HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 322-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
!
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: JULY 20, 2009 CMR: 322:09
REPORT TYPE: COUNCIL MATTERS
SUBJECT: High Speed Rail
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only and no action is required.
BACKGROUND
Since passage of Proposition lA in November last year, the High Speed Rail Authority (HSR)
has initiated environmental and engineering studies for implementation of the system statewide.
The HSR consulting team began scoping the Environmental Impact Report for the San Jose to
San Francisco segment. Soon after the scoping sessions began, Mayor Peter Drekmeier
appointed Councilmember's Kishimoto, Barton and Burt to the Ad Hoc High Speed Rail
Committee.
The City Council High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee was formed and designated by the City
Council to represent the City in public at meetings with community groups and stakeholders,
when speaking to other public agencies, and when providing written correspondence or
testimony in advocating for legislation related to high speed rail. On May 18, the City of Palo
Alto adopted the guiding principles listed in Attachment A in order to guide the Ad Hoc
Committee to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies.
The Ad Hoc Committee has focused much of its efforts on working with other peninsula
communities who are potentially impacted by high speed rail as well as on the numerous
legislation activities related to High Speed Rail. A draft Memorandum of Dnderstanding (MOD),
forming the Peninsula Cities Coalition (PCC), was prepared and distributed to Peninsula and has
been ratified by five cities.
DISCUSSION
Page 1 of4
The Peninsula Cities Coalition MOU has been ratified by five cities including Palo Alto, Menlo
Park, Belmont, Burlingame and Atherton and is now considered a recognized entity and,
therefore, subject to Brown Act requirements, including posting of agendas and providing the
public with an opportunity to comment. Subsequent to ratification of the MOU by the five
member PCC cities, Y oriko Kishimoto was appointed the Chair and Rich Cline Vice Chair for
the PCC meetings. Meetings will be held bi-weekly and will focus much of its efforts on
working with the other peninsula communities who are potentially impacted by high speed rail.
The PCC has also begun to engage various community groups organized around the potential
impacts of high speed rail to coordinate local, statewide and national legislation.
PCC representatives from each city are as follows: Palo Alto: Y oriko Kishimoto; Atherton: Jerry
Carlsen; Menlo Park: Rich Cline; Burlingame: Jerry Deal; Belmont: Christine Wozniak.
Legislative Update
Attached (Attachment B) is a legislative summary of the numerous bills pending on HSR issues.
Staff and members of the Ad Hoc Committee have been in communication with Senator Joe
Simitian's office to discuss possible legislative actions to ensure HSR is compatible with the
Peninsula's built environment.
Staff has continued to receive support of volunteer resources from the Californians Advocating
Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) that have provided comprehensive legislative summaries.
Staff will continue to post these periodic updates on its High Speed Rail website as they become
available. The most notable bills currently under consideration that could affect the Palo Alto
HSR corridor are described below.
Bill AB 289
This bill is sponsored by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and is a two year
bill to extend the Current CEQA exemption for grade separations to include the HSR. This bill
seeks to exempt from environmental review, under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), railroad grade separation construction projects. Railroad grade separations are major
construction projects that have potential for significant Community impacts.
Community activists have urged legislators to defeat this bill because of the significant
community impacts it could have. Because many existing grade separations are in urbanized
areas, grade separations have the potential to dramatically degrade the local environment.
CEQA provides for full public disclosure of potential impacts prior to decisions on major
projects. This opportunity would be lost if AB 289 would become law. At a minimum, the bill
should be amended to ensure that the CEQA exemption would only apply to grade separations
utilizing the existing footprint.
AB 153
The bill exempts the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) from certain requirements
related to eminent domain, giving CHSRA greater autonomy when acquiring rights-of-way.
Community Outreach
Page 2 of4
The PCC is sponsoring an all day event "teach-in" scheduled for Septembers 12, 2009 at a
location to be detennined. Caltrain experts will be available to answer any technical questions
that may come up. The "teach in" will provide training in urban design and planning concepts to
the public. Caltrain, acting in its capacity as the project manager of the HSR project will provide
funding and expertise for the session.
An Urban Design and Planning Workshop is scheduled for October 3 and 4. This workshop will
be open to the public and staffed with design professionals and organizers from the broader
design community who have agreed to volunteer their time to participate in this event in order to
minimize costs. This two-day event will be similar to a design charrette. On the first day of the
workshop, there will a briefing by design professionals, brainstonning and interviewing sessions
for all participants and an opportunity to fonn teams to work on design concepts. On the second
day of the workshop, a team of national experts will present conceptual urban design plans at the
end of the 2-day session.
High Speed Rail Environmental Document (EIR)
The California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) has released the Draft Scoping Report for the
San Jose to San Francisco section of the High-Speed Train system on their website at
http://www.cahighspeedraiJ.ca.gov/images/chsr/20090626113405 DraftSFtoSJScopingReport.pdf. A
summary of the report is included in Attachment C and includes a comment summary of Palo
Alto's submitted comments and identifies what section in the EISIEIS the City's comments will
be addressed. The entire scoping report includes 950 comments that were received from various
agencies, organizations and individuals.
Some of the key themes from these comments include:
1. Protection of the environment in the Peninsula
2. Interest in alignments and station alternatives
3. Connectivity and coordination with other transportation facilities
4. Alternative Technologies/systems
5. Project Funding/Cost
6. Land use and property acquisition
7. Interest in learning more about the project through the public outreach process
8. Support for the project
9. Opposition to the project
10. Project Description
These are some of the issues that will be considered by the HSRA project team as they initiate
the alternatives analysis, technical evaluations and preparation of the draft environmental
document that is expected to be released for public comment in late 2010. CalTrain staff will be
discussing the draft scoping report with the PCC on July 1 ih and it is anticipated that the Ad
Hoc Committee members attending that meeting will update the full Council at the July 220d
Council meeting. The next milestones for the EIRIEIS are:
Draft EIRIEIS -First quarter of 2011
Final EIRIEIS -End of 20 11
Page 3 of4
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff will be returning to Council on August 3 with a BAO for budget to augment funding for the
Teach-In, the Urban Design and Planning Workshop and to provide funding to hire a tunneling
consultant to assist with a peer review of the alternatives proposed by the HSRA. Staff will
provide another update to Council in October to report on the results of the outreach efforts.
PREPARED BY: ~~: /STEVJl: SILE
Deputy City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Guiding Principles
B. CARRD High Speed Rail Legislation
C. High Speed Rail Draft Scoping Report Summary
Page 4 of4
Attachment A
Guiding Principals
• The City recognizes that High Speed Rail, if done correctly, has the potential to minimize
adverse impacts and be beneficial to the community.
• While acknowledging that the current direction for the San Jose to San Francisco High
Speed Train project is to use the Caltrain right-of-way as the high speed rail corridor
between San Jose and San Francisco, the City is open to and could support alternative
alignments.
• The Ad Hoc Committee will be guided by the City of Palo Alto Scoping Comments for
the California High Speed Rail Authority'S San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train
(HST) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRlEIS).
• The City supports Cal train electrification and improved commuter rail services between
San Francisco and San Jose. The City is supportive of operating conditions along the
Caltrain right-of-way that would be conducive to a high speed rail intercity connection in
San Jose, with improved Caltrain commuter rail service between San Jose and San
Francisco.
• The City is supportive of exploring creative urban design and use of context-sensitive
solutions that consider community values in collaborative community-sensitive solutions
for the high speed rail project.
• The Ad Hoc Committee shall provide regular reports to the Council on the activities of
the Peninsula cities Consortium.
• The Ad Hoc Committee will meet regularly with community leaders and stakeholders to
inform and involve the larger Palo Alto community in the planning, review, oversight and
decision-making for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAIRRI Californians Advocating
Responsible Rail Design
Attachment B
Rail Legisl
This legislative update is provided by Rita Wespi of CARRO. To receive an electronic version with active hyperlinks
send email torwespi@mathmatinee.com. Next update: 7/16/09.
Bill numbers are hyperlinked to their doc set; links in the Description column are of particular interest; votes are linked; times are linked to video.
Links to Budget Subcommittee Hearings and CHSRA Board Meetings are in the Committee Info tables on Page 2.
Passed Assembly: A8 153, AB 282. AB 289, AB 338, AB 733. Passed Senate: S8 391, SB 455. SB 476, SB 555. SB 686. 5B 734. 5B 783.
Noteworthy changes: S8 391, 5B 455. SB 474, SB 555, SB 734, SB 783, AB 282, AB 338, AS m all passed committee.
Hearings postponed for AB 153, AB 289.
Senate Bills
Bill Author Hearing Description StatUS/Update
5B 391 Uu, July 8 Requires Caltrans to address trans. planning policy 4/21 Trans: do pass (7-4)
Lowenthal 9:00 & process; relates to sustainable communities 4/27 Env Qual: do pass (5-2)
strategy. Does not specifically include HSR. CPUC 5/18 Sen Appr: pass @:2)
Analysis 7/2008. Amended 5/4. Appr Anal 5/18. Sen 6/1 Senate: (23-15); Asm 1st read.
Anal 5/20. Asm Trans Anal 6/30. AsmAppr Anal 7/7. 6/29 Asm Trans: !2:2).
7/8 to Asm Appr suspense.
i SB409 Ducheny Creates Dept. of Railroads, transferring all rail 4/14 Trans Com: placed on hold,
functions from Caltrans to new dept; also moves rail waiting for CA Research Bureau's
safety from CPUC to rail dept. . CPUC Report) study due 5/1. Projected 5/15.
Amend 5/21. 6/9 Sen Trans: (10-0J
SB455 Lowenthal July 15 Gov appointed members of CHSRA are subject to 4/21 Sen Trans: do pass (10-1) &
1:30 advice/consent of Senate. Affects acquiring & re-refer to Appr.
insuring property, adds CHSRA to exemptions 4/28 May 4 hearing canceled at
Caltrans benefits from, including property request of author.
acquisition. like Caltrans, they'd be exempt from 5/26 Appr: pass (9-4)
DGS, SPWB and DOF body of law. on 4/16. 6/2 Senate: (32-5); Asm 1st read.
Trans Anal 4/16. Appr Anal 5/26. Sen Anal 5/28. 6/29 Asm Trans: (10-4).
Asm Trans Anal 6/26.
Committee
Assembly
Appropriations
Senate
Appropriations
Assembly
Appropriations
•
5B474 Ducheny July 7 Pilot trans programs: PubliC-Private Partnership, 6/9 & 6/16 & 6/29: Testimony Senate I 1:30 design-build, streamlining CEQA. 6/3. Trans taken; hearing postponed. Appropriations
Anal 6/25. Amend 7/7. 7/7 5en Trans: (2::Ql
SB476 Correa ~ Prohibits taking action against an agency for 4/23 re-referred to Env Qual Com Assembly
postpone noncompliance with CEQA unless complaints were 4/27 Env Qual: do pass (6-0) re-Natural
by com. presented prior to close of public comment period. refer to Appropriations Resources
Amend 4/23 -significantly alters intent. Env Qual 5/11 Senate: (36-0) ; Asm 1st read.
Anal 4/23 by Simitian. Amend 4/30. Sen Anal 5/4.
SB 526 A Requires the operation of at least 1 Amtrak train on 4/28 Sen Trans: pass /10-01 Senate
San Joaquin (Altamont) route that terminates in SF. 5/1 Sen Appr: (13-0) Appropriations
Trans Com Analysis added 4/23. Appr Analysis 5/29. 5/11 placed on Appr suspense file.
5B 555 Kehoe Revises Eminent Domain Law to prohibit person 4/21 Senate Jud Com: (3-2). Assembly
from acquiring conservation easement by eminent 6/2 Senate: (22-14). Judiciary
domain unless specified procedures are followed. 6/30 Assembly Judicial (7-3). Committee
Allows current holder to state objections. Jud Anal
4/20. Amend 5/12. SenAnal 5/20. Amend 5/21. Anal
5/22. Anal 5/26. Amend 6/24 rewritten. Anal 6/29.
SB686 DeSaulnier Adds to the CEQA process. 4/20 Env Qual Com: pass (7-0) Assembly
•
Env. Qual. Com Anal (b~ Simitian! 4/19. Senate Anal 4/27 Senate: (36-0); Asm 1st read. Natural
Consent 4/22. Senate Anal 3rd Read 4/23. Resources
5B 734 Lowenthal July 8 Allocates funds for various projects including grade 4/28 Sen Trans: pass (10-0) Assembly
~;QQ separation, freight, etc. 5/18 Senate: (36-0); Appropriations
Trans Com Anal~sis added 4/23. Sen Analysis 5/12. 6/30 Asm Trans: (13-0) to consent.
Amend 6/22. Asm Trans Anal 6/26. Asm Appr 7/7. 7/8 Asm Appr: (15-0)
SB 783 Ashburn July 15 Establishes additional requirements for CHSRA 4/28 Sen Trans: pass (10-0) Assembly
1:30 business plan. Trans Anal 4/23. Amend on 4/30 5/26 Sen Appr: pass /12-1) Appropriations
removes bond contingency. Appr Anal 5/26. Amend 6/1 Senate: (38-0).
5/28 extends bus plan date by 2 years. Sen Anal 6/29 Asm Trans (12-0).
5/29. Asm Trans Anal 6/19. Amend 6/23. Asm Trans
Anal 6/26. Amend 7/2. Asm Trans Anal 7/7.
Assembly Bills
Bill Author Hearing Description Status/Update Committee
AB 153 Ma Exempts CHSRA from certain contingencies related 3/23 Trans Com: pass (9-3) & to Jud. Senate Trans
to eminent domain, giving them greater autonomy 4/14Jud Com: pass (7-2) & to Appr.
when acquiring rights-of-way. Allows hiring legal 4/29 Appr: do pass (11-5).
staff. Jud Anal 4/13. Trans Anal 3/20. Appr Anal 5/11 Asm: (53-16); Sen 1st read.
4/28. Asm Anal 5/8. Sen Trans Anal 6/18. Hearing
postponed by committee 6/23, 7/2.
I AB 282 AsmTrans July7 Variety oftrans concerns; includes placing $250M 4/20 Trans: pass t!l;:Q) & to consent Senate Trans
Committee J;)..Q into fund for grade separations, allocation is to be 4/29 Appr: pass (16-0) & to cons cal.
made in consultation & coordination with HSRA. 5/11 Asm: ; Sen 1st read.
TransAnaI4/17. AQprAnaI4/28. Amend 6/30. 7/7 Sen Trans: (10-0)
AB289 Galgiani Exempts high-speed grade separation projects 4/15 re-referred to Trans Com Senate Env
from having to meet CEQA. 4/27 Trans: do pass to floor (13-0) Qual.
Amend 4/14. Trans Anal 4/24. Asm Anal 4/27. 5/18 Assembly: (72·3); Sen 1st read.
AB338 Ma July 8 Increases definition of transit village from }II to Yz 4/2 Com on Local Gov: do pass (4-2) Senate local
9._~?Q mile of main entrance of a transit station. Affects & re-referred to Appr Com. Gov.
affordable housing, density, funding ofTODs. 4/22 Appr Com: do pass (11-5)
Authorizes city or county to make infrastructure 4/27 Second reading.
improvements without voter approval. Requires 5/11 Third read, amend, resubmit.
local govs to use at least 20% of tax increment of 6/1 Asm Floor: pass (48-31)
certain bond funds for affordable housing. local 6/2 Senate first read.
Gov Anal 3/31. ApQr Analysis 4/21. Asm Analysis 7/8 Sen Local Gov: pass (3-2)
4/29. Amend 5/11. Asm Anal 5/13. ~ 6/25.
Sen LocGov Anal 7/2.
AB 733 Galgiani July 7 Authorizes CHSRA to allow job creations as a factor 4/20 Trans: pass (13-0) & to Appr. Senate Trans
I 1:30 when awarding contracts. Trans Com Analysis 4/29 Appr: pass (16-0).
4/17. Appr Com Analysis 4/28. Asm Analysis 5/8. 5/13 Assembly (73-0); Sen 1st read.
7/7 Sen Trans: pass (9-1)
AB928 Blakeslee Requires CHSRA to develop an earthquake early 4/30 to Rules for assignment Assembly
warning system. Amend 4/27.
AB 1375 Galgiani Repeal and reenact CHST Act in Public Utilities 4/27 Trans: do pass (9-4) & refer to Asm
Code. Creates new Dept. of Rail. Similar to SB 409. Appr. Com. Appropriations
Trans Com Analysis 4/24.
Select Committee Info:
Senate (no. members) Hearings Chair Vice Chair Hearings of interest (non-bill items)
Approgriations (13) Mon 11:00 Kehoe Cox i
BUQget& Fiscal Review (40) Thurs 8:00 Ducheny Dutton
Budget Sub N02 Resources, Thurs 9:30 Simitian . April 30: CHSRA -agenda; mp3 audio (CHSRA 01:40:00); outcomes. I
Env, Eners'l. Trans (3) May 14: CHSRA -agenda; m!)3 audio. i
Environmental Q,ualit'l (7) 1/3 Mon 1:30 Simitian Runner
Judiciarv (5) Tues 1:00 Corbett Harman
Rules (5) Wed 1:30 Steinberg Aanestad
Transportation & Housing (11) Tues 1:30 Lowenthal . Huff March 17: CHSRA -agenda; video.
Assembly:
A[;!!)ro[;!riations (17) Wed 9:00 De Leon Nielsen
Budget (27) Wed, on call Evans Niello
Budget NoS Tech, Trans (5) Wed 4:00 Blumenfield April 29: CHSRA -agenda.doc
Judiciary (10) Tues 9:00 Feuer Tran
Natural. Resources Skinner Gilmore
~(11) Mon, on call Lieu Blakeslee
TransQortation (14) Mon 1:30 Eng Jeffries
Joint Legislative Audit (13) Monthly Huber Ashburn May 27: Video (01:14:00) audit CHSRA after Fed Stirn Appl. (10-0)
CHSRA Board Meetings Monthly Kopp Florez May 4: audio; board [;!acket (select "2009 Meetings").
June 4:.ill!Q!Q; video; board (;!acket. July 2: audio; board packet.
This legislative update is provided by Rita Wespi of CARRO Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design.
To receive an electronic version with active hyperlinks send email to[wespi@mathmatinee.com. Next update: 7/16/09.
Attachment C
CALIFORNIA
HIGH-SPEED TRAIN
DRAFT Seeping R~pert
for the
San Jose to San Francisco
High-Speed Train
Project-Level EIRjEIS
June 2009
._ .. ,.....LIFORNIA
California High-Speed Rail Authority
u.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
DRAFT Scoping Report
for the
San Jose to San Francisco
High-Speed Train
Project-Level EIRjEIS
June 2009
Prepared for:
California High-Speed Rail Authority
and
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
Prepared by:
HNTB Corporation
1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
Oakland, CA 94612
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIRjEIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft Scoping Report
SUMMARy .......................................................................................................................... 5-1
Major Issues ........................................................................................................................... 5-4
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. , ............................ 1
1.1 Descriptions of the Project .................................................................................. 1
1.2 San Jose to San Francisco Section Alternatives ...................................................... 1
1.3 Process of Scoping ............................................................................................. 2
1.4 Notification of EIS/EIR Scoping ............................................................................ 3
1.5 Scoping Activities ............................................................................................... 3
2.0 PUBUe AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT DURING SeOPING PERIOD ................................. 6
2.1 Summary of Scoping Activities ............................................................................. 6
2.2 Summary of Noticed Scoping Meetings ................................................................. 6
2.3 Briefings to Interested Parties .............................................................................. 7
2.4 Summary of Other Public Involvement Activities .................................................... 7
3.0 SeOPING SUMMARY OF ISSUES ................................................................................... 9
3.1 Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments ..................................................... 9
Topic 1 Protection of the Environment ............................................................... 9
Topic 2 Alignment and Station Alternatives ........................................................ 10
Topic 3 Connectivity and Coordination with Other Transportation Facilities ........... 10
TopiC 4 Alternative Technologies ...................................................................... 10
Topic 5 Project Funding/Cost. ........................................................................... 10
Topic 6 Land Use and Property Acquisition ........................................................ 10
Topic 7 Public Outreach ................................................................................... 10
Topic 8 Support for the Project. ........................................................................ l0
Topic 9 Opposition to the Project ...................................................................... l0
Topic 10 Project Description .............................................................................. 10
3.2 Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments from Public Agencies ..................... 11
3.3 Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments from Organizations ....................... .48
3.4 Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments from Individuals ............................ 61
3.5 Summary of Verbal Public Scoping Comments ...................................................... 71
4.0 NEXT STEPS IN THE EIR/EIS PROCESS ..................................................................... 74
5.0 PRE PARERS ....................................................... : ....................................................... 75
Page i
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A: Scoping Meeting Dates, Times and Locations ........................................................... 4
Table 1B: Scoping Meeting Attendees .................................................................................... 4
Table 2A: Project Information Meeting Dates, Times and Locations .......................................... 8
Table 2B: Project Information Meeting Attendees .................................................................... 8
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies) ................................... 12
Table 3.1.2: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Organizations) ............................ 49
Table 3.1.3: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Individuals) ................................ 62
Table 3.2: Summary of Verbal Public Scoping Comments ........................................................ 72
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1A: Study Area (Northern Segment) ........................................................................ S-2
Figure 1B: Study Area (Southern Segment) ........................................................................ S-3
ApPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX]
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPEI\IDIX 1"1
APPENDIX N
APPENDIX 0
APPENDIX P
APPENDIX Q
APPEI\lDIX R
APPENDIX S
APPENDIXT
Notice of Preparation (CEQA)
Notice of Intent (NEPA)
Scoping Meeting Announcement
Scoping Distribution Lists
Newspaper Notices and Media Advisory
Scoping Meeting Attendance Lists
Scoping Meeting Handout Materials and Presentation
Scoping Comment Recognition Terms (H-1), Source Index (H-2), Content
Index (H-3), EIRjEIS Section Code Index (H-4)
Written Public Scoping Comments
Written Agency Scoping Comments
Written Organization Scoping Comments
Record of Verbal Comments
Scoping Meeting Photos
Scoping Meeting Display Boards
Project Information Meeting Announcements
Project Information Meeting Distribution Lists
Project Information Meeting Attendance Lists
Project Information Meeting Handout l"1aterials and Presentation
Project Information Meeting Media Advisory
Project Information Meeting Photos
Page ii
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS
SUMMARY
Draft Scoping Report
In August 2005, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) completed a Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIR/EIS) as the first-phase of a tiered environmental review process for the proposed
California High-Speed Train (HST) system. The Authority and the FRA completed a second
program EIRjEIS in July 2008 to identify a preferred alignment for the Bay Area to Central Valley
section of the HST system. As part of the HST Alternative selected for further analYSiS, the
Authority and FRA defined a corridor between San Francisco and San Jose along the San
Francisco Peninsula connecting to a corridor through the Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller road,
between San Jose and the Central Valley. The San Francisco to San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS
will describe Site-speCific alignment alternatives and station locations along the Caltrain right-of-
way for the section between San Francisco and San Jose (see Figures lA and lB).
The Authority encourages broad participation during EIR/EIS scoping and review of the draft
environmental documents. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested agencies
and the public to insure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed,
including all reasonable alternatives. In particular, the Authority is interested in determining
where there are areas of environmental sensitivity and where there could be a potential for
significant impacts from the HST project.
Pre-scoping public outreach activities were initiated in December 2008, including the
development of project information materials, establishment of a project information telephone
line, early engagement with interested parties, and media communications. On December 22,
2008, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) announcing the preparation of the EIR was distributed to the
State Clearinghouse; elected officials (federal, regional, local), and federal, state, and local
agencies, including and planning and community development directors (in San Francisco, San
Mateo and Santa Clara counties). A Notice of Intent (NOl) announcing the preparation of the EIS
was published in the Federal Register on December 29,2008. A revised NOP was transmitted to
the State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (Sate Clearinghouse and
Planning Unit) on January 8, 2009 to clarify that the end of the comment period was March 6,
2009.
On February 17, 2009 the Authority extended the comment period to April 6, 2009 (an additional
30 days), based on a request from the City of Palo Alto, CA.
In response to the NOP/NOl, public agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of the proposed
project or resources that could be affected by the project were requested to advise the Authority
and the FRA of the applicable permit and environmental review requirements of each agency,
and the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agency's
statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public scoping meetings were
scheduled as an important component of the scoping process for both the State and federal
environmental review.
During the scoping period, three public scoping meetings were held between January 22 and
January 29, 2009, with a total of 382 people attending the three meetings. In addition, a
number of briefings and project information meetings were held. As a result, the Authority and
FRA received a total of 955 communications in the form of comment letters, comment cards,
emails, and oral testimony at the meetings. Collectively, these communications represent
thousands of individual comments, suggestions, and ideas about the proposed project and the
environmental document. Major issues identified as a result of scoping are listed below.
S-l
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS
Prefe/"l'OO HST Station
Potential HST Station
0' Caltrain station
Proposed High Speed Train '!II'''''''' San Francisco to San Jose
o U 31 1...1 --,ti"'!ill:::es;:-----J1 N
Draft Seoping Report
FIGURE1A
California High Speed Train
San Fll1Incisao to Sail Jose HST Project -Northern Segment
FIGURE lA: STUDY AREA -NORTHERN SEGMENT
5-2
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIRjEIS
• Preferred HST Station o Potential HST Station
o Caltra.ln Station
Proposed High Speed Rail "'''·llf,'''·'· San francis{;o to San Jose
Draft Scoping Report
;~.: .. w,;:_ . .".\:.
FIGURE 1B
California High Speed Train
Soo Frarniisco to San Jose HST project-Soufhern SelJ!lllmf
FIGURE 1B: STUDY AREA -SoUTHERN SEGMENT
5-3
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS
MAJOR ISSUES
Topic 1: Protection of the Environment
Draft Scoping Report
Major Issues Raised: Comprehensively evaluate the effects of HST construction and operation on
all aspects of the physical and socioeconomic environment, with particular emphasis on land
acquisition, displacement, and property values; community character and quality of life, noise
and vibration, air quality and climate change, safety and security, biological resources, historical
and cultural resources, and transportation.
Topic 2: Alignment and Station Alternatives
Major Issues Raised: Consider a full range of alternatives, including alternatives that do not
follow the proposed caltrain right-of-way; vertical alignments, including tunnel, trench, at-grade,
and aerial configurations with an emphasis on investigating underground alignments through
residential areas; and station locations and design.
TopiC 3: Connectivity and Coordination with Other Transportation Facilities
Major Issues Raised: Design the HST system to integrate with the existing airports and transit
systems, particularly the proposed electrification of the Caltrain service, station improvements,
and grade separations; coordinate installation of HST service with existing freight operations
within the same right-of-way; coordinate station planning with local communities and sensitivity
to existing transit stations, including the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center, the Millbrae
BARTjCaltrain intermodal station, and the San Jose Diridon Station.
Topic 4: Alternative Technologies
Major Issues Raised: Consider halting the HST in San Jose and having passengers transfer to the
existing Caltrain express trains, which are proposed to be electrified, or rely on other existing
transit systems, including buses and BART.
Topic 5: Project Funding/Cost
Major Issues Raised: Present the full costs of constructing and operating the project, including
the burden on taxpayers or local municipalities; describe the costs related to social impacts,
reduced property values, and land acquisition; if alignment is underground, consider opportunity
to sell air rights above the right-of-way.
Topic 6: Land Use and Property Acquisition
Major Issues Raised: Report the extent of land acquisition and the Authority's policy on use of
eminent domain; describe how property owners would be compensated; estimate the fiscal
effects from loss of property tax revenues; present the antiCipated reduction in property values.
Topic 7: Public Outreach
Major Issues Raised: Improve the method, quality, and frequency of communications with the
public; seek and allow for public input on the EIR/EIS process and the development of
alternatives; promote and Implement a transparent decision-making process with ample public
involvement.
TopicS: Support for the Project
Major Issues Raised: Some individuals considered construction of a HST system long overdue;
some agencies and organizations supported the general concept of HSTs; some organizations and
indiViduals supported specific aspects of the project, including undergrounding of tracks in
residential neighborhoods or through historiC downtown areas.
•........... '.""= ... "'« '<'_'oL.
'ALlFCFfNIA . ---....... -~
S-4
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS
Topic 9: Opposition to the Project
Draft Scoping Report
Major Issues Raised: Some organizations and individuals opposed the general concept of HSTs;
some organizations and individuals opposed the HST alignment along the Peninsula; some
organizations and individuals opposed the HST on the basis that the cost would outweigh the
benefits.
Topic 10: Project Description
Major Issues Raised: Accommodate bicycles and freight on the HST; investigate and coordinate
construction phasing, especially with right-of-way being used for passenger and freight service;
explore opportunities to operate two tracks in the right-of-way, rather than the four tracks
proposed; discuss Union Pacific Railroad's position on use of the right-of-way; fix errors in maps
and text; use understandable terminology.
S-5
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIRjEIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Scoping Report
This report provides an overview of the written and formally documented verbal comments (in
the form of transcriptions) received during the scoping process for the Project Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the section of the California High-
Speed Train (HST) system between San Francisco and San Jose. The purpose of this report is to
summarize agency and public comments, issues, and concerns identified during the scoping
process. The report will be used to help the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to determine the appropriate scope for the EIR/EIS.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Program EIR/EIS defined a corridor between San Francisco and San Jose along the San
Francisco Peninsula, and through the Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller road, between San Jose and
the Central Valley. The San Jose to San Francisco HST Project EIR/EIS will describe
environmental impacts associated with alternative alignments and preferred/potential stations
within this corridor as part of the next phase of the environmental review process.
This and other project EIR/EISs will address sections of the statewide HST system, describe site-
specific environmental impactsl identify specific mitigation measures to address those impacts,
and incorporate design practices to avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts.
1.2 SAN lOSE TO SAN FRANCISCO SECTION ALTERNATIVES
As described in the NOI/NOP, the San Jose to San Francisco HST Project EIR/EIS will consider a
No Action or No Project Alternative and a HST Alternative for the San Jose to San Francisco
corridor. These alternatives are briefly described below.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative (No Project or No Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it
existed in 2007, and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to the
intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable projects through 20351 taking
into account the following sources of information: State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport plans, intercity
passenger rail plans, city and county plans.
HST Alternatives
The Authority proposes to construct, operate and maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-
steel-rail HST system, about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 miles per hour
(mph) on mostly dedicated, fully graded-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling,
and automated train control systems. The San Jose to San Francisco HST corridor selected by
the Authority and FRA follows the Caltrain right-of-way from San Jose to San Francisco. The
HST would operate in this area at speeds no greater than 125 mph and would share tracks with
Caltrain express commuter trains. Further engineering studies to be undertaken as part of this
EIR/EIS process will examine and refine alignments in the Caltrain right-of-way. The entire
alignment would be grade separated.
The preferred station in the City of San Francisco is the Transbay Transit Center; in the City of
Millbrae, the existing Millbrae BART/caltrain Station; and in the City of San Jose, the Intermodal
Diridon Station. These locations were selected by the Authority and FRA through the Bay Area
to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS considering the project purpose and need, and the
program objectives. Potential station locations in the City of Redwood City at the existing
Page 1
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
Caltrain Station near downtown or in the City of Palo Alto at the existing Caltrain Station near
downtown will also be evaluated in this project EIR/EIS. Alternative station sites at or near the
selected station locations may be identified and evaluated in this Project EIR/EIS.
In addition to alignment and station options, the EIR/EIS will evaluate different techniques for
accomplishing the roadway grade separations needed to ensure public safety. These techniques
include (1) depressing the street to pass under the rail line; (2) elevating the street to pass over
the rail line; and (3) leaving the street' as-is and constructing rail line improvements to pass over
or under the local street. In addition, alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance, train
storage facilities and a train service and inspection facility will be evaluated in the San Jose to
San Francisco HST project area.
1.3 PROCESS OF SCOPING
"Scoping" is one of the first steps in the environmental review process that assists with
determining the focus and content of an EIR/EIS. Seoping is also intended to inform and
educate the public and public agencies about the project, the potential range of actions,
. alternatives, environmental effects, the overall schedule for the environmental review process,
mitigation measures to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS, and is a means of providing input to the
Authority and the FRA.
Scoping also provides opportunities for the public, affected agencies, and other interested parties
to express their concerns about the project. Scoping is not conducted to resolve differences
concerning the merits of a project or to anticipate the ultimate decision on a proposal. The
intent of the scoping process is to involve the agencies and the public in defining the major
issues to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS.
The objectives of the San Jose to San Francisco HST Project EIR/EIS scoping process include:
• Informing the agencies and interested members of the public about the proposed San Jose
to San Francisco HST project, including NEPA and CEQA requirements.
• Identifying concerns and issues regarding environmental topiCS.
• Identifying concerns and issues regarding alignments and preferred/potential station
locations in the San Jose to San Francisco corridor to be analyzed in the Project EIR/EIS.
• Identifying mitigation measures or approaches to avoid or minimize impacts; these measures
and approaches may be examined further in the Project EIR/EIS.
• Informing and engaging public, agency and other interested parties in communities along
the San Jose to San Francisco corridor.
• Developing a mailing list to provide interested parties an opportunity to review the Project
EIR/EIS.
Details related to the scoping process and
the input gathered during the scoping
period are documented in this report.
Scoping is a specific activity within the
Project EIR/EIS process, but public
involvement activities continue
throughout the entire Project EIR/EIS
process. These activities encourage
ongoing input and the recognition of
public and agency issues and concerns
related to the Project EIR/EIS throughout
the environmental analysis process.
Page 2
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
During the scoping process, agencies and interested members of the public presented questions
and identified concerns related to the San Jose to San Francisco HST project section. Comments
provided during the scoping process will assist the Authority and FRA in their review and
evaluation of alternatives.
1.4 NOTIFICATION OF EIS/EIR SCOPING
In December 2008, the Authority issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the Federal Railroad
Administration issued a Notice of Intent (NO!) for a Project EIR/EIS for the San Jose to San
Francisco section of the HST system (the NOP is included in Appendix A and the NOP in
Appendix B). Recipients included the State Clearinghouse, elected officials, agencies and
planning/community development directors (along the project corridor and in Sacramento).
Publication of the NOP/NO! initiated the state environmental review process under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the federal environmental review process under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), respectively. The NOP and NO! described the purpose
and need of the project, the project limits, alternatives for consideration, noted the importance
of agency input, highlighted potential environmental impacts, and identified a key contact person
for additional information regarding the project, as well as the dates and locations of the scoping
meetings. The documents also indicated the end of the public comment period for the San Jose
to San Francisco HST EIR/EIS as March 6, 2009. On February 2009, the City of Palo Alto
requested an extension of the comment period. Based on this request, extensive community
interest in the project and the interest also expressed by other Peninsula cities, the Authority
extended the comment period an additional 30 days, making the new close of comment period
April 6, 2009.
1.5 SCOPING ACTIVITIES
The scoping meetings for the San Francisco and San Jose HST Project EIR/EIS were conducted
in January 2009. There were three noticed agency and public scoping meetings held in the San
Jose to San Francisco project corridor (Table lA, page 4). The seoping meetings drew over 382
partiCipants (Table lB, page 4). The geographical extent and complexity of the proposed HST
project led to scoping meetings being held in each of the three counties comprising the project
corridor-San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. At each meeting location, two sessions
were held, the first from 3:00 to 5:00 pm and the second from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. Each session
included an open house followed by a presentation.
Materials provided during the scoping meetings included exhibits and handouts distributed at the
meetings and specific documents (noted below) distributed through the Authority's website
(www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov). A full list of scoping related documents are included in the
report's Appendices A through T (see the list on Page ii).
These materials included the following:
• Scoping Meeting Handout Materials: agenda/meeting guide, fact sheet, comment sheets -
posted to Authority website (Appendix G)
• Power point Presentation -posted on Authority website (Appendix G)
• Scoping Meeting Announcement -posted to Authority website (Appendix C)
• Program EIR/EIS for the proposed high-speed train project (Volumes 1, Volume II Response
to comments, Volume III Appendices, 3.4 Noise and Vibration and 3.9 AestheticS and Visual
Resources Vibration (website)
• 14 Display Boards (Appendix N)
• Media AdviSOry -posted to Authority website (Appendix E)
Page 3
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 1A: Scoping Meeting Dates, Locations and Times
Date City Location! Address Meeting Times
SamTrans Auditorium
1/22/2009 San Carlos 1250 San Carlos Avenue 3:00-8:00 p.m.
San Carlos, CA
San Francisco State University
1/27/2009 San Francisco 835 Market Street, 6th Floor, 3:00-8:00 p.m. Rooms 637 & 674
San Francisco CA
Santa Clara Convention Center
1/29/2009 Santa Clara 5001 Great America Parkway, Great 3:00-8:00 p.m.
I
America Meeting Rooms 1&2
Santa Clara
Table 1B: Scoping Meeting Attendees -San Francisco to San Jose Section
Meeting )
Location Federal State Local Organization Individual Total
County
San 0 1 6 18 40 65 Francisco
San Mateo 2 1 64 23 76 166
Santa Clara 0 3 23 23 102 151
Total 2 5 93 64 218 382
As attendees registered at the meetings, they were provided with an information package which
included an agenda/meeting guide, fact sheet and comment sheet. Registration table staff
provided directions on the meeting format to orient attendees, and asked that they remember to
document comments on the forms provided. A court reporter was also available at each meeting
to offiCially document verbal testimony provided by interested attendees (Appendix L).
The meetings began with a one-hour open house session, where Authority, staff and consultants
were available to respond to questions and discuss informational materials being distributed or
shown on display boards around the room. The displays covered pertinent topics such as
environmental issues, engineering plan drawings, system maps, aerial maps of project corridor
cities, and how to comment during scoping. Following the open house portion of the meeting,
power point presentations (two, 3D-minute presentations at each meeting) were provided to
attendees. The Authority staff and Regional Team representatives welcomed attendees,
presented an overview of the project, and responded to questions posed by meeting participants.
Written and officially documented verbal comments (transcribed by a court reporter) are
included and summarized in this report (see Section 3.4). Written comments which were
provided by mail and e-mail are also included. A total of 955 communications in the form of
comment letters, comment cards, emails, and oral testimony were received during the scoping
comment period. This included:
Page 4
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIRjEIS Draft Seoping Report
• 58 commenter's provided written comments during the three scoping meetings,
• 194 comment letters were mailed or faxed,
• 665 com menter's provided written comments in e-mails,
• 17 speakers provided oral testimony to a court reporter present at the meetings, and
• 21 commenter's provided comments at project information meetings held in Millbrae, Palo
Alto and Redwood City.
Copies of the comment cards, letters, verbal comments and e-mails are provided in Appendix
I (public comments), Appendix J (agency comments), Appendix K (organization comments)
and Appendix L (verbal comments).
Page 5
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
2.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT DURING SCOPING PERIOD
2.1 SUMMARY OF SCOPING ACTIVITIES
Notice of scoping meetings was mailed to a comprehensive list of various federal{ State and local
agencies/ elected officials/ community members{ businesses/ environmental
leaders/organizations and other interested parties between January and March 2009. There
were three noticed agency and public scoping meetings/ held in San Francisco/ San Mateo and
Santa Clara counties. Scoping activities included public outreach measures (i.e./ project
information line/ dedicated geographically specific website information)/ the identification of key
concerns/ development of key messages to address issues/ media outreach activities/ and
proactive information sharing efforts as described below:
• 16,459 public meeting notices were sent to property owners adjacent to the caltrain ROW
and to property owners within a SOO-foot radius of the proposed stations.
• 809 informational mailings (including NOP packages) about the seoping meetings were
distributed to local, state and federal elected offiCials, planning directorst community
development directorst business leaders; community reSidents, community-based
organizations{ environmental groups, labor organizations/ transportation advocacy groups,
home owners associations/ and other interested parties.
• the email-only version of the public meeting notice was sent to 89 indiViduals, based on
past meeting attendance and other requests for information.
• Display and legal ads were placed in 12 major market/daily, community and ethnic papers
within the project corridor publicizing the upcoming scoping meetings. These papers
included the San Francisco Chronicle (display/legal ads), San Francisco Bayview, Sing Tao
DailYl San Mateo County Times (display/legal ads)t San Jose Mercury News (display/legal
ads){ Palo Alto Daily News/ Redwood City Newst San Mateo Daily Newsl Burlingame Newst
Rose Garden ReSident, Sunnyvale Sun, and EI Observador.
• Media advisories were distributed to 79 local televisiont radio and newspapers regarding
the planned seoping meetings.
• Press kits were prepared for and distributed to media representatives attending each
seoping meeting (which included meeting materialst project fact sheets, and media
advisory).
• Planning Directors/Community Development Directors were asked to place additional
copies of the notice in a high-traffic public locations to inform citizens about upcoming
scoping meetings.
• Information was also provided on the Authority's website at: www.cahighspeedrail.gov.
2.2 SUMMARY OF NOTICED SCOPING MEETINGS
As shown in Table 1A (page 4), the three scoping meetings were designed to provide the public
and public agencies with the opportunity to receive project informationt provide access to key
project staff to facilitate interactive dialoguet and respond to inquiries.
A number of overall themes related to HST were raised at the public scoping meetings. The
themes qre reflected in the topiCS listed in Section 3.0 of this report and/ although emphasis on
each topic varied{ the topics generally were conSistent from meeting to meeting/ with the
exception of geographic-specific details related to individual communities (neighborhoodst
intersectionst buildings/ physical features). Key EIRjEIS themes addressed at the scoping
meetings ranged from analyzing potential environmental effects of a project to examining project
alternatives that could mitigate those effects. Analysis of alternatives to the proposed project
was prominently requested including improvements to Caltrain, busest and BART as an
Page 6
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Seoping Report
alternative to HST; consideration of all alignment alternatives at an equal level of detail,
including alternative routes not through San Francisco Peninsula (Altamont Pass, 1-280, 1-101
etc.) and tunnel, trench, at-grade, elevated, and combination configurations; and underground
configurations through a majority of the Peninsula, particularly reSidential areas. Property
acquisition, reduction in property values, eminent domain, takings, community impacts from
elevated structures including the introduction of physical barriers, the division of communities,
and the loss of quality of life were the next most common themes. Concerns for all potential
impacts to the environment formed the third overall theme of environmental protection.
2.3 BRIEFINGS TO INTERESTED PARTIES
Briefings with city offiCials, community based organizations, business groups, local agencies,
labor organizations and enVironmental groups were conducted prior to the initiation of scoping
activities.
This setting provided early opportunities to provide information about the project, to meet with
project managers and team staff, to share concerns and to be better prepared to partiCipate in
the environmental review process.
Below is a list of briefings that occurred during the pre-scoping phase of the project:
12/17/2008
12/18/2008
1/7/2009
1/9/2009
1/12/2009
1/12/2009
1/13/2009
1/13/2009
1/13/2009
1/14/2009
1/14/2009
1/14/2009
1/16/2009
1/16/2009
Belmont/San Carlos/Redwood City and County of San Mateo (combined
meeting)
City of San Jose
Menlo Park/Atherton (combined meeting)
South San Francisco, San Bruno, Brisbane (combined meeting)
City of Santa Clara
Delmas Park Neighborhood Action Committee (San Jose)
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
San Mateo Building Trades Council, SAMCEDA(combined meeting)
San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Building Trades Council (combined
meeting)
Southeast Community Facility Commission, Bayview Hunters Point Land Use and
Transportation Committee -Project Area Committee (combined meeting)
City of Sunnyvale
San Jose Chamber, San Jose Downtown ASSOCiation, San Jose Convention and
Visitors Bureau (combined meeting)
City of Palo Alto
2.4 SUMMARY OF OTHER PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
Project Information Meetings
In addition to the three county-specific scoping meetings held in January 2009, there were three
project information meetings held in the preferred and potential station cities of Millbrae,
Redwood City and Palo Alto between February and March 2009. These meetings provided
additional outreach, and opportunities to discuss concerns and focus on the three
cities/communities identified for preferred and potential stations (dates, times and locations of
meetings is shown in Table 2A).
Page 7
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS . Draft Scoping Report
a e : rOje norma Ion ee mgs T bl 2A P . ct I f t' M t" D ates L t' oca Jonsan Jmes
Oate Location! Address Meeting Time
2/25/2009
Chetcuti Community Room
450 Poplar Avenue 7:00 9:00 pm
Millbrae, CA
2/26/2009 IlIIitchell Park Community Center (Main Hall) 7:00 -9:00 p.m. 3800 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, CA
Veteran's Memorial Senior Center (Redwood
3/4/2009 Room) 7:00 -9:00 p.m.
1455 IlIIadison Avenue
Redwood City, CA
These meetings were noticed (Appendix 0) and targeted Bay Area media received an advisory
(Appendix S). This section describes key issues and concerns raised during the San Jose to San
Francisco High-Speed Train (HST) project level Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) project information meetings conducted in winter 2009. There were
various concerns brought forth during these meetings related to the environmental process/ such
as alternatives, ridership, air quality, biological resources and wetlands, growth/ and cumulative
impacts. Appendix H-2/ the Scoping Comment Source Index notes which agencies/ organizations
and individuals provided comments at scoping and project information meetings. Appendix H
(H-3), Summary of Scoping Comments by Recognition Term (Content Index), lists the ten
general topics/ identifies the speCific issues raised by commenters (the recognition terms)/ and
provides an index of which communication contained comments on each issue.
Table 2B (below) notes the attendance at the Millbrae/ Palo Alto and Millbrae meetings. Detailed
attendance information for all three meetings can be found in Appendix Q.
Table 2B: Project Information Meetings I Attendees
Millbrae Palo Alto Redwood Total
•
2/26 2/27 City
3/4
Federal Elected 0 0 0 0
Agency 0 0 0 0
state Elected 0 1 0 1
Agency 0 2 0 2
Regionall Elected 2 3 4 9
Local Agency 5 0 8 13
. Organization 6 21 7 35
Individual 16 195 80 291
Total 29 223 99 351
Page 8
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Draft
3.0 SeOPING SUMMARY OF ISSUES
3.1 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS
l'line hundred fifty five letters, written comments cards, faxes, emails, and oral testimonies were
received during the scoping period. Following a review of the individual comments, suggestions,
ideas, and recommendations contained in these different communications, they were organized
into ten general topics, or subject areas, in order to summarize the issues and concerns raised
during the scoping period. These general topics include:
• Protection of the Environment -encompassing comments concerned with. facets of the
physical and socioeconomic environments
• Alignment and Station Alternatives -encompassing comments that suggest variations to
the HST route, vertical profile, or station locations
• Connectivity and Coordination with Other Transportation Facilities encompassing
comments that address connections to transit systems, airports, and existing or proposed
intermodal facilities
• Alternative Technologies -encompassing comments that suggest conSideration of
methods of providing high speed, intercity travel service
• Project Funding/Cost -encompassing comments that concern the project costs and the
means to pay for the capital and operating costs of the system
• Land Use and Property Acquisition -encompassing comments that address land
valuations, land acquisition, and compensation to property owners whose land may be
acquired or whose residence or business may be relocated
• Public Outreach -encompassing comments primarily on the need for adequate
notification and maintaining a high level of public involvement
• Support for the Project -encompassing comments that generally favor the proposed HST
project
• Opposition to the Project encompassiing comments that generally are unfavorable to
the proposed HST project
• Project Description -encompassing comments concerning the planning, deSign, and
operations of the proposed HST project
In order to better capture the gist of the comments received, most of these broad topics were
further refined into subtopics. For example, comments that were classified as "Protection of the
Environmentll were further delineated into comments on aesthetics, air pollution, cultural
resources, wetlands, community character, hazards, etc. A summary of the major issues from
each general topic is provided below.
Topic 1: Protection ofthe Environment
Major Issues Raised: Evaluate the effects of construction and operation of the HSTs
comprehensively on all aspects of the physical and socioeconomic enVironment, with particular
emphasis on land acquisition, displacement, and property values; community character and
quality of life, noise and vibration, air quality and climate change, safety and security, biological
resources, historical and cultural resources, and transportation.
Topic 2: Alignment and Station Alternatives
Major Issues Raised: Consider a full range of alternatives, including alternatives that do not
follow the proposed caltrain right-of-way; vertical alignments, including tunnel, trench, at-grade,
and aerial configurations with an emphasis on investigating underground alignments through
residential areas; and station locations and design.
Page 9
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Draft <";,..r.'C'I;nn
Topic 3: Connectivity and Coordination with Other Transportation Facilities
Major Issues Raised: Design the HST system to integrate with the existing airports and transit
systems, particularly the proposed electrification of the Caltrain service, station improvements,
and grade separations; coordinate installation of HST service with existing freight operations
within the same right-of-way; coordinate station planning with local communities and sensitivity
to existing transit stations, including the San Francisco Transbay Transit Center, the Millbrae
BART/Caltrain intermodal station, and the San Jose Diridon Station.
Topic 4: Alternative Technologies
Major Issues Raised: Consider halting the HST in San Jose and having passengers transfer to the
existing Caltrain express trains, which are proposed to be electrified, or rely on other existing
transit systems, including buses and BART.
Topic 5: Project Funding/Cost
Major IsSues Raised: Present the full costs of constructing and operating the project, including
the burden on taxpayers or local municipalities; describe the costs related to SOCial impacts,
reduced property values, and land acquisition; if alignment is underground, consider opportunity
to sell air rights above the right-of-way.
TOpic 6: Land Use and Property Acquisition
Major Issues Raised: Report the extent of land acquisition and the Authority's policy on use of
eminent domain; describe how property owners would be compensated; estimate the fiscal
effects from loss of property tax revenues; present the anticipated reduction in property values.
Topic 7: Public Outreach
Major Issues Raised: Improve the method, quality, and frequency of communications with the
public; seek and allow for public input on the EIR/EIS process and the development of
alternatives; promote and implement a transparent decision-making process with ample public
involvement.
Topic 8: Support for the Project
Major Issues Raised: Some individuals considered construction of a HST system long overdue;
some agencies and organizations supported the general concept of HSTs; some organizations
and individuals supported specific aspects of the project, including undergrounding of tracks in
residential neighborhoods or through historic downtown areas.
Topic 9: Opposition to the Project
Major Issues Raised: Some organizations and individuals opposed the general concept of HSTs;
some organizations and individuals opposed the HST alignment along the Peninsula; some
organizations and individuals opposed the HST on the basis that the cost would outweigh the
benefits.
Topic 10: Project Description
Major Issues Raised: Accommodate bicycles and freight on the HST; investigate and coordinate
construction phaSing, especially with right-of-way being used for passenger and freight service;
explore opportunities to operate two tracks in the right-of-way, rather than the four tracks
proposed; discuss Union Pacific Railroad's position on use of the right-of-way; fix errors in maps
and text; use understandable terminology.
In addition to highlighting the content of the comments (as described by the ten general topics
above), it is useful to understand if there are different concerns or issues that are specific to a
particular entity; that is, public agencies, organizations, or individuals. Accordingly, the following
sections summarize scoping comments based on the source of the comments.
Page 10
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIRjEIS Draft Seoping Report
3.2 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES
Written scoping comments were received from federal! state! and local governmental agencies.
Table 3.1.1 identifies the 43 letters! emails! and other forms of written correspondence received
from public agencies! summarizes their comment! and indicates in which section of the EIRjEIS
those comments would likely be addressed. The communication received from each agency is
reproduced in Appendix J.
Page 11
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Seoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
~:0:.:ii"""""
t..IFORNIA ,. ~._~ __ -ili~'
Charleston.
• 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan evaluate impacts on plans proposals for
circulation at the Caltrain tracks.
• Aesthetics -address:
Impacts to aesthetics resulting from the expanded ROWand any necessary berms,
sound walls, or fencing.
Appearance of overhead electrical power supply (wires, poles, insulations).
Removal or trimming of protected trees and vegetation, consistent with the City's
Tree Technical Manual Tree Value Replacement Standard.
• Grade separation and Expanded ROW -address impacts to aesthetiCS, biological
• Traffic & circulation -evaluate traffic impacts to streets around and leading to PA
School and other schools that would be affected during HSR construction.
• Traffic & circulation -evaluate impacts of any proposed closures of existing at-grade
crOSSings.
• Traffic & circulation -evaluate impacts to existing bike path that runs through Caltrain
ROW east of PAHS
• Traffic & Circulation -identify costs of transportation mode shift related to changes to
the school commute corridors network.
• Traffic & circulation -address temporary school busing, as necessary, during
construction.
• and operation including changes
• Hazards -evaluate the following safety impacts and scenarios:
derailment for elevated or at-grade tracks
,.
pedestrians crOSSing ROW
explosion or release (both accidental and terroristic) of hazardous materials from
train crashes in the following situations
• elevated
• at-grade
conflicts between passenger and freight trains
construction
EMF.
resources and to Native American
3.3 -Noise and Vibration
3.6 -Biological Resources and
Wetlands
3.15 AesthetiCS and Visual Quality
3.1 Transportation
3.18 -Construction Impacts
3.2 -Air Quality
2.0 -Alternatives
3.1-Transportation
3.9 -Hazardous Wastes and
Materials
3.10 -Safety and Security
3.18 -Construction Impacts
3.16 -Cultural Resources
Page 40
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and
City Council
April 1, 2009
~~~-.
.,..... '. UFORNtA
~--"""~~'
• Recreation and open space -evaluate impacts to City parks and recreation facilities.
• Property values -identify impacts to property values due to increase noise and
vibration, train frequency, and aesthetics. Consider tunnel option to reduce these
impacts.
• Significance Criteria -use City of Palo Alto criteria of significance for determination of
impacts within the Oty.
• Traffic and CIrculation -adhere to existing transportation related policies in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• Alternative alignments -evaluate the following options to the same level of detail as the
proposed HSR:
Elevated
At grade
Trench
Tunnel
Termination in San Jose and transfer to Caltrain, induding possibility for reduced
number of tracks in the Caltrain corridor
HSR running at Baby Bullet speeds from San Jose to San Francisco (with and
without mid-peninsula station in either Redwood City or Palo Alto)
Running HSR underground in the Alma Street ROW while maintaining Caltrain
service in JPB ROW
HSR alignment along Highway 101 corridor
Any/all alternative(s) that would reduce the need for additional ROW
Any/all alternative(s) that would reduce the number of tracks to less than four
Alternative that does not retain freight within the Caltrain ROW between San Jose
and San Francisco
HSR to restore at-qrade crossinQs at existinQ undercrossinQs at
3.11 -SOCioeconomics, Communities
and Environmental Justice
lI_h""tirc and
N/ A, but see California High-Speed
Train Coordination Plan -San Jose
3.1 -Transportation
2.0 -Alternatives
Page 41
San Jose to San Francisco High~Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
~ . .;;i''''''
}~
, " LIFORlIllA , ~~~-.,...,~,
• Upgrade existing system -Based on an alternative that would terminate the HSR line in
san Jose, evaluate the capacity of Caltrain to transfer patrons from San Jose to further
destinations (including Palo Alto).
• Trains -evaluate the frequency, capacity and speed of the connecting service from San
• Traffic & Circulation -analyze impacts to Circulation, safety and emergency response of
the potential closure of four existing at-grade crossings.
• Traffic & circulation -analyze impacts to City streets during construction, specifically
detours or closures.
• Traffic & circulation -analyze impacts to access and providers at VTA transit center at
PA station.
• Station location -identify impacts resulting from the location of an HSR station in Palo
Alto, independent of the HSR alignment. Include impacts of increased traffic and
parking demand at the station.
• Traffic & circulation -analyze impacts to bicycle/pedestrian trail that runs along the
railroad tracks, some of which is located within the caltrain ROW.
• Traffic & circulation -evaluate pedestrian/bicycle grade separations at the railroad per
2003 PA Bicycle Transportation Plan.
• Traffic & circulation -identify impacts on implementation of 2002 PA Intermodal Transit
Center Plan.
• Safety -evaluate impacts to public safety, such as derailment, crashes, pedestrian
conflicts, and during construction, due to high-speed trains in close proximity to
residences and Dublic facilities.
• Aesthetics -evaluate impacts to aesthetics due to the elevated structure (including
underpasses and overpasses), noise and retaining walls, shade/shadow, existing and
proposed vegetation/landscaping, graffiti. Complete visual modeling for each alternative
of the nrmlimrlh>
• Noise -use the City's significance criteria to determine potential impacts to nOise.
• Noise -determine noise levels for each alternative (elevated, at grade, underground) for
the combined operation of caltrain, HSR and Union Pacific.
• Noise -evaluate impacts from train homs; assume for baseline conditions that all horns
have already been eliminated and that Caltrain has been electrified.
•
2.0 Alternatives
3.1 -Transportation
3.0 -Affected EnVironment,
Environmental Consequences, and
Mitigation Strategies
3.1 -Transportation
3.0 -Affected EnVironments,
Environmental Consequences and
Mitigation Strategies
3.1 -.
3.1 -Transportation
3.10 -Safety and Security
3.15 ~ AesthetiCS and Visual Quality
3.3 ~ Noise and Vibration
Page 42
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIRjEIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
~ ~~~~
• Biological resources -evaluate impact to migratory birds, existing aquifersl and
groundwater areas.
• Natural disaster -analyze impacts due to natural disaster (earthquake or flooding).
• Utilities -identify impacts of relocation of all utilities (City and otherwise) within and
crossing the ROW.
• Utilities -identify impacts to the proposed underground 8-hour water supply reservoir at
• Hazardous materials -evaluate impacts from known toxic plumes including the plume at
the Oregon Expressway railroad underpass.
• Air Quality -evaluate impacts to air quality during construction, and during operation
due to an increase in trains and the location of a station in Palo Alto.
• Trees -evaluate alternatives that would preserve the EI Palo Alto redwood tree that is
listed as a historic/cultural resource,
• Trees -evaluate impacts due to the removal or trimming of protected trees and
vegetation that currently screens the Caltrain ROW, consistent with the City's Tree
Technical Manual Tree
• Hydrology -evaluate impacts on San Francisquito Creek, Adobe Creek, Barron Creek,
and Matadero Creek with regard to riparian habitat and creek flows and stability.
3.6 -Biological Resources and
Wetlands
3.7 -HvdroloQV and Water Resources
3.7 -Hydrology and Water Resources
3.8 -Geology, Soill and Geologic
Resources
3.5 -Public Utilities & Energy
3.18 -Construction Impacts
3.9 -Hazardous Wastes and
Materials
3.2 -Air Quality
3.18 -Construction I
3.6 -Biological Resources &
Wetlands
3.16-Cultural Resources
3.6 -Biological Resources and
Wetlands
3.7 -HvdroloQV and Water Resources
Page 43
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project BRIEIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public §COping Comments (Agencies)
•
,.,,;'4, ..
".t." . A. L.lFORNtA.
' ~ ....... ---.. ~
• Historic resources -evaluate impacts to the following resources (listed and
Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge
Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (University Avenue Caltrain Depot)
"Hostess House"
University Avenue Underpass
Embarcadero Underpass
Mariposa Avenue component of the "Southgate" historic district
3905 Park Boulevard
Significant mid-twentieth century modern properties near the HSR ROW
Greenmeadow neighborhood.
• Historic resources -identify alternatives that would reduce potential impacts to the
resources identified above.
• Historic resources -evaluate change in historic context to the Caltrain depot even if it is
not moved or directly impacted.
• Cultural resources -identify impacts to Native American archaeological sites located
M:::.bti",rn Creek.
• Recreation -evaluate impacts on City parks and recreational facilities.
• Recreation opportunities -with tunnel alternative, evaluate potential to have linear park
along the length of the ROW. .
•
• Greenhouse gases -analyze emissions of greenhouse gases during construction and
operation, including potential alternatives (elevated, at grade, underground).
• Greenhouse gases -document the reauction in greenhouse gases that has been made
4.0 -Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)
Evaluations
. Station
Land Use
3.2 -Air Quality
Page 44
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
~/;> ... ~. ,<,,' .
. LlFORNI,A
" ~~--.-.~'
• Community separation -identify how the potential alternatives (elevated, at grade,
underground) could divide. or connect the. community.
Land use -evaluate the impacts from land use development and parking surrounding
the HSR facilities.
Land use -based on an underground alternative, evaluate potential for development
rights (and sale) and potential impacts of that development.
• Land use -evaluate the impacts of the potential for high intensity land use development
around the station, including economic benefits (from new business and air right
developments).
• Land use/urban design -provide alternative design solutions with extensive urban
measures.
Property values -evaluate property values due to changes in noise, vibration, daily train
operations, aesthetics, and circulation.
• Eminent domain -evaluate the full economic cost of eminent domain.
Local businesses -evaluate economic impacts to local business districts (during
construction and nnprrttinn)
-evaluate potential funding mechanism from sale of air rights over an
nd rail alternative.
• Scoping report -provide draft Scoping Review report including alignments and
alternatives conSidered, and allow City to participate in final outcome of that report.
• Interim Status Report -create an Interim Status Report, provided to the City and to
include:
Ridership forecasts for HSR and Caltrain
Feasibility of HSR station locations
Number of tracks and ROW widths through PA
Eminent domain requirements for each alternative (elevated, at grade,
underground)
Construction details and phasing.
Regular meetings -meet with the City monthly to exchange information and provide
3.11 -Socioeconomics, Communities
and Environmental Justice
3.12 -Local Growth, Station
Planning, and Land Use
3.15 -Aesthetics and Visual Quality
3.11 -Socioeconomics, Communities
and Environmental Justice
2.0 -Alternatives
N/ A, but see california High-Speed
Train Coordination Plan -San Jose
to San Francisco Section
Page 45
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project EIR/EIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
city of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and
City Council
March 4, 2009
(encompassed fully in
subsequent April 1,
2009 letter)
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and
City Council
March 27, 2009
Town of Atherton,
California
Parks and Recreation
Commission
April 10, 2009
~ ... <','.,. .i:_--, <*' ( _ ... }:!!~~!:l
• Requests that urban design be as high a priority as engineering considerations.
• Requests collaborative team to develop urban design alternatives to include in the
EIR/EIS.
a Protect walkable, bikeable communities.
a Ensure that portions of the Town are not separated, physically or visually! from each
other.
• Keep local road crossings open.
• Evaluate at-grade, above-grade, and below-grade trench and tunnel options.
• Wants collaborative team (HSRA, caltrain, and HNTB) to develop project alternatives to
address all local concerns during scoping period.
• Maintain and improve the existing Caltrain Baby Bullet and local service.
a
a Scoping process -appreciates the participation and interaction up to this point and
wants to continue the process as an engaged participant.
• Process update -wants to be involved well before the Draft EIR/EIR would be
circulated. Wants to receive a draft of the Scoping Report and participate in its
preparation prior to finalization.
• Regular community meetings -supports HSR staff willingness to continue the meetings
• Park -acknowledge impacts to Holbrook-Palmer Park, a public recreation area as well as
cultural/historic resource, due to the widening of tracks and aSSOCiated infrastructure
needs, induding the installation of sounds walls.
a Historic resources -acknowledge impacts to historic/cultural resources within Holbrook-
Palmer Park and the Atherton station historic area due to chanaes to the J'llinnm",nt
• NOise/Aesthetics -cover proposed trenching, thereby reducing noise and visual
resources impacts and enhancing safety and community separation.
Mitigation measures -evaluate potential additional impacts that result from proposed
mitigation measures.
2.0 -Alternatives
3 .1-Transportation
3.12 -Local Growth, Station Planning
and Land Use
3.15 -Aesthetics and Visual Quality
N/A, but see California High-Speed
Train Coordination Plan -San Jose
to San Francisco Section
3.16 -Cultural Resources
4.0 -Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)
Evaluations
2.0 -Alternatives
3.3 -Noise and Vibration
3.11 -Socioeconomics, Communities
and Environmental Justice
3.0 -Affected EnVironment,
Environmental Consequences and
Page 46
San Jose to San Francisco High-Speed Train
Project BRIEIS Draft Scoping Report
Table 3.1.1: Summary of Written Public Scoping Comments (Agencies)
> ~!;~:,j~.(i!:~ll~f,:>j?: .~_i;.l$Q8.lliwi;i;{5i,m"" '~li:~~~'!%4;;;;i;:t(:S(~xrJlj(N;):~Sf~. ~;::2;IEI!~'8'T;):elW' .lS'I~CTt·t)NS~~~
Town of Atherton,
California
Office of the Mayor
March 18, 2009
~ ~.'-.!!~~l'!!!!
• Property taking -opposes the use of eminent domain to take a portion of Holbrook-2.0 -Alternatives
Palmer Park for the HSR. Suggests use of alternative (aerial, elevated fill, trench, 3.16 -Cultural Resources
underground, tunnel) to reduce the need for this taking. 4.0 -Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)
Evaluations
• Aesthetics -requests that urban design be as high a priority as engineering
considerations.
• Aesthetics -requests collaborative team to develop urban design alternatives to include
in the EIR/EIS.
• Traffic & circulation -protect walkable, bikeable communities.
• Community separation -ensure that portions of the Town are not separated, physically
or visually, from each other.
• Grade crossings -keep local road crossings open.
• Alternative design -evaluate at-grade, above-grade, and below-grade trench and tunnel
options.
• Alternative design -wants collaborative team (HSRA, Caltrain, and HNll3) to develop
project alternatives to address all local concerns during scoping period.
• Upgrade existing services -maintain and improve the existing caltrain Baby Bullet and
local service.
• Coordination with existing services -integrate HSR and caltrain :>t::rvi
2.0 -Alternatives
3.1 -Transportation
3.11 -Socioeconomics, Communities
and Environmental Justice
3.12 -Local Growth, Station
Planning, and Land Use
3.15 -Aesthetics and Visual Quality
Page 47