Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3888 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3888) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/24/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: HSR & Caltrain Update Title: Status Report on Current High Speed Rail and Caltrain Electrification Issues Submitted for Council Review and Comment From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Background Proposition 1A was passed by the voters in November 2008, essentially starting the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project as it is known today. The project continues to face many of the same obstacles it has in the past including a lack of identified funding sources and local and regional opposition to its design and implementation plans. However, in 2012 the state legislature and governor approved approximately $8B in funding for initial construction in the Central Valley and for the “Bookends.” It does appear as though initial construction on the system will occur. For the San Francisco to San Jose segment the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is still proceeding with the implementation of a system that shares tracks with Caltrain, called a Blended System, but has not given a commitment that HSR will not expand beyond a Blended System in the future. Based on the uncertain future funding for the project, its continued litigation, and evolving design, it has been difficult for staff to predict what will happen with this project. It does appear, however, that construction on the project will begin in the next year. The CHSRA is currently going through an RFP process to identify a design/build contractor for the initial construction segment (ICS) in the Central Valley. Staff continues to implement Council’s position that the City of Palo Alto should oppose HSR because the current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Proposition 1A in 2008. Below are updates on each of the major subject areas related to HSR and Caltrain. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Federal Legislative Update Federal support for HSR continues to stay varied as the Republican controlled House of Representatives pushes for decreased government spending against the Democratically controlled Senate and Presidency who have recently supported some level of transportation infrastructure investment. HSR specifically has become a target of this push because it represents one of the President’s key transportation initiatives. Working with the City’s federal lobbyist, Van Scoyoc Associates, staff has closely monitored legislative activity in Washington DC on this issue. Currently, the House has no funding in place for HSR, however, President Obama’s budget for FY 2014 includes several significant proposals for increased funding for rail programs, including HSR. For FY 2014, the President’s budget proposal would increase funding for all rail programs from $1.6 B (FY 2013) to $6.4 (FY 2014). Of this amount, $2.7 billion would be to return public rail assets to a state of good repair and to fund the implementation of positive train control (PTC) on Amtrak routes. Another $3.7 billion would be for high speed rail and installation of PTC on commuter rail routes. The President’s budget proposal also includes a request for $50 billion for immediate investment in transportation infrastructure. The Administration has proposed this stimulus in prior years, with Congress choosing not to act on it. Of that $50 billion, $2 billion would be to upgrade Amtrak assets and $3 billion would be for HSR. While anything can happen, it is important to note that neither the House nor Senate budget resolutions assume increased discretionary funding, making it very difficult for Congress to include these increases in the FY 2014 appropriations bills. The current rail authorization bill, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, expires this year. As such, the President’s budget proposal discusses a five- year $40 billion authorization proposal that would fund current passenger rail service, the rail service improvement program, and rail research, development, and technology. All three activities would be funded from a proposed new rail account of a proposed transportation trust fund. No more details have been provided by the President’s Administration, however, the consolidated Transportation Trust Fund was proposed last year and Congress rejected it. The $6.4 billion requested in the President’s FY 2014 budget is a part of the proposed $40 B authorization. City of Palo Alto Page 3 State Legislative Update State legislative support for HSR continues to remain strong with the Democratic controlled Assembly, Senate, and Governorship. Working with the City’s state rail legislative advocate, the Professional Evaluation Group (PEG), staff has closely monitored legislative action on this issue. Staff and the PEG have been particularly concerned about the way California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform will impact the project, however, it does not appear at this time that far-reaching CEQA exemptions will be granted to the CHSRA for the project as once thought. That said, a CEQA reform bill is currently being circulated, SB 731, which staff and PEG are watching closely. The difficulty with the bill is that there is no expectation that the draft that exists today will reflect what is ultimately voted on. Following conversations with PEG, it is their expectation that CEQA reform will not be taken up until August when legislators are back from their summer recess because they are currently focused on the budget. Based on the current environment in Sacramento it seems that CEQA reform will focus on changing the planning process for approving projects, and not on granting project specific exemptions, but that is subject to change. Finally, the City of Palo Alto was successful in working with Senator Jerry Hill on SB 1029 clean-up legislation. This clean-up legislation, SB 557, confirms in writing a number of assumptions that were made when SB 1029 (the HSR funding authorization bill) was approved in July 2012 but didn’t make it into the actual bill language. SB 557 clarifies that $600 million of the $1.1 billion approved for Blended System construction at the Bookends goes to Northern California and requires that the CHSRA get the approval of all nine signers of the 2012 Blended System MOU to expand beyond a Blended System in the future. Regional Update The City of Palo Alto continues to stay actively involved in the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC). The PCC continues to hold their meetings on the first Friday of every month unless otherwise scheduled and includes the six cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto. Recently, the PCC has been focused on monitoring the legislative environment in Sacramento and evaluating the impacts and implications of a Blended System for HSR and Caltrain. California High Speed Rail Authority Update 2013 has been a very active year for the CHSRA with most of their effort focused on handling their outstanding legal matters and taking the necessary steps to begin construction in the Central Valley on the Initial Construction Segment (ICS). In January, the CHSRA selected PGH Wong Engineering and Harris & Associates to provide City of Palo Alto Page 4 contractor management and oversight services for whoever is selected to build the initial approximately 30-mile stretch of tracks from Madera to Fresno. In February, Dan Richard was re-elected as CHSRA Board Chair for a six-month term and in March the CHSRA approved a MOU with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJP) that will result in a $705 M investment by the CHSRA in the $1.45 B Caltrain Electrification project, understanding this investment will help facilitate a future Blended System. In April, the CHSRA determined that Tutor Perini was the best value design/build contractor following a competitive bid process that determined the winner by using a formula based 30% on technical merit and 70% on cost. At the June 5th CHSRA Board meeting this selection was confirmed despite substantial public objection. The basis of this objection was that when the hiring process for a design/build contractor was originally established it specified that only the top three bids from a technical standpoint would be eligible for consideration under the 30% cost/70% technical formula established by the CHSRA for final grading. That said, current CHSRA CEO Jeff Morales changed the policy to allow consideration of the top five bids. The firm that won the contract, Tutor Perini, had the lowest technical score of the five firms at 68.5 (out of 100). Regarding CHSRA litigation, the CHSRA has settled a number of lawsuits levied against them with Central Valley stakeholders including the cases City of Chowchilla v. California High Speed Rail Authority, Timeless Investments, Inc. v. California, County of Madera v. California High Speed Rail Authority. On May 31st arguments were heard in the case John Tos; Aaron Fukuda and County of Kings v. California High Speed Rail Authority. The case involves claims alleging that the Funding Plan approved by the CHSRA in November 2011 was defective in failing to satisfy mandatory requirements set by Proposition 1A (the 2008 HSR bond measure). It also asserts that the current project does not meet mandatory requirements set by Prop. 1A and is therefore ineligible to receive bond funds. A ruling on the case is expected in the near future. Finally, in March the CHSRA initiated litigation in a validation action asking the Court to validate (i.e., conclusively determine the validity of) the authorization to issue all the remaining Prop. 1A bonds. There were nine responses to the summons including the Tos plaintiffs, Kings County Water District, Riverdale Public Utility District, Kern County, Union Pacific Railroad, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation. A hearing has been set for September 27th. The significance of this is that no bonds will be issued City of Palo Alto Page 5 until the validation case is fully resolved, however, in the meantime, the CHSRA may try to use ARRA funds to start construction. Caltrain Update The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), which oversees Caltrain, has been working on their plan to electrify the Caltrain corridor since the early 2000’s. Yet, for the first time in that approximately 10 year time horizon, funding has been identified for that plan with the passage of SB 1029. The complex task Caltrain now faces is how to implement stage one of the Blended System, an electrified Caltrain corridor including positive train control. The electrification of Caltrain under the current proposal will increase the number of peak hour trains per direction from five to six with any future increase beyond six trains per peak hour per direction coming from the CHSRA, as part of a Blended System. Caltrain is currently studying the impacts to the corridor associated with Caltrain Electrification and the proposed increased level of service. Additionally, Caltrain is studying how those impacts will be mitigated. The identification of impacts and mitigations will occur as part of an environmental review process. On January 31st the PCJPB issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) that they will be doing an EIR for the Caltrain Electrification Project, pursuant to CEQA. As a part of this process, stakeholders were encouraged to provide input on the scope and content of the upcoming environmental review. On March 18th, in response to the NOP, Palo Alto submitted a letter that requested the PCJPB study at a minimum 19 specific potential impacts associated with the proposed project (Attachment A). Examples of the 19 potential impacts the City of Palo Alto requested the PCJPB study are impacts on local traffic and construction impacts. A summary of all comments received by the PCJPB can be obtained on the Caltrain website. It is anticipated that the PCJPB will release their Draft EIR in late 2013 or early 2014 and have a Final EIR ready for approval in mid to late 2014. In May, Caltrain released two draft documents for informational purposes and took comments on them until June 14th. It is anticipated they will be finalized around the end of June. These two documents are:  Draft Service Plan & Operations Consideration Study City of Palo Alto Page 6  Draft Grade Crossing and Traffic Analysis Study These studies are preliminary planning documents that look at the possible impacts of operating a Blended System on the Peninsula. No schedule has been determined for either a modernized Caltrain or Blended System and decisions have not been made about any possible passing track or grade separation locations. The intent of these studies is to facilitate community dialogue. They do not have the same legal implications that an environmental impact report (EIR) does and do not study mitigation measures. Commenting on them was important because they are important planning documents but they are not legally binding in the way an EIR is. A more thorough review of the gate-downtime and traffic circulation impacts associated with Caltrain Electrification will be included in the Caltrain Electrification EIR. Below are the comments staff has already made on each of these documents:  Draft Service Plan & Operations Consideration Study o Link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34730  Comments made in the attached City of Palo Alto Caltrain Electrification NOP letter should also apply to this report and the local impact concerns referenced in the letter should be addressed in future planning studies (Attachment A)  Draft Grade Crossing and Traffic Analysis Study o Link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34731  Comments made in the attached City of Palo Alto Caltrain Electrification NOP letter should also apply to this report and the local impact concerns referenced in the letter should be addressed in future planning studies (Attachment A)  The “base” draft traffic study used in this analysis utilizes ABAG 2035 growth projections. Those predictions, however, predict significant growth that may not end up being representative of actual population conditions in 2035. Therefore, in addition to what you have already provided, please also use an alternative scenario where the base traffic projections utilize Department of Finance population projections. For comparative purposes, a third scenario should also be used that assume no population growth. As a result of the complex conversations and decisions that have to be made regarding electrifying the corridor, Caltrain has continued to convene the Local Policy Maker City of Palo Alto Page 7 Group (LPMG), with representatives from the 17 cities and three counties located along the corridor. Additionally, a similar working group of city and county staff also meets monthly to provide input and direction related to this process. City staff has been actively engaged in these meetings. Litigation Update The City of Palo Alto is currently a petitioner in two lawsuits regarding HSR and filed an amicus brief in a third. In the latter two cases the City of Palo Alto has been represented by Stuart Flashman, an attorney specializing in environmental, land use, and elections law. Staff consulted with Flashman to provide the update below: Atherton I Litigation related to the first lawsuit, commonly known as Atherton I (Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2008-80000022), is now in its third round. Palo Alto was not a petitioner but did file an amicus brief in the case. After that case was partially successful and a writ of mandate was issued, there were objections raised to the return on that writ, and those objections were addressed in a unified proceeding along with Atherton II. Atherton II Atherton II (Sacramento Superior Court No. 34-2010-80000679) is a joint lawsuit filed by the cities of Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, with additional petitioners and plaintiffs. Atherton II gave the City a partial victory. The trial court ruled that the CHSRA did not sufficiently take into account the movement of rail right-of-way (ROW) eastward from its current location south of San Jose. This movement of ROW eastward was ruled to have impacts to Monterey Highway and adjacent properties significant enough that those impacts must be studied at the program level of environmental review. The court also ruled that the CHSRA did not sufficiently analyze the impacts to roadways along the Peninsula that will have lanes removed for construction of the HSR four-track Pacheco alignment. The City was unsuccessful in its arguments that the Altamont route was not sufficiently studied, that study of impacts from elevated sections along the Peninsula was improperly deferred, and that the CHSRA had not justified its continued use of its ridership model. All of these issues are currently being argued on appeal. On the ridership issue, the question was whether the CHSRA's decision to accept and continue to use its ridership model was supported by substantial evidence when numerous reviews of the model had found it questionable for forecasting purposes. The trial court found that the Authority was entitled to rely on the professional judgment of its modeling consultant. The court also pointed to some passages in the Institute for Transportation Studies (ITS) review of the model as support. City of Palo Alto Page 8 On appeal, the City is arguing that a consultant's professional opinion is not substantial evidence unless supported by factual evidence. The City is also arguing that the Court misinterpreted the ITS comments, and when viewed properly, they offer no support for the CHSRA's continued use of the ridership model. The case is now fully briefed. Oral argument will be heard in Sacramento on the morning of July 22nd. Atherton III Atherton III involves objections to the return and motion to discharge the writs from Atherton I and Atherton II. Atherton III does not have a separate case number because it is a consolidated proceeding continuing the trial court consideration of both Atherton I and Atherton II cases. Atherton III challenged the return of writ filed by the CHSRA and was heard in trail court on November 9, 2012. The challenge asserted that the CHSRA has still not properly addressed what it should have in the program level EIR. A major point of contention was that the CHSRA has since introduced the concept of a Blended System in implementation discussions, design, and funding plan but has refused to evaluate the alternative as an independent alternative. The CHSRA has instead evaluated the Blended System as a part of a larger implementation strategy. A second major point was that the PCJPB submitted a comment letter on the revised program level EIR and said it would not support a four-track alignment on the right of way it controls. Therefore, the City contended the CHSRA had not completed its necessary diligence by identifying where that four-track system could be constructed seeing as the PCJPB does not want the four-track system on their ROW which they own and control. Additionally, the City feels the CHSRA has failed to adequately evaluate the Altamont alternative alignment. Specifically, the City feels the CHSRA has not sufficiently evaluated using a Blended approach to the Altamont alignment. The CHSRA says it is not feasible, but opponents argued that it had not provided substantial evidence to support that determination. Atherton III has been fully resolved except for any issues on which Atherton I and II are reversed on appeal. The Court accepted the CHSRA's return on the writ, rejected all objections, and discharged the writ. None of the petitioners chose to appeal. Attachments:  A - Palo Alto Caltrain Electrification NOP Letter_3-18-2013 (PDF)