HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 432-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR: 432:09
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT: Quarterly Update on City Activities Related to the High Speed Rail Project
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only and no action is required.
BACKGROUND
Since passage of Proposition 1A in November last year, approving funds for the High Speed Rail
connection from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) has
initiated environmental and engineering studies for implementation of the train system statewide.
The HSRA consulting team began scoping the Environmental Impact Report for the San Jose to
San Francisco segment.
On May 18th 2009, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles to provide direction to the
City's High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. Mayor Drekmeier appointed Council members
Kishimoto, Barton, Burt, and Klein to this Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has been
working closely with the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) to develop public outreach and
education efforts and to explore urban design solutions that consider community values for the
high speed train project. As reported in the last HSR staff report on July 20, 2009, the California
HSRA team released the draft scoping report for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train
proj ect in June.
DISCUSSION
This report provides a quarterly update regarding activities related to the High Speed Rail
project that have been undertaken at the State and City levels since the last report in July to
Council.
The HSRA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating administration of the
U. S. Department of Transportation, prepared a j oint programmatic Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRJEIS) under The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate a broad corridor
CMR:432:09 Page 1 of5
1
between the Bay Area and Central Valley for the California High-Speed Train (HST) system,
and selection of a preferred network alternative, preferred alignments and station location
options within the broad corridor between and including the Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass
to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley.
The Final Program EIRJEIS evaluates the potential impacts of a full range of alignment
alternatives and station loqltion options in the study region and defines general mitigation
strategies to address potentially significant adverse impacts. The Final Program EIRJEIS was
made available to the public and public agencies on or about May 21,2008 and notice of
availability of the Final Program EIRJEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 30,
2008.
Before approving a proposed preferred HSR alternative and station location options, the
Authority must certify that (1) the Final EIRIEIS has been prepared in compliance with CEQA;
(2) the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the agency; and (3) the Final EIR reflects
its independent judgment and analysis as the lead agency
The next steps for the HSRA team include initiation of the Alternatives Analysis, technical
evaluations, and preparation of the draft Project EIRIEIS, scheduled for release in the first
quarter of2011.
The Program EIRIEIS is available for viewing and downloading at the Authority's web site,
www.cahighspeedrai1.ca.gov.
High Speed Rail Alternative Analysis (AA)
Currently staff from the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) is working on the Alternatives
Analysis (AA) Report to be completed and ready for circulation in Decenlber 2009, although a
final release date has not been given. The AA is an important part of the EIRJEIS as it will
incorporate conceptual engineering information and will identify feasible and practicable
alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and evaluation in the EIRJEIS for the San
Francisco to San Jose section of the HSR Project. The AA will provide the HSRA and the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with sufficient information and documentation of the
evaluation process to "define a range of reasonable, practicable, and feasible project study
alternatives". The AA will provide information that highlights and compares the alternatives,
and will explain why sonle alternatives will be retained while others will be dropped from further
study in the EIRJEIS. Staff anticipates that the Ad Hoc Committee and Council will need
independent peer review of technical conclusions such as tunneling feasibility and other below
grade options, costs, and railroad operations. As a result, the City has retained outside expertise
as technical documents are released by HSRA staff. Once the document is released, Cities and
the public will have 45 days to review the report and submit comments on the document.
The AA evaluation will consider preliminary proj ect features based on planning and engineering
at, a 2% to 40/0 level of engineering design. This level of detail is enough to understand if an
alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the alternative might encounter significant
environmental, community, and construction-related impacts. In the San Francisco to San Jose
section, with the proposed use of the Caltrain right-of-way, the AA will describe the alternatives
based on alignment and "vertical profile", that is, whether the alignment will be below ground,
at-grade, or elevated.
CMR:432:09 Page 2 of5
Attachment A describes the AA process in full detail and discusses common questions and
answers related to the AA for the High Speed Rail.
HSRA Business Plan
The HSRA submitted their Business High-Speed Train Business Plan in 2008. The Business Plan
provides an estimate of the system's current financial and economic outlook at a very general
level. The program costs include all aspects of managing, designing and building the proposed
high-speed rail systenl, including: construction of the high-speed train system (track, stations,
buildings, bridges, tunnels, power systems, signaling, etc.); right-of-way; environmental studies
and mitigation; design; value engineering; management; rolling stock (trains); testing;
commissioning; operations; and all work required to provide a completely operational system
ready for revenue service.
The Senate Transportation Sub Conlmittee approval is needed before the budget for the HSR is
released. The Senate Subcommittee has expressed concern on the proposed Business Plan and
has only authorized enough budget for 6 months instead of 1 year. The HSRA was asked to
update the Business Plan in order to get more funds. The revised Business Plan is expected to be
available in December 2009.
Community Outreach
An all-day "Teach-In" was held on September 12,2009 in the Palo Alto Cubberley Community
Center organized by Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) and hosted by the City, in cooperation
with Caltrain and the California High Speed Rail Authority. The goal of High Speed Rail Teach-
In was to bring together experts with elected leaders and the public to understand what is
desirable and feasible for the rail corridor on the Peninsula.
The Teach-In featured a panel of speakers from diverse backgrounds with varying perspectives
on the high speed rail project. Caltrain experts also made a presentation on the basics of best
practices of railroad planning and design. Presentations were followed by series of panel
discussions followed by facilitated community discussions. The panel of experts answered
technical questions asked by the public.
Urban Design and Planning Workshop
A two-day design workshop held on October 10th and 11 th focused on the Palo Alto segment of
the HST/Caltrain corridor, including segments north and south of the City limits in adjacent
cities. This two-day event was similar to a design charrette. This workshop was open to the
public and staffed with design professionals and organizers from the broader design community
who had agreed to volunteer their time to participate in this event in order to minimize costs.
On the first day of the workshop, there was a briefing by design professionals, brainstorming and
interviewing sessions for all participants and an opportunity to form teams to work on design
concepts. A team of national experts also presented conceptual urban design plans at the end of
the 2-day session.
Alternatives Analysis Open House
The High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) held community workshops on September 30th in San
Carlos, October 9th in Sunnyvale and October 13th in San Francisco in order to share and discuss
the alternatives development process and initial design alternatives for the Caltrain Corridor. The
meetings were held "Open House" style, with various stations providing maps illustrating the
CMR:432:09 Page 3 of5
proposed alignment alternatives, informational materials, and project exhibit boards. Staff from
the HSRA was available to respond to inquiries and collect public comments.
Public input received at these meetings will be used in the evaluation process and help determine
which alternatives and design options will be advanced for further environmental and . . . englneenng reVIew.
Context Sensitive Solutions
HSRA held a workshop on November 4, 2009 on using Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), a
collaborative multi-disciplinary approach, to develop California High Speed Rail system. At this
meeting, the public had an opportunity to learn about a community-input process that will be
used for the Peninsula portion of the high speed rail line from an expert hired by the California
High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and Caltrain. HSRA had obtained Hal Kassoff, a nationally
known expert on CS S, to assist the CHSRA board of directors, local officials and the public to
understand how CSS works. He has been recognized for his environmentally sensitive and
aesthetic design work in Transportation.
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is defined as a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach
that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation project that fits its physical setting and
preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources while maintaining safety and
mobility. Project with CSS are in harmony with the community and preserve the environmental,
scenic, aesthetic, historic and natural resource values of the area. This is the only section of the
High Speed Rail line to have this additional process, which is designed to integrate concerns and
suggestions from stakeholders in the project as it is being designed. The CSS process is intended
to engage communities along the Caltrain line early in the decision making process to influence a
more sensitive engineering solution that respects community values. In addition to fulfilling the
usual California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Police Act
(NEPA) requirements, CSS will provide an overlay that considers all factors and their impacts on
surrounding communities -not just the rail corridor. It will offer additional transparency and
accountability during the design process.
The PCC supports implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions to be implemented within the
HSR Project and will monitor the implementation ofCSS and adjust as necessary.
Ad-Hoc Committee
City Ad Hoc Committee continues to meet 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 Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) also continues to engage various community groups
organized around the potential impacts of high speed rail to coordinate local, statewide and
national legislation.
The PCC is in the process of preparing a letter to the HSRA requesting that the environmental
and alternatives assessments on the Peninsula recognize the critical and sensitive nature of the
"Urban Environn1ent" and unique characteristics of the Peninsula Caltrain Corridor and to
consider warranting additional evaluation criteria to the Alternatives Analysis when selecting
alternatives to be carried forward.
CMR:432:09 Page 4 of5
Updates on upcoming PCC events and copies of reports/presentations can be viewed at the
following website http://www.peninsularail.org/ or on the High Speed Rail Authority website at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.
City staff has also 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.
Next Steps
The next milestones for the Proj ect are:
Alternatives Analysis Report -December 2009
Draft EIRIEIS -First quarter of 2011
Final EIRIEIS -End of 2011
Staff will provide another update to Council in February 2010.
RESOlTRCE IMPACT
Approval of $70,000 from the City Council Contingency to fund the High Speed Rail
Informational Symposium, Design Workshop, and Technical Consulting Services was approved
by Council on August 3rd• This includes $50,000 to fund the retention of outside expertise to
provide peer review and analysis of technical documents including the project alternatives
analysis as they are released by HSR staff.
PREPARED BY:
Transportation Engineer
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. US Department of Transportation Handout -Common Questions and Answers related to
the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Section
CMR:432:09 Page 5 of5
Common Questions and Answers related to the
Alternatives Analysis for the
San Francisco to San lose High-Speed Train Section
, Attachment A
September 2009
What is an Alternatives Analysis? The Alternatives Analysis (AA) is a methodical process to provide the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with sufficient
information and documentation of the evaluation process used to identify and define a range of reasonable,
practicable, and feasible project study alternatives. The AA will incorporate conceptual engineering
information and will identify feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for review and evaluation in
the project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the San Francisco to
San Jose section of the California High-Speed Train Project (CHSTP). The AA will provide information that
highlights and compares the alternatives, and will explain why some alternatives will be retained while others
will be dropped from further study in the EIR/EIS. The Authority and the FRA will make the results of the AA
available for public input.
Where do the alternatives come from? The alternatives will take into account previous work conducted
for the Statewide Program EIR/EI5. For the San Francisco to San Jose section, the program document
identified the Caltrain right-of-way as the CHSTP route, with stations in San FranCiSCO, Millbrae, and San Jose.
Optional stations will be considered in Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View. In addition, the
Authority and FRA will consider public and agency comments provided during a series of public scoping
meetings held this past spring. In addition, input received from the community more recently will also be
considered.
How detailed are the alternatives? The AA evaluation will consider preliminary project features based on
planning and engineering at a 2% to 4% level of engineering design. This level of detail is enough to
understand if an alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the alternative might encounter significant
environmental, community, and construction-related impacts. In the San Francisco to San Jose section, with
the proposed use of the Caltrain right-of-way, the AA will describe the alternatives based on alignment and
"vertical profile;" that is, whether the alignment will be below ground, at-grade, or elevated.
How will the EIR/EIS study alternatives be identified? The Authority has established a ten-step
process to identify practicable and feasible alternatives for study in the EIR/EIS. The steps are illustrated in
the chart below and described in greater detail on the next page. In the gray boxes below, the following
abbreviations are used: PMT = Program Management Team, providing guidance on the design of the overall
HST system and to each of the regional planning and engineering teams on behalf of the Authority; CHSRA =
California High-Speed Rail Authority; FRA = Federal Railroad Administration; and AG = California Attorney
General's Office.
2009
Initial
Development
of Alternatives
L Agencyl
Publici
Stakeholde ....
Outreach
Alternatives Analysis Process
·11~.~~M'i~ ," '.f .:~ .... ,c~r:(~ ~ ~ :~
I FRAI AG '
. Revu:tw'".
. . . -~. 1
Final
Alternatives
AnalYSIS
Report
AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER ~ANUARY FEBRUARY 2010
Project
Description
September 2009
Step 1: Initial Development of Alternatives (August 2009)
Using the selected program-level corridor alignments and station locations, the planning and
engineering team will develop site-specific project alternatives considering existing conditions and
constraints as well as information gathered during the scoping process. It is essential to start with
the selected program alternatives as these were identified as likely to contain the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) with concurrence by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps through the Clean Water Act Section 404
alternatives analysis process.
A presentation will be made to the PMT/ Authority/FRA on the initial alternatives developed for further
consideration through the AA process based on:
• the program-level selected alternatives, alignment routes, and station locations, and
consideration of purpose and need/project objectives;
• public and agency input received during and after scoping; and
• further analysis of the study area to identify alternatives and/or variations and design options that are practicable and feasible.
Step 2: Early Outreach to Agencies, Public, and Stakeholders (September/October 2009)
The alternatives identifjed for further consideration will be presented informally to the local and
regional planning agencies, transportation agencies, and environmental resource agencies in
meetings. A similar effort will be conducted to inform the public. Coordination with Cooperating
Agencies will also be conducted at this time.
Step 3: Revise Definition of Alternatives (October/November 2009)
Based on information and feedback received from early outreach, the Initial Project Alternatives may
be revised and then resubmitted to the Program Management Team (PMT)/Authority/FRA for review.
Step 4: PMT/Authority/FRA Project Alternatives Workshop (November 2009)
A workshop will be conducted by the planning and engineering team with the PMT/Authority/FRA to
review the details and information regarding all alternatives studied to date. This will include
discussion of severe design constraints or conflicts, and environmental impacts and benefits for each
alternative. The purpose of the workshop is to get direction from the Authority and FRA on further
investigation of alternatives, to identify alternatives requiring no further analysis, and to evaluation
conclusions.
Step 5: Alternatives Analysis (M) Draft Report (December 2009)
An AA Draft Report will be prepared that presents the results of the AA process to this point.
Step 6: PMT/Authority/FRA/AG Review (December 2009/January 2010)
The AA Draft Report will be reviewed by the PMT/Authority/FRA. When approved for release, the AA
Draft Report will be posted to the Authority's website.
Step 7: Presentation to CAHSRA Board (December 2009/January 2010)
The results of the AA Draft Report will be presented to the Board as an information agenda item.
Step 8: Outreach to Agencies, Public, and Stakeholders on the M Draft Report (January 2010)
U.S. Department
of Transportation Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 2
Septem ber 2009
The alternatives identified for inclusion in the EIR/EIS will be presented to the local and regional
planning agencies, transportation agencies, and environmental resource agencies through a series of
meetings. A similar effort will be conducted to inform the public. Coordination with cooperating
agencies will also be conducted at this time.
Step 9: Alternatives Analysis (M) Final Report (February 2010)
The AA Draft Report will be finalized and will include the results of outreach meetings and
consultation with cooperating and other agencies. The AA Final Report will be reviewed by the
PMT/ Authority/FRA and posted to the Authority's website when approved for release.
Step 10: Prepare Draft Project Description (February 2010)
Based on the Final AA report, a project description will be prepared that will identify a preferred
alternative. The project description will include information about the CHSTP for the San Francisco to
San Jose section including the horizontal and vertical alignment, the stations/ other facilities such as
sites for maintenance, and the operating schedule for the trains .. Design options to the preferred
alternative, if any, will also be identified. Options may include variations to a vertical alignment, to a
station location or layout, or to any other feature of the design and operation of the HST system that
need to be studied to provide the Authority, FRA/ and the public with reasonable choices to make an
informed decision about the project. The EIR/EIS will evaluate how the preferred alternative
changes existing baseline conditions and how significant the changes are.
How are the number and range of alternatives to be narrowed? Broad sets of criteria have been
defined to help explain the goals of the HST system. Then, specific measures have been developed to
evaluate and compare the project alternatives. The first goal focuses on meeting the purpose and need.
Project Goa I Criteria Measure
Purpose and Need Travel time 30 minutes San Jose to San
Francisco (Express Service)
Intermodal connectivity (Stations) Connections with other
transit services and airports
Operations and maintenance costs Relative measure (None,
Low, Medium/ High) relative
to one-another
The following criteria and measures seek to expand on HST goals to be supportive of local land use
plans, be feasible from an engineering perspective, minimize disruption to neighborhoods and
communities, minimize impacts to environmental resources, and minimize impacts to the natural
envi ro nment.
Project Goal
Land Use Planning
Support
Criteria
Sites within V2 mile available for significant
Transit Oriented Development
Consistent with existing plans and policies
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Measure
Acres suited to
redevelopment/revitalization
within 112 mile
Review of existing zoning /
redevelopment and general
plans
Page 3
Constructa bility
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Protection of
Environmental
Resources and
Natural
Environment
Vertical profile feasibility, compatibility with
adjacent segments
Horizontal clearance through existing structures
(columns, bents, etc.)
Major utility relocations
Ability to maintain Caltrain operations during
construction
Ability to maintain critical traffic operations
during construction
Construction costs
Property displacements -acquisitions (full and
partial)
Properties with access affected
Local traffic effects
Development/construction foot print (stations)
Waterways/wetlands/sensitive species habitat
Cultural resources (historic, archaeological,
paleontological)
Parklands
Noise and vibration
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
September 2009
Vertical control points,
grades, length of curves,
combined vertical and
horizontal curves, vertical
profile of adjacent
segments
Locations of existing
columns, bents and width of
structu res
Existence of major utilities
requiring relocation
Qualitative assessment of
High, Medium, Low
Qualitative assessment of
High, Medium, Low
Relative measure (None,
Low, Medium, High
compared to one another)
Number of full or partial
residential acquisitions
Number of properties with
changes in access
Street closures/un-
resolvable capacity
constraints
Property
acquisitions/relocation to
accommodate station
(residential/commercial)
Potential jurisdictional
wetlands and habitat for
I isted species
Listed historic
resources/known
a rchaeolog ica 1/ known
paleontological sites
Existing
parklands/community
facilities that provide
recreation (Section 4(f))
Sensitive receptors
(schools, hospitals,
convalescent homes,
daycare) within FRA
screening distance
Page 4
September 2009
Protection of Visua 1/ scen ic Obstruction of designated
Environmental view corridors and scenic
Resources and resources by elevated
Natural structures
Environment
(Continued) Geologic/soils Soil and slope constraints
(high landslide
susceptibility), seismic
constraints (very strong
groundshaking, cross active
faults)
Hazardous materials Known hazardous
materials/wastes sites from
data base lists
What might be reasons to not advance an alternative for further study? The AA identifies the
alternatives evaluation process. Not all alternatives will be evaluated in the EIR/EI5. Reasons that could
provide a rationale to exclude an alternative from further consideration include:
• Alternative does not meet the purpose and need and project objectives.
• Alternative has environmental or engineering issues that would make approvals infeasible.
• Alternative is not feasible or practical to construct.
• Alternative does not reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts.
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 5