Appendix 2

Public Comments on the Draft Program

EIS/EIR
Next Speaker: Thank you, Maurice. Uh, just really quickly, uh, **** council members. I like 

the, the City Manager's, uh,   on the City. I have sat in the past and currently I'm the 

Executive Legal Advocacy Committee. Uh, I will be their, uh, ** ** available, so, if you can go, 

uh, go and participate, it's a good learning process, and   that process. Thank you.

Next Speaker: Thank you. Okay. And now we're going to go to the, uh, the public hearing, 

Item B, which is joint with the Planning Commission. Um, Michael ** **.

Next Speaker: So, this evening we have, uh, under Item 2B, we have a joint meeting of the 

Planning Commission. I will note in our minutes that the planning, that the meeting will be 

convened, um, presently; that the members of the Planning Commission are present. It would be 

appropriate, though, for the Chair of the Planning Commission to formally convene the meeting 

before we go on.

Next Speaker: Thank you, uh,  . Uh, I'd like to call the meeting of the Planning Commission 

to come to order.

Next Speaker: And so this evening's, uh, the purpose of this evening's public hearing is to 

conduct a public hearing regarding the environmental impact statement, environmental impact 

report for the Coast Corridor Improvements Draft, uh, program, and out of that, we expect that 

the council this evening will receive public testimony, receive testimony from City staff, as well 

as TAMC, uh, staff and consultants, and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter attached to the 

staff report, um, as well as provide additional comments and information to TAMC and the 

consultants on the project, and with that, I will turn it over to Doreen, and she will give you an 

overview of the project, and then we have TAMC staff, Ann, available as well.

Next Speaker: Um, Mayor and members of the City Council, uh, reporting this evening is the 

Coast Corridor draft program for environmental impact statement and environmental impact 

report. The, um, reason for this is you have an environmental impact statement, which ** ** in 

ways that the national Environmental Protection Act. It's a national program,   program, and 

then, of course, the environmental impact statement, which complies with the California 

Environmental Quality Act. This is actually a Power Point presentation. ** ** and   is going 

to present. What I'm going to do is just ** **. Christina will talk a little more in detail about the 

EISEIR. Uh, what staff had an opportunity to do was review the EISEIR for compliance. We 

are not   to, the City is not ** **. Um, that is the lead agency. That means that they are the 

agencies responsible for actually coordination the processing of this document. The re-, public 

review period for the   ends January 7, 2015. During this period of time, this is, uh, the 

public's opportunity to review the document and provide comments. As you look at your, uh, 

staff report, you'll notice that there is a chart that's included in the document that has a number of 

comments. Um, we've looked up the EISEIR, and provided comments. One are the purposes for 

this document, and future use of the document is to tier off the environmental document so that 

when the City comes forward with a ** **, uh, project in more detail, we hope to use that 

environment   so that we don't have to spend a lot of money on generating environmental 

information ** **. So, it's extremely important that the information is accurate and that there is, 

uh, information that is current and not stale. We did have an opportunity to speak with, uh, 

TAMC staff last night,   staff last night, and Circle Point staff, uh, last night. Circle Point is 
the environmental consulting company that prepared the document. We reviewed the chart with 

them, and they clarified some information. Uh, they acknowledged that much of the information 

they had was based on, uh, information from 2012, and that they were more than willing to 

update the environmental document to incorporate our current project description of the multi-

** **, uh, transportation center. Um, as well, we mentioned that we were still reviewing the 

  document, and one of our recommendations is that certainly the, the Mayor signed the 

letter, uh, to TAMC, but also that we continue to look and re-, look at the ** ** document. We'd 

like to refine the chart based on our conversation last night, uh, with TAMC,  , um, and 

Circle Point. Um, so with that, what I would recommend is ** ** would be happy to answer the 

questions, is to allow Christina Watson to come forward and give her presentation of the 

overview of the document.

Next Speaker: Okay, thank you, yeah, let's have, let's do the presentation first, and then all of 

 .

Next Speaker: Stand here?

Next Speaker: ** **.

Next Speaker: Where, wherever you feel more comfortable.

Next Speaker: Where do you feel comfortable?

Next Speaker: I'm okay here.

Next Speaker: That's –

Next Speaker: So, just tell us what you –

Next Speaker:  , why do you want ** **.

Next Speaker: Okay.  .

Next Speaker: Will do. Thank you. Okay, good evening, I'm Christina Watson, Transpor-, 

Transportation Planning with the Transportation Agency for ** ** County, and, can you all hear 

me okay?

Next Speaker: You need to shout.

Next Speaker: I need to shout?

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Yeah, the people in the back can't hear you.
Next Speaker: Good, yeah. Okay. Just, uh –

Next Speaker: Yeah, that'll be good.

Next Speaker: At the podium a little bit.

Next Speaker: There you go.

Next Speaker:   to everybody in the audience.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Okay, um, good evening. I am Christina Watson, Transportation Planner with the 

Transportation Agency from Monterey County. We call ourselves TAMC, and I'm here to 

present as, Doreen said, the Coast Corridor Draft Program environmental impact statement and 

environment impact report, which we call EISEIR for shorthand. Uh, this is the third of four 

hearings that we're holding on this topic. I presented this document at the TAMC Board, uh, last 

Wednesday, and then to the City of Soledad City Council, um, that same day, and the final here 

will be at the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, or SLOCOG meeting, in Atascadero on 

January 7

th, 2015, and I would like to, uh, note that in the audience with me today you have Joe 

Valdez from the Cal-, CalTrans. Um, he's a rail transportation associate, ** **, um, the lead at 

CalTrans on this, uh, project. Pete Rogers, which is SLOCOG's  , uh, director, and he's the 

lead at SLOCOG on this project. Um, the Federal Railroad Administration and SLOCOG are the 

lead agencies for the, from the environmental perspective, and Virginia Barillo, who is –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – who is an assistant transportation planner at TAMC, and she's here with us as 

well. Um, the, I'm just gonna go ahead and give the presentation.

Next Speaker: Yep.

Next Speaker: Uh, so the purpose of the hearing today is just to present the Coast Corridor 

project and its environmental effects as, uh, described in this draft document, and to receive 

public comment. Any comments received, uh, during the hearing today, will be responded to in 

the final environmental document that we expect to be publishing in the spring. Am I, am I 

talking loudly enough now?

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: Okay. Um, great, so, uh, TAMC, the City of Soledad, and the City of King are all 

responsive, uh, resp-, or responsible, responsible agencies on this document, which is why we're 

holding a hearing to ** **, and, um, as Doreen said, we, we had a call yesterday with City staff to 

discuss this long list of, uh, concerns described in a staff report that I saw yesterday for the first 

time, and we, uh, will be coordinating with City staff to make amendments to, uh, be 
incorporated into the final environmental impact report in response to the new information 

regarding the location of the  , um, which will be north of where it's indicated currently in 

the draft document, and also information, new information about the station that we didn't pass, 

uh, in the draft document. Our mutual understanding is that these changes do not represent a 

new significant impact that will require the recirculation of the draft document, but will be able

to incorporate the changes into the final document. Um, uh, we, uh, we have common goals for 

this project. We all would like to see the restoration of the Coast Daylight Train Service to, uh, 

the Central Coast of California, and we'd all like to see a station in the City. So, go ahead and 

proceed to the next slide. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you'd already done that. Thank you. Uh, 

the draft program, EISEIR examines all possible improvements under consideration of the 

budget, so it's a universe of projects that might not eventually all get implemented. Um, there 

would be a separate process, uh, that will determine which of these improvements will actually 

be constructed that is dependent upon negotiations, uh, between CalTrans and Union Pacific, 

primarily, and then additional project level and ** ** review will be done on each of those 

individual projects as necessary. Um, some projects may be so minor as to merit a categorical 

exclusion from   review. Next slide please. So, the corridor under evaluation is the 

130 miles between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. It is mostly single track through that corridor, 

and, uh, existing uses on the corridor include Union Pacific freight trains, and, uh, Amtrak Coast 

Starlight train, which is, uh, one round trip per day from LA to Seattle. Existing stations on the 

line are in Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo, and this project is proposing two new 

stations, one in Soledad, and one here in the City of King. So, the project purpose for this 

document is to improve passenger rail frequency, speed, and reliability; to enhance safety; to 

improve mobility in the Coast Corridor region; to improve passenger connectivity, um, including 

to the eventual high-speed rail system; and to ensure that the projects are eligible for future fel-, 

federal funding via the Passenger Corridor Investment Plan, of which this is a part. Next slide 

please. So, the project in-, includes, um, six sort of categories of projects, and I'll go into each 

one of these in, in detail. So, the first is the train service, the Coast Daylight proposed train 

service. Two new passenger stations in Soledad and King City, curb corrections and track 

realignment, sighting extension, a second traffic questa grade, and other system-wide 

improvements. So, the Coast Daylight is service that is being proposed as an extension of the 

Pacific Surfliner, which is the train that currently goes between Los Angeles and San Luis 

Obispo, or San Diego and San Luis Obispo, and it would extend up to San Francisco and have 

one daily round trip up to San Francisco. So, this would be a, uh, CalTrans, uh, state-supported 

inner-city train service. Uh, new passenger stations in the City of King and Soledad would 

improve connectivity with local transit, it would improve mobility, and it would provide 

connections to Fort Hunter Liggett and Pinacles National Park. The purpose of curb corrections 

and traffic alignments is to increase train speeds, to enhance safety, and to improve reliability 

and on-time performance for the trains. And, sighting extensions are a lower-speed, second line, 

that will enable safe passing, one train over the other, over short distances, in order to improve 

reliability of all services, and a second at the questa grade is recommended in order to improve 

speeds between Santa ** ** and the top of the Questa Grade, which is in San Luis Obispo 

County. Speeds through this segment are some of the lowest, as tri-, trains climb and descend 

the, s-, uh, south side of the Questa Grade railroad tracks. And other system-wide improvements 

includes, uh, power switches and centralized traffic control, uh, which will also help accomplish 

the goal of increasing speeds and on-time reliability for the trains. So, the sources of these 

proposed investments and, and improvements, um, in this corridor started with a 2001, 20-year 
plan done by Amtrak, that included this project. Uh, Union Pacific Railroad did, uh, some 

capacity studies along the rail line that reflected, uh, some improvements that they thought would 

be necessary to allow for increased passenger service on the line. CalTrans completed a service 

development plan just last year, and then, of course, we're also including input from the City of 

Soledad and the City of King's, uh, plans that you have for the station   train line. So, this is 

the geographic context. It's fairly difficult to see on the slide, but, on the web site for SLOCOG 

and for TAMC both have links to a Google map where you can zoom in and see the exact, um, 

uh, location and, uh, information about each one of the improvements up and down the corridor. 

So, the environmental document, uh, came up with some, uh, potential adverse effects, uh, from 

these projects. So, this is, again, it's taking all of the projects, um, into account, and so that these 

potential adverse effects could be mitigated or avoided entirely by, uh, through the planning 

process and the design process. So, but, just, uh, things that the, the document identified include, 

during the construction period, uh, traffic diversions; air polu-, uh, emissions; noise and 

vibration; loss of agricultural land; use of sensitive habitat areas; and disturbing archeological 

resources as all potential adverse effects during the construction period. During the operational 

period, when the trains are running, uh, the potential adverse effects include a change to the 

visual environment. You see the train go by. Uh, increased noise and vibration, and increased 

auto traffic around the station areas, and then there's also the beneficial effects that are identified 

in the document, which are essentially the purpose of the project, which are improved safety, 

mobility, and access; reduced air pollution; and reduced vehicle amount of travel when we leave 

our car at the station and take the train instead; and it's also consistent with local plans calling for 

stations here and in Soledad. So, this is the timeline for the environmental document. Uh, the 

Federal Rail-, uh, Railroad Administration, or FRA, published the notice of intent in the Federal 

Register back in August of 2012, and we've held scoping meetings around that same time, and 

multiple stakeholder meetings, including meetings here, um, with your staff; uh, in Soledad at 

the Monterey County Farm Bureau at Fort Hunter Liggett and other areas, so, um, to take into 

account issues that we heard back in 2012. Then, um, through the process of drafting a 

document and coordinating with, uh, FRA, we published this document just in November, and 

the, uh, pub-, the comment period ex-, is, until January 7

th, and then we anticipate publishing the 

final document in the spring. So, next steps, uh, after we, uh, finalize the program level 

environmental impact statement, environmental impact report, CalTrans can pursue the 

negotiations that will then determine, uh, which improvements are needed to implement the 

service, so that we can start a train, and then, once it, those improvements are identified, then 

project-level re-, environmental review will proceed as necessary. Um, the public, the document 

is available for public review online at this web site, which is also in the staff report, or agenda 

packet. Um, it's, I have a physical copy of the document, but it is rather large, so we decided not 

to print too many of these, otherwise we'd have to do an EIR on how many trees we killed. Um, 

Pete also has one of these at the office and, I think Joe does too. So, um, we all have a physical 

copy that we can share with you, but we only have one each, and then it's also in each of the 

regional libraries, including the one here in King City. Uh, comments can either be emailed to 

Pete at prodgers, with a D, at slocog.org, or mailed to Pete, me, or, uh, Federal Railroad 

Administration, and the addresses are all included in the environmental document, and the 

comment deadline is January 7

th, again. I've said that three times, I think.

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.
Next Speaker: Last slide. So, today's action before you today is to open a public hearing, receive 

public comment, and close the public hearing, and I would request that, um, city council 

members and planning commissioners provide comment as well, but, um, we're not necessarily 

making that part of the public hearing, as, uh, determined by ** ** law, um, the federal 

environmental law. So, um, we'll still be taking notes, though, on everything that you say and 

incorporating that all into our responses, and, um, in order to help me take better notes, I have a 

tape recorder that I'd like to use. It's a digital recorder if that's okay.

Next Speaker: Sure, of course.

Next Speaker: Okay, and I'm gonna set that up here. It's, it's going to be difficult, I think, to hear 

everybody unless they come up here to talk.

Next Speaker: I, I will have the people come up here.

Next Speaker: Okay. That would be great. Thank you.

Next Speaker:  .

Next Speaker: Yes, please. Thank you, ** **.

Next Speaker: So, before we open the public hearing, anything Doreen   want to ask before 

the public hearing?

Next Speaker: Um, not at this point.

Next Speaker: Okay, so at this time, I will open up the public hearing, accept, uh, testimony, and 

then we'll bring it back to, for questions from Planning Commission and City Council.

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: So, does anyone from the public have any comments on this item?

Next Speaker: Anyone not named John Baucke.

Next Speaker: We do not discriminate.

Next Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry.

Next Speaker: Based on longevity.

Next Speaker: Sorry.

Next Speaker: Based on longevity? No?
Next Speaker: And, and I guess, uh, since we're recording, if you could, uh, also spell your 

name –

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: – ** **.

Next Speaker: Uh, John Baucke, B-A-U-C-K-E, uh, representing Smith Monterey. Um, I've also 

had the pleasure of reading this document cover to cover. Uh, and, I just want to put it in context 

with all the stuff in which has been going on. Uh, the process and thought of a train station in 

King City, the first written document I've been able to find was dated 2000, which was done by 

Wil-, uh, Wilbur Smith and Associates, uh, about the Coast Daylight implementation plan, so 

there's been an effort since at least 2000, and Pete may have, tell a date even earlier than that, uh, 

bringing this project forward. Uh, the, the City of King has done a number of efforts, uh, one 

which is, uh, the c-, the Rail Corridor Safety Study, which was how you go through the process 

to actually close a   grade crossing and open a new one and all that's involved. Uh, uh, 

funded by my client, uh, in the City, and then the City did, did the, uh, First Street corridor plan, 

in which Mott, uh, Hat-, Hatch and Nichols, I think is the –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – did I get the right name? Uh, did another program and, and that was, uh, June 

of 2012, in which some of that information, I believe Christina had received. The City has gone 

and taken recommendations out of that document, and gone farther, using rail pros, again, to 

actually develop a, what we'll call a, a layout plan for the station, ** ** the plan which you 

approved in April of this year, so this been this continuing improvements and details of, of, of 

getting the station in King City. Uh, some of it is not included in this document, and I think 

some of it, from the conversation, uh, with Christina and, and Pete, is a case of sort of time 

sequencing. They've put their document to the federal government back in February or January 

of this year. In April you adopted the, the rail post, rail po-, rail post plan, so there's maybe some 

loss of information. So, at this point in time, and I think the real thing I would ask is that your 

staff and TAMC and SLOCOG get together and get all the information that physically exists on 

this together in their hands so they can refine the written descriptions about the project, and 

you've gone a lot farther than what CalTrans or UP has as to specifics. Get that into the 

document so it's as accurate and, uh, I think what we're dealing with is a lack of up to date, uh 

the document at this point in time. Getting that up to date will give you the best document to tier 

off as you go forward, and, uh, that's my recommendation, and I, uh, hope TAMC, uh, and, uh, 

SLOCOG get to, to have. Thank you.

Next Speaker: Okay, would anyone else, like, from the public? And, again, if you would, for the 

recorder, spell your name.

Next Speaker: Yes, thank you. I'm, uh, Pete Rodgers. I'm SLOCOG staff. Um, I think, uh, it's 

R-O-D-G-E-R-S, by the way, which is the, uh, name. Um, and I just wanted to introduce myself, 

not knowing if there's going to be an opportunity when the public hearing is over. If there were 

questions, just to make sure that I was able to introduce myself and assure you that we're gonna 
work closely with your staff to integrate these comments, um, and underscore and reiterate what 

John said about the timing of this document. You know, our doc-, our document was finalized 

before your plans, and, but it, only in draft form, and we're happy to integrate those changes. 

Um, and I also wanted to give you just a little bit more context of the bigger project. I mean, we 

all are looking for this passenger train. I've been working on this passenger train for 22 years. 

The renaissance in rail California really began in 1990, when we passed Proposition, um, 116, 

and the vision, as John mentions, that sort of crystallized in 1992, and, um, King City is still the 

gap in state-supported services, and from San Luis Obispo to San Jose, there is no statesupported services, and Christina and I have been advocating on your behalf and on all, all of 

Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County, we have to be recognized. Uh, we 

deserve state-supported inner city rail services. You know, and most people don't understand 

how this is funded and how this works. You know, this is not just Amtrak service. The State of 

California pays for all of these services, with the exception of the Coast Starlight service, which, 

you know, we're fortunate to have through, and, and we would like to do what we can to, you 

know, help you get the Coast Starlight to stop as well, although we had experience with that in 

Paso Robles. It was very difficult for us to secure that stop, uh, but we were able to do that. Um, 

so I just wanted to underscore that we need to all work together with our legislators, with the 

League. There's an opportunity with the Cap and Trade funding, and, um, you know, this being 

a 22-year-old project, it's, it has peaks and valleys of opportunities, and we're at another peak of 

opportunity, and so we need to work, uh, closely with our legislators. We talked about, uh, three 

items we need in order to get this train service operating. The first thing is, it's one train set. We 

already have an existing train set. We need one more train set, um, which is about 

$22,000,000.00, and we need, um, we have to implement the capital improvements that we 

agreed to with Union Pacific, of which we have $25,000,000.00 in the bank to pay for those 

improvements, although Union Pacific wants a much bigger number of improvements, and the 

State has already programmed money in their plans to pay for the operating support of the train. 

So, and, and the cost of that is around $6,000,000.00 a year, so you can see that it's a 

$50,000,000.00 project. That's why it's taking so long to gather all these pieces together at the 

same time. So, I think we're on the, the road to getting this thing, um, implemented in the next,

you know, 3 to 5 years. Uh, I'd like to believe it was sooner, but, um, with that I'll just close and, 

again, uh, pledge to work with your staff to integrate these comments.

Next Speaker: Okay. Would anyone else from the public like to comment on this item? Okay. 

Then, I, real quick, process wise, did I hear you correctly that your request was to close the 

public hearing before? Okay. I –

Next Speaker: Yes, please.

Next Speaker: – I'm going to, my preference would be to leave the public hearing open. I want 

to make sure, 'cause I think we're gonna have some valuable comments, that I want to make sure 

getting into the public document. So.

Next Speaker: Is there a chance I could put this up on the  ?

Next Speaker: ** **.
Next Speaker: Which, whoever is doing the speak, that they can –

Next Speaker: If that means our comments will get into the public record, then I'm –

Next Speaker: Verbatim.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: Um, so I'll, I'll bring it back now to the Planning Commission and City Council 

for, um, and, and, and actually, maybe process wise, we should, we should do comments, well, 

maybe to ask questions as well, but, um, I, I don't,  .

Next Speaker: Whatever.

Next Speaker: Whatever makes you happy.

Next Speaker: You're, you're ** ** the meeting. Yeah, if there, there is no right or wrong way. 

No.

Next Speaker: I just, just   sure we have questions. So, uh, Planning Commission, City 

Council, would you like to ask some questions? Yes.

Next Speaker: You talked about increasing speed on this track. How fast about, about, or are 

you just talking about speeding up the slow spots ** **.

Next Speaker: I will defer to Pete to answer that question.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: Um, Pete Rodgers, I'm SLOCOG staff. Um, most of the speed improvements 

referenced here are curve realignment projects, which are the high-dollar projects, which we 

don't see as fundable in the next, in the foreseeable future. Um, what we're really focusing on is 

the reliability improvements, with the signaling and track, you know, track upgrades and some 

passing sightings, would be the most likely projects to move forward. Of course, Union Pacific 

is gonna make the decision on, you know, what's gonna move forward, and they're focused on 

longer sightings, so that they can get their freight trains out of the way of the faster trains.

Next Speaker: But, but once installed, will the curves, once they're straightened out, will they 

speed up the train or only those spots?

Next Speaker: Um, the, um, curve realignments, um, were identified in the lower speed areas of, 

like, 30-mile-per-hour track speed to get it up to a maximum of 79 miles per hour.

Next Speaker: Thank you.
Next Speaker: Other questions?

Next Speaker: I do.

Next Speaker: Okay, and still, for the recorder tell us your name.

Next Speaker: Okay. Um, so, I noticed in our staff report that there are, like, 96 corrections that 

they want to see the, that  .

Next Speaker: They're, they're questions or comments, so they're not actually, I wouldn't call 

them ** ** or we're asking them to make corrections. Some of these are actually comments, and 

we're ask-, asking for response. There's also some where there may be duplication, so, for 

example, on different pages in the EI, EISEIR, there might be, uh, a conversation, say, a 

discussion as the same, so we're just pointing them out. So, it may be the same type of comment, 

um, that we're just saying, gee, there's a discussion about, that should be about Fort Hunter 

Liggett on this page. It should be also on this other page. So, I wouldn't say that it's, you know, 

um, 96 different corrections, but it's more, uh, comments and some of the, we are asking for 

corrections, but I wouldn't say that it's many corrections.

Next Speaker: Well, what do you think that's going to cost us to do that? Obviously we have to 

pay for your time, and, how long does it take to get this to be accurate or, or fair? I mean, I'm, 

I'm really disappointed that we've done all this work and all this planning to, because having the 

train stop in King City has been really important to us, and that's how our town got started, was 

that the train came here, and we have these trains that go by our, our town every day, and –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – we can't get on. And so, we, we've been working for that for years and years, 

and now we have a report, and the information for our town is, is not accurate. So, how, what's it 

gonna take for us to, like, you're gonna, you're gonna meet with –\

Next Speaker: I, I think, actually, we had a conversation yesterday. We had, and, and I believe 

that, um, they thoroughly understand now what the project description is, what our concerns are, 

and I felt comfortable that they'll make the corrections, so I think they understand now. Uh, they 

have the information, com-, comprehensive information. I think that they'll make the 

corrections.

Next Speaker: Okay, well –

Next Speaker:  .

Next Speaker: – I just wanted to express to, uh, I, I don't know if the people from Circle Point 

are here that wrote this report. I hope that you will express to them how much we would like to 

have accurate information involved in this, and how important it is to our town, ** ** to express 

that.
Next Speaker: Yeah, they, they work for us, so they'll  .

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: And they were on ** **.

Next Speaker: Okay. I think that's, um, uh, a lot of things hinge, our downtown addition hinges 

on that. The, the beautification of   Street hinging –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – on, on that, and I know we've been working for a very long –

Next Speaker: ** **.

Next Speaker: I, I think one of the concerns that they did have was they were concerned that 

possibly our comments meant that they had to go back and do another analysis; that we were 

asking that they, uh, you know, postpone it, do another analysis, and actually, what we were 

saying was that if they look at our project description, it actually reduces the environmental 

impacts; that if you look at what they have, it actually has a number of environmental impacts 

that wouldn't be there if you take the detailed work that's already been done, and so then actually 

it would reduce the environmental impacts, and so we weren't saying that it was going to expand 

it. It actually reduces it, and so I think that the work that we've done here, um, is detailed enough 

and, and that it actually improves the document.

Next Speaker: I guess, then, I would like to ask the people that are doing the, um, the EIR and 

who will be making these corrections, that you check back with us before you finalize it, so that 

we don't end up with a final document that is still, uh, missing our information. Is that fair?

Next Speaker: I, I think that's fair, and I think, uh, my understanding is that they were willing to 

do that, to work with us on it, that they wanted to, to collaborate with us and they wanted to 

make sure that the final information was accurate. That was my understanding out of the 

conversation yesterday.

Next Speaker: With, uh, with Circle Point?

Next Speaker: Yes. That was my understanding, but again, TAMC and, and SLOCOG, 

basically, they, you know, they, they manage Circle Point, and it was my understanding that they 

said it's really important that we all work together, and that they wanted to do that.

Next Speaker: Did you want add something?

Next Speaker: Yes, I would, uh, just like to add that, yes, I am the project manager with Circle 

Point, and Circle Point was on the call yesterday. They understand our direction to integrate 

these comments. Um, I did, I think you need to understand the length. This has been a 21⁄2-year 
project that's been underway, and, uh, the in-depth stakeholders meetings that occurred in 2012, 

the detailed information that you have now was not available. We had the best information at the 

time, and when our report was prepared, our draft report was prepared, before releasing it to 

anybody, we were required to submit it to the FRA, the Federal Railway Administration, because 

of the federal nature of this document, and to get it appropriately noticed, and so, and that was in 

February 2014. Your report wasn't completed until, I believe May 2014, so we're, we have 

sufficient budget resources with Circle Point to circle back and ensure that the comments made 

can be integrated.

Next Speaker: So, indeed, I have a question for you. You said something about one train set 

would cost $22,000,000.00. What's a train set?

Next Speaker: Well, an individual car is maybe 7, you know, or $5,000,000.00. It's three 

passenger cars, a cab car, and a locomotive, so the combined –

Next Speaker: It's a train.

Next Speaker: It's a train. It's a train.

Next Speaker: Oh, so, a whole 'nother service that's would –

Next Speaker: No.

Next Speaker: – be going up and down the –

Next Speaker: Well –

Next Speaker:   the train.

Next Speaker: It's one train.

Next Speaker: Um, yeah, we need two train sets to operate the service we're talking about, 'cause 

one train will leave from San Francisco. One train will leave from Los Angeles, and they'll 

cross, so we need two train sets. We have one train set. We need an additional train set.

Next Speaker: So, it's not the Coast Daylight?

Next Speaker: Uh, we, the terminology messes people up, 'cause the existing train is the Coast 

Starlight.

Next Speaker: Coast Starlight.

Next Speaker: And, um, the Coast Daylight was a service that operated, was operated by Amtrak 

up until 1970, and then it was discontinued, and operated from Downtown San Francisco to 

Downtown Los Angeles, and so we're trying to bring back the Coast Daylight.
Next Speaker: Okay, so then we would have two trains then, so two.

Next Speaker: We would have two, yes.

Next Speaker: The Starlight and the Daylight.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: And, both require process and procedure to get them to stop. Once you have a 

train station.

Next Speaker: And, are you s-, are you serious in saying 3 to 5 years? You think this is doable?

Next Speaker: Yes, it was, the operating funds were in the budget, uh, for this train service to 

begin in April 2016. Uh, but because we haven't been able to reach agreement with Union 

Pacific on the capital improvements, we're not able to, uh, move forward with operating a train 

service.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: Can you, that's what I recall, actually, on the state schedule, it shows it stopping in 

the City of King in 2020. I actually saw something with a ** **, is that correct?

Next Speaker: Yes, it's assumed –

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: – that it will be operating –

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: – in 2020.

Next Speaker: All right.

Next Speaker: And where is that?

Next Speaker: It's actually a state schedule that they have, so the State's put it out.

Next Speaker: It's, um, included in the, um, service development plan –

Next Speaker: Right, in the service –

Next Speaker: – and that was referenced in the report, the –

Next Speaker: Right.
Next Speaker: – the 2013 document.

Next Speaker: In 2013, it shows the, C-, City of King and the stop listed in 20, uh, 20  .

Next Speaker: And what report is that?

Next Speaker: It's –

Next Speaker: Okay, it's called the, uh, the Service Development Plan. I'm not sure if we're 

referring to the same document, but –

Next Speaker: Yeah, I actually, I actually saw, it was a schedule that had been put out. I'm 

trying to find it. It actually had the City of King.

Next Speaker: That document is available in SLOCOG's web site.

Next Speaker: Okay, uh, other questions from Planning Commission or City Council?

Next Speaker: I have a question.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: Um, I know that at one time the, uh, before ** **, the did –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – and, I was wondering if it would be wise maybe, uh, to have a more time   

committee, including, uh, including ** ** at Union Pacific.

Next Speaker: We haven't put together a committee per se on that.

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: Um, I, think we need to take some alternative approaches towards Fort Hunter 

Liggett that staff are flushing out that they need council support for, and trying to get UP in the 

room on a regular basis is a little bit problematic, but further down the road, yes, I think so.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Any other questions? Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing 

now. Um, one other comment I wanted to make to staff, so, uh, on the, the letter, the draft letter 

that's here, it has an incorrect date.

Next Speaker: Yes.
Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: I've  .

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Uh, it should be 2014.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: Okay, uh, now –

Next Speaker: Uh, uh, ** **, can I ask a question?

Next Speaker: Yeah, all these  .

Next Speaker: Oh, no, I said, I was –

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: – listening to comments, ** **.

Next Speaker: Yes, we, and, um, do you want to take the recorder and, once the recorder is there, 

if you could spell your –

Next Speaker: Actually, we should just have him them, just say your name.

Next Speaker: Yeah, let 'em guess how they spell that one.

Next Speaker:  .

Next Speaker: Uh, the name is Francis Giueici, G-I-U-E-I-C-I. I am the President of Valley 

** ** Company here in King City, and my question is, uh, we have a building that would be 

affected by this project, and not that it's not gonna hold up the project, but I'm just wondering, no 

one's ever been in touch with us to talk to us about any of this. So, my question, basically is, uh, 

uh, at what point will we be approached by TAMC or someone else to talk about our structure?

Next Speaker: Okay. Who wants to answer that question?

Next Speaker: I'll start with that one. Um, we actually have noticed the Hearns on numerous 

projects in the First Street corridor. They do own a building, if I recall correctly, and John or 

Doreen can correct me on the ownership. It's a lease hold of the, of the building. We actually 
have plotted out, um, the, basically the layout plan, and we can work around that building for the 

time being, for quite some time.

Next Speaker: This is the –

Next Speaker: Um, but ultimately, we would, I would imagine that a better, higher use would 

come along for that, but that's sometime in the future.

Next Speaker: Okay, then let me ask, let me ask the follow up   line, which is –

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: – how can he stay in the loop so he knows how, as, uh –

Next Speaker: If you will give us your direct contact, we will use it as opposed to what we find 

in the public records.

Next Speaker: Well, you do have our contact.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: I already –

Next Speaker: Uh, but, we have your public record contact.

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: And I'm not gonna make you say it out loud, but we would like your email and, 

you know, stuff that we know that would go directly to you.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: That would be the best way.

Next Speaker: Do we have the ** **.

Next Speaker: Yeah, you can just put that on, put it on there, and we will be sure that –

Next Speaker: You have it on, you have it on.

Next Speaker: – one of those. You ha-, turn it over and use it even.

Next Speaker:  .

Next Speaker: Um, okay, well you, you've got it already, but I'll do –
Next Speaker: If you can, if, if –

Next Speaker: – it again.

Next Speaker: Yes, please.

Next Speaker: If, if you could just ** ** Francis, and give it to Michael, and then –

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: – we'll make sure that you, uh, we'll contact you directly.

Next Speaker: So, any, um, –

Next Speaker: Thank you.

Next Speaker: – do you have a question  ? Okay, so, I, so the public hearing is now closed. 

Um, now, if you have a, a question –

Next Speaker: No, um, Michael, uh, you say you've noticed –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – uh, uh, do you mean you've sent them some letters?

Next Speaker: Yes. That's what's required under the law.

Next Speaker: Okay, well, I know that's what's required, but when we know that there is a 

building that would be affected, I think just make a phone call. ** **. I'd, I'd like to include the 

people, um, obviously,   is greatly affected by –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – the ** **, uh, the, um, and I don't know that  , maybe those two –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – and, and ** ** street, and, and –

Next Speaker: There's actually other property owners involved, including some kind of weird, 

crazy parcels and lease holds. Um, we do notice them. That threshold of, gee, how much extra 

effort do we put into. Uh, the law somewhat presumes that people are gonna be acting in their 

own self-interest –

Next Speaker: Yes.
Next Speaker: – and so, if they get notice, presumably they would act upon that notice, um –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – and it becomes tough, because when we're noticing downtown addition, there's 

hundreds of properties being noticed. We don't have the capacity to make a phone call to 

everyone who's affected, and so, it's difficult. I understand your concern, but we also have 

limited resources to deal with it.

Next Speaker: And that's one of the reasons why I'm suggesting Thursday, um, council 

meetings –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm. Fair enough.

Next Speaker: – because I think that we are not doing a good job of letting people know, uh, 

what's happening, and having that publicity. Like, was there publicity for this? Like, there were 

letters that went out –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – but was there anything in the newspaper? Was there anything –

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: –  .

Next Speaker: ** ** Republican.

Next Speaker: Yeah, it was noticed in –

Next Speaker: Yeah, it was.

Next Speaker: – in the newspaper.

Next Speaker: Yes, it was noticed.

Next Speaker: It has to be published legally, so –

Next Speaker: It was in, in a legal notice.

Next Speaker: –  .

Next Speaker: But how many people read a legal notice.

Next Speaker: Yeah, I was gonna say. America. It's a tough country.
Next Speaker: That's ** **.

Next Speaker: Uh, Councilman Jernigan, I, I also want to mention that, I, I believe, uh,   

Hearns came to a meeting ** ** and you had asked me to approach Mr. Hearn, and I did that 

evening. I gave him my card and told him, like, please call me or I would call him and we would 

have, and I hadn't heard from him, and so, the, the, uh, offer was made to me, and we had not 

heard from him. I would have set, I was gonna set something up with, uh, the City Manager, but 

I had not heard back. So, I mean, you could, you know, a-, attempts were made. So, at that 

meeting, that evening, that evening went   –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – I, um, at a council meeting.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: He was here on my ** **.

Next Speaker: Yeah, I was gonna say.

Next Speaker: Yeah, yeah –

Next Speaker: It was a joint meeting. I remember.

Next Speaker: Okay,   the meeting also. Yes.

Next Speaker: Okay, so, process wise, what, if any, action does the Planning Commission need 

to take.

Next Speaker: The purpose for this was to get comments from this Planning Commission to see 

if you had any comments or questions –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – and I think that this was basically to get your comments or questions –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – and then to go ahead and have the council authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.

Next Speaker: Okay, so there's no formal action that they –

Next Speaker: No.

Next Speaker: – need to take?
Next Speaker: No.

Next Speaker: Okay, so, I'll bring it, I'll bring it to council, and, and I, I believe we need to take 

formal action of approving the letter?

Next Speaker: Yeah, authorizing you to sign the letter and what staff will do is finalize our 

comments, and then after finalizing ** ** for January 7

th, authorize the mayor to   –

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: – the letter that we sent.

Next Speaker: Um, an-, any last questions then or comments? Okay, then I'll entertain a motion 

to, um, authorize myself sign-, signing the letter.

Next Speaker: I'll make that motion.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Okay. All those in favor?

Next Speaker: Aye.

Next Speaker: Aye.

Next Speaker: Aye.

Next Speaker: Uh, motion carries. And now I will let s-, I will let the, the Planning Commission 

chairperson adjourn.

Next Speaker: Yes. Thank you.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: You can say the magic ** ** words.

Next Speaker: Okay, 7:32.

Next Speaker: Got it.

Next Speaker: Okay. Thank you, and I'll just pause for a second for those of you who want to 

leave, uh, and I will let you leave, and we will currently be  , 30 seconds.
D-1-1

DRAFT

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

MINUTES OF JANUARY 7, 2015

________________________________________________________________________

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

Debbie Arnold, Fifth District, County of San Luis Obispo (newly elected President) 

Jan Howell Marx, City of San Luis Obispo (newly elected Vice President)

Shelly Higginbotham, City of Pismo Beach (Past President) (left @12:02 p.m.)

Lynn Compton, Fourth District, County of San Luis Obispo

Bruce Gibson, Second District, County San Luis Obispo (left @12:02 p.m.)

Jim Guthrie, City of Arroyo Grande 

Adam Hill, Third District, County of San Luis Obispo (left @12:29 p.m.)

Jamie Irons, City of Morro Bay

Frank Mecham, First District, County of San Luis Obispo 

Tom O’Malley, City of Atascadero

John Shoals, City of Grover Beach

Fred Strong, City of Paso Robles

Aileen Loe, Caltrans District 5 (Alternate) 

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None 

SLOCOG STAFF PRESENT: Ronald De Carli, Steve Devencenzi, Peter Rodgers, Richard Murphy,

Stephanie Hicks, James Worthley, Eliane Wilson, Tim Gillham, Jessica Berry, Geoffrey Chiapella, 

Jeffery Brubaker, Mallory Jenkins, Sara Sanders, Peter Williamson, Barbara Troyan, Aida Nicklin, and 

Timothy McNulty (Legal Counsel).

__________________________________________________________________________________

The following action minutes are listed as they were acted upon by the San Luis Obispo Council of 

Governments and as listed on the agenda for the meeting held January 7, 2015, in the City of Atascadero, 

together with staff reports and related documents attached thereto and incorporated therein by reference. 

To see a video of the meeting proceedings, go to this link (at SLO-SPAN website) for the Linked Agenda:

http://www.slo-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=SLOCOG-SLORTA&date=2015-01-07 either click 

the play button on the video window to view from the beginning of the meeting or click on a particular agenda 

item to go directly to that part of the meeting).

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SLOCOG) AND

SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA)

JOINT MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Shelly Higginbotham called the Joint 

SLOCOG and RTA meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. President 

Higginbotham thanked the City of Atascadero for hosting the SLOCOG/RTA Board meeting today in 

their magnificent city hall building. 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-2

2. SLOCOG AND SLORTA BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:

a. Welcome New Board Members: President Higginbotham welcomed the new SLOCOG and 

RTA Board members, namely: San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Supervisor Lynn Compton (District 4), 

Council Member Jim Guthrie (City of Arroyo Grande), and Mayor John Shoals (City of Grover Beach). 

b. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: President Higginbotham called for nominations for President and 

Vice President. 

President:

Action: Board Member Frank Mecham moved to nominate current Vice President Debbie Arnold for 

President. Board Member Tom O’Malley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously on a voice 

vote.

Vice President:

Board Member Bruce Gibson moved and Board Member John Shoals seconded, nominating Board 

Member Jamie Irons for Vice President. The motion failed on a 5/7-split roll call vote.

Action: Board Member Fred Strong moved to nominate Board Member Jan Howell Marx for Vice 

President. Board Member Tom O’Malley seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call 

vote.

 

C. PRESENTATION: Plaque of Appreciation to Outgoing President Shelly Higginbotham: 

President Debbie Arnold read the Plaque of Appreciation, noting that the SLOCOG/RTA Board 

appreciates Past President Higginbotham’s contribution and service as SLOCOG/RTA Board President 

in 2014, and Vice President in 2013. She then presented the Plaque of Appreciation to Past President 

Shelly Higginbotham. Past President Higginbotham thanked the Board for the honor. A group photo 

op for the Board followed.

d. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT: Mr. Ronald De Carli brought to attention that the 

newly elected officers and the past president will now serve as the new members of the Executive 

Committee: President Debbie Arnold, Vice President Jan Howell Marx, and Past President Shelly 

Higginbotham. 

3. ADJOURN TO SAN LUIS OBISPO REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RTA) BOARD 

MEETING: Past President Higginbotham adjourned the joint meeting to the RTA Board meeting at 

8:50 a.m. 

4. ADJOURN THE RTA BOARD MEETING & RECONVENE THE SLOCOG BOARD MEETING:

Past President Higginbotham adjourned the RTA meeting and reconvened the SLOCOG Board 

meeting at 9:42 a.m.

SLOCOG Board Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Past President Shelly Higginbotham called the 

SLOCOG Board meeting to order at 9:42 a.m. Roll Call was taken.

II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Eric Greening, Atascadero, made the following comments:

 The proposal to hold SLOCOG Board meetings off-site (as mentioned at the last Executive 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-3

Committee meeting under the Change in Awards Program Strategy item) is a horrible idea as 

it would be confusing for the public/transit users. It is critical to make certain that in any future

SLOCOG Board agenda where an action item about holding Board meetings off-site is 

included, the public must be alerted about the upcoming meeting to address such item.

 The San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Planning Commission has continued the agenda item on 

the proposed Oster/Las Pilitas (Hwy 58) Rock Quarry project. It will be presented at their next 

meeting on January 8, 2015. (Update: This item was again continued to their next meeting on 

February 5, 2015). The possible impacts of this project, including mitigation and 

transportation issues, need to be addressed.

 

 The Phillips 66 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Rail Spur Project is 

scheduled for public hearing at the SLO County Planning Commission meeting on February 

5

th. The major focus of SLOCOG comments on this project is on capacity. It is a concern that 

this would be intensified by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)’s mandate 

requiring oil trains to move slowly. He hopes the SLOCOG letter would not be the last letter

expressing concern about this project.

III. BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:

A-1 Interagency Assignments: Mr. De Carli briefly reviewed the interagency assignments, noting

the purpose of CALCOG, NARC, LOSSAN, & CRCC, and pointing out SLOCOG’s representatives in 

2014. 

The Board briefly discussed the interagency assignments and reappointed SLOCOG’s interagency 

representatives and alternates as outlined below:

1. California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG) Representation: Following a 

motion by Board Member Tom O’Malley and second by Board Member Frank Mecham to nominate 

President Debbie Arnold and Vice President Jan Howell Marx as delegate and alternate respectively, 

Board Member Fred Strong noted he has no objection to the motion; however, SLOCOG would lose 

its seat on the CALCOG Executive Committee as he currently is an officer of that committee. Board 

Member Bruce Gibson stressed the need for continuity, recommending keeping the delegate and 

alternate as they are. Board Member O’Malley concurred and withdrew his motion.

Action: Board Member Tom O’Malley moved to reappoint Board Member Strong as delegate to 

CALCOG for 2015 and President Arnold as the alternate. Board Member Bruce Gibson seconded, 

and the motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.

Delegate: Board Member Fred Strong (reappointed)

Alternate: President Debbie Arnold (reappointed)

2. National Association of Regional Councils (NARC): Vice President Marx inquired if there is a 

need to appoint an alternate. Past President Higginbotham noted that if the need arises or if it is 

required, then the Board will come back and appoint an alternate.

Action: Vice President Jan Howell Marx moved to reappoint Board Member Fred Strong as 

SLOCOG representative to NARC. Board Member John Shoals seconded, and the motion passed 

unanimously on a voice vote.

Delegate: Board Member Fred Strong (reappointed)

3. Rail Committees: Board Member Gibson moved a motion to reappoint Board Member Fred 

Strong as the delegate to LOSSAN. Board Member Shoals seconded. Board Member Gibson

moved to amend the motion (see full Board action next page) to keep the delegates and alternates for 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-4

both LOSSAN and CRCC the same as last years.

Action: Board Member Bruce Gibson moved to keep the same delegates and alternates (as 

appointed in 2014) for both LOSSAN and CRCC. Board Member Frank Mecham seconded, and the 

motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

a. Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency 

Representation: 

Delegate: Fred Strong (reappointed)

 Alternate: Jan Howell Marx (reappointed)

b. Coast Rail Coordinating Council (CRCC) Representation:

Delegate: Jan Howell Marx (reappointed)

Alternate: Fred Strong (reappointed)

IV. PUBLIC HEARING:

B-1 Coast Rail Corridor Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report (EIS 

& EIR): Peter Rodgers briefly gave a background of the project, noting SLOCOG does not control all the 

factors that are on this document, but has control of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 

Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). Mr. Rodgers introduced Mr. John Cook, Project 

Manager, Circlepoint (the Consultant). He also recognized the presence of Mr. Royce Gotcher, Branch 

Chief, Caltrans Division of Rail.

Mr. John Cook, Circlepoint (Consultant), discussed the Coast Corridor Project EIS/EIR using a 

PowerPoint presentation, noting the purpose of the project, proposed improvements and sources, 

geographic context, timeline and next steps. The final EIS/EIR will include responses to comments. He 

highlighted the outreach efforts that were made in the last two and half years on this project – 6,000 

postcards were sent to property owners, legal notices were published in newspapers, and more than 100 

officials received CD copies of the document. He brought to attention that the deadline for comments is 

today (January 7, 2015).

The Board went into an extensive discussion on this project, inquiring about the proposed improvements, 

and touching on physical improvements installation, “no build” alternative, sidings, alignments, 

realignments and their locations. During the discussion, Board Member Mecham asked how the public 

would know if their comments have been received and answered. Mr. Cook responded that the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have different 

requirements for that process, either specifically inform in writing or verbally, to provide them a copy or 

access to a copy of the document. Both SLOCOG and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County 

(TAMC) have provided a copy of the full document online at their respective websites. Mr. Cook pointed 

out that physical improvements of segments will be studied separately. On the ‘No Build’ alternative, any 

specific improvements that are looked at are not going to be built, but it does not mean that options to do 

those improvements are not being considered. He said there are a lot of assumptions at this point. 

Board Member O’Malley said he understands there is a need for all options to be considered. 

SLOCOG’s purpose is to see what options are available and to receive public comments/input. He 

wanted to confirm that this Board still have authority to receive and still can consider public comments 

relative to this document, including an action on the proposed realignments. Mr. Rodgers indicated 

additional money may be needed, as changing the draft document may increase costs. The direction 

from Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) [FRA is the lead agency pursuant to NEPA, and SLOCOG is 

the lead agency pursuant to CEQA] is to include everything under the sun. 

Past President Higginbotham asked if it is possible to extend the public comment period to get an 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-5

answer. Mr. De Carli pointed out that for the purpose of the general public and the SLOCOG Board, the 

major issue of public concern are the proposed realignments. All the improvements and properties 

impacted by those improvements are defined in the document. He noted that as Mr. Cook indicated, EIR 

is a decision-making report that examines all possible improvements. There will be a separate process to 

determine which improvements will be constructed. SLOCOG has the Regional Transportation Plan

(RTP), a fiscally constrained planning document for the San Luis Obispo (SLO) region. Mr. De Carli

indicated that SLOCOG has strong policies in looking at projects. The RTP, however, does not include

realignment project, as they are not fiscally possible in this region nor are they cost effective. SLOCOG 

has not included any realignment project in the RTP. Hence, no realignment project would move forward 

in this region. Board Member Gibson added that the confidence would be the fact that those proposed 

realignments are not in the RTP. The impacts would be studied but the particular projects will be 

considered by this Board.

Board Member Strong stated he has been working with the FRA, clarifying that this is an environmental 

document that looks at improvements, if they are possible or not. He briefly explained the environmental 

process and reminded everyone that this document is looking at possibilities, and interagency cooperation 

is needed. 

Board Member O’Malley said he understands that realignments are not included in the RTP but he wants 

to make certain that jurisdictions in this county have the ability to exercise local control.

Mr. Rodgers brought to attention that after conferring with Mr. Cook, he believes it would probably be not 

much of a cost to eliminate the realignment project from the document. Mr. Cook added that the final 

EIS/EIR document will include changes to the draft document. SLOCOG staff and Circlepoint staff will 

take a look at possible implications if some elements are removed from the document (i.e., recirculation of 

the document or some kind of addendum, or additional volume, so everyone understands what those are 

and can comment on the final document). He noted that comments heard today and in writing up to today

are fairly heard and will be referenced in the final EIS/EIR. Vice President Marx noted that there may be 

a need for a supplemental EIS (changed circumstances; e.g., more trains, etc.). A number of mechanical 

changes will need to happen that are not that expensive. She said she supports going forward with the 

present EIS/EIR, as getting this train from SLO all the way to Salinas is a very important goal. She 

stressed the need to encourage people to support increasing passenger rail service, and do what the 

Coast Rail Corridor Council (CRCC) wants to do.

Board Member Shoals wants to make sure that the Board understands this is a program document, no 

specific projects. When those projects are presented, each will have their own EIR. He suggested 

moving on to public comments.

Public Comments:

Ms. LeAnn Brooks, Atascadero/Santa Margarita, said that fully accepting that the realignment project are 

not going to happen makes her very nervous as her property is impacted. She pointed out where her 

house is located on Salinas Road where the yellow line indicates the realignment. She said she is a 

senior citizen and not planning to move. She wants the realignment removed from the document, adding 

that Salinas Road is a dead-end road. She thanked the Board for their consideration of her comments.

Mr. Eric Greening, Atascadero, reminded the Board that SLOCOG as a lead agency is not obligated to 

certify this EIR. Relative to realignment to save travel time, the cost of acquisition of property can easily 

be under estimated like High Speed rail. There are other alternatives for getting faster service, and those 

include restoring sidings that once existed (in addition to lengthening those that now exist), tilt train 

technology etc. On safety, Mr. Greening stressed looking at places south side of Cuesta Grade where 

geology is very unstable. Geological factors must be considered.

Mr. Kristopher Lyon, Atascadero, said he, his wife and child live on Salinas Road. They are concerned 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-6

that if the funds become available, this realignment project could happen. He noted that if those railroad

tracks are realigned, all of their water wells are going away as they would be right on the railroad tracks. 

Major water wells will be lost if the project is built and there will be a financial hit on property values. He 

urged the Board to eliminate from the document the realignments and the increase to Right-of-Way 

(ROW).

Mr. John Edgecombe, Atascadero, referring to Table 2.4 in the EIS/EIR, he strongly opposed the 

realignment project. He noted that this operational improvement of the railroad is totally insignificant; it 

would only cause hardship as property values in that area will decrease.

Ms. Anne Edgecombe, Atascadero, vehemently opposed the realignment project, pointing out that their 

property is in the red zone. She brought to attention that she and her family did not receive the postcard 

until November 20th, which is less than 55 days prior to this hearing. Ms. Edgecombe implored to the 

Board not to put a cloud on those properties that would be affected by the realignment (depreciating 

property values). She said, “We are putting our lives on hold waiting for when the portion of our properties 

are taken away for ROW. We will lose 100 ft off of our property in the back, our water well, and a spot on 

the front. The realignment project will reduce the value of homes.”

Ms. Bettina Salter, Atascadero & Santa Margarita, stated she lives 500 feet from the railroad. She 

pointed out that it is silly to keep something in this document that is like a wish list of rail. She noted she 

too did not receive a postcard. Ms. Salter urged the Board and addressed Board Member O’Malley

(Mayor of the City of Atascadero) to remove the realignment project, because keeping them in the 

document means there is always a possibility of it being constructed in the future.

Mr. Gary Kirkland, Atascadero, questioned who owns the railroad tracks, and commented about 

imminent domain and government interfering in railroad operations. He said, “Stop this tyranny; leave the 

railroad alone.”

Mr. Edward Veek, Atascadero, stressed the need to closely examine the purpose of this plan (which is to 

get grants). He emphasized the need to change the rules so that the agency does not control everything. 

As far as safety, improvements are fine, but he urged the Board not to vote on this plan as it is not 

feasible.

Ms. Myrna Bradley, Atascadero, indicated she found out about this issue a few days ago, noting that it 

affects her family a lot. She said people cannot trust that the government would take them into 

consideration when big contracts are looked at. Ms. Bradley thanked SLOCOG Board members for their 

service, urging them to get rid of the realignment project from the document because it affects people. 

She noted that the biggest thing for her is the real estate value of their property, adding she has five (5)

children (two are going to college). She is worried that a hit on real estate property values will create 

hardship on her family as it will cost even more money to acquire properties. 

Ms. Paulette Claire, Atascadero, thanked everyone who have been working together to get those 

affected by this issue to this point. She mentioned the issue of communication because she too did not 

receive the postcard; she only learned about this realignment issue from neighbors who got together and 

shared the information. She brought to attention that the loss of homes and property values were not 

included in the PowerPoint presentation under the list of adverse effects. Ms. Claire said that luckily, her 

water supply source is down the river; however, this realignment will take away her front porch, her rental 

property, the pasture, driveway, gates, a part of the barn and the value of her property. She asked the 

Board to consider those who live at areas affected by this project.

Past President Higginbotham closed the public comment portion of this item. 

President Arnold stated that the Board agrees there is no funding for this project, stressing that she 

would like to see the realignment or the three (3) locations affected by the realignment removed from the 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-7

document. She said she supports improvements within the existing railroad right of way (ROW), but the 

realignment or the 3 locations altogether must be removed from this document.

Board Member Gibson clarified to those who spoke today about the realignment project that the 

SLOCOG Board has no intention to move forward with such project. The Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP) does not even mention that a realignment project is a possibility. He said, those who have 

concerns about this issue should have the confidence this project is not going to happen. Board Member 

Gibson asked the Board to direct the consultant to respond to comments received and direct staff to 

remove the realignment project from the document.

Board Member Strong noted that if the action on this item is not completely consistent with state and

federal requirements, he would suggest adding a language that says the Board has no intention of 

including improvements outside of the existing ROW. He pledged to talk to Union Pacific officials in 

Sacramento one week from today on this issue. Mr. Rodgers indicated that staff has received clear 

direction to remove this realignment from the EIS/EIR, and therefore will take this up ladder.

Past President Higginbotham noted that the concerns the Board kept hearing is that this project is still in 

the EIS/EIR; there are unintended consequences because it is still in fine print.

President Arnold stressed the need for the Board to take action now on this item so all of the Board’s 

good intention is clear.

Action: President Debbie Arnold moved and Board Member Tom O’Malley seconded to support to 

either remove the realignments from three (3) locations (Wilsona, Templeton, & Santa Margarita) or

remove all locations. The motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.

 

Past President Higginbotham recessed the meeting at 11:13 a.m. and reconvened at 11:27 a.m.

B-2 Draft 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Mr. Steve Devencenzi reviewed the Draft 2014 

RTP with a PowerPoint presentation, noting what is new since this draft Plan was presented at the last 

meeting in December. He highlighted the 2014 RTP Appendices and the Challenges of Improving & 

Maintaining Our System.

During the discussion that ensued, the following comments/questions/responses were given:

 Board Member Frank Mecham: I appreciate all the work done on this document; however, the 

biggest problem on US 101 is the Shell Beach area, which is not addressed here in this draft 

RTP. 

Mr. Devencenzi noted that a six-lane project on that area is not fundable; hence, other 

techniques/options/improvements are being considered. In today’s agenda, SLOCOG has 

something to move forward with to begin constructing those improvements. SLOCOG staff will 

work with member jurisdictions and Caltrans on this issue. 

 Board Member Adam Hill: Are there any improvements planned on Highway 227 (i.e., 

auxiliary lanes or expansion of the entrance to the school [in Arroyo Grande] to relieve 

congestion? As the city’s growth is occurring on the south side, more people are using that 

back road and it is getting very difficult for a lot of folks.

 Board Member Fred Strong: I compliment this Board and the entire region for we have done 

very well with our RTP. Question on ES-6, what does this constitutes, this multimodal 642 

miles?

Mr. Devencenzi noted that the Highway 227 Widening project is included in the RTP; staff will 

verify the total miles of city streets. (Note: Number was verified as accurate).
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-8

Public Comments: 

Mr. Greening thanked the Board for supporting staff in their amazing work on this, saying that the way 

comments can be made relative to the RTP is now a nifty tool. He brought to attention he would be 

leaving for another meeting soon; he then gave the following comments:

 Is there a way the public can know that the comments are being cumulatively recorded, and when 

do people get them back? Mr. Devencenzi indicated staff will be gathering and compiling all 

comments received.

 

 On Agenda Item C-2, Transit Needs Assessment Update – It needs to be stated that the 

SLOCOG Board and staff will do everything possible to provide transit service. As long as fixed 

route services are threatened by the cost of running Americans with Disability Act (ADA) services, 

a whole category of potential deficiency is open. 

 On Agenda Item C-3, International Perspectives on Paratransit Approaches – It is very exciting 

that SLOCOG staff gathered these wider perspectives. The ADA is a very important civil rights

legislation.

Mr. Gary Kirkland, Atascadero, remarked that he sees SLOCOG and other government agencies go 

beyond their purview; government should not decide where people live. The citizens are the ones 

responsible in making decisions about their lives, not this Board or the government. 

Action: The Board received Item B-2 as presented, including all testimony/comments on this item.

(Past President Higginbotham and Board Member Gibson left the meeting at 12:02 p.m.)

President Debbie Arnold took over in chairing the meeting at 12:02 p.m.

V. TRANSPORTATION ITEMS

C-1 San Luis Obispo (SLO) Regional Rideshare Program Update: Ms. Stephanie Hicks, SLOCOG 

Public Information Officer/Regional Rideshare Program Manager, gave a summary of the Regional 

Rideshare Month. She then turned the discussion over to Rideshare staff: 

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Peter Williamson, Employer Outreach Coordinator, discussed the 

Back ‘N’ Forth Club, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program (114% growth in the 

program; employer tool kit; multiple levels of participation for employers, etc.).

Ms. Mallory Jenkins, Communications Coordinator, presented a PowerPoint on the 511 Traveler 

Information Program, noting the 511 System and explaining the Rideshare 511 multi-modal trip planner. 

Ms. Sara Sanders, Program Coordinator, updated the Board using a PowerPoint presentation on the 

Rideshare activities relative to Safe Routes to School (SRTS) and Mobility Movement. She noted the 

completion of the SRTS Infrastructure Inventory and the start of the “Know Where To Go” Program to 

educate transit riders.

Ms. Hicks brought to attention that this item is for the Board to receive the information presented today.

Action: This item is for information only. The SLOCOG Board received the information as presented.

C-2 Transit Needs Assessment Update: Ms. Eliane Wilson summarized the Transit Needs 

Assessment Update using a PowerPoint presentation. She highlighted the performance trends and 

main deficiencies.

Action: Board Member Fred Strong moved and Board Member Frank Mecham seconded to 
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-9

approve the Staff recommendation to bring this item to Advisory committees and authorize submission 

to Caltrans. The motion carried on a voice vote, with Board Member Bruce Gibson and Past President 

Shelly Higginbotham absent.

Board Member O’Malley wondered if one of Atascadero’s Planning Commissioners (who has lots of 

experience about ADA) has reviewed this document. Ms. Wilson referred the matter to Regional 

Transit Authority (RTA) Executive Director Geoff Straw. Mr. Straw indicated he would bring this as 

information at the next Regional Transit Advisory Committee (RTAC) meeting on January 15th.

C-3 International Perspectives on Paratransit Approaches: Ms. Wilson discussed the item with a 

PowerPoint presentation, noting that this has been presented to SLOCOG Executive Committee and at 

the International Paratransit Conference sponsored by the Transit Research Board. She highlighted the 

Comparison of Paratransit Performance, Intensities among Metropolitan Areas, and Contrasting 

Paratransit Settings.

Board Member Mecham complimented Ms. Wilson for an excellent job on this item. Ms. Wilson

responded, Mercí (which means thank you).

Action: Upon motion by Board Member Tom O’Malley and second by Vice President Jan Howell 

Marx, the Board received Item C-3 as presented. The motion passed on a voice vote (Board Member 

Gibson and Past President Higginbotham absent). 

(Board Member Adam Hill left the meeting at 12:29 p.m.)

VI. CONSENT AGENDA: President Arnold brought to attention that Item D-1 will be pulled for a 

separate Board action and Item D-3 for a short presentation on what the Project Initiation Documents 

(PIDs) entail. She then called for a motion to approve Item D-1, SLOCOG Minutes of December 3, 

2014.

Action on Item D-1, SLOCOG Minutes – December 3, 2014: Vice President Jan Howell Marx 

moved and Board Member Frank Mecham seconded, to approve the SLOCOG Board meeting 

minutes of December 3, 2014 as presented. The motion passed on a voice vote (Board Members 

Compton and Guthrie abstained; Board Members Gibson, Hill, and Past President Higginbotham 

absent).

Discussion on Consent Agenda Item D-3:

D-3 Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) on US 101 in Five Cities Area: Ms. Jessica Berry briefly 

reviewed the staff report with a PowerPoint presentation.

Board Member Mecham thanked Ms. Berry for her outstanding and concise presentation.

Action on Item D-3: Board Member Lynn Compton moved to approve the staff recommendation as 

outlined below. Board Member John Shoals seconded, and the motion carried on a voice vote with 

Board Members Gibson, Hill and Past President Higginbotham absent.

Staff Recommendation:

1. Concur/Support Caltrans to initiate PID for Avila Beach Drive interchange and Spyglass climbing 

lane extension to be completed in the time frame for the 2016 STIP (Northern PID).

2. Concur/Support Caltrans to initiate PID for ramp consolidation and active managed shoulder with 

technical support provided by SLOCOG retained consultant – with a goal of completion for 2016 

STIP, subject to reevaluation of scope and timeframe (Southern PID).
SLOCOG MINUTES January 7, 2015

D-1-10

3. Authorize Executive Director to extend contract with Wallace Group (and Kittelson Associates, 

Inc.) to do additional coordination and technical services.

Consent Agenda Items:

D-1 Minutes of Meetings:

a. SLOCOG Minutes – December 3, 2014 (Approve);

b. Executive Committee Minutes – December 10, 2014 (Information).

c. Technical Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) Minutes, and Citizens Transportation 

Advisory Committee (CTAC) Minutes – December 17, 2014 (Information).

D-2 FY 2014/15 SLOCOG Executive Director Employment Contract Amendment (Approve 

Amendment to the Executive Director Employment Contract, providing a 3% Merit Increase 

effective January 1, 2015).

D-3 Project Initiation Documents (PIDs) on US 101 in Five Cities Area (Approve the Staff 

Recommendation as outlined below).

Staff Recommendation:

1. Concur/Support Caltrans to initiate PID for Avila Beach Drive interchange and Spyglass 

climbing lane extension to be completed in the time frame for the 2016 STIP (Northern PID).

2. Concur/Support Caltrans to initiate PID for ramp consolidation and active managed shoulder 

with technical support provided by SLOCOG retained consultant – with a goal of completion 

for 2016 STIP, subject to reevaluation of scope and timeframe (Southern PID).

3. Authorize Executive Director to extend contract with Wallace Group (and Kittelson Associates, 

Inc.) to do additional coordination and technical services.

D-4 Rideshare 511 Marketing Partnership with KSBY-TV (Approve Staff’s recommended Marketing 

Partnership Agreement with KSBY-TV in the amount of $48,000).

D-5 Correspondence, Press Releases and News Articles (Review and File).

Action on Consent Agenda items with the exception of Items D-1 and D-3: Board Member Tom 

O’Malley moved and Board Member Fred Strong seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda Items D2, D-4 to D-5 as presented. The motion carried on a roll call vote, with Board Members Gibson, Hill and 

Past President Higginbotham absent.

VII. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Vice President Marx stressed the importance of addressing 

the issue brought up by Mr. Greening regarding holding SLOCOG/RTA Board meetings offsite. Mr. De 

Carli indicated staff would bring this up to the Executive Committee for direction and then the Board for 

approval.

President Arnold thanked Mayor Tom O’Malley for hosting SLOCOG at this meeting.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT: President Higginbotham adjourned the meeting at 12:58 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Aida Nicklin

Executive Secretary

H:\2014-15 OWP\0400 Agency Admin 14-15\SLOCOG Board Agendas\8 - February 2015\D-1 Draft SLOCOG Minutes - January 7, 2015.doc
E-2: Placeholder for Atascadero Meeting Summary
Coast Corridor EIS/EIR Hearing Meeting Summary – Soledad , CA

Dec. 3, 2014

Conducted by Christina Watson, TAMC Principal Transportation Planner

Soledad City Council 12/3/14 – Meeting Minutes

a. Councilmember Christopher Bourke: a question to the very impressively thick report you 

have there, my question is, what is specifically planned for the City of Soledad, I mean 

there’s a station in the city, we have side tracks next to it, is there any work planned on the 

tracks in the City of Soledad?

i. Ms. Watson: No, the plans have only to do with the station itself in the City of 

Soledad limits - city limits.

ii. Mr. Bourke: So there is no track work?

iii. Ms. Watson: That is my understanding, but I will verify that, and the answer will be 

provided in the final environmental document.

iv. Mr. Bourke: Thank you.

b. Mayor Fred Ledesma: So we’ll be able to purchase a ticket here instead of going to Salinas?

i. Ms. Watson: The train service? So, once the Coast Daylight is in operation, you’ll be 

able to board here in Soledad and take the train all the way up to San Francisco or 

all the way down to either Los Angeles or San Diego.

ii. Mayor Ledesma: So like with the wine corridor, if people want to, they can come 

down on the train to visit the wine corridor here or to go to the National Park?

iii. Ms. Watson: Yes.

iv. City Clerk Adela Gonzalez: Just want to note that the City must fund the station 

construction. When redevelopment agencies were still around, we had funding

designated for station improvements; Mr. Brent Slama has more information on 

that. Now that the redevelopment agencies are no longer around, we do not have 

those funds for station improvements.

v. Mayor Ledesma: Do we have a cost estimate for that? Can we use the Measure I 

funding for that?

vi. Ms. Gonzalez: I don’t think we have a cost estimate yet and it wasn’t in the 

approved project list for Measure I.

c. Val Gomes1: I have a two-fold question. I appreciate you laying out the environmental 

impacts. I’m just wondering, I mean I can appreciate it, it may not be as crucial at the 

moment, but, in case a monetary value has been assessed to the environmental impact at 

this point, or is there some plan to do such a monetary cost and how that might be 

mitigated, if there is a cost, if that might be expected to be borne by businesses or 

taxpayers? A second question that also could be responded to sometime in the future, if not 

now, would be, in terms of once the project does get to be operational, what’s the cost 

benefit analysis, in terms of how much would you put in and how much would it benefit the 

actual taxpayer? If those answers cannot be provided tonight, it can wait. Thank you.

i. Ms. Watson: OK

d. Councilmember Christopher Bourke: One more question, Ms. Watson, if I may, 

Councilmember Bourke, at the microphone, here. You said that your organization is going to 

do the EIR, and then eventually you are going to propose it to the train operator, which is 

 

1

TAMC staff did not get contact info for Mr. Gomes, but Ms. Watson did give him her card and requested he 

follow up with an email.
Union Pacific, which parts of the major plan they are going to implement, so your 

organization is not making the ultimate, put it that way, Southern Pacific – Union Pacific is 

going to say what they are going to do, what they’re actually going to do, which might not 

be the entire plan, correct?

i. Ms. Watson: OK, so let me just clarify that. TAMC is not the lead agency on this 

project, we’re a responsible agency. City of – I’m sorry, Caltrans is the lead agency 

for the project, but for the environmental document, SLOCOG is the lead agency on 

the state side of things and the Federal Railroad Administration is the lead agency 

on the federal side of things – there’s a lot of entities involved in this. In terms of 

implementing the project, Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation is the 

lead agency to implement the project and to conduct the negotiations with Union 

Pacific to determine which of the projects will be implemented. It’s a long process of 

negotiating between the entities that will determine exactly which projects will get 

implemented out of this plan.

ii. Mr. Bourke: So it’s up to Union Pacific, basically?

iii. Ms. Watson: I would say that it’s up to the negotiations between Caltrans and Union 

Pacific.

iv. Mr. Bourke: Gotcha, OK. When might those be – any idea of timeframe, so that we 

may know, what might actually be done?

v. Ms. Watson: I don’t think we have a timeframe for that.

vi. Mr. Bourke: OK, thank you.

e. Councilmember Patricia Stephens: This project has been on the burner for 18 years that I 

know of – how many?

i. Royce Gotcher, Caltrans: I think it’s more like 20 years. It’s been a long time.

ii. Ms. Stephens: 18-20 years. I think that Mayor Pro Tem has been attending the 

meetings. I’ve attended, over the years, many, many meetings. 

iii. Ms. Gonzalez: Former Mayor Gerbrandt, Gary Gerbrandt, was attending these 

meetings as well.

iv. Ms. Stephens: Yes, he’s the one that started Soledad’s involvement, long before our 

National Park came. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

f. Mayor Pro Tem Alejandro Chavez: This project has been going on for years. I just wanted to 

state that the document we’re talking about here, we’re talking about June of 2015, so I 

know that’s the one piece that we know about, and then those negotiations will happen. I 

think the one thing that has changed is that there actually is an interest in rail at the state 

level for probably the first time. There actually is a group of Senators and there is a 

committee now that is looking at rail at the state level, when before, had never been any 

kind of committee that I was aware of, so now there is some kind of interest. Part of it was 

the bullet train in the Central Valley; I think that is what started the interest. On the positive 

side of that is the Daylight train. One of the things I didn’t hear in this presentation but I did

hear in the morning presentation, because someone asked the question in regards to the 

amount of passengers in this particular area, I believe it’s number 2 in the nation in regards 

to rail, or something like that?

i. Ms. Watson: I think that’s what Executive Director Hale said this morning. 

ii. Mr. Bourke: Unlike the bullet train, this would actually really go from LA to San 

Francisco?

iii. Ms. Watson: I think they are both supposed to go LA to San Francisco; this one will 

go along the Coast. 
iv. Mr. Bourke: Well, yeah, but the Coast is so much more beautiful. Who would want 

to go through the San Joaquin Valley?

v. Ms. Watson: All the people who live there. 

2. King City special joint meeting of City Council/ Planning Commission 12/9/14
Coast Corridor EIS/EIR Hearing Meeting Summary – Salinas, CA

Dec. 3, 2014

Conducted by Christina Watson, TAMC Principal Transportation Planner

TAMC Board Meeting 12/3/14

a. Boardmember Louis Calcagno: How many riders are on the Starlight today? Are the primary 

stops Salinas and San Luis Obispo? And is the Daylight the same thing? I see the train go by 

every day and no one is on it. If no one rides currently, why would we do another train?

b. Boardmember Bruce Delgado: I heard you mention safety as a purpose and as a benefit on 

several slides, but it’s missing from the environmental benefits slide. You might want to add 

increased safety to the benefits slide.

c. Christine Kemp1: The loss of agricultural land is a great concern. Property owners along the 

corridor did not receive notice of this project prior to the receipt of the notice of this 

document, and the project process is unclear. Who is the decision-making body for this 

project? To whom should we direct questions and concerns?

d. Arthur McLoughlin2: I am a resident of North County. I frequently travel on Amtrak, the 

Coast Starlight, to Los Angeles. The train is usually half to three-quarters full in coach; the 

trip is during the day so I always ride coach. Many people ride in the club car, which have 

windows you can’t see into from outside, so it may appear empty but it’s usually full. The 

club car is a gathering place, people go there to socialize. Amtrak is cheaper and more 

convenient than flying. It gets you right into downtown LA. Sometimes, the train times don’t 

work for my trip, and then I’ll take the Amtrak bus to connect to the Surfliner train instead. I 

am overall in favor of this project. I would ride the Daylight if it were available.

e. Ross Jensen3: I am a property owner along the 101, at Spence Road. What are the properties 

that will be affected by the siding project? Will you be using eminent domain to acquire any 

properties? In the past, there was also talk about a project to improve the frontage road 

along the 101 in Chualar. You should make sure there is no conflict between the two 

projects.

f. Boardmember Alejandro Chavez: I think it will be great to have a train station in Soledad, 

especially for tourists visiting the Pinnacles National Park in Soledad. I have taken the 

Starlight train six or seven times in the past, and it is 75% or more full on the trip from 

Salinas to LA. I also rode first class from Salinas to Seattle, and it was fully booked. 

g. Boardmember Simon Salinas: Consider reaching out to agricultural landowners using a 

mailing list regarding the Soledad and King City hearings.

h. Staff responses:

i. Principal Planner Christina Watson: Notices were mailed out to every property 

owner with property abutting the rail line between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, 

both when the Notice of Intent was published in 2012 and for this document. TAMC 

is not the decision-making body for these projects, the document leads are SLOCOG 

on the state side and the FRA on the federal side. But as a responsible agency, I can 

respond to questions and help folks get in touch with the right people to get 

answers to their questions. All comments and questions will also be included in the 

final document.

 

1 Ms. Kemp gave staff her contact info and followed up with email correspondence. TAMC has her contact info.

2 Mr. McLoughlin is on the Highway 156 Community Advisory Group. TAMC has his contact info.

3 Mr. Jensen signed in at the meeting. TAMC has a phone number for him.
ii. Executive Director Debbie Hale: According to the internet, the Starlight had 454,000 

riders in 2012, and was the number 2 long-distance train in the nation. Adding all 

state-supported services, it was #13 out of 42 nationwide. Staff will evaluate the 

potential conflict between the proposed siding and the highway frontage road 

project.





Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

1

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

1. Throughout 

Document

Incorrect Project Description for City of King 

Multimodal Transportation Center ("MMTC")

Please correct the City of King Project Description. The City's MMTC 

consists of the following components:

1. A passenger platform, a passenger drop-off and loading 

zone, a small station building with restrooms and storage 

rooms, and four passenger shelter canopies. 

2. A parking lot for station patrons. 

3. A staging area for Fort Hunter Liggett. 

4. A bus stop accommodating Amtrak Thruway, 

Greyhound, and Monterey-Salinas Transit ("MST") bus 

service, Pinnacles National Park shuttle service, taxi 

service, and bicycle facilities. 

5. Improvements to First Street between Division Street 

and Broadway Street, including the introduction of street 

trees, center medians, bike lanes, parallel parking, as 

well as curb extensions, crosswalks and traffic signals at 

the intersections with Broadway Street, Bassett Street, 

and Pearl Street. 

6. The De Anza Trail extension south of Division Street to San 

Lorenzo Creek. 

If the correct project description were analyzed in the EIS/EIR, the 

environmental impacts would be reduced.

2. Throughout 

Document

Fiber Optic Cables in Monterey County and 

City of King

While the EIS/EIR mentions fiber optic cables in San Luis Obispo, it 

does not acknowledge the fiber optic cables in Monterey County. In 

September 2000, the County of Monterey approved a permit for 

undergrounding fiber optics communication lines within railroad and 

public rights-of-way from north Monterey County to south Monterey 

County. 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

2

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

There are underground fiber optic communication lines installed 

within the railroad and public rights-of-way through the City of King. 

It is our understanding that AT&T, Verizon and Level 3 

Communication have these lines. Additionally, there is a proposed 

hub to be located in the City of King.

The EIS/EIR does not mention this information.

3. Throughout 

Document

City of King The City is called "City of King" and not "King City". The correction 

should be made document wide. 

4. Page S-4

Table S-1,

3rd Row

The reference to "one new at-grade crossing 

could be created is inaccurate"

To implement the King City Station the existing Pearl Street At-grade 

crossing must be closed and relocated to Broadway Street. 

5. Page 1-11, 

2nd 

Paragraph

Long-term parking or storage of train cars. There should be no parking or storage of train cars between San 

Antonio and San Lorenzo Creek. If this remains in the documents, 

and adverse impact related to aesthetics should be included in the 

impact section.

6. Page 2-1 & 

2-5, 2-6

Discrepancy in Description On page 2-1, paragraph 2, the "No Build Alternative" assumes there 

are "no new physical improvements". However, on page 2-6, 

paragraph 1, it states that the "No Build Alternative" would include 

known (funded) rail improvements.

There appears to be a discrepancy between the two descriptions for 

the "No Build Alternative" sections.

7. Page 2-5 US Army's Fort Hunter-Liggett There should be mention of US Army's Fort Hunter-Liggett's use of 

the MMTC. 

The local military base, US Army’s Fort Hunter-Liggett, has identified

the Federal Necessity to be able to move a significant number of 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

3

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

troops and their gear equipment from a re-established train station to 

their facility southwest of the City of King. As part of the US Army’s 

Energy and Environmental Sustainability efforts, there is a Federal 

Interest in replacing the numerous shuttle buses between the Fort 

and the San Jose airport with Amtrak train service between San Jose 

and the City of King, thus providing a significant passenger draw for 

a King City station, beyond just the two MST (2) routes that would 

serve the MMTC.

Building on previous studies by Railpros and California Polytechnic 

State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), the City retained Hatch 

Mott MacDonald, an engineering consulting firm that has done 

previous traffic studies for the City, in 2011-2012 to develop a 

Multimodal Transportation Development Strategy as part of the First 

Street Corridor Master Plan. The MMTC Development Strategy 

outlines an approach towards developing and funding a MMTC, 

along with the re-establishment of the City of King Train Station as 

an Amtrak station as the new Coast Daylight and Coast Starlight 

train service is developed. Key to reestablishing the train station near 

the historic downtown core is relocation of the existing Pearl Street 

at-grade railroad crossing north to Broadway Street to allow sufficient 

room for the twelve-hundred (1200’) foot long Amtrak-compliant train 

platform. 

8. Page 2-9

2nd Bullet, 

2nd 

Paragraph

Siding extensions /new siding. The EIS/EIR

notes that the SDP identifies the sidings to be 

extended.

The King City Siding identified in the SDP on Table 4.2 on Page 4-6 

and depicted on Exhibit 4-8 as Improvement M-12 was not analyzed 

in the EIS/EIR. The layout plan for this siding extension has been 

subject to additional design and engineering by Railpros this work is 

contained in the February 24, 2014 Conceptual Design (Exhibit B) 

Proposed Siding Concept (6 Sheets)

9. Page 2-11, 

1st 

Coast Starlight Please add discussion of Fort Hunter-Liggett and Coast Starlight to 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

4

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

Paragraph stop, troop movement.

10. Page 2-11, 

2nd Bullet

King City Station Please correct the Project Description, as reflected in Column No. 1 

above. 

11. Page 2-12 

Table 2-1

Spreckles Road Crossing in City of King;

Lyon Street? 

Where is the Spreckles Road crossing in the City of King?

Lyon Street should be Bitterwater.

12. Page 2-15, 

Table 2-3

Existing Siding 

New Station 

Existing Siding - New Power Switch

All the noted siding locations are incorrect. The existing siding 

current runs from MP 159.19 to 160.64. The extension of the existing 

siding is to the north from MP 159.19 to MP 156.38. The New Power 

Switches are shown on the Layout Plan prepared by Railpros (Feb, 

2014). The southern switch is located at MP 160.63 (See: Railpros

EX-C6); A crossover is proposed starting at approx. MP 159.38 and 

ends at 159.11(See: Railpros EX-C4, Panels 2 and 3);

The northern Power Switch is located at 156.38 (See: Railpros EXC1, Panel 1); 

The 1,200-foot Train Station Platform is located between MP 160.30 

and MP 160.52. (See: Railpros EX-A)

13. Page 3.1-11 King City Station Project description rewrite needed (see Column No. 1) 

14. Page 3.1-13 Rail Operation and Roadway Operations Pearl Street /Broadway Street Crossing even without train station.

15. Page 3.3-7 

Table 3.3-1

Noise Screening Distances Please confirm this is the correct location.

16. Page 3.3-8 

Table 3.3-2

Vibration Screening Distances Please confirm this is the correct location.
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

5

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

17. Page 3.3-13, 

2nd 

Paragraph

Construction Noise Need to add At-grade crossings to the construct active list.

18. Page 3.3-20, 

Last 

Paragraph

King City Siding Note that the noise impact would be less if the correct siding location 

was used, since it would extend the existing siding to the north away 

from any urban population areas. 

19. Page 3.3-22, 

Table 3.3-5

Vibration Compatibility Impact noted is for extension of the siding South of the Station 

location, while listed in the table as if it was north of the station. 

These impacts would be significantly minimized if correct siding 

extension was used. 

20. Page 3.3-24, 

Last 

Paragraph

Historic Structures What are the specific resources that they are noting? Need to 

comment on the statement Coast Starlight and Fort Hunter-Liggett

will require Starlight to stop for troop deployment.

21. Page 3.4-7, 

Table 3.4-2 

Service Options These figure fail to include Fort Hunter-Liggett ridership demands.

22. Page 3.4-12 Mitigation Measure TRA-6 We need to have the King City Station description clearly note the 

MMTC design components.

23. Page 3.5-5 City of King General Plan The description fails to note the approved Station Plan design. 

Broadway Street/Pearl Street At-grade crossing. MMTC concept.

24. Page 3.5-7 Station Footprint and Required Crossing Need to confirm they used the correct footprint for station, Fail to 

note crossings.

25. Page 3.5-23 Land Use Compatibility and Property -

Mitigation Measure

Statement as to only schematic plans have been done is not factual. 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

6

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

26. Page 3.5-23 Communities and Neighborhoods - Mitigation 

Measure 

Note Broadway Street Crossing is need per MIN-LU-4 due to closure 

of Pearl Street. Need to comment on all the detailed analysis and 

design criteria of Broadway Street Crossing (Railpros Initial Study)

27. Page 3.5-27, 

Figure 3.5-1c

Generalized Existing Land Uses This figure contain numerous errors. The Downtown Addition Area 

and First Street area are not accurate. Also the Siding Area fails 

match either the existing of the correct extension location. See 

attached mark-up of the details of the King City Siding extension and 

Station Improvements. The improvements do not extend to the south 

of MP 160.71 and no changes are contemplated which would impact 

the San Lorenzo Creek Railroad Bridge at MP 160.72. The 

commercial areas of the Downtown Addition are not noted on the 

map. 

28. Page 3.5-45, 

Figure 3.5-2c

Environmental Justice Please see previous statements regarding incorrect depiction of King 

City Siding Extension and Train Station Improvements

29. Page 3.6-2, City of King General Plan The description is inaccurate and is out of date as it fails to depict the 

Conceptual Train Station and Rail Siding and Improvement Plans 

prepared by Railpros and adopted by the City Council on April 8, 

2014.

30. Page 3.6-9, 

3rd Par

King City Siding extension. The King City Siding Extension does not "travel through and urban 

area". The extension of the King City Siding as noted extension from 

MP 159.19 to the North to MP 156.38 just south of the Spreckels 

Road At-grade located at MP 156.35. 

31. Page 3.6-9 

and 10

King City Passenger Station The description is inaccurate and is out of date. It uses the First 

Street Corridor Plan as a source of information. The City followed the 

recommendation of this plan, as spend significant time and money to 

development a detailed Train Station design and track layout plan 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

7

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

(Railpros 2014). The platform length is incorrect; it is 1,200-feet and 

it's width is a minimum of 16 feet. It fails to depict the Conceptual 

Train Station and Rail Siding and Improvement Plans prepared by 

Railpros and adopted by the City Council on April 8, 2014. 

Discussion also fails to noted at-grade crossing relocation or the 

removal of the Meyer Building required to implement the relocation of 

the Pearl Street At-grade crossing to Broadway Street.

32. Page 3.13-16

Table 3.3-4

Noise Compatibility Note this table which lists the improvements by area has the siding 

correctly prior (North of) the station.

33. Page 3.15 -

16

Environmental Justice King City Station? Siding Impacts from wrong location. 

34. Page 3.6-15 MIN-VIS-3 Comment on King City's' Policy on trains on sidings. Blocking 

circulation. 

35. Page 3.6-18 King City Photo Photo not representative of location of station.

36. Page 3.7-9, 

Table 3.7-1

King City Siding Extension, King City Power 

Switch

Impacts associated with incorrect locations.

37. Page 3.7-13, 

Table 3.7-2

King City Siding Extension, King City Power 

Switch

Impacts associated with incorrect locations.

38. Page 3.7-20, 

Figure 3.7-1c

Important Farmlands Map See previous comment regarding incorrect depiction of King City 

Siding Extension and Train Station Improvements

39. Page 3.8-6 King City Wastewater Information is out of date.

40. Page 3.8-8 King City Water Information is out of date.
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

8

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

41. Page 3.8-11

Table 3.8-1

Potential Utility Impacts

King City Siding Extension

Impact associated with incorrect location.

42. Page 3.8-13, 

1st 

Paragraph

Natural Gas Lines

Operational Effects

King City Siding Extension

The number natural gas line crossings needs to be reexamined since 

incorrect location was assessed for the King City Siding Extension. 

43. Page 3.8-13 Electrical Transmission Lines

Construction-Period Effects and

Operational Effects

King City Siding Extension

The amount of intersections and length of transmission line conflicts 

needs to be reexamined since incorrect location was assessed for 

the King City Siding Extension.

44. Page 3.9-5 Hazardous Site

King City Siding Extension

Need to reconfirm the Hazardous Sites identified are relevant to the 

correct location of the King City Siding Extension.

45. Page 3.9-6 Build Alternative

Demolition of Existing Facilities and Structures

The demolition of a portion of the Meyer Warehouse for the 

relocation of the existing Pearl Street At-grade crossing to Broadway 

Street. Is not assessed. Nor is the demolition of the Freuden Building 

required for the MMTC (Train Station) assessed. 

46. Page 3.9-7 Siding Extensions

King City Siding Extension

Are the three identified hazardous sites relevant to the correct King 

City Siding Extension location?

47. Page 3.9-8 Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Sites and Materials

King City Siding Extension

Need to reconfirm the Hazardous Sites identified are relevant to the 

correct location of the King City Siding Extension.
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

9

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

48. Page 3.10-5 King City Station The source of the acreage data is dated and maybe incorrect. May 

not include the Broadway Street Crossing. I have STP confirm the 

area of permanent impact. 

49. Page 3.10-15

Table 3.10-2 

Impacts on Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources

King City Siding Extension

Impacts associated with incorrect location of King City Siding 

Extension?

50. Page 3.10-19 Historical Resources The analysis is incorrect. The building that is noted as "not" in the 

impact area of the King City Station is in the middle of the MMTC 

project site, and will need to be demolished. Also, no discussion is 

contained regarding the required demolition of a portion of the Meyer 

Warehouse Building to implement the relocation of the At-grade 

crossing so that the train station platform can be constructed. 

The specific of the station features have been identified and the 

analysis fails to address the project features.

51. Page 3.10-22 Mitigation Measure A-CUL-4 Relocation This measure fails to include a determination of feasibility, or a 

determination of historical significance.

52. Page 3.11-3 Methods of Evaluations 

Stations

The incorrect document has been used for evaluation of the King 

City Station. The cite should be Conceptual Design Multi-Modal 

Transportation Center (Railpros, February 24, 2014) 

53. Page 3.11-12 Table 3.11-2 Summary of Potential Geologic 

and Soil Impacts 

King City Siding Extension

King City Power Switch

Impacts noted are associated with incorrect locations. Revision 

required.
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

10

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

54. Page 3.12-10 Table 3.12-10 Potential Proximity Impacts to 

Surface Waters

King City Siding Extension

The extensive 133 linear feet of temporary impacts and 100 linear 

feet of permanent impacts are based on the erroneous location of 

the King City Siding Extension to the South across San Lorenzo 

Creek. Please note the Extension of the existing siding is to the north 

from MP 159.19 to MP 156.38. All the noted impacts listed on this 

Table would be eliminated if the correct location of the King City 

Siding Extension was used. 

55. Page 3.12-12 Construction-Period Effects 

King City Siding Extension

The noted impacts to San Lorenzo Creek would be eliminated if the 

correct location of the King City Siding Extension was used.

56. Page 3.12-12 Operational Effects

King City Siding Extension

The statement that "San Lorenzo Creek is the only body of water 

that it not currently crossed by the existing alignment", is simply 

false. The existing alignment crosses San Lorenzo Creek at the 

existing San Lorenzo Creek Bridge located at MP 160.72. No new 

crossing is required.

The noted operational impacts of .02 miles regarding San Lorenzo 

Creek would be eliminated if the correct location of the King City 

Siding Extension was analyzed.

57. Page 3.12-15

Table 3.12-2

Acreage of Proposed Improvements within 

100-Year Floodplain

King City Siding Extension

The figures for the King City Siding Extension should be zero acres, 

the correct siding extension is to the north from MP 159.19 to MP 

156.38 which has no components located within the 100-Year 

Floodplain. 

58. Page 3.12-20 

Figure 3.12-

1c

Surface Waters in the Project Area

King City Siding Extension

The noted location of the King City Siding Extension is incorrect. 

The existing siding current runs from MP 159.19 to 160.64. The 

extension of the existing siding is to the north from MP 159.19 to MP 

156.38. No new improvements are located south of milepost 160.71, 

which is north of San Lorenzo Creek. Accordingly there would be no 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

11

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

impacts to San Lorenzo Creek. 

59. Page 3.13-41

Table 3.13-3

Special-Status Plant Species Potentially 

Occurring in Coast Corridor Study Area

King City Siding Extension

The impacts on Special-Status Plant Species noted for the King City 

Siding Extension are based on the erroneous location of the King 

City Siding extension to the South across San Lorenzo Creek.

60. Page 3.13-49

Table 3.13-4

Build Alternative Potential Operational 

Biological Resources Impacts

King City Siding Extension

The Operational Biological Resources Impacts noted for the King 

City Siding Extension are based on the erroneous location of the 

King City Siding extension to the South across San Lorenzo Creek.

61. Page 3.13-64

Figure 3.13-

1d

Sensitive Vegetation Communities

King City Siding Extension

The location of the King City Siding Extension is mapped incorrectly. 

The existing siding current runs from MP 159.19 to 160.64. The 

extension of the existing siding is to the north from MP 159.19 to MP 

156.38. No new improvements are located south of milepost 160.71. 

The Cropland and Annual Grassland impacted areas are not 

depicted correctly. 

62. Page 3.13-73

Figure 3.13-

2d

Critical Habitat

King City Siding Extension

The location of the King City Siding Extension is mapped at the 

wrong location and the Critical Habitat impacts based on this 

erroneous location.

63. Page 3.13-82

Figure 3.13-

3d

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters

King City Siding Extension

The location of the King City Siding Extension is mapped at the 

wrong location and the wetland impacts based on this erroneous 

location.

64. Page 3.14-2 City of King General Plan The description fails to note the additional detailed engineering and 

design work contained in the I Conceptual Train Station and Rail 

Siding and Improvement Plans prepared by Railpros and adopted by 

the City Council on April 8, 2014. In addition, the significant benefits 

and interrelationship of the Fort Hunter-Liggett components of the 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

12

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

MMTC are not depicted.

65. Page 3.14-5 City of King It seem that author fails to understand the King City Train Station is a 

component of the MMTC.

66. Page 3.14-9 Indirect Impacts The description fails to note that the First Street Corridor Master Plan 

recommendation of for detailed engineering and design studies to 

further implement the MMTC have been prepared. The MMTC -

Conceptual Train Station and Rail Siding and Improvement Plans 

prepared by Railpros, adopted by the City of King City Council on 

April 8, 2014 contain the detailed engineering and design work 

which the Build Alternative should have incorporated into the its 

Project Description. 

67. Page 3.15-3 Foreseeable actions As noted the cumulative analysis is "drawn from two main categories 

- land development and transportation", and the "analysis is draws 

on the environmental review of ... where more fine-grained analysis 

is appropriate, environmental reviews of locally adopted plans." A 

review of Section 6.0 References clearly shows that the analysis 

conducted failed to incorporate the extensive environmental analysis 

contained in the Downtown Addition Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH 

Number 2006041150). The Downtown Addition Specific Plan Project 

is an approved development which one of its key characteristics is it 

is a "Transit-oriented development with a adjacent transit center (i.e. 

MMTC) intended to be a train station in the long term and a bus 

depot in the near term at Broadway Street" (See: DASP FEIR Page 

3.05). The King City Station (i.e. MMTC) and the approved 

Downtown Addition Project have been planned as integrated

projects. However, the Draft PEIR/S fails to express is that the King 

City Station requires the relocation of the existing Pearl Street Atgrade crossing to Broadway Street so to be able construct the 

platform for the King City Station, in any case. Since, the existing 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

13

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

Pearl Street At-grade crossing is located in the middle of the 

proposed platform (See: Exhibit A -Railpros, Feb 24, 2014). 

68. Page 3.15-5

Table 3.15-1

Planned and Programmed Transportation 

Improvements

US 101 - First Street Interchange

A note should be made that this improvement is part of the Railroad 

Corridor Safety Improvement Program adopted by the City of King to 

implement the relocation of the Pearl Street At-grade crossing to 

Broadway Street. (See: Railpros, May 6, 2011) 

69. Page 3.15-10 Traffic and Travel

Cumulative Effects

King City Station

The document fails to include any discussion of the King City Station. 

Please note an extensive traffic analysis was conducted regarding 

the required relocation of the existing Pearl Street At-grade crossing 

to Broadway Street (See: DASP FEIR 4.13-26).

70. Page 3.15-

26, Last 

Paragraph

Hydrology and Water Resources

Cumulative Effects

King City Siding Extension

The effects on surface waters can be avoided by correcting the 

location of the King City Siding Extension to that contained in Exhibit 

C the detailed engineering plans prepared by Railpros (Feb, 2014) 

and adopted by the City Council of the City of King on April 8, 2014. 

71. Page 3.15-27 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Cumulative Effects

King City Siding Extension

The effects on Biological Resources and Wetlands can be avoided 

by correcting the location of the King City Siding Extension to that 

contained in Exhibit C the detailed engineering plans prepared by 

Railpros (Feb, 2014) and adopted by the City Council of the City of 

King on April 8, 2014. 

72. Page 3.15-29 Summary of Build Alternative Impact This section fails to include any discussion of the extensive beneficial 

growth-related effects that the King City Station (MMTC) will have 

due to the integration with Fort Hunter-Liggett. 

The document also makes an inaccurate statement in its assumption 

that commuting schedules have a direct correlation to potential for 

transit-oriented development. Transit-oriented developments are

compact, mixed-use, “walkable” pedestrian-friendly neighborhood
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

14

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

located near transit (with in 1/2 mile) Source: United States 

Government Accountability Office - Multiple Factors Influence Extent 

of Transit-Oriented Development, November 2014.

Please note the approved Downtown Addition Project which is 

adjacent and integrated into the King City Train Station (MMTC) is a 

substantial transit-oriented development.

73. Page 3.17-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

King City Siding Extension

As noted "many potentially adverse/significant impacts described in 

this document can be avoided or minimize by selecting an alignment 

option that avoids or minimizes impacts on environmental 

resources... "As note in these comments the potentially 

adverse/significant impacts from the King City Siding Extension can 

be eliminated by simply using the correct siding extension location 

which is north from MP 159.19 to MP 156.38.

74. Page 3.17-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

King City Station 

Since the document failed to use the correct project description for 

the King City Station, any unavoidable adverse environmental 

impacts which could result from the detailed plans for the King City 

Multi-modal Transportation Center (MMTC) by Railpros, 2014 (i.e. 

correct project description) need to clearly set forth in the Final 

EIS/EIR.

75. Page 3.17-3 Unavoidable Potentially Significant Impacts

Traffic and Travel

King City Station

As noted in other comments, the relocation of the existing Pearl 

Street At-grade crossing to Broadway Street is required to construct 

the station platform, since the existing Pearl St. grade crossing is 

located in the middle of the platform. The demolition of a portion of 

the existing warehouse located within the street ROW of the 

relocated at-grade crossing will be required to establish the King City 

Station. In addition, the demolition of another warehouse building will 

be required since in is located with the King City Station ("MMTC") 

parking area. The City of King has analyzed all the locational 

alternatives for the platform and no alternatives exist which meet the 
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

15

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

project objective to re-establish the King City Station within the area 

of the original station or within the downtown area. Accordingly, there 

will be impacts from the re-establishment of the King City Station 

which will be unavoidable potentially significant impacts. The Final 

EIS/EIR needs to clearly state these unavoidable potentially 

significant impacts after conducting an analysis of the corrected

project description (See: Railpros 2014).

76. Page 3.17-4 Unavoidable Potentially Significant Impacts

Biological and Wetland Resources 

Hydrology and Water Quality

King City Siding Extension

As noted before the impacts to Biological and Wetland Resources, 

Hydrology and Water Quality from the King City Siding Extension 

can be avoided or significantly eliminated by the use of the correct 

project description. This information is clearly set forth in the 

Railpros, Feb 2014 report, specifically in the track layout plans 

contained in Exhibit C of the Railpros report.

77. Page 3.12-12 Description of siding over San Lorenzo Creek. Please note that these impacts would not be applicable if the 

Railpros layout, based o the Union Pacific and Caltrans proposal, 

had been analyzed in the Coast Daylight EIS/EIR. (Reference 

Exhibit C.)

See attached Railpros Track Layout for King City Train Station and 

King City Siding Extension. This information was distributed by the 

City of King in early 2014 to regional transportation agencies.

The City of King spent a significant amount of time and money laying 

the side extension out in consultation with Union Pacific. The Coast 

Daylight EIS/EIR does assessment includes an unfeasible siding 

extension to the south that has never been contemplated and would 

be very expensive and cause significant issues for the City.

The EIS/EIR needs to assess the impacts on the King City Siding 

Extension as drawing in detail by Railpros (contained in the 

attachment), programed by Caltrans in the Coast Corridor Service 

Development Plan (Appendix C) and identified and modeled by 

78. Page 3.12-

23, Figure 

3.12-1 c

Show siding extension over San Lorenzo 

Creek.

79. Appendix B & 

C

Union Pacific Improvements (King City Siding 

Extension) Page 8 (Cover excluded) Page is 

titled "Coast Sub" Please note on the bottom of 

the page the "Proposed 10,000" which is 

located to the North of the existing King City 

current 6,300 double track SW.
Attachment 1

CITY OF KING COMMENTS 

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR (SCH#2012081045)

JANUARY 6, 2015

16

Column 

No. Page No. Description Comment

Union Pacific (Appendix B).

80. Page 4-12 Build Alternative

Grade Crossing and Mobility Improvements

King City Station

The relocation of the existing Pearl Street At-grade crossing to 

Broadway Street required to construct the station platform is missing. 

Please note the existing Pearl Street grade crossing must be 

relocated since it is located in the middle of the proposed station 

platform. This At-grade crossing relocation is an integral part of the 

MMTC design plans. 

81. Page 4-33

Figure 4-2c

Build Alternative

Summary of Potential Impacts to Section 4(f) 

Resources 

King City Siding Extension

As noted in other comments the King City Siding Extension is not 

located at location M-12 as noted in the Caltrans Service 

Development Plan, nor located as depicted in 1'-100' scale in the 

Railpros track layout plans contain in Exhibit C of the 2014 Railpros

report. 
sLO COUNTY I

apcd Alr Pollution Control District

San l-uis Oblspo CountY

January 7,2015

Pete Rodgers

Ad m i n istrative Di rector

San Luis Obispo Council of Governments

11 14 Ma rsh Street

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

SUBJECT: ApCD Comments Regarding the Coast Corridor lmprovements Draft

Program - Environmental lmpact Statement/Report

Dear Mr. Rodgers,

Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in

the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the Coast Corridor

lmprovements Draft Program - Environmental lmpact Statement/Report (ElS/ElR). The

program addresses the need for conventional rail improvements on California's existing

Coast Corridor iail alignment, with a focus on the portion between Salinas and San Luis

Obispo intended to enable expanded passenger rail service on the entire Coast Corridor

(from San Francisco to Los Angeles).

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments

(slococ), and the Transportation Agency for Monterey county (TAMC) have prepared this

Program Environmental lmpact Statement/Environmental lmpact Report, which examines

the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for the proposed

project located in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, California. The document

describes why the project is being proposed, the existing environment that could be

affected by the project, potential impacts, and the avoidance, minimization, and/or

m itigation strategies.

No Build Alternotive

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing rail operations and

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and passenger

service between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The only physical improvement expected

under the No Build Alternative would be the installation of positive train control (PTC)

along the Corridor, which would provide increased safety for freight and passenger trains.

This will provide the baseline for analysis of potential improvements. For the purposes of

this program EIS/EIR, whose purpose and need is limited to potential physical rail system

100% Post Consumer RecYcled PoPer

r 805.781.5912 ' 805.781.1002 rlr slocl€dnair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Coast Corridor t mprovements EIS/EI R

Jonuary 7, 2014

Poge 2 of 6

improvements and expansion of passenger rail service, the No Build Alternative includes other

planned and programmed rail improvement projects for the Coast Corridor in the vicinity of the

Salinas to San Luis ObisPo region.

Build Alternative

The Build Alternative assumes the restoration of "Coast Daylighf' passenger service, which would

initially consist of 2 trains per day traveling between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, increasing to 4

trains per day by the year 2040. The Build Alternative includes an exhaustive list of potential 

-

physical improvements between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, some number of which may be found

necessary to accommodate increased Coast Daylight service. The extent of needed physical

improvements has not been identified at this time but is expected to be determined outside the

context of CEeA/NEpA environmental review. The Build Alternative looks broadly at each physical

improvement contemplated for the area to provide decision-makers additional information in

identifying which if any conceptual physical improvements should be carried forward. The Build

Alternative has the potential to adversely affect localized traffic near stations, land use and

community impacts and air quality pollutant emissions during construction. The EIS/EIR includes

mitigation strategies to be applied as one or more components of the Build Alternative move

forward for design and potential implementation. To the extent these strategies can be translated

into project-level mitigation, adverse effects can be reduced or avoided entirely. In addition, the

Build Alternative will have beneficial environmental effects, such as economic growth, air quality

improvements during operation, and energy consumption improvements during operation.

The fotlowing are APCD comments that ore pertinent to this proiect.

GENERAL COMMENTS

As a commenting agency in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for a

project, the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction and operational phases

of a project, with separate significant thresholds for each. The APCD assessed this project by

assuming all emissions are from the operational phase. Please address the action items

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. Support for alternative transportation upgrades

The APCD commends the project proponents for the promotion of rail transportation which

will increase the potential for mass transit use, which is consistent with several of the

APCD's land use goals and policies in the Clean Air Plan. In addition, railtransportation

upgrades help meet the greenhouse gas emission targets set by California legislation.

2. San Luis Obispo Car Free Program

Vehicle emissions are the largest source of emissions in SLO County. This project has the

potential to reduce the number of vehicle trips in SLO County. The APCD recommends

underlined text.
Coost Corridor Rait t mprovements-Draft EIS/EI R

Jonuory 7, 201 5

Poge 3 of 6

4.

including the san Luis obispo (slo) car Free program in the proSram promotion, to

"n.ourug" 

car-free transportation to and around San Luis Obispo County' SLO Car Free

providestools to travelers on the pleasures and availability of traveling to our area without

their cars, or by parking their cars once they arrive. By pledging to travel to, or around SLO

County without a car, visitors receive special incentives from participating hotels,

restaurants, transportation services and attractions. In addition, businesses who join slo

Car Free as a participating business receive free advertisement on their website, highlighting

the businesses efforts to encourage "green," tourism to San Luis obispo county. Businesses

are also promoted through several social media networks and at the numerous events that

SLO Car Free participates in each year. The Build Alternative would strengthen the SLO Car

Free program.

CONSTRUCTION:

described in the ElR.

Based on the impacted acreage information provided in the EIS/EIR, it appears possible the

construction phase would exceed the APCD's construction emission threshold(s) identified in

Table 2-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (available at the APCD web site:

Diesel Particulate Matter

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic air contaminant and carcinogen, and exposure to

DPM may lead to increased cancer risk and respiratory problems. lf construction related

measures to reduce the proiect impacts below the threshold. lf sensitive receptors

are within 1.000 feet of the project site. a Health Risk Assessment (HM) may be

required. Sections 3.6.1 and 3.7.4 of the APCDs 2012 CEQA Handbook provide more

background on HRAs in conjunction with CEQA review. Guidance on the preparation of a

HRA may be found in the CAPCOA report IIEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED IAND USE

PROJECTS. which can be downloaded from the CAPCOA website at www.capcoa.org.

Insufficient Diesel Equipment Information / Diesel Emissions Near Sensitive RecePtors

Construction activity for this project will likely involve the use of numerous pieces of heavyduty diesel equipment. Diesel particulate matter is listed as a toxic air contaminant by the

5.

Emissions Summary

\N\N\ru. S I OCI ea n a i r. o rg).

ApCD's CEqA Handbook. The APCD recommends on-site mitigation from construction
Coast Corridor Rait t mprovements-Draft EIS/EI R

Jonuary 7, 201 5

Poge 4 of 6

6.

California Air Resources Board with no identified threshold level below which there are no

significant health effects. Therefore, the APCD is very concerned with projects that will

produce large amounts of diesel exhaust near sensitive receptors.

used:

. Area of disturbance and proximity of that area to sensitive receptors;

. Number and type of construction equipment operating throughout the construction

phase ofthe Project;

. ldentify sensitive receptors within 1000 feet of construction boundary

. lf the project includes hauling, identify fleet mix, hauling route (must minimize

sensitive receptor impact) and number of trips per day;

. Time frame for the operation of construction equipment during the project, which

includes:

. The total length of the project duration;

. An estimation of the number of daily operating hours for the equipment; and

. An estimation of equipment that would operate simultaneously on a given day.

Natu ra lly Occurring Asbestos

Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as

a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout

California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO County APCD has

identified areas throughout the County where NOA may be present (see the APCD's 2012

CEeA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4). lf the project construction activity is located in a

candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), the following requirements apply.

Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and

filed with the APCD. lf the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the

applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may

include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and

Safety Program for approval by the APCD. More information on NOA can be found at

Demolition Activities-Demolition of Asbestos Containing Materials

Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues

surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material

(ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or

remodeling of existing buildings or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or

below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g., transite pipes or insulation on pipes). lf this

7.
Coost Corridor Rait tmprovements-Droft EIS/EIR

January 7, 201 5

Page 5 of 6

a.

b.

NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within

at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos Survey

conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal

requirements of identified ACM. Please contact the APCD Enforcement Division at (805)

781-5912 for further information.

8. Dust Control Measures

Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local

residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Constructionperiod mitigation strategies listed on page3.2-21of the EIS/EIR addresses construction dust

control. ApCD CEQA Handbook requires that projects with grading areas that are greater

than 4-acres or are within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the following

mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the

ApCb,s 20% opacity lirnit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). A

c.

d.

Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;

Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne

dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for

greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency

would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable)

water should be used whenever possible;

All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed dai! and covered with tarps or other dust

barriers as needed;

permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation

and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following

completion of any soil disturbing activities;

Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one

month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinatinS, non-invasive,

grass seed and watered untilvegetation is established;

All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using

approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance

e.

f.

by the APCD;

E. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as

possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading

unless seeding or soil binders are used;

h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved

surface at the construction site;

i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should

maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of

load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23'114;

APCD recommends including measures not listed on Page 3.2-21:
Coast Corridor Rqil I mprovements-Draft EIS/EI R

January 7, 201 5

Page 6 of 6

Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or

wash offtrucks and equipment leaving the site;

Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent

paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used

where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;

All PMro mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building

plans; and,

The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive

dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to

minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20%

opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall

include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The

name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD

Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.

OPERATIONAL:

9. Operational Phase Locomotive ldling Limitations

Public health risk benefits can be realized by idle limitations for diesel engines. To help

reduce the emissions impact of diesel locomotives. the program shall implement

idling control techniques. especially when locomotives are within 1000 feet of sensitive

receptors. Signs that specifiT'no idling areas' must be posted and enforced.

COMMENTS LISTED BY TABLE OR PAGE NUMBER:

10. Table 3.2.2. Attainment Status The table lists slo county ozone attainment status

incorrectly. Please use status listed on the APCD website:

httf'://slocleanair.org/images/cms ,Fle:d/fileslAttainmentStatus20August20l3%288%29.pclf

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. lf you have any questions or

comments, feel free to contact me at 78"1-5912.

Sincerely,

Gary Arcemont

Air Quality Specialist

GJNarr

cc: Tim Fuhs, Enforcement Divisiofl, APCD

Gary Willey, Enforcement Division, APCD

Amy Clymo, Planning Divisiorl, Monterey Bay Unified APCD

k.

l.

m.

H :\PLAN\CEQA\Project-Review\3000\3800\3852-1 \3852-1 .docx
Page 1 of 3

SANTA MARIA VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY 

P.O. Box 5665 

Santa Maria, California 93456 

Telephone (805) 922-7941 

FAX (805) 922-9554 

January 7, 2015

Mr. Pete Rodgers

Administrative Director

San Luis Obispo Council of Governments

1114 Marsh Street

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Coast Corridor Improvements Draft EIS/EIR

Dear Mr. Rodgers:

The Santa Maria Valley Railroad is a 14 mile short line railroad serving on line customers in the 

Santa Maria Valley and customers throughout the Central Coast via transload operations. The 

Board of the Santa Maria Valley Railroad (SMVRR) has asked that I respond with comments to 

the Coast Corridor Improvements Draft EIS/EIR. Additional passenger trains including the 

proposed Amtrak Coast Daylight train has a direct impact on freight service with SMVRR’s 

freight customers.

The SMVRR’s sole connection to the national railroad network is with the Union Pacific 

Railroad (UPRR), interchanging at Guadalupe, California. As a handling carrier of Union 

Pacific Railroad, the SMVRR is a captive customer to the UPRR. Freight service dependability 

is dependent on the UPRR Coast Line (Coast Corridor) as well as the rest of UPRR’s system and 

other railroads in the national railroad network. Any service impact on the UPRR Coast Corridor

has a direct impact on the freight service levels with the SMVRR. 

Currently all of the SMVRR’s inbound and outbound freight travels south to and from the former 

GM plant rail yard in Van Nuys, California and then to West Colton, California where the freight 

cars are sorted and placed on the appropriate trains to destination. The SMVRR receives and 

picks up cars at the UPRR interchange yard in Guadalupe, California. A twice a week inbound 

train arrives from Van Nuys on Monday nights and Thursday nights. The inbound train also 

brings up cars for freight customers from Lompoc to San Luis Obispo, including the Phillips 66 

plant on the Nipomo Mesa and the Imerys/World Minerals mine just outside of Lompoc. 

Tuesday mornings and Friday mornings the local UPRR crew sorts and builds the inbound train 

for SMVRR and assembles the outbound cars destined for Van Nuys. The train travels back to 

Van Nuys with the outbound cars on Tuesday and Friday nights. A daily train between Van 

Nuys and West Colton brings inbound cars to Van Nuys and takes the outbounds from Van Nuys 

to West Colton.
Page 2 of 3

In the past, the SMVRR received cars daily from either north or south of Guadalupe. The Holly 

Sugar Plant in Betteravia closed in 1993 and the railroad lost most of its business. By 2007 

UPRR cut service to Guadalupe to twice a week. The last four years the SMVRR has seen 

resurgence in freight traffic, quadrupling freight traffic. Service failures are becoming more 

frequent as trains are becoming longer out of Van Nuys and traffic congestion with passenger 

trains is eroding freight service levels and on time performance. 

SMVRR has requested additional trains with UPRR and UPRR has denied. Although the 

SMVRR has experienced a significant increase of rail traffic, car count does not yet justify 

additional trains at the present. SMVRR also requested the possibility of freight service 

originating from the north, UPRR has denied this request because of inadequate track capacity

and presently inadequate traffic volume. Currently rail cars originating from the Bay Area to 

travel to Roseville where it is sorted at the rail yard in Roseville and placed on a quality manifest 

train to the West Colton rail yard to be sorted and placed on the train to Van Nuys and on to 

Guadalupe. Transit times from the Bay Area can be as long as 7 days for customers less than 

300 track miles away from the SMVRR. We expect volumes to increase the next several years 

to justify a manifest train originating from the north end of the Coast Corridor. This extra traffic 

will impact the portion of the line of the proposed Amtrak Coast Daylight train.

Generally speaking, the SMVRR’s board has concerns with additional passenger trains as current 

congestion along the Coast Corridor has resulted in service failures the last several years.

Specific comments to Coast Corridor Improvements DEIR as follows:

Page 1-6 Aging Rail Infrastructure

Investment in corridor rail service has not kept pace with population and travel growth.

To imply that the Coast Corridor is an “aging infrastructure” and no investment has been made to 

the Coast Corridor is inaccurate. UPRR, as with all private railroads in the U.S., has to justify 

the levels of capital improvements to meet the current and future rates of returns. UPRR has 

invested a significant amount of capital in the Coast Corridor to improve reliability and safety.

The UPRR Coast Line was built and originally owned by Southern Pacific Railroad. UPRR took 

over Southern Pacific Railroad in 1996. The prior 30 years Southern Pacific Railroad was in 

financial straits and deferred maintenance occurred throughout its system. As a result the Coast 

Corridor was in dire need of maintenance when the UPRR took over in 1996. UPRR has been 

investing heavily along their entire system for years, capital investments have been around $3.5 

billion per year the last several years. UPRR has put a considerable amount of work on the 

Coast Corridor the last 15 years, replacing ties, installing CWR (continuously welded rail) 

replacing jointed rail, and replacing and modernizing signal systems. The UPRR Coast Corridor

in terms of reliability and safety is in much better shape than say 15 years ago.

Page 3.1-4 3.1.3 Existing Freight Rail

Freight rail volume within the project area is relatively low as the Coast Corridor is considered 

a “secondary” or “relief” line to the busier Central Valley line to the east.

The Coast Line is the primary and only line that the Santa Maria Valley Railroad interchanges 

with. Traffic is expected to continue to grow within the next 5 years on the SMVRR, reaching or 
Page 3 of 3

exceeding traffic levels when the former Holly Sugar plant at Betteravia was in operation. The 

SMVRR is also looking at nearby communities of San Luis Obispo and Lompoc to build 

additional transload facilities to accommodate the growing transload business. Transload 

facilities consist of a “public” track where customers without a direct rail access can load or 

unload rail cars and truck it to and from the final miles. Customers not located directly on a rail 

line can have the cost and efficiency advantages of rail and still have the convenience of 

trucking. The SMVRR is expected to outgrow its current Transload facilities within the next 

several years. Also additional local traffic such as the Phillips 66 rail spur project will 

significantly increase rail traffic on the Coast Corridor. 

Page 3.15-9 Cumulative Impact Analysis, Traffic and Travel

The SMVRR has increased rail traffic significantly and is looking to expand or build new 

facilities along its 14 miles of right of way. The SMVRR is looking to adjacent communities to 

expand operations including San Luis Obispo and Lompoc. A feasibility study is under way to 

rebuild part the San Luis Obispo rail yard on UPRR property to a transload facility, private 

passenger car storage and maintenance facility, and storage facility for the San Luis Obispo 

Railroad Museum. A private passenger car storage and maintenance facility will have a direct 

positive impact on current Amtrak trains and the proposed Amtrak Coast Daylight Train as 

private passenger cars, passenger cars owned and operated by private individuals, represent an 

additional revenue source for Amtrak.

In conclusion, the Board of the Santa Maria Valley Railroad would like to see that adequate 

capacity is built into the line so it can accommodate rising freight traffic. Currently there are 

traffic congestion issues on both the north and south ends of the Coast Corridor that needs to be 

addressed. If the Coast Corridor can accommodate both growing freight traffic and safely and 

efficiently accommodate additional Amtrak trains such as the Coast Daylight while UPRR can 

make its rate of return to justify continuing improvements and investments into the line in 

addition to what is planned, the Board of the Santa Maria Valley Railroad would be in support of 

the Coast Corridor Improvements.

Sincerely,

Rob Himoto

President

Cc: Gregory Wallen, Manager of Road Operations, Union Pacific Railroad

Lori Trout, Manager Short Line Development, Union Pacific Railroad

Melissa Grosz, Asset Manager Industrial Products, Union Pacific Railroad

Paul Marcinko, Regional Manager Industrial Development, Union Pacific Railroad
 United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Pacific Southwest Region

333 Bush Street, Suite 515

San Francisco, CA 94104

IN REPLY REFER TO:

(ER 14/0724)

Filed Electronically 

7 January 2015

Stephanie Perez

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Related review: ER 12/0589

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Salinas to San Luis Obispo 

Portion of the Coast Corridor Improvements, Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties, CA

Dear Ms. Perez:

The Department of the Interior has received and reviewed the subject document and has no 

comments to offer.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. 

Sincerely,

Patricia Sanderson Port

Regional Environmental Officer

cc: 

OEPC-Staff Contact: Carol Braegelmann (202) 208-6661; Carol Braegelmann@ios.doi.gov

NPS-Environmental Protection Specialist: Roxanne Runkel (303) 969-2377;

roxanne_runkel@nps.gov






Next Speaker: Thank you, Maurice. Uh, just really quickly, uh, ** ** council members. I like 

the, the City Manager's, uh,   on the City. I have sat in the past and currently I'm the 

Executive Legal Advocacy Committee. Uh, I will be their, uh, ** ** available, so, if you can go, 

uh, go and participate, it's a good learning process, and   that process. Thank you.

Next Speaker: Thank you. Okay. And now we're going to go to the, uh, the public hearing, 

Item B, which is joint with the Planning Commission. Um, Michael ** **.

Next Speaker: So, this evening we have, uh, under Item 2B, we have a joint meeting of the 

Planning Commission. I will note in our minutes that the planning, that the meeting will be 

convened, um, presently; that the members of the Planning Commission are present. It would be 

appropriate, though, for the Chair of the Planning Commission to formally convene the meeting 

before we go on.

Next Speaker: Thank you, uh,  . Uh, I'd like to call the meeting of the Planning Commission 

to come to order.

Next Speaker: And so this evening's, uh, the purpose of this evening's public hearing is to 

conduct a public hearing regarding the environmental impact statement, environmental impact 

report for the Coast Corridor Improvements Draft, uh, program, and out of that, we expect that 

the council this evening will receive public testimony, receive testimony from City staff, as well 

as TAMC, uh, staff and consultants, and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter attached to the 

staff report, um, as well as provide additional comments and information to TAMC and the 

consultants on the project, and with that, I will turn it over to Doreen, and she will give you an 

overview of the project, and then we have TAMC staff, Ann, available as well.

Next Speaker: Um, Mayor and members of the City Council, uh, reporting this evening is the 

Coast Corridor draft program for environmental impact statement and environmental impact 

report. The, um, reason for this is you have an environmental impact statement, which ** ** in 

ways that the national Environmental Protection Act. It's a national program,   program, and 

then, of course, the environmental impact statement, which complies with the California 

Environmental Quality Act. This is actually a Power Point presentation. ** ** and   is going 

to present. What I'm going to do is just ** **. Christina will talk a little more in detail about the 

EISEIR. Uh, what staff had an opportunity to do was review the EISEIR for compliance. We 

are not   to, the City is not ** **. Um, that is the lead agency. That means that they are the 

agencies responsible for actually coordination the processing of this document. The re-, public 

review period for the   ends January 7, 2015. During this period of time, this is, uh, the 

public's opportunity to review the document and provide comments. As you look at your, uh, 

staff report, you'll notice that there is a chart that's included in the document that has a number of 

comments. Um, we've looked up the EISEIR, and provided comments. One are the purposes for 

this document, and future use of the document is to tier off the environmental document so that 

when the City comes forward with a ** **, uh, project in more detail, we hope to use that 

environment   so that we don't have to spend a lot of money on generating environmental 

information ** **. So, it's extremely important that the information is accurate and that there is, 

uh, information that is current and not stale. We did have an opportunity to speak with, uh, 

TAMC staff last night,   staff last night, and Circle Point staff, uh, last night. Circle Point is 
Next Speaker: And, and I guess, uh, since we're recording, if you could, uh, also spell your 

name –

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: – ** **.

Next Speaker: Uh, John Baucke, B-A-U-C-K-E, uh, representing Smith Monterey. Um, I've also 

had the pleasure of reading this document cover to cover. Uh, and, I just want to put it in context 

with all the stuff in which has been going on. Uh, the process and thought of a train station in 

King City, the first written document I've been able to find was dated 2000, which was done by 

Wil-, uh, Wilbur Smith and Associates, uh, about the Coast Daylight implementation plan, so 

there's been an effort since at least 2000, and Pete may have, tell a date even earlier than that, uh, 

bringing this project forward. Uh, the, the City of King has done a number of efforts, uh, one 

which is, uh, the c-, the Rail Corridor Safety Study, which was how you go through the process 

to actually close a   grade crossing and open a new one and all that's involved. Uh, uh, 

funded by my client, uh, in the City, and then the City did, did the, uh, First Street corridor plan, 

in which Mott, uh, Hat-, Hatch and Nichols, I think is the –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – did I get the right name? Uh, did another program and, and that was, uh, June 

of 2012, in which some of that information, I believe Christina had received. The City has gone 

and taken recommendations out of that document, and gone farther, using rail pros, again, to 

actually develop a, what we'll call a, a layout plan for the station, ** ** the plan which you 

approved in April of this year, so this been this continuing improvements and details of, of, of 

getting the station in King City. Uh, some of it is not included in this document, and I think 

some of it, from the conversation, uh, with Christina and, and Pete, is a case of sort of time 

sequencing. They've put their document to the federal government back in February or January 

of this year. In April you adopted the, the rail post, rail po-, rail post plan, so there's maybe some 

loss of information. So, at this point in time, and I think the real thing I would ask is that your 

staff and TAMC and SLOCOG get together and get all the information that physically exists on 

this together in their hands so they can refine the written descriptions about the project, and 

you've gone a lot farther than what CalTrans or UP has as to specifics. Get that into the 

document so it's as accurate and, uh, I think what we're dealing with is a lack of up to date, uh 

the document at this point in time. Getting that up to date will give you the best document to tier 

off as you go forward, and, uh, that's my recommendation, and I, uh, hope TAMC, uh, and, uh, 

SLOCOG get to, to have. Thank you.

Next Speaker: Okay, would anyone else, like, from the public? And, again, if you would, for the 

recorder, spell your name.

Next Speaker: Yes, thank you. I'm, uh, Pete Rodgers. I'm SLOCOG staff. Um, I think, uh, it's 

R-O-D-G-E-R-S, by the way, which is the, uh, name. Um, and I just wanted to introduce myself, 

not knowing if there's going to be an opportunity when the public hearing is over. If there were 

questions, just to make sure that I was able to introduce myself and assure you that we're gonna 
work closely with your staff to integrate these comments, um, and underscore and reiterate what 

John said about the timing of this document. You know, our doc-, our document was finalized 

before your plans, and, but it, only in draft form, and we're happy to integrate those changes. 

Um, and I also wanted to give you just a little bit more context of the bigger project. I mean, we 

all are looking for this passenger train. I've been working on this passenger train for 22 years. 

The renaissance in rail California really began in 1990, when we passed Proposition, um, 116, 

and the vision, as John mentions, that sort of crystallized in 1992, and, um, King City is still the 

gap in state-supported services, and from San Luis Obispo to San Jose, there is no statesupported services, and Christina and I have been advocating on your behalf and on all, all of 

Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County, we have to be recognized. Uh, we 

deserve state-supported inner city rail services. You know, and most people don't understand 

how this is funded and how this works. You know, this is not just Amtrak service. The State of 

California pays for all of these services, with the exception of the Coast Starlight service, which, 

you know, we're fortunate to have through, and, and we would like to do what we can to, you 

know, help you get the Coast Starlight to stop as well, although we had experience with that in 

Paso Robles. It was very difficult for us to secure that stop, uh, but we were able to do that. Um, 

so I just wanted to underscore that we need to all work together with our legislators, with the 

League. There's an opportunity with the Cap and Trade funding, and, um, you know, this being 

a 22-year-old project, it's, it has peaks and valleys of opportunities, and we're at another peak of 

opportunity, and so we need to work, uh, closely with our legislators. We talked about, uh, three 

items we need in order to get this train service operating. The first thing is, it's one train set. We 

already have an existing train set. We need one more train set, um, which is about 

$22,000,000.00, and we need, um, we have to implement the capital improvements that we 

agreed to with Union Pacific, of which we have $25,000,000.00 in the bank to pay for those 

improvements, although Union Pacific wants a much bigger number of improvements, and the 

State has already programmed money in their plans to pay for the operating support of the train. 

So, and, and the cost of that is around $6,000,000.00 a year, so you can see that it's a 

$50,000,000.00 project. That's why it's taking so long to gather all these pieces together at the 

same time. So, I think we're on the, the road to getting this thing, um, implemented in the next,

you know, 3 to 5 years. Uh, I'd like to believe it was sooner, but, um, with that I'll just close and, 

again, uh, pledge to work with your staff to integrate these comments.

Next Speaker: Okay. Would anyone else from the public like to comment on this item? Okay. 

Then, I, real quick, process wise, did I hear you correctly that your request was to close the 

public hearing before? Okay. I –

Next Speaker: Yes, please.

Next Speaker: – I'm going to, my preference would be to leave the public hearing open. I want 

to make sure, 'cause I think we're gonna have some valuable comments, that I want to make sure 

getting into the public document. So.

Next Speaker: Is there a chance I could put this up on the  ?

Next Speaker: ** **.
January 7, 2015

Myrna Bradley (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Hi, I am Myrna Bradley. I live off of Los Palos Road and I found out about this a few days ago. I get...it is 

hard to talk sometimes when...this really affects our family a lot. The gentleman over there told a lot of 

the technical things that are that I wanted to say, but I wanted to mention, you know, they say its 

science fiction. Well, you know computers were science fiction at one time and you know, who would 

have thought we would have computers in our hands. Just you know 20 years ago. You know I am 50 

years old and I never would have thought of a computer in my hand you know so our...our lives now, 

everything’s high-speed you know, and so if we don’t...we can’t really trust that these big government 

people are gonna say, “oh yeah, this little we’ll let everybody know, we’ll listen to what they have to say, 

you know they don’t really have that in mind when they consider their big contracts and businesses and 

stuff and I appreciate this this time to be able to say something because that is part of what we are all

about as Americans and I wanted to say thank you to you all for serving our country, for serving our city 

and our state. And I know some people get real emotional, including me, about issues like this, but I 

know all of you are thinking very clearly and trying to see what is best for us as people. So, to narrow it 

down, the biggest thing for me right now is the real estate value. So now you put a shadow on our real 

estate. I have five children. I have two going into college next year, one going into college the next year 

after that. My husband has a main job and he takes side-work just so we can provide for our children 

and you know this real estate value hit, this shadow on us, is a really important thing for us you know, 

its...I know it might affect billions of dollars later on for changing this contract or whatever, but like the 

other gentlemen said too you know it will cost even more money trying to acquire our properties, which 

we have, you know, which is ours. Anyways, sorry I am not making too much sense we are very 

concerned about our property values and I don’t think, I don’t think it is necessary for this to be in this 

thing. I think we just need to say, get rid of it, take it out because it affects people and that is what our 

country is all about. It is about people, each of us individually. Thank you.
January 7, 2015

Leanne Brooks (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Moving a little slowly recovering from a broken ankle. (coughs) Excuse me. I am LeAnne Brooks, I live on 

Salinas Road, which is in the Henry/Santa Margarita curve part and excuse me if I am um not um fully

accepting of what is said of, “oh, this will never happen”. I agree with Mr. O’Malley, if it’s on paper, it 

can happen at some point and so just having this on paper makes me very nervous because this is my 

house (holds up map and points to where her house is located), right here in this section, this is where I 

raised my children, this is where I grow my organic vegetables, this is where I intend to pass on my land 

to my grandsons. I am a senior citizen; I am not going to move at this point in my life so I want this red 

and yellow stuff here to vanish into history. I intended to talk about why, you know, certain points here 

are talking about water...water problems in the area. I have been hauling water since August so any

disturbance to...further disturbance to our water table is just not acceptable in any way. Salinas is a 

dead end road. If they do anything to the crossing, which they did a few months back, we’re stuck. We 

have no other way out. So, I will cut it short with that, and thank you for your consideration. 
January 7, 2015

Paulette Claire (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

First of all, I want to thank all of you that have been working so hard to get us to this point and I know 

you have put in a lot of hours and a lot of time and you have put your heads together. Mayor O’Malley 

has spoke...has spoke for many of you quite candidly and I appreciate that. A couple points that I want 

to make is apparently the communication issue that many of us have experienced. You’ve heard it from 

some of the people who have spoken, the post cards...I’ve lived at my home for 20 years; my mailbox is 

a locked box. The first time I heard about this project was in November with a very plain envelope and 

luckily it was not an advertisement and I opened it and was surprised to see the dates, the times, and 

the information. Luckily our neighbors had gotten together and were speaking together. We have 

people who have time to delve into the situation and share the information with us so unless..unless if 

there had not been the letter in November, which like the post card could not have been mailed or 

could have gotten lost. If we didn’t have people who had the time to speak up and delve into the 

situation, I would not be here today so a big thanks to everybody. The other question that I have and it 

might be a rhetorical question for the gentlemen who spoke earlier was in your presentation that you 

had up on the screen, you had a list of adverse effects to our community. You forgot to list the people of 

the community and the loss of home and residential land. As I look at the picture, the railroad right-ofway goes right through the middle of my house so I guess I would be sharing my home with The Union 

Pacific or Amtrak Railroad. Luckily, my water supply is down by the river so I am not going to lose my 

river...my water supply, but I will lose my front porch, my screen door, a rental that I have on my 

property that offers me retirement income, the pasture out front where my animals live, the driveway, 

the gate, part of the barn, not the whole barn, but part of the barn and value to my property that has 

already been brought down. I am in the 11 to 12 second corridor that has already been mentioned. 11 

seconds of the train going by. Actually, love the train; I don’t know if I love the train quite so much as I 

did yesterday or the day before or last year. I would like you to consider those of us who live on Salinas 

Road, Los Palos Road...our lives, our investments, and our personal future, not just the future of our city, 

and our county. Thank you. 
Response to the Costal Corridor EIR

First let me say this EIS/EIR is SLOCOG’s Affordable Care Act! Meaning the only way we really will 

know what is planned is when you approve it next month! Those who wrote it intended to hide facts 

from the Homeowners in our area, by making statements that are factually untrue, also by sending it to 

us during the holiday season, when we are the people who have potentially the most to lose. The notice 

arrived at our home on the 20th of November not on November 14th which was the beginning of our 55

Day Comment Period. The date is accurate as it arrived on 20th November when I had back to back 

obligations and did not get home until after 5 pm. and was leaving early the 21st to visit an elderly 

relative. I gave it to my husband before I left on the 21st and that night he called me at almost midnight 

very upset with what he saw! For the next 45 plus days he has been going over these documents and 

those included by reference. Yes, we know that if something is referenced it becomes a part of the 

document! He has provided SLOCOG a large document of his concerns. His are much more technical 

than mine. 

Now getting back to the scheduling of the comment period to be from 14th of November until 

January 7th why would anyone schedule the 55 Day Commentary Period during the holidays other than 

to guarantee low attendance because you knew people tend to put things aside that seemed innocuous

during the period from Thanksgiving to New Years, as this is an extremely hectic time for families! I 

propose the reasoning was because you knew in this area it would be the most contentious portion of 

the project and actually threatens people with the loss of their homes and you wanted to mute the 

response!

The Cloud put on our properties by your EIS/EIR puts us all in limbo, personally we have numerous 

projects to improve our yard and home, which we had put off until we could acquire and pay for the 

materials with cash, now we have the materials to finally make the improvements, we are faced with 

the possible loss of portions if not all of our property. These items cannot be returned, they are project 

specific now we are in a great quandary do we finish the project or what? Your incomplete design puts 

into question many things; if you go with the green we will lose a minimum of 100 feet which takes out 

our chicken yard, chicken coop, storage/studio shed, trees, new fencing, etc. If go with the 500 feet we 

lose our home, our garage, our well, and while we could rebuild the house on the front of our lot, we 

can never drill another well due to the moratorium by Atascadero Mutual Water Company. And if you 

accept the 1000 foot we could lose everything! We probably would not even get enough our home to 

rebuild it! Or even purchase elsewhere. Especially since after this EIR/EIS is approved by you it will force 

downward the values of our home and it becomes a permanent cloud on our title, as we see no sunset 

clause in it. If you decided not to go forward with the project or indefinitely delay it the cloud is still 

there... We cannot sell our property without disclosing the cloud on our title, or we could be sued by a

future purchaser. Even refinancing will be more difficult as one of our neighbors found out recently 

when the VA inspector devalued his home by about $25,000 due its proximity to the railroad, why now 

when it has always been next to the railroad and previously had not been a problem.

How long will we have to wait for answers or do you actually know what you have planned but

knew the outcry would be so great you have to do the same as the Affordable Care Act where the only 
way we can know what is in it was to pass it. Once again I will reiterate that this EIS/EIR is SLOCOG’s

version of the Affordable Care Act, because they just know the Homeowners in this area are stupid just 

like Jonathan Gruber, who just knew the American Voters are stupid. What you are doing to this 

neighborhood is unethical because you are making homeowners in this area put their lives on hold for 

your convenience, unable to make plans for the future!

Anne Edgecombe
January 7, 2015

Anne Edgecombe (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Okay, I’m gonna say personally, this EIR/EIS is your Affordable Care Act. It means that the only way that 

we will really know what is going on is when it is passed. That doesn’t mean much to you people, you 

are not affected. We’re in the red zone. We were told that you guys gave us cards. We never received a 

card. We were told, by the gentlemen, that this came to us 55 days before and that we would have 55 

days and that you gave us a magnificent 55 days rather than 45. Ours came to us on November 20th. I 

know that because I was leaving town the next day. I gave it to my husband to review because it upset 

me. For the last 45 days you have made our lives hell because my husband spent all his time on the 

computer finding out all the documents that were tied to it which become a part of it. You pass these

things, like these people say you are putting a cloud on our titles forever because 10 years from now, 20 

years...listen, it won’t happen for 20 years, gee, then you depress our values more and more and more 

every month and every year. Every time it gets closer, every time someone rattles their sabers. Is this 

what we want? Basically, what you are doing is making our neighborhood, putting our lives on hold, 

waiting for you to come down and tell us what to do. We have things we want to do on our property. 

We can’t do them because we don’t know when you are going to take it away from us. Ours is in a

position they say is slope instability, if that was cut away by Union, probably southern optical cable. It 

was their property but they cut the toe of the slope off so the hill has slid. So we are definitely affected. 

The worst case...the best case scenario we lose, if we drop the green, we lose 100 feet off the back of 

our property. We lose a chicken area; we lose a studio, which is a shed with a window, uh...nothing 

much. We go to the next one we lose our house, we lose are well which is even more important because 

we will never be allowed to re-drill it because of the moratorium on drilling. So if... we have to be left 

with a spot at the front, which is in the red so no matter what you do you have just reduced the value of 

our home at this point down immensely. I know you don’t care because otherwise you wouldn’t even be 

thinking about it...thank you. 
Observations about the Coast Corridor Rail Realignment and Operation

The EIS/EIR refers to previous documents, and a few quotes are as follows:

STUDIES LEADING TO THE PROGRAM EIS/EIR

Several planning and feasibility studies have identified and proposed improvements 

for the Coast Corridor. Amtrak completed the California Passenger Rail System: 20- 

Year Improvement Plan Technical Report (Amtrak 20-Year Plan) in March 2001. 

Caltrans Division of Rail (DOR) coordinated with Amtrak, the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), and other transportation agencies to complete the Coast 

Corridor Service Development Plan in May 2013. The UPRR has recommended a 

series of improvements it asserts are necessary to allow for increased passenger use 

of the Coast Corridor. The Build Alternative, further described below, was 

intentionally drawn broadly to encompass all the physical improvements 

contemplated by the plans and studies above.
Above is a screen print of the subject area north of Santa Clara Road, in Atascadero. The red area is a 

1000 foot wide buffer zone for undefined purposes. The red line is the existing tracks, the yellow lines 

are the existing right of way, and the green line is an approximation of the realignment. Note that these 

green lines are straight except at the north end and trains cannot operate on tracks with angle points, so 

they bear only a crude relationship to any future alignment. However, the 1000 foot buffer zone 

together with the ambiguity of the proposed realignment creates a cloud over local properties that 

reduces the marketability of these residences and thus the property value is impaired. Given the long 

approval process for the realignment, by the time any property acquisitions are made, a history of 

depressed prices will work against the present owners. 

The FEMA flood map shows a portion of the same area and the floodway crossing the tracks. 
South of Santa Clara Road, there is a long tangent and no need for a realignment in that immediate area

until after crossing the bridge south of Eaglet. Santa Clara Road corresponds to UPRR milepost 228.3. 

The northerly terminus is near milepost 227.1 and occurs in a curve. This terminus is in a very curious 

location until it is realized that it corresponds with the Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to 

inundation by the 1% annual chance flood. ... The Base Flood Elevation is the water-surface elevation 

of the 1% annual chance flood. 

ZONE AE Base Flood Elevations determined.

FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE

'The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of 

encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood

heights. These statements were taken from the Flood Insurance Rate Map 06079C0853G dated 

September 16, 2012. 

It is plain to see that the proposed northly terminus of this section coincides with the floodway 

engulfing the railroad tracks. Realignments immediately north of this point will involve a more 

complicated permitting process and are not proposed in the EIS/EIR. Since the railroad tracks are on a 

raised embankment in this area, the 1% annual chance flood will likely erode the embankment for a 

considerable distance south of this northerly terminus. Treating the embankment as a flood control 

levee raises a lot of questions. Since it has been in place for over a century, it is grandfathered under 

FEMA until the changes contemplated by this EIS/EIR enter the permit stage, and then it must be 

compliant. 

This location is also near where the railroad embankment eroded to just short of the tracks during the 

1969 flood. The SPRR (before the merger) repaired the embankment and erected steel pilings in the 

river bed with heavy cables attached between these pilings and large tires were strung along the cables. 

These energy dissipation devices were removed under Court Order. Thus, there is a judicial history for 

this location, and it is hard to imagine that work in this area would be unchallenged today. Therefore, it 

is expedient to stop at this location. However, from a track layout perspective this location is extremely 

unwise, and straightening the curve as shown by encroaching into the floodway is very unlikely to be 

permitted. Further complicating things are the Atascadero Mutual Water Company's wells located on 

both sides of the tracks near milepost 227.5. These wells serve more than five hundred residences. Of 

the six curves (CO-29) mentioned in the in the Amtrak 20 year plan referenced above, two are north of 

the area mapped with the furthest north being just north of Halcon Road. The third is in the floodway 

area north of 227.5. and the sixth is a 2.5 degree of curvature curve north of Santa Clara Road that 

meets the 3 degree of curvature criteria. This leaves a 6 and a 4 degree of curvature curves with lengths 

of 450.05 and 857.94 with a 509.3 foot tangent between them to be concerned with. 

The UPRR Roseville Timetable #5 shows a speed limit of 40mph for passenger trains in this area 

extending from milepost 223.8, a point just north of the curve nearest to the Pine Mountain Cemetery, 

to milepost 228, at a point three tenths of a mile north of Santa Clara Road, and then 55mph until the 

town of Santa Margarita except for entering the siding. For the sake of argument, assume that the 

change over point is moved from milepost 228 to 227.5 near the wells, a distance of 0.5 miles. The 

increase in speed would take a theoretical 12 seconds off the time while requiring the condemnation of 

multiple residences. The taking of residences is contemplated only in the two realignments within the 
Henry/Santa Margarita section. No other section in this 133 mile project contemplates taking 

residences. 

Table 2-4, on page 2-16 of the EIS/EIR lists: Potential Maximum Speed Increases for Build Alternative 

Components. Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignments 

Current Maximum Speed Range (mph) – 35 and 40-55

Future Maximum Speed Range (mph) – No Change

This is a change from the chain of previous referenced documents which all showed speed increases 

and brings into question the reasoning for the realignment in this section. It is apparent that the speed is

controlled by track to the north of this section as indicated by the No Change in Table 2-4. 

The other section of the Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignments is the 3 degree of curvature curve 

at Asuncion Road which also meets the criteria. 

It is inconceivable that a project without apparent merit requiring the taking of residences would be 

included here. Is there some future consideration at work here?

It would seem that tilting trains and their benefits and defects are also a consideration. From Appendix 

C - Coast Corridor Service Development Plan: Section 4.1.2 - Corridor Rail Service Improvements.

Track Upgrades. The key to operating at maximum authorized speeds in mixed use (passenger 

and freight) operations is the condition of the infrastructure (rail, ties, and sidings), track 

geometry, signal system and level of maintenance. Improvements such as additional and 

extended sidings, double-tracking, and curve realignments are necessary in order to maintain the 

Corridor as a FRA Class IV railroad. (vii) In addition to system infrastructure improvements, there 

are ongoing rail and tie replacement needs. While the UPRR has made and continues to make 

infrastructure upgrades, the Corridor, while maintained to FRA standards, is characterized by 

single-track operations, short sidings or lack of sidings, manually-thrown switches, and an 

outdated signaling system. Much of the track is older, which requires a much greater level of 

maintenance to operate at maximum allowable speeds (MAS). The track geometry requires 

trains to operate at slower than maximum FRA allowable speed (79 mph), and siding lengths and 

conditions make train meets both difficult and time consuming.

[( vii ) Class 4 track is maintained to safely operate freight trains up to 60 mph and passenger trains 

up to 80 mph. This is the typical class for mainline track that hosts freight and passenger service. 

Factors influencing the classification of track include the condition of rail and rail joints, proper 

distance between rails (gauge), rail alignment, and the condition of cross ties.]

Curve Realignments. Curve realignments allow for reduced trip times by increasing train speeds 

on curved tracks and prolonging track life, reducing the frequency of repair or maintenance 

needs.

Rolling Stock Upgrades. Rolling stock upgrades include purchasing new railcars and locomotives 

to operate the proposed passenger services. In addition to improving the passenger experience 

(e.g., amenities, ride comfort), new rolling stock can offer tangible travel time benefits—trains 

with tilting capabilities, for example, can reduce or eliminate the need for trains to reduce speed 

on low-radius curves, allowing trains to maintain higher average speeds.
The bold type assertions in the paragraphs above are particularly disturbing. If this was the testimony 

of an expert witness in court, that witness could be charged with perjury, but this is only a legal 

document and not a court of law. Are these sentences the proper subject for a grand jury investigation 

or simply demonstrating incompetence? What about the multitude of people who signed off on this 

document? There is an old joke about a camel being a horse put together by a committee. Is this simply 

bureaucratic arrogance? Perhaps, so many people signed off that they all assumed that there was no 

need to actually read the document or compare it to federal regulations. I once heard an Englishman 

describe American Professionals like this, “Everyone insists on their prerogatives, but also disclaims 

responsibility.” How can a document so riddled with false statements be seriously considered for 

adoption?

It should be noted that the UPRR is a Class 1 Railroad, but the track of the Coast Subdivision is FRA 

Class IV track with a weight limit of 158 tons per railcar and a maximum speed varying from 20 to 

70mph between Gilroy and San Luis Obispo as shown on the UPRR Roseville Timetable #5. 

Between Salinas Station at milepost 114.8 and San Luis Obispo at milepost 248.5 (133.7 miles), there 

are 32 speed limits. Counting only the highest speed limit in those areas with complexities gives this 

condensed table: 

Pass. Speed Number of sections Total miles

20 1 0.2

25 2 8.4

30 3 5.1

35 1 1.7

40 5 12.1

45 4 5.4

50 4 12.3

55 4 28.5

60 3 3.7

65 1 2.3

70 4 54.0

75 0

79 0

Discounting acceleration and deceleration, and assuming the speeds listed above, a time of 157 minutes

is the theoretical minimum. The FRA class 4 legal maximum of 79 mph applies only to a 20.8 mile run 

from South San Jose to North San Martin and is beyond our consideration here. 

From the Southern Pacific Coast Line Condensed Schedules – 1927

#72 7:45 SF Daylight Limited nonstop express 

7:45 LA 

#70 9:00 SF

10:22 San Jose

11:14 Gilroy

11:55 Watsonville Jct.

12:12 Del Monte Jct.
12:29 Salinas

2:53 Paso Robles

4:35 San Luis Obispo

8:30 Santa Barbara

11:55 LA

In 1927, The Southern Pacific Passenger Train #70 Traveled 133.9 miles from Salinas to San Luis 

Obispo in 246 minutes with a stop in Paso Robles. The Schedule in Appendix B of the EIS/EIR travels 

the same distance with an additional stop in King City in 178 minutes. The UPRR analysis includes no 

realignments, but many siding, switch and signal improvements to allow train passing and tighter 

scheduling. 

While Federal Regulations limit maximum speeds based on track class and curves. The railroads are 

free to set lower company speeds on the track they own, and they do so based on legal advise, crossing 

conditions, maintenance frequency, and other considerations. 

From the Amtrak 20-Year Rail Improvement Plan Technical Report 2001

Rolling Stock – Modern Intercity Tilt Equipment (CO-06): Two sets of modern intercity equipment with

tilt (active or passive) capabilities would be purchased by this project to operate roundtrip Amtrak 

Daylight service along the Coast Corridor between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Train sets with tilt

equipment would allow the Daylight service to operate at train speeds up to 79 mph on the Coast 

Corridor, reducing the need for some infrastructure improvements related to decreasing track 

curvature and increasing track superelevation.

In lieu of several infrastructure improvements, the use of tilt train technology along the Coast Corridor

was considered while developing the proposed improvement projects. Using tilt equipment along the 

this corridor would reduce the number of infrastructure improvement projects required, thereby 

reducing the associated capital costs.

Henry to Santa Margarita Curve Realignments (CO-29): This infrastructure project is located 19 miles

north of San Luis Obispo and would relocate 2.10 miles of main line track between Henry and Santa 

Margarita.

The project would construct 2.10 miles of new main track and embankment on new right-of-way.

The six existing curves would be reduced to four curves with a three-degree maximum curvature. 

This track curvature infrastructure improvement would increase train speeds from 65 to 110 mph, 

resulting in reduced trip times and increased capacity

It should be noted here that 110 mph requires FRA Class 6 track. It should also be noted that a three 

degree maximum degree of curvature curve with a legal maximum super-elevation of six inches and a 

legal maximum 3 inches of cant deficiency (unbalanced super-elevation) without a FRA waiver will 

allow a top speed 65.4 mph per Federal Regulations. The FRA can issue a waiver, and Amtrak's Acela 

Express is allowed 7 inches of cant deficiency in the North East Corridor on Amtrak owned class 8 

track. Amtrak's 1997 Waiver application was denied by the FRA, so The Acela Express has the highest 

waiver in the USA. The FRA rarely grants significant waivers on trackage rights lines. 
Freight railroads are not interested in high super-elevation, and finding more than 3 inches is rare. 

Heavy freights pulling uphill around a curve rub the inside rail with the wheel flanges, so superelevation is minimized on freight tracks, especially since the EPA eliminated the use of curve grease. 

FRA regulations require the inspector to shut down the line if the super-elevation is negative or more 

than 7 inches. Thus, there is always some super-elevation to keep from going negative and the FRA 

tables stop at 6 inches and include 3 inches of cant deficiency by default, and 4 inches by waiver. 

In France 11.8 inches of cant deficiency is the law for tilting passenger trains and some tracks have so 

much super-elevation that the minimum speed requirements and steep grades on some passenger tracks 

preclude the operation of most freight trains even though there is a statutory limit of 750 meters on 

train length. Europe has difficult terrain with lots of hard rock mountains and as of 2009, 79% of train 

miles in the EU27 are passenger trains. The use of steep grades and tight curves has saved triple digit 

millions of dollars with fewer long tunnels and bridges and more direct routes. This requires almost 

three times the horsepower per ton of train compared with an Amtrak train and lightweight aluminum 

construction which our outdated 1950's regulations won't allow on mixed use tracks. Europe has had 

two major revisions to their regulations as technology has improved while we have done nothing 

except legislate heavier reinforcement. To put this in another perspective, 11.8 inches of cant 

deficiency corresponds to 30 centimeters or 0.20g which is equivalent to one fifth the weight on the 

truck (wheel set) as a side load trying to derail the wheel flanges. 

It is cant deficiency that controls the additional speed that may be used on curves. A tilting train 

provides comfort for the passengers for those trains that are operating under a waiver. 

It is usually difficult to explain engineering principles to law makers and journalists. As a result, we are

saddled with the perception that stronger and heavier is better. Even a Soccer Mom senses this when 

she straps her toddler into a child seat in her Ford Explorer with the little “Baby on board” sign in the 

back window interfering with her vision in the rear view mirror. This is intuitive and misconceived. 

American Passenger Trains are basically battering rams on wheels by law. Tilting trains are an 

American invention, but other countries have developed national transportation systems around them 

while we continue to legally mandate 1950's technology.

The automobile and bus industry does not want people riding the train. A successful passenger train 

takes a piece out of their bottom line, so their lobbyists work to deny relief to the railroads. Legislative 

problems are not fixed unless there is a rude awakening; usually a spectacular accident with major loss 

of life and a very public outcry. The status quo is simply legislated failure. Even when Congress 

responds to these events, the results have hidden consequences. For example: The the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 mandates positive train control (PTC) by the end of 2015. This is a 

technology that is still in development and a clear winner has yet to emerge. In consumer electronics, 

think VHS vs. Betamax. VHS was eventually replaced by DVDs, but even though Betamax had 

technical advantages, VHS was cheaper and prevailed in the marketplace. In 2008, people worried 

about personal computer viruses and identity theft. Recently, we have seen Sony Pictures brought to its 

knees by hackers, and in Iran, their government nuclear enrichment program has been hit hard by 

malware that caused extensive physical damage as effective as sabotage. Today, our physical 

infrastructure from water supplies and power plants, to train signaling is a potential target for cyber 

warfare. Without delaying legislation, non complying railroads may be reduced to Class 3 speeds of 40 

mph for freight and no passenger trains. Class 3 commonly includes regional railroads and Class 1 

secondary main lines. An example is BNSF between Spokane and Kettle Falls, Wash. In the eyes of the
UPRR this may be preferable to spending millions on unproven technology that may become obsolete 

prematurely. Delaying the signal upgrade on the lightly used Coast Subdivision could be a smart move. 

It will happen eventually, but the UPRR doesn't want to do it twice or end up with a Rube Goldberg 

patched together upgrade. Not completing the signal upgrade by the end of 2015 will prevent Amtrak 

operations on the line. In 1922 the Interstate Commerce Commission mandated in cab signaling as a 

safety measure for all railroads with passenger trains on their lines. Prior to this, Passenger trains 

routinely operated at 100 mph on some tracks. By not upgrading to cab signaling and accepting the 

reduced speed of 79 mph, the railroads started the long process of shedding their passenger operations. 

The European tilt train experience is a maximum weight of 19 tons per truck (wheel set). An Amtrak 

superliner coach weighs 74 tons or 37 tons per wheel truck and a freight car can weigh 158 tons or 79 

tons per truck. To load passengers efficiently at stations, you need wide doors, which then mandates 

more steel reinforcement. The problem is that the centrifugal force in a curve is proportional to the 

mass on the wheel at any given speed through that curve. Tracks are held in place by the friction of the 

ballast against the ties. Steel wheels on steel rails are not perfect and the resulting vibrations from 

operations are enough to move the track. On straight track, the result may be uneven settling or a 

tipping of the track. On curved track, high speed will move the track outward and low speed heavy 

pulling will move the track inward. These effects are not compensating, so the track distortions can get 

complicated. European track owners have used concrete roadbeds to keep the rails in place on highly 

cant deficient curves. European government agencies own the track and regulate safety. It is up to the 

train operating companies to see to passenger comfort. In the US, we regulate passenger comfort based 

on some tests done on the New Haven Railroad in 1950. 

The California High Speed Rail Project and Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor Acela line have recently 

been granted a waiver for aluminum cars for 160 mph operations on passenger train on class 8 track 

owned and maintained by the train operator. No aluminum passenger train cars are allowed on mixed 

usage trackage in the USA. 

The Japanese tilt train experience is that sensor driven actuators didn't work very well and their second 

generation tilt trains employ computer stored track information databases and route position equipment 

tells the computer where it is along the route. First generation tilt trains used sensors and servos to act 

like a governor and they reacted to something that was already happening so they were always playing 

catch up. These systems are unstable and will hunt (oscillate) if the deadband is too small. If it is too 

large, the ride becomes uncomfortable. These systems were usually turned off at less than 43.5 mph or 

when a train approached a station or changed tracks. The second generation uses a computer hosted 

look ahead table to apply corrections based on expectations. Its like the difference between walking up 

to a set of stairs in the dark and turning on the lights. If you see the stairs, you step up. If you don't see 

them, you stumble. The first generation sensor corrected tilt trains had troubles in reverse curves that 

were fixed in the second generation. They still use sensors to supplement the tables and fine tune the 

response to changing conditions, which also updates the tables. Tilt trains have their place, but there 

needs to be realistic expectations, and not all tilt trains are created equal. Caveat emptor. 

Most railroad maintenance expenses can be expensed in the current tax year. Capital improvements 

have to be depreciated and property taxes are paid on this slowly declining value, or sometimes on 

replacement value. Railroad equipment and property is typically longer lived than ordinary business 

equipment. The bridge over Santa Margarita Creek at Eaglet is probably 128 years old and made of 

riveted iron. After more than a century, it is still on the tax rolls and has proposition 13 protection. The 
UPRR is in no hurry to acquire replacement real estate that will be taxed at current market value unless 

it adds significant profit potential to their freight operations. For the UPRR, faster speeds take more 

horsepower to overcome grades and the horsepower requirement to overcome wind resistance which 

varies with the cube of the speed and this means more locomotives and more fuel and more wear on the

tracks for more frequent maintenance. Slower speeds means more labor costs. Like a supply and 

demand curve in an economics textbook, the sweet spot is where the curves cross. Costs go up on either

side of the sweet spot. The UPRR will resist any change which tends to pull their operations away from

that sweet spot. 

In 1962, the SPRR bypassed a 900 foot long tunnel on Cuesta Grade. To get it off the tax rolls, they 

boarded up the portals and dynamited the roof to cave it in. The picture below is a screen shot from the 

Federal Railroad Administration web site. Note the craters along the tunnel's path. 

The railroads pay property taxes for the track, which depend on the value of the property. This is an 

additional incentive for US railroads, to rely on "do more with less". The railroad system has far less 

capacity than in the past, but transports more freight. One result is, that many lines do not allow trains 

of different speed any longer. Either the fast ones or the slow ones are delayed regularly. It needs to be 

stressed that these railroads still exist. They are the survivors. 

Instead of getting public money for performing infrastructure upgrades, as in Europe, the railroads pay 

to the public after doing so, in the form of property taxes. Historically, these policies have worked as an

additional incentive for projects like de-electrification, ripping out the second track of double track 

railroad, giving up less important lines. It is unrealistic to expect investment within a setup that rewards

disinvestment.

European express rail freight systems use mostly capacity that has been added for passenger traffic. 

Doing it vice versa in the USA has no economic basis. When competing on private infrastructure 

against trucking on public infrastructure, it is logical to attract the business that is most compatible to 

rail freight and push the excess towards the roads, where capacity and maintenance is a problem of the 

public. Express freight is best transported by truck, within the logic of existing traffic policies.

It is unrealistic to expect any US railroad to set up an express freight system. This also means: No 

change regarding infrastructure that could make it easier to run passenger trains. 

The 158 ton limitation on the Coast Route prevents the use of some heavier six axle locomotives. 

Improved signaling and more sidings along the Coast Route will help the UPRR increase capacity. 

Realigning the tracks does almost nothing for their freight business and has a very large tax 

disincentive that goes on for many years. Any UPRR officer that promotes the SLOCOG plan at a 

stockholders meeting is likely to be out of a job immediately. Realignment of track was excluded from 

the UPRR response to the EIS/EIR in appendix B. 

Even holding the Phillips 66 upgrades hostage is not going to be convincing. The Bakken formation 
will fill a lot of tank cars. If the keystone pipeline goes ahead, the tank car traffic will fall off. If the 

price of crude stays low, development will stagnate. The UPRR would like to move those tank cars, but

not with long term strings attached. For people, nothing is certain but death and taxes. For UPRR, 

nothing is certain but taxes. The oil business has been notoriously volatile, taxes are much more 

predictable. Railroads are the most capital intensive business in the USA, with a low return on 

investment. Railroads are risk averse and tax avoiding. 

While we have thriving commuter lines in Southern California and the Bay area. Unless some very 

deep pocketed public entity wants to buy out the Coast Route, there is little to do. Any good engineer 

would say to forget the UPRR tracks that were engineered and built before 1894 with hand labor, and 

start over with a completely new right of way. It is not economical to smooth out that right of way if 

high speed rail is indeed what is needed. A Daylight train is projected to hold fewer passengers than a 

single Boeing 747. Unfortunately, there is not enough local population density to support a line that 

does not offer convenient LA to SF schedules. The SPRR offered nonstop 12 hour Daylight Limited 

service in 1927. The counties along the route want the local station stops. 

It should be further noted that the Coast Route was rejected by the California High Speed Rail 

Authority in favor of the Valley Route and ground breaking is scheduled for the first section from 

Bakersfield to Fresno. When the LA to SF connection is completed up the valley, it will siphon off the 

bulk of the passengers leaving us with a MilkRun version of the Daylight with inadequate passenger 

volumes. Amtrak is subsidized by the tax payers, but there is a limit where good management says 

enough! We simply do not have the population density along the route to support the Daylight in San 

Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties without those through ticket passengers that will be diverting to 

the much faster valley route. Most local service has limited competition, and competition discourages 

price gouging. 

As a further note: Tesla Motors is selling non polluting electric cars and Google has started 

manufacturing production of a self driving car. In a few short years, the assumptions about reducing 

pollution and increased safety of rail versus the highway may be reversed. In New York, the Metro train

had lower fuel efficiency per passenger mile than autos on the express way because of non rush hour 

operation with reduced occupancy. 

There is no way the Daylight can compete on speed! So, why is this a major emphasis? Tourists coming

to the Central Coast will enjoy the scenery, and those in a rush will not consider the Daylight when you

can drive drive from LA to SF in under 8 hours and you don't have to rent a car when you get there! Or,

you can fly which takes 1.5 hours plus the TSA hassle. 

On a personal note: My parents purchased lot 57 before the 1969 flood, and there was no slope stability

problem either before or after the flood. We did stand on the bluff after the flood and look out at the 

trash caught in the barbed wire fences on the properties below us between the SPRR and the Salinas 

River. Years later, the railroad brought in earth moving equipment to carve away the toe of the slope to 

facilitate plowing in plastic conduit for fiber optic cables. Since then, we have had occasional small 

winter slides which have exposed the roots of oak trees and caused other distress. This is a maintenance

problem of the railroad's own making, and a minimum amount of slope trimming could correct it, but 

that would require permits to remove dozens of oak trees. Simply cleaning up the toe as needed is a 

better solution. The slope withstood the test of almost a century before the fiber optic cable's 

inappropriate installation. 
This is a boondoggle. Maybe, enough money will be available to take some land, but in the end, it will 

give our county a seedy reputation. Do overs, or second chances will be very hard to obtain. 

Unfortunately, there may be some personal suffering before reason and economics prevail. 

John Edgecombe
January 7, 2015

John Edgecombe (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Thank you. I have in my hand an 11 page document which I forwarded to Pete. What we’ve got here, 

I’ve pulled from my page 3, “the taking of residences is contemplated only to realignments within the 

Henry/Santa Margarita section. No other section of this 133 mile project is contemplating taking 

residences”. I have done the math on the improvement that would happen in the realigning the 

residences north of Santa Clara Road and that is a magnificent 55 sec..., excuse me, a magnificent 12 

seconds. The a...in Table 2-4 of the EIR they list the potential maximum speed increase for built 

alternative components for Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments...future maximum speed range, 

no change. So we are having here a cloud on our title for a totally insignificant operational improvement 

to the railroad. And what we are seeing ...well, I talked to one of the gentlemen who recently, in the last 

week, I believe, refinanced his house, his home, through the VA. When the inspector came out they took 

25,000 dollars off the deal because of the railroad. If this document does not have a sunset clause, we 

will have to live with depressed property values forever. Thank you. 
From: Ellen Evans [XXXXXXXXXXXXXX] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 4:28 PM

To: Pete Rodgers

Subject: Coast Corridor Improvements Program

Dear Mr. Rodgers,

I was unable to attend this morning's meeting in Atascadero regarding the above referenced 

matter. However, the gist of the meeting has been relayed to me and, despite it sounding like the 

portion of the program that involves straightening the rail line in the Henry/Santa Margarita area 

will not be included in the final draft, I nevertheless wish to convey my thoughts regarding this 

proposal.

I strenuously object to it for three reasons. First, the proposed straightening is so minimal that it 

could not possibly be worthwhile, so I have to wonder what the point of this really is. Second, as 

a taxpayer, I do not feel that the cost of undertaking such an idiotic action is a wise use of public 

funds and we already have quite enough waste in government. Third, my family has lived here 

for forty-five years. This is our home and it is the most wonderful place in which to live that I 

can imagine and I have no interest in losing it because of a ridiculous scheme that will have no 

real benefit to anyone.

Thank you for considering my input and I hope that this will truly be the end of this proposal.

Ellen Evans

9538 Los Palos Road

Atascadero, CA 93422
Next Speaker: Thank you, Maurice. Uh, just really quickly, uh,   council members. I like 

the, the City Manager's, uh, ** ** on the City. I have sat in the past and currently I'm the 

Executive Legal Advocacy Committee. Uh, I will be their, uh,   available, so, if you can go, 

uh, go and participate, it's a good learning process, and ** ** that process. Thank you.

Next Speaker: Thank you. Okay. And now we're going to go to the, uh, the public hearing, 

Item B, which is joint with the Planning Commission. Um, Michael  .

Next Speaker: So, this evening we have, uh, under Item 2B, we have a joint meeting of the 

Planning Commission. I will note in our minutes that the planning, that the meeting will be 

convened, um, presently; that the members of the Planning Commission are present. It would be 

appropriate, though, for the Chair of the Planning Commission to formally convene the meeting 

before we go on.

Next Speaker: Thank you, uh, ** **. Uh, I'd like to call the meeting of the Planning Commission 

to come to order.

Next Speaker: And so this evening's, uh, the purpose of this evening's public hearing is to 

conduct a public hearing regarding the environmental impact statement, environmental impact 

report for the Coast Corridor Improvements Draft, uh, program, and out of that, we expect that 

the council this evening will receive public testimony, receive testimony from City staff, as well 

as TAMC, uh, staff and consultants, and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter attached to the 

staff report, um, as well as provide additional comments and information to TAMC and the 

consultants on the project, and with that, I will turn it over to Doreen, and she will give you an 

overview of the project, and then we have TAMC staff, Ann, available as well.

Next Speaker: Um, Mayor and members of the City Council, uh, reporting this evening is the 

Coast Corridor draft program for environmental impact statement and environmental impact 

report. The, um, reason for this is you have an environmental impact statement, which   in 

ways that the national Environmental Protection Act. It's a national program, ** ** program, and 

then, of course, the environmental impact statement, which complies with the California 

Environmental Quality Act. This is actually a Power Point presentation.   and ** ** is going 

to present. What I'm going to do is just  . Christina will talk a little more in detail about the 

EISEIR. Uh, what staff had an opportunity to do was review the EISEIR for compliance. We 

are not ** ** to, the City is not  . Um, that is the lead agency. That means that they are the 

agencies responsible for actually coordination the processing of this document. The re-, public 

review period for the ** ** ends January 7, 2015. During this period of time, this is, uh, the 

public's opportunity to review the document and provide comments. As you look at your, uh, 

staff report, you'll notice that there is a chart that's included in the document that has a number of 

comments. Um, we've looked up the EISEIR, and provided comments. One are the purposes for 

this document, and future use of the document is to tier off the environmental document so that 

when the City comes forward with a  , uh, project in more detail, we hope to use that 

environment ** ** so that we don't have to spend a lot of money on generating environmental 

information  . So, it's extremely important that the information is accurate and that there is, 

uh, information that is current and not stale. We did have an opportunity to speak with, uh, 

TAMC staff last night, ** ** staff last night, and Circle Point staff, uh, last night. Circle Point is 
Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: I've  .

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: Uh, it should be 2014.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: Okay, uh, now –

Next Speaker: Uh, uh, ** **, can I ask a question?

Next Speaker: Yeah, all these  .

Next Speaker: Oh, no, I said, I was –

Next Speaker: Yes.

Next Speaker: – listening to comments, ** **.

Next Speaker: Yes, we, and, um, do you want to take the recorder and, once the recorder is there, 

if you could spell your –

Next Speaker: Actually, we should just have him them, just say your name.

Next Speaker: Yeah, let 'em guess how they spell that one.

Next Speaker:  .

Next Speaker: Uh, the name is Francis Giueici, G-I-U-E-I-C-I. I am the President of Valley 

** ** Company here in King City, and my question is, uh, we have a building that would be 

affected by this project, and not that it's not gonna hold up the project, but I'm just wondering, no 

one's ever been in touch with us to talk to us about any of this. So, my question, basically is, uh, 

uh, at what point will we be approached by TAMC or someone else to talk about our structure?

Next Speaker: Okay. Who wants to answer that question?

Next Speaker: I'll start with that one. Um, we actually have noticed the Hearns on numerous 

projects in the First Street corridor. They do own a building, if I recall correctly, and John or 

Doreen can correct me on the ownership. It's a lease hold of the, of the building. We actually 
have plotted out, um, the, basically the layout plan, and we can work around that building for the 

time being, for quite some time.

Next Speaker: This is the –

Next Speaker: Um, but ultimately, we would, I would imagine that a better, higher use would 

come along for that, but that's sometime in the future.

Next Speaker: Okay, then let me ask, let me ask the follow up   line, which is –

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: – how can he stay in the loop so he knows how, as, uh –

Next Speaker: If you will give us your direct contact, we will use it as opposed to what we find 

in the public records.

Next Speaker: Well, you do have our contact.

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: I already –

Next Speaker: Uh, but, we have your public record contact.

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: And I'm not gonna make you say it out loud, but we would like your email and, 

you know, stuff that we know that would go directly to you.

Next Speaker: Okay.

Next Speaker: That would be the best way.

Next Speaker: Do we have the ** **.

Next Speaker: Yeah, you can just put that on, put it on there, and we will be sure that –

Next Speaker: You have it on, you have it on.

Next Speaker: – one of those. You ha-, turn it over and use it even.

Next Speaker:  .

Next Speaker: Um, okay, well you, you've got it already, but I'll do –
Next Speaker: If you can, if, if –

Next Speaker: – it again.

Next Speaker: Yes, please.

Next Speaker: If, if you could just ** ** Francis, and give it to Michael, and then –

Next Speaker: Yeah.

Next Speaker: – we'll make sure that you, uh, we'll contact you directly.

Next Speaker: So, any, um, –

Next Speaker: Thank you.

Next Speaker: – do you have a question  ? Okay, so, I, so the public hearing is now closed. 

Um, now, if you have a, a question –

Next Speaker: No, um, Michael, uh, you say you've noticed –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – uh, uh, do you mean you've sent them some letters?

Next Speaker: Yes. That's what's required under the law.

Next Speaker: Okay, well, I know that's what's required, but when we know that there is a 

building that would be affected, I think just make a phone call. ** **. I'd, I'd like to include the 

people, um, obviously,   is greatly affected by –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – the ** **, uh, the, um, and I don't know that  , maybe those two –

Next Speaker: Mm hmm.

Next Speaker: – and, and ** ** street, and, and –

Next Speaker: There's actually other property owners involved, including some kind of weird, 

crazy parcels and lease holds. Um, we do notice them. That threshold of, gee, how much extra 

effort do we put into. Uh, the law somewhat presumes that people are gonna be acting in their 

own self-interest –

Next Speaker: Yes.
Coast Corridor EIS/EIR Hearing Meeting Summary – Soledad , CA

Dec. 3, 2014

Conducted by Christina Watson, TAMC Principal Transportation Planner

Soledad City Council 12/3/14

a. Councilmember Christopher Bourke: a question to the very impressively thick report you 

have there, my question is, what is specifically planned for the City of Soledad, I mean 

there’s a station in the city, we have side tracks next to it, is there any work planned on the 

tracks in the City of Soledad?

i. Ms. Watson: No, the plans have only to do with the station itself in the City of 

Soledad limits - city limits.

ii. Mr. Bourke: So there is no track work?

iii. Ms. Watson: That is my understanding, but I will verify that, and the answer will be 

provided in the final environmental document.

iv. Mr. Bourke: Thank you.

b. Mayor Fred Ledesma: So we’ll be able to purchase a ticket here instead of going to Salinas?

i. Ms. Watson: The train service? So, once the Coast Daylight is in operation, you’ll be 

able to board here in Soledad and take the train all the way up to San Francisco or 

all the way down to either Los Angeles or San Diego.

ii. Mayor Ledesma: So like with the wine corridor, if people want to, they can come 

down on the train to visit the wine corridor here or to go to the National Park?

iii. Ms. Watson: Yes.

iv. City Clerk Adela Gonzalez: Just want to note that the City must fund the station 

construction. When redevelopment agencies were still around, we had funding

designated for station improvements; Mr. Brent Slama has more information on 

that. Now that the redevelopment agencies are no longer around, we do not have 

those funds for station improvements.

v. Mayor Ledesma: Do we have a cost estimate for that? Can we use the Measure I 

funding for that?

vi. Ms. Gonzalez: I don’t think we have a cost estimate yet and it wasn’t in the 

approved project list for Measure I.

c. Val Gomes1: I have a two-fold question. I appreciate you laying out the environmental 

impacts. I’m just wondering, I mean I can appreciate it, it may not be as crucial at the 

moment, but, in case a monetary value has been assessed to the environmental impact at 

this point, or is there some plan to do such a monetary cost and how that might be 

mitigated, if there is a cost, if that might be expected to be borne by businesses or 

taxpayers? A second question that also could be responded to sometime in the future, if not 

now, would be, in terms of once the project does get to be operational, what’s the cost 

benefit analysis, in terms of how much would you put in and how much would it benefit the 

actual taxpayer? If those answers cannot be provided tonight, it can wait. Thank you.

i. Ms. Watson: OK

d. Councilmember Christopher Bourke: One more question, Ms. Watson, if I may, 

Councilmember Bourke, at the microphone, here. You said that your organization is going to 

do the EIR, and then eventually you are going to propose it to the train operator, which is 

 

1

TAMC staff did not get contact info for Mr. Gomes, but Ms. Watson did give him her card and requested he 

follow up with an email.
Union Pacific, which parts of the major plan they are going to implement, so your 

organization is not making the ultimate, put it that way, Southern Pacific – Union Pacific is 

going to say what they are going to do, what they’re actually going to do, which might not 

be the entire plan, correct?

i. Ms. Watson: OK, so let me just clarify that. TAMC is not the lead agency on this 

project, we’re a responsible agency. City of – I’m sorry, Caltrans is the lead agency 

for the project, but for the environmental document, SLOCOG is the lead agency on 

the state side of things and the Federal Railroad Administration is the lead agency 

on the federal side of things – there’s a lot of entities involved in this. In terms of 

implementing the project, Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation is the 

lead agency to implement the project and to conduct the negotiations with Union 

Pacific to determine which of the projects will be implemented. It’s a long process of 

negotiating between the entities that will determine exactly which projects will get 

implemented out of this plan.

ii. Mr. Bourke: So it’s up to Union Pacific, basically?

iii. Ms. Watson: I would say that it’s up to the negotiations between Caltrans and Union 

Pacific.

iv. Mr. Bourke: Gotcha, OK. When might those be – any idea of timeframe, so that we 

may know, what might actually be done?

v. Ms. Watson: I don’t think we have a timeframe for that.

vi. Mr. Bourke: OK, thank you.

e. Councilmember Patricia Stephens: This project has been on the burner for 18 years that I 

know of – how many?

i. Royce Gotcher, Caltrans: I think it’s more like 20 years. It’s been a long time.

ii. Ms. Stephens: 18-20 years. I think that Mayor Pro Tem has been attending the 

meetings. I’ve attended, over the years, many, many meetings. 

iii. Ms. Gonzalez: Former Mayor Gerbrandt, Gary Gerbrandt, was attending these 

meetings as well.

iv. Ms. Stephens: Yes, he’s the one that started Soledad’s involvement, long before our 

National Park came. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

f. Mayor Pro Tem Alejandro Chavez: This project has been going on for years. I just wanted to 

state that the document we’re talking about here, we’re talking about June of 2015, so I 

know that’s the one piece that we know about, and then those negotiations will happen. I 

think the one thing that has changed is that there actually is an interest in rail at the state 

level for probably the first time. There actually is a group of Senators and there is a 

committee now that is looking at rail at the state level, when before, had never been any 

kind of committee that I was aware of, so now there is some kind of interest. Part of it was 

the bullet train in the Central Valley; I think that is what started the interest. On the positive 

side of that is the Daylight train. One of the things I didn’t hear in this presentation but I did

hear in the morning presentation, because someone asked the question in regards to the 

amount of passengers in this particular area, I believe it’s number 2 in the nation in regards 

to rail, or something like that?

i. Ms. Watson: I think that’s what Executive Director Hale said this morning. 

ii. Mr. Bourke: Unlike the bullet train, this would actually really go from LA to San 

Francisco?

iii. Ms. Watson: I think they are both supposed to go LA to San Francisco; this one will 

go along the Coast. 
iv. Mr. Bourke: Well, yeah, but the Coast is so much more beautiful. Who would want 

to go through the San Joaquin Valley?

v. Ms. Watson: All the people who live there. 

2. King City special joint meeting of City Council/ Planning Commission 12/9/14
January 7, 2015

Eric Greening (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Thank you. I am Eric Greening and following up on Mr. O’Malley’s questions. I will remind you that as a 

lead agency, even as a co-lead agency, you were an essential and critical path. You are not obligated to 

certify this EIR and can withhold certification until the realignments are eliminated. Relative to the 

realignment saving travel time, there is a huge investment of someone’s time in their construction and 

in the acquisition of the property and the cost of acquisition of property can easily be underestimated as 

the high-speed rail people initially did until they got a lesson in it that severance is part of the cost, not 

just the land you’re taking. If you sever one part from another, that is also taking property values away 

from people. If we are interested in a faster service or at least a less delayed service, there are other 

alternatives to curve realignments. There is restore... in addition to lengthening additional sidings; there 

is restoring sidings that existed in the past. I remember when they came and tore out the Henry siding

just before SP turned it over to UP. That was...that used to be actually the siding as which the Coast

Starlights most often met. The road bed is still there right near Curbaril in Atascadero. There wouldn’t 

need to be any moving of any tracks. The other would be Tilt Train Technology and I wish I knew it were 

being built in this country. Right now the main one is built in Spain, the TALGO, but some of you may 

remember a ride we had on that over a decade ago when they were showing off the train and when the 

good people of Paso Robles got the train to stop there. Served almonds and local wine, and actually got 

it on Amtrak’s radar to start including that stop at Paso Robles. That was before the Depot had been 

done. Anyway, so there are alternatives that are much less disruptive to people’s lives; restoring past 

sidings, Tilt Train Technology. If we are concerned about safety, I would like to look at some of the 

stretches...if Harold Miosi were still alive, he would be here warning about places on the south side of 

the grade going down and around those curves where the geology is so unstable that in his lifetime he 

watched up to 24 feet of ballast stuffed up under the tracks because the mountain was trying to peel 

away from them. So, if we’re concerned about speed, I named the alternatives. If we are concerned 

about safety, and especially if we are going to have more oil trains, which I hope we don’t, if we are 

concerned about safety, look at the geological underpinnings on the grade, particularly the south side. 

There’s some serious issues there. Thank you. 
From: Celine Hayden [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 3:48 PM

To: Pete Rodgers

Subject: Written comment for Coast Corridor Improvement EIS/EIR

Dear Federal Railroad Administration Representatives,

I live, with my family, on Leff Street in San Luis Obispo, next to the train 

tracks and a stone’s throw from the train station. We love the idea of expanded 

service to the Bay Area as we are big proponents of public transit. We would 

like to make one request, though. The one train that presently goes to the Bay 

Area, the Coast Starlight, when going North the train’s engines stop right next 

to our property, or one property over on either side. And boy, is it loud. If you 

are outside, it is hard to hear over the train’s engines and often I have to stand 

next to someone and yell at them at the top of my voice to be heard. The trains 

going north idyll for about 15 minutes at the station so this has a serious noise 

impact on the neighborhood and our neighbors. 

I have never complained about the noise, but if the FRA is considering 

expanding service I would like to request that sound mitigation measures be 

implemented. I don’t know if a kind of muffler can be put on the train’s 

engines, or whether the FRA can erect a sound barrier (a wall similar to those 

used next to highways, for example), or perhaps if the trains could turn off 

their engines while they sit at the station, that would be sufficient. Some trains 

idyll for quite a long time at the station, such as the 12:50pm train coming in 

from Los Angeles. This train idylls for 45 minutes before heading South at 

1:35pm. Although this train’s engine is further away from our house than the 

northbound trains, it still impacts the noise level significantly in the 

neighborhood.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. I look forward to the day 

we have expanded service to the Bay area!

Sincerely,

Celine Hayden
Coast Corridor EIS/EIR Hearing Meeting Summary – Salinas, CA

Dec. 3, 2014

Conducted by Christina Watson, TAMC Principal Transportation Planner

TAMC Board Meeting 12/3/14

a. Boardmember Louis Calcagno: How many riders are on the Starlight today? Are the primary 

stops Salinas and San Luis Obispo? And is the Daylight the same thing? I see the train go by 

every day and no one is on it. If no one rides currently, why would we do another train?

b. Boardmember Bruce Delgado: I heard you mention safety as a purpose and as a benefit on 

several slides, but it’s missing from the environmental benefits slide. You might want to add 

increased safety to the benefits slide.

c. Christine Kemp1: The loss of agricultural land is a great concern. Property owners along the 

corridor did not receive notice of this project prior to the receipt of the notice of this 

document, and the project process is unclear. Who is the decision-making body for this 

project? To whom should we direct questions and concerns?

d. Arthur McLoughlin2: I am a resident of North County. I frequently travel on Amtrak, the 

Coast Starlight, to Los Angeles. The train is usually half to three-quarters full in coach; the 

trip is during the day so I always ride coach. Many people ride in the club car, which have 

windows you can’t see into from outside, so it may appear empty but it’s usually full. The 

club car is a gathering place, people go there to socialize. Amtrak is cheaper and more 

convenient than flying. It gets you right into downtown LA. Sometimes, the train times don’t 

work for my trip, and then I’ll take the Amtrak bus to connect to the Surfliner train instead. I 

am overall in favor of this project. I would ride the Daylight if it were available.

e. Ross Jensen3: I am a property owner along the 101, at Spence Road. What are the properties 

that will be affected by the siding project? Will you be using eminent domain to acquire any 

properties? In the past, there was also talk about a project to improve the frontage road 

along the 101 in Chualar. You should make sure there is no conflict between the two 

projects.

f. Boardmember Alejandro Chavez: I think it will be great to have a train station in Soledad, 

especially for tourists visiting the Pinnacles National Park in Soledad. I have taken the 

Starlight train six or seven times in the past, and it is 75% or more full on the trip from 

Salinas to LA. I also rode first class from Salinas to Seattle, and it was fully booked. 

g. Boardmember Simon Salinas: Consider reaching out to agricultural landowners using a 

mailing list regarding the Soledad and King City hearings.

h. Staff responses:

i. Principal Planner Christina Watson: Notices were mailed out to every property 

owner with property abutting the rail line between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, 

both when the Notice of Intent was published in 2012 and for this document. TAMC 

is not the decision-making body for these projects, the document leads are SLOCOG 

on the state side and the FRA on the federal side. But as a responsible agency, I can 

respond to questions and help folks get in touch with the right people to get 

answers to their questions. All comments and questions will also be included in the 

final document.

 

1 Ms. Kemp gave staff her contact info and followed up with email correspondence. TAMC has her contact info.

2 Mr. McLoughlin is on the Highway 156 Community Advisory Group. TAMC has his contact info.

3 Mr. Jensen signed in at the meeting. TAMC has a phone number for him.
ii. Executive Director Debbie Hale: According to the internet, the Starlight had 454,000 

riders in 2012, and was the number 2 long-distance train in the nation. Adding all 

state-supported services, it was #13 out of 42 nationwide. Staff will evaluate the 

potential conflict between the proposed siding and the highway frontage road 

project.
-----Original Message-----

From: Kemp, Christine [XXXXXXXXXXXX]

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 1:56 PM

To: Christina Watson

Subject: Coast Corridor Rail Project - Salinas to Soledad - Google Earth Image

<<GoogleEarth_Image.jpg>> Christina -

I am following up on the TAMC meeting this am regarding the Coast Corridor Railway project.

I viewed the on-line Google Earth showing the improvement areas.

Attached is the map for the railway section between Salinas and Soledad.

There is an orange line running along the rail track from south of Spence Road to Esperanza Road. What does that 

orange line meant? Other than this orange line, this appears to be the only work being done in this section of the 

railway line. Is that correct?

Also, is there a Key that I can locate that states what the "orange", "green", blue" and "red" lines denote, as well as 

the numbers on the map, i.e. 1.40.2, 144.9, etc. 

I would also appreciate you e-mailing me a copy of the PowerPoint presentation you give this morning.

Thank you for your assistance.

Christine

Christine G. Kemp

Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss

A Professional Corporation

333 Salinas Street

P.O. Box 2510

Salinas, CA 93901

(831) 424-1414 ext. 271

(831) 424-1975 (fax)

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

-----Original Message-----

From: Christina Watson 

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:02 PM

To: Kemp, Christine

Subject: RE: Coast Corridor Rail Project - Salinas to Soledad - Google Earth Image

Christine,

Thanks for your questions and for attending the hearing this morning.

Attached is my PowerPoint and a key to the GIS map. I'll also be posting both up on our website in the next day or 

so. 

The orange line is a siding improvement project. The numbers are mile markers along the railroad alignment. I will 

also forward this email to our consultants to verify that the siding is the only improvement proposed between 

Spence and Esperanza.

Thank you,
Christina

_________________________________________

Christina Watson

Principal Transportation Planner

Transportation Agency for Monterey County 55-B Plaza Circle Salinas, CA

93901 Tel. (831) 775-4406 Fax (831) 775-0897 christina@tamcmonterey.org http://www.tamcmonterey.org

-----Original Message-----

From: Kemp, Christine [XXXXXXXXXX]

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:10 PM

To: Christina Watson

Subject: RE: Coast Corridor Rail Project - Salinas to Soledad - Google Earth Image

Thank you Christina -

Can you also please ask the consultant to confirm that, except for the siding improvement project and whatever 

else is associated with that improvement between Spence Road and Esperanza, there are no other proposed 

improvement project in or along the railroad right of way between Soledad and Salinas.

Thank you, 

Christine

Christine G. Kemp

Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss

A Professional Corporation

333 Salinas Street

P.O. Box 2510

Salinas, CA 93901

(831) 424-1414 ext. 271

(831) 424-1975 (fax)

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

_____________________________________________

From: Christina Watson 

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:34 PM

To: 'Kemp, Christine'

Subject: RE: Coast Corridor Rail Project - Salinas to Soledad - Google Earth Image

Dear Christine,

Yes, except for the proposed Spence siding improvement project (MP 121 - 123.4), there are no other separate 

physical improvements specifically proposed in the area between Spence Road and Esperanza Road. However, 

proposed system-wide track and signal improvements could still be located within the existing railroad right-ofway (ROW) through this area. These include tie replacement, new rail (continuous welded rail), ballasting 

improvements, etc.

Regarding your question about proposed improvements between Salinas and Soledad, the only improvements that 

might potentially be outside the existing railroad ROW are the proposed new Spence siding and the proposed new 

Soledad Station. Here are all the potential improvements proposed between Salinas and Soledad:
Mile Post (MP) Location Improvement Type

114.9 Existing Salinas siding New powered switch

121 - 123.4 Spence New siding 

130 Existing Gonzales siding New powered switch

140 Existing Soledad siding New powered switch

140 Soledad New station

Also, just so you know, the railroad, Union Pacific, is constantly maintaining their system, separately from anything 

that is being considered in this Draft Program EIS/EIR, so you may see work being done on their railroad that is not 

related to our project.

Thank you,

Christina
Coast Corridor EIS/EIR Hearing Meeting Summary – Salinas, CA

Dec. 3, 2014

Conducted by Christina Watson, TAMC Principal Transportation Planner

TAMC Board Meeting 12/3/14

a. Boardmember Louis Calcagno: How many riders are on the Starlight today? Are the primary 

stops Salinas and San Luis Obispo? And is the Daylight the same thing? I see the train go by 

every day and no one is on it. If no one rides currently, why would we do another train?

b. Boardmember Bruce Delgado: I heard you mention safety as a purpose and as a benefit on 

several slides, but it’s missing from the environmental benefits slide. You might want to add 

increased safety to the benefits slide.

c. Christine Kemp1: The loss of agricultural land is a great concern. Property owners along the 

corridor did not receive notice of this project prior to the receipt of the notice of this 

document, and the project process is unclear. Who is the decision-making body for this 

project? To whom should we direct questions and concerns?

d. Arthur McLoughlin2: I am a resident of North County. I frequently travel on Amtrak, the 

Coast Starlight, to Los Angeles. The train is usually half to three-quarters full in coach; the 

trip is during the day so I always ride coach. Many people ride in the club car, which have 

windows you can’t see into from outside, so it may appear empty but it’s usually full. The 

club car is a gathering place, people go there to socialize. Amtrak is cheaper and more 

convenient than flying. It gets you right into downtown LA. Sometimes, the train times don’t 

work for my trip, and then I’ll take the Amtrak bus to connect to the Surfliner train instead. I 

am overall in favor of this project. I would ride the Daylight if it were available.

e. Ross Jensen3: I am a property owner along the 101, at Spence Road. What are the properties 

that will be affected by the siding project? Will you be using eminent domain to acquire any 

properties? In the past, there was also talk about a project to improve the frontage road 

along the 101 in Chualar. You should make sure there is no conflict between the two 

projects.

f. Boardmember Alejandro Chavez: I think it will be great to have a train station in Soledad, 

especially for tourists visiting the Pinnacles National Park in Soledad. I have taken the 

Starlight train six or seven times in the past, and it is 75% or more full on the trip from 

Salinas to LA. I also rode first class from Salinas to Seattle, and it was fully booked. 

g. Boardmember Simon Salinas: Consider reaching out to agricultural landowners using a 

mailing list regarding the Soledad and King City hearings.

h. Staff responses:

i. Principal Planner Christina Watson: Notices were mailed out to every property 

owner with property abutting the rail line between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, 

both when the Notice of Intent was published in 2012 and for this document. TAMC 

is not the decision-making body for these projects, the document leads are SLOCOG 

on the state side and the FRA on the federal side. But as a responsible agency, I can 

respond to questions and help folks get in touch with the right people to get 

answers to their questions. All comments and questions will also be included in the 

final document.

 

1 Ms. Kemp gave staff her contact info and followed up with email correspondence. TAMC has her contact info.

2 Mr. McLoughlin is on the Highway 156 Community Advisory Group. TAMC has his contact info.

3 Mr. Jensen signed in at the meeting. TAMC has a phone number for him.
ii. Executive Director Debbie Hale: According to the internet, the Starlight had 454,000 

riders in 2012, and was the number 2 long-distance train in the nation. Adding all 

state-supported services, it was #13 out of 42 nationwide. Staff will evaluate the 

potential conflict between the proposed siding and the highway frontage road 

project.
January 7, 2015 

Gary Kirkland (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing) 

Thank you very much. You might be getting tired of me, but that’s okay. What I am calling about...talking 

about today, on this issue, is who owns the railroad? Who owns those tracks? That doesn’t seem to 

come up. If you are going to make this document, whatever it is, and it is gonna be government that 

gonna decide what is gonna to happen to the railroads, we have an amendment in the constitution that 

says about illegal taking...eminent domain is the idea. Why doesn’t the government then buy those 

railroad tracks and they can do with them as they please. But no, a cheaper and easier way to do it, 

although I think illegal, at least unconstitutional, is just make regulations that require the railroad 

company, or whoever owns it, to do whatever we want, although we won’t take it from you. One of the 

comments up here was that you have a conflict between the railroad companies that want freight and 

passengers. Well, the freight companies exist to make money for their owners and meet the needs of 

their customers and if you are gonna go in there and make them do rail transportation that interferes 

with their ability to make money of course you are gonna have conflict and you are gonna use the 

tyrannical power of government to force them to do things that make them even lose money so that 

you can meet the needs of people who don’t want to pay for it. They want to have rail transportation 

without paying the full cost of it and we’ve gotta stop this tyranny. Leave the railroads alone. Let them 

provide what people want and you guys get out of this business. I said that before...thank you.
January 7, 2015

Christopher Lyon (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Hi, my name is Christopher Lyon. My wife and child and I live on Salinas Road. This has been referred to 

as a science fiction story. It seems more like a horror story to a lot of us that live in the affected areas.

You know, I hear that it’s not gonna happen because of fiscal issues, however, as Mr. O’Malley said, if 

the finances are realigned, this could happen and in the documents they are showing not a 500 foot 

increase in the railroad right away but 1,000 foot increase in the railroad right away on either side of the 

tracks. So postcards were sent to everyone within five hundred feet, what about the people out to one 

thousand feet. If these tracks are realigned, specifically on Salinas road, we lose our access with our 

road, if it...all of our wells are right along the railroad tracks, we potentially lose our water source, as 

well as Atascadero Mutual Water, they have a major well at the North end of Salinas Road, which they 

would potentially lose as well. So, I have also heard that there are also financial effects to us already 

from this in that some people have taken a hit on property values because this is public knowledge now. 

So I urge to try to eliminate the realignment as well as the increase in right-of-ways before this is 

accepted or goes forward. Thank you. 
From: Rachel May [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 4:35 PM

To: Pete Rodgers

Subject: Comments on the Cost Corridor Draft Program EIS/EIR

Dear Mr. Rodgers,

I am writing to formally submit my comments on the Coast Corridor Draft 

Program EIS/EIR, as I will be unable to attend the public hearing tomorrow, 

January 7th, at Atascadero City Hall. I am outraged to find that my home and 

a majority of my 15 acre property in southern Atascadero sits within the “red 

zone” of condemned houses on your proposed map included in the 

EIS/EIR. This is where I live and am raising my family. Straightening this 

segment of track (Henry/Santa Margarita section) is going to allow a quicker 

train? Really?? And this “quicker” train is going to travel up and down Cuesta 

Grade at this new “quicker” rate of speed. Ha! The passenger trains that 

currently run up and down the California Coast are primarily used by travelers 

and tourists, not commuters. Why would commuters want to take a lower 

speed train that stops at many local stops? They don’t. That is why a high 

speed rail is being built in the Central Valley connecting LA and SF. The 

Amtrak train that currently runs twice daily along this section of track (one 

north-bound train and one south-bound train per day is not being utilized to 

capacity at this time. Why do you think adding another train is going to 

increase this number of people? According to your proposed map, my home 

and the home of all of my neighbors in a 1 mile section along Salinas Road are 

going to be condemned ... so a few more tourists can enjoy a slightly faster 

trip from San Francisco to LA. Mr. Rodgers, how would you feel if the 

location where your home is built, where you have a garden and fruit trees, 

where your child plays, where you raise your chickens, was bulldozed over for 

a new train carrying new tourists? Let me tell you, it feels horrifying and 

heartbreaking. These are people’s lives you are destroying. This area also 

encompasses a significant amount of wildlife from the nearby Salinas River 

basin. It also includes the wells of the Atascadero Municipal Water 

district. THINK ABOUT THIS!! Please.

Sincerely,

Rachel May

11005 Salinas Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx

805-540-8166 
Coast Corridor EIS/EIR Hearing Meeting Summary – Salinas, CA

Dec. 3, 2014

Conducted by Christina Watson, TAMC Principal Transportation Planner

TAMC Board Meeting 12/3/14

a. Boardmember Louis Calcagno: How many riders are on the Starlight today? Are the primary 

stops Salinas and San Luis Obispo? And is the Daylight the same thing? I see the train go by 

every day and no one is on it. If no one rides currently, why would we do another train?

b. Boardmember Bruce Delgado: I heard you mention safety as a purpose and as a benefit on 

several slides, but it’s missing from the environmental benefits slide. You might want to add 

increased safety to the benefits slide.

c. Christine Kemp1: The loss of agricultural land is a great concern. Property owners along the 

corridor did not receive notice of this project prior to the receipt of the notice of this 

document, and the project process is unclear. Who is the decision-making body for this 

project? To whom should we direct questions and concerns?

d. Arthur McLoughlin2: I am a resident of North County. I frequently travel on Amtrak, the 

Coast Starlight, to Los Angeles. The train is usually half to three-quarters full in coach; the 

trip is during the day so I always ride coach. Many people ride in the club car, which have 

windows you can’t see into from outside, so it may appear empty but it’s usually full. The 

club car is a gathering place, people go there to socialize. Amtrak is cheaper and more 

convenient than flying. It gets you right into downtown LA. Sometimes, the train times don’t 

work for my trip, and then I’ll take the Amtrak bus to connect to the Surfliner train instead. I 

am overall in favor of this project. I would ride the Daylight if it were available.

e. Ross Jensen3: I am a property owner along the 101, at Spence Road. What are the properties 

that will be affected by the siding project? Will you be using eminent domain to acquire any 

properties? In the past, there was also talk about a project to improve the frontage road 

along the 101 in Chualar. You should make sure there is no conflict between the two 

projects.

f. Boardmember Alejandro Chavez: I think it will be great to have a train station in Soledad, 

especially for tourists visiting the Pinnacles National Park in Soledad. I have taken the 

Starlight train six or seven times in the past, and it is 75% or more full on the trip from 

Salinas to LA. I also rode first class from Salinas to Seattle, and it was fully booked. 

g. Boardmember Simon Salinas: Consider reaching out to agricultural landowners using a 

mailing list regarding the Soledad and King City hearings.

h. Staff responses:

i. Principal Planner Christina Watson: Notices were mailed out to every property 

owner with property abutting the rail line between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, 

both when the Notice of Intent was published in 2012 and for this document. TAMC 

is not the decision-making body for these projects, the document leads are SLOCOG 

on the state side and the FRA on the federal side. But as a responsible agency, I can 

respond to questions and help folks get in touch with the right people to get 

answers to their questions. All comments and questions will also be included in the 

final document.

 

1 Ms. Kemp gave staff her contact info and followed up with email correspondence. TAMC has her contact info.

2 Mr. McLoughlin is on the Highway 156 Community Advisory Group. TAMC has his contact info.

3 Mr. Jensen signed in at the meeting. TAMC has a phone number for him.
ii. Executive Director Debbie Hale: According to the internet, the Starlight had 454,000 

riders in 2012, and was the number 2 long-distance train in the nation. Adding all 

state-supported services, it was #13 out of 42 nationwide. Staff will evaluate the 

potential conflict between the proposed siding and the highway frontage road 

project.
From: Chantal Georis Melendrez

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:07 AM

To: Pete Rodgers

Subject: coast corridor draft program mailing

To Whom It May Concern,

In response to the mailing sent by your organization, we are in FULL cooperation and support with 

anything necessary to make this long overdue project come to pass. Our rail service is severely lacking 

in this area. We live in Monterey, and formerly from Europe...need I say more?

Sincerely

Chantal Georis Melendrez

298 Larkin Street

Monterey 93940

Sent from my iPad
January 7, 2015

Bettina Salter (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Well, it is very hard to disagree with or follow the previous speaker who I agree with. I do not live in that 

particular area, but I do know people who do live in that area and it just seems really silly to keep 

something in this document that sounds like it was on a wish list provided by Union Pacific. And it needs 

to get out of this. My...the reason I came to this was this hearing was because I own property in Santa 

Margarita that is , I haven’t measure, but I think it is within 500 feet of the railroad and I’m assuming 

that I was supposed to get a post card, but we never got any post card. I never...the first I ever heard of 

this was a letter that I got and I think it is because I am signed up on some other things that have to do 

with...not because of being a property owner so I think that probably needs to be checked on, the 

notification. At any rate, I agree with Mayor O’Malley that this whole part of this rail realignment that is 

along that section that that is being considered just needs to be taken out because whoever it was who 

said, “if it’s in there, it’s a possibility”, is absolutely correct...so, thank you. 
From: Barbara Schneiderhan [mailto:xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 2:03 PM

To: Pete Rodgers

Subject: Public comments

Pete Rodgers,

After attending the meeting today I have a couple of comments to add to the 

ones sent previously. The general feeling in the room was pretty 

unanimous that the realignment plan is not a good or feasible idea. If you 

look at it rationally, in order to straighten the curve at Henry/Margarita you 

would nave to move literally mountains of earth or change the grade which 

would defeat the idea of picking up speed. The Google earth view does not 

show the changes in elevation along that section of track. Having traveled 

several times between San Diego and Eugene Oregon. I can tell you that the 

speed the train moves has little or nothing to do with the length of travel 

time. The amount of time spent on sidings waiting for freight to pass is a huge 

factor. As you travel, the train can make up time within the speed limits to 

reach the next stop early only to have to wait until the scheduled departure 

time. Remember trains can arrive late but they can never leave early. Over 

the last two years the tracks below my house has been upgraded twice. The 

first upgrade was to install longer rails , the second was to replace all worn 

ties and repack the rail bed. Both of these repairs improved safety and 

comfort in travel. 

I do believe that the best way to move forward with this project is to remove 

the realignment plans completely. As long as they are buried in the proposal 

they will have to be disclosed in real estate transactions. I can re-assure 

buyers that this grand scheme to straighten the tracks will not happen but a 

home purchase is a very emotional transaction and any doubt can cause a 

sale to fall through. It was my impression that the Council agreed with this 

unanimously. I hope that you and they can work out a way to do just that. I 

also hope that the homeowners involved in the realignment areas will be 

notified when that happens. It would make it much more conducive to 

continuing to maintain and improve our properties.

Thank You

Barbara Schneiderhan

9550 Los Palos Road

Atascadero Ca. 93422

805 460-6685
From: Nancy Thompson <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "prodgers@slocog.org" <prodgers@slocog.org>

Cc: "district5@co.slo.ca.us" <district5@co.slo.ca.us>

Date: 01/06/2015 11:19 AM

Subject: Coast Corridor Improvement Draft Program EIS/EIR

Just yesterday, Jan 5, 2015, we were informed by a neighbor of this potential plan that 

would affect our area. First of all, why weren't property owners informed of the plan? 

Secondly, if approved, this plan would be a disaster to the existing homeowners in the path 

of the plan. All of our water supply/wells would be compromised, not to mention significant 

loss of property. We have lived on this property for 31 years, and both my husband and I 

are lifelong county residents. Our quality of life, not to mention the monetary investment, 

would be ruined. I hope that our local representatives will serve us well by not approving 

this program.

Nancy Thompson, 11705 Salinas Road, Atascadero, CA 93422

*************************************************************************

*********

Nancy Thompson

SLO County Teacher Induction Program Mentor 

"You teach a little by what you say. You teach the most by what you are!" 

---- Dr. Henrietta Mears

[Scanned @co.slo.ca.us]

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 11:18 AM, "jcaffee@co.slo.ca.us" <jcaffee@co.slo.ca.us> wrote:

Dear Ms. Thompson,

After researching this project, it is my understanding that the project EIS is being presented to the San 

Luis Obispo Council of Governments today. It is not the intent of the SLOCOG Board to support or 

encourage any improvements outside of the existing railroad right of way. To view the Board's 

discussion, please visit http://www.slo-span.org/ 

Your questions and/or comments may be submitted to Pete Rodgers at SLOCOG 805-781-5724 or 

prodgers@slocog.org. I would be glad to forward your comments to Mr. Rodgers on your behalf. Please 

let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Caffee

Legislative Assistant

5th District Supervisor Debbie Arnold

San Luis Obispo County

(805) 781-4339/FAX (805) 781-1350

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 11:52 AM, Nancy Thompson <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you for your quick response. I have just returned from the SLOCOG meeting. Please 

extend my appreciation to Mrs. Arnold for her support on this issue. While we appreciate 

the attempts at improving railroad safety and service, we were quite upset about the 

possibility of losing our home of over 30 years. Again, thank you serving the citizens of 

District 5.

*************************************************************************

*********

Nancy Thompson

SLO County Teacher Induction Program Mentor 

"You teach a little by what you say. You teach the most by what you are!" 

---- Dr. Henrietta Mears
From: Nancy Thompson [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 12:33 PM

To: Pete Rodgers

Subject: Re: Coast Corridor Improvement Draft Program EIS/EIR

Thank you and the entire SLOCOG committee for your support at today's 

meeting regarding the Coast Corridor Improvement Plan. Of course, we 

support ongoing safety measures, but our land and livelihoods were in 

jeopardy. Although we did not receive any advance notice of this meeting, 

I hope that we will be kept apprised of any further developments, 

particularly in light of the motion that was passed. It will bring peace of 

mind knowing that our local area has been removed from the 

project. Again, thank you for today's outcome.

************************************************************

**********************

Nancy Thompson

SLO County Teacher Induction Program Mentor 

"You teach a little by what you say. You teach the most by what you are!" 

---- Dr. Henrietta Mears
January 7, 2015

Edward Veek (verbal comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Thank you Mayor Tom O’Malley for getting us started. I would...I’d say first of all we need to examine 

what the heck the purpose of this whole plan was. It was to get grants. I am getting tired of people going 

around getting grants and paying the grant makers to do it. I think we need to examine that process. 

Why was it required? You said it was some other agency required it. Well, change the rules so that the 

agency doesn’t have control over everything. Next, we have to talk about is the right hand listening to 

the left hand? You’re not even talking how can you listen? Next, as far as safety is concerned, if you 

want to replace a tire that is wore out, you don’t replace the car and change the route it is gonna drive 

on. This sounds like something Atlas Shrugged would have brought up. I think we are talking about some 

new plans supported by the Ickley Foundation, which is supported by a couple of people on this council. 

I am not gonna mention your names over there. Anyway, what I say is vote no on this plan. This plan 

does not have any feasibility. The only its..its pointed out is there is some safety improvements in it. 

That’s fine, let’s address the safety improvements and vote no on this plan.