridership. Additionally, the PCJPB should consider making such revisions in
congruence consistent with a ballot measure seeking a dedicated funding source for
Caltrain operations, should one occur.
18.19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council
adopted written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case
of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.
Updated: January 22, 2013December 19, 2011 (previously updated December 19, 2011,
October 12, 2011 and May 17, 2010)
6.b
Packet Pg. 35
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
R
E
D
L
I
N
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
6.b
Packet Pg. 36
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
R
E
D
L
I
N
E
D
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for
High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco
segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now
proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right‐of‐way and
track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains,
partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended
system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated.
The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at
approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost
estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition
1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also
continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not
address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business
plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and
environmental review of the HSR system.
Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In
July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal
money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California
commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as
part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains
necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important
funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to
final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex,
blended San Jose to San Francisco segment.
Guiding Principles
The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the
actions of the Committee:
The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following
reasons:
1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters
under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly
6.c
Packet Pg. 37
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
C
L
E
A
N
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated
fares. The voters also required that HSR operate without a subsidy and that funding
sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior to
construction of an Initial Operating Segment.
2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected
ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that
the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary
to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California.
The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make
HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR,
however, that have not yet been studied or decided.
Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding
Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR:
1. The City supports a non‐elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall
be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be
proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies.
4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central
Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should
reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the
HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s
Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of
sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR.
6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review
Committee authorized by AB 3034.
7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision.
HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
6.c
Packet Pg. 38
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
C
L
E
A
N
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and
Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA.
9. The CHSRA 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.
10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide
both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help
provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts.
11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. However, whether the City supports
electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied
and suitable mitigation measures are implemented.
13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all Caltrain Corridor environmental
documents and system improvements.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and
pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train
service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for
the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements
must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding sources.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must
be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that affects
the HSR or Caltrain Corridor environmental review process as currently required by law.
OR
6.c
Packet Pg. 39
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
C
L
E
A
N
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must
be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1)
exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2)
reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct
a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential
impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently
required by law.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental
Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The
second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for
HSR operation in the corridor.
18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain
ridership. Additionally, the PCJPB should consider making such revisions consistent with
a ballot measure seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one
occur.
19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted
written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case of any
conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.
Updated: January 22, 2013 (previously updated December 19, 2011 October 12, 2011 and May
17, 2010)
6.c
Packet Pg. 40
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
C
L
E
A
N
D
R
A
F
T
-
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
_
1
-
3
1
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3458)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/22/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Review of Rail Committee Guiding Principles
Title: Review and Approval of the Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee
Guiding Principles
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed revisions to the Rail Committee
Guiding Principles.
Executive Summary
The Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee is comprised of four City Council members with the
responsibility to advise the City Council on rail and related rail transit matters and provide the
community with appropriate forums for the discussion. The Guiding Principles document is
used to guide Rail Committee decision making and recommendations to the City Council. This
document was last updated and approved by the City Council in December 2011. Given the
evolving nature of the California High Speed Rail and Caltrain Modernization projects, the Rail
Committee directed that the Guiding Principles be updated to reflect the most recent status of
both projects. The revised principles were reviewed at the October 11, 2012 and December 6,
2012 Rail Committee meetings and forwarded to the City Council for approval. The revised
Guiding Principles are attached to this report, and are summarized below.
Background
In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for
High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco
segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now
proposed to be a “blended system,” primarily relying on existing Caltrain right-of-way and track.
Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains, partially
6.d
Packet Pg. 41
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
C
M
R
_
1
-
2
2
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended system”
continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated.
The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial low-end cost of the overall HSR system at
approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost
estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition 1A.
In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also continues to
use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not address
numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business plans. This
analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and environmental
review of the HSR system.
Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In
July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal
money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California
commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as
part of a blended system. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains
necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important
funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to
final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex,
blended San Jose to San Francisco segment.
The Palo Alto City Council Rail Committee is comprised of four City Council members with the
responsibility to advise the City Council on Rail and related rail transit matters and provide the
community with appropriate forums for the discussion of such issues. With the above
background in mind, the Rail Committee requested that the staff update the Rail Committee
Guiding Principles. The Guiding Principles document is broken down into two sections: a brief
historical background of the California High Speed Rail (HSR) and Caltrain Modernization
projects (largely the same as the text above) and the Guiding Principles. The revised principles
were reviewed at the October 11, 2012 and December 6, 2012 Rail Committee meetings. After
review and providing input, the Rail Committee forwarded the Guiding Principles to the City
Council on a unanimous vote (3-0-1, Scharff absent). If approved by the City Council, the
revised principles will be used to guide Rail Committee decision making and recommendations
to the City Council. It is expected that the Guiding Principles will be updated on an annual
basis, or as recommended by the Rail Committee.
Discussion
The Guiding Principles document is broken down into two sections: a brief historical
background of the California HSR and Caltrain Modernization projects and the Guiding
Principles. The entire document was reviewed by the Rail Committee in October and
December. The Rail Committee gave general direction to keep the document succinct, relevant
and factual, thereby allowing the public to quickly understand the status of both projects. The
key is to create the general understanding that while some HSR and Caltrain Modernization
decisions have been made, many important statewide and regional policy choices are still
6.d
Packet Pg. 42
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
C
M
R
_
1
-
2
2
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
undecided, and therefore the public’s continued attention and participation are critically
important.
The background section, which had not been updated in a year, was completely revised to
contain the most relevant information. This section focuses on HSR and Caltrain funding, the
blended system approach, the HSR construction status and the unresolved environmental
issues associated with Caltrain Modernization and HSR in the Peninsula Corridor. It is expected
that the relationship between HSR and Caltrain, the environmental review process
(CEQA/NEPA) and general Caltrain/HSR funding issues will be the most discussed topics by the
Rail Committee in 2013.
The Guiding Principles were also updated and made more concise. While many of the Guiding
Principles remain as previously approved, several were revised and an additional Guiding
Principle was added. The key revisions are as follows:
Guiding Principle No. 3 was updated to clarify that during the environmental review
stage, equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation
measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies.
Guiding Principle No. 12 now states that while the City supports Caltrain Modernization,
the City’s position of electrification cannot be determined until the environmental
impacts are studied, identified and suitable mitigation measures are implemented.
Guiding Principle No. 16 language was strengthened, stating that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
shall not be modified in any way that affects the HSR or Caltrain Corridor environmental
review process as currently required by law.
Guiding Principle No. 17 was added, stating that the overall environmental review
process should be comprised of two separate Environmental Impact Reports. The first
EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The second EIR should address
any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for HSR operation in the corridor.
Minor language changes and clarifications were made throughout the document, all of
which are shown in the attached redlined document.
Policy Implications
The revised principles will be used to guide Rail Committee decision making and
recommendations once adopted. It is expected that the relationship between HSR and Caltrain,
the environmental review process (CEQA/NEPA) and general Caltrain/HSR funding issues will be
the most discussed topics by the Rail Committee in 2013.
Environmental Review
There is no environmental review required for adoption of the revised Rail Committee Guiding
Principles.
6.d
Packet Pg. 43
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
R
a
i
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
C
M
R
_
1
-
2
2
-
2
0
1
3
(
3
6
4
9
:
R
a
i
l
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
)