Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 221-10City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL -10 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: APRIL 19, 2010 CMR: 221:10 REPORT TYPE: ACTION SUBJECT: Approval of Comment Letter on the Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central Valley High Speed Train Project and Review of Guiding Principles RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council 1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter to the Califomia High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) detailing Palo Alto's comments on the Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central Valley High Speed Train Proj ect. 2. Review the Guiding Principles and direct staff to retum with revisions for Council approval. BACKGROUND On March 4, 2010, the HSRA released a Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. A 45-day public comment period began on Mareh II, 2010, and will end on April 26, 2010. The documeot includes the changes made in response to the court decision, focused on the Gilroy­ San Jose alignment and alternatives to using the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. On April 7, 2010 the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the DEIR and a draft of the comments prepared by staff. The Council reviewed the draft and PTC comments on April 12, 2010, accepted public testimony and provided further direction to staff to finalize the comment letter for Council approval on April 19. In March 2009, the City council established the High Speed Rail Committee to represent the City in public at meetings with community groups and stakeholders, when speaking to other public agencies, when providing written correspondence or testimony in advocating for legislation related to high speed rail; and to speak at public hearings on short notice when full City Council discussion is hot feasible. On May 18, 2009, the City Council adopted the Guiding Principles (Attachment B) as a means to provide ongoing direction to the High Speed Rail Committee. On April 12, 2010, the Council referred the HSR Guiding Principles to the HSR Committee for review and comment. The Committee was scheduled to review the Guiding Principles on April 15. DISCUSSION This report transmits the revised draft comments on the Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay area to Central Valley HST Project (Attachment A). CMR: 221:10 Page 1 of2 ,Base,d on the input from the Planning and Transportation Commission, stakeholder groups and J ''co~lci1 discussion on April 12, staff and the City's enviroumental planning consultant have' \,revised and expanded and elaborated on the issues and concems included in the comment letter. Staff requests that Council accept or modify the letter and authorize the Mayor to sign the approved letter. The HSR Committee had not yet met to discuss the Guiding Principles when this report was prepared. It is expected that the Committee will propose changes to the Guiding Principles to address issues and situations for which fUlther Council direction may be needed given the current status of the High Speed Rail Project. A summary of comments and recommendations from the meeting as well as a draft of the proposed revisions to the Guiding Principles will be provided to the Council at-places on Apdl 19. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in this repOit 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. Draft Comments Letter on Bay Area to Central Valley Draft Revised Program ElR B. Guiding Princip les The Revised Draft Program ElR for Central Valley to Bay Area High Speed Rail Project, March 2010 is available online at: htlp:llwww.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib!lIly.asp?p=92}4 The 2008 Final Progrllln ElR for Central Valley to Bay Area High Speed Rail Project is available online at: http://www.cahighspe(l~!J:ail.ca.govJlipJary.asp?n=9274 PREPARED BY: GAYLE KENS ent Spe' . APPROVED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 221:10 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT A April 13, 2010 Califol11ia High Speed Rail Authority Attn: Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacra!llento, CA 95814 DRAFT Subject: Bay A.·ea to Centrdl VaIley Revised Draft Program-Level EIR Material Comments Dear Mr. Leavitt: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the California High Speed Rail Authority's March 20 I 0 Bay Area to Central Valley lligh-Speed Train Revised Draft Program EIR Material. The California HST project will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the City ofPato Alto. The City has thoroughly reviewed the Revised Draft Program EIR and has the following comments: A. General Comments and Process A.I Public Meetings CommentA.l·l -No scoping sessions or public meetings were held anywhere on the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco for the Revised Draft Program EIR. Peninsula cities were also not included in the Outreach before the Second Draft Program EIRIEIS process. The failure of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) to solicit comments from communities along the Peninsula during the seoping process, the ElR/EIS public review process, or the Revised Draft Program EIR process violates the public review requirements of the Califomia Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA, and renders the cunent Revised Draft EIR inadequate. A.2 Significant New Information Comment A.2-1 . Significant new information exists, under many environmental parameters, that makes the earlier Program ElRJEIS invalid and requires a recirculation of the Program ElRJEIS, as well as recirculation ofthe Revised Program EIR. Comment A.2-2 -The ridership and revenue modeling used for the analysis and altematives comparison is flawed, particularly given the new infonnation provided in the 2009 Business Plan update and the major shifts in the economy since the forecasting was last completed. The ridership models need to be revised to provide a more accurate forecast of ridership. Mr. Dan Leavitt . April 14, 2010 Page 2 of21 Comment A.2-3 -New infonnation on project impacts and altematives is being discovered during the project-level enviromnentai review for the San Francisco to San Jose and San Jose to Merced segments. TIlis new infonllatioll may indicate new or increased impacts, and new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. TIle new infol111ation needs to be presented and analyzed in a revised and recirculated enviromnental document. Comment A.2-4 -New infOlmation has been presented in the Revised Draft EIR regarding the use of the Monterey Highway median for pOltions ofthe high-speed train (RST) right­ of-way (ROW).·The document fails to address how the use ofthis median may result in impacts associated with noise, land use, property, traffic, and construction impacts. Conullent A.2-5 -The recently ruIDounced project to conduct a seismic retrofit of the State Route 92 San Mateo bridge opens the possibility of placing a HST crossing in conjunction with rebnilding the blidge. The environmental document needs to be revised alld recirculated to incorporate the alignment altematives provided by this seismic retrofit project. Comment A.2·6 -The need to evaluate impacts from Union Pacific Railroad's (UPRR) recent refusal to share it, ROW opens up the possibility of considering neW alternative alignments for not only the Pacheco Pass alignments but also the Altamont Pass aliguments, including an Altamont Pass alignment that would run along State Route 84 through the East Bay rather thall along the UPRR ROW. A.3 Limiting Scope of Comments to the Revised Draft Program EIR Inappropriately Limits the Analysis Comment A.3-1 -Limiting the scope of comments to the Revised Materials is inappropriate if the original analysis was flawed. A.4 Inappropriate Listing of Supporters and Opponents Conlment AA-l ~tt is inappropriate to list the agencies and organizations who SUPP~lIt, or have expressed concem over, the selection of the Preferred Alternative (Sections 7.3.2 and elsewhere) in the document. Their conunents and concems should certainly be . acknowledged when deciding on the scope of analysis in the EIR, but their identification in this document can have the effect of unnecessarily pitting one agency or organization against another, rather than focusing attention on which environmental issues need to be addressed in the document. A.5 L<\ck of Tables Makes Analysis Difficult Comment A.5c 1 -The presentation of data in the text is confusing and makes the analysis difficult to follow. The infOimation would be more presentable alld understandable to the lay reader ifpl'esented in tables. An example of where such a table would be appropriate is Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 3 of21 on page 7-17 in the Travel Times/Travel Conditions section of the document. Conversely, the text on page 4-3 repeats the infol1llation already presented in Table 4-1. More careful use of tables is warranted. B. Inadequate Project Description and Business Plan B.l Project Description Comment B, 1-1 -The project description is essentially limited to the alignment ofthe track corridors and possible stations, but does not mention the additional support facilities, other than the maintenance facility, that would be needed. These additional support facilities would include layover facilities, tumouts, bridges and tunnels, advanced signaling and communication~ systems, electrification facilities, station automobile parking stmctures, and the public open spaces needed to support the pedestrian traffic generated by the hub stations. The Revised Program ErR is inadequate because they are not identified or analyzed in the document. If the potential environmental impacts of these supporting facilities are not going to be addressed in the Program EIR, they shoutd be identified, the typieal effects explained, and should be addressed in detail in the forthcoming project-lcvel engineering and environmcntal reviews. Comment B.1-2 -Grade separations are not identified in the document. The document should indicate which crossings are expected to be separated, and define whether each intersection is to be separated by underpasses or overpasses (presumably the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and not the HST). Grade separations cause substantially more construction, snrface disturbance, noise, air quality, aesthetics, and transportation conflicts. An elevated railway would be a significant change from the existing landscape, and could have significant impacts on neighboring communities. Project construction could have significant impacts, such as disruption of existing rail service and dismption of local businesses; these issues are not addressed in the ElR. These impacts must be analyzed for the CEQA document to be adequate. Comment B.1-3 -The document fails to adequately describe the location of the project, including the proposed right-of-way, station locations, and other infrastructure locations. The cOITesponding impacts are not analyzed and no mitigation is proposed. Comment B.1-4 -The document fails to adequately indicate the extent to which the project would require acquisition of private propelty through eminent domain. This issue applies to both use of existing corridors where such corridors need to be widened, and the possible requirement for identifying a new corridor should UPRR block the shared use of its ROW. The document also does not identify whether eminent domain would include the taking of all or only a portion of any of the neighboring properties along the alignment. Comment B.l-5 -The document fails to address the maintenance of the HST line, and does not answer the questions of how often and when maintenance activities would occur, and Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 4 of21 what additional infrasll11cture would necd to be constmcted (rail spurs, repair shelters) to allow the maintenance activities. Comment B.1-6 -The statement that ... "The prefell'ed maintenance and storage facility location to support the lIST fleet in the study region is the Merced area (Castle AFB)" (page 7-28, Section D Maintenance Facilities) conh'adicts the statement in the Program EIRJEIS on page 2-48, second paragraph, that states that ... "One fleet storage/service and inspection/light maintenance facility would be needed for each major branch of the statewide lIST system ... These facilities would need to be sited as near as possible to the terminal stations (emphasis added)," Merced is about 120 miles from San Francisco. The Revised DraftPmgram EIR fails to identify tlIe location ofthe maintenance facility in the Peninsula segment of the HST system. Comment B.I-7 -The Federal Rail Authority (FRA) does not allow heavy rail and light rail to share the same corridor. The proposed project would require an exemption from FRA regulations in order to move forward as proposed. The document does not address the feasibility of obtaining this exemption from the FRA, nor does the document address what alternatives are available if the FRA does not grant this exemption. Comment B.I-8 -The document does not address how the land beneath an aerial viaduct would be used and maintained. What would be the use of the land beneath the viaduct parking, landscaping? Would the area be open or fenced off? Who would be responsible for maintaining this area to reinove weeds, clean up trash, remove graffiti, etc.? Who would pay for this maintenance? Comment B.1-9 -The document does not define how eminent domain would be used to widen an existing cOlTidor or to create a new con'idoL For example, would the CHSRA only tl1ke the back yard of a residential property, or would CHSRA be forced to take the entire property even if only a portion of the property is required for the COITidor? Comment B.l-IO -Section 2704.09 of Assembly Bill (AB) 3034 sets design characteristics and goals for an HST system. These goals include maximum limits on travel times, such as a maximmn travel time from Oakland to Los Angeles of2 hours 40 minutes, and a requirement that such travel be accommodated without the need to change trains at any point along the journey. The project description and subsequent EIR analysis is flawed because it does not address theserequirements. The City of Oakland is not cUlTentiyon the proposed HST aligmnent, and therefore travel to or from Oakland would involve a transfer onto another h'ain ortraI)Sit system, and would require mOl'e'lhan 2 hours and 40 minutes of travel time. The project description and aitematives,need to be revised in order to add Oakland to the syst<;)ITI, either by coming north through Pacheco Pass and San Jose, or west tln'ough the Altanlont Pass. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14,2010 Page 5 of2l B.2 Flawed and Inadequate Business Plan Comment B.2-1 ~ The Revised Draft Program EIR fails to provide an explanation of the methodology used to calculate ridership figures. Comment B.2-2 The document fails to include an explanation of what portions of projected ridership would occur regardless of whether the project was approved or regardless ofthe aligmnent altemative chosen. . Comment B.2-3 -The ridership forecasts in the analysis are flawed and grossly overestimate the ridership that the project would generate, particularly since the ridership . forecasts were created during a different economic cycle. Realistic ridership numbers need to be usedjn the analysis to reflect both a robustand a poor economy. Comment B.2-4 -The document fails to include a full tabulation and explanation ofproject costs, including: methodologies for calculating costs, costs for each altemative and sub­ altemative, costs for tunnels through developed urban areas, costs for maintenance activities, and costs for developing ridership. Comment B.2-S -The document does not include a tabulation of expected funding sources for the project. Comment B.2-6 The document does not adequately address construction costs, including thc full economic costs of using eminent domain to either widen an existing cOlTidor or to create a new corndor. Comment B.2-7 -The document fails to address how nearby businesses would be affected during project construction, if aecess would be limited, ifsmall businesses will survive, and how citytax revenues may be affected as a result. Comment B.2-8 -The document needs to include a realistic and defensible business plan in order to answer the very basic question of whether the HST project is actually enviromnentally advantageous for Califolllia. Comment B.2-9 -Cost reporting should be in 2010 dollars, and not 2006 dollars (page 7-13, second paragraph, last line and elsewhere in the document). Comment B.2-l 0 -The daily ridership projections for the San Francisco station include riders from Oakland and elsewhere in the East Bay, which is a flaw in the analysis. East Bay ridership needs to be shown at an Oakland station location, as required by AB3034, and not San Francisco. Once the East Bay ridership is removed from the San Franciscc projections, the forecasted ridership at San Francisco should be dramatically reduced. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14,2010 Page 6 of21 Comment B.l-Il -The December 2009 Business Plan's forecasted annual boardings for the San Francisco to Anaheim corridor are less than half of the forecasted annual boardings referred to in the ElR. The boarding numbers in the EIR need to reflect updated forecast figures. C. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.l General Comments Comment C.l-1 -The Revised Program ElR identifies a Peninsula alignment and station locations, but fails to fully identify, analyze, and mitigate all Peninsula-related environmental impacts fi'om that specific alignment and those specific station locations. A Program-level EIR that identifies specific project elements or project locations is required to provide a full analysis of the impacts associated with these elements and locations. Comment C.I-2 -The mitigation measures used in the document are often inadequate, and in some cases so poorly described as to make it impossible to detennine the feasibility of the mitigation measure. Comment C.I-3 c The document fails to disclose or adequately analyze the project's potential land use and transportation impacts associated with the use of tbe shared CaltrainlUPRR ROW between San Francisco and San Jose, and the UPRR ROW from San Jose to Gilroy. Perhaps more importantly, the document fails to discuss the potential necessity of loc'!ting the project alignment away from either segment of this ROW, particularly in. tlle San Jose to Gilroy segment where the UPRR owns and controls the corridor. The potential need for a new project alignment in these areas necessitates a revised analysis of project impacts. Comment C.1-4 -The impact discussion focuses on a corridor 50 feet to either side ofthe existing con'idor or 50 feet to either side ofthe centerline of tlle new HST alignments. The analysis should focus on a wider cOlridor for impacts. Some impacts, such as noise, can have. a 'significant effect several hundred or even several thousand feet away from the project corridor. The impact discussion should be revised to use appropriately sized impact corridors as appropriate for each specific impact, with no conidor nanower than 500 feet to either side of the proposed HST cOlridor. Comment C.1-5 -The impact analysis fails to address and incorporate tlle significance criteria estahlished by each local jurisdiction affected by the project, and uses flawed assumptions in detel1nining impact significance. Comment C.l ~6 -The document f;Uls to indicate ho,,4 the HST project would affect Cal train service, hoth during construction and operation. It is unclear whether Caltrain would be able to c,ontinue providing express service once the HST system is in place. The lack of Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 7 of21 analysis of tilis potentially significant impact requires tilat the document be recirculated with the complete analysis. Comment C.1-7 -The analysis in the Revised Draft EIR glosses over local impacts and does not provide the detailed analysis required by CEQA. Comment C.1-8 ~ The document uses the tel1llS "exclusive guideway" and "shared gnideway", but does not define these tenns. The document further concludes in a cursory and conc1usory manner that "exclusive guideway" altematives should be rcjccted, and that a "shared guideway" alternative should move forward for analysis. This conclusion is inappropriate given thatUPRR has stated opposition to sharing their corridor. C.2 Aesthetics and Visual Impacts Comment C.2-1 -The Revised Program EIR fails to address a number of issues related to aesthetics and visual impacts. Many of the proposed project elements (such as an elevated railway, overhead wires, sound walls, and transmission lines) would likely have a significant visual impact, and these impacts are neither fully addressed nor sufficiently mitigated. Comment C.2-2 -The document fails to address the visual impacts of elevated stroctul'CS and the associated 45 miles of sound walls proposed as mitigation for noise effects. These stroctures would represent a significant change to the visual character of the conido!'. The document also fails to address the shade and shadow impacts of these proposed elevated stroctures and sound walls. The sound walls as proposed are inadequate to mitigate the projcct's noise impacts, and will likely need to be made cven taller, which would have a cOlTesponding increase in impacts on aesthetics. Comment C.2-3 -The visual impacts of the ncw utility infrastrocture, in pruiicular the electrical substations, transmission lines, and overhead electrical rail lines, arc not fully addressed in the Reviscd Program EIR. The document does not provide locations for the proposed substations and transmission lines, so no analysis of aesthetic impacts can be perfOlmed. The City of Palo Alto is in the process of placing all existing overhead wires underground. The addition of new overhead wires in Palo Alto would not be in keeping with City policies and goals. . Comment C.2-4 -The document fails to address how the absence or removal of screening trees along certain segments ofthe rail line would affect the impact significance of elevated stroctures, sound walls, substations, and ncw utility pole~ and wires. Comment C.2-5 -The document fails to address how any new vehicle or pedestrian overpasses would affect the visual environment. Such structures would be significant new elements in the visual landscape, and their visual impacts need to be addressed in the EIR. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 8 of21 Comment C.2-6 -The document does not address whether the project would include nighttime lighting, and what impacts such lighting would have on neighboring uses, particularly on two-story residences across from an elevated railway . • C.3 Agriculture Comment C.3-1 -Direct impacts to agricultural resources would occur if the HST alignment and associated infrastructure (substations, utility lines, etc.) needed to pass tin'ough lands that are cunently in agricultural use. The document fails to adequately address the loss of prime agricultural land, partiCUlarly if the proposed ROW must be relocated away from the UPRR ROW within the San Jose to Gilroy corridor. This relocation could be necessitated by UPRR's refusal to share a ROW with the HST system. C.4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Comment C.4-1-The document fails to fully disclose or adequately analyze the project's potential air quality impacts, including the production of greenhouse gases (GHG) and contribution to global climate change. Comment C.4-2 -The analysis focuses on emissions associated with operations. It does not consider constlUction impacts and their contribution to GHG emissions. Comment C.4-3 -Construction activities will cause major traffic disruptions, resulting in indirect air quality and GHG emissions from idling vehicles. These potential emissions were not analyzed in the document. Comment C.4-4 -New electrical infrastructure (transmission and distribution lines and substations) will be required. The construction impacts of these facilities are not included in the analyses. Comment C.4-5 -Greenhouse gas emissions should be recalculated and reconsidered based on updated and realistic ridership figures. Sce. Comment A.2-2. Comment C.4-6 -The comparison of rail travel GHG emissions to air travel GHG emissions should be revised to account for the reductions in air travel since 2002 and the improvements made in emissions from air travel. See Comment A.2-2. Comment C.4-7 --The document fails to adequately compare air quality and GHG emissions between the altemative options for the new railway elevated viaduct, elevated benll, at grade, below grade, and underground. Construction activities and dUration vary dramatically for different types of constlUction. Air quality and GHG emissions for longer duration constlUction should be considered. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 9 of21 Comment C.4-8 -The document uses flawed assumptions in the impact analysis. For example, it is impossible to run on 100 percent clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity. Zero-carbon emissions electricity does not exist. "Clean energy" cannot be separated fi'om other electricity, and is itself not 100 percent clean. Connnent CA-9 -Does the project actually reduce emissions, or only move them out further into the future? This issue is not considered in the analysis. Comment CA-l 0 -Construction emissions, especially GHG emissions, should be anlOrtized and included in the analysis. Comment CA-ll -Construction activities include rebuilding Caltrain, which will result in a disruption in service and in tum result in commuters and travelers finding other transportation options, likely increasing vehicular emissions. Comment C.4-12 -In addition to direct air and GHG emissions associated with Caltrain rebuilding, the project will also result in indirect traffic and air emissions. These emissions have not beeninc1uded in the impact analysis. Comment CA-13 -The required new electrical infrastructure will result in both construction and operational particulate and GHG emissions (SF6 from substations). These emiSSIons have not been included in the impact analysis. C.S Biological Resources Comment C.5.1 -Statements such as those on page 7-13 (second paragraph, lines 4-7) ... "That the preferred altemative to San Francisco would have slightly less potential impacts on wetlands (15.6 ac vs. 17A ac), waterbodles (3.8 ac vs: 4.5 ac), and streams (20,276 linear ft. vs. 21,788linear ft), but would have slightly more potential impacts on floodplains (520.6 ac VS. 477.5 ac) and species (plant and wildlife) ... " are not very helpful without knowing something about the cun'ent quality, trends, susceptibility, and other threats (cumulative or otherwisc) to these resources. An attempt to look at these from a landscape point of view should be considered. Just providing disturbed acreage estimates can be very misleading, and could support or lead to incorrect conclusions about the comparative . severity of impacts between altematives. Comment C.5.2 -It is a mistake to equate only miles of disturbance with environmental impacts: For example, on page 7-15, second paragraph, lines 5-8, the document states, "However, this alternative has greater enviroumental impacts ... since it requires nearly 38 additional miles ofHST aligument to be constructed along the east bay" and repeats this statement on page 7-15, third paragraph, lines 5-7. The severity of the environmental impact depends on what biological resources are encountered in those 38 additional miles, ·and what is. encountered in the original alignment before the 38 miles are added on. Similarly, the impacts depend on the nature/severity oflhe impacts encountered. One Mr, Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 10 of21 significant impact in a Sh011 stretch of alignment would have more weight than several, or indeed many,less than significant impacts in a longer stretch of alignment. Comment C.5,3 -The document perpetuates a common enor in only considering threatened and endangered species (T&E species). EIRs and EISs are not environmental compliance documents. They are envhomllental impact assessment documents. Yet there is no . consideration of the potential for impacts to many non-T &E species, especially keystone species, particularly in terms of habitat loss and fragnlentation. Comment C.5-4 -The docnment does not address the wide-ranging effects of air and water emissions (pollution) and noise on biological resources, particularly wildlife and their critical habitat. The harmful effects of pollution have contributed to the listing of numerous species under the Endangered Species Act, yet the document focuses on the direct impacts associated with the loss of habitat. Habitat fragmentation and degradation are not addressed. The indirect effeets of air, water, noise, and other emissions, even if they meet regulatory andlor pe!mit thresholds, are ignored. Not all habitats are of equal imp011anee. Certain habitats disprop01tionately conbibute to ecosystem functioning and are analogous to keystone species. Even non-keystone habitats vary in quality with very different functional value. These nuances are ignored cir overlooked, and should be the major focus of affected environme!lt discussions. Comment C.S-5 -The document fails to. adch'ess the potential loss of valuable wildlife habitat, including wetlands, pal1icularly if the proposed right-of-way must bere10cated away from the CaltrainiUPRR right-of-way anywhere along the San Franciscoto Gilroy corridor. Such a relocation could be necessitated by Union Pacific's refusal to share a ROW with the HST system. Cemment C.5-6 The document fails to address impacts to trimming or renlOval of mature or heritage trees along project alignment, including effects to El Palo Alto, the iconic herit'lge redwood b'ee in Palo Alto. C.6 Cultural Resources Comment C.6-1 -The document fails to fully address impacts to histodc resources and Native Ame!ican archaeological sites along the alignment, The do.cument do.es not ide!1tify and name each type of historic resource, and only identifies the total number of such resources located along eilCh aligument. It is therefore not possible to assess the significance of the impacts. The document also fails to address the potential impacts to cultural resourees from the UPRR's refusal to share its ROWand the potential need to identify a new alignment. Comment C.6-2 -Inadequate measures are provided in the documellt to mitigate the 110ise, vibration, and visual impacts'ofthe proposed HST system on the historic resources located near the proposed alignment. Mr. Dan Leavitt Apri114,2010 Page II of21 C.7 Environmental Justice Comment C.7-1 -The document uses ineolTect methodology for its analysis of environmental justice impacts. Comment C.7-2 -The possibility of enviromnental justice issues is not necessarily related to distance from the HST line (page 2-5, third paragraph, and page 2-7, second paragraph, lines II and 12), but rather thc geographical extent of impacts, such as noise, traffie congestion, air quality degradation, etc. . Comment C.7-3 -Limiting potential property impacts to land uses within 50 feet of either side ofthe existing COlTidor, or within 50 feet of both sides of the centerline for new HST alignments, is too restrictive and limiting to fully assess impaets. Potential enviromnental impacts could extend well beyond 50 feet, and so too would the potential for disproJ(ortionate impacts to minority and.low incomc populations. Commcnt C. 7 -4 -The potential for environmental justice impacts exists whether the minority orlow income population is I, 5, 10,20 percent or 50 percent of the total (page 2- 5, first bullet). The question is not what the minority or low income population is, but whetherit is disproportionately impacted regardless of size. The potential for enviromnental justice impacts is made on a detenrunation of whether or not there are disproportionate impacts to minority or low income popUlations, not just whether minority of low-income popUlations exist along the alignment. The wording ofthe enviromnental justice section in Chapter 6 should use the tenn "potential for enviromnental justice impacts" rather than whether the alignm~nt has a "low, medium, or high enviromnentaljustice impact rating". c.s. Geology and Seismicity Comment C.8-1 -Thc document fails to adequately address potential impaets and risks associated with the rail'line crossing several active and potentially active fault zones. Potentially high risks are associated with all rail altematives crossing active and potentially faults. These risks, for both constlUction and operations, are not fully addressed. Crossing the Calaveras Fault in a hmnel represents a particularly high risk. Altematives to a tunnel crossing should be considered. Comment C.8-2 -The document fails to adequately address impacts resulting from a major ealthquake and associated strong ground motion. Comment C.8-3 The southern alternative mus nOlih through areas with potential effects from liquefaction. Fonndations and SUppOlts for this altemative will require more engineering and robust constlUction, resulting in greater traffic dismptions and increased air emissions. These factors are not addressed in the analysis. Comment C.8-4 The height of elevated structure is not indicated in the analysis. The lateral seismic loading on these structures needs to be addressed. Substalltially larger (and Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14,2010 Page 120f21 more frequent) supports may be needed, possibly resulting in greater visual impacts or evcn the need for a wider ROW to accommodate the structural supports. e.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Comment C.9-1 .. -The document fails to address the public health and safety impacts due to possible derailments on the Union Pacific, Caltrain, or HST lines and subsequent collisions with high speed trains. The derailment hazards and damage to adjacent rail lines are not addressed, and the potential damage to properties adjacent to rail lines reSUlting from train derailments is not addressed. The document does not consider establishing hazard buffer zones to addres~ derailment impacts. Comment C.9-2 -The document fails to address other possible collisions with trains. Multiple trains (HST, Caltrain, freight) l.\sing the same tracks pose increased risks of collisions. In addition, it has not been demonstrated in the enviromnental document that multiple HST trains operating concuTI"ently would be able to stop in time if problems from other operations oceur. Comment C.9-3 -The document fails to address confliets with existing underground toxic plumes. The approach and methodology in the document is flawed as it only used databases listed in evaluating possible underground contamination. Additional infOlmation on underground contamination is available and needs to be incorporated into the analysis. Comment C.9-4 -Contamination along existing railroad ROWs is common. The analysis does not consider this typically occuTI"ing hazardous contamination, and the methods to mitigate the disturbance and disposal of contaminated materials. Comment C.9-5 -Acquiring new ROW increases potential for encountering more hazardous materialS/Waste, including contaminated groundwater. This issue is not addressed in the Revised Draft Program EIR. e.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Comment C.l 0-1 -The document fails to address impacts of trenching or tuuneling on groundwater during construction. This impact applies in particular to portions of the Altamont Route Altemati Yes. Comment C.I 0-2 The document fails to address impacts on creek flow, creek stability, and riparian habitat. The analysis is flawed in comparing "flood plain area" without considering water flow direction relative to proposed structures. This comment also applies to Comment C.I 0-4. Comment C.l 0-3 The document fails to adequately address impacts of shallow groundwater on operations and maintenance. For example, the document states that, Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 13 of21 "Infiltration of ground and surface waters into tunnels is undesirahle for operations and maintenance reas01~S and increases the potential for adverse impacts to ground and surface waters. All reasonable measures would be taken to avoid water inflltration," 111ese "reasonable measures" should be identified and discussed, Potential secondary impacts (e.g" groundwater pumping for dewatering) should also be evaluated. Comment C.I 0-4 " In addition to operations and maintenance, potential adverse impact to tunneling from groundwater are discounted and not fully analyzed. Comment C.I 0-5 The document fails to adequately address the impacts on project operations from potential flooding. Comment G.I 0-6 -The document does not discuss the project's potential to impair or redirect flood water flows, or displace flood water and increase flood water elevation, and thus increase flooding risks to adjacent and upstreanl areas. Comment C, 10-7 -lfOPRR does not allow shared use of the existing ROW, then greater potential impacts to surface waters could result from a new ROW. Comment Col Oc8 -The analysis does not indicate the extent of impervious surfaces that ,would be created by the project. hnpervious surfaces create increased surface discharges, which could cause local flooding or erosion, If retention/detention basins are required to address and offset the increase in impervious surfaces, then more land may be required in order to accommQdate these added features. Comment C.l 0-9·· The analysis considers the effects of 100-year floodplains, but does not consider 500-year floodplains. c.n Land Use and Planning Comment C.II-I -The document fails to discuss the direct and indirect impacts of potential "sprawl" development as a result of the project, particularly near the locations of proposed stations such as the potential station in the City of Palo Alto. The document needs to address the development-inducing impacts of the HST project (such as high-density housing being constructed near stations). Comment C.11-2 -The Revised Program EIR fails to address the displacement of residents and businesses if the proposed ROW must be relocated away from the CaltrainlUPRR ROW, as may be required as a result ofUPRR's refusal to share the ROW with tbeHST system. An alternate corridor would likely involve the extensive use of eminent domain in order to create a new aligmnent Comment C.II-3 The document fails to adequately address land use impacts reSUlting from the division of existing comtnunities, either through the expansion and potential Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 14 of21 widening of the existing CaltrainJUPRR ROWand the elevation of stl1letures within this ROW, or through the relocation of the proposed HST cOiTidor away from the Caltrainl UPRR ROW. Either of these two scenarios could result in the division of an existing community. Comment C.11-4 -The environmental document fails to address project impacts due to potential incompatibility with local land use plans and policies, including existing or planned uses, zoning and general plan designations and regulations, and existing or proposed development plans. Local plans and policies need to be taken into consideration in the land use impact analysis, and in detennining the thresholds of significance for all environmental impact criteria. Comment C.II-5 -The document fails to address potential impacts to local businesses, particularly during construction. Road closures, reduced parking, and construction noise could all make it difficult for businesses to stay in operation during construction activities. If the HST con'idor must be relocated due to DPRR's refusal to share its ROW with the HST system, then additional businesses would also be directly impacted by CHSRA's need to use eminent domain to acquire properties for the new alignment. Comment C.11-6 -The document fails to address impacts to the property valucs of rcsidences and businesses due to aesthetics, noise, vibration, and circulation impacts from long-tenn constl1lction activities and daily train operations. Comment C.II-? -The document incorrectly states that the proposed project corridor would have a "high" eompatibility rating in the selected corridor. A large portion of this conidor passes through residential neighborhoods. The document states that single-family residential homes have a "low" compatibility rating with HST systems, so the pOltions of the cOlTidor that pass through residential neighborhoods should have a "low" rating as well. Comment C.II-8 -The document fails to address that elevating the railway and erecting 45 miles of sound walls could create a physical barrier that divides a community. The existing Caltrain/UPRR ROW does not divide commtmities to the same degree that an elevated HST system would. Comment C.II-9 -The Final Program EIR states on page 2-3 that the lIST has a "high" compatibility with high schools and a "medium" compatibility with elementary schools. The document fails to justify why high schools are more compatible with a HST system than elementary schools. C.12 . Minerals Comment C.12-1 -No issues regarding minerals have been identified at this time. C.13 Noise and Vibration Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14,2010 Page 15 of21 Comment C.B-I -The noise metric (page 3.4-3, second paragraph) should include retirement homes, assisted living centers, nursing homes, and other long-tenn medieal care facilities, museums, libraries, motels, hotels, auditoriums, churches, and cemeteries, in addition to the number of hospitals and schools. Sensitive land uses also include mobile homes, donllitories, parks, picnic areas, playgrounds, and active sports areas. Comment C.l3-2 -The noise metric does not include parkland, yet Table 3.4-4 on pages 3.4-14 to 3.4-18 does include parkland in its' noise and vibration summary data used to compare alignment alternatives. Illig inconsistency in the document needs to be corrected. Comment C.l3-3 -The document fails to adequately address the impact significance of noise and vibration during both constmction and operation, and fails to adequately mitigate these impacts, COlllment C.13-4 -The document categorizes noise and vibration impacts as "low-level", "medium-level", and "high-level", and establishes four noise-related thresholds of significance, but does not indicate whether the project impacts would exceed these t11resholds and be considered significant impacts. Comment C.B-5 -The document fails to adequately explain how the proposed mitigation measures would address noise and vibration impaets and reduce these impacts to a less than sigtiificant level. Comment C.13-6 The dOClmlent addresses estimated noise levels on a region-wide basis, and does notquantify anticipated noise levels on the proposed alignment or station 10ca.tkJl1s: . Comment C.l3-7 -Grade separation would introduce inclines. The document does not address how such inclines would affect noise and vibration impacts ofHST, Caltrain, and freight train operations, particularly when climbing up an incline. Cornment C.13-8 -The mnnber of trains per honr is proposed to increase substantially over existing conditions, meaning that more peak noise events will occur every hour and that (he to(al duration of peak noise events will increase. The document does not quantify the increase in the duration of noise, nor does the document indicate whether this would be considered a significant impact. Comment C.l3-9 -The document fails to address the noise and vibration impacts of nightly traek maintenanee. Comment C.13-1 0 -The document fails to address how the different design options (tunnel, below grade, at grade, elevated belT11, elevated viaduct) affect noise impacts. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 16 of21 Comment C.B-1I -The document fails to address how wind and weather pattems would affect noise impacts. Comment C.13-12 -Noise impact ratings should be indicated as "high" along most of the San Jose to San Francisco corridor due to dense residential development. Comment C.13-13 The document addresses noise impacts from 186 mile per hour (mph) operations, but does not address noise impacts for 220 mph speeds through Morgan Hill and Gilroy. . Comment C.13-14 -The document fails to quantify the potential noise reduetion provided by sound walls, paliicularly given the presence of two-story residences and the possibility ofan elevated railway. Without an idea of how much sound attenuation and reduction can be achieved through the use of sound walls, there is no way to conclude that such walls have the potential to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. . Comment C.13-15 -The proposed sound wall height appears to be inadequate to address noise impacts. The document should include an analysis oflhe effectiveness of different heights or document why the specific height was chose. Commenl C.13-16 -The document fails 10 address impacts of sound walls on traffic noise for adjacent streets. Vehicle noise on streets adjacent to the lIST con'idor may bounce off the sound wall and back out into the community. Comment C.l3-1? -The document does not address the combined noise and vibration impacts of two or more trains passing by a location at the same time. Identify the noise and vibration impacts of multiple, simultaneous trains. C;14 . Population and Housing Comment C.14-1 -The environmental document fails to evaluate the project impacts on the jobs/housing balance in the region. C.1S Public Services Comment C.IS-1 .. No issues regarding public services have been identified at this time. C;16 Recreation Comment C.16-1 The document fails to address access, noise, dust, vibration, and visual impacts to parks and recreational facilities along the conidor. Comment C.16-2 -The document does not accurately identifY and consider all ofthe parks and recreational facilities along the proj ect route. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 17 of21 Comment C.16-3 -The Section 4(f) and 6(f) (Public Parks and Recreation) ROI is 500 feet on either side of the HST alignment alternatives centerline in non-urban areas, 100 feet from the centerline in urban areas, and 500 feet where stations or other HST facilities are proposed(identical to the Cultural Resomees APE). Delineating the ROI or APE so narrowly may lead to inappropriate conclusions. For example, a park just outside the ROI would not be included in the alignment evaluation, but still would be affected by noise impacts from the HST. For another example, peak hour construction noise levels could be as high as Lmax 86 to 89 dBA at 100 feet, and sound exposure levels of 100 dBA would occur at 60 feet from HST passby at 180 mph (Figure 3.4-1, p. 3.4-7), and potential vibration impaets from HST operations extend to 200 feet (page 3.4-5, first full paragraph,. line 5). Noise attenuates by 6 dBA for every doubling of distance, so a park 120 feet from the eenterline in an urban area could nominally experience a 94 dBA sound level fi-om a HST passby, and thus be impacted. The ROI for publie parks and recreation areas should be defined by the spatial extent ofthe impact creating source, not an arbitrary number. Noise attenuation is also affected by intervening buildings, vegetation, and topography, and thus noise impact assessments are more appropriate for the forthcoming project-level engineering envirorrmental review. C.17 Transportation and Traffic CommentC.l7-1 -Section 7.3.3 (Network Alternatives Evaluation) is extremely complex and detailed. This seetion would benefit from a series oftables that summarize the evaluation criteria and how they compare and rank. As it stands now, the text-only explanation is dense and difficult to follow. Comment C.l?-2 -Page 3.1-1, Section B, third paragraph states that the Traffic, Transit, Circulation, and Parking sections use year 2005 data, whereas levels of service (LOS) for station cordons is based on data for the year 2000, and parking data is from 2002 (page 3.1- 2, second and fifTh bullets). The reliance on 8-to lO-year-old data is misleading because the economic conditions were different at that time. Comment C.17-3 -It is conceivable that construction-related traffic impacts could extend . beyond the I mile or 0.25 miles distance threshold from the suburban rail stations or downtown station locations, respectively. Adherence to this threshold could understate impacts. C011l1nent C.17-4 -Table 6-1 on page 6-2 of the Revised Program EIR states that "The HST Network Altemative would reduce the number of lJ:avellanes from six to four on Monterey Highway between Umbarger Road and Metcalf Road (near Bailey Road) in the City of San Jose." The EIR provides no information on the LOS impacts consistent with the information provided for other rouies in Tables 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 in the Final Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIRJEIS. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14,2010 Page 18 of21 Comment C.17-5 -The document fails to address the transportation-related policies and plans oflocal jurisdictions. Comment C.17 -6 -The document docs not identify impacts to streets during construction, including idcntification of detours and road closures. These construction impacts could significantly affect traffic patterns and traffic flow for extended periods of time. Comment C.17-7 The document does not ad\h'ess increased traffic and parking impacts in the vicinity of proposed stations. Comment C.17-8 -The Final EIR does not include any provisions for orimpacts of multi­ day parking at either Caltrain or HST stations. The need for multi-day parking further reduces Caltrain's use as a feeder to the HST system. Comment Col 7-9 -The document does not address impacts to pedestrian and bicycle paths that parallel andlor intersect the proposed alignment. Comment C.l7-10 -The document claims that Monterey Highway is underutilized, the loss of two of the six lanes will not significantly affect traffic in the area, and the loss of these two lanes would result in a decrease in traffic demand. The document fails to support these conclusions, particularly the counterintuitive conclusion regarding the decrease in traffic demand resulting from the decrease in traffic lanes. . Comment C.17 -II -The Final EIR fails to address likely Caltrain service reductions as a result of the project, how these service reductions would affect Caltrain's function as a "feeder route" to the HST, and the subsequent effects on HST ridership figures. The analysis should include consideration not only of capital improvements to Caltrain, but also operational subsidies to assure that Caltrain remains viable. C.iS Utilities Comment C.18-1 -The document fails to adequately address the energy needs for the project, the quantity of elech'icity required, and what infrastructure (transmission lines and substations) would be required to bring the necessary power to the corridor. The document only states that the State produces enough elechicity to serve the project's needs, and not how that energy would he delivered to the lIST system. The analysis should identifY the capability of existing lines to supply adequate power to the corridor. Comment C.18-2 -The document fails to address other potential utility needs for the project, and whether the infrastructnre is present to accommodate the project's needs. Comment C.18-3 The document fails to identify the impacts of the relocation of all utilities cUlTently located within or crossing the ROW. The relocation ofthese utilities Mr, Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 19 of21 could result in service intenllptions of water, wastewater, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable service, and would represent an additional project expense, C.19 Cumulative Impacts Comment C, 19-1-The document fails to adequately address the cumulative impacts of proposed Caltrain improvements, such as the proposed eloctrifieation of the Caltrain system, Comment C, 19-2 -The document fails to identify and address the cumulative impacts of proposed roadway improvements along the entire corridor from San Francisco to Gilroy, D. Alternatives Comment D-l -The document fails to include infOlmation on the environmentally superior alternative, thereby depriving the public of an oPPoliunity to comment on the methodology used to identify that alternative, Comment D-2 -The second Program EIRIEIS fails to analyze all alternatives at an equal level of analysis as required by NEP A Comment D-3 -The alternatives analysis is inadequate, inaccurate, incomplete, and biased, as demonstrated under the following topics: • ,The analysis of Altamont Pass Alternatives inaccurately portrays the operational characteristics in a way that results in significantly underestimating the potential ridership of those alternatives, • The documentimpropedy and inaccurately discounted and found infeasible the potential for the Altamont Pass Alternative to rebuild the Dumbarton Rail Bridge iii a way that could be used by both the Caltrain Dumbarton Rail Project and the proposed high-speed train. • The document overemphasizes the aquatic impacts of rebuilding the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and inaccurately discounts the likelihood of being able to obtain environmental clearam,'e, At the same time, the document underestimates the aquatic, wetlands, and wildlife impacts of the Pacheco Pass Alternative's crossing . of the Grasslands Ecological Area and discounts the difficulty of obtaining environmental clearance for such a crossing. • The document improperly and inaccurately overemphasizes the impacts of a corridor through the cities of Pleasanton and Fremont, while underestimating the impacts of a corridor along the San Francisco Peninsula. • The document underemphasizes the impacts of running the corridor through portions of San Jose south of San Jose's Diridon Station by not disclosing the Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 20 of21 absence of undeveloped land outside of the Union Pacific corridor south of that station. Comment D-4 -The document does not indicate whether Caltrans has given any sort of recognition or approval to the nan'owing for Monterey Highway for the installation of the HST lines. Until tlus authorization is obtained, then the alternatives involving the use of the Monterey Highway ROW are no more viable than the UPRR ROW. Comment D-5 -The Henry Miller alignment altemitive (UPRR Comleetion), one of the Uu-ee aligmnent altematives south of Gilroy, involves the lise of the UPRR ROW (pages 2- 16 and 2-17). This alternative should be rejected as UPRR has clearly stated that it will not share its ROW with the HST project. Comment D-6 -The Revised Program EIR dismisses the various Altamont alternatives because. the identified routes required use of the UPRR ROW, which UPRR has stated that it will not share with the HST project. No serious attempt was made to identify and evaluate non-UPRR Altamont alternatives with the same level of detail as the San Jose to Gilroy non-UPRR altematives. Comment D-7 -The Program EIR dismisses aligmnents between San Francisco and San Jose other than the Caltrain corridor with only a cursory analysis, and this dismissal precludes a detailed analysis of potential viable aligmnent alternatives and excludes related public comment at the Project ElR level. Most ifnot all of the other segments of the HST system involve consideration of more than one aligmnent, and the segment from San Francisco to San Jose deserves the same level of alternatives analysis. The following is a partial list ofaltemative aligmnent routes that should be considered in the Program EIR at the same level of detail as the preferred alternative: • The doclUnent should analyze a Highway 101 alternative that involves an AltamontIDlUnbarton crossing of the Bay, joining a Highway 101 ROW route near Menlo Park and Redwood City, and following the Highway 101 ROW to a point near the South San Francisco Callrain station. The route \vould then follow tile Caltrain corridor to downtown San Francisco. This alternative would avoid most of the Callrain corridor atul eliminate most of the devastation to the residential . neighborhoods that would be caused by the current Caltrail1 alignment alternative. This Highway 101 alternative would also reduce most of the impacts to schools, parks, and historical sites along the Caltrain cOlTidor, and could be less costly than the Caitrain cOITidor alternatives, particularly in regard to undergrounding the HST rail lines. ". The document should address and analyze alternative alignments within or along the Callrans ROWand Highway 280. • The document should address and analyze all alternative where the HST aliglUuent ends in San Jose, and then passengers transfer to Caltrain. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 14, 2010 Page 21 of21 Comment D-8 -TIle document does not address alternatives that would reduce the number of tracks to less than four. The ridership forecasts are flawed and grossly optimistic. Realistic ridership projections may conclude that only two or three tracks would be required for the HST project, not the four tracks currently proposed. Once the forecasted ridership is conected to (1) reflect CUiTent predictions rather than the outdated and inflated figures used in the current ElR, and (2) remove the East Bay ridership from the San Francisco station forecasts, then the reductions in projected traffic volume could result in the need for less than the 4 sets of tracks proposed between San Francisco and San Jose, and it may even be possible for the HST system and Caltrain to share only the 2 existing sets oftracks. COlTImentD-9 -The document provides a "low" or "medium" impact rating for segments that pass alongside residential development, wheu that rating should be higher. A proper weighting of the relative impacts of the various alignment altematives would provide a more accurate assessment of which alignments are environmentally superior. Comment D-l 0 -The various con-idor segments passing through Palo Alto should be analyzed and diseussed in an equal and equitable mamler in order to appropriately assess which corridor alternative is truly the euviromnentally superior alternative. E. Response to Comments Comment E.I -The responses to comments are often perfullctory or conclusory, and not supported by substantial evidence. The City of Palo Alto appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the Revised Draft Program EIR for the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Project. Please contact James Keene, City Manager, at 650-329-2563 for fmther information and coordination. Sincerely, PAT BURT Mayor cc: City Council James Keene, City Manager Dominic Spaeth ling, CAHSR I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I ATTACHMENT B City Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee Guiding Principles Adopted May 18, 2009 The City Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee, consisting of four members, is designated by the City Council to represent the City in public in meetings with community groups and stakeholders, when speaking to other public agencies, when . providing wlitten c011'espondence in advocating for legislation related to high speed rail. . . The Subcommittee will have the authority to speak on behalf of the City Council at hearings on short notice when full City Council discussion at a regularly scheduled Couneil meeting is not feasible. In such cases the Subconmlittee should be guided by broad principles that are consistent with existing City Comprehensive Plan and adopted City Council policies. In order to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies, the Subcommittee will be guided by the following principles: • The City is supportive of efforts to improve accountability and effective govemance of high speed rail planning and operations. • The City advocates advancing economic feasibility analysis and project financing options by High Speed Rail Goveming Body to implement selected altematives. • The Ad Hoc committee will work with peninsula cities coalition to draft Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrain and HSRA and retum to full Council for review and approval. • The City understands the opportunity to apply for Federal stimulus funding but is concemed that enough time is allowed for appropriate analysis, public process, and decision making. • The City recognizes that High Speed Rail, if done correclly, has the potential to minimize adverse impacts and be beneficial to the community. • While acknowledging that the cnrrellt direction for the San Jose to San Francisco High Speed Train project is to use the Caltrain light,of-way as the for the high speed rail corridor betweell San Jose and San Francisco, the City is open to and could support altemative alignments. • The Ad Hoc Committee will be guided by the City of Palo Alto Scoping Comments for the Califomia High Speed Rail Authority's San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train (HS1) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). • The City SUppOlts Caltrain electrification and improved commuter rail services betwcen San Francisco and San Jose. The City SUppOlts evaluation of operating conditions along the Caltrain right-of-way that would be conducive to a high speed rail intercity Connection in San Jose, with improved Caltrain conmmter rail service between San Jose and San Francisco. • The City is supportive of exploring creative ui:ban design and use of context­ sensitive design processes that consider community values in collaborative community-sensitive planning and for the high speed rail project. • The Subcommittee shall provide monthly reports fothe Council on the activities of thc Peninsula cities Consortium .. • The Subcommittee will meet regularly with community leaders and stakeholders to inform and involve the larger Palo Alto community in the planning, review, oversight and decision-making for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project. 'I. ..