Loading...
CC - Item 11A - California High Speed Rail Authority UpdateROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 24, 2010 SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY UPDATE SUMMARY The City Council will review and discuss recent information and dialogue concerning the California High Speed Rail project that is proposed to be constructed through the San Gabriel Valley. Two of the four proposed alternative routes through the San Gabriel Valley would pass through Rosemead. (One alternative route through Rosemead would be along the 1-10 Freeway and the other alternative route would be along the SR-60 Freeway.) The City is currently on record in support of the alignment on the 1-10 Freeway on the condition that it goes along the median. At the request of the City of Rosemead, other neighboring cities and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has agreed to address the various concerns that have been expressed, including holding public meetings for citizens to obtain information and voice their concerns. The CHSRA has indicated that at least one such community meeting will be conducted in this area during the month of September. Recommendation: That the City Council review this matter and determine whether any additional actions are needed at this time. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In November of 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A authorizing the issuance of $9.95 billion in bonds to establish a high-speed train system linking San Diego and Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. The project will cost some $40 billion and funds are being sought from federal government and the private sector to fill the substantial gap. Attachment "A" is a list of facts regarding the project. On April 27, 2010, the City Council took action "to support the alignment on the 10 freeway route on the condition it goes along the median for the California High Speed Rail project." Attachment "B" is a copy of the minutes of that meeting. ITEM NO. 11 A APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: City Council Meeting August 24,2010 Page 2 of 2 Earlier this month, cities in the San Gabriel Valley were alarmed to learn that the CHSRA was considering a potential alternative alignment along the 1-10 Freeway outside of the existing freeway right-of-way, which would necessitate the acquisition of residential and commercial properties. After learning of this potential alignment outside of the freeway footprint, members of the City Council, staff and concerned residents attended meetings to address CHSRA officials. Meetings were held at the Alhambra City Hall on August gth and at West Covina City Hall on August 11th. In addition, a technical meeting with CHSRA representatives was held at Rosemead City Hall on August 17th. At each of these meetings, the City advised the CHSRA of the following: 1. All of the alternative routes identified by the CHSRA, including the 1-10 Freeway alternative along the median of the 1-10 Freeway, should be fully evaluated; 2. Any future taking of Rosemead residential or commercial properties along the 1-10 Freeway by eminent domain for the CHSRA project would be unacceptable; 3. If the system is to be constructed within the 1-10 Freeway, it must be done in such a way that adverse impacts (noise, vibrations, etc.) upon Rosemead residents and properties are effectively mitigated; and 4. Before any decisions are made, Rosemead residents must have the opportunity to attend a community meeting to be informed and to let their voices be heard. As a result of these efforts, the CHRSA has responded affirmatively. At the August 17th meeting, the CHSRA representatives showed the most recent draft aerial map with all four alternative routes through the San Gabriel Valley. The recent map showed the alternative route along the 1-10 Freeway to be within the existing freeway right-of-way, eliminating the need to displace residences or businesses. Also, at the August 17th meeting, CHSRA representatives committed to conduct at least one community meeting to provide citizens with detailed information and an opportunity to register input and comments about the project. The CHSRA agreed that such a community meeting will be conducted in this area before a "Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report" is submitted to the CHRSA Board for action. When the CHSRA identifies a date, time and location of the community meeting(s), significant efforts will be made to make Rosemead residents aware of the meeting. Attachments ATTACHMENT "A" About the California High-Speed Rail Project 1) The California High-Speed Rail project will be the largest infrastructure project ever built in the U.S.-a $40 billion, 800-mile long high-speed train network that will run at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour. 2) The network will be designed to serve commuters between San Diego and San Francisco or Sacramento, with the ability to carry up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030 along with lightweight freight. 3) A proposed route will pass through the San Gabriel Valley between Union Station in Los Angeles and the Ontario Airport, and include at least one station (perhaps in El Monte). 4) The CHSRA is considering multiple alignments for the possible route, including options along the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), and the Union Pacific Rright-of- Way or a corridor adjacent to the Union Pacific Right-of-Way both of which are south of the 60 Freeway. 5) The proposal could include building tracks in the center of the San Bernardino Freeway or other locations within the existing San Bernardino Freeway footprint. 6) The proposed design could be at grade level, above ground or a 50-foot wide deck set on top of 35-foot high posts placed every 100 feet, or below grade in a tunnel. 7) While total cost is expected to exceed $40 billion, current project funding is split between state, federal and the private sector, including $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds authorized by Proposition IA, and $2.34 billion in Stimulus Funds with a requirement that one segment be operational by 2017. 8) CHSRA promotes the electric train as a safe, convenient, affordable and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices, helping to improve California's economy while reducing air pollution, global warming, greenhouse gases, dependence on foreign oil, and promoting smart growth. 9) Travel times would be less than one-half that of car travel. 10) The project would create an estimated 450,000 permanent jobs by 2035, and generate 160,000 construction-related jobs to plan, design and build the system. ATTACHMENT "B" Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied yes, that's why those items were moved up to phase 1 at the top of the list. Mayor Taylor stated that they are not that dangerous if we are postponing them for six months and we have the money to fix them. That is something that I cannot agree with. We should fix them but if we get staff reports that are stating to the public that we have dangerous unsafe play equipment then they should be fixed and we shouldn't have to play by the fact that we should do it by the budget if we have the money right now. There are bbq's that are full of rust and it would take a few hundred bucks to replace them. Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott stated we do have to go out to bid but if Council wants staff to come forward quickly we can do that in regards to playground equipment. The report came in March to look ahead to July 1It, that's a four month process. Mayor Taylor asked what report said to look into July 15c. Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied staff brought council the concerns regarding the playground in March with the list that address the severe nature of the playgrounds. In addition we've had our own manufacturing company come out and inspect those, and they express some concerns that need to be changed out as quickly and if monetarily feasible. In regards to bbq's and smaller amenities, are already on order and will be replaced as soon as they arrive. Amenities such as picnic tables, bbq's, benches, those will be part of the regular ongoing budget so that every year we are evaluating different park sites and replacing those specific amenities and that will be part of an annual plan to do that. Council Member Low asked if staff can look into the list on the items that are dangerous and that are of safety issue; also to come up with an estimated cost to see how we can fund that. Council Member Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta, to approve plans and specification and to solicit bids: Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: Taylor Abstain: None Absent: None 8. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A Alignment for the California High Spq-ed-Rail--- On March 9, 2010, the City Council was provided with a presentation from the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) regarding the proposed California High Speed Rail that would enable riders to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in approximately 2 hours and 38 minutes. The HSRA is considering two alternating routes through the San Gabriel Valley: a rail alignment along the 10 freeway or the 60 freeway. During the presentation, Council Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 Page 20 of 23 Members expressed their support to the California High Speed Rail project; however, no official action was taken as to which alignment the City Council would support. Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction on the preferred alignment for the California High Speed Rail project. Brian Lewin - expressed support in the Alignment for the CA High Speed Rail. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he had been working with the SR60 Coalition and with Mrs. Flores and Mr. Marcarello along with cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, and Montebello. Their concern with the SR60 route potentially is that it might conflict with the light rail track that is being proposed for the SR60 route. If that is the case it would eliminate our ability to get light rail going on the SR60 route. My personal feeling is that the 10 freeway route would be a better choice if it's along the median; if they get access to the metro link line. Otherwise, they would be forced to do it on the north or south side and it would be a significant impact on our community; such as taking part of Ramona Boulevard. If it's on the median it will have a minimal impact and it would provide great transportation for the community. Mayor Taylor stated that as the median goes, he was not sure what the rail system is going to put up; because they did say this was going to be a two track system. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that it was a big concern for them right now, they are still trying to figure out all the schematics; it's very conceptual right now. His concern is that it does not run along the south or north side of the 10 freeway because that's where it would have a lot of impact. Mayor Taylor agreed with Mr. Ly but stated that the bureaucracy moves in a strange way when you get into the rail road that actually controls that line portion there. I don't know; who will end up with the ultimate authority. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he just wants to show the support of the 10 freeway alignment because it does work by only aligning the median and have a lesser impact on the community. Council Member Low asked Mr. Ly how Council can influence that decision. Mayor Pro Tem Ly replied that there is a High Speed Rail Authority Committee and the chairman is the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle. It's his agency that deals with all these types of matters and they'll most likely make the final decisions. Council Member Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Clark, to support the alignment on the 10 freeway route on the condition it goes along the median for the California High Speed Rail project. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: Taylor Absent: None Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 Page 21 of 23 Mayor Taylor stated that he wants to see what they comeback with and what rights we really have. 9. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Mayor's Appointments for 2010.2011 Each Year, a listing of City Council Member appointments to a variety of regional and state committees and boards is prepared and submitted by the Mayor. To assist the Mayor, members of the City Council had the opportunity to complete the "Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011" form listing each individual's preference for the particular committees and boards. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Mayor's Appointments for 2010-2011. Mayor Taylor stated that there was need to go back and straighten out some discrepancies on some of the committee appointments. The following appointments were made: League of California Cities: Delegate: Sandra Armenta Alternate: Steven Ly California Contract Cities Association Delegate: Sandra Armenta Alternate: Steven Ly LA County Sanitation District Delegate: Gary Taylor Alternate: Margaret Clark SGV Council of Governments Delegate: Margaret Clark Alternate: Steven Ly So. California JPIA Delegate: Gary Taylor Alternate: Polly Low Coalition for Practical Regulation Delegate: Margaret Clark Alternate: Polly Low City Selection Committee Delegate: Steven Ly Alternate: Margaret Clark Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 Page 22 of 23 ATTACHMENT "C" San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments 3,452 East Foothill, Suite 910. Pasadena, California 91107-33142 Phone: !6261564-9702 FAX: ;626)564-1116 E-Mail SGV@sgvcoc.org 011W EM P; sift"( Thomas King August 17, 2010 . Viii he,1dant Amid Carrillo r,; Vier Presideal Mr. Curt Pringle, Chair David Spence California High-Speed Rail Authority 3`I tee Precdlela Attn: Los Angeles to San Diego Section Hit. hara B1essina 925 L Street, Suite 1425 MrNinvuls Sacramento, CA 95814 Alhambra nrradia Dear Mr. Pringle: A.us Pulda•iu Park Pradh n' ' I am writing on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), u Clare a,ant which represents the 31 cities in the San Gabriel Valley as well as the Los Angeles Co,inn County unincorporated communities in Valley. Our agency has been reviewing progress Diamond Bar on the Los Angeles to San Diego segment of the California High Speed Rail Authority's Duarte (CHSRA) project. We would to communicate our concerns regarding this project as well 67nraatr C „'a as discuss possible strategies for moving forward. rre•n,dare Proposed Alignments La C'annr/n F/iulrid;e Based on the information that our agency has reviewed, the following alignments are La R,emr under consideration in the San Gabriel Valley: La I erne Monrayi" Within the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way (ROW) Montebello • Adjacent to the UPRR ROW nlanrer" Park Pasadena • Within the SR-60 ROW Pomona • Within the I-10 ROW, and H"yP im . Within the Metro/Metrolink ROW a Sol, Dimm San Gabriel Furthermore, it is our understanding that there continues to be ongoing issues in the San :Marina negotiations with agencies, including UPRR, Caltrans and Metro, for a shared ROW Serra option, and that, alternatively, the CHSRA is exploring alignments that are adjacent to South EllMo a/orc(e rather than within existing ROW. Based on the current draft proposed alignments that Sand, Pasadena Temple eiry were reviewed by the Technical Working Group, there is the potential for significant Walnut impact to our communities and their residential, commercial, and industrial properties. IrestCovina at their August meeting, the SGVCOG Transportation on reviewing this information U Fo-sr an,riet. a coon"' 1A Coon FilsI ivri , p Committee adopted a position to oppose any alignment of the CHSRA project that does l C LA county k Di l F i not minimize the impact on properties in the San Gabriel Valley. ,...rr w e . l/mn'ngvnnbe Qnan...uti. Ffb Disnia. 14 Caun>,• In order to address some of our communities' and their residents' concerns, we urge C..n,,:n,ni,;n : the CHSRA to continue studying all horizontal alignments within the San Gabriel 5 " ,acr My iet, • Valley, as well as all possible vertical alignments, including above, below and at- grade options in order to preserve adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. 1lxf'.~n't ivy, Ihucr, too Nichalu'I' CYniM ac Page 2 Coordination with City Leadership • The San Gabriel Valley is a complex patchwork of local governments representing many residents as evidenced by the following: • We represent approximately two million California residents, or 20% of LA County's population • The 31 cities in the region account for approximately 37% of all incorporated cities within LA County • We are home to the largest number of LA County residents living in unincorporated communities • There are over 500 local elected officials currently serving on Governing Boards of the many local government agencies located throughout the Valley Navigating this complex network can be challenging for any agency that is not familiar with the unique character of our communities. We urge the CHSRA to continue working with all of the elected and appointed leadership in cities located along potential CHSRA alignments to keep them fully abreast of the latest developments and discussions. Furthermore, the SGVCOG appreciates the opportunity presented by CHSRA staff at our August Transportation Committee to explore the possibility of creating a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the SGVCOG and the CHSRA. This has the opportunity to further open the lines of communication and resolve any potential concerns. Therefore, we look forward to receiving, in the near future, information from CHSRA staff regarding a possible MOU between the SGVCOG and CHSRA • staff. Community Outreach It is our understanding that one of the alignments currently under consideration, along the I-10 from downtown Los Angeles to the I-605, is a new alternative that was added subsequent to the public scoping ' process. As such, there has been limited communication and outreach to the residents in those communities, including those living in the cities of Monterey Park, Alhambra, San Gabriel, Rosemead, El Monte and Baldwin Park. The SGVCOG appreciates the offer, presented at our August Transportation Committee meeting, for the CHSRA to host community meetings in these areas and clearly, in a transparent manner, discuss those options currently under consideration and to ensure that all comments received at these meetings are incorporated into the public record. The SGVCOG requests that, in coordination with city leadership and staff, the CHSRA organize a series of community meetings in each of the communities along the I-10 corridor to be held during Fall 2010. Timeline Currently, the CHSRA is scheduled to meet on October 7`h to review the results of the Preliminary Alternative Analysis (AA) and narrow the list of possible alignments for further study in the Supplemental Alternatives. Due to the need for additional public outreach discussed above, the SGVCOG requests that any action relative to the LA- San Diego AA be delayed until February 2011. r~ U Page 3 • Overall, the SGVCOG maintains its position to "support in concept" the CHSRA project, and we look forward to working with your agency to educate and work with our cities' leadership and communities members to develop a feasible alignment and process for moving forward. Should you have any_questions or wish to discuss this further, please contact me at (626) 564-9702. Sincerely, ',~fL-7 Thomas P. King, President U 0