Loading...
CC - Item 10A - California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) UpdateROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY (CHSRA) 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 being considered by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) 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.) At the request of the City of Rosemead, neighboring cities and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the CHSRA has agreed to address various concerns that have been expressed by holding a community meeting which has been scheduled as follows: DATE: Tuesday, October 6th TIME: 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. LOCATION: Grace Black Auditorium 3130 Tyler Avenue El Monte. At this community meeting citizens will have an opportunity to obtain information and voice their concerns. City representatives will also attend the meeting. Recommendation: That the City Council 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 APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: ITEM NO. Q k City Council Meeting September 14,2010 Page 2 of 3 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. Last month, cities in the San Gabriel Valley were somewhat alarmed to learn that the CHSRA was considering a potential alternative alignment along the 1-10 Freeway 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. (The alternative along the Rt. 60 Freeway is not supported by the City of Rosemead as it would conflict with the proposed Metro Gold Line light rail extension project planned for that corridor.); 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 nearby properties are effectively mitigated; and 4. Before any decisions are made on alternative routes, Rosemead residents must have the opportunity to attend community meetings to be informed and to let their voices be heard. At the,August 17th meeting, the CHRSA has responded affirmatively to the above listed concerns expressed by the City as follows: 1) CHSRA representatives showed the most recent draft aerial map with all four alternative routes through the San Gabriel Valley; 2) The most 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; 3) CHSRA representatives committed to conduct a thorough environmental impact report and study that will identify and mitigate adverse impacts to nearby residents; and 4) a community meeting will be conducted to provide citizens with an opportunity to obtain information and, register concerns before a "Preliminary City Council Meeting September 14,2010 Pace 3 of 3 Alternative Analysis Report" is submitted to the CHRSA Board for action. At its August 24, 2010 meeting, the City Council discussed this matter in considerable detail. Discussion centered around the position that the Council should take relative to the CHSRA project. During that discussion, it was pointed out that that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGV COG) Transportation Committee has adopted a position to "oppose any alignment of the CHSRA project that does not minimize the impact on properties in the San Gabriel Valley." Based on the Council's August 24th discussion and the position adopted by the SGV COG Transportation Committee, the Council may wish to consider adoption of the following language as its position: Suggested Position The City of Rosemead opposes any alignment of CHSRA along the 1-10 Freeway corridor unless it is constructed within the freeway median in a manner that mitigates impacts on residential properties. Attachments "A" About the California High-Speed Rail Project "B" City Council Meeting Minutes from April 27, 2010 "C" Letter from SGV COG to CHSRA dated 8/17/10 "Y Response letter from CHRSA to SGV COG date 9/7/10 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 (1-10), 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 slate, federal and the private sector, including $995 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 1 st, that's a four month process. Mayor Taylor asked what report said to look into July 1s Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott replied staff brought council the concems 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 S. MATTERS FROM CITY 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 Tern 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 Tern 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 Tern 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 or 23 Mayor Taylor stated that he wants to see what they come back 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 2010-21)11" 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 Apol 27, 2010 Page 22 of 23 ATTACHMENT "C" 111 Flff:2i PrrJhli In 'I'lunnms Ain„ lice l'rctidrrrr Aml;rl Canillo I'i.e Prcsid.•nr David Spence 1" ( ice Prrside'a Rol hint Nlc>inm : c San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments , 3462 Eas; FwrF,i{L Suiie 91ti. Pasadena, California 91107-3U2 Phone: fe261564-9702 rPX: (E26) 564-1116E -Mail SGV(csgvcx erg .nlew:exs :Ilhaanbra A rrndia .Erna Euld,r'in Park Rnrdburr C7arrmm~r curing Dh mmrd Bar Duanr F/ Nurtrr mn !ra "Male La Canada Fllafrielge L. Rrrnie La i'rrne 11ouroriu llumebella M1lontera Park hmadrna Pomona Rncnarud Son Phuns San Gabriel San Marino Sierra 1/ndre Sara FI 1lonrr Sauna Puaadena Temple City B"ulnin IL'e'r curia. Pic" Ws,e :f. U county A.,p. ",i Cornnrmna, fnu rdr DAvlri. L_1 ('aann• f`ninrrTwnrallir,nniuniriu Filih Plrrrie, 1.9 C'nanp' 1 no. wp.vmi AG+avnrmirin I'm ci i ice, lhurrann Nid:nlu T C,;.,. ay August l7, 2010 Mr. Curt Pringle, Chair California High-Speed Rail Authority Attn: Los Angeles to San Diego Section 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Pringle: I am writing on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), which represents the 31 cities in the San Gabriel Valley as well as the Los Angeles County unincorporated communities in Valley. Our agency has been reviewing progress on the Los Angeles to San Diego segment of the California High Speed Rail Authority's (CHSRA) project. We would to communicate our concerns regarding this project as well as discuss possible strategies for moving forward. Proposed Alignments Based on the information that our agency has reviewed, the following alignments are under consideration in the San Gabrir l Valley: • Within the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way (ROW) Adjacent to the UPRR ROW . Within the SR-60 ROW Within the I-10 ROW, and Within the Metro/Metrolink ROW Furthermore, it is our understanding that there continues to be ongoing issues in the negotiations with agencies, including UPRR, Caltrans and Metro, for a shared ROW option, and that, alternatively, the CHSRA is exploring alignments that are adjacent to rather than within existing ROW. Based on the current draft proposed alignments that were reviewed by the Technical Working Group, there is the potential for significant impact to our communities and their residential, commercial, and industrial properties. Upon reviewing this information, at their August meeting, the SGVCOG Transportation Committee adopted a position to onnose any alignment of the CHSRA project that does not minimize the impact on properties in the San Gabriel Valley. In order to address some of our communities' and their residents' concerns, we urge the CHSRA to continue studying all horizontal alignments within the San Gabriel Valley, as well as all possible vertical alignments, including above, below and at- grade options in order to preserve adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. 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 County's population • The 31 cities in the region cities within LA County two million California residents, or 20% of LA account for approximately 37% of all incorporated • 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 1-605, is a new alternative that was added subsequent to the public seeping ' 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 1-10 corridor to be held during Fall 2010. Timeline Currently, the CHSRA is scheduled to meet on October 71h 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 1 U 0- 0 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, Thomas P. King, President • 0 I CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT "D" High-Speed Rail Authority - September 7, 2010 Mr. Thomas P. King, President San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Board•Membersi 3452 East Foothill Blvd., Suite 910 Pasadena, CA 91107-3142 Curt'-Pringle. Chair. Tom'U,m6erq vlce-Chair Lynn. Schenk Dear Mr. King, Vice•Ch6ir. Russell Burns David Crane Thank you for your recent correspondence of August 17, 2010 regarding the Los Rod Dlridiro, Sr.~ Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire Section (LA-SD) of the California High- Oran'Fiorez' Speed Train Project. I appreciate the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Richard Katz (SGVCOG) taking the time to engage with the Authority on this significant Judge OueriUn statewide transportation program. 'L. Koppx. As you know, the LA-SD Section is not in the first phase of the project. We are at 'past chair the early stage of planning and engineering (Alternative Analysis process), including communication of our conceptual plans with local cities and stakeholders. The Roelof van Ark Chief izecutive 1 SGVCOG has been instrumental in helping us stay in proper communication with Officer 4 the San Gabriel Valley communities. We fully expect to continue our coordination j1 with you and each of the San Gabriel Valley cities as we move forward throughout f this refinement of potential concepts. i ( Memorandum of Understanding j In the spirit of collaboration, the Authority would like to formally implement a j Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the SGVCOG to allow us to proceed # with a mutually agreed upon approach in the San Gabriel Valley. The High Speed f Rail Authority's Deputy Executive Director Dan Leavitt is available to meet with you and your colleagues to begin this dialogue on Monday, September 13, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. Please confirm if this date and time works for you. rvARNOLD UHWARZENEOGER 'GOVERNOR. i Our Timeline j ( The San Gabriel Valley cities have expressed an interest in having more time to understand our current plans prior to our presentation of the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report to our Board of Directors, which was scheduled for the upcoming October 2010 meeting. In fact, the HSRA has postponed the LA-SD Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report presentation to the Board to a later date still to be determined. Given the State's current budget status and the fact that www.cahighspeedrail.Ca.gov 925 L Street • Suite 1425 Sacramento. CA 95814 916-324-1541 the LA-SD Section is a Phase 2 program, we have the flexibility to make that adjustment. Community Outreach At the Authority's expense, we would like to proceed with a community meeting along the 1-10 Freeway corridor to provide those cities an opportunity to learn more about the 1-10 alternative and the other alternatives in the San Gabriel Valley, as the 1-10 alternative west of 1-605 was added by the Board subsequent to the Public Scoping meetings held in October and November 2009. Per your conversation with the local outreach team, the community meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 6 from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Grace T. Black Auditorium in the City of El Monte. All 1-10 corridor cities from Los Angeles Union Station to Baldwin Park (1-605) will be noticed (adjacent property owners and local stakeholders) and we will work with each city to make sure that any local distribution lists are also used. Beyond this meeting, further regional meetings in the San Gabriel Valley will be developed in collaboration with the SGVCOG. We believe it is critical that our team work alongside SGVCOG staff to develop the public engagement that is appropriate to the cities we all serve. Proposed Alternatives It is important to note at this time that we have not selected any specific alternative in the San Gabriel Valley or any other portion of the LA-SD Section. The LA-SD Section is in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis phase and investigating a range of alternatives and design options. We have been working with San Gabriel Valley cities to obtain input on current alternatives and we welcome further community feedback on our concepts. Specifically, we are in receipt of the SGVCOG's position for the Authority to continue studying all horizontal and vertical alignments within the San Gabriel Valley alignment corridors in order to minimize impacts to adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. The communities throughout the San Gabriel Valley have a long history of promoting an excellent quality of life, safe neighborhoods, and high performing schools. The Authority values that history and we want to preserve that quality of life, while ensuring we meet our mandate to construct a high-speed rail system for California residents that will provide a fast, affordable, more convenient method of travel. Thank you for your participation with the CHSRA; we look forward to meeting with you and continuing our relationship and collaboration to seek the best High-Speed Train possibilities for the San Gabriel Valley. Sincerely, 4 Roelof van Ark Chief Executive Officer cc: Dan Leavitt, CHSRA Deputy Executive Director Jose Martinez, LA-SD Regional Program Manager Alex Clifford, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Matthew Gleason, Southern California Association of Governments