HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 173-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MARCH 15,2010 CMR:173:10
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT: Monthly Update on City Activities Related to the California High Speed Rail
Project
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for infonnation only and no action is required.
BACKGROUND
Since passage of Proposition lA in November 2008, 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 for the San Francisco to San Jose Project Level Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) began work in early 2009.
On May 18, 2009, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles to provide direction to the City's
High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has been working closely with the
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) to develop public outreach and education efforts, monitor,
and evaluate HSR activities, and to explore urban design solutions that consider community
values for the high speed rail project.
On August 3, 2009, the Council approved a transfer of Council Contingency in the amount of
$70,000 to fund the a HSR symposium (or Teach-in) in September, a two-day design workshop
in October and retention of outside expertise to provide peer review and analysis of technical
documents including the HSR project alternatives analysis.
On January 25, 2010, the Council authorized a transfer of $88,000 from the Council Contingency
account to fund the FY 2010 Resources Plan for the Ad Hoc Council HSR Subcommittee for: (1)
additional engineering consultant services for the peer review of the Alternatives Analysis for the
San Francisco to San Jose HSR project, (2) outside expertise for peer review ofHSR ridership,
(3) a Sacramento legislative liaison consultant to represent the City'S interests to the State
Legislature, and (4) a one-day symposium on financing of the HSR alternatives and potential
HSR station in Palo Alto.
CMR: Page 10f6
DISCUSSION
This report provides an 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 January 2010.
Schedule and Council Reports
The schedule established by High Speed Rail staff and its consultants is extremely unpredictable.
The Council's High Speed Rail Subcommittee and staff monitor closely changes to announced
meetings and other activities, however unanticipated changes frequently occur without much
notice. In an effort to provide as much transparency as possible, staff has arranged to broadcast
HSR Subcommittee meetings and to make recordings available via the City'S website. Regular
broadcasts would supplement twice monthly Subcommittee meetings and monthly Council
updates.
San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Alternatives Analysis
The Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was scheduled to be completed and ready for circulation
and presentation to the HSRA Board on March 4. However, HSRA delayed its released pending
review of the AA by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and now anticipates the report
will be released on April 1, the next HSRA Board meeting date. However, based on recent
experience with HSRA deadlines, this is a fluid situation, with some uncertainty about the actual
release date.
The AA is an important part of the EIRJEIS as it will incorporate conceptual engineering
information, identify and compare the alternatives, and will explain why some alternatives will
be retained while others will be dropped from further study in the EIRJEIS. The AA evaluation
will be based on planning and engineering at a 2% to 4% level of engineering design. This level
of detail may be enough to understand if an alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the
alternative might encounter significant environmental, community, economic and construction
related impacts. 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.
The City has retained the engineering firm Hatch Mott MacDonald to conduct an independent
peer review of technical conclusions in the AA, such as tunneling feasibility and other below
grade options, costs, and railroad operations. Hatch Mott is ready to begin their analysis as soon
as the report is issued. The scope of work includes full technical review and participation in
meetings with the Ad Hoc Committee, City Council and a community meeting.
At the unanimous request of the Ad Hoc Committee, in a letter dated February 24, 2010
(Attachment A), the City has also formally requested that HSRA extend the 45 day comment
period for the AA to a total of 90 days in order to provide adequate time for the Council and
community to fully understand the complexities of the alternatives that are identified in this
major milestone report. During this time, the peer review will be prepared and the City will
schedule two community meetings prior to the City Council finalizing its comments on the
report.
The Ad Hoc Committee further directed staff to request that the HSRA and Peninsula Rail
Program (PRP) post the most up-to-date, accurate right-of-way maps for the Caltrain corridor
CMR: Page 2 of6
and the Caltrain Station Footprint study on their respective websites to infonn the public about
the potential right-of-way implications for the Alternatives Analysis and a potential HSR stop in
Palo Alto (Attachment B).
Status of Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR
In August 2008, a group of petitioners filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court
claiming the Authority's Final Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR (PEIR) violated the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous ways. (Town of Atherton, et aI., v.
California High-Speed Rail Authority, et al). The City'S Amicus Curae Brief in support of the
petitioners (Attachment C) details the City'S position on the deficiencies in the PEIR. In
particular, the brief identifies significant environmental impacts on the Peninsula related to land
use compatibility, noise impacts, vibration, and visual aesthetics that were not properly
identified, analyzed, or mitigated in the PEIR
In August 2009, the Court issued a ruling that the program ErR required reVlSlon and
recirculation in the several areas to comply with CEQA related to the San Jose to Gilroy section
and vibration impacts, etc. On December 3,2009, the Authority approved resolution rescinding
the 2008 certification of the Program EIR and related approvals and directed Authority staff to
prepare the necessary revisions to the EIR and circulate them in accordance with CEQA for
public comment. The Authority will consider the revised PEIR and the entire record of material
before making a new decision to certify the revised Final Program EIR.
The Authority is scheduled to release the revise PEIR on March 11,2010 and initiate the 45 day
comment period. Staff will work with the HSR Council Subcommittee and prepare comments
for Council review and approval in early April.
HSRA Business Plan
The 2009-10 State Budget mandated that the HSRA submit an updated Business Plan to the
Legislature by December 15, 2009. The report updated the cost of the project's Phase 1 into
years of construction dollars (rather than current year dollars) and provided an updated financing
plan that takes into account Proposition lA, ARRA stimulus funding, and other funding sources
that were not known last year. The new Business Plan projects approximately 30% lower system
ridership by 2035, higher construction costs, and higher passenger fares based on 83% of the cost
of air travel rather than 50% cost.
On January 12, 2010, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released its initial comments to the
Assembly Transportation Commission on the 2009 Business Plan. The LAO found the report
substantially lacking in detail and cited the lack of infornmtion on risk management, including
the risk of incorrect ridership forecasts and the financial risks associated with a flawed funding
plan. The LAO further found the timelines very general and potentially inconsistent and
identified a potential violation of state law associated with the funding plan.
On February 11, 2010, the Mayor sent a letter (Attachment D) to Senator Simitian,
Assemblyman Ruskin, and six other local state legislators outlining the HSR Subcommittee's
concerns about the Business Plan. The Subcommittee, in conjunction with the Peninsula Cities
Consortium, identified a number of deficiencies and flaws in the Business Plan that need to be
CMR: Page 3 of6
addressed and rectified before the project proceeds further. Those issues relate to the inadequate
and fundamentally flawed ridership study, a questionable financing strategy that relies upon
"hoped for" federal funding, and omits key cost elements in the San Francisco to San Jose
segment, and a grossly deficient risk management· plan. These issues and concerns were
presented by Palo Alto Mayor Burt at the Joint Hearing of the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2
on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy and Transportation, and the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee on January 21 in Palo Alto.
On March 2, 2010, the LAO released new comments on the HSRA budget for 2010-11 and
recommended reducing or withholding funding for contract funding, capital land acquisition, and
staffing levels requested by the HSRA until further supporting information is provided
(Attachment E).
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
The Peninsula Rail Program adopted Context Sensitive Solutions, a dynamic, two-way
collaborative process, to support the active involvement of Peninsula communities in the
planning and design of California High-Speed Rail and Caltrain 2025 projects.
CSS is 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. CSS helps communities,
stakeholders, and project sponsors collaborate to achieve feasible solutions that meet community
and project goals. The process offers an opportunity for the community and the design team to
define key values, priorities, measures of success, and context considerations.
The PRP has prepared a CSS Toolkit which will guide the process, however the release of the
toolkit has also been delayed by HSRA. When the toolkit becomes available, staff will be
reviewing it and working with the CSS stakeholder representatives from Palo Alto to follow the
process.
Ad Hoc HSR Subcommittee Activities
The Council Ad Hoc Committee continues to meet every two weeks and has focused much of its
efforts on working with the other peninsula communities that are potentially impacted by high
speed rail. Mayor Burt has appointed Council Members Klein, Price, and Shepherd to serve with
him on the committee this year.
The HSR project is a multi-year project that will require continuation of the Subcommittee for
the foreseeable future. Since Ad Hoc Committees are defined as being of short duration,
typically one year or less, it is appropriate to transition the Ad Hoc HSR Subcommittee to a new
Standing Committee of the City Council. City Council's agenda tonight (3/15) contains a
consent calendar item (#7) which converts the Subcommittee to a Standing Committee.
Mayor Burt also represents Palo Alto on the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC). The PCC
continues to engage various community groups organized around the potential impacts of high
speed rail to coordinate local, statewide, and national legislation. The PCC cities are also
considering jointly sharing costs for technical expertise, as well as considering entering into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Peninsula Rail Project.
CMR: Page 4 of6
Sacramento Legislative Liaison Update
The City has retained Ravi Mehta of Capitol Advocates to provide legislative liaison and
advocacy services in Sacramento on High Speed Rail issues. Mr. Mehta is tracking all
legislation that directly or indirectly impact the HSR project. Mr. Mehta has provided a
legislative update (Attachment F) on the most recent legislation of concern.
Of particular concern are a series of bills that have been introduced that would exempt projects
selected by the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency from judicial review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since CEQA legislation was enacted into
law in 1970, and required state and local agencies to identify and disclose the significant
environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA
statutes have assured full public scrutiny and input on the environmental impacts ofprojects and
judicial recourse.
At the direction of the HSR Subcommittee, staff is working with Capitol Advocates to oppose
any legislation which would diminish or circumvent the current protections or in any way create
exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and court review for major
infrastructure projects each year, including but not limited to the California High Speed Rail
Project. Staff will prepare letters to our local legislators recommending support, opposition or
continued monitoring of each bill.
Next StepslPlaJ:Jl1ed Activities
The schedule for local PCC and City Council meetings is provided as Attachment G.
The next milestones for the Project are:
Issue of Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR -March 11, 201 0
Issue of Alternatives Analysis Report -early April 2010
Draft EIRJEIS -First Quarter of2011
Final EIRIEIS End of2011
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Council policy direction related
to the California High Speed Rail Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
A. February 24,2010 letter to HRSA re Extension of Comment Period for the San Francisco
to San Jose HST Project EIR
B. March 2,2010 letter to HSRA/PRP re Caltrain Corridor Right-of-Way Maps and Station
Footprint Study
C. Amicus Curae Brief
D. February 11,2010 letter to State Legislators re HSR Business Plan
CMR: Page 5 of6
E. Excerpt from March 2,2010 Legislative Analyst's Office 2010-11 Transportation Budget
Analysis
F. Legislative Update Memorandum from Capitol Advocates
G. Letter dated March 3,2010, to Mayor Pat Burt from Peninsula Rail Program
PREPARED BY: ~a...--£<&u..aJ
GAYLE IKENS
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: Page 6 of6
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2010
Dominic Spaethling, Regional Manager
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
~~J:x Q!_r~<?_M!Q
Office of the City Manager
FAX Transmittal 916-322-0827
Re: Request for Ninety Day Comment Period for San Francisco/San Jose HST Project
Alternatives Analysis
Dear Mr. Spaethling:
The City wishes to thank you and your project team for meeting with the City Council High
Speed Rail Subcommittee and community members on February 9, 2010 regarding the pending
release of the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR/EIS on March
4, 2010. The Subcommittee looks forward to the opportunity to provide input to the California
High Speed Rail Authority on the Alternatives Analysis.
The Subcommittee finds, however, that the limited 45 day comment period is highly constraining
for review and evaluation of such a major report. By unanimous action on February 16, the
Subcommittee voted to request that HSRA extend the comment period by approximately forty
five (45) days, for a total 90 day comment period. The extended period is necessary to 1) fully
understand the complexities of the alternatives that are identified, and 2) better inform the Palo
Alto community about the content and findings of the Alternatives Analysis, including holding 2
community meetings after the March 15 presentation by HSRA staff to the City Council. The
City believes this outreach will best serve the community of Palo Alto and the HSRA by
providing more cohesive and thoughtful comments on the Alternatives Analysis and its
implications for Palo Alto.
Thankyou for considering this request, and please let us know as soon as possible whether the
deadline wiIl b~ extended. If you or others have questions, please feel free to contact me or City
Manager James Keene.
l:£:L STEVr;:~~~
Deputy City Manager
cc: City Council
Mehdi Morshed, HSRA
Robert Doty, Peninsula Rail Project
James Keene, City Manager
Printed with soy-based iolt-=. no wor'J.., TPrvdpo nan¥f nrnrpssed without chlorine
p.G. Box 10250
PaloAlto,CA 94303
650.329.2563
650.325.5025 fax
ATTACHMENTB
March 2, 20 I 0
Dominic Spaethling, Regional Manager and
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ci~ of Palo Alto
Office of the City Manager
FAX Transmittal 916-322-0827
. 650-508-6365
Robert Doty, Program Director
Peninsula Rail Program
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94705
Re: Caltrain Corridor Right-of-Way Maps and Station Footprint Study
Dear Mr. Spaeth ling and Mr. Doty:
The City of Palo Alto wishes to thank you for directing us to the link on the Caltrain HSR
Compatibility Blog (http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/) containing the 2007 Caltrain corridor
right-of-way maps. This link has also been posted on the CAARD website.
However, in order to ensure that this information is accurate and valid, we request that the
Peninsula Rail Program (PRP) verify the validity of these maps by posting them officially on the
Caltrain PRP and the California High Speed Rail Project (HSRA) websites. Ifthese are no longer
current, we request that the most up-to-date maps be posted on these websites.
On a related matter, Palo Alto requests that the PRP post the documents related to the Caltrain
Station Footprint Study on its website as well. This infonnation is not available online at the
present time. Although this study only covered San Mateo County stations, it would be valuable
for the City of Palo Alto to review in anticipation of the upcoming HSRA station study for a mid
peninsula high speed train stop.
Thank you for your attention to these requests and we look forward to a favorable response.
Deputy City Manager
cc: City Council
James Keene, City Manager
HSR Ad Hoc Committee
l/rinted with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper process~d without ch10rine
P.O Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
6.'30.329.2563
650.325.5025 fax
ATTACHMENT C
I ARTHUR. F. COON (Bar No. 124206)
~cC!l,com .
2 ICRlSTlNA DANIEL LAWSON (Bar No. 221131)
3 ~.WRBGALIA
Exempt from Filing Feu Pursuant to
Government Code. § 6/03
A Professional Law Corporation
4 1331 N. California Blvd., Fifth FJoor
Poat Omce Box 8177
S Walnut Creek, California 94596
. ToJ~e:92S93S 9400
6 FacsJl'oiJe: 925 935 9400
1 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
CITY OF PALO ALTO
~LED/E1tDORSED
'-~~
MAY -1 2009
A J
By: _---J.T_~C=AL:2AU~S~TR~t'IJ:.~'f/--
~ ____ ~~=~I~o/=CIU='k~ _____ ~
8
9
10
11
12
13
24
15
16
17
18
19
10
SUPBRIOR COURT OF THB STATE OF CALJPORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal
Corporation, PLANNING AND
CONSERVATION· LEAGUE, a California
ftoupJOfit co~ration, CITY OF MBNLO .
PARK, •• MuDicipal Co~ration,
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
DEPBNSB AND EDUCATION FUND, a
California nonpofit corporation,
CALIPORNIA RAIL POUNDATION, a
California nonprofit corpofllioft. and
SA YRAIL ALLIANCE, • Califomia
nonprofit ~ation, and other similarly
situated entitles,
Petitioners and Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
21 AtmlORlTY, a public entity, and DOES
1-20,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CO'A'O'0717Uf14U
Respondents and
Defondant$.
~cNo.34-2008-80000022
AMICUS CUIUAE BRIEF OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS' VERIFIBD PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
FOR1NJUNCTIVB AND DECLARATOR.Y B.BLIEF I
BY FAX
Dato Complaint Filed: August 8, 2008
Trial Date: May 29, 2009
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OP THE crrv OF PALO ALTO
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IN'TRODUCTION .................................................................................. , ••••.•.•...•...................•.. 1
RELBV ANTPBNINSULA ... RELA TED FACTS AND BACKGROUND ......................... 2
.ARGUMENT ..... , ................... , ...................................................... ~ •••••........•. J> .......................... 4
. A. THB SECOND PBIR IS INADEQUATE. AS IT FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH CBQA'S MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ElKS ......................... 4
1. Program BIRs Must Ct)ver The ·Same General Content as Project
Bma .................... ~ ................................................................................... ~ ....•... 4
2. If An lDad~uate Program BIR Is Certified, Its Inadequacies Wi11
Infect AU PUIuIe Tiers or Bnviromnental Review ..................................... S
B. THE SECOND PBIR's PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE ............... S
C. THE SBCOND PEIR. DOBS NOT ADEQUATELY IDBNTIFY.
ANALYZB, OR MITIGATB THE PBNlNSULA-RBLATBD
EN'V'mONMBmAL JMPACfS C;>P ~ HST .+ •• , ..................... t •••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••• 6
I. The Project WiIIlWuIt In Sipificant Land Use Compatibility
hnpacts Not Properly Identified, Analyzed. or Mitipted In the
s.econd PBJR.. .......................................................................... t .. t ............................................. 8
2. . I The Project Willa_ul. In SipificlI1t Noise Impacts Not Properly .
Identified, Analyzod, or Mitigated In The SecondPSIR ............................ 9
3.
4.
The Project Will Result In Sipificant Vibration Impacts Not
PIoperJy Identified, Analyzed, or Mitigated In the Second PEIR ............. I 1
The Project Win R.sult In Sipificant AestbotirJVisual Resources
Impacts Not Properly Identified, Analyzed. or Mitigated In the
Second. PBlR. ••••. ,. .............................................................. , ...••.••.•..••.•........• 11
CONCLUSION ..................... " ......................................... " ..••.••.• , ......................................... " ...... 12
.j.
AMICUS CURIAE BlUm: OF nu~ CITY OF PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
. TABLE OF AUTHORITIU
PaeN>
AI Larson Boal Shop, Inc. v. Bd. 0/ Commissionera 0/ the City o/Long Beach
5 (1993)
18Cal.App .4th 729 .. , ................................................................................................. , .............. 4
6
7
8
9
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board 01 Port Comm 'n (2001) .
91 Cal.App.4t111344 ................................. * .................. ~ ................. I ••••••• '"' .......................... ~ •••• ~ •••••••• 10, 11
Co,?, C~~~;dCfft~~.~~~~~~ .. ~~~:.?~ .............................................................................. S. 6
In ,e BtI)",Delta Programmalic EnvironmenlalImpaet Report Coordintlled
10 Proceedings (2008)
43 Cal.4t111143 •.... ,., ............ , ........... , .. ,. ............................................................................................... , .. 7
11
12
13
14
15
16
K08~; &~;~:t fr..~~~!~~.~~~~~ ........................................................................................... S
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents 0/ the University 0/ California
(1988) . .
47 Cal. 3d 376 ................................................... "' ............................. " ........ , ••..•..••.. , .. " .. , ............................. 4, 7
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996)
48 Cal.App.4th 182 ......................................................................................... 1 ......................... 7
17 IIAIVIIS
18 PubUo Resources Code
19 Sections 21000 et seq ...... , .. , ....... , ...............................................•...•... t ................................................. 1
. Section 210113.9 ........................ "' .......•..•• , .................................................... ~ ... " ..••..••...•..••••••......• (:)
20'" "Sect jOn 21()9:2.4 ..... ; ••.. · ................................ ~ .••...•..•••.••.. t ............. , ............................................... " •••••• 6
Section 2J093_ subd.(a) ..................................... " ........ ~ ........................ t ••• "" •••••••••• ., •••••••• , .................. 4
21 Section 2100'4. suM (a) ......... : ........... , ................................................................. ., ............................ S
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PDlIBaUTHORITIES
14 Califomia Code of Regulations
Section IS064, subd,. (d)(I) ...... ~ ................. , ................................................. , ..... : ............................. 10
S~tion 15083, suM (b) .................................................................................................... : ........... 6
Section 15086 ............ , ................................................................................................................ , .••.•. 6
Sections 15120 -lS132 •••••..•••••..• , •.•......••••. , ....................................................................................... 4
Section 15125. subd. (d) ....................................................................................................... 8.9
Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(I)(O) ............................................................................................ l2
Section 15143 ......... "'._ .............................. " ..•.... , ................. " .......... , ............................... , ....... 'I> ............ ~ .. 10
Section 15144 ............................ ,. ..................................... , ....................................... _ .... , ......... : ........ " 9, 11
·ii· .
AMICUS CURIAE BlUEr OF THIl CITY OF PALO Al.TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
fO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE ~F A!!jORlTIES contm )
hal')
Section 15152, suttd. (b) ................•.•...••.....••.••••..••.••...•..•.•.•.•••.•.....•.•....•..•........•...•....•.•.••..••.••• 7
Section lS16S ................. ~ ............................................................................................................. I
SCction 151·68_ 8UW. (a) •.. , ........................ " ........ " .••.•...•..••...••...•... ,. ............................... t ••••••••••• t1.4
Section ·15169, subc1.(b.)(4) ........ ".'# .... iI! .......................... t ••••••••••••••••••• .,.1> •••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
Sec:tion 15382 •..•.........••••........ : .......................................... , .......................................................... 10
Section 1.5384 .•.•.....• ~ .................................................... " .. " .......................... ~ ..... ,' ..... It •• 1t ••••••• , •••••••••••• S
COPA\47107\7I1fiMfl -lIi-
AMICUS CURlAB BRIEF OF THB CITY 0' PALO ALTO
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 In 2004, Respondent CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUIHORITY
3 ("CHSRA" or "Respondent'') first attempted to comply with the Califomia Bnvironmental
4 Ql.l8lity Act ("CEQA"; Pub. ResoW'Ce.a Code, f§ 21000 et seq.) through a Draft Systemwide
5 Prosram BlRIEIS (the "2004 PEm!,), which pwported to analyze the significant environmental
6 impacts of a proposed high-speed train system (the "JIST' or "Project"). When legal deficiencies
7 in the 2004 PBJR were identified, instead of correcting those deficiencies, CHSRA took the easy
8 . way out -it simply deleted. the non...compliant sections of the 2004 PBJR. and tabled its
9 consideration of the portion of the Project for which CEQA review was consequently incomplete •
. 10 Then, in an interesting and novel twist on CBQA~s tieringprocess.1 CHSRA
11 directed its staff to prepare a second~ program-level onvironmonta1 impact report (the "Second
12 pBJRt,) to evaluate the previously deleted portions of the Project, and identify a preferred
13 alignment for tbe HST "within the broad corridor betWeen and including the Altamont Pass and
14 the Pacheco Pass ... connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central ValJey and project level
IS studies considering preferred alignment and station locations'" (AR 0OOO209i However, when
16 the draft Second PElR was 11"easOO, careful review of the document revealed that CHSRA had
17 . expanded its scope to include the portion of the HST that would traverse the San Francisco
18 Peninsula (the "Peninsula''). Like the 2004 PE~ the Second PBIR fails to comply with CEQA's
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
mandatory enviromncntal review requirements.
The question presented in, this case is whether CHSRA complied with its
mandatory duty to scrupulously foHow CEQA. Without question. it did not. More detailed
infonnation was available to CHSRA regarding the impacts of the Project on the Peninsula. and it
, AlDicul PALO ALTO caa ODd no legal bub or au.borizatlon In CEQA or .... e CEQA
GuideD ... for tile pnparatlo. of. lecoad, Pl'OJI'a.levei ElK rer tile ..... e project. Section
15168 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that: "A pl'OJl'8lll BIR is an EIR which may be prepared
on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. •. " (14 Cal. Code Regs.,
§ 15 168, subd. (8).) Here, instead of preparing a single program BIR for a series of actions that
can be characteri2ed as _large project~ the CHSRA has spUt the Project into two separate parts,
and has prepared a program BIR. for each separate part. This latctal environmental review
frocess is unauthorized by CEQA. (See also 14 Cal. Code Regs., § lSI6S.)
The Administrative Record prepared by Respondent is cited herein in the fonn "AR Xnnnnnn."
X indicates the section, and nnnnnn indicates the page nwnber.
COPA".,eo1\166S49.l .}.
AMlCUS CURlAB BRIEf OP THE errv OF PALO ALTO
1 was possible for CHSRA to obtain it. This infonnation was absolutely necessary for CHSRA to
2 make a fully informed decision about the environmental consequences of its action.
3 Tile ~DseqlleDees of ano"iIll CHSRA to proceed with the Project based 00 a
4 delicleDt progfa. BfR .re substaatial. Because C.BQA autllorJzes f.ture ovir.melltal
S review to Uer off of program level docllmeDtI, If tbls Court does Dot reqaire Secoad PEIR's
6 defideades to be corretted, those deRcleaeles wJlllDfeet all future levels of eDviroDmeatal
7 review for tbe Project.
8 II. RlLEV ANI PENINSULA-RELATED FACTS AND BACKGROUND
.9 CHSRA prepared md circulated the 2004 PSIR to evaluate three transit system
10 alternatives: (1) a no project alternanve. (2) a highway andaitpOrt expansion alternative, and (3)
11 the HST. (AR B003869.) In response to comments resardinl the adequacy of the 2004 PSIR, "
12, CHSRA deleted an entire section &om the 2004 PBIR.. (petitioners' Openina Brief ("PBtl
), 6: 1 S-
13 18.) This deleted section had defectively evaluated only one route for the HST ,between the
14 CentraJ Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area: the PachecQ Pass alignment. (PB, 6: 6·22.)
15 Instead oftakins the extra time to study any alternative route. CHSRA simply deferred complete
16 enviromnental evaluation oltho Central Valley to San Francisco Bay Area alignment to a later
17 date. (AR 0000209.)
J 8 NotwithstandinS that CBQA docs nQt contemplate the preparation of multiple
19 program*level ElRs for tile same "large project," in 2007 CHSRA prepared and circulated the
20 Second PEIR for the portion of the proposed Project previously deleted from the 2004 PBIR.
21 Consistent witb the direction CHSRA provided at the 'time the 2004 PBIR was
22 certified, and consistent with the Notice of Preparation, many interested parties believed that the
23 limited purpose of the Second PElIt was to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the
24 Pacheco and Altamont Pass aJignments. (AR. G000209.) This belief was confmned by reference
2.5 to the "Bay Area'to Central Valley Conidor" map included as Figure 1.1 ~ 1 in the final Second
26 PEIR. (AR B003870.) Th~ a hatched area between tbe Pacheco and Altamont Passcs was
27 described as the "Possible Alignment Area. tr (Ibid.) This batched area did not oxtend up the
28 Peninsula into the City and County of San Francisco. Notably, even the brief filed by CHSRA
COPAIA'80'1\766849.2
AMICUS CURIAe DRlBF OF nlE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1 evidences a general understanding that the purpose of the Second PEIR was to evaluate
2 environmental impacts associated with the Pacheco and Altamont Pass alignments. (See
3 Respondent's Opposition Brief ("RB''), I! 12--13 ["The Authority used a fll'st~tier, program EIR to
4 focus on the br.~ad differences between the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass in order to choose
S betWeen them. '1; RB, 4: 16-19 [" ... The Authority directed staff to prepare a new prognun EJR
6 focused on the northern mountain crossing. rr'; RD, 12: 11 .. 12 (pmpose of second program EIR.
7 was 'fto choose the northern mountain crossing to connect the HST between the Bay Area and the
8 Central Valley:'].) When the drift Second PEIR was released., CHSRA held eight public
9 hearinas -none ofwmcb were located in PALO ALTO or other Peninsula cities. (See RB, S: 13 ..
10 14, th. 1.)
11 Upon a close and detailed review of the text of the volwninous Second PEIR., it is
12 . clear its scope is much greater than believed. According to the 8eJf~deseribed "Alternatives"
13 section of the Second PEIR., the document analyzes the environmental impacts associated with
14 «[sJix Unear geograpbic belts or bands being considered for the HST system that connect different
IS pw·ofthe study region." (AR B003898.) One of these "belts or bands·' extends up the
16 Peninsula from the City of San Jose into the City and County of San Francisco. (See AR
17· BOO3934.) Actual station locations on the Peninsula were identified on FiguJ'C 2.5-1, including a
18 potential station within the jurisdictional boundaries ofP ALO ALTO. (AR BOO3940.) The "San
19 Fnmcisco to San Jose'· alignment and station locatioDB options were described in detail as
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"(oUows:
COfA'of710T\166.4' 1
• Cal1rain AJipnent (Shgred .. Use Four .. Track); From San Francisco, this
alipment alternative would follow south along the Caltrain rail alipment
to Dumbarto~ and from there to San Jose. This alisnment assumes that the
HST system would share tracks with Caltrain oommuter trains. The entire
alipment would be gr.ade separated. Station location options would
include a station in the lower level of the proposed new Transbay Transit
Center in San Francisco or a station at 4th and King Streets, a station in
Millbrae to serve SFO, and a station in either Redwood City or Palo Alto.
The Caltrain shared-usc alianment would take advantage-of the existing
rail inftastmQturc and would be mostly at grade.
• I_sbU Ttansit Cm1eri The potential station location would serve ahe
Caltrain sharedwuse alignment. a downtown terminal station.
• 4th and Kins: This potential station location would serve the Caltrain
shared-use four-track alignment as a downtown tennioal station.
.3-
AMICUS CURIAE BRIBF OF THB CITY Of PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• MUlbm: This potential station would SClVe as a connection with SFO.
• Redwood City: 1bis potential station loCation would provide accC8sibility
and serve the population between San Jose and San Francisco,
• Palo AIm: This pOtential station location would provide accessibility and
serve the population between San Jose and San Francisco.
(AR BOO39S3·BOO39S4; see also AR BOO3958.)
Despite receiving nUDlCfOUS letters pointing out that the Second PEIR failed to
comply with many of CEQAts II'l&ndatory requirements, the final Second PEIR was certified by
CHSRA on July 9, 2008. (AR AOOOOO2.)
III. ABGUMENT
A. THE SECOND PElR IS lI!APEOUATI, AS ITFAJLS TO COWLX
WITH ClQA'S MANDATORY RlOYIREMENTS Ji'OR EIRS •.
1. '"&ram Elas MUlt C.ver 'he Sail!! Geller.1 Co.,,,, ••
Despite w.bat CRSRA would have the Court believe, CEQA '. c •• teat
requiremeDts for progrllm ElBa are DO dlffereDt diu CEQA'. eODteDt requtrements for
pIVIJed EIRs. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., §f 1 S 12() -1 S 132; AI Larson Boat Shop. Inc. v. Bd. of
Commissioners of the City of Long Beach (1993) 18 CaI.App.4th 729, 741 ["All BIRs muSlcover
. the same general content.,,].)3 A program EIR is simply a $pOCiaJ type ofBIR, "which may be
prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. n (14 Cal. Code
Regs., § 15168, subd,(a).) Program .ElRs allow government agencies -such 88 the CHSRA -to
"consider broad paUcy alternatives and program wide mitisation measures .. ,n (14 Cal .. Code
Regs., § IS169, subd.(b)(4).} The purpose of the optional plV&f8II1 EIR process is to simplify
later environmental review, (See Pub. ResoUJCos Code, § 21093, subd.(a); AI Larson Boot Shop.
Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners of the City of Long Bedch, supra. 18 Cal.App.4th at 741.)
3 While the courts have not detennined whether the Ouidelhiea are ni!gulatory mandates or only
aids in interpretiDB CEQA, " .•. courts should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a
provision is olearly unauthorized or enoneous under CBQA." (Laurel Heiglltslmprovemetll
Assn. v. Regents of the University ofCalifomkl (1988) 47 CaI.3d 376, 391, fit. 2; sec also
nneyard ArflQ Citizens for Responsible G1'OW11t. Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova. supra, 40
Cal.4th at 428t fn. 5.)
COPAW7SOn7&5I".2 -4-
AMICUS CURIAB BRJB.P OF me CITY Of PALO ALTO
1 2. HAD Inadequate 'rolEam ElK Is CertU1edt Its IDgdeqyasl!s
.'
2 Wig lar". All Future Tiers Of EgyJroPDlFata. RevlllL
3 CEQA contemplates a If tiered" environmental r~view process, whereby agencies
4 can ~opt program EIRs focusia,s on the ''big picture" and can then use streamlined CEQA
S review for future projects that are consistent with the already reviewed biS picture plans. (Koster
6 v. County of San Joaquin (996) 41 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.} Later prepared EIRs fer .p.cllle
7 preject. are exeused from repeating the analysis of the eDvitoamea.lllsDes aDalyzed. .. tb.
S previous prOiram EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21094, subd. <a); 14 Cal. Code Regs., §
9 15384.} By using CEQA's tiered environmental review process, CHSRA can limit fUture, site·
IO specific environmental review by excluding cm:tain issues ftom analysis in later CEQA
11 documents.
12 The importance of a proper CBQA tiering process in this case is paramount.
13 Because future site-specific BIRs wi)) necessarily be more limited in focus than the Second PEIR,
14 and will rely upon the Second PEIR for analysis of certain issues, it is vital that the Second PEIR
1 S . be legally adequate and comply with all of CEQA '8 mandatory requirements. (Se6, e.g., Koster v.
16 County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th29, 41-42.) IfCHSRA is to adequately analyze
17 the site-specific environmental consequences of the Project in the future, it must remedy the
18 deficiencies and inadequacies of the Second. PElR, so thosc problems are not allowed to infect
19 future CEQA documents.
20' B. THE pCON» PEIR's Paon;cr DESCRIPTION IS
21 INAPEOVATE.
,
22 "An &(leurate, stable, and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
23 infonnative and legally sufficient BIR.. t. (County olInyo \I, City of Los Angelea (1977) 71
24 Cal.App.3d 18S. 193.) Here, CHSRA (eferred to the Project conrrid.ered in the Second PBIR
25 differently in different parts of the Second PBJR. In fact, CHSRA also referred to th~ Project
26 differently in many of the documents prepared in comection with the Second PBIR.
27 Respondent's counsel also refers to the Project differently throughout its brief. As a result, the
28 Second PEIR's project description is unstable and inadequate.
AMICUS CURIAE 8R1BF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1 Pursuant to Resolution No. OS-<> I of CHSRA, the Second PEIR was supposed to
2 . analyze: C' ••• 8 preferred alignment within the broad conidor between and including the Altamont
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pass and the Pacheco Pass for the HST SyStem segment connecting the San Francisco Bay Area
.'
to the Central Valley ... H (AR GOOO209.) The document that resulted -the Second PBIR ... does
not focus exclusively on this iuue. Instead, the Second PBIR also identifies a specific alignment .
for the HST on the Peninsula., and selects specific station locations on the Peninsula.
The first time a reader of the Second PBIR becomes aware of the true scope of the
project evaluated in the Second PBIR is upon review of the "Alternatives·' chaptor. In that
section, the Peninsula alignment is revealed for the first time. (See AR B003898·AR B0039'77.)
The repeated inconsistencies in describing the project evaluated in the Second PEIR. confused the
pubJic and local agencies. thus vitiating the usefulness of CEQA' s environmental review process.
(CountyofJnyov. CityoluaAngelestsup1'a, 71 Cal.App.3dat 197-198.)
"-
The seneral public was further coDfUaed by the fact that Dot ODe of the seopibl
14 . SessiObS was beld 18 aDy oftbe Pealasula dUes between San Jose ad Sao PraDcIKo. (AR
1S 8000002.) Additional misunderstanding resulted when Dot Obe of the plabDe hearlDII OD the
l(i dnft SKond PEIB was beld OD tbe PeDta.ala. (AR BOOIOS3.) Santa Clara County and all
.7 . Pea •• ul. cities were eODspicaously abseat from the Outr,.eh Before Drift Progn ..
J 8 EIRIEIS process. CHSRA also did not consult· with local agencies located on the Peninsula
19 during the Icoping process. (AR Booms.)
20
2]
22
13
24
2S
26
27
28
c. THE PCQNO,PEIIDON NOT AQEOUATILXWEN1'llf.
ANA!.'DI. OR MITIGATE THE PENINSULA-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE HSI.
Respondent flatly contends that it need not fully identify, analyze, or mitigate
significant environmental impacts that the HST will cause on the Peninsula because the Second
• Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines suggests that early consultation with local agencies is an
effective way to resolve concerns of affected aaencies. (14 Cal. Code Regs •• § 15013, aubel. (b).)
Further, section 15086 of thoCEQA Ouidelina requires a lead agency to consult with and
request comments on a draft EDt tiom all localaJeBcles which have jurisdiction bylaw with
respect to the project, or which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project, and any city within which the project is located. (14 Cal. Code Rep., § 15086.; see also
Pub. Resourees Code, §f 21083.9, 21092.4/requiring consultation with toca1 agenoies in
cormectioD wi1h taU projects and projects 0 reponal or statewide signi(acance).)
COPA't4,"'I\1I6I49.2 . -6-
AMICUS CURIAB BRIU OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO '
1 PEIR is a progr'ant EIR, Respondent indicates it was "nol ready to tackle [] site-specific issues,"
2 (RB,36: 19) despite that it was ready to approve (and actually did approve) a specific well-
3 defined PeninsulaaIignment, jne1uding specific rail station locations. (See AR AOOOOOl-
4 AOOOOO4.) Contrary to RC8pondent~s unsupported contention that applicable case law permits
S CHSRA to defer proper consideration of environmental impacts if the "level of detail" required to
6 be considered is "overwhelming/' (RB~ 36: 19-20) where speeUle sites bave bee. selected for
7 proposed develOpment. aud wlatre ially ... of eavlroDmeDtal.lmp8etll. bot .. practicable
8 .ad feasible, CEQA wlthout eseeptlcm requires sucla analysts to he cond"cud. (In re Bay-
9 Delta Programmatic, Environmental Impact Rtlpon Coordinattld Proceedings (2008) 43 Cat4th
10 1 t 43, It 73; see also Stanislaus Natural Htlr/lagtl Project v. COURty 0ISton/slous (1996) 48
1 t Cal.App.4tb 182, 199.) Because CHSRA actually selected a Peninsula alignment, and station
12 locations, it was required to fully identify. analyze. and mitigate all Peninsula-related
] 3 environmental impacts from that specific alignment and those specific stationa.
14 Respondents specifically contend that a properly prepared program EIR. contains
15 ''more limited analysis and mitigation·' than a project BIR. (RB,34: IS.) Such limited analysis is
1 ~ not authorized by CEQA or by the CBQA Guidelines. 'Tierml-does Dot .:leus. the lead aleney
17 from adequately aa81yllal reponable foreseeable slpIDeant envJroDme.t.1 effects of the
18 proJect ... •• (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15152. subd. (b).) ··An BIR m1.lSt include detail SUfficient to
19 enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully
20 --the issues raised by the proposed project." (Laurel Heigbtslmprovement Ass 'n v. Regents of the
21 University of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 405.)
22 The Second PEm ~ identify the specific location of the proposed HST alons
i3 the Peninsula, and actually identifies station locatiOD8. These are nol simply broad or seneral
24 ffpolicY·decisions, but actual pJans for a specific rail system. The decision made by CHSRA on
25 July 9,2008 was a material step in selectins the Project', Peninsula route and station locations.
26 (AR AOOOOOl.AOOO004.) Because specific sites have been selected for proposed development,
27 and because analysis oftbe environmental impacts associated with the identified sites and
28 . alignment is practicable at this time, CBQA requires Buch analysis to be conducted.
(;OPA\l7101\7Ge •• u ·7·
AMICUS CUlUA6 BIUBP OF TH8 CITY OF PALO ALTO
•
1 1. The PEgl. Will Res,lt la SlgplfieJpt Laad Use «;2lDPatibJljty
2 (mpa. Not PrGperly IcJgtlfled, AIlaJrad, or MIJ'cattd Ip tlJe Semd rlIR.
3 Two Peninsula cities submitted lengthy comments regarding the sipifieant land
•
4 use compatibility impacts that would result from the HST. (See. e.g., AR B006S30, BOO6S17.)
S Notwithstanding these identified land use compatibility impacts, the Second PBIR concluded
6 there would be KJliJh"land use compatibility because the alignment was "[c]ompatible with
7 existina Caltrain corridor!' (AR B004184-B00418S.) Apparently, CHSRA determined that the
8 only issue with respect to land use compatibiHty is whether or not a train already exist. in the
·9 area. CBQAdemands much more.
l() Section 15125(11) oithe CEQA Ouidelinesmandates that: "An Em. shan discuss
11 any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional
12 plans." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15125, subd.. (d).) Thepu!pose of this discussion is to enable a
13 lead agency to find wa)lS to modify a project to reduce inconsistencies.
14 Remarkably, although the Second PBIR says it includes a discussion of potential
15 inconsistencies with land use plans, no such discussion is actually CODtained in the Second PBIR.
16 (AR 8004164.) Review of the Second PElRreveals that CHSRA only considered the existing
17 land use designations of property within the Peninsula alignmeal and did not consider other
18 glaring incompatibility and inconsistency issues. (AR B004165.) In fact, the Second PEIR' s
19 woefully inadequate land use compatibility discussion for the entire Peninsula alignment is
ZO. . Qantained in the followjpg thrc:e (3) selltences:
.21
22
23
24
25
The San l7ranciaco to Dumbarton alignment altomative would be
hishly compGtlble with existing land US" because it would be
conSIrUcteci primarily within the malin, Caltrain conidor. Grade
separatiODS along tho alisnm_ altomative would entail the
conversion of residential and nonresidential property ... The land use
compatibility for the Dumbadon to San lose aJipment alternative
would be the same as the San Francisco to Dumbarton alipment
alternative.
26 (AR B00419S. emph. added.) This quotation makes clear that CHSRA failed to sufficiently
27 evalUate the impact of applicable land use plans. CBQA does not mefely require an evaluation of
28 whether a project is consistent with existing land uses -CEQA also reCluires aD evaluatioD .f
CO'A .... 71107\'I1I6 ... 9.2 -8-
AMICIJS CURIAE 8R1BF OF 'mE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1 . whether a project Is consisteDt wltb a,pUcable "ad useplR",. (14 Cal Code Regs., § 15125,
2 subd.(d).}
3 For the Peninsula station locations, the Second PEIR's analysis is similarly
4 deficient. (ARB004195.) Again, the Second PBIR answers the question whether the HST is
S consistent with existing land uses at the separate station sites, but faUs entirely to address the
6 additional question CBQA requires to be answered -whether the project is cOnBistent with
7 applicable land use plans. (14.)
8 CHSRA simply ignores that CBQA requires it to "use its best efforts to find out
9 and disclose an that it reasonably can" in its EIR. (14 Cal. Code Rep., § 15144.) Ataminimum,
J 0 CHSRA was required to identify the general and regional plans applicable to the Project on the
11 Peninsula,' and to discuss m inconsistencies between those plana and the Project. CHSRA',
12 failure to include such a discussion in the Second PBIR renders the document useless for
13 infonnational purposes jn this regard, and inadequate under CBQA.
14 Perhaps even more alannjng for the public and Poninsula4 area officials, is the
1 S manner in which tho Second PBIR unlawfully proposes to limit analysis in future, ~ond-ticr,
16 project-specific environmental documents. As set forth on page 3.7 .. 42 of the Second PBIR:
17 "Pro;ect·level review wOIlJd consider consistency with existing and planned land usc,
18 neighborhood access needs, and multi-modal connectivity issues." (ARB004207.) In essenoe,
19 CHSRA reads section 1512S(d) right out oithe CEQA Guidelines. and proposes to limit future
20· -. discussion to onl}rthtee separate land use-relatc.;Hssues, to the -exclusion of all others.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. TIle ProJest Wig Besult 1M Slren._. Noise 'Dapaets Not
Properly IdepdftecL Analvzej(. or Mltlut.d In The!,tpoPd PEIR.
The Second PEIR provides that the proposed Peninsula alignment will "pass
throuSh densely populated areas where there is wgh potential for noise impacts!' (AR 8004 t 17.)
The Second PBIR then leaps to the unsuPPorted conclusion that Peninsula noise impacts wiD be
either "low-level", or "medium-level," (AR B004118.)
S Not one of over 20 .,pUcabIe General ud/or "'08.1 plaDs Is ',"iDeally referenced In
tbe Land Use and Planning, CommuDlties aad Nelghborboods, Property, aDd
Environmental Justice section of the SeeoDd PEIR. (Aft B004164 -8004211.)
COf>AW11O'7\766U9.2 .9.
AMICUS CUIUAIi BlUEf OPTHE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1
2
3
.4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CEQA is not concemed with whe&her a particular environmental impact will bave
an "impact rating,,6 ofHl~w". "medium" or "high." (AR B004101.) CEQA is concerned with
whether a particular impact is significant. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15382 [defining
"significant"].) Aa ElK Is required to provide a complete dlscussloD ad aaaly,ls of aay
IdeDdfted slgnlOeaat eavironmental Impact, regardlell or wlledaer It Is ebaraeterlzed as a
low-level, medium-Ie;vel or Idab-Ievellmpaet (See Berlceley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v.
Board of Port Comm Irs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th t 344, 1370.)
One of the most extreme impacts of the Project is its noise impact. (AR 8006530.)
The Projcct proposes electrified steel-wheel-on-steel-raiJ train service. running through densely
populated residential conununities, (AR BOO3869.) In some cases, the trains will run within
yards of the bedrooms ot single-family residences, (AR 8006531.) As a direct e"vironmental" ' .
impact ortbe Project, CEQA mandates that the noise impact be fully and properly evaluated and
mitigated. (14 Cal. Code Regs .• § 15064. subd. (d)(l).)
Section t 5143 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that Usignificant effects should be
discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence," (14 Cal.
Code Regs. § 15143.) Despite the CHSRA-described "htgb.poteDtJaI for aolse Impacts," on the
Peninsula (AR B004117) the Second PEIR failed to properly identify. analyze, or mitigate the
Project's noise impacts.
The Second PEIR identifies four noise-related thresholds of significance. (AR
800410S.) However. the Second PElR makes no attemptto quantify whether the project will
exceed these identified thresholds of significance on the Peninsula. Instead, the Second PEIR
merely estimates noise levels on a region-wide (the entire San Francisco Bay area) basis. and
makes no attempt to quantify noise levels anticipated on the Peninsula alignment or at the
identified station locations. (AR 8004116.)
Like the deficient land use compatibility analysis, the noise impact analysis for the
entire Peninsula alignment and station locations is contained in three short cooclusory sentences.
(See AR B004118.) Again, CHSRA simply ignores that CEQA requires CHSRA to "use its best
6 "Impact ratin~' has no meaning under CBQA.
COl'A\47801\766149.2 .11).
AMICUS CUJUAE BRffif OF THE CITY OJ! PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18 ,.
19
·_····20-.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" in its BIR. {14 Cal. Code Regs .• §
15144.} At a minimum. CHSRA should have quantified specific noise impacts to Peninsula
sensitive receptors. CHSRA's failure to include such infomtation in the Second PBIR renders the
. document useless for infonnational purposes, ... d inadequate under CBQA.
3. Th, Protect wln.wIt III SlgUkgl.Vlbratloa Impaoas Not
Properly IdeDdf1ecL Aaalyz", or Mltlnted I. the Second PEI&
CHSRA used the exact same legally deficient approach to vibration impacts as it
did for noise impacts. Again, CHSRA classifies potential vibration impacts according to "levels'"
As explained above, CEQA is not concemed with whether a particular environmental impact will
have an "impact rating" ofulow", "medium" or "high'" (AR B004101.) CEQA is concerned
with whether a particular impact is 8ipifica"t. (Sec Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. V.
Board 0/ Pori Comm ',s, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1370.)
Because the EIR identifies potential vibration impacts as "significant" it is
required to provide a complete discussion and anal~i8 of the potential vibration impacts.
Amicus PALO ALTO is unable to locate any discussion or analyais of the potential vibration
impacts of the HST to the Peninsula cities in the Second PEIR beyond the conclusory statement ,
that there is f'tbe potential for medium to high vibration impacts because of the proximity of
residential structures to the aJipmcnt;' and a diagrammatic reference to the same conelusion in
Figure 3.4·7 oCthe EIR. (AR B004118, 8004132.) The Second PEIR. contains absolutely no
reference to an appendix or other document that would provide supporting data for its eonclusory
vibration detenninations. At a minimum, CHSRA should have attempted to quantifY specific
vibration impacts to the Peninsula. CHSRA's failure to include such infonnation in the Second
PElR renders the doc\UJlent useless for infonnational purposes, and inadequate under CEQA.
4. The. Protect Will ResUlt II Sipille.o! Aest1tedctyl.yal
Besoyrses Impacts Not Properly IcIeDtffted. Alllm!d... or Mitigated 18 the Sec;OIId 'EIRe
As a result of the Second PElR's deficient noise analysis, the Second PEIR
proposes only a single measure to mitigate the CHSRA-described "htl. potential for Roise
impacts", on the Peninsula. (AR 8004117,8004129.) Specifically, the Second PEIR. provides
COP"W'180'M668f'"
AMICUS CURIAe BRIEF OF THB CITY Of PALO ALTO
1 that U[p ]otential noise impacts can be reduced substantial1y by the instaUation of sound bamer
2' walls constructed to shield receivers ftom Irain noise,'· (AR B004129.) Reference to Table 3.4-7
3 in the Second PBIR. indicates that CHSRA expects to install over 45 miles oenoise baniers along
4 the PeninsUla. (AR B004130.) The Second PBIR fails to comply with CEQA because it includes
S absolutely no identification, analysis, ormiti.ation of the poteatially significant impacts or the
6 installation of noise barriers aIon& the Peninsula.
7 As set forth in seotion 1 S 126.4(8)(1 )(D) of the CEQA Guidelines; &6 If a mitigation
8 measure would cause one or more sipiflC88t effects in addition to those that would be caused by
9 the project as proposed, tile effects of the mitigation measure shan be ducused but in less
10 detail than the sipificant effects of the project as proposed." (14 Cal. Code Rep., § 1 S 126.4,
11 subd. (a)(I)(D) [jntemal citations omitted, emph added.])
12 At an absolute minimum, the potentially significant visual and aesthetic impacts
13 should have been identified in the Second PSIR. Because the Second PBIR fails to identify,
14 analyze. or mitipte th8 significant enviromnental effects oilbo noise mitigation measure, the
1 S document is useless for infonnationa1 purposes, and inadequate under CBQA.
16 IV. {(ONCLUSION
17 For the reasons set forth a~ve, the Second PEIR fails to comply with CEQA's
L8 most basic requirement -full disclosure. The deeply fla.wed Second·PEIR fails to inform the
19 public and the decisionmakers of all of the significant environmental impacts of the Project. and
2() is therefore ioadequ~e. Amicus curiae PALO ALTO supports Petitioners' JeqQesl th.8t the Coun
21 grant the petition and i.ssue a writ of mandate ordering CHSRA to rescind its "rtitica1ion of the
22 Second PEIR. and itJ approval ofibe Project
23 Dated: May 1. 2009
24
25
26
27
28
00''''''710''766849.2
Respectfully Submitted,
Mll..LER STARR REGALIA
BY:~~ STJNA DANmL LA Wi iN
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae .
CITY OF PALO ALTO
-12·
AMICUS CUJUAB BRlJiF OF THe CITY OF PAW ALTO
l
:2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27-
28
PROQFOF Sf-mE
(Town of Atherton, et at v. California 19h-Speed Rail AUlhorily. ef al.,
-Sacramento Superior ~urt. Case No. 34-2008-80000022)
I. Karen Wigylu$, declare:
I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 1331 N. California Blvd., Fifth Floor, Post
Office Box 8117. Walnut Creek, CA 94596. On May 1, 2009, 1 served the within documents:
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT
OF PETITIONERS' VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT 01' MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCDVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
o
o
o
COI'A\47B07\76736l.1
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with posta&e thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Walnut Creek, California addressed as
set forth below. --
by pJacing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and
affixing a pre·paid air bill. and causini the envelope to be delivered to a Federal
Express agent for next business day delivery.
by personally delivering the documcnt(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
addressees) set forth below.
Stuart M. Flashman
Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618·1533
Tel: S 1 0.6S2.S373
Fax: 5io.6S2.S373
e·maiI: stuflash@aoI.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs and Petitioners
TOWN OF ATHERTON.
PLANNING AND
CONSBRVATION LEAGUE. CITY
OF MENLO PARK.,
TRANSPOR.TATION SOLUTIONS
DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
FUND, CALIFORNIA RAIL
FOUNDATION and BA YRAlL
ALLIANCE
Edmund G. Brown. Jr.
Attomcy Gcnora1 of C.Ufomia
Daniel L. SiegeJ
SupervJIiDs Deputy Attorney General
Christine Sproul
Georsc Spanos
Danao 1. Aitchison
Deputy Attomoys General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Tel: 916.322.5522
Fax: 916.327.2319
e-mail: christine.sprouJ@doj.ca.gov;
danae.aitchison@doj.ca.gov
Attorney$ for Defendant and
Respondent CALIFORNIA HIGH·
SPBBD RAIL AUTHORITY
1 I am readily familiar with the .finn's practice of collection and processing' .
2
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fuJly ·prepaid in the ordinary courso of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if P.C?'taI cancellation
3 . date or postage meter date is more than one day ~er date of deposit for mailing in affi~avit.
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
)9
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
I deelare under .penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and comet. .
Executed on May I, 2009, at Walnut Creek, California.
c
COPA\47l107I767)63 I
·2·
ATTACHMENTD
February 11,2010
Senator Joseph Simitian
State Capitol
Room 2080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Qty qf P~o~to
Office of the Mayor and City Council
RE: 2009 High Speed Rail Business Plan
Dear Senator Simitian:
The Palo Alto City Council Subcommittee for High Speed Rail has reviewed the 2009
Business Plan prepared by the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA). The Subcommittee,
in conjunction with the Peninsula Cities Consortium, has identified a number of
deficiencies and flaws in the Business Plan that need to be addressed and rectified before
the project proceeds f:Urther. Those issues relate to the inadequate and fundamentally
flawed ridership study, a questionable financing strategy that relies upon "hoped for"
federal funding. and omits key cost elements in the San Francisco to San Jose segment,
and a grossly deficient risk management plan.
These issues and concerns were presented by Palo Alto Mayor Burt at the Joint Hearing
of the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and
Energy and Transportation and the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on
January 21 in Palo Alto. As discussed in detail below, the Subcommittee, on behalf of
the Palo Alto City Council is requesting that the Legislature take the following actions
related to HSR financing, governance, and process:
Financing:
• Require HSRA to correct all of the deficiencies in the Business Plan indentified in
the Legislative Analyst's Report.
• Require the HSRA to prepare a sound Investment Grade Ridership Study before
additional funding is released for project engineering
• Require that the Business Plan be rewritten and approved before any further
funding is released for the project engineering.
• Address the deficiencies in the construction budget for the San Francisco to San
Jose segment where key cost elements have been omitted and no funding is
included to address Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS).
Governance:
Printed with soy-based Inks on 100% recycled paper proc_d without chlorine
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
• Mandate that a new HSRA Governing Board of top professionals with mega
project expertise and full accountability be appointed to manage the High Speed
Rail project.
• Clarify the role of the Peer Review Committee and require quarterly"reports ofthe
Independent Peer Review to the Legislature.
Process/Timeline:
• Mandate that HSRA adopt CSS statewide,
• Work with the Governor to request the federal government to extend the stimulus
funding deadlines to allow for an adequate and thorough CEQAlNEP A process
and successful project planning.
Palo Alto recognizes that the California HST project is crucial for the future of mass
transit in California and will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the State and
City of Palo Alto. It is the most significant project in the history of the Peninsula and
must be designed to minimize impacts and roouce community divisions or barriers.
Colfaboration between the HSRA and local communities is the key to success for the
project
Thank: you for considering these requests and please let us know when you will be able to
incorporate these items into your oversight of the HSR project. If you or others have
questions, please feel free to contact me or Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie at 329-
2354 or steve.emslie@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
OJf~-I
PATBURT 1
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Medhi Morshed, HSRA
Robert Doty, Peninsula Rail Project
City Council
ATTACHMENT E
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................ 3
Background ........................................................................................... 5
Department of Transportation ........................................................... 10
Capital Outlay Support Should Be Based on Workload ............................... 10
Payments for Public-Private Partnerships Problematic ............................... 21
Proposition 1 B Implementation ........................................................... 23
High-Speed Rail Authority ................................................................... 25
Project Development Work Increasing .................................................. 25
Project to Receive Federal Stimulus Funds .............................................. 26
Revised Business Plan an Improvement, but Still Lacks Details .................. 27
Current-Year Progress Difficult to Determine ........................................... 28
2010-11 Budget Proposals .................................................................... 29
TR-2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Governor's budget proposes $18 billion in expenditures (mostly from special funds) for
transportation programs in 2010-11. This includes $14 billion for the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), $2 billion for the California Highway Patrol, $958 million for the High
Speed Rail Authority (HSRAt and $954 million for the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Caltrans
Capital Outlay Support (COS) Program Is Overstaffed. The budget requests about
$2 billion in 2010-11 for COS-staff resources that perform activities to develop and manage
the department's capital construction program. We reviewed Cal trans' COS budget for recent
years and found that the program's budget lacks sufficient workload justification. In order to
gauge the reasonableness of the department's COS requests for staffing and funding, we evalu
ated the program using several different methods. The cumulative evidence from our review
shows that the program is over-staffed and lacks strong management.
We think major actions are needed to' correct the issues we identify. Specifically, we rec
ommend that the Legislature:
»-Require Caltrans to provide additional information to justify its annual COS budget
request.
»-Have Caltrans report on the steps it is taking to control its COS costs.
»-Request an audit of the program's time charging practices.
»-Reduce the program's staffing by about 1,500 (and $200 million a year) to align with
actual workload if Caltrans does not provide workload justification for its COS budget
request.
Payments for Public-Private Partnerships Problematic. The Governor requests that
$3.45 billion in future federal transportation funds be appropriated to Caltrans to pay private
sector firms for costs related to an unspecified number of public-private partnership (P3) agree
ments. Our review found that the Governor's proposal has several significant problems. Specifi
cally, we found the following:
»-The proposal does not appear to be permissible under current law, and the types of
agreements contemplated in the Governor's proposal are not eligible to be funded en
tirely with federal funds. Thus, the proposal is not workable.
»-Details are not available regarding how the majority of the funds (about $2.5 billion)
would be used. However, in the case of the $1 billion project that has been identified,
using a P3 approach may not reduce state costs as Caltrans claims.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE TR-3
TR-4
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
~ The budget requests a "blank check" authority for the Department of Finance to aug
ment the proposed appropriation without legislative oversight or approval.
We recommend the Legislature reject the request. We further recommend that in revis
ing its budget requests this spring, the administration ensure that any request for P3 funding is
workable and meets certain criteria.
Proposition 1 B
The budget requests the appropriation of $4.7 billion in Proposition 'I B bond funds to meet
current program needs. Our review indicates, however, that the level of funding requested is
higher than the amount needed based on project schedules. We recommend that the Legisla
ture direct Caltrans to report on the projects that are planned for allocation through June 2011,
and the associated level of bond funding that would be needed. The budget should be adjusted
accordingly.
High-Speed Rail Authority
Proposition lA, passed by voters in November 2008, authorizes $9 billion for HSRA to
develop and construct a high-speed train system in California. Recently, the authority received
a $2.25 billion award of federal economic stimulus funds to complement the $9 billion in bond
funds available from the state. The massive increase in available funding has increased the de
velopment work performed by the authority and its contractors. We evaluated HSRA's ability to
measure the project's progress, as well as the authority's budget request, and recommend new
reporting requirements to increase accountability.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
Federal Stimulus Funds
Advanced Several Proiects
Chapter 21, Statutes of 2009 (ABX3 20, Bass),
allowed Caltrans to use federal stimulus funds
provided under the ARRA to provide $310 mil
lion in cash loans to Proposition 1 B projects in
2008-09 and 2009-10. These loans allowed four
state highway projects to proceed to construction
that otherwise would have been delayed due to
the state's difficulties selling bonds. Similarly, sev
eral local agencies used a portion of their ARRA
funds to advance Proposition 'I B projects
Analyst's Recommendation. In the event that
California receives more federal stimulus funds
for transportation, we recommend the Legislature
enact legislation to authorize additional cash
loans to Proposition 1 B projects, In total, there
are about $600 million in Proposition lB projects
ready to start construction, but that are delayed
due to insufficient bond funding. Of these proj
ects, Caltrans estimates that $428 million are fed
erally eligible and could therefore be advanced
if additional federal stimulus funds are provided.
To do so, however, would require the approval
of new state legislation, since the existing author
ity relates only to federal stimulus funds already
received under ARRA.
HIGH-SPEED RAil AUTHORITY
The High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) was
statutorily established to develop a high-speed
rail system in California that links the state's
major population centers, including Sacramento,
the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley,
Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County,
and San Diego. The latest cost estimate for
completion of the first phase of the project, from
San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim via
the Central Valley, is roughly $43 billion. (This
cost estimate reflects the escalated cost of each
portion of the project at the time it is to be built.)
In November 2008, voters approved Proposi
tion lA, which allows the state to sell $9 billion
in general obligation bonds to partially fund the
development and construction of the high-speed
rail system. The remaining funding for the sys
tem's construction and operation is anticipated
to come from federal and local governments as
well as the private sector,
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
PRO.IECT DEVELOPMENT
WORK INCREASING
Over the past few years, the development
work for the high-speed rail project has been in
creasing. As shown in Figure 11 (seenext page),
the authority'S support expenditures have grown
very quickly since 2006-07. This figure includes
the authority'S administration costs as well as the
costs of consulting contracts to plan and develop
the system. These contracts include:
>-Program management, which includes
oversight of all engineering work.
>-Project-level engineering and environ
mental studies conducted along the cor
ridors by various contractors.
>-Financial consulting and public-private
partnership development.
>-Technical consulting such as ridership
forecasts and visual simulations.
TR-2S
TR-26
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
Through the current year, nearly all fund-
ing for project development has come from the
state. However, the authority anticipates using
some federal stimulus funding available through
the ARRA to supplement state funds beginning
in 2010-11. Additionally, the current-year budget
authorizes the state to replace state bond fund
ing with federal funding if allowed by federal law.
Thus, it is possible some of the federal stimulus
funding would be used in the clJrrent year as well.
PROJECT TO RECEIVE FEDERAL
S'rlMULUS FUNDS
The ARRA provides $8 billion nationwide
to fund rail projects, including high-speed rail
development programs. The authority applied
for more than $4.7 billion of the available fund
ing to be used in three specific corridors as well
as for systemwide planning and environmental
clearance. Though not
Figure 11
the state's current intercity rail program.) The
funding will be available for program develop
ment and environmental clearance for the entire
first phase of the project, as well as design-build
contracts in four of the project's ten corridors,
including:
>-Los Angeles to Anaheim.
>-Merced to Fresno to Bakersfield.
>-San Francisco to San Jose.
The other corridors were not included in the
grant application because they are not far
enough along in the development process to
meet the ARRA deadlines.
Funding Availability and Expenditure Time
line. It is unknown at this time when the ARRA
funding will be available or how it will be di
vided among the various eligible segments of the
required under ARRA,
the state's application
forfunds pledged to
match any ARRA funds
awarded to the high
speed rail project with
an equal amount of
state monies.
High-Speed Rail Planning Expenditures Growing Rapidly
(In Millions)
Project Awarded
$2.25 Billion. On Janu
ary 28,2010, the federal
government awarded
California $2.25 billion
toward the development
. of the high-speed rail
system. (California also
received $99 million to
improve and upgrade
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE2010 11 BUDGET
project. According to interim guidance released
by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
in June 2009, the money must be obligated by
September 2011 and fully expended by Septem
ber 2017. According to FRA's interim guidance,
these funds will be considered obligated when
a grant or cooperative agreement between the
federal agency and the state is complete. The
grant agreement will describe project milestones
and what steps must be taken for the state to
access these federal funds. However, because
it is unknown at this time when this agreement
will be reached, there is no way of knowing
when the federal funds will become available for
expenditure.
Bond Funds Will Match Federal Dollars. At
the time of this analysis, it is also unclear how
the authority plans to structure the pledge to
match federal funds with state bond funds. For
example, one way to provide this match would
be to apply one state dollar for every federal dol
lar spent, whether it is for the purchase of land or
some other service. This would mean that federal
dollars would provide one-half of the funding
for a particular contract or section of right of
way, and the state bond money would fund the
other half of the same expenditure. Alternatively,
the authority could simply apply an equivalent
amount of bond dollars to a particular segment
of the system, regardless of what the particular
expenditure may be. In this case, state funding
may pay for a consulting contract to complete
the environmental work on a section of the
system where an equivalent amount of federal
funding has purchased the right of way. How the
authority plans to use state bond funds to match
ARRA dollars would determine when the state
would have to issue Proposition 1 A bonds as
well as the amount to issue in the budget year.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
Analyst's Recommendation. Because of
the deadlines attached to the ARRA award, it
is imperative that HSRA act expeditiously to
meet federal requirements. In addition, the state
should consider how to most effectively spend
the federal dollars while reducing the debt ser
vice burden on the state in the near term. There
fore, we recommend that the authority report at
budget hearings on its plans to meet the ARRA
deadlines. Specifically, the HSRA should discuss
the following:
»0-What restrictions are placed on the fed
eral funds?
»0-How much of the ARRA funds are avail
able for each segment or task?
»0-How will the authority structure the
state's match of federal funds?
»0-What steps must be taken in order to
obligate the funds?
»0-How will HSRA ensure that the project
schedule meets the federal obligation
deadline?
REVISED BUSINESS PLAN AN
IMPROVEMENT, BUT STILL LACKS DETAILS
The 2009-10 Budget Act (as amended in July
2009) required the authority to submit to the
Legislature a revised business plan with specific
elements by December 15, 2009. The plan was
submitted on time, and included at least some
discussion of all the required elements. The new
plan is much more informative than the previ
ous business plan, and contains, among its other
components, descriptions of potential opera
tional plans and many system details, as well as a
discussion of various funding possibilities avail
able for the project.
TR-27
TR-28
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
Nonetheless, our review of the plan con
cludes that the plan's discussion of particular
elements is lacking some important details. Spe
cifically, the plan lacks discussion of risk manage
ment, including any detailed description of many
key types of risk or mitigation processes. Also,
there are few deliverables or milestones identi
fied in the plan against which progress can be
measured. Due to the multiyear nature of a proj
ect of this size, without clearly defined deadlines
and work to be accomplished, it will be difficult
for the Legislature and the administration to track
progress in any meaningful way.
Analyst's Comments. Chapter 618, Statutes
of 2009 (SB 783, Ashburn), requires the authority
to prepare, publish, adopt, and submit to the Leg
islature an updated business plan addressing spe
cific elements no later than January 1, 2012, and
every two years thereafter. We will be reviewing
the submitted plan to ensure compliance with
statutory requirements and identify any improve
ments that are needed in these documents.
CURRENT-YEAR PROGRESS
DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE
Authority Submitted Program Work Plan
Through 2072-73. The Legislature approved
$139 million to fund continued preliminary plan
ning of the rail system during 2009-10, including
project-level design and environmental review
for all ten segments of the rail line, program
management services, financial planning, and
development of a new ridership model. In order
to justify the current-year funding level, the au
thority submitted a Program Summary Report to
the Legislature in July 2009, which described the
authority'S recent and ongoing activities as well
as the expected work to be completed each year
through 2012-13. This multiyear summary is in-
tended to outline the management plan to move
the project through the environmental processes
to construction and revenue service. However,
our analysis indicates there are questions about
how progress on the project is being tracked. We
explain these concerns below.
Actual Progress Does Not Appear to Follow
Work Plan. So that the authority's staff can track
the project's status against the work plan laid
out in the Program Summary Report, the HSRA's
program management consultant provides
monthly status reports on a list of specific tasks
that each have their own due date. However, our
review shows that some of the tasks contained
in recent status reports are inconsistent with
those listed in the work plan. For instance, the
November 2009 status report only provided an
update on one-half of the 160 uncompleted tasks
identified in the work plan, with the remain-
ing tasks deleted or missing. When asked about
these discrepancies, the authority indicated that
some of the tasks might have been combined or
considered unnecessary, but could not defini
tively explain these changes.
Progress Report of Project-Level Work Plan
Provides No Details. The monthly status reports
submitted to the authority are problematic in an
other way: they provide only summary informa
tion on the progress of project-level work being
accomplished by contractors. The work plan lays
out the expected timelines for the particular tasks
to be accomplished each year by each of these
contractors. However, our review indicates that
the monthly reports do not track each contrac
tor's status against the work plan. Instead, the
reports only summarize the cumulative amount
of time spent on the project by the contractors
collectively. Without more detailed information,
it is hard for the Legislature to determine what
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
work is being accomplished by each contractor
in the current year and what work remains to be
done in subsequent years.
Analyst's Recommendation. Multiyear mega
projects such as the high-speed rail project are
susceptible to significant unexpected challenges
in their planning, development, and construc
tion as well as financing. For example, a 2004
report by the BSA regarding the replacement of
the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, another
mega project, found that a considerable financial
crisis arose in part due to the project manage
ment's failure to disclose huge cost overruns as
soon as it was aware of them. Because the state
has committed a significant amount of funding
for the high-speed rail project, it is important that
the Legislature be provided from the outset with
regular updates on the project's progress to avoid
unexpected challenges in the project's develop
ment.
Therefore, we recommend the Legislature
adopt legislation to require the authority to
submit an annual report that tracks the project's
progress and identifies (1) the expected tasks and
deliverables for the coming year, and
(2) any potential challenges and issues the project
encounters. This information would enable the
Legislature to better assess the authority's budget
request for the subsequent year. The report could
be structured similar to those reqUired for the
oversight of the Bay Bridge replacement project.
Information should include, but not be limited to:
,... A baseline budget, by contract, for capi
tal and support costs.
,... Expenditures to date, by contract, for
capital and support costs.
,... A comparison of the current or projected
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
schedule and the baseline schedule that
was assumed.
,... A summary of milestones achieved dur
i ng the previous year.
,... Any issues identified, and actions taken
to address those issues, in the previous
year.
This report should be submitted by Sep
tember 1 of each year. This date would give the
authority time to compile details of the past fiscal
year, clearly identify current-year deliverables,
and provide an outline of the expected work
plan for the coming budget year.
2010-11 BUDGET PROPOSALS
The Governor's budget requests $958 mil
lion to fund the authority's activities in 2010-11,
including $375 million in expected federal
economic stimulus funds and $583 million in
Proposition 1A bond funds. The total request
will be used for three purposes. First, $750 mil
lion is requested for right-of-way assessment and
acquisition. Second, $203 million would go for
consulting contracts to perform system devel
opment work. Finally, the remaining $5 million
would cover the authority's administrative costs.
We comment on each of these budget proposals
below.
Right-o' .. Way Acquisition
Total Capital Outlay Request Not Needed
in Budget Year. The authority is requesting
$750 million for right-of-way acquisition in the
budget year. At the time the Governor's bud
get was being prepared, the authority did not
know how much ARRA funding the state would
be awarded or when the federal dollars wou Id
TR-29
TR-30
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
become available. Therefore, the $750 million
request, comprised of $375 million from the
state and an equal amount of federal funds, was
a placeholder amount based on the authority's
best estimate at the time. However, HSRA has
indicated in recent discussions that it would not
need the total amount requested in 2010-11. The
authority now believes it will need no more than
$250 million to begin negotiations with large
landholders.
Analyst's Recommendation. Based on the
authority's updated estimate of the funding
needed for land acquisition, we recommend that
the capital outlay funding level be reduced by
$500 million to provide $250 million in 2010-11.
Furthermore, we recommend the adoption of
budget bill language, similar to the language in
the 2009-10 budget, to authorize the HSRA to
replace state bond funding with federal funding
as it becomes available.
Contract Proposals
Little Justification Provided for Contract
Amounts. In 2010-11, the authority is requesting
$203 million for various contracts. Figure 12 lists
the contracts the HSRA proposes to be funded
in 2010-11, as well as the amounts expended on
these contracts in the prior and current years.
While the general types of proposed contract
work appear reasonable, the authority's budget
requests provide no justification for the specific
amou nts requested for each contract. Also, as
discussed earlier in this analysis, because the
monthly status reports do not indicate whether
the work planned for 2009-10 is actually being
accomplished, the Legislature cannot determine
whether the resources
proposed for 2010-11 are
appropriate and justified.
The authority's fund
ing requests for consult
ing contracts contain
little information on the
work to be accomplished
over the budget year, or
about how that work fits
into the total develop
ment of the system. As
a result, it is unknown
how the amount for each
contract was determined.
This is the same concern
raised in our analysis of
the authority's similar
2009-10 budget requests.
The authority appears no
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010 11 BUDGET
more equipped to justify the requested contract
amounts than it was one year ago.
In addition, our review of the budget re
quests for each of the ten contracts for project
level planning and environmental review indi
cates that they are significantly different from the
contract amounts projected for 2010-11 in the
Program Summary Report. Eight of these contract
requests varied by 25 percent or more from the
funding levels projected less than a year ago. The
revised contract amounts could be due to any
number of reasons, such as current-year work
being delayed or future efforts being brought for
ward to expedite certain segments of the project.
However, the authority has not been able to pro
vide any explanation for the significant changes
in contract amounts, nor how these amounts
were determined.
Analyst's Recommendation. In regard to the
proposals for contract funding, there is no basis
for the Legislature to determine the appropriate
level of contract funding that should be provided
to the authority for 201 0-11. Accordingly, we
withhold recommendation on the $203 million
request pending receipt of supplemental informa
tion on the amount of work to be accomplished
in the budget year, by contract, and information
on how each contract fits into the overall devel
opment of the system.
SlaHing Proposals
Staffing Request Should Tie to a Staffing
Strategy. The authority is also requesting an
increase of $3.5 million and 27 additional staff.
This would bring the total authority staffing to
38.5 positions in 2010-11.
It is clear that as the project progresses the
authority will need to add positions to admin
ister, monitor, and oversee the growing amount
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
of work conducted by contractors. However, at
the time this analysis was prepared, the authority
was unable to explain how the requested posi
tions would provide the necessary skill sets to
support the overall development of the project
and why this amount of state staff is needed at
this point in the process. Specifically, the au
thority has not determined the mix of state and
contracted staff it plans on using to develop the
rail project over time. An independent consultant
hired by the authority concluded (in November
2009) that the current state staff is insufficient for
a project of this size, and recommended a state
managerial structure based on the best practices
of similar programs around the world. However,
the budget request does not provide information
on how the proposed positions fit into the con
sultant's recommendations. Early identification
of the role of state staff in the project, as well as
a future staffing structure, would have significant
advantages. For example, it would enable the
organization to grow at the necessary speed to
ensure staffing levels coincide with the workload
required to deliver the project.
Additional Exempt Positions Should Be
Statutorily Defined. The requested staff posi
tions include a chief financial officer, chief
program manager, and three regional managers.
The authority believes that it would not be able
to attract qualified individuals under the state's
current civil service restrictions. Therefore, under
the budget proposal, these positions would be
established administratively as positions ap
pointed by the Governor and exempt from civil
service requirements. Statute currently grants
the HSRA the authority to appoint an executive
director who is exempt from civil service.
We see merit in the HSRA's proposal to
establish additional exempt positions. The HSRA
TR-31
TR-32
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
would likely need numerous exempt positions
over the next few years in order to bring on vari
ous staff that have the requisite skills to manage
and oversee the development of the rail project
by specialized contractors. These high-level staff
must have the skills to negotiate with the private
sector to finance, construct, and operate the
system. Defining these positions through statute,
similar to statutesdescribing exempt positions for
other agencies in state government, would give
the Legislature sufficient control over the specific
positions that would be established, the salary
levels, and the assignment of responsibilities of
each position. This would enable the Legislature
Contact Information
Dana Curry Director, Transportation, Business,
and Housing
Jessica Digiambattista Transportation Financing/Highways
to retain some additional oversight of the project,
while making it easier for the authority to hire the
staff necessary to administer the program.
Analyst's Recommendation. We withhold
recommendation on the staffing request until the
authority is able to support the request for ad
ditional staffing with a strategy that outlines how
to meet the short-and long-term staffing needs
of the organization. The staffing strategy should
include justification for the requested exempt
positions. For the reasons discussed above, we
further recommend that any exempt positions be
defined statutorily.
319-8320 Dana.Curry@lao.ca.gov
319-8363 Jessica.Digiambattista@lao.ca.gov
Eric Thronson Public Transportation/High-Speed Rail! 319*8364
Housing
Eric.Thronson@lao.ca.gov
Russia Chavis Transportation/Business 319*8338 Russia.Chavis@lao.ca.gov
LAO Publications
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and
advice to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service,
are available on the LAO's Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov.TheLAOislocatedat925LStreet.Suite 1000,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
ATTACHMENT F
MEMORANDUM
City of Palo Alto -High Speed Rail Committee
Rayi Mehta
March 8, 2010
Legislative Update: Pending legislation that directly or
indirectly impacts the California High Speed Rail Project
The 2010 legislative session is in full swing with over 3,000 new bills introduced. As
anticipated, a significant number of bills affecting High Speed Rail ("HSR") have also
been introduced. These bills range from carving out exemptions to CEQA t to
restructuring the HSR AuthoritYt creating a Department of HSR, providing funding for
HSR workforce training t reconstituting the HSR Board membership, authorizing the
HSR Authority to acquire land for rights-of-waYt etc.
Some bills affecting CEQA are spot bills, which merely amend a code section in such
an innocuous way as to be totally non-substantive. Spot bills are introduced to
assure that a germane vehicle will be available at a later date after the deadline has
passed to introduce bills. At that future datet the bill can be amended with more
substance included. These bills will also have to be monitored carefully to ensure
that they do not affect HSR.
A number of CEQA bills were heard in Committee about 10 days ago. These bills t
marked SBX because they are deemed urgency bills as part of the Special Legislative
Session t were held in the Senate Environment Quality Committee at the request of
the Authors who did not believe they had the votes for passage. Unfortunately, bills
with identical language were also introduced t and we should expect them to be
amended to address some of the concerns raised by Senator Samitian and other
Committee members.
The foregoing are summaries and status of each bill (with the exception of budget
bills) I believe affects HSR. The City should consider taking a formal position of
Supportt Support jf Amended t Oppose t or Monitor for each bill. I can provide more
detailed information as requested. A letter stating the City's position, other than
Monitor, should be sent to the legislature to ensure that the City's offiCial position is
formally recorded.
Legislative Update March 8, 20 I 0
CEQA Legislation
ABX8 37 (Calderon, Charles) Environment: CEQA
Status: 02jllj2010-From printer.
Summary: This Bill would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of
2010 and would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select
projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar
year between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant
to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead
agency's and responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency' s selection of the projects. The bill
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of
each year, to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature
summarizing the designation of projects, and the job creation and investment
attributable to the deSignated projects.
AB 1805 (Calderon, Charles) Environment: (CEQA)
Status: 02j25j2010-Referred to Com. on NATURAL RESOURCES & JUDICIARY
Summary: This bill would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of 2010
and would require the BuSiness, Transportation and Housing Agency to select
projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar
year between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant
to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead
agency's and responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency' s selection of the projects. The bill
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of
each year, to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature
summarizing the designation of projects, and the job creation and investment
attributable to the deSignated projects.
AB 2713 (Knight) Environment: CEQA (Spot Bill)
Status: 02j22j2010-Read first time.
Summary: The (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to
be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on
a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect
on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will
not have that effect. The CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated
negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there
is no substantial evidence that the project, as reVised, would have a significant effect
on the environment. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to the
CEQA.
Legislative Update March 8.20] 0 2
SBX8 42 (Correa) Environment: CEQA
Status: 02j24j2010-Set, first hearing. Held in committee without
recommendation.
Summary: Would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of 2010 and
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select projects
that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar years
between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant to
CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated negative
declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead agency's and
responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency's selection of the projects. The bill would require
the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of each year, to
submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature summarizing the
designation of projects, and the job creation and investment attributable to the
designated projects.
SBX8 56 (Hollingsworth) Environmental Quality: CEQA: exemption: critical
infrastructure projects
Status: 02j24j2010-Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Summary: This Bill would exempt from CEQA a critical infrastructure project, which
would include, among other projects, projects funded under the Highway Safety,
Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 or the Disaster
Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. The bill would provide that this
exemption applies retroactively. Because a permitting agency, which includes a local
agency, would be required to determine the applicability of, and to give notice of,
that exemption, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
SB 1010 (Correa) Environment: CEQA
Status: 02j18j2010-To Coms. on ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL. and JUDICIARY.
Summary: This Bill would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of
2010 and would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select
projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar
year between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant
to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead
agency's and responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency' s selection of the projects. The bill
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of
each year, to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature
summarizing the designation of projects, and the job creation and investment
attributable to the designated projects.
Legislative Update March 8. 2010 3
SB 1012 (Runner) Environmental quality: CEQA (Spot Bill)
Status: 02/18/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: CEQA requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be
prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report
on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a
significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds
that the project will not have that effect. This bill would make technical, non
substantive changes to those provisions.
SB 1195 (Wyland) Environment: CEQA (Spot Bill)
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: CEQA requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be
prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a
project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on
the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not
have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative
declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if
revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial
evidence that the project, as revised, would have a Significant effect on the
environment. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to CEQA.
SB 1261 (Ashburn) Environment: CEQA: expedited review (Spot Bill)
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation
establishing a fast track environmental review process that maintains current
environmental protection while expediting the review of projects related to green or
renewable industries that will create jobs in the state.
High Speed Rail Legislation
AB 153 (Ma) High-Speed Rail Authority
Status: 07/02/2009-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the
request of author.
Summary: This Bill would eliminate those contingencies to the exercise of the
Authority's authority and would specify that the Authority constitutes a "governing
body" for the purpose of adopting a resolution of necessity. The bill would authorize
the Authority to employ its own legal staff or contract with other state agencies for
legal services, or both.
AB 289 (Galgiani) High-speed rail
Status: 02/11/2010-Re-referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: Would authorize the Governor to appoint up to 5 deputy directors
exempt from civil service who would serve at the pleasure of the executive director.
Legislative Update March 8, 20 I 0 4
AB 1375 (Galgiani) High-speed rail
Status: 02j11j2010-Referred to Committees. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING and
RULES.
Summary: "rhis Bill would revise and recast these provisions by repealing and
reenacting the California High-Speed Train Act. The bill would continue the High
Speed Rail Authority in existence to make policy decisions relative to implementation
of high-speed rail consistent with Proposition lA. The bill would create the
Department of High-Speed Trains within the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, which would implement those policies. "rhe bill would transfer certain of the
existing powers and responsibilities of the authority to the department and would
specify additional powers and duties of the authority and department relative to
implementation of the high-speed rail project, including the annual submission of a
6-year high-speed train capital improvement program and progress report to the
Legislature. The director of the department would be appointed by the Governor,
who would serve at the pleasure of the authority, and the Governor would be
authorized to appoint up to 10 executive employees of the department who would be
exempt from civil service and serve at the pleasure of the director. The bill would
provide for acquisition and disposition by the department of rights-of-way for the
high-speed rail project. The bill would enact other related provisions.
AB 1747 (Galgiani» High-Speed Rail Authority
Status: 02j18j2010-Referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION.
Summary: Would authorize the authority to consider, to the extent permitted by
federal and state law, the creation of jobs in California when awarding major
contracts or purchasing high-speed trains, as specified.
AB 2121 (Harkey) High-speed rail
Status: 03j04j2010-Referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION.
Summary: This Bill would reduce the amount of general obligation debt authorized
pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st
Century to the amount contracted as of January 1, 2011.
AB 2703 (John A. Perez) Transportation funding
Status: 02j22j2010-Read first time.
Summary: This Bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to
ensure that federal transportation funds received in 2010 are expeditiously awarded
to maximize job retention in California and to ensure robust oversight of those funds.
SBX8 36 (Lowenthal) Federal transportation economic stimulus funds: 2nd
round
Status: 02jl0j2010-Re-referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: This Bill Would require the Department of Transportation to work with
local transportation agencies to develop a list of potential projects that may be
Legislative Update March 8, 2010 5
awarded within a 90-day period of the award to the state of 2nd round federal
transportation economic stimulus funds, The bill would require the department to
submit a monthly status report to the Legislature, as specified, with respect to
certain milestones for expenditure of these funds. The bill would make related
legislative findings and declarations.
58409 (Ducheny) Passenger rail programs: strategic planning
Status: 02/11/2010-To Com. on TRANS.
Summary: Would place the High-Speed Rail Authority within the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency. The bill would require the 5 members of the
authority appointed by the Governor to be appOinted with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The bill would require the authority to annually submit a funding plan to
the California Transportation Commission for approval, identifying the need for
investments during the fiscal year and the amount of bond sales necessary to
accommodate those investments.
58 455 (Lowenthal) High-speed rail
Status: 07/24/2009-Placed on inactive file on request of Assembly Member Torrico.
Summary: Would provide that the members of the authority appOinted by the
Governor are subject to appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
bill would require the members of the authority, at a scheduled board meeting, to
cause to be prepared an overall project schedule with project delivery milestones on
a quarterly baSiS, and to approve a quarterly contract status report, beginning at the
first board meeting after March 1, 2010. The bill would also require the members of
the authority to approve all contract amendments at a scheduled board meeting.
58 879 (Cox) Construction projects: alternative bidding procedures: design
build.
Status: 01/21/2010-To Com. on LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Summary: Existing law authorizes counties to use alternative procedures, known as
design-build, for bidding on construction projects in the county in excess of
$2,500,000, in accordance with speCified procedures. Each county that elects to use
the design-build method on a public works project is required to submit a report to
the Legislative Analyst's Office before December 1, 2009, containing a description of
each public works project procured through the design-build process and completed
after November 1, 2004, and before November 1, 2009. Existing law also requires
the Legislative Analyst, on or before January 1, 2010, to report to the Legislature on
the use of the design-build method by counties. This bill would repeal those reporting
provisions.
S8 964 (Alquist) Workforce development program: high-speed rail
Status: 02/18/2010-To Coms. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING and EDUCATION.
Summary: Would require the authority to contract with the California Community
Colleges Chancellor'S office to develop a labor market assessment of the workforce
and identify the education and skills needed for high-speed rail, and to develop a
Legislative Update March 8, 2010 6
comprehensive workforce training and certification program or programs to facilitate
the availability of that workforce. The bill would require the authority and the
chancellor's office to form a Jobs Advisory Task Force! as specified, to advise the
authority and the chancellor's office on the establishment and operation of training
and certification programs required to produce an adequate skilled workforce for this
project. The bill would require the labor market assessment to be incorporated into
the authority's biennial revised business plan.
58965 (DeSaulnier) High-speed rail
Status: 02/18/2010-To Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: Would authorize the authority to receive and expend any federal funds
awarded to the authority for the purposes of developing a project or projects along
the high-speed rail network, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require
the authority to take various actions in that regard. The bill would also require the
authority to submit to the Legislature an expenditure plan for the federal funds
within 30 days of enactment of this act and to submit a progress report on
expenditure of the funds to the Legislature within 180 days of the award of those
funds and annually thereafter. The bitl would make legislative findings and
declarations relative to the award of federal funds to the state under the federal
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for high-speed rail purposes.
S8 1260 (Vee) High-speed rail
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: Existing law, the California High-Speed Rail Act, creates the High-Speed
Rail Authority to develop and implement a high-speed rail system in the state, with
specified powers and duties. Existing law! pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed
Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as
Proposition lA at the November 4, 2008, general election, provides for the issuance
of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related purposes.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to implement
the bond act.
S8 1371 (Lowenthal & Correa) Federal transportation economic stimulus
funds: 2nd round.
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: Would require the Department of Transportation to work with local
transportation agencies to develop a list of potential projects that may be awarded
within a 90-day period of the award to the state of 2nd round federal transportation
economic stimulus funds. The bill would require the department to submit a monthly
status report to the Legislature! as specified, with respect to certain milestones for
expenditure of these funds. The bill would make related legislative findings and
declarations.
Legislative Update March 8. 2010 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 3, 2010
Mayor Pat Burt
City of Pa 10 Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTACHMENT G
Ilk!
lfl MAR -0 PM 12: 18
Subject: Request for Information from City of Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Burt,
PRP-1802-LTO-PAL-00l
Please pardon the inordinate delay in responding to the City of Palo Alto's detailed request for
information submitted to Dominic Spaeth ling bye-mail on January 15,2010. Please know we are in the
process of responding to your request. The Business Plan, Methodology and General requests and
questions have been forwarded to CHSRA Headquarters (Sacramento) and you will receive a response
from them directly.
Below are some answers to the questions which pertain specifically to Caltrain. We will respond to the
other requests and questions related to Engineering and Operations by March 19,2010.
Budget
11. What is the dollar value of using Caltrain right of way for High-Speed Rail? The dollar value for using
the Caltrain right of way for high-speed train service has not yet been determined.
12. Are there plans for re-utilizing the railroad corridor to build developments to pay for the High-Speed
Rail Project. There are currently no plans to reutilize the railroad corridor for development to pay for the
High-Speed Train Project.
13. What are the estimated costs for property values impact, right of way purchase and other
temporary construction easements needed during construction? The cost estimates have not been
completed. This will be part of a future negotiation between the CHSRA and JPB.
Operations
2. What are the latest operational plans for the 2020 or 2035 (whichever is related to the start of HSR
service)? The assumptions for future Caltrain service will be provided under separate cover by March 19,
2010.
4. What is the cost/benefit of operations and costs related to not having compatible equipment in terms
of platform height, width and train sets? No cost/benefit analysis has been done, but the primary issue
of non-compatible equipment between Caltrain and high-speed trains is that they will not be able to
share the same platform edge if level-boarding access is to be provided.
5. What is the cost/benefit of having freight and not having freight? Caltrain receives annual payment
from the freight operator based on gross tonnage. This amount varies each year.
PENINSULA RAIL PROGRAM
799 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
~~~ " . ..' HIGH-SPEED RAIL
"J AUTHORITY
Request for Information from City of Palo Alto
March 3, 2010
Page 2
6. What are the restrictions because of freight? There are clearance and gradient requirements that
must be met to preserve utility for freight operations.
7. What are the assumptions related to Union Pacific's rights? Assumptions are based upon the existing
Trackage Rights Agreement between the Union Pacific and JPB.
8. Provide copies of applicable train horn blowing policies for trains passing through stations. There is
no written policy, however, train engineers may use horns at stations at their discretion based on safety
conditions.
9. We want a copy of the final EIR for Caltrain which is missing from all websites. And it should be
posted next to the draft EIR on the Caltrain website. We are working to get the Finol Electrification EIR
posted to the website.
Thank you for your understanding as we seek to continue to provide the highest standard of project
management on this historic project.
CC:
Steve Emslie, City of Palo Alto
Dominic Spaeth ling, CHSRA PMT
Jeffrey Barker, CHSRA
Michelle Bouchard, Caltrain
Doc. Control
PENINSULA RAIL PROGRAM
799 Seventh Street
San Francisco. CA 94107