Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 245 10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: MAY 10,2010 CMR: 245:10 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION SUBJECT: Monthly Update on City Activities Related to the California High Speed Rail Project RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only and no action is required. BACKGROUND Since passage of Proposition 1A 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 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 of HSR ridership; (3) a Sacramento legislative liaison consultant to represent the City's interests to the State Legislature; and (4) a one-day symposium on fmancing of the HSR alternatives and potential HSR station in Palo Alto. On March 15, 2010, Council approved the conversion of the Ad Hoc High Speed Rail Committee to a full standing committee of the City Council, in recognition of the fact that the HSR Project is a long term project that will require a sustained role of the Committee. Meetings are now broadcast live by the Media Center. On April 19, 2010 Council directed the Mayor to work with staff to finalize the City's comments on the Bay Area to Central Valley High Speed Train Revised Draft Program EIR. The Council also directed staff to review the Guiding Principles for the HSR Committee and return to Council with revisions. Comments regarding the Revised Program EIR were sent to the High Speed Rail Authority on April 23, 2010. CMR: 245:10 Page lof4 5 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 April 2010. Bay Area to Central Valley High Speed Train (HST ) Project Revised Draft Program EIR In August 2009, the Sacramento Superior Court issued a ruling that the program EIR required revision and recirculation in several areas to comply with CEQA. The areas requiring revision include the San Jose to Gilroy section related to the Union Pacific right-of-way and appropriate analysis of vibration impacts. On December 3, 2009, the Authority approved a 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. On March 4, 2010, the HSRA released a Revised Draft Program EIR. The 45-day public comment period began on March 11,2010 and ended on April 26, 2010. The document included 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. Staff retained an environmental consulting firm and outside counsel to assist with the preparation of comments. A draft of the outline for comments on the Revised PEIR was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 7 and by the Council on April 12. The outline included all of the potential subject areas to be covered by the City's comments on the revised draft PEIR as well as the original Program EIR. On April 19, Council reviewed the detailed comment letter and authorized the Mayor and staff to finalize the letter. The comment letter was sent to HSRA on April 23, 2010 (Attachment A) in order to comply with the April 26 deadline for comments. San Francisco to San Jose HST Preliminary Project Alternatives Analysis Report The. Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was released for circulation and presented to the HSRA Board on April 8. 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. The scope of work includes full technical review and participation in meetings with the HSR Committee, City Council and a community meeting. Their draft report will be available on or before May 1 ih. On April 27, HSRA held a well-attended community workshop in the Palo Alto Council Chambers on the Alternatives Analysis. Staff supplemented the HSRA's outreach efforts by mailing notices to properties within 600 feet of the Caltrain right-of-way. HSRA and the Peninsula Rail Program (PRP) staff presented an overview of the alternatives identified for the Palo Alto segment of the project, responded to questions and led community members in break­ out groups in a Context Sensitive Solutions Toolkit exercise. In Palo Alto, five alternatives are included: 1) a four-track aerial structure, 2) four tracks at existing Caltrain grade, 3) a four track CMR: 245:10 Page 2 of4 open trench, 4) four track cut and cover tunnel, and 5) a combination of two Caltrain tracks at grade and two HSR tracks in deep bore tunnels. Handouts from the meeting are provided as Attachment B. The City's schedule for comments on the AA is predicated on providing comments within the 60-day window requested by HSRA. While there is no legal deadline for comments, HSRA has made it clear that comments received within the first 60 days will be the most influential. HSR staff plans on reporting to the Board at their July meeting on comments received. Since then, the PRP has indicated that the comment period would remain open until the end of the year when the Draft EIR is finalized. It is staff's understanding, however, comments must be submitted by mid-June in order for them to be considered by HSRA staff in their revised Alternatives Analysis report to the HSRA Board July meeting. The City tentative review schedule for the next month includes: Community meeting at JLS Middle School Planning and Transportation Commission meeting Community meeting at Jordan Middle School HSR Committee meeting City Council meeting May 18 May 19 May 20 May 20 May 24 A Master Schedule of 2010 meetings and significant events concerning HSR by the City, PCC, and HSRA is attached (Attachment E). HSR Council Committee Activities The City Council established the HSR 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 not feasible. In May 2009, the Council adopted Guiding Principles for the Committee to provide further policy direction to the Committee. On April 19, 2010, the Council referred the HSR Guiding Principles to the HSR Committee for review and comment. The Committee is continuing to review the principles and will forward recommended change to the City Council on May 24. Sacramento Legislative Update The City's legislative lobbyist in Sacramento, Ravi Mehta of Capitol Advocates, is tracking all legislation that directly or indirectly impact the HSR project. Mr. Mehta has provided a legislative update (Attachment C) on the most recent legislation of concern and his lobbying efforts on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. Of particular concern were a series of bills that would have exempted projects selected by the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency from judicial review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These bills have been heard in committees, but most are not moving forward, although this issue may emerge again during budget discussions. Capitol CMR: 245:10 Page 3 of4· Advocates continues to monitor this issue and will advise staff of any changes in status of the CEQA legislation. Capitol Advocates is also following legislation specifically related to HSR, and has recommended positions in opposition to SB 289, AB l375, AB 1747, and SB 965. These bills would further solidify HSRA's authority to spend stimulus funds for design, engineering, and construction. Staff and the HSR Committee will be working with our lobbyist to communicate the City's positions on these bills at the appropriate time. State Auditor's Report on the High Speed Rail Authority On April 29, the California State Auditor's Report on the High Speed Rail Authority was released. It was highlighted the risks 'associated with the Authority's business and funding for the project, the Authority's lax contract management and weak project management oversight. A summary of the Auditor's report is provided as Attachment D. The full report is available at: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-106.pdf. Senator Lowenthal, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, May 11, 2010 to discuss the Audit report. ATTACHMENTS A. Comment Letter on Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR B. Handouts from the San Francisco to San Jose HSR Project Alternatives Analysis Workshop. The full San Francisco to San Jose HSR Project Alternatives Analysis is available online at: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library/default.aspx C. Legislative Update Report from Capitol Advocates D. Summary of April 2010 State Auditor Report on HSR E. Schedule of Upcoming HSR Meetings COURTESY COPIES Nadia Naik, Californians for Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) Dominic Spaethling, California High Speed Rail Authority Robert Doty, Peninsula Rail Program PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 245:10 Page4of4 ATTACHMENT A April 23,2010 California High Speed Rail Authority Attn: Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Qty of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council Subject: Bay Arfa to Central VaDey RevMI Drdprogram-Level EIRMaferial Commems Dear Mr. Leavitt: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the California High Speed Rail Authority's March 2010 Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Revised Draft Program EI~ Material. The California RST project will have along-lasting and far-reaching impact on the City of Palo Alto. The City has thoroughly reviewed the Revised Draft Program EIR and has the following comments: A. General Comments and Process A.l Public Meetings Comment A.l ~ 1 -No scoping sessions or public meetings were held anywhere on the Peninsula between San Jose and Sall 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 sroping process, the EIRlEIS public review process, or the Revised Draft Program EIR process precluded the effective participation of affected communities on the Peninsula and defeated the public information and disclosure purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it relates to those portions of the project that would be implemented on the Peninsula. A.2 Significant New Infonnation Conunent A.2-1 fi Significant new information exists, WIder many environmental parameters, that makes the earlier Program ElRIEIS invalid and requires a recirculation of the Program EIRIEIS. as well as recirculation of the Revised Program EIR. Comment A.2-2· The ridership and revenue modeling used for the analysis and alternatives comparison is flawed, particu1arly given the new infornlation 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. Printed wilh lIO)'·based Inb on too .. ~led paper processed wllhout chlorine P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 9430:~ 650.329.2477 65D.328,3631 fax Mr. Dan Leavitt ApriJ 23y 201 0 Page 2 of29 Comment A.2"3 ~ New information on project impacts and alternatives is being discovered during the project. level environmental review for the San Francisco to San Jose and San Jose to Merced segments. This new information may indicate new or increased impacts, and new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. The new infonnation needs to be presented and analyzed in a revised and recirculated environmental docwnent. Comment A.2-4 -New information has been presented in the Revised Draft EIR regarding the use of the Monterey Highway median for portions of the high-speed train (lIST) right .. of-way (ROW). The document fails to adequately address how the use of this median may result in impacts associated with noise, land use, property. traffic, and construction impacts. Comment A.2-S .. The recently announced 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 rebuilding the bridge. The environmental document should be revised and recirculated to incorporate alignment alternatives that could be accommodated by this seismic retrofit project, and to compare the relative feasibility and potential environmental effects of these additional alignment alternatives to the project and alternatives described in the earlier Program ErR/Ers. . Comment A.2~6 -The need to evaluate impacts from Union Pacific Railroad's (UPRR) recent refusal to share its ROW may render the proposed Central Valley to Bay Area alignment infeasible. The emerging uncertainty regarding the availability of the UPRR ROW requires the Authority to identify and evaluate other alternative alignments for not only the Pacheco Pass but also the Altamont Pass, including an Altamont Pass alignment that would run along State Route 84 through the East Bay rather than 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. Some fundamental asswnptions and underpinnings of the analysis, such as the ridership projections and business plan, have been shown to be flawedi as sucb, all subsequent impact analyses that propagate these errors are themselves flawed. Comment A.3-2 -The limited scope of the changes to the earlier Program EIS/EIR does not adequately address the defects in that document identified by the court in its order. because the defects in the environmental analyses in that document also undennined the adequacy of the alternatives analysis and precluded a fair comparison of the relative impacts and feasibility of the proposed project and a1ternatives. The Authority must also Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23. 2010 Page 3 of29 update the alternatives analysis in the Program EISIEIR to reflect the changeS to the environmental analysis for the proposed alignments. A.4 Inappropriate Listing of Supporters and Opponents Comment AA-1 -It is inappropriate to list the agencies and organizations who support. or have expressed concern over, the selection of the Preferred Alternative (Sections 7.3.2 and elsewhere) in the document. Their comments and concerns should certainly be acknowledged when deciding on the scope of analysis in the BIR, but their identification in this document can have the effect of unnecessarily pitting one a;tgency or organization against another, rather than focusing attention on which environmental issues need to be addressed in the document. A.S Lack of Tables Makes Analysis Difficult Comment A. 5-1 ~ The presentation of data in the text is confusing and makes the anal ysis difficult to follow. The information would be more presentable and understandable to the lay 'reader if presented in tables. An example of where such a table would be appropriate is on page 7 M 17 in the Travel Times/Travel Conditions section of the document. Conversely, the text on page 4-3 repeats the information already presented in Table 4-1. More careful use of tables is warranted. A.6 Premature Initiation of Project-Level Environmental Review Comment A.6-1 -The Revised Draft Program EIR indicates that, even though the Authority has not completed or certified the Final Program EIRIEIS for the Central Valley . to Bay Area High Speed Train, and even though this document is intended to serve as the basis for the Authority's selection of one or more HST rail alignments between the Central Valley and the Bay Area, the Authority is nonetheless proceeding with its project-level environmentall'eview for specific segments of the HST system within the Bay Area and Central Valley. This strongly suggests that the Authority has predetermined the rail alignments for the HST system, without sufficient regard for the conclusions and outcome ofthe environmental review. Until the Final Program EISIEIR is complete, the Authority will not have sufficient infonnation to appropriately evaluate all the possible alignment alternatives. It is inappropriate for the Authority to proceed with the project-level evaluations of specific segments of the HST system until the Authority has fully and adequately evaluated all the possible alignment alternatives in the Final Program EIRlEIS, and certified that document as adequate under NEPA and CEQA. Comment A.6-2 -The document currently under review is titled "Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Materiar' Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 4 of29 (emphasis added). CEQA does not provide forthis type of a document. The court has instructed the CHSRA to recirculate a revised EIR. Comment A.6-3 -The document is inadequate in disclosing impacts associated with the removal of vegetation and trees. For example, impacts to the EI Palo Alto Historic Redwood should be discussed in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources sections. B. Inadequate Project Description and Business Plan B.l Project Description Comment B.1-1 -The project description is essentially limited to the alignment of the track corridors and possible stations, but does not mention the additional support facilities, other than the maintenance facility. that would be needed. These additional SUPPOlt facilities would include layover facilities, turnouts, bridges, and tunnels, advanced signaling and communications systems, electrification facilities, station automobile parking :.1ructures, and the public open spaces needed to support the pedestrian traffic generated by the hub stations. The Revised Program EIR 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 should be identified, the typical effects explained, and should be addressed in detail in the forthcoming project-level engineering and environmental 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 buffic and not the HST). Grade separations cause substantially more construction, surface disturbance, noise, air quality, aesthetic~ 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 rall service and disruption of local businesses; these issues are not addressed in the BIR. Identification of proposed grade separations is necessary to fully disclose the potential impacts associated with each of the alignment alternatives, and to fairly compare the feasibility and environmental effects associated with each alternative. These impacts must be analyzed and the alternatives analysis updated for the CEQA docume~ to be adequate. Comment B.I .. 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 corresponding impacts are not analyzed and no mitigation is proposed. All of this infonnation is necessary to enable the Authority to compare the relative feasibility and Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23. 2010 Page 5 of29 environmental effects of the proposed rail alignment and the various alternative alignments, and to make a fair and infonned selection of the most feasible and environmentally preferred alignment. Comment B.1-4 -The document fails to adequately indicate the extent to which the project would require acquisition of private property through eminent domain. This issue applies to both the 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. This information IS necessary to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed project and to compare it with the various alternatives in the Program EISIEIR. Comment B.1-5 -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 what additional infrastructure would need to be constructed (rail spurs, repair shelters) to allow the maintenance activities. Comment B.t-6 -The statement that ,'" "The preferred maintenance and storage facility location to support the HST fleet in the study region is the Merced area (Castle AFB)" (page 7-28. Section D Maintenance Facilities) contradicts the statement in the Program EIRIEIS 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 HST system ... These facilities would need to be sited as near as possible to the tenninal stations (emphasis added)." Merced is about 120 miles from San Francisco. The Revised Draft Program EIR fails to identify the location of the maintenance facility in the Peninsula segment of the HST system. Comment B.t-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 EIR should explain the reasons why the FRA does not allow heavy and light rail operaiions to share corridors and why an exemption for this project would be appropriate. The document should also address the feasibility of obtaining this exemption from the FRA, and what alternatives are available if the FRA does not grant this exemption. Comment B.1-8 -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 remove weeds, clean up trash, remove graffiti, etc.? Who would pay for this maintenance? Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23,2010 Page 6 of 29 Comment B.1-9 -The document does not define how eminent domain would be used to widen an existing corridor or to create a new corridor. For example, would the CHSRA only take the back ymd 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 corridor? Comment B.l-1 0 -Section 2704.09 of Assembly Bill (AB) 3034 sets design chmacteristics and requirements for an HST system. These requirements include maximum limits on travel times, such as a maximum 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 these requirements. The City of Oakland is not currently on the proposed HST alignment, and therefore travel to or from Oakland would involve a transfer onto another train or transit system, and would require more than 2 hours and 40 minutes of travel time. The project description and alternatives need to be revised in order to add Oakland to the system, either by coming north through Pacheco Pass and San Jose, or west through the Altamont Pass. Comment 8.1-11 -The Project Descriptions in the Program EIS/ElR and the Revised Draft Program EISIEIR me inadequate because they do not adequately describe or disclose to the reviewing public that the HSR line would include a segment that traverses the San Francisco Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. The Project Description, as well as the document's title and all outreach efforts by the Authority, were focused on the HSR alignments connecting the Central Valley and the Bay Area at San Jose, and did not adequately alert the public to the proposal to also extend a HSR alignment along the Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco. This omission Was exacerbated by the fact that no scoping sessions or public hearings related to the project were held at any cities on the Peninsula. 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 regmdless of whether the project was approved or regmdless of the alignment alternative-chosen. Comment B.2-3 -The ridership forecasts in the analysis are flawed and grossly overestimate the ridership that the project would generate, pmticulmly since the ridership forecasts were created during a different economic cycle. Realistic ridership numbers need to be used in the analysis to reflect both a robust and a poor economy. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 7 of 29 Comment B.2-4 -The document fails to include a full tabulation and explanation of project costs, including: methodologies for calculating costs) costs for each alternative and sub~a1temative, costs for tunnels through developed urban areas, costs for maintenance activities, and costs for developing ridership. Comment B.2N5 -The document does not include a tabulation of expect~d funding sources for the project. Comment B.2~6 -The document does not adequately address construction costs, including the full economic costs of using eminent domain to either widen an existing corridor or to create a new corridor. Comment B.2-7 -The document fails to address how nearby businesses would be affected during project construction, if access would be limited, if small businesses will survive, and how city tax 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 environmentally advantageous for California .. CommentB.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.2-10 -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 AB 3034) and not San Francisco. Once the East Bay tidership is removed from the San Francisco projections, the forecasted ridership at San Francisco should be dramatically reduced. CommentB.1-11 -The December 2009 Business Plan's forecasted annual boardings for the Sah Francisco to Anaheim corridor are less than half of the forecasted annual boardings referred to in the EIR. The boarding numbers in the EIR-need to reflect updated forecast figures. Comment B.1-12 -The recently released California High Speed Rail Project Environmental EIRIEIS Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report for the San Francisco to San Jose Section provides updated cost figures, making the cost figures used in the Revised Program EI.R outdated. The numbers used in the Program EIRIEIS need to be updated to reflect current cost estimates. 'I i J 'I il II Mr. Dan Leavitt April23 t 2010 Page 8 of 29 c. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures C.l General Comments Comment C.l-I -The Revised Program. EIR identifies a Peninsula alignment and station locations, but fails to fully identity, analyze, and mitigate all Peninsula-related environmental impacts from 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.1-2 -The mitigation measures used in the docwnent 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.1-3 -The document fails to disclose or adequately analyze the project's potential land use, transportation, or public health and safety risks and impacts associated with the use of the shared CaltrainJUPRR ROW between San Francisco and San Jose, and the UPRR ROW from San Jose to Gilroy. Perhaps more importantly) the document fails to , address the potential necessity of locating the project alignment away from either segment oftbis ROW, particularly in the San Jose to Gilroy segment where the UPRR owns and contr01s the conidor. The need for a new project alignment in these areas necessitates a revised analysis of project impacts and an expanded alternatives analysis that compares the new project alignment to the alternatives identified in the Program EISIEIR Comment C.1-4 -The impact discussion focuses on a corridor 50 feet to either side of the existing corridor or 50 feet to either side of the centerline of the new HST alignments. The analysis should focus on a wider corridor for impacts. Some impacts, such as vibration, 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 for each sPecific impact, and not use an arbitrary and insufficient corridor width of 50 feel Comment C.1-5 -The impact analysis fuj]s to address and incorporate the significance criteria established by each local jurisdiction affected by the project, and uses flawed assumptions in detennining impact significance. Comment C.1-6 -The document fails to indicate how the HST project would affect Caltrain service, both during construction and operation. It is unclear whether Caltrain would be able to continue providing express service once the HST system is in place. Changes to Caltrain service could result in air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. The lack of analysis of this potentiaUy significant impact requires that the document be recirculated with the complete analysis. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 9 of29 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 terms "exclusive guideway" and "shared guideway", but does not define these terms. The document further concludes in a cursory manner that "exclusive guideway" alternatives should be rejected, and that a "shared guideway" alternative should move forward for analysis. This conclusion is inappropriate given that UPRR 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, visual impacts, and the compatibility of the proposed new structures with the visual character of the surrounding area. 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 struQtures and the associated 45 miles of sound walls proposed as mitigation for noise effects. These structures would represent a significant change to the visual character of the corridor and may not be compatible with the existing visual character of the area. The document also fails to address the shade and shadow impacts of these proposed elevated structures and sound walls. The sound walls as proposed are inadequate to mitigate the project's noise impacts, and will likely need to be made even taller, which would have a corresponding increase in impacts on aesthetics. Comment C.2-3 -The visual compatibility impacts of the new utility infrastructure, in partiCUlar the electrical substations, transmission lines, and overhead electrical rail lines, are not fully addressed in the Revised Program EIR. The document does not provide locations for the proposed substations and transmission lines, so no analysis of aesthetic impacts can be performed. 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 removal of existing screening trees along certain segments of the rail line would affect the impact significance of elevated structures, sound walls, substations, and new utility poles 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 Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23,2010 Page 10 of29 dements in the visual landscape, and their visual and compatibility impacts need to be addressed in the EIR. Comment C.2·6 • The document does not disclose 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 through lands that are currently in agricultural use. Given that the UPRR has notified the Authority that it will not permit the use of its ROW within the San Jose to Oilroy corridor (or anywhere else), the relocation of this alignment may require the conversion of agricultural lands. This possibility must be considered, and the potential impacts of such conversions evaluated, in the Revised Program ElR. 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 (OHO) and contribution to global climate change. Comment C.4-2 -The analysis focuses on emissions associated with operations. It does not consider construction impacts and their contribution to GHG emissions. Comment C.4-3 -Construction activities will cause major traffic disruptions, resulting in indirect air quality and OHG 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. See 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. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 11 of29 Comm.ent C.4-7 -The document fails to adequately compare air quality andOHO emissions between the alternative options for the new railway -elevated viaduct, elevated berm, at grade, below grade, and underground. Construction activities and duration vary dramatically for different types of construction. Air quality and OHG emissions for longer duration construction should be considered. Comm.ent C.4-8 -The document uses flawed assumptions in the impact analysis. For example, the document states that the HST will operate on 100 percent clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity. It may be impossible to operate on 100 percent clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity, both because there may be insufficient energy production infrastructure in the state to meet the electricity requirements of the HST system, and because "clean energy" cannot be separated from other electricity. Comment C.4-9 -Does the project actually reduce emissions, or only move them out further into the future? This issue is not considered in the analysis. Comm.ent C.4·1 0 -Construction emissions, especially GHO emissions, should be amortized and included in the analysis. Comm.ent C.4-ll -Construction activities include rebuilding Caltrain, which will result in a disruption in service and in tW'n result in commuters and travelers finding other transportatiort options, likely increasing vehicular emissions. Comment C.4-l2 In addition to direct air and GHG emissions associated with Caitrain rebuilding, the project will also result in indirect traffic and air emissions. These emissions have not been included in the impact analysis. Comment C.4·l3 -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. Comment C.4-14 -The document fails to adequately analyze or disclose the long term result of unmitigated GHG increases or decreases using the Urban Forest Reporting Protocol (UFRP) adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CAlm). For each regional or local section of the proposed project alignment, the EIR should use the methodology provided in the UFRP to provide a tree and vegetation analysis, including baseline conditions, the effects of the proposed project, and recommended action for improved air quality. C.S Biological Resources Mr, Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 12 of 29 Comment C.5.1 ~ Statements such as those on page 7-13 (second paragraph, 'Hnes 4·7) .•. "That the preferred alternative to San Francisco would have slightly less potential impacts on wetlands (15.6 ac vs. 17.4 ac), watet' bodies (3.8 ac VB. 4.5 Be), 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 current quality, trends, susceptibility, and other threats (cumulative or otherwise) 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, could lead to incorrect conclusions about the comparative severity of impacts between alteJ;natives, and do not appear to be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 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, HHowever. this alternative has greater environmental impacts ... since it requires nearly 38 additional miles ofHST alignment 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 of the impacts encountered. One significant impact in a short stretch of alignment would have more weight than several, or indeed many, less than significant impacts in a longer stretch of alignment. Conclusions regarding the severity of biological impacts based solely on the extent of acreage to be disturbed by the project would not appear to be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Comment C.S.3 -The document perpetuates a common error in only considering threatened and endangered species (T&E species). EIRs and EISs are not environmental compliance documents. They are environmental impact assessment documents. Yet there is no consideration of the potential for impacts to many non-T &E species, especially keystone species, particularly in tenns of habitat loss and fragmentation. Comment C.S-4 -The document 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 ofhabital Habitat fragmentation and degradation are not addressed. The indirect effects of air, water) noise, and other emissions. even if they meet regulatory and/or pennit thresholds, are ignored. Not all habitats are of equal importance. Certain habitats disproportionately co.ntribute to ecosystem functioning and are analogous to keystone species. Even non-keystone habitats vary in quality with very different functiona1 value. These nuances are ignored or overlook edt and should be a major focus of . affected envirornnent discussio1,ls. · Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 13 of29 Comment C.5-5 -The document fails to address the potential loss of valuable wildlife habitat, including wetlands, particularly if the proposed right-of"way must be relocated away from the CaltrainlUPRR right-of-way anywhere along the San Francisco to Gilroy conidor. Such a relocation appears likely given Union Pacific's refusal ro share a ROW with the HST system. Comment C.5-6 -The document faUs to address impacts to trimming or removal of mature or heritage trees along San Jose to San Francisco alignment, including effects to El Palo Alto, the iconic heritage redwood tree in Palo Alto. Comment C.S-7 -l11e document fails to adequately evaluate and mitigate impacts from the removal of trees and vegetation. For example, the collective groupings of mixed trees and vegetation along Alma Street provide a significant screening function, even though each tree or unit is not independently of great value and would not necessarily be a part of the City of Palo Alto's standard tree preservation measures. 'The project would result in the removal of such screening vegetation, which would result in adverse visual impacts to the surrounding community. . . Comment C,5-8 -The document fails to address the eventual footprint that may actually be required for construction activities, and how this construction footprint might affect surrounding trees. A tree resource may be adversely affected because it is adjacent to the project, even though it is not in the identified ROW. The Program ElR relies on a tree survey and assessment that is now seven years old and was prepared exclusively for the Caltrain Electrification Project, and not the HST Project, making this tree survey both too out of date and inappropriate for use with this project. The tree survey conciuded that the greatest tree-related impacts from the Caltrrun Electrification Project would be to trees outside of the Caltrain ROW; since the proposed HST Project would have a wider ROW. the impacts to trees outside the ROW would necessarily be greater. Moreover, the tree surVey's identification of trees that would be affected by the Caltrain ElectrifiCation Project relied on an estimate of the number, type, and health of trees within a typical mile, and not on actual counts or surveys. The tree survey does not recognize the value that a particular tree or group of trees may have for the community. Thus. impacts cannot be quantified for each community without updating the scope of impact, incorporating real time conditions and tree cover, and recommending the appropriate mitigation. Coinment C.5*9 -The document fails to adequately address the potential impact to the El Palo Alto Historic Redwood Biological Resol.1rce. Although the approximately 1~070- year~old tree is healthier today than 100 yOO1'S ago, it is likely that the tree exists in a Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 140f29 sensitive state of stability. and the proposed project may disrupt this stability. Any physical change to the area surrounding the tree~ such as ground disturbing impacts during construction or vibration impacts during operation, may have a direct or indirect impact on the ancient tree's· stability and ability to avoid toppling over. The root architecture and interacting soil dynamics for this tree are unknown, and the Bl Palo Alto Historic Redwood and surrounding area wUl therefore require a focused analysis in the BIR. This analysis should include a comprehensive technical analysis to develop impact avoidance measures, which willlikcly be unique to this historic tree. Comment C.5-l 0 -The document fails to adequately address the following issues related to trees and tree canopies in the City of Palo Alto: • The number of mature trees that would be affected (removal~ pruning. soil compaction, etc.) by the project • The number of trees protected by the City of Palo Alto tree ordinance that would be affected by the project • The estimated value of the trees that would be affected by the project, the replacement value of these trees, and.the ecosystem value of these trees • Mitigation measures that would compensate the community for the effects to existing trees and tree canopies C.6 Cultural Resources Comment C.6-1 M The document fails to adequately address impacts to historic resources and Native American archaeological sites along the alignment. The document does not identifY and name each type of historic resource, and only identifies the total number of such resources located along each alignment. It is therefore not possible to assess the significance of the impacts. The document also faUs to address the potential impacts to cultural resources thai may occur if a new alignment is required due to UPRR's refusal to share its ROW. Comment C.6-2 -Inadequate measures are provided in the docwnent to mitigate the noise, Vibration, and visual impacts of the proposed HST system on the historic resources located near the proposed alignment. For examplet the historic buildings along the proposed alignment are of older construction and likely more susceptible to vibration impacts. and therefore require resource-specific mitigation measures to ensure that these historic resources are not damaged by the project. Comment C.6·3 -The document fails to identify and address all of the historic and cultural resources in the City of Palo Alto that could be affected by the proposed project. Resources that were omitted from the analysis include~ Mr. Dan Leavitt April23~ 2010 Page 15 of29 • Greenmeadow National Historic Register District • University Avenue Underpass (eligible for the National Historic Register) • Embarcadero Underpass (eligible for the National Historic Register) • Southgate -Mariposa Avenue (eligible component for the Southgate National Register Historic Histrict) • The "Hostess House" adjacent to the University A venue C~ltrain Depot (listed on the National Historic Register) • 3905 Park Boulevard (eligible for the California Historic Register) These historic resources as well as the EI Palo Alto Tree, the Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge, and the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot identified in the EIR -may be adversely affected by noise, vibration, and visual intrusion. The document fails to adequately address the level of impact to these resources, or how the impacts would be mitigated. Comment C.6·4 -The document fails to adequately address the cultural value of the state historica1landmark #2, the EI Palo Alto Historic Redwood. Although the tl:oo is identified in the biological resources section of the docUment) the tree also has a profound cultural significance to local residents. The EIR should disclose the potentially significant impacts to the tree in relation to its level of cultural and historic importance. C.7 Bnvironmental Justice Comment C.7-1 -Limiting potential property impacts to land uses within 50 feet of either side of the existing corridor, or within 50 feet of both sides of the centerline for new HST alignments, is too ~trictive and limiting to fully assess impacts. Potential environmental impacts could extend 'fell beyond 50 feet, and so too would the potential for disproportionate impacts to minority and low income popUlations. Comment C. 7-2 -The potential for environmental justice impacts exists whether the minority or low income popUlation is 1,5, 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 whether it is disproportionately impacted regatdless of size. The potential for ' environmental justice impacts is made on a determination of whether or not there are disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations, not just whether minority of low-income populations exists along the alignment or that these populations exceed some threshold. The wording of the environmental justice section in Chapter 6 should use the tem "potential for environmental justice impactsU rather than whether the alignment has a "low, medium, or high environmental justice impa(.i rating". c.s. Geology and Seismicity Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 16 of29 Comment C.R-l -The docwnent fails to adequately address potential impaL1s and risks associated with the rail line crossing several active and potentially active fault zones. Potentially high risks are associated with all rail alternatives crossing active and potentially faults. These risks, for both construction and operations, are not fully addressed. Crossing the Calaveras Fault in a tunnel represents a particularly high risk that is not adequately described or mitigated by the Program EISIEIR. Alternatives to a tunnel crossing should be considered. Comment C.8-2 -The document fails to adequately address impacts resulting from a major earthquake and associated strong ground motion. Comment C.8-3 -The southern altemative runs north through areas with potential effects from liquefaction. Foundations and supports for this alternative will require more unusually complex engineering solutions and unusually robust construction, resulting in greater traffic disruptions and increased air emissions. These factors are not addressed in the analysis. Comment C.8-4 -The heights of elevated structures are not indicated in the analysis. The lateral seismic loading on these structures is not adequately addressed in the Program EISIEIR or the Revised Program EISIEIR. Substantially larger (and more frequent) supports may be needed. increasing the severity of visual impacts and possibly requiring a wider ROW to accommodate the structural supports. Comment C.8-5 -The document fails to address the consequences of the rail line being disrupted by seismic activity. . e.9. Hazards an,d Hazardous Materials Comment C.9-1-The docwnent fails to address the public health and safety impacts due to possible derailments on the Union Pacific. Caltrain, or lIST lines and subsequent collisions with high speed trains. The risks of collisions and deraihnents,and the associated hazards and damage to adjacent rail lines and properties adjacent to rail lines are not adequately addressed. The document should consider and analyze the feasibility and effectiveness of establishing hazard buffer zones to mitigate potential impacts from derailments. Comment C.9-2 -The document fails to address possible collisions with trains. Multiple trains (HST, Caltrain, freight) using the same tracks pose increased risks of collisions. In addition, it has not been demonstrated in the environmental document that multiple HST trains operating concurrently would be able to stop in time if problems from other operations occur. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23,2010 Page 170f29 Comment C.9-3 -The document fails to address conflicts with existing undergrowtd toxic plumes in the soil and groundwater. The approach and methodology in the document is flawed as it only useddatabases listed in evaiuatingpossible underground contamination. Additional information 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 occurring hazardous contamination, and the methods to mitigate the disturbance and disposal of contaminated materials. Comnlent C.9-S -Acquiring new ROW increases potential for encoun~ripg more hazardous materials/waste. including contaminated growtdwater. This iSsue is not addressed in the Revised Draft Program E~R. C.IO Hydrology and Water Quality , . Comment C.1 O~ 1 -The document fails to address impacts of trenching or tlUl11el ing on groundwater during constry.ction. This impact applies in particular to portions of the Altamont Route Alternatives. . Comment C.I 0-2 -The document fails to address impacts on creek flow ~ creek stability, and riparian habitat. The an~lysis is flawed in comparing Hflood plain area" without considering water flow direction relative to. proposed structures. This cotriment also applies to Co~ent C.l 0-4. Comment C.I O~3 -i The document fails to adeql:l3tely address impac~ of shaUow groundwater.on operations :and m~intenance. For ex.ample, the dOQument states that, "Infiltration of ground and surface waters into tunnels is undesintb1e for operations and maintenance reasons and increases the'potential for adverse impacts ,to ground and sutface wf:lters. All reasonaQ}e measures would be taken to avoid water infi1~tion/' These "reasonable measuresH must be ,identified and discussed, and their feasibility and anticipated effectivertess must be disclosed. Without this infonnatioil for each proposed alternative, it is impossible to adequately compare the potential impae.ts and benefits of the various alternatives. Potential secondary impacts (e.g., groundwater pumping for dewatering) should also be identified and evaluated for each altema~ve. Comment C.I 0-4 -In addition to operations and maintenance, potential adverse impact from tunneling on groundwater fesources are inappropriately discounted and not adequately analyzed. . . , ' Comment C.I 0-5 -The document fails to 'adequately address the impacts on project operations from potential flooding. The propnsed alignment .involves four creek crossings " .' ~~: ,." t Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 18 of 29 in Palo Alto. including Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Matadero Creek, and San Francisquito Creek. All of these creeks have the potential to overtop their banks and flood in a major rain event. The document should address how the project would be affected by a flood event, and what effect the different project elements may have on diverting flood waters and altering the pOltions of the community that might be susceptible to flooding. Comment C.10-6 -The document does not discuss the project's potential to block or redirect flood water flows, or displace flood water and increase flood water elevation, and thus increase flooding risks to adjacent and upstream areas. Comment CJ 0-7 -If UPRR does not allow shared use of the existing ROW, then greater potential impacts to surface waters could result from a new ROW. A new ROW could result in an increase in impervious surfaces. alterations to surface water and groundwater flows, degradation of water quality in stormwater and groundwater, and alterations in flood . patterns that are different than the hydrology impacts of the proposed alignment. . Comment C.l 0-8 The analysis does not adequately indicate the extent of impervious surfaces that would be created by the project. Impervious surfaces create increased surface discharges, which could cau.'le 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 ordet' to accommodate these added features. Sufficient infonnation is known about the project to estimate the extent and locations of new impervious surfaces, the potential adverse effects from these new surfaces t and to describe the mea.~ures that may be needed to mitigate these effects. Comment C.10-9 -The analysis considers the effects of 100-year floodplains, but does not consider SOO-year floodplains. The document should identify all portions of the project that are within.the lOO·year and SQO-year floodplains, what effects these floodplains could have on project construction and operations, and the effects of the projeci on altering flood patterns. . C.lt Land Use and Planning Comment C.l1-1 -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 A1to. The docwnent needs to address the development-inducing impacts of the HST project (such as high­ density housing being constructed near station.!J). Comment C.II ~2 -The Revised Program EIR fails to address the displacement of residents and businesses if the proposed ROW must be relocated outside of the CaltrainfUPRR ROW. which app~ars likely due to UPRR's refusal to share the ROW with Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 19 of 29 the HST system. An alternate corridor would likely involve the extensive use of eminent domain in order to create a new alignment. Comment C.11-3 -The document fails to adequately address land use impacts reSUlting from the division of existing communities. either through the expansion and potential widening of the existing CaltTainlUPRR ROWand the elevation of structures within this ROW, or through the relocation of the proposed HST corridor away from the Caltrainl UPRR ROW. Either of these two scenarios could result in the division of an existing community. The need to develop a new alignment outside of the UPRR ROW will also require an expanded alternatives analysis, to compare the feasibility and potential impacts of the ~ew alignment to the existing altenlatives. Comment C.ll·4 -The environmental document fails to address project impacts due to potential incompatibility with loealland use plans and policies, including existing or planned uses, zoning and general plan designations and regulations, and existing or proposed development plans. Because the Draft Program EIS/EIR and the Revised Draft Program EIS/EIR both identify the specific alignment for the HSR project along the San Francisco Peninsula between San Jose and San Francisco, as well as the specific locations for proposed stations on the Peninsula, those documents must consider the project's compatibility and consistency with allioeal plans and policies implicated by the alignment and station locations. In addition, the local plans and policies should have been considered in detennining the applicable thresholds of significance for all Program level environmental impacts. Comment C.ll-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 corridor must be re19cated due to UPRR'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 tlie new alighment . .' Comment C.11-6 -:-The document fails to adch'ess impacts to the pl'Operty values of residences and businesses due to aesthetics, noise, vibration, and circulation impacts from long-tenn construction activities and daily train operations. Comment C.11-7 -The document incorrectly states that the proposed project corridor would have a i'high" compatibility rating in the selected corridor. A large portion of this corridor passes through residential neighborhoods. The document states that single-family residential homes have a "low" compatibility rating with HST systems, so the portions of the corridor that pass through. residential neighborhoods should have a "low" rating as well. il II 1 II I Mr, Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 20 of29 Comment C.II wS -.. The document fails to consider that elevating the railway and erecting 45 miles of sound walls could create a physical barrier that divides a community. The existing CaltrainlUPRR ROW does not divide communities to the same degree that an elevated HST system would. Comment C.11-9 -The Final Program EIR states on page 2-3 that the HST 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. Comment C.ll-l 0 -Neither the Program EISIEIR nor the Revised Program EISIEIR adequately considers or addresses the potential for increased blight in at'eas sUlTounding the rail line. The cumulative effects of displacing residents and commercial uses to acquire ROW, degradation of the environment near the ROW due to noise, vibf'ation, air quality and other impacts) and decreases in property values. accompanied by residential and commercial flight from the areas near the ROW, increase the likelihood that the areas surrounding the ROW will become increasingly blighted. Blighted areas impose greater direct and indirect costs on local jurisdictions relating to maintenanCe and services, and depress revenues to such jurisdictions due to'reduced property values. The document does not identify or attempt to address these direct and indirect environmental effects. C.II-II -The document fails to adequately address construction impacts on Palo Alto High School. Construction activities will likely involve temporary closures of Churchill, Embarcadero, and Alma, all of which provide access to the high school. c.n Minerals Comment C.12-1 -No issues regarding minerals have been identified at this time. C.13 , Noise and Vibration Comment C.13 H 1 -The noise metric (page 3.4-3 j second paragraph) should include retirement homes, assisted living centers, nursing homes, and other long-term medical 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, donnitories, parks, picnic areasj playgrounds, and active sports areas. The noise analysis must be revised to account for these additional sensitive uses. Comment C.13-2 -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. This incoll8istency in the document needs to be corrected. il II 1 I I 'I 'I i J J II II ! Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 20 I 0 Page 21 of29 Comment C.13-3 -The document fails to adequately address the significance of noise and vibration impacts during both construction and operation, and fails to adequately mitigate these impacts. Specifically, the document fails to address vibration impacts on nearby buildings, including both typical structures and historic structures, which may be more susceptible to vibration impacts. Comment C.13-4 -The document categorizes noise and vibration impacts as ''low-level'', "medium-level", and "high-level'S, and establishes four noise-related thresholds of significance, but does not indicate whether the project impacts would exceed these thresholds and be considered significant impacts. As a result, the reviewing public and reviewing public agencies cannot tell from the document whether noise and vibration impacts will be significant or less than significant. Comment C.13-5 -The document fails to adequately explain how the proposed mitigation measures would address noise and vi.bration impacts and reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Comment C.13-6 -The document addresses estimated noise levels on a region-wide basis t and does not quantify anticipated noise levels on the proposed alignment or station locations. This is not sufficient, given the infonnation presently available to the Authority regarding the proposed alignments and station locations. In order to properly compare the relative severity of the impacts of the various alignment alternatives. it is necessary for the analysis to establish the baseline noise conditions along each alignment, and identify the . anticipated increases in noise levels at specific locations along each alignment with the approval of the project. Without this infonnation, the Authority cannot make an informed decision as to the preferred alignment. Comment C.13-7 -Grade separations would introduce inclines. The document does not address how such inclines would affect noise and vibration impacts of HST, Caltrain, and freight train operations, particQlarly when climbing up an incline. Coriunent C.l3-8 -The number of trains per hour is proposed to increase substantially over existing conditions, meaning that more peak noise events will occur every hour and that the total duration of peak noise events will increase. The document does not quantify the increase in the duration of noiset nor does the document indicate whetb,er this would be considered a significant impact. Comment C.13-9 -The document fails to disclose the noise and vibration impacts of nightly track maintenance. Comment C.13 w 1 0 -The document fails to disclose how the different design options (tunnel, below grade, at grade, elevated berm, elevated viaduct) affect noise impacts. I f 1 t , , I I "I :1 I Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 22 of29 Comment C.l3-1l -The document fails to disclose how wind and weather patterns would affect noise impacts. Comment C.l3-l2 -Noise impact ratings should be indicated as "high," and potential noise impacts should be considered significant, along nearly all of the San Jose to San Francisco corridor due to the alignment's proximity to dense residential development. Comment C.13-13 -The document addresses noise impacts from 186 mile per hoW' (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 reduction provided by sound walls, particularly given the presence of two-story residences and the possibility of an 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 lUlCh waUs 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 of the effectiveness of different heights or docmnent why the specific height was chosen. Comment C.13-16 -The document fails to disclose the potential impacts of sound walls on traffic noise for adjacent streets and communities. Sound walls separating residential and commercial communities from ~he HST may have the effect of increasing noise l~vels frolD: noise sources within the communities. No attempt was made to determine or assess the effects of sound walls on noise sources within the adj acent conununities. Comment C.13-17 -The document does not address the combine4 noise and vibration impacts of two or more trains passing by a location at the same time~ The document must iden~fy the noise and vibration imp~ts of multiple~ simultaneous trains. " Comment C.13-18 -The original and revised Draft Program EIS/EIR documents identify four noise-related thresholds of significance, but do not attempt to apply the thresholds to the specific alignment and station locations selected for the Peninsula alignment. The documents contain sufficient information about the project to identify and evaluate the severity of these potential impacts, and to propose specific mitigation measures. Given the volu.me of infonnation currently available about the HSR proposal for the Peninsula alignment) the Authority cannot defer this analysis to subsequent environmental review, Comment C.13-19 -Even though the original Draft Program EISIEIR specifically found that the proposed mitigation for vibration impacts was not sufficient to ensure that these Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 23 of29 impacts would be adequately mitigated, the Revised Draft Program EIS/EIRdoes not identify or propose any additional mitigation measures. To comply with both CEQA and the court's order, the Revised Draft Program EISIEIR must expand the mitigation measures to address vibration impacts to adequately mitigate these impacts. Comment C.l3R20 -The document fails to acknowledge or address the noise goals and policies in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, specifically Policy N-39 and Policy N-41. Policy N-39 encourages the location ofland uses in areas of compatible noise environments, and provides recommended indoor and outdoor noise limits for various types ofland uses. Policy N-41 states that the noise impacts of any project subject to CEQA should be evaluated in tenns of the increase in existing noise levels and the potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. These policies should be applied to the noise impact discussion in the EIR. C.14 Population and Housing Comment C.l4-l -The environmental document fails to evaluate the project impacts on the jobs/housing balance in the region. C.1S Public Services CommentC.15-1 -The document fails to address the impacts to City of Palo Alto public services from the removal of the existing dense tree canopy along sections of Alma Street. Currently, the mature tree canopy (largely between one-half to over one century in age) overarches the roadway, in some cases well past the centerline of the street, establishing critical service beriefits that are currently realized and relied upon by city operations and maintenance budgets. . For example, the large and mature tree canopy intercepts rainfall and causes an approximately lO-minute delay before this water reaches the ground. Alma Street gutter and water management has been problematic and marginally handles I-inch rainfall events. Removal of the existing mature tree canopy may result in a cumulative overload of the storm drain and overflow system. which could cause stonnwater to back up onto intersecting streets and result in localized. flooding. The planting of replacement trees alone may not be able to mitigate the changes to stormwater dynamics for many years. The EIR needs to assess the extent of these impacts and recommend additional mitigation measures to avoid this impact to the City's stormwatel' infrastructure. In addition, the shade provided by trees extends the service life of asphalt. The existing mature tree canopy shades large sections of Alma Street roadway. The City of Palo Alto currently experiences a depel1:dable and longer service life of from the asphalt on Alma Street because of this shade. Removal of this canopy protection from the direct south and Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23) 20 I 0 Page 24 of 29 western exposure on Alma Street will reduce the asphalt service life and increase the frequency of street repairs and repavement. The EIR should analyze the extent of these impacts and recommend mitigation measures to avoid this impact to the City1s roadway infrastructure. 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 corridor. Comment C.16-2 -The document does not accurately identify and consider all of the parks and recreational facilities along the project route. Comment C.16~3 -The Section 4(t) 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 fl:om the centerline in urban areas, and 500 feet where stations or other HST facilities are proposed (identical to the Cultural Resources APE). Delineating the ROI or APE so narrowly may lead to inappropriate conclusions. For example, a parkjust outside the ROI would not be included in the alignment evaluation, but stilI would be affected by noise impacts from the HST. For another example, peak hour construction noise levels could be as high as Lrnax 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 impacts from lIST operations extend to 200 feet (page 3.4M S, first full paragraph, line 5). Noise attenuates by 6 dBA for every doubling of distance, so a park 120 feet from the centerline in an urban area cOUld nominally experience a 94 dBA sound level from a HST passby, and thus be impacted. The ROI for public parks and recreation areas should be defm¢ by the spatial e,gent of the 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 environmental review. C,17 Transportation "and Traffic Comment C.l7-l -Section 7.3.3 (Network Alternatives Evaluation) is extremely complex and detailed. This section would benefit from a series of tables that summarize the evaluation criteria and how they compare and rank. As it stands now, the text-oluy explanation is dense and difficl.llt to follow, and does not adequately and transparently disclose the methodologies and conclusions brthe analysis. Comment C.17-2 -Page 3.1-1, Secti011 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 Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 25 of29 3.1-2, second and fifth bullets). The reliance on 8-to lO-year-old data is misieading and inappropriate because the economic conditions were different at that time. Comment C.17-3 -It is likely that construction-related ttaffic impacts will extend beyond the 1 mile and 0.25 miles distance thresholds from the suburban rail stations and downtown station locations, respectively. Adherence to these thresholds is likely to . understate impacts. ' Comment C.17-4 -Table 6-] on page 6-2 of the Revised Program EIR states that "The HST Network Alternative would reduce the number of travel lanes from six to four on Monterey Highway between Umbarger Road and MetcaJfRoad (near Bailey Road) in the City of San Jose." The EIR provides no information on the LOS impacts consistent with the information provided for otherroutes in Tables 3.1·2 and 3.1-3 in the Final Bay Area 10 Central Valley HST Program EIRIEIS. This information is necessary to adequately support the conclusions regarding the signifi~ance of the project's traffic impacts in this area. Comment C.l7-5 -The document faUs to disclose the transportation-related policies and plans of local jurisdictions. Comment C.17-6 -The document does not disclose the extent of impacts to streets during construction, including identification of detours and road closures, These construction impacts could significantly affect traffic patterns and traffic flow for extended periods of time. Comment CJ 7-7 -The document does not disclose the anticipated increases in traffic Rl:ld parking impactc; in the vicinity of proposed stations. Comment C.l7 -8 -The Final EIR 40es not include any provisions for or impacts 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 C. 1 7-9 -The document does not address the parking needs for rental car fleets at the various station locations. Comment C.17 -10 -The document does not disclose anticipated impacts to pedestrian and bicycle paths that parallel and/or intersect the proposed alignment. Comment C.l7 -11 -The document claims that Monterey Highway is underutiliz.ed, 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 10 support Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 26 of29 these conclusions, particularly the counterintuitive conclusion regarding the decrease in traffic demand resulting from the decrease in traffic lanes. Comment C.17·12 • The Final EIR fails to address likely Caltmin 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. Comment C,l7-13 -The document indicates that the four1rack, at grade option would involve'the loss of one or more lanes on Alma in Palo Alto. Alma is a mtijor arterial in Palo Alto, and the document fails to address the traffic and circulation impacts from narrowing this roadway. C.lS Utilities CO,roment C.18-l -The document fails to adequately disclose or evaluate the energy needs for the project, the quantity of electricity required, and what infrastructure (transmission 1ines and substations) wou1d be required to bring the necessary power to the corridor. The document only states that the State produces enough electricity to serve the project's needs, and not how that energy would be delivered to the HST system. These conclusory statements are not sufficient. Because the delivery of electricity to the system is a necessary part of the HST system, this portion of the project must be evaluated in the .Program EISIEIR andlor the Revised Program EIS/EIR. This analysis should also 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' proj~~ and whether the infrastructure is present to accommodate the project's needs. Comment C.18-3 -The document fails to disclose the impacts of the relocation of all utilities currently located within or crossing the ROW. The relocation of these utilities could result in service interruptions of water; wastewater, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable service, and would represent an additional'project eKpense without detailing how and to what extent costs would be the responsibility of other agencies or other parties. C.19 Cumulative Impacts Comment C.] 9-1 -The document fails to adequately address the cumulative impacts of proposed Caltrain improvements, sucbas the proposed electrification of the Caltrain system. Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23) 2010 Page 27 of29 Comment C.l9w2 -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~ 1 -The document fails to include sufficient infonnation on the environmentally superior alternative, thereby depriving the public of an opportunity 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'ofanalysis as required by NEPA. Comment Dw 3 -The alternatives analysis is inaccurate, incomplete, and biased~ and consequently inadequate, 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 document improperly and inaccurately discounted and found infeasible the potential for the Altamont Pass Alternative to rebuild the Dumbarton Rail Bridge in a way that could be used by both the Caltrain Dumbarton Rail Project and the proposed high-speed train. • The docmnent overemphasizes the aquatic impacts of rehui I ding the Dumbarton Rail Bridge and inaccurately discounts the likelihood of being able to obtain environmental clearance. At the same time, the document underestimates the ., .. ' aquatic) wetlands, anq wildlife impacts of the Pacheco Pass Alternative's crossing of the Grasslands Ecological Area and discounts the difficulty of obtaining ~nvironmental clearance for such a crossing. • The document improperly ~d 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 absence of undeveloped land outside of the Union Pacific corridor south of that station. • The passage of AB 3034 and Prop lA requires that travel time between Oakland and Los Angeles not exceed 2 hours and 40 minutes, and not require changing trains. Therefore, if the path to meet this requirement is via San Jose, then the entire path from San Jose to Oakland should to be dealt with in this ElR. If the path to Oakland will be via an Altamont Pass route, then that route needs to be clearly identified. The costs of , such an Altamont Pass route need to he budgetedJ and the Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23, 2010 Page 28 of29 San Jose station designed so that it will not have to be later modified to incorporate Oakland-bound trains. Comment D-4 -The document does not indicate whether Caltrans has given any sort of recognition or approval to the narrowing for Monterey Highway for the installation of the HST lines. Until this authorization is obtained, then the altematives involving the use of the Monterey Highway ROW are no more viable than the UPRR ROW. Comment D-5 -The Henry Miller alignment alternative (UPRR Connection), one of the three alignment alternatives south of Gilroy, involves the use 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 alternatives. The failure to evaluate non-UPRR ROW alternatives for the A1tamont Pass alignment renders the alternatives analysis inadequate, because the Program EIS/EIR did not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives for this alignment. Corrunent D~7 -The Program EIR inappropriately dismisses alignmellts between San Francisco and San Jose other than the Caltrain canidor with only a cursory analysis, and this dismissal improperly precluded any reasonable consideration of potentially viable alignment a1te~tives for the San Francisco to San Jose segment of the project. Most if not all of the other segments of the. HST system involve considemtion of more than one alignment. In order to satisfY minimum state and federal requirements for consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, the Authority must consider more than one corridor for the segment from San Francisco to San Jose. The following is a partial list of alternative alignment routes that should be considered in the Program EIR at the same level of detail as the preferred alternative: • The docwnent should analyze a Highway 101 alternative that involves an AltamontlDumbarton 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 Caltrain station. The route would then follow the Caltrain corridor to downtown San Francisco. This alternative would avoid most of the Caltrain corridor and eliminate most of the devastation to the residential neighborhoods that would be caused by the current Caltrain alignment alternative. This Highway 101 alternative would also reduce most ofthe impacts to schools, parks, and historical sites along the Caltrain corridor~ and could be less costly than Mr. Dan Leavitt April 23. 2010 Page 29 of29 the Caltrain corridor alternatives~ particularly in regard to undergrounding the EST rail lines. • The document should address and analyze alternative alignments within or along ilie Caltrans ROWand Highway 280. • The document should address and analyze an alternative where the HST alignment ends in San Jose, and then passengers transfer to Caltrain. Comment D-8 -The 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 ddership 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 C01Tected to (1) reflect current predictions rather than ilie outdated and inflated figures used in the CU1'fent EIR~ and (2) remove the East Bay ridership from the San Francisco station forecasts. then the reductions in projected traffic vohune 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 of tracks. Comment D~9 -The document provides a "low" or "medium" impact rating for segments that pass alongside residential development, when that rating should be higher. A proper weighting of the relative impacts of the various alignment a1ternatives would provide a more accurate assessment of which alignments are environmentally superior. The City of Palo Alto appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on the Revised Draft Program EIR Material for the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Project. Please contact Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager~ at 650-329-2354 for further information and coordination. Sincerely. t$i~~t Mayor cc: City Council City Manager City Attorney Dominic Spaeth ling, CAHSR State Senator Joe Simitian State Assemblymember Ira Ruskin ATTACHMhN 11:) PENINSULA RAIL PROGRAM GOALS The following list of goals, which have been identified through the outreach process to date. As a group, please choose three (3) goal areas to focus on for tonight's activity. 1. Noise & Vibration Do not exceed current levels of train-related noise Do not exceed current levels of train-related vibration Minimize noise impact to sensitive receptors (i.e. hospitals, senior homes, day care centers, etc.) 2. Visual Experience Structure does not visually divide the community more than it is divided today Structure does not block scenic views/Vistas, consistent with local planning efforts Design of structure respects community scale and character and is compatible with local development plans for adjacent sites 3. Rider Experience 4. Safety Passenger can see where they are, experience "sense of place" For passenger comfort, corridor has minimal grade changes (minimizes roller coaster effect) Promotes convenient, reliable local transportation connections to final destinations Reduce potential collisions with vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at crossings. Restrict pedestrian access to railroad, discourage trespassing In an emergency, passengers can quickly evacuate and fire and police can easily access the train Design of structure minimizes/discourages vandalism or criminal activity 5. Service & Stations Provides Caltrain with grade-separated right-of-way Requires minimal reconstruction/relocation of existing Caltrain stations Caltrain able to maintain service during construction with few temporary structures 6. Cross Connectivity (Vehicle, Pedestrian, Bicycle) Provide improved east-west connectivity for vehicles Provide improved east-west connectivity for pedestrians Provide improved east-west connectivity for bicycles 7. Land Use Is consistent with local Land Use Plans and community vision, design of structure respects adjacent land uses Provides an opportunity for new open spaces or other planned land uses 8. Adjacent Properties Minimize residential/business displacements Design of structure adds value to community, minimizes reduction in property values 9. Constructability Construction of structure requires fewer temporary structures (track or stations) Structure can be prefabricated/installed in shorter time frame to reduce construction period 10. Freight Operations Maintain access to freight rail customers 11. Rail Operations 12. Equity Provide ability for enhanced Caltrain and commuter rail service Maximize Caltrain and HST capacity through sharing infrastructure (tracks, etc.) Do not disproportionately impact lower income/minority neighborhoods and locally owned businesses Distribute project benefits as equitably as possible throughout the corridor 13. Economic Feasibility Provide access to local downtowns and business centers Capital cost, relative to benefits/achieving goals, is superior to other altematives Operational cost (escalator/elevator maintenance, lighting, etc.) relative to benefits/achieving goals, is superior to other alternatives Fill in the goal areas that your group has chosen in the first column. Then review each alternative against the three goals to determine if it meets those goals or not (Y = Yes, N = No, I = Need More Information). If the alternative doesn't meet the goals, indicate why not, or where (at what locations) it would violate the goal. This is an abbreviated version of Context Sensitive Solutions Toolkit Exercise #2, which is available online at http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/peninsularaiiprogram/csstoolkitlCSS 1_00 1_ GradeSepMethods_20 1 00315.pdf. ,-----~ AERIAL EXISTING CAL TRAIN TRENCH CUT & COVER HST DEEP TUNNEL GRADE ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 11 €8m€8€8 rr ~ [mlttBlll @ @ ~--- GOAL #1: OY ON 01 OY ON 01 DY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? GOAL #2: OY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? GOAL #3: OY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 OY ON 01 Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? Why? Where? '. Summary of the San Francisco to San lose Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report S.l Results from the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report and its associated engineering and environmental analysis reconfirms that a four track, grade separated, shared Caltrain and High-Speed Train (HST) system is feasible and the preferred HST alternative between San Francisco and San Jose on the Peninsula (see Figure S- 1). It also confirms that such a system between San Francisco and San Jose can be built at costs that are in the range of what has been presented in the 2009 Business Plan and in" previous Program Level environmental documents. Since 1996 the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (POPB or Caltrain) has endorsed HST in concept and has adopted multiple resolutions expressing such support. Since 2004, the POPB and the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) have worked in a partnership to develop the Caltrain corridor into a 21 st century railroad capable of serving both commuter and HST for the Peninsula and California. This partnership is founded on the basis that there are considerable efficiencies and synergies between the two rail services. This alignment alternative would increase intercity connectivity and accessibility to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and SFO, while improving the safety, reliability, and performance of the regional Caltrain commuter service. The Caltrain corridor shared-use option would take advantage of the existing rail infrastructure and would maximize the opportunity to provide rail service at-grade where possible. Environmental impacts would be minimized since this alignment utilizes the existing Caltrain right-of-way. In addition, the Caltrain shared use corridor would provide safety and traffic benefits by grade-separating existing at-grade roadway crossings. For these reasons, the Caltrain shared use corridor is the preferred alignment for HST service between San Francisco and San Jose. The entire alignment will be a predominantly four track, grade separated railroad and would allow both Caltrain and HST to operate their respective services. It would be a shared track system with HST operating at speeds up to 125 mph and Caltrain up to 110 mph. The HST stations recommended for continued study are: 1 Downtown San Francisco: A joint terminal solution for downtown San Francisco at the Transbay Transit Center and 4th and King. San Francisco Airport Connector Station: rvlillbrae (SFO). A Potential Mid-Peninsula Station: Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View Caltrain stations are currently under consideration. One or none of these potential station locations could be selected to be part of . the HST system. Downtown San Jose Terminus: Diridon Station. The Authority, the FRA and Caltrain, in addition to performing engineering and environmental analysis, have engaged the public and the communities on the Peninsula and are incorporating their input from San Francisco to San Jose. The observations below outline some of the highlights from the work and input received to-date: • In San Francisco the analysis supports focusing Authority, FRA and Caltrain engineering and study efforts on a joint terminal solution for downtown San Francisco at the Transbay Transit Center and 4th and King. This is consistent with the City of San Francisco's and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority's plans and policies, and is a workable solution for the HST and Caltrain services. • On the Peninsula, the Authority, FRA and Caltrain will limit the use of high berms in commercial or residential areas where they would Significantly reduce connectivity and mobility_or where there is strong local opposition to this type of structure. , • Tunnel options for Caltrain, HST or both have been added for further evaluation in sections throughout the corridor. This was, in some cases, in direct response to suggestions from local communities. • At the request of the City of IVlountain View the Authority is considering the current Caltrain Mountain View station as an additional potential HST station. For the detailed evaluation of alternatives, the three basic vertical options of elevated, at-grade and below grade have been expanded to six options to better differentiate their characteristics. • Aerial Viaduct • Berm or Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) • At-Grade (Existing Caltrain Grade) • Open Trench • Covered Trench/Tunnel .• Deep Tunnel Table S-l and figure $-2 present the alternatives preliminarily identified to be carried forward for further engineering and environmental analysis. Additional outreach will occur as these preliminary recommendations are finalized and 2 carried forward into further environmental and engineering analysis. It is important to understand that while some sub-sections carry multiple design options it is not always possible to connect two vertical options from one sub­ section to another (tunnel to aerial viaduct for example). In some cases communities on the corridor will need to "share" an alternative. The transitions from one vertical solution to another takes approximately 3,000' or just over half a mile so "quick" adjustments between vertical alternatives are not possible. These types of engineering realities will necessitate close cooperation between neighboring cities and communities, Caltrain and the Authority in developing appropriate solutions in these sub-sections and throughout the corridor. Given the highly developed nature of the Caltrain corridor, the Authority, FRA and Caltrain have carried a wide range of vertical design options, where practical, from San Francisco to San Jose. No design options on the caltrain corridor were eliminated from further consideration due to cost alone. This was in part because many individuals and communities on the corridor expressed a strong desire that alternatives be carried forward until there was a thorough analysis and discussion of the costs, environmental impacts, and engineering issues of the different vertical options. The other primary reason is that in order to develop an appropriate and logical cost estimate, all of the 10 sub-sections of the Caltrain corridor need to be "stitched" together into a cohesive system from San Francisco to San Jose. This exercise will be part of the 15% design study which is currently underway. Context sensitive solutions will also be incorporated in this effort. Once these corridor-wide alternatives are developed, they will be described on an engineering, environmental and cost basis. These corridor-wide alternatives can then become the basis for discussion of cost sharing between the Authority, FRA and other agencies including cities on the corridor. The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report shows that if alternatives from San Francisco to San Jose were created from the most costly design options put together, the costs could be between four to five times what has been accounted for in the Business Plan or other previous estimates. Such high cost alternatives would be impracticable. 3 O(a) O(b) O(c) Oed) 1A 1B-1C lD-1G 2A 2B 2C 20 3A 36 3C-3D 3E 4A 46 4 HSTto & King, Caltrain to Transbay and 4th & HST and Caltrain to both Beale Street and 4th North of Mission Bay Drive to South of 16th Avenue South Millbrae Avenue to south of Mills Creek of Mills Creek to of Villa Terrace North of Villa Terrace to north of Hayward Park Station North of Hayward Park Station to north of 92 Table S~l Alternatives Carried Forward 4C 40 5A 5B 5C 6A 6B 6C 60 7A-7B 7C-70 8A 8B 9(a)A 9(a)B 9(b)A 9(b)B 5 South Cordilleras Creek to north of Woodside Road North of Woodside Road to north of 5th Avenue North of Avenue to south of Avenue South of Avenue to south of Ravenswood Avenue South Ravenswood Avenue to north of San Mateo County/Santa Clara Line North of San Mateo County/Santa Clara County Line to south of Embarcadero Road South of Embarcadero Road to south of Churchill Avenue South of Churchill Avenue to north of East 5.2 Next Steps This Preliminary Alternatives Analysis report informs the Project Description for the EIR/EIS. It is also sets parameters for the next level of design (15%) and environmental analysis. This on-going work will provide the Authority, FRA, Caltrain and the communities on the corridor more details and a fuller picture of the both the design options in each sub-section and a comprehensive vision of the entire corridor. Detailed operations studies will be performed for combining the Caltrain and HST scheduled operations for the corridor so that the design and the phasing of the . construction of the project will inform the feasibility of the various vertical alternatives. As the engineering and environmental work continues, the CHSRA and Caltrain will continue to meet and engage the cities on the corridor in a discussion about the different alternatives. If deemed necessary by the lead agencies, a supplemental Alternative Analysis report will consider feedback received on this Preliminary Alternative Analysis report and will discuss how the alternatives analysiS will inform the detailed engineering, environmental and outreach activities on the Caltrain Corridor. These activities will inform preparation of the draft EIR/EIS, which is currently scheduled for public comment in December of 2010. The full Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report can be found at the California High Speed Rail Authority's web site, www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. under the library tab and in the San Francisco to San Jose section link. The Peninsula Rail Program web site, www.caltrain.com/peninsularailprogram. offers further reference documents and the opportunity to provide feedback through the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) toolkit. We hope you take the time to familiarize yourself with the various alternatives and provide valuable input. If you would like to join our mailing list, please send your contact information to the' Peninsula Rail Program at prp@caltrain.com. IThank you for your participation. I 6 To: From: Date: RE: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE High Speed Rail Committee Ravi Mehta April 30, 2010 Legislative Update: Pending legislation that directly or indirectly impacts the California High Speed Rail Project April 23, 2010, was the last day for policy committees to hear and report to fiscal committees fiscal bills introduced in their house. May 7, 2010 is the last day for policy committees to hear and report to the floor non-fiscal bills introduced in their house. June 4, 2010 is the last day for bills to be passed out of the house of origin. Subject to house rule waivers, any bills that are not passed out of the cpmmittees on the dates set forth above, or any bills that are not passed in the house of origin, will be considered DEAD. Over the past few weeks, some CEQA bills were heard in committees, and most are now either dead or on their last breath. I do not anticipate that any of these bills will survive. However, as we have discussed, it is very possible that CEQA could become an issue during budget negotiations. We will vigilantly monitor the budget bills and the negotiations. Many of the High Speed Rail bills were heard and approved in committees. Two Significant changes occurred to Assembly Bills 289 and 1375 (Assemblywoman Galgiani's bills). Summary of the bills and salient amendments are provided below. I suggest a careful reading of each bill to appreciate the extent and significance of the amendments. On April 22nd and 23 rd representatives from the cities of Atherton, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Palo Alto met with Assembly members Gerry Hill and Ira Ruskin to express our concerns about the HSR Project as it is currently being considered, and to request that they, either individually or collectively, introduce legislation to that will ensure that the interests of the Peninsula cities are protected. Both Legislators expressed their desire to assist their constituents and we intend to follow-up with them on these issues. Legislative Update April 30, 2010 1 As you know, the State Auditor's Report on the High Speed Rail Authority was released April 29, 2010. It was not complimentary and confirmed the many concerns we have collectively expressed. Senator Lowenthal, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday, May 11, 2010 to discuss the Audit report. We should encourage as many elected officials and interested residents to attend the hearing to testify. The foregoing are summaries and status of each bill (with the exception of budget bills) I believe affects HSR. I have suggested bill positions and the City should consider taking a formal position of Support t Support if Amended, Oppose, or Monitor for each bill. While we have submitted some letters t because some bills have been amended t we may want to consider writing new letters to address the amendments. CEQA Legislation AB 1805 (Calderon, Charles) Environment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Current Text: Introduced: 2/10/2010 Qdt html Status: 4/19/201O-In committee: Hearing for testimony only. Summary: The 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 t pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR oft 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 AgencYt by December 31 of each yeart to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature summarizing the designation of projects t and the job creation and investment attributable to the designated projects. This bill contains other related provisions. Recommended Position: Oppose. This bill is effectively dead. AB 2713 (Knight) Environment: CEQA. Current Text: Introduced: 2/19/2010 ,gdt html Status: 2/22/2010-Read first time. Legislative Update April 30,2010 2 Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (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. Recommended Position: Watch. This bill is effectively dead. S8879 (Cox) Construction projects: alternative bidding procedures: design-build. Current Text: Amended: 4/26/2010 QQt html Status: 4/26/2010-Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. rolled IVe!toE~d I(:::hclptlered I Calendar: 5/10/2010 11 a.m. -John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, KEHOE, Chair 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 instead authorize counties to use these alternative procedures, known as design-build, for bidding on construction projects in the county in excess of $1,000,000, and would make various changes in the procedures required for the use of design-build by those counties, as specified. The bill would also revise those reporting provisions to require each county electing to use the design-build method on a public works project to submit to the Legislative Analyst's Office before December 1, 2014, a report containing a description of each public works project procured through the design-build process and completed after November 1, 2009, and before November 1, 2014. Votes: 04/19/2010 SEI\I. L.GOV. (Y:3 N:2A:0) (P) Recommended Position: Watch Legislative Update April 30,2010 3 ABX837 (Calderon, Charles) Environment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Current Text: Introduced: 2/10/2010 pot. htl]ll Status: 3/ll/2010-Died at Desk. ptered 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Recommended Position: Dead S8 976 (Hollingsworth) California Environmental Quality Act: exemption. Current Text: Amended: 3/22/2010 RQL html Status: 4/19/2010-Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 4. Page 3299.) Summary: This bill would exempt from those CEQA requirements the expansion of an existing overpass, onramp, or offramp that is built on an easement or right-of­ way under the control of a state or local transportation agency, or a city, county, or city and county. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to determining whether that exemption is applicable to specified highway expansion projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Recommended Position: Oppose Votes: 04/19/2010 SEN. E.Q. (Y:2 N:5 A:O) (F) Legislative Update April 30, 2010 4 SB 1010 (Correa) Environment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Current n!xt: Introduced: 2/10/2010 pq,t html Status: 4/5/2010-Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 4. Page 3083.) Reconsideration granted. IVetoed IChaptered Summary: The 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. Recommended Position: Oppose. This bill is effectively dead. Votes: 04/05/2010 SEN. E.Q. (Y:6 N:l A:O) (P) 04/05/2010 SEN. E.Q. (Y:2 N:5 A:O) (F) SB 1012 (Runne~ Environmental quality: California Environmental Quality Act:(CEQA). Current Text: Introduced: 2/10/2010 QQL html Status: 2/18/2010-To Com. on RULES. i\/I"Tnl"" IC:haptered Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (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. Recommended Position: Watch Legislative Update April 30, 2010 5 S8 1261 (Ashburn) Environment: California Environmental Quality Act: expedited review. Current Text: Introduced: 2/19/2010 Status: 3/4/201O-To Com. on RULES. rolled !VetoE!d I<:haptered 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. Recommended Position: Oppose S8X842 (Correa) Environment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Status: 3/15/2010-Final adjournment: Eighth Extraordinary Session on 3/15/2010. (Last location was E.Q. on 2/10/2010) Summary: The 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 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Recommended Position: Dead SBX856 (Hollingsworth) Environmental Quality: CEQA: exemption: critical infrastructure projects. Current Text: Introduced: 2/12/2010 html Status: 3/15/201O-Final adjournment: Eighth Extraordinary Session on 3/15/2010. (Last location was E.Q. on 2/23/2010) Legislative Update April 30, 2010 6 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Recommended Position: Dead High Speed Rail Legislation AB 153 (Ma) High-Speed Rail Authority. Current Text: Introduced: 1/23/2009 QQt html Status: 7/2/2009-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. IVe'toed iCha ptered 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Vote Events: 05/11/2009 ASM. FLOOR 04/29/2009 ASM. APPR. 04/14/2009 ASM. JUD. 03/23/2009 ASM. TRANS. (Y:53 N:16 A:l1) (P) (Y:l1N:5A:0 )(P) (Y:7N:2A:1 )(P) (Y:8 N:O A:5 ) (P) Recommended Position: Watch AB 289 (Galgiani) High-speed rail. Current Text: Amended: 4/21/2010 poL html Last Amended: 4/21/2010 Legislative Update April 30, 2010 7 Status: 4j21j2010-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com, on T. & H. Enr'oIlE~d i\/et()ed ICrlaptered 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 1A 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. Existing law provides for appointment of an executive director by the authority/ who is exempt from civil service and serves at the pleasure of the authority. This bill 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. This bill would appropriate $2.25 billion to the authority from federal ARRA funds awarded to the state for high-speed rail purposes and would identify the corridors eligible for those funds. The bill would require the authority to take those actions necessary to ensure that the federal funds are used and expended in a manner that meets all applicable federal guidelines, make the most efficient use of available state bond funds, and are expended and used consistent with current state law. The bill would require the authority to report to the Director of Finance and the Legislature relative to the expenditure plan for ARRA funds. The bill would require the authority to include in its business plan an estimate of jobs created in each corridor. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to establish an inspector general to oversee the fiscal functions of the authority. SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS: SEC 5, Section 185036.5 is added to the Public Utilities Code ,to read: 185036.5. (a) "The Legislature hereby appropriates to the authority the sum of two billion two hundred fifty million dollars ($2,250,000,000) made available to the state for high-speed rail purposes pursuant to Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The authority may expend these funds for the purposes of developing a project or projects on the high-speed rail network consistent with this section. (b) The federal funds appropriated in subdivision (a) shall be available for obligation and expenditure by the dates specified in the federal requirements implementing thl'; federal act. The authority shall take those actions necessary to ensure the federal funds awarded to it (1) are expended and used in a manner that meets al/ applicable federal gUidelines, (2) make the most efficient use of available state bond funds, including replacing bond funds for project expenditure with available federal funds where feasible, and (3) are expended and used consistent with state law. (c) The authority shall consider actions that (.1) maximize job creation in Ca/fforniaat Legislative Update April 30,2010 8 the earliest feasible time and (2) expedite the completion of vital infrastructure projects that improve rail safety, mobility, and performance. (d) (1) The ARRA funds appropriated in subdivision (a) are available for preliminary engineering, project-level environmental work, mitigation{ final design{ and construction for the following corridors that were approved by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA){ without reference to any individual corridor or corridors: (A) San Francisco to San Jose. (B) Merced to Fresno. (C) Fresno to Bakersfield, (D) Los Angeles to Anaheim, (2) The ARRA funds appropriated in subdivision (a) are also available for preliminary engineering and project-level environmental work for the following five corridors, without reference to any individual corridor or corridors: (A) Los Angeles to San Diego. (B) Los Angeles to Palmdale. (C) Palmdale to Bakersfield. (D) Merced to San Jose, (E) Sacramento to Merced. (e) (1) The authority shall work with the FRA to establish priorities among the four corridor programs in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) and{ if applicable, for the five corridor programs in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d){ and to create a plan for expenditure of ARRA funds appropriated in subdivision (a), (2) No later than 30 days following the submittal of the initial plan for expenditure of ARRA funds to the FRAt the authority shall submit a copy of the plan to the Director of Finance and to the policy committees with jurisdiction over transportation matters and the fiscal committees in both houses of the Legislature, (3) All funds appropriated pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be expended in a manner that is consistent with and subject to the requirements of Section 2704.08 of the Streets and Highways Code applicable to bond proceeds, to the extent those requirements are consistent with the federal conditions applicable to expenditure of the funds. (f) It is the intent of the Legislature to establish an inspector general to oversee the fiscal functions of the authority to ensure public confidence and private investor confidence in the fiscal management and construction of the project The inspector general would report in the authority and Legislature annually. Votes: 05/18/2009 ASM, FLOOR 04/27/2009 ASM. TRANS. (Y:72 N: 3 A: 5) (P) (Y:13 N:O A:1) (P) Recommended Position: Oppose Legislative Update April 30,2010 9 AS 1375 (Galgiani) High-speed rail. Current Text: Amended: 4/21/2010 pdt. html Last Amended: 4/21/2010 Status: 4/21/2010~From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on TRANS. pte red Summary: 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. The 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. SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS: (a) The department shall establish an Independent peer review group for the purpose of reviewing the planning, engineering, financing, and other elements of the authority's plans and issuing an analysis of appropriateness and accuracy of the depaltment's assumptions and an analysis of the viability of the department's financing plan, including the funding plan for each corridor required pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2704.08 ofthe Street'S and f1ighways Code. (b) The peer review group shall include all of the following: Legislative Update April 30, 20 I 0 10 (1) Two individuals with experience in the construction or operation of high-speed trains in Europe, Asia, or both, designated by the Treasurer. (2) Two individuals, one with experience in engineering and construction of high­ speed trains and one with experience in project finance, designated by the Controller. (3) One representative from a financial services or financial consulting firm who shall not have been a contractor or subcontractor of the authority for the previous three years, designated by the Director of Finance. (4) One representaUve with experience in environmental planning, designated by the secretary. (5) Two expert representatives from agencies providing intercity or commuter passenger train services in California, designated by the secretary. (c) The peer review group shall evaluate the department's funding plans and prepare its independent judgment as to the feasibility and reasonableness of the plans, appropriateness of assumptions, analyses, and estimates, and any other observations or evaluations it deems necessary. (d) The department shall provide the peer review group any and all information that the peer review group may request to carry out Its responsibilities. (e) The peer review group shall report its findings and conclusions to the Legislature no later than 60 days after receiving the plans. Votes: 01/27/2010 ASM. FLOOR 01/21/2010 ASM. APPR. 04/27/2009 ASM. TRANS. (Y:42 N:20 A:16) (P) (Y:12 N:5 A:O ) (P) (Y:9 N:4 A: 1 ) (P) Recommended Position: Oppose AB 1747 (Galgiani) High-Speed Rail Authority. Current Text: Amended: 4/14/2010 QQL html Last Amended: 4/14/2010 Status: 4/22/2010-Read second time. To third reading. Calendar: 5/3/2010 ASSEMBLY FLOOR --THIRD READING FILE Summary: Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified Legislative Update April 30,2010 11 powers and duties relating to the development and implementation of an intercity high-speed rail system. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, authorizes $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail development and other related purposes. This bill would authorize the authority to do any of the following: (a) Enter into contracts with private or public entities for the design, construction and operation of high­ speed trains. The contracts may be separated into individual tasks or segments or may include all tasks and segments, including a design-build or design-build-operate contract. (b) Acquire rights-of-way through purchase or eminent domain. (c) Issue debt, secured by pledges of state funds, federal grants, or project revenues. The pledge of state funds shall be limited to those funds expressly authorized by statute or voter:'approved initiatives. (d) Enter into cooperative or joint development agreements with local governments or private entities. (e) Set fares and schedules. (f) Relocate highways and utilities. (g) ConSider, to the extent permitted by federal law and all other applicable provisions of state law, the creation of jobs in California when awarding major contracts or purchasing high-speed trains and related equipment and supplies, 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. Votes: 04/21/2010 ASM. APPR. 04/05/2010 ASM. TRANS. (Y: 15 N: 1 A: 1) (P) (Y:13 N:l A:O) (P) Recommended Position: Oppose AB 1830 (Galgiani) High-Speed Rail Authority. Current Text: Amended: 4/8/2010 QgL html Last Amended: 4/8/2010 Status: 4/22/2010-Read second time. To third reading. Calendar: 5/3/2010 ASSEMBLY FLOOR --THIRD READING FILE aptered Summary: Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified powers and duties relating to the development and implementation of an interCity high-speed rail system. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, authorizes $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail development and other related purposes. This bill would require the authority to make every effort to purchase high-speed train rolling stock and related eqUipment that are manufactured in California. Recommended Position: Watch Legislative Update April 30, 2010 12 AS 2121 (Harkey) High-speed rail Authority. Current Text: Amended: 4/28/2010 pdt html Last Amended: 4/28/2010 Status: 4/29/2010-Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Summary: This bill would require the authority to annually adopt a 6-year high­ speed train program, as specified, for submission to the Legislature and the Governor. The bill would also require the authority to annually prepare and submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report including, among other things, a description of the progress made on the program and a detailed financing plan to pay for construction of the high-speed train network. Votes: 04/19/2010 ASM. TRANS. (Y:13 N:O A:1) (P) Recommended Position: Watch/Support SS 409 (Oucheny) Passenger rail programs: strategic planning. Current Text: Amended: 1/26/2010 pJit html Last Amended: 1/26/2010 Status: 2/11/2010-To Com. on TRANS. Summary: Existing law creates the Department of Transportation in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, with various powers and duties relative to the intercity passenger rail program, among other transportation programs. EXisting law creates in state government the High-Speed Rail Authority, with various powers and duties relative to development and implementation of a high-speed passenger train system. The authority has 9 members,S appointed by the Governor and 4 appointed by the Legislature. Existing law also creates in state government the California Transportation Commission, with various powers and duties relative to programming of transportation capital projects and assisting the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing in formulating state transportation policies. This bill . 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 Legislative Update April 30, 2010 13 the fiscal year and the amount of bond sales necessary to accommodate those investments. This bill contains other related provisions. Vote Events: 01/28/2010 SEN. FLOOR 08/27/2009 SEN. APPR. 07/23/2009 SEN. APPR. 06/09/2009 SEN. T. & H. (Y:32 N:O A:8) (P) (Y: 13 N: 0 A:O) (P) (Y: 13 N: 0 A:O) (P) (Y:l0 I\J:O A:l) (P) Recommended Position: Oppose unless Amended 58455 (Lowenthal) High-speed rail. Current Text: Amended: 4/16/2009 pJiL html Last Amended: 4/16/2009 Status: 7/24/2009-Placed on inactive file on request of Assembly Member Torrico. rollE~d I'vetoe(j IChaptered Summary: Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified powers and duties relative to development and implementation of a high-speed train system. The authority is composed of 9 members, including 5 members appointed by the Governor. This bill 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Vote Events: 07/15/2009 ASM. APPR. 06/29/2009 ASM. TRANS. 06/02/2009 SEN. FLOOR OS/26/2009 SEN. APPR. 04/21/2009 SEN. T. & H. (Y:llN:5 A:l) (P) (Y:l0 N:4 A:O) (P) (Y:32 N:5 A:3) (P) (Y:9 N:4 A:O ) (P) (Y: 10 N: 1 A:O) (P) Recommended Position: Watch 58964 (Alquist) Workforce development program: high-speed rail. Current Text: Amended: 4/22/2010 Rqf html Last Amended: 4/22/2010 Legislative Update April 30,2010 14 Status: 4/26/2010-Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Placed on APPR suspense file. nrolieCll'VetloeClIChaptered Summary: This bill 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 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. This bill contains other related provisions. Votes: 04/26/2010 SEN. APPR. 04/20/2010 SEN. T. & H. (Y:9 1\1:2 A:O) (P) (Y:6 N:3 A:O) (P) Recommended Position: Watch. This bill is effectivelv dead. S8 965 (DeSaulnier) High-speed rail. Current Text: Amended: 4/7/2010 .QQL html Last Amended: 4/7/2010 Status: 4/29/201O-In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. Summary: This bill, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, would authorize the HSR Authority to expend federal funds made available by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for high-speed rail purposes. 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 60 days of enactment of this act or upon finalization of a cooperative agreement with the federal government, whichever occurs later, and to submit a progress report on expenditure of the funds to the Legislature on the following December 31 and annually thereafter. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relative to the award of federal funds to the state by ARRA for high­ speed rail purposes. The bill would exempt the Transbay Terminal project in San Francisco from these provisions if ARRA funds are made available to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority for that project. Legislative Update April 30, 2010 15 Votes: 04/29/2010 SEN. FLOOR 04/26/2010 SEN. APPR. 04/13/2010 SEN. T. & H. (Y:26 N:13 A:O) (P) (Y: 8 N: 3 A:O) (P) (Y: 8 N: 1 A:O) (P) Recommended Position: Oppose S8 1371 (Lowenthal) Federal transportation economic stimulus funds: 2nd round. Current Text: Introduced: 2/19/2010 QQt html Status: 4/21/2010-From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes O. Page 3311.) Re­ referred to Com. on APPR. Calendar: 5/3/2010 11 a.m. -John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, KEHOE, Chair !Fnt-oIlE'-d!\'et()ed!Chaptel~dl Summary: Existing law generally provides for programming and allocation of state and federal transportation capital improvement program funds pursuant to the state transportation improvement program process administered by the California Transportation Commission. Under these provisions, 25% of available funds are available for interregional improvement projects nominated by the Department of Transportation, subject to a requirement that 60% of these funds be available for projects in non-urbanized areas on the interregional road system and for intercity rail projects. The remaining 75% of available funds are available for regional improvement projects nominated by regional agencies. All funds programmed through the state transportation improvement program process are subject to the north-south split, and the regional improvement funds are further subject to the county shares formula. This bill 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. Recommended Position: Watch Legislative Update April 30, 2010 16 58)(8 36 (Lowenthal) Federal transportation economic stimulus funds: 2nd round. Current Text: Introduced: 2/5/2010 J,?,gL html Status: 3/15/2010-Final adjournment: Eighth Extraordinary Session on 3/15/2010. rolled iVetoed IC:haptered Summary: Existing law generally provides for programming and allocation of state and federal transportation capital improvement program funds pursuant to the state transportation improvement program process administered by the California Transportation Commission. Under these provisions, 25% of available funds are available for interregional improvement projects nominated by the Department of Transportation, subject to a requirement that 60% of these funds be available for projects in non-urbanized areas on the interregional road system and for intercity rail projects. The remaining 75% of available funds are available for regional improvement projects nominated by regional agencies. All funds programmed through the state transportation improvement program process are subject to the north-south split, and the regional improvement funds are further subject to the county shares formula. This bill 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. Recommended Position: DEAD Legislative Update April 30, 2010 17 J AITALH1VlENT JJ California State Auditor -Report 2009-106 Summary -Apri12010 REPORT 2009-106 SUMMARY -APRIL 2010 High-Speed Rail Authority: Page 1 of3 It Risks Delays or an Incomplete System Because of Inadequate Planning, Weak Oversight, and Lax Contract Management HIGHLIGHTS Our review of the High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) revealed the following. • The Authority's 2009 business plan estimates It needs $17 billion to $19 billion in federal funds. However, the Authority has no federal commitments beyond $2.25 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and other potential federal programs are small. ' • The Authority's plan for spending includes almost $12 billion in federal and state funds through 2013, more than 2.5 times what is now available, • The Authority does not have a system in place to track expenditures according to categories established by the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, Its largest source of committed funding. • The Authority has not completed some systems needed to administer Recovery Act funds, for example, a system to track jobs created and saved. • Some monthly progress reports, issued by the Authority's contracted Program Manager to provide a summary of program status, contain inconsistent and inaccurate information. • Authority staff paid at least $4 million of invoices from regional contractors received after December 2008, without having documented written notification that the Program Manager had reviewed and approved the invoices for payment. • The Authority paid contractors more than $268,000 for services performed outside of the contractors' work plans and purchased $46,000 in furniture for one of its contractor's use, based on an oral agreement contradicted by a later written contract. ' RESULTS IN BRIEF The legislature created the High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) in 1996. State law charges the nine-member Authority with the development and implementation of Intercity, high-speed rail service. According to state law, the entire network, from Sacramento to San Diego, is intended to be complete by 2020. In November 2008 voters approved the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (Proposition lA), providing $9 billion for construction of a high-speed rail network (program). Although the Authority's 2009 business plan contains the elements required by the legislature, it lacks detail regarding how It proposes to finance the program. For example, the Authority estimates it needs $17 billion to $19 billion in federal grants. The business plan, however, specifies only $4.7 billion in possible funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and a few other small federal grants. According to Its communications director, the Authority has no definite commitments from the federal government other than Recovery Act funding, which actually amounted to $2.25 billion when awards were announced In January 2010. The program risks significant delays without more well-developed plans for obtaining or replacing federal funds. Further, the Authority's plan relies heavily on federal funds to leverage state bond dollars through 2013. Proposition lA bond funds may be used to support only up to 50 percent of the total cost of construction of each corridor of the program. The remaining 50 percent must come from other funding sources. Thus, the award of up to $2.25 billion in Recovery Act funds allows for the use of an equal amount of state bond funds for construction, for a total of about $4.5 billion. However, the Authority's spending plan includes almost $12 billion in federal and state funds through 2013, more than 2.5 times what Is now available. Additionally, creating a viable funding plan may be a challenge as matched funding for the least expensive corridor eligible for Recovery Act funds-los Angeles to Anaheim-amounts to $4.5 billion, while projected costs total $5.5 billion. Barring additional non-Proposition lA funding, the Authority may have to settle for a plan covering less than a complete corridor. The Authority must decide relatively quickly which corridors will receive federal funds. Its chief deputy director says it must prepare funding plans by spring 2011 in order to meet federal deadlines. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2009-106 4/29/2010 " f' ,I II 11 !I II II ii ~ ] II I, " Ii ,- i' ,I Ii ~! California State Auditor ~ Report 2009-106 Summary -April 2010 Page 2 of3 The Authority's plans for private financing include a revenue guarantee that needs further speCification, but it is working to improve its approach to risk management. According to the 2009 business plan, the Authority expects private investors to supply $10 billion to $12 billion, but also indicates these investors will require a minimum revenue guarantee from a public entity. The Authority's financial planning consultant has addressed concerns raised by the Legislative Analyst's Office that this might be a prohibited operating subsidy; however, details on how much the revenue guarantee may cost or who might pay it are scant. Additionally, the 2009 business plan provided little detail on how the Authority would manage risk in general, but the Authority is planning to improve risk management for the program. The Authority also needs to Improve Its oversight and administrative controls. State law creates a peer review group (review group) to assess the Authority's plans. Most Significantly, the review group is to issue an analYSis and evaluation of the viability of the Authority's funding plan for each corridor of the program. As of February 2010, however, only five of the group's eight members had been appointed, limiting the expertise available to the Authority. Moreover, according to our legal counsel, the review group is likely subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Meeting Act), although the Authority has received informal advice to the contrary. Nevertheless, the review group's work could be voided if this issue is not resolved. Additionally, the Authority lacks systems to comply with state law regarding bond funds. According to state law, only up to 2.5 percent ($225 million) of its portion of bond funds from Proposition 1A may be used for administration and only 10 percent ($900 million) may be used for planning, environmental review, and preliminary engineering (preconstruction tasks). According to its fiscal officer, the Authority is unsure how it will classify the expenditure of bond proceeds and does not have a system for tracking expenditures by category. Until such a process Is In place, the authority cannot report accurately on its expenditures and risks running out of bond funds available for administration or preconstructlon task costs. This is a serious problem because it is set to have spent $168 million of the $1.1 billion in bond proceeds authorized for these purposes by the end of fiscal year 2009-10. Contractors accounted for 95 percent of the program's total expenditures over the past three fiscal years. Although the Authority generally followed state requirements for awarding contracts, its processes for monitoring the performance and accountability of its contractors-especially the entity that has been contracted to manage the program (Program Manager)-are inadequate. The Program Manager's monthly progress reports, a primary document summarizing monthly progress on a regional and program level, have contained Inaccurate and inconsistent information. For example, the July 2009 report indicated that the regional contractor working on the Los Angeles-to-Anahelm corridor had completed 81 percent of planned hours but had spent 230 percent of planned dollars. In addition, although the progress reports described actions taken or products treated, they did not compare those actions and products to what the contractors promised to complete In their work plans. The work plan for a consultant the Authority recently hired to oversee the Program Manager does not include a revieW of the monthly reports. The Authority does riot generally ensure that invoices reflect work performed by contractors. According to the chief deputy director, the Program Manager should review each regional contractor's invoice to ensure that the work claimed actually has been performed and then notify Authority staff whether the invoice should be paid. The chief deputy director further stated that staff should not pay Invoices without notifications. However, Authority staff paid at least $4 million of invoices from regional contractors received after December 2008- when the Authority's fiscal officer says she was informed that such notifications were required-without documenting notification. The Authority only recently adopted written poliCies and procedures related to invoice payment. However, those policies and procedures do not adequately describe its controls or their implementation. Finally, the Authority made some payments that did not reflect the terms of its agreements, risking its ability to hold contractors accountable for their performance. For example, it spent $46,000 on furniture for its Program Manager's use based on an oral agreement, despite the fact that Its written contract expressly states that oral agreements not incorporated In the written contract are not binding. The written contract requires the Program Manager to provide its own furniture, equipment, and systems. Additionally, the Authority paid a regional contractor more than $194,000 to subcontract for tasks not Included in the regional contractor's work plan and paid the Program Manager $53,000 for work on Recovery Act applications, which was also outside the Program Manager's work plan. RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure that it can respond adequately to funding levels that may vary from its 2009 business plan, the Authority should develop and publish alternative funding scenarios that reflect the possibility of reduced or delayed funding from planned sources. These scenarios should detail the implications of variations In the level or timing of funding for the program and its schedule. http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summarv/2009-106 4/29/2010 California State Auditor -Report 2009-106 Summary -April 2010 Page 3 of3 To plan adequately for private Investment, the Authority should further specify the potential cost of revenue guarantees and who would pay for them. In order to respono effectively to circumstances that could significantly delay or halt the program, the Authority should ensure that it implements planned actions related to risk management. To avert possible legal challenges, the Authority should ensure that the review group adheres to the Meeting Act or seek a formal opinion from the Office of the Attorney General regarding whether the review group is subject to this act. To ensure that it does not run out of funds for administrative and preconstructlon tasks prematurely, the Authority should track expenditures for these activities and develop a long-term spending plan for them. To ensure that Authority staff receive relevant information on the program's status, they should amend the program management oversight consultant's work plan to include a critical review of progress reports for accuracy and consistency. Authority staff also should ensure that the Program Manager revises its progress reports to include information on the status of promised products and services. To determine if it is paying invoices that accurately reflect work performed, the Authority should ensure that staff adhere to controls for processing Invoices. For example, staff should not pay invoices from regional contractors until they receive notification from the Program Manager that the work billed has been performed, or until they have conducted an Independent verification. To ensure that It does not misuse public funds and can hold contractors accountable, the Authority should adhere to the conditions of its contracts and work plans, and make any amendments or modifications to contracts or work plans in writing. AGENCY COMMENTS The Authority raised concerns about the report title but agreed with our recommendations and outlined actions it is taking or plans to take to address them. VIew this entire re~ort in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDFl Return to the home ~age of the California State Auditor/Bureau of State Audits http://www.bsa.ca. gov /reports/summary /2009-106 4/29/2010 ._----------_. Sun Mon Tue 1 2 6 17 8 9 Palo Alto City Council Mtg HSR Monthly Report 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 Wed Thu 3 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to chan e 10 17 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am 24 Fri 4 Espinosa Absent 11 pcc Mtg Atherton 8:15-9:45 am 18 25 PCC Mtg Atherton 8:15-9:45 am Sat 5 Espinosa Absent 12 19 26 Revision Date: 05103/10 4 11 18 25 /5 HOLIDAY 12 19 Palo Alto City Council Mtg HSR Monthly Report 26 6 7 13 14 20 21 27 28 Thu 1 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30~ 10 am CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to change) 8 City Comments Due ~ Alternatives Analysis 15 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30~ 10 am 22 29 12 Fri 9 PCC Mtg Belmont 8:l5~9:45 am 16 23 PCC Mtg Belmont 8:15~9:45 am 30 13 Sat 110 17 24 31 Revision Date: 05/03/1 0 Sun Wed 1 4 8 19 110 III 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 Thu 5 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to change) 112 19 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am 26 Fri 6 PCC Mtg Belmont 8:15-9:45 am 113 20 PCC Mtg Belmont 8:15-9:45 am 27 Sat 7 114 21 28 Revision Date: 05/03/10 Sun 5 12 19 26 Mon 16 HOLIDAY 13 Palo Alto City Council Mtg HSR Monthly Report 20 27 Tue Wed I 17 18 14 15 21 22 28 29 1--I Thu 2 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-1O-am CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to change) 19 16 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am 23 30 Fri 3 pcc Mtg Belmont 8:15-9:45 am 110 17 PCC Mtg Belmont 8:15-9:45 am 24 Sat 4 III 18 2S Revision Date: 05/0311 0 Sun Mon I Tue mm I Wed Thu 11 Fri 12 Sat pcc Mtg Palo Alto 8:15~9:45 am 3 14 15 16 I 7 Palo Alto HSR 18 19 Council Committee 8:30~lOam CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to change) 10 III 12 13 14 15 16 HOLIDAY pcc Mtg palo Alto 8:15~9:45 am 17 118 119 120 121 122 123 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30~10 am 24 125 26 27 28 29 30 Palo Alto City Council pcc Mtg Palo Alto 31 I Mtg HSR Monthly 8:l5~9:4 5 am Report Revision Date: 05/03/1 0 Sun Mon Tue Wed I 2 3 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 14 Thu Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to change) II HOLIDAY 18 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30-10 am 25 HOLIDAY Is FYi 12 PCC Mtg Behnont 8:15-9:45-am 19 26 pcc Mtg Belmont 8:15-9:45 am HOLIDAY 16 Sat 13 20 27 Sun Man Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Draft EIRJElR: 1 2 3 4 Release date to be Palo Alto HSR announced by High Council Committee 8:30~10 am Speed Rail Authority I CAHSRA Board Mtg 915 I Street Sacramento (venue subject to change) 5 16 7 8 9 10 11 Palo Alto City Council PCC Mtg Belmont Mtg HSR Monthly 8:l5~9:45 am Repor 12 113 114 115 116 117 118 Palo Alto HSR Council Committee 8:30~10 am 19 120 121 122 123 124 125 pcc Mtg Belmont 8:l5~9:45 am HOLIDAY 26 127 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 Revision Date: 05103/10