Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-15 City Council Agenda Packet  HSR City Council Committee  ___________________________________________________________ Members         Special Meeting  Larry Klein ‐ Chair Wed., September 15, 2010  Pat Burt         6:00 p.m.  Nancy Shepherd        City Council Conference Room   Gail Price         Civic Center                                                                                                  250 Hamilton Avenue                                                                                                  Palo Alto, CA    Agenda  1. Public Comment     2. Approval of minutes from 8/24 and 9/2    AUGUST 24, 2010  SEPTEMBER 02, 2010    3. Discussion of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental  Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR)    LETTER  ATTACHMENT    ‐ Councilmember Shepherd’s suggestions    ATTACHMENT    ‐ Items contained in staff’s August 24, 2010 memorandum on the CHSRA  Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR)    4. Discussion of Other High Speed Rail Items    ‐ City of Palo Alto letter dated September 1, 2010 regarding the CHSRA  Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) deficiencies     ATTACHMENT    ‐ CHSRA Draft HST Station Area Development: General Principles And  Guidelines    ATTACHMENT    ‐ High Speed Rail Station Community Outreach Process: Tentative Date  October 7th, 2010    ‐ Consideration of response letter to the CHSRA Federal Railroad  Administration (FRA) application    5. Updates and Informational Items    ‐ League of California Cities Annual Conference in San Diego and  Informational Meeting on High Speed Rail, Thursday, September 16th  from 6:45 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.    6. Future Meetings and Agendas     October 7th   October 21st    7. Adjournment  1 7/1/2010 HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE Special Meeting August 24, 2010 Chair Klein called the meeting to order at 8:34 a.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Burt arrived at 8:36 a.m., Klein, Price, Shepherd Absent: 1. Oral Communications Bill Warren spoke regarding upcoming key dates for High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) meetings. He said the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be certified at the next board meeting on September 2, 2010. Objections relative to submitted comments must be on record before the meeting. Robert McGuinn spoke regarding the impact that High Speed Rail is having on the housing market in Pal Alto, as his house has been n the market and has not sold. He stated houses 2 blocks further away from the tracks are selling. 2. Approval of July1, July 15, and July 29, 2010 minutes. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price that the High Speed Rail Committee approve the minutes from July 1, July 15, and July 29, 2010. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 3. Discussion of California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental Alternative Analysis Report (SAAR). 2 7/1/2010 High Speed Rail Project Manager, Rob Braulik spoke regarding the staff report and what Staff is asking of the Committee. He then went on to talk about potential for mid-peninsula stations in Palo Alto, Mountain View, or Redwood City. He stated that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) would consider a California Avenue station if the City were to write a letter to HSR asking for their consideration. He reviewed that a University Avenue station would require a 3,000 space parking structure and what CHSRA would include as their costs. However, he stated they would not consider paying for parking. High Speed Rail Authority is asking cities to embrace Pedestrian Transit Oriented Districts (PTOD) in the area of the train stations in order to have a station within their city. He noted Staff has put out a Request for Quote regarding impacts on property values in the area of the railroad tracks. Council Member Shepherd asked what the time frame was for responding to the Supplemental Alternative Analysis Report. Mr. Braulik stated the City has to get a letter back to HSR by August 27, 2010. Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on what the letter needs to state. Mr. Braulik stated that the response does not need to include whether Palo Alto would want a station within the City. The City needs to just respond to the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAAR). Council Member Shepherd asked what the next timeframe would be. Mr. Braulik stated Council can postpone response to the SAAR. There is no deadline for response. Council Member Shepherd asked if there is a deadline for response on the station. Mr. Braulik answered that there was not a policy deadline. Mayor Burt asked about the square footage of the station. Mr. Braulik stated the total square footage would be 67,000 absent the parking spaces. Mayor Burt stated CSHRA has no funding for parking, he asked if their assumption was that the City of Palo Alto would finance it. 3 7/1/2010 Mr. Braulik stated CHSRA was under the impression cities would enter into private partnerships or find other means to fund the infrastructure for parking. Mayor Burt said there were other factors to consider such as whether or not the station would reduce or induce car trips. They should also consider the impact having an additional station on the peninsula would have on Caltrain. Lastly, they needed to also focus on additional funds. Mr. Braulik said Staff did have additional information on additional peak hour trips per day. Having a station in Palo Alto would result in about 1,800 trips per day. Mayor Burt said he was interested in the net impact on Palo Alto and the sub- regions. He wanted to know if it would bring a net increase or a net decrease of automobile trips to the area if there is a station. He asked if having a central station would cause more people to drive into the City to get to the station. Mr. Emslie said that Staff was of the opinion that having a station in Palo Alto would draw a significant amount of regional traffic to the area. Mayor Burt said he would also like to know if it would net more regional car trips. Mr. Emslie said it would. Council Member Price asked how far along a traffic study was. She said she assumed that would be detailed in the project EIR. Mr. Braulik said no detailed traffic analysis had been brought to Staff, they had only heard general numbers for peak hour trips. Council Member Price said it would not be launched until this is sorted out. She asked about construction impacts. She said they were being asked to make preliminary statements without specific guidelines from CHSRA. She said they needed more information regarding the impact stations would have on the freight operations. She asked for information regarding the timing of the economic study. Mr. Braulik said Staff had requested information on property value by mid September. We would expect them to have that done this fall. The report would be a detailed analysis on property value and an economic analysis. He 4 7/1/2010 said it would include, assuming the Committee continued to explore the option of a station, impacts from traffic and construction. Council Member Price asked about incentives regarding the station. Mr. Braulik said that Staff would continue to pursue incentives. Beth Bunnenberg spoke regarding the supplemental Alternative Analysis Report and a High Speed Rail train station. She felt a station was not right for the community. She spoke regarding the fact that many historic neighborhoods, landmarks, and homes were very near the tracks. She voiced concern about the high speed trains affect on these resources. . Herb Borock said that the City should not offer response to the authority as it would not be compliant with the Brown Act nor City policy. Irwin Dawid spoke of his support to a University Avenue station. He said he was concerned about the potential parking garage. He wanted to know how many parking spaces would be at the Transbay terminal and that should be used as a basis. He also spoke about the relationship of a potential station and the City’s preferred tunnel alignment. Council should consider endorsing a possibility of having a neighboring community getting a station. Bob Moss stated the best response is to say that the City will consider it, because there are too many unknown factors. Palo Alto had underused garages now which he suggested several floors of each could be used for HSR parking. Palo Alto should not consider a 3,000 space garage until the City sees the ridership that warrants it. Nadia Naik with CARRD said the reason for submitting a response was that Redwood City and Mountain View already had meetings scheduled for September regarding this. She wanted clarification on Caltrain’s role in determining the placement of a station. Palo Alto should discuss a California Avenue station and how it would impact University Avenue traffic. She asked how the station would fit in with the project phasing. She wanted to know what the burden for a University Avenue station would be and how it would affect Menlo Park. John Litzinger, P.E., Associate Vice President, HNTB spoke regarding the design team. Meetings were scheduled with Redwood City, Mountain View and Millbrae in September. There will be different schedules for the train regarding which stations they stop at, they will not stop at every station on the route. 5 7/1/2010 Regarding the timing for building the Stations, typically one would build the infrastructure for the rails and then the station. Council Member Price asked questions about the San Antonio Station relocation. Mr. Litzinger said they were not pitching a different location, beyond some fine tuning adjustments of the station to provide access from all four sides. Chair Klein said the CHSRA was not asking Palo Alto take a position, rather they were requesting the City’s guidelines. Mr. Litzinger agreed. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Mayor Burt, that the High Speed Rail Committee direct Staff to schedule a outreach meeting regarding the station question then bring that information back to the Committee before a recommendation is made. Mayor Burt asked for clarification regarding the community meeting versus a study session. Council Member Shepherd clarified that she wanted to hear a Staff recommendation on how to engage the community regarding a High Speed Rail Station in Palo Alto and bring that recommendation back to the Committee. Mayor Burt clarified that Council Member Shepherd’s Motion was for a community outreach session versus a study session. . City Manager, James Keene said Staff bring some outreach designs back to the Committee. Council Member Shepherd it would be better to further discuss this item when there was more time. Mayor Burt said it was important to go through the exercise of the public outreach meeting, even if they were to have some preliminary inclinations regarding the station. He said the Motion didn’t address how to review the guidelines and address the issues. Council Member Price said she wanted to know when the Committee would see a presentation containing more information regarding the pros and cons, using the criteria established in the supplemental related to stations. 6 7/1/2010 Mr. Braulik said that information would be sixty days or so out. They needed to quantify what the station means for Palo Alto. That analysis would be done through a report and brought back to the Committee with a plan for engaging the community. Council Member Price asked what the purpose of the outreach would be prior to the report. Council Member Shepherd said this could be vetted better after the Staff recommendation. Chair Klein this was a recommendation to Council. Council Member Shepherd said she wasn’t suggesting anything go to Council yet. She wanted Staff to come back to the High Speed Rail Committee. Council Member Klein said they were discussing a policy question for the Council. Mayor Burt clarified that the Motion was to request Staff to report to the Committee with a plan for community outreach. Chair Klein said that costs Staff time, which costs money, when what was needed was policy direction from Council. Council Member Price said the Policy and Services Committee guidelines offer some flexibility for moving forward without first going Council. Chair Klein said that was applicable when there were sensitive deadlines. He said it was clear that Palo Alto does not and should not want a station and City money should not be spent to do this. The City should be clear on their own policies. CHSRA has given us an outline of what they want. That is enough to make a decision. He said that Palo Alto did not have the land or money to build the required amount of parking spaces. He mentioned the additional car trips new parking garages might bring into the City. He said this was not his vision for the City and he did not understand how it might benefit the community. He said there were many other issues that should be considered first. Council Member Price said it is irresponsible for the Committee to move forward without more information. She said they did not have enough information on the pros and cons. She said none of this was addressed in the Comprehensive 7 7/1/2010 Plan so the feasibility was not determinable yet. The Committee did not have enough information to be thoughtful, she said. She said there could be variables to the project that might make it feasible. Mayor Burt agreed with Chair Klein regarding the thought that a station would be unfavorable. However, he said further analysis was needed as it was a major decision and they needed to be responsible to the community. Council Member Shepherd said she thought the community would rally for the deep tunnel. To her surprise they preferred cap and cover over the tunnel. With that learning, she said she did not want to make assumptions here, even though she had the same inclination as Chair Klein did. Chair Klein added that he thought the Committee was doing what CHSRA wanted with these studies. He felt the City should send CHSRA a strong message. MOTION PASSED: 3-1, Klein no MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Price, that the High Speed Rail Committee direct Staff to work with a Policy and Services Committee Member and the Mayor to respond to the letter by the deadline (August 27, 2010) if it needed to be responded to at all. Council Member Price volunteered to work with the Mayor. Chair Klein said he would vote no as direction for the subcommittee was not clear and it wasn’t clear if a response was required. Council Member Shepherd said they don’t have to respond. Chair Klein said it is an artificial deadline. He added that the only appropriate response was no response at this time. Mayor Burt agreed regarding the deadline. He said it was not appropriate to work within that three day deadline. SUBSITUTE MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to respond to CHSRA with an objection to the three day deadline as it does not allow for a proper analysis or meaningful response, furthermore, any future unreasonable, artificial deadlines will not responded to. 8 7/1/2010 Council Member Price asked if they were going to offer a timeline to the CHSRA. Mayor Burt said they will responds when there is time to look at it further. It was important to communicate to them that the City will refuse to act on these artificial timelines. Council Member Shepherd withdrew her original Motion. Council Member Price clarified that it was her assumption they would respond at some point. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Braulik talked about track options as presented by the CHSRA; Aerial, at- grade and open trench. He said Staff was looking for a response from the Committee on a list of questions on the Staff Report. Chair Klein said this conversation was going to take some time. He wanted to know if there were any other items on the agenda that would require action before they adjourned. Mayor Burt asked about the phased alternatives Chair Klein said there were a variety of alternatives. Mr. Emslie this item was the most time critical as it required full Council Direction on September 13, 2010. Chair Klein said that would be the driving force in determining how many meetings they would prior to September 13th. He said it was clear they would require at least one more meeting. Council Member Price asked if the open trench option was higher at grade than other options, because of retaining walls and such. She said the materials made it seem that way. Mr. Litzinger said he did not have the information to discuss that. He said he would bring back information through Staff. Council Member Price said that the design objectives suggested that the open trench option was higher than burm and at-grade options due to retaining wall, drainage, etc. 9 7/1/2010 Mr. Litzinger said the report was referring to the cost not the design objectives Council Member Shepherd asked how confident they were with the cost estimates. She said they had been erratic in the past. She said she would like further information. Mr. Braulik said CHSRA would proceed with 15% of design. He said these were preliminary numbers, and the best numbers available. Staff was not making assumptions regarding their accuracy. Firm numbers won’t be available until February 2011. He said that Hatch, Mott, McDonald could perform a review but it would not be a detailed analysis. The listed costs do not include right-of-way costs. Council Member Shepherd said she thought it was 35% of design. The alternatives for other communities that have dropped out of most options were based on costs. She said it was likely that Palo Alto will have the CHSRA preferred alternatives. It was critical to make sure the City was in the 90% ballpark and not 50% ballpark. Can that information be highlighted since at grade is one-third the cost of open-trench. Mayor Burt said it did not include property acquisition cost, nor the diminishment of property value costs. He said an important community discussion on open trench with limited cover may be preferable to the community. Phasing is the most likely to occur although it is unlikely to have phasing on Peninsula. A two track at-grade system should be reviewed regarding impacts on traffic, safety and emergency response. Mr. Emslie said he had not able to confirm if it were 6 or 10 trains per hour Mayor Burt said it would be a phased two-track with some trenching with at- grade crossing. That needed to be analyzed. Council Member Price asked for details on the construction impacts. Mr. Litzinger said all that information will be included in the Draft EIR, scheduled for December 2010. Council Member Price confirmed that there would not be an early release of any elements of the Draft EIR. 10 7/1/2010 Chair Klein asked if it were common for cost estimates to not include land acquisition. Mr. Emslie said that in freeway projects he was familiar with, land costs were given a line item. Chair Klein asked why there wasn’t an estimate on land acquisition costs. Mr. Litzinger said that information was not available as the design had not determined yet. The cost estimates given were meant as comparison estimates. Chair Klein said they had various rights of way estimated. He wanted to know why they could not estimate an 80 foot right of way and take specific properties. Mr. Litzinger said they were working with various cities on alignment, land use sensitivity, they would move alignment so we don’t have to take properties if possible. It was a process that was not so cut and dry. Chair Klein said they said that about other estimates as well. Mayor Burt said that in all other areas there were broader costs stated, the same principal should apply to property takings. He said members of the community had estimated various rights of way widths. That sort of range seemed consistent; several alternatives already existed for them to narrow the range Mr. Litzinger said they would take that suggestion and try to use it. He said the problem was that property values change. Mayor Burt said Palo Alto was being asked to respond without a major cost factor. Alternatives have been removed up and down the Peninsula due to costs. Mr. Litzinger said the SAAR options moving ahead or fell away did not move away due to costs but rather feasibility. Mayor Burt that was inconsistent with past statements. Mr. Litzinger said he would not comment on what other members have said. 11 7/1/2010 Council Member Shepherd said there was one property owner trying to sell a home, and others are locked in their homes because of this. She said they needed to move quickly going to 15% design. They should raise the right of way with that. 4. Discussion of draft High Speed Rail – Economic Development Analysis 5. Updates and Informational Items Contract Budget Update Legislative Update Legislative Services Update Property Value Analysis Request for Qualifications (RFQ) released 6. Discussion of draft letter from Mayor Pat Burt to Roelof Van Ark, Chief Executive Officer, California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). 7. Future Meetings and Agendas Mr. Emslie said they would potentially have to adjust the time for a September 1st meeting to avoid a conflict with the board meeting. Council Member Shepherd suggested they meet on August 31, 2010. Mayor Burt said he had conflicts with supplemental meetings. He said the 8:30 am meetings were difficult enough. Later in the day would be better. Council Member Price agreed. Chair Klein suggested they meet at 4:30 pm on August 31, 2010. Council Member Shepherd how much time would be needed. If it was going to run over, the 30th might be better. Mayor Burt start at 5:00 pm on 30th and 8:00 am on 9/2 would be potential options. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:01 a.m. 1 9/2/2010 HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE Special Meeting September 2, 2010 Council Member Klein called the meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Burt, Klein, Price, Shepherd Absent: None 1. Oral Communications None Chair Klein stated that not everything had to be completed prior to September 13, 2010. Council Member Shepherd stated when the Council meets to hear information from the High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee (Committee) there needed to be sufficient information for them to retrieve a satisfactory conclusion. Council Member Price stated that it was important to have appropriate decisions and discussions in the efficient use of time to meet the deadline and prepare meaningful material. Mayor Burt stated the Committee should continue to agendize HSR in preparation for the Council meeting on the September 13, 2010. At minimum they should inform the Council about what has occurred. He acknowledged a subsequent HSR meeting may need to be held prior to that date for further deliberation. 2. Discussion of California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental Alternative Analysis Report (SAAR) 2 9/2/2010 Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie informed the Committee there was a High Speed Rail Authority meeting yesterday which was intended to take public testimony on the certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Rob Braulik attended as the Palo Alto representative and presented written and verbal testimony objecting to the Final EIR with a request that it not be certified on the basis of comments registered in the Comment Letter that had not been adequately responded to. The decision on the Program EIR was slated to be heard this morning at the full Board meeting. Mayor Burt stated Judge Kopp made a proposal consistent with Senator Lowenthals’ recommendation regarding a process to identify conflicts of interest for HSR Board Members. He noted Judge Kopp was not able to obtain a second on the Motion. MOTION: Chair Klein moved, seconded by XXX that the High Speed Rail Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the following Resolution: The City Council of Palo Alto hereby declares that it has No Confidence in the High Speed Rail Authority and in the High Speed Rail Project as presently planned and that it will accordingly take the following actions: 1) Urge the Governor and the State Legislature to cease funding High Speed Rail, (HSR), remove the present High Speed Rail Authority Board and/or create a new governing mechanism for HSR 2) Urge the Federal Railroad Administration to cease funding California’s HSR as presently constituted 3) Urge our US Senators and Member of Congress to oppose further funding of California’s HSR as presently constituted 4) Urge the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to terminate its agreement and relationship with the California HSR Authority and take all steps necessary to prevent the HSR Authority from using the Caltrain right-of-way for HSR. 5) Encourage the Union Pacific Railroad to remain steadfast in its refusal to waive any of its rights to the HSR Authority, grant HSR access to tracks it controls or otherwise aid in the establishment of HSR in California as presently planned by the HSR Authority. 3 9/2/2010 6) Coordinate and communicate with like-minded California cities in order to make our positions set forth above more effective. 7) Consider litigation if necessary and cost effective to protect the interests of Palo Alto with respect to HSR. 8) Provide copies of this Resolution and supporting materiel to: the Governor, our State legislators, United States Senators, Member of Congress, the HSR Authority Board, neighboring communities and other interested parties. The action items listed in this Resolution are not intended to be exhaustive. Other actions, as determined by the City Council, may also be necessary and appropriate. Relationship to Caltrain Nothing in this Resolution should be read as negative towards Caltrain. Indeed, quite to the contrary, the City Council continues to believe that Caltrain is an indispensable part of our local transportation program, that it should have a permanent, dedicated source of funding and that it should be appropriately upgraded. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND Council Member Shepherd Agreed it was time to start to really move more nimbly to address the obvious flows not just the constitution of the HSR authority but the project as it stands it is repeatedly being reviewed by municipalities and cities and being found lacking in what would be normally an appropriate process for a project of this size and expense. She felt it was time for Palo Alto to take a clear stand, that until this can be looked at as a serious engineering project with a serious business plan she felt Council needed to respond Palo Altos’ interest and not the deadlines that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) had presented. She proposed reviewing each action item individually or possibly having a Committee discussion about each of our interests of these changes. Mayor Burt stated he had understood from the statements of Chair Klein at the August 30, 2010 meeting there would be a “No Confidence” Resolution although he had not understood there was going to be a series of specific actions to be attempting to decide whether these were the actions that should be taken at this time or whether we should be weighing them all at one time. He clarified he was receptive to what was stated at the previous meeting of a “No Confidence” vote along with recommendations from the Committee with the 4 9/2/2010 focus on Caltrain. He stated his thought process was to review the clear statement that was in the introductory paragraph of the proposed Resolution. He suggested the City Council of Palo Alto hereby declared it had no confidence in the High Speed Rail Authority and in the High Speed Rail project as presently planned and no other actions accompanying it at this time. He stated each individual action item presented on the proposed resolution could be considered as we moved forward. The action items were open for discussion for the Council to take positions on. He stated under the heading Relationship to Caltrain; he would follow the paragraph with the following language: Caltrain was the indispensable backbone of our local transit program and that it must have a permanent and dedicated funding source and it should be appropriately upgraded. He felt it would be a positive to say the Palo Alto was committed to full support of creating an independent funding source. He wanted to make the language clear that Palo Alto was placing the thrust of their focus on what mattered most to them which was the success and survival of Caltrain. Council Member Price stated she largely agreed with may of the points Mayor Burt had presented. She stated the proposed Resolution went beyond the initial discussion of the previous meeting. She noted in reference to the background letter she agreed with the comments on ridership, cost, business plan, and relationship to the Authority. She shared concern with the heading Impact on the Community; she clarified the comments were phrased in a negative light. She stated we were in the process of examining both the challenges and the opportunities that come with the fixed rail transit systems. She liked the notion in the relationship to Caltrain to present it in a positive way. Fixed rail was critical; it was funded and operated to support the needs of the Palo Alto community, this portion of the region and into the future. She noted the proposed Resolution went beyond where she felt comfortable at the time. She agreed there was no confidence in the CHSRA although getting into further details regarding lack of funding, potential litigation and it seemingly pre-judges the materials and resources that were currently under investigation as in the Economic Development Study, the Corridor Study and a Property Analysis Study. Chair Klein stated it had been his intent to follow-up with a Motion of no confidence with actions. He clarified without actions of some sort, the Motion is without merit. He noted in order to be proactive and not responsive to the HSR it was necessary to have some actions to follow-up on. The CHSRA was planning on completing the project at the lowest cost alternative, ignoring the facts of the system being intended to last a hundred year or more. When the lowest common denominator was the highest factor the true cost was transferred to the communities where the project lives. There were negative impacts that were costs that were more difficult to quantify impacts to the 5 9/2/2010 neighborhoods, impacts on real estate values and traffic impacts. The inability to negotiate with the CHSRA was not a hidden fact; Palo Alto was kidding itself to believe a study of any kind was going to make a difference to the CHSRA. He stated Council needed to be proactive in the defense of the community and region. Council Member Shepherd asked whether the correct problem was being solved. She asked if this Resolution was sent out in a void of the Caltrain project which was already anemic based on their own business plan which was ineffective, then Palo Alto was missing the opportunity to reinforce the interest the entire peninsula had in having a vibrant commute rail system. She felt both projects needed to be worked simultaneously. Palo Alto needed to take a stand to ensure the Caltrain did stop in Palo Alto, continued to increase its schedule and could come up with a viable train operational system that would reduce its own cost so the City had something to build from and that CHSRA as it moved forward would respond to our needs for the commute service. She suggested crafting a Resolution with clear language that Caltrain was going to be the premier and primary commute fixed rail system. Chair Klein stated he was prepared to state as many positive things regarding Caltrain as possible he did not want to lose sight that HSR was becoming an overwhelming force. He noted the two systems were not as closely related as some believe. Council Member Price stated both systems were inexplicably tied to Caltrain having a position that a part of their funding and the idea of electrification of their rail system would be successful based on their affiliation with the HSR project. She shared her concern in taking such a strong position with the funding we may be hurting Caltrain in terms of the possibilities of having these two projects work together effectively. She emphasized the need for a three county Bond Measure in support of the operations of Caltrain. She recognized the comment regarding the lower cost alternative although in major transit projects such as the HSR there was often a combination of concern for the type of project being completed for the cost and what the local community was willing to do to supplement. Mayor Burt stated his recommendations were realistic and pragmatic. He felt taking a clear position on the fundamental skepticism of the project was not out of alignment from a number of other entities. He clarified there was not adequate time to review and discuss the action items in the proposed Resolution during the time allotted. Presenting the Proposed Resolution undermined the credibility of the City and in a political statement credibility was relied upon. He agreed the summary statement of the proposed Resolution 6 9/2/2010 made a clear statement which then would become the foundation for Palo Alto to do any variety of actions. He supported the fundamental reasons of why the City should support the “No Confidence” policy. He agreed with the supplemental background information and he would support including the Motion on the “No Confidence”. In summation he felt that what all of the cities had gone through had been led down the process that was not more than a façade. He feels the City must continue to participate in the process. MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the High Speed Rail Committee recommend the City Council of Palo Alto hereby declare that it has “No Confidence” in the High Speed Rail Authority and in the High Speed Rail Project as presently planned. The City continues to believe that Caltrain is the indispensable backbone of our local transit system that it must have a permanent and dedicated source of funding and it should be appropriately upgraded. Palo Alto was fully committed to collaborating with the cities of the corridor in creating a dedicated funding source and will help provide a leadership role to that objective. Council Member Shepherd stated she supported the manner in which Palo Alto had handled itself during the HSR project. She wanted to ensure the public understood the Council was not working with the CHSRA but rather responding to them. The goal was to decouple the HSR project from the Caltrain project so that we were left with something we can build to and use our taxpayer dollars as a municipality to build for our future. Hinda Sack spoke regarding clearing the HSR project and Caltrain. There was a definite cause for a Corridor Study and support for Caltrain. She requested clarification of the definition for participation in the process going forward with the HSR project. Virginia Saldich spoke regarding her support for the Resolution. It was clear to her the costs would be transferred to the community. The peninsula was being treated without consideration of the impact to the community. Henry Lew spoke regarding the Alma corridor community. The community was not satisfied with the cost to the community. Morris Brown, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the support of the Resolution. Caltrain and the HSR needed to be separated. Herb Borock stated he supported the proposed Resolution and suggested the Council have the opportunity to vote on the eight action items individually. He stated Caltrain and HSR were separate entities and should be addressed as 7 9/2/2010 such. The proposed Resolution opening statement made it clear to the community where Palo Alto stood. Bill Cutlor stated his agreement with a strong statement of “No Confidence” while proceeding strategically with a plan of action. He felt the actions proposed were of a sufficient nature for the position the HSR Committee wants to get across. Nadia Naik spoke regarding the movement should be tempered with consideration of how Palo Alto would be viewed by the Congressional and Legislative forums. She suggested having an open dialog with the Legislature to determine where Palo Alto stood with rail systems and the current project. Jim McFall spoke regarding the continued changing plans by the HSR Authority. He supported the proposed Resolution and supported sending a strong message on where Palo Alto stood. Jennifer Walfeld spoke regarding her support for the proposed Resolution. She noted the financial issues Caltrain was having and suggested the HSR financial situation in the future would be the same. She agreed Caltrain needed to be separated from HSR and treated as two entities. City Manager, James Keene stated the Councils’ discussions were indicative of how responsible the Committee and City Council had been through the entire process. He stated there appeared to be agreement between the Committee on the proposed Resolution with the eight points in question. He agreed with Chair Klein that the Motion of “No Confidence” without something to back it up begged the question on how would it be implemented. He suggested if the Committee was unable to reach a consensus there may be a decision to bring it forward to the full Council. He felt additional language should be added to the Motion as follows: The City Council expects to take further action if the Authority does not immediately establish a truly responsive and transparent relationship with the effected communities and present viable plan alternatives for the project. He stated there needed to be an indication of action being taken in the event the request was not responded to. He wanted to verify the Caltrain language was correct in the Motion: City Council continues to believe that Caltrain is the indispensable back bone of our local transportation system and it must have a permanent dedicated source of funding and should be appropriately upgraded. Palo Alto was fully committed to collaborating with other Peninsula cities in helping create a dedicated funding source for Caltrain and its needed improvements. Mayor Burt stated the City Manager suggested additional wording to the Motion 8 9/2/2010 did help present the foundation for whatever subsequent actions we choose to take. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER: The City Council of Palo Alto hereby declares they have no confidence in the High Speed Rail Authority and the High Speed Rail project as presently planned. The City Council expects to take further action if the Authority does not immediately establish a truly responsive and transparent relationship with the effected communities and present viable plan alternatives for the project. Mayor Burt stated the added language clearly indicated additional actions were likely which gave the Committee the opportunity to review the proposed actions and other proposed actions and to make a thoughtful consideration as to which actions should be taken what point in time with still giving Council latitude to adapt to the rapidly changing set of circumstances. Chair Klein asked whether there had been a suggested deadline in the Motion. Mr. Keene stated he agreed there needed to be deadline presented to HSR in the Motion. Mayor Burt stated the key component was to make the policy statement and grant ourselves the latitude to decide when and how the actions would be taken. He noted giving a deadline to the HSR was also giving a deadline to ourselves. The Motion on the table allowed Palo Alto to have taken an affirmative position on what it wants and do care about; it prevents other entities from accusing us of only being in a negative posture. Council Member Price offered an Amendment to the language in the Motion to read: Caltrain is the back bone of our local and regional transit system. She stated there was a need to position Palo Alto as being a part of the regional area not just local. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER: The City continues to believe that Caltrain is the indispensable backbone of our local and regional transit system that it must have a permanent and dedicated source of funding and it should be appropriately upgraded. Council Member Shepherd stated Palo Alto was a borderless community where transit was considered and there was a need to work in cooperation with the surrounding communities along the Peninsula Corridor. She requested to review the proposed eight action points to verify whether they should be advanced to full Council at a future time. She shared her concern with utilizing the 9 9/2/2010 taxpayer’s dollars in an action that may not make an impact. Chair Klein offered an Amendment that the proposed action item 8 be included in the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER: Provide copies of this Resolution and supporting material to: the Governor, our State legislatures, United States Senators, Members of Congress, the HSR Authority Board, neighboring communities and other interested parties. Mayor Burt stated the language in the Motion was intended to make the policy position of Palo Alto clear that the focus was to maintain Caltrain as a separate entity. He felt the proposed action item 6 should be included in the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER: Coordinate and communicate with like minded California cities in order to make our positions set froth above more effective. Chair Klein offered an Amendment to include the remaining proposed action items on the Motion. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Price stated Caltrain itself had aligned themselves with the HSR as an option for a funding opportunity. She supported the Motion with the Amendments incorporated by the Maker and Seconder. MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the High Speed Rail Committee recommend to the City Council the City Council of Palo Alto hereby declares it has “No Confidence” in the High Speed Rail Authority and in the High Speed Rail Project as presently planned. The City continues to believe that Caltrain is the indispensable backbone of our local and regional transit system. That Caltrain must have a permanent and dedicated source of funding and it should be appropriately upgraded. Palo Alto was fully committed to collaborating with the cities of the corridor in creating a dedicated funding source and will help provide a leadership role to that objective. The City Council expects to take further action if the Authority does not immediately establish a truly responsive and transparent relationship with the effected communities and present viable plan alternatives for the project. Coordinate and communicate with like minded California cities in order to make our positions set froth above more effective and to provide copies of this Resolution and supporting material to: the Governor, our State legislatures, United States Senators, Members of Congress, the HSR Authority Board, neighboring 10 9/2/2010 communities and other interested parties. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 3. Discussion of Draft High Speed Rail - Economic Development Analysis 4. Updates and Informational Items Contract budget update Legislative update Legislative services update Property value analysis Request for Qualifications (RFQ) released 5. Discussion of draft letter from Mayor Pat Burt to Roelof Van Ark, Chief Executive Officer, California High Speed Rail Authority (CCHSRA) (Continued from August 30, 2010) 6. Future Meetings and Agendas Tuesday, September 7th 4:30 - 6 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:33 a.m. ( CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: High Speed Rail Committee 3 September 15, 2010 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE: September 15, 2010 SUBJECT: California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR) Please note that the staff report and attachments associated with Agenda Item # 3 are a continuation from the August 24, 2010 High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee meeting. ~~-~ STEVE EMSLIE Deputy City Manager JAMES KEENE City Manager / CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum 3 TO: High Speed Rail Committee FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE: August 24,2010 SUBJECT: California ffigh Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR) Recommendation Staff recommends that the High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee provides staff with policy guidanc~ regarding the CHSRA SAAR report. Specifically, staff is seeking direction on policy issues staff should address in a HSR report to be presented to the City Council at their meeting on September 13,2010. Background and Discussion The CHSRA held their last meeting in San Francisco on Thursday, August 5th• At this meeting they discussed the SAAR prepared by staff for the San Francisco to San Jose HSR corridor. The SAAR updated a previously published Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report (P AAR) released in April 2010. The Committee may recall that the City submitted comprehensive comments on the PAAR on June 30, 2010. Staffhas provided for reference the SAAR executive summary and the Palo Alto Section map (Subsection 6) from the full SAAR (please see attachments). The SAAR addressed current CHSRA options for HSR alignments through the Peninsula from San Francisco to San Jose. As referenced in a recent City HSR news release, staff contends there remain many unresolved issues, which could have significant impacts on City of Palo Alto residents and businesses. These issues include project phasing, the location of a Mid-Peninsula station, interoperability between a future HSR line and an electrified Caltrain line, continued CHSRA consideration of aerial, trench and at-grade options for HSR construction, project funding, and other related matters. Report findings include: Station locations under consideration. HSR stations are still planned for San Francisco at the Transbay Terminal, Millbrae, and San Jose. The CHSRA is still considering a HSR Mid- Peninsula location. Alternatives include Mountain View, Redwood City, and Palo Alto. The Palo Alto station location under consideration is located at University Avenue. The potential Mountain View station location is in their downtown near Castro Street. CHSRA is not considering or evaluating any station locations in Palo Alto at California Avenue, nor are they considering a San Antonio station location in Mountain View. However, they are Page 1 of8 .. t ". '.~ --. 1 ." reviewing the potential of moving the existing San Antonio Caltrain station north of its current location. According to CHSRA and HNTB, (i.e., HNTB is an architectural, engineering, planning and construction services firm providing professional consulting services to the CHSRA on the Peninsula) they plan to hold a series of public workshops on the station design, criteria, and options during the last three weeks of September 2010. HNTB staff has stated that a proposed Mid-Peninsula station would total 67,000 square feet and require the construction of 3,000 parking spaces within a three-mile radius of the station. The projecte~ number of daily station boarding's is 7,800. CHSRA would pay the cost of the station, rail line, platform, and other rail station related improvements. They do not plan to pay the cost to build the necessary parking. They envision the parking would be paid by the respective city, possibly including a partnership of private developers. Staff estimates, based on conservative assumptions and experience (e.g., Bryant Street parking garage in Palo Alto), that the cost to build a parking garage could be $150 million or more based on a cost of $50,000/parking space. Considerations and Questions • Does the Committee want the City to continue to be considered for a Mid-Peninsula station location given the parking requirements and that the cost burden at this time would be on the City and/or a private development interest? Ifno, staffwould suggest the City consider sending a formal letter to the CHSRA stating the City's position that Palo Alto would not like to be considered further for a Mid-Peninsula station location. • If yes, does the Committee want HNTB and the CHSRA to consider additional station location options in the City such as California Avenue? If yes, then it will also be necessary according to HNTB for the City to send a formal letter requesting analysis of the California Avenue station location. Also, if the Committee wants to consider a station location, staff would suggest we add this component into analysis of HSR property value and economic development impacts in Palo Alto. HSR track configuration changes. HSR options have been narrowed down to three within two major design options (i.e., Design options A and B, Bt). These three HSR design options that will be analyzed in depth all include horizontal four-track configurations which include: 1. 4-track Aerial 2. 4-track At-Grade 3. 4-track Open Trench A principal CHSRA rationale for the above alternatives is that these options require much less right-of-way, approximately 80', versus up to 135' as previously indicated in the PAAR'released in April. This narrower right-of-way is also possible due to designing the tracks so Caltrain operates on the outside two tracks and HSR on the insides two tracks due to the Federal Railroad Page 2 of8 Administration (FRA) agreeing to use a two percent grade for HSR versus the previously required one percent grade. Palo Alto Corridor Subsection 6 covers the approximately four mile section of HSR track in the City. The SAAR identifies four major Palo Alto corridors labeled 6A to 6D (Le., 6A is the northern boundary with Menlo Park and 6D is the southern boundary with Mountain View). CHSRA is considering the following HSR track configuration options for each section as follows: 6A 6B 6C 6D Design Option A At-Grade Aerial At-Grade Aerial Design Option B Open trench Open trench At-Grade Aerial Design Option Bl Open trench Open trench Open trench Open trench CHSRA did not identify the covered trench/tunnel option for further consideration. However, they left open the possibility that partially. or completely covered trench or short tunnel sections may be needed due to narrow right-of-way or environmental concerns. For example, San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto could require a short tunnel or covered trench. CHSRA staff referenced at the San Francisco meeting that it was likely that the trench option would be used for the rail section near the creek due to the proximity of El Palo Alto tree and the deepness of creek. Partial covers of the open trench could be accomplished as long as they do not trigger the need for additional life safety and ventilation features. CHSRA made it clear (discussion of Design Option B) that cities would be responsible for the cost of covering an HSR trench configuration. HSR Design Option Costs The SAAR included an outline of preliminary costs for the proposed alternatives. These costs do not include right-of-way costs. CHSRA staff referenced at the San Francisco meeting that they will not have detailed cost figures until February 2011. The CHSRA will be presented with a business plan during that same month (i.e., February 2011). Stl;lff has prepared a sample worksheet that summarizes the cost figures shown for the four major Palo Alto corridors labeled 6A to 6D. The attached spreadsheet shows: Overall Costs • The at-grade option has the lowest cost at $234M, the next lowest cost is aerial -$252M, then open trench -$765M and covered trench/tunnel at nearly $1.9B. CHSRA then provided costs for a deep tunnel high speed train (HST) at $1.2B and hybrid cost option $2.4B. The hybrid option cost is higher due to greater retaining walls; drainage, ventilation and life safety features. Page 3 of8 Palo Alto Specific Costs • The cost for sections 6A to 6D using the aerial or at-grade options for each segment totals between $234M and $252M (this assumes the at-grade option for 6A). The cost for sections 6A to 6D using the open trench option for each segment totals $765M, a difference of$513M to $531M (or more than 200% greater). • The cost for sections 6A to 6D using the· covered trench/tunnel option not under consideration is $1.874B; $1.623B higher or 647% greater than the least cost option and $1.1B higher, 338% greater than the open trench option. Considerations and Questions • Does the Committee support any of the Design Options A, B or B I? If no, what if any Design Option is supportable? Are any Design Options supportable? If yes, which one may be supportable? • If a Design Option(s) is supportable then does the Committee support using one Design Option for North Palo Alto and another for South Palo Alto? For example, Design Option B has an open trench in Sections 6A and 6B and then at-grade in 6C and aerial in 6D. Option Bl offers the same Design Option, open trench, through the entire Palo Alto corridor. Does the Committee have a preference? • If the Committee wants a Design Option not under further consideration (e.g., Covered Trench/Tunnel) would the Committee direct staff to communicate to CHSRA they should add back the covered trench/tunnel Design Option? Does the Committee want to communicate to the CHSRA that they should be responsible for paying the cost? • There is a real possibility that whatever HSR option is executed by the CHSRA, that the project will be constructed in phases. CHSRA recently submitted in their most recent Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ARRA funding application discussion of a 4- track grade separated HSR line from San Francisco at 4th and King Streets to Redwood City, then a 2-track non-grade separated section for the six miles through Atherton, Menlo Park, arid Palo Alto, and then a 4-track grade separated section of rail from Mountain View to Sunnyvale into San Jose. The entire track would be electrified and have positive train control. What is the position of the Committee on this potential alternative? Another alternative could be trenching North Palo Alto first and keeping the rest of the line at-grade until sufficient funds were available to trench all the way through the City. Yet another alternative could be building a HSR system at-grade throughout the entire City corridor with trenching to come later. Is the Committee willing to consider any of these options? Would the Committee only consider an option that completed an open trench along the entire Palo Alto corridor in one phase vs. multiple phases to minimize property, construction and community impacts? Page 4 of8 • The criteria the CHSRA used to evaluate alternatives included: "Meet community needs by addressing alternatives that would not visually divide communities and are responsive to concerns about noise and vibration impacts." An additional consideration is the "ability to meet the project purpose and support by public agencies." Does the Committee think the CHSRA met these criteria? Additional issues include: • The City has not yet developed a vision for what it wants along the existing rail corridor. This future vision, whatever it may be, will likely have a major impact on what position the Committee and the City takes on HSR. • The current focus is on the SAAR and the future Draft Environmental Impact ReportlEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIRlEIS) to be published in December of 2010. However, even assuming this proceeds as planned by the CHSRA, significant funding issues remain to build HSR. • Caltrain electrification while related to HSR is a completely separate and distinct project with its own policy, financial, and long-term economic and operational viability issues. • What economic development and property value impacts are there from· construction of a HSR line because so little analysis is available regarding the economic impacts ofHSR in North America? Should the City seek out its own economic analysis to provide a basis for positions on HSR alignments? • The ridership numbers for HSR still remain in question. Current Activity and Next Steps CHSRA The CHSRA's focus is to complete the project level DEIRIEIS by December 2010. This includes continuing with engineering design work on the three HSR design alternatives. The next milestone is to complete 15% design work. Also, the CHSRA continues to apply for available American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds for the HSR line. The most recent request was for an additional $IB to match $2.25B in funds already awarded. ARRA funding does not by itself determine the HSR alignment nor the ultimate preferred alternative. The results of the environmental analysis will determine these factors. In addition, the CHSRA will continue to evaluate a potential Mid-Peninsula station location. Once the environmental revie~ process is completed next year the CHSRA plans to focus on HSR funding. City of Palo Alto The City Council recently agreed to the completion of a rail corridor study including the formation of a community based task force. This study will evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the rail corridor. This study is expected to commence in September of this year. In addition, staff recently released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit professional expertise to assist the City in evaluating HSR property value impacts on Page 5 of8 residential and commercial properties along the rail corridor. Staff anticipates selecting a firm in September and getting this work done in the fall. In addition, staff is also working on a scope of work to either have the same firm selected for the property value impact analysis or a separate company to evaluate potential HSR economic development impacts. Staff also continues to participate fully in the Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings associated with HSR to ensure Palo Alto's position on the various technical alternatives are weighed, considered, and evaluated for a future HSR line along the corridor. Potential Palo Alto Alternatives Staff suggests the following policy positions for the Committee to consider: 1. Status quo. This alternative includes continuation of the present course to gather, analyze and evaluate the information on HSR and at the appropriate time make a formal policy recommendation to the City Council. Support for this alternative is based on awaiting the results of the rail corridor study, the property value and economic development analysis, and the draft CHSRA environmental impact report work. There is a great deal of quantitative data yet to be published that will have a bearing on the ultimate position the Committee may recommend to the City Council. 2. Pass a ResolutionlWrite a Letter. The Committee may want to recommend to the City Council it pass a resolution or write a formal letter in favor or opposing the HSR project based on the current SAAR design options under consideration. This alternative would officially convey to the CHSRA and to the legislature, which has project oversight authority, that the SAAR does or does not meet the City's design requirements and could list alignments or conditions that would enable the City to support HSR. A resolution or letter opposing the project might say all current design options are unacceptable and for this reason alone the City opposes the project. 3. Lobbying Focus. Palo Alto, along with the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park, engages the services of a lobbying firm to provide legislative advocacy services. The Committee could recommend to the City Council the City legislative advocacy services take a much stronger position with the legislature and the CHSRA relative to a desired HSR design option including asking the legislature not to release HSR funds in the Peninsula until design options are put in place that meet the needs of the respective cities. This letter could also reinforce that the City wants a certain design option even if such Qption(s) cost more. This alternative would be stronger if we could secure similar support from our neighboring cities (e.g., Atherton and Menlo Park) and other Peninsula cities. 4. Oppose the CHSRA FRA Application The City could send a letter to the FRA opposing the recent CHSRA $lB grant application since the proposed phasing of the improvements in that application could be detrimental to Palo Alto as it calls for no grade separations or other improvements. Caltrain Impacts Page 6 of8 What is not factored into this discussion of the SAAR is Caltrain and its long-term viability as a commuter rail service along the Peninsula. Caltrain and the public agencies that financially support Caltrain operations are including HSR and the potential funding into their capital and operational plans to upgrade and modernize Caltrain service including track electrification, installation of new positive train control systems and purchase of new electric train units to replace the old diesel locomotives. Consideration of HSR and HSR design options has an impact on Caltrain modernization. Assuming Caltrain finds the funds to modernize its rail line and electrify the line exclusive of HSR the new line will likely be built on the existing at-grade alignment. The catenary system to support the Caltrain electrified trains, including the poles, could be up to 50' high. This will create adverse visual impacts similar to those expected with an at-grade HSR alignment. However, if the HSR line were to built using the open trench design the same catenary system used to support HSR would be used by Caltrain. Thus, there would not be the same adverse visual impacts. A question the Committee needs to consider is do you think it is likely if HSR goes away Caltrain could secure the necessary funds to electrify their line, purchase and install a modem positive train control system, modernize their train fleet, and fund the construction of an open trench (assuming this was an acceptable design option) through the City? Prior to the passage of Proposition lA, timing for Caltrain electrification was very uncertain and below numerous other transportation priorities. Recommended Alternative The City should complete the rail corridor study, the property value and economic reports, and evaluate the current and future technical and other documents published by CHSRA and their consultants. This includes evaluation of the environmental documentation to be published late this year. The results of this information will assist the Committee and ultimately the City Council. We also suggest the Committee make a formal recommendation to the City Council either supporting or not supporting any of the current rail configuration options including a Mid- Peninsula HSR Station in Palo Alto. Attachments • Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, Executive Summary • Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, Subsection 6, Palo Alto • Spreadsheet sample ROB K. BRAULIK Project Manager Page 7 of8 Nancy Shepherd's Draft Resolution Items for Further Discussion 1. Response to Larry's Klein's Draft Resolution Itemsfor Further Discussion 1) Larry proposed: Urge the Governor and the State Legislature to cease HSR funding, remove the present CHSRA Board and/or create a new governing mechanism for HSR. a. Re-word: Should we issue a letter urging the Governor and Legislature to cease funding HSR until the present CHSRA Board is removed and a new Board is appointed with technical, program, project, and urban design expertise and/or create a new governing mechanism for HSR? 2) Larry proposed: Urge the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to cease funding California's HSR as presently constituted. a. Re-word: Consider Palo Alto's interest in formally writing a letter to the FRA for the purpose of communicating our position of "no confidence" in the CHSRA and defending our interests in CalTrain. i. Other cities are writing these types ofletters, should we? 3) Larry proposed: Urge our US Senators and Member of Congress to oppose further funding of California HSR as presently constituted. a. This action should be considered under our lobbying efforts. We should all agree on a lobbying strategy so that we know how Palo Alto is being represented locally, statewide, and nationally. 4) Larry proposed: Urge the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to terminate its agreement and relationship with the CHSRA and take all steps necessary to prevent the CHSRA from using the Caltrain right of way for HSR. a. Replace that with some or all of the following language: i. Advocate publically for a Policy Advisory Committee for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), appoint a Councilmember as a liaison, and contact all Peninsula cities to do the same (even those municipalities without a rail corridor). 11. Recommend that our City Manager meet with other Peninsula City Managers to navigate the possibility of a Peninsula Cities resolution to both CalTrain and the CHSRA. iii. Urge the JPB to make use of its right-of way by the CHSRA conditional on the following items: 1. CalTrain upgrades and electrification 2. Selection of design alternatives cities prefer 3. Both 5) Larry proposed: Encourage the Union Pacific Railroad to remain steadfast in its refusal to waive any of its rights to the CHSRA, grant HSR access to tracks it 3 controls, or otherwise aid in the establishment of HSR in California as presently planned by the CHSRA. a. Eliminate 6) Larry proposed: Consider litigation if necessary and cost effective to protect the interests of Palo Alto with respect to HSR. a. The deadline for litigation is October 2, consider this item when appropriate II. Draft: Resolution Items for Further Discussion 1) Continue the process of responding to the CHSRA to defend Palo Alto's interests. III. Recommendations for the Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR) comment letter 1) Have the CHSRA reintroduce a shallow tunnel (cap and cover) alternative back into the SAAR for the Palo Alto segment. 2) Suggest that the CHSRA include all preferred alternatives selected by Peninsula cities be placed back into the SAAR. 1) Similar to the configuration from the Technical Working Group (TWG) design options handout received at the Monday, August 30 HSR Committee meetirig. 3) Urge the CHSRA to select the preferred design alternative of each Peninsula city so that we can understand the 'true project cost.' 4) Use the 'true cost' price of building HSR through the Peninsula for any business plan. Then, take the appropriate steps to work with municipalities and the State to consider the importance of funding this project 'done right' and how we might access new revenues to do that. September 1, 2010 Roelof van Ark, Chief Executive Officer and Board of Directors California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) 925 l Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, California 95814 09': of Palo Alto 4 Office of the City Manager Subject: . Final Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Revised Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. van Ark, Board Chair Pringle and Board of Directors: The City of Palo would like to go on record asking the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to not certify the above referenced Final Program EIR. The City has concluded the Authority has failed pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to adequately respond to comments made by the City of Palo Alto. Here are the City's detailed comments: Standard Comment-9 This response acknowledges that the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) has expressed opposition to sharing its right-of-way for freight activities with the high speed rilil project. The City has stated that UPRR's opposition to shared use of its right-of-way in the Caltrain corridor may be a fatal flaw in the further development of the Caltrain alignment alternative. The CHSRA states in its response that it will be better able to analyze the project's potential impacts on freight operations during the project-level analysis, which is likely an accurate statement. However, the CHSRA then states that, "[t]here is precedent for UPRR working with proponents of commuter rail to reach mutually agreeable arrangements for passenger rail near UPRR freight rail." CHSRA then states that, "[t]he Authority has had productive meetings with UPRR representatives on more than one occasion since receiving their April, 23, 2010 comment letter." These two statel11ents imply that the CHSRA pelieves that further negotiations with UPRR will result in a , mutually agreeable arrangement whereby the Caltrain alignment will be acceptable to both parties. While this outcome is possibl~, it does not directly address the comments regarding the infeasibility of the Caltrain alignment should UPRR continue to deny CHSRA access to share its right-of-way. , CHSRA should have analyzed a range of other feasible alternatives, including those outside of the Pacheco corridor, when.it determined that the use of the UPRR right-of-way might be infeasible. But instead, CHSRA focused on just one alternative, which was to shift the proposed alignment south of San Jose in order to move it out of the UPRR right-of-way. This shift of alignment may result in new impacts -such as impacts on traffic, land use compatibility, aesthetics, agriculture, noise, and air quality, and the requirement to exercise eminent domain -that are not addressed in the revised program document and need to be addressed. We request that the CHSRA study an Altamont alignment that would serve San Francisco to San Jose on one route, as described in comment 0009-2. LO03-31 The City's comment states that the, Program EIR does not adequately address funding sources for the project. CHSRA's response refers the reader to Comment L003-112, which addresses compatibility of schools with high speed rail projects. This response in no way addressed the comment. CHSRA needs to provide a detailed breakdown of funding sources, as the type of information provided to the public thus Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine p.D. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2563 650.325.5025 fax far is too general and inadequate, and does not provide the City with the ability to assess whether the project would have access to adequate funding. L003-32 The City's comment states that project construction costs are not adequately addressed in the Program EIR. CHSRA's response states that the construction cost estimates are adequate, and lists examples of the types of costs that it claims are included in the construction cost estimates. This response does not provide the City with any information to confirm that the construction cost estimates are inclusive of all relevant costs, as no cost breakdown has been provided. CHSRA needs to provide a detailed breakdown of construction costs so that the City can assess whether all relevant costs have been considered, and whether the cost figures provided are appropriate. L003-44 CHSRA's response to comment L003-44 includes a statement that, "Caltrain would benefit from the creation of a fully grade-separate right-of-way, allowing trains to operate more safely by eliminating at- grade traffic and pedestrian crossings." This statement contradicts recent financial documents released by the CHSRA, which state that grade separations may not be included in the initial construction of the Caltrain alignment portion of the HST, and that such grade separations may need to be funded later by each local jurisdiction and built subsequent to commencement of HST operations. This statement raises further questions regarding traffic and safety, for if grade separations are not provided by the CHSRAat the time of project construction, then traffic and safety impacts would increase at the locations of the eXisting at-grade crossings with the increased volume of train trips. L003-S1 CHSRA's response to comment L003-S1 includes the following statement: "Grade separating [in the City of Palo Alto] would generally be accomplisheq by either fully raising the railway over the street, or by partially elevating the railway and partially depressing the street." The Alternatives Analysis for the City of Palo Alto included four vertical options, including aerial viaduct, at grade, trench (covered or uncovered), and tunnel. The only option that was not included for the City was the elevated berm. Yet this response to comment LO03-S1 seems to somehow eliminate any below grade options from consideration. The CHSRA provides no basis for eliminating the trench and tunnel options that were considered in the Alternatives Analysis. The CHSRA has indicated that the refinement of the vertical options would occur in a future, project-level analysis. The response to comment L003-S1 appears to be inconsistent with the review process. L003-S3 The statement that, "[t]he placement of HST tracks adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way does not increase the level of impact" is not credible. This is particularly so given the immediately previous statement that, "analysis already considered land beneath a road or railroad right-of-way as potential farmland." In other words, the HST tracks adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way would consume and/or impact farmland. The relocation of the alignment to be adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way could also have greater impacts on traffic, land use compatibility, aesthetics, noise, and air quality, and the requirement to exercise eminent domain, as s~ated above in regard to Standard Response-9. CHSRA needs to provide a program-level analysis of the impacts of this relocated alignment. L003-69 The statement that, "miles of disturbance can be helpful towards explaining differences in potential impacts between alternatives" misses the point of the comment, which was that the severity or significance of impacts depends on what is encountered, whether the alignment is short or long. The sensitivity of the environment is what's important, not the miles of disturbance. A short segment of disturbance through a portion of critical habitat for a special status species, for example, could have a greater impact on biological resources than a longer segment of disturbance through a portion of habitat not occupied by any special status species. Miles of disturbance is a poor surrogate for environmental vulnerability or susceptibility to impacts. L003-84 This response misses the point of the comment. The question is not what the minority or low-income population is, but rather whether it is disproportionately impacted regardless of size. Threshold level identification of environmental justice populations does not help identify the potential for disproportionate impacts. CHSRA needs to provide information on whether minority or low income populations would be disproportionately affected by the HST project. L003-10S Part of the response, starting on line 8 (flUPRR's February 23 ... ") addresses safety issues, which are not relevant to the comment itself, as the comment addresses the displacement of residents and businesses. The City believes that this comment has not been adequately addressed, and requests that the CHSRA provide information regarding the displacement of residents and businesses adequate to allow the City to assess these impacts. L003-111 The existing active commuter and freight rail corridor does not currently have any aerial structures and/or sound walls, so their addition would most definitely constitute new physical or psychological barriers. These new features could have negative impacts on aesthetics and land use by creating physical barriers ' within established communities. CHSRA needs to analyze these potential impacts and provide adequate information to allow the City to make an informed assessment of these impacts. L003-113 The response in no way addresses blight. CHSRA needs to analyze the blight affects that could result from the project's increased impacts to noise, vibration, traffic, aesthetics, air quality, land use, and property values. CHSRA has thus far not provided sufficient information on the topic of blight to allow the City to make an informed assessment of possible blight impacts. L003-140 The response misses the point of the comment, which is that it is the spatial extent of the impact, (e.g., noise contours, the deposition of air pollutants, or visual intrusion), and not an arbitrary distance from the centerline of each alignment alternative, that matters in determining impacts. Response to comment L003-42 is similarly inadequate. CHSRA needs to determine the actual potential extent of impacts for each impact category (noise, traffic, air quality, biological resources, etc.) and not use an arbitrary distance from the alignment centerline. The radius of impacts will not be a static figu~, and will vary along any proposed alignment due to physical characteristics such as topography, type and intensity of development, and existing traffic and land use patterns. Additional Comments The City has an additional comment based on the traffic analysis information included in the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS. The City of Palo Alto is also very concerned about the volume- to-capacity ratio (V /e) calculated as part of the traffic analysis for the potential Palo Alto HSR station on page 3.1-9 of the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS. In Table 3.1-3, the CHSRA states that in 2005 Palo Alto had a VIC ratio of 0.85 at the proposed station location. However, the chart goes on to claim that by year 2030, either with or without HSR, the V /C ratio near that station would fall in a range between 0.47 and 0.50. The City of Palo Alto does not understand how such a drastic decrease in traffic could be assumed for the said location 20 years from now and especially when all of the other potential Peninsula stations show an increase in their V Ie ratio regardless of whether HSR is built or not; It does not appear to the CIty