5-1

5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 

5.1 SCOPING PROCESS

FRA initiated the scoping process by publishing a NOI to prepare a Program EIS/EIR 

in the Federal Register on August 17, 2012. FRA is the lead federal agency, working 

jointly with SLOCOG as the lead state agency. The two agencies have prepared this

Program EIS/EIR pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and CEQA.

SLOCOG held two scoping meetings as a part of the scoping process, as shown in 

Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Scoping Meetings

Salinas San Luis Obispo

Transportation Agency for Monterey County San Luis Obispo City/County Library

55-B Plaza Circle 995 Palm Street

August 28, 2012, 3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. August 29, 2012, 3:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.

These meetings provided an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on 

the scope of environmental topics that are analyzed in this Program EIS/EIR.

Approximately 25 people attended the scoping meetings and/or submitted 

comments during the scoping period. Sign in sheets were provided for attendees 

with the option of including a mailing/email address so that they could be added to 

the project mailing list. This list will be used to update the public and appropriate 

agencies on further public outreach/involvement opportunities, and to provide 

further information concerning the proposed project. Scoping meeting attendees 

were provided with comment cards to submit their comments on the project, and 

copies of the presentation given were made available for interested parties.

Representatives from SLOCOG, TAMC, and the consultant team presented an 

overview of the Coast Corridor Rail project, its components, and its purpose and 

need. They also described the environmental process and the issues to be studied 

in the Program EIS/EIR. Preceding and following the presentation, attendees were 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-2

welcomed to take part in an open house informal discussion of the project and 

review process with team members at various information stations with exhibit 

boards and aerial overview maps.

5.2 OTHER SCOPING MEETING NOTIFICATION

Federal Register/Notice of Intent

FRA published a notice of intent in the Federal Register on August 17, 2012.

Newspaper

Notices to the public briefly describing the proposed project and listing the dates 

and locations of the scoping meetings were published in local newspapers. These 

publications included the Salinas Californian (August 21, 2012), the San Luis Obispo 

Tribune (August 22, 2012) and El Sol (August 25, 2012). El Sol is a Spanish-language 

newspaper published in Salinas that covers Salinas and Monterey County. 

Mailing

Over 6,000 postcard meeting notifications in both English and Spanish were 

distributed to residents within 500 feet of the corridor and 1,000 feet of the 

proposed new railroad stations (Soledad and King City). These mailers gave a brief 

explanation of the project and provided details on the dates, times, and locations of 

the Scoping Meetings. 

5.3 FORMAL COMMENT SUMMARY

Scoping Meeting attendees were provided with comment sheets at the meeting and 

were asked to submit them that day or mail them to SLOCOG (1114 Marsh Street, 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) or via email to 

coastcorridorscopingcomments@circlepoint.com by close of business September 

10, 2012. All comments and questions, including those delivered orally at one of the 

scoping meetings and those provided in writing, are summarized and responded to 

below (Tables 5-2 and 5-3).
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-3

August 28th Table 5-2 – Salinas

Questions/Comments Disposition Response

Is this a real project? Has funding been identified?

Project attributes components and anticipated 

potential funding strategies will be discussed in the 

EIS/EIR - see discussion of Build Alternative, Chapter 

2.0, Alternatives

Does the Federal government have some minimum 

level of projects that need to be approved?

The EIS/EIR will discuss all pertinent regulatory 

requirements. There is no minimum level of 

improvements that must be implemented. 

How much will the ticket be from Salinas to San 

Francisco? San Francisco to Los Angeles?

Estimated fare information was not available as of the 

drafting of this EIS/EIR.

August 29th Table 5-3 – San Luis Obispo

Questions/Comments Disposition Response

Would you consider re-instituting the use of 

sidings—currently many are used for excess rail car 

storage. This is unsightly, and being used as a 

parking lot.

The Alternatives section of the EIS/EIR will describe all 

project components and how they were developed.

Besides the Cuesta Grade, what other curves are 

we looking at?

The Alternatives section of the EIS/EIR will describe all 

project components and how they were developed. 

Several other curve corrections are noted; the Cuesta 

area is the only segment where substantial second 

track is programmed.

Do we have the authority to take property via 

eminent domain?

The EIS/EIR will discuss the subsequent analyses and 

permits anticipated to be necessary for project 

implementation, including any needed land 

acquisition. As described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, 

the extent of actual physical improvements

components to be implemented is not yet known, so 

the need for any specific property acquisition has not 

yet been determined. 

Will the fiber optic cable that was laid a number of 

years ago be considered or disturbed?

The EIS/EIR will consider effects to existing utilities in 

the rail corridor, including communications 

infrastructure. See Section 3.8, Public Utilities and 

Services

Is the April 2015 service date firm?

The EIS/EIR will clarify anticipated project timeframes. 

The Final EIS/EIR is likely to be published in early 2015. 

Updated projections on service dates will be provided,

as feasible.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-4

Questions/Comments Disposition Response

What is the status of implementing positive train 

control? Will it be required?

The Alternatives section of the EIS/EIR will describe all 

of the anticipated physical improvements components.

What website will you use to provide updates? www.slocog.org

Does the train own an easement next to the tracks?

The EIS/EIR will discuss the subsequent analyses and 

permits anticipated to be necessary for project 

implementation, including any needed land 

acquisition.

I would like to see a parallel bike path and trail. The comment is noted.

Amtrak & UPRR—since UPRR is such a disinterested 

partner, why force the issue? Highway 101 has a 

good amount of Right of Way for an elevated train 

up the middle of the highway.

The Alternatives section of the EIS/EIR will describe all 

of the physical anticipated improvements components

and their anticipated locations. This section will also 

discuss alternatives briefly considered but ultimately 

rejected from further analysis.

There is much to accomplish in terms of planning 

and actual work on the Coast Corridor. Eagerly 

awaiting the start of the Coast Daylight.

The comment is noted.

Pleased to see that much needed improvements 

will be made. These will serve residents and 

tourists.

The comment is noted.

This project is much needed, and adding stations 

between SLO and Salinas would be okay, but there 

should be at least one daily express run up and 

down the coast each way that skips most other 

stops.

The comment is noted.

5.4 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

As part of the public involvement and outreach process for the Coast Corridor Rail 

project environmental review, consultants assisting SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans 

DOR made efforts to conduct project briefings with agencies and other stakeholders 

prioritized by SLOCOG and its partners. Below is a summary of briefings conducted 

between August 2012, and November 2012, and May 2015. Also identified are 

agencies that were contacted and did not wish to receive a briefing, or did not 

respond to inquiries.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-5

City of Soledad

The project team (SLOCOG, TAMC, Caltrans DOR, and assisting consultants) held a

briefing with the Community and Economic Development Director of the City of 

Soledad was held in-person on August 28, 2012. Discussion topics included: the City 

of Soledad Downtown Specific Plan, station location, potential agriculture impacts if 

any access across the tracks is eliminated. 

City of King

The project team held a briefing with the Community Development Director and 

staff was conducted in-person on August 29, 2012. Discussion topics included: 

purpose/result of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, coordination with Fort Hunter-Liggett, 

coordination with existing downtown planning efforts, coordination with UPRR, 

existing RailPro study. King City staff indicated concerns about the following topics: 

GHG emissions, multi-modal element, and the potential impact on commute 

patterns. King City staff also encouraged making the Draft Program EIS/EIR 

accessible to Spanish speakers, if feasible. Additionally, the project team met with 

the City of King in May 2015 to discuss the city’s comments on the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR. 

Monterey County Farm Bureau

The project team held a briefing was held via teleconference and webinar with the 

Monterey County Farm Bureau on October 17, 2012. Discussion topics included 

impacts to station locations, alignments, the environmental process schedule and 

impacts to agricultural land. The Farm Bureau reported at the end of the briefing 

that this information about the project was “not as alarming” as they had expected. 

They look forward to continued involvement in the project moving forward. 

U.S. Army/Fort Hunter Liggett

The project team held a briefing was conducted via teleconference/webinar with 

command staff at Fort Hunter Liggett on November 13, 2012. Fort Hunter Liggett 

was not on the initial list of stakeholders, given its distance (20+ miles) from the 

corridor and the proposed King City station. However, staff at the City of King 

strongly urged outreach to Fort command staff. Discussion topics included train 

schedules and the location of the train station in San Francisco, and the potential for 

Coast Corridor service to connect with airports in San Jose and Burbank as a means 

of expanding access to and from the Fort. The stakeholders are supportive of the 

project and look forward to receiving project updates. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-6

San Luis Obispo Farm Bureau

Contact attempts were made to the San Luis Obispo Farm Bureau, but were not 

returned. 

Others Contacted but Declined Briefings

We Consultants assisting SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR have reached out to the 

following groups and found out that they were not interested in obtaining more 

information about the Coast Corridor Rail Project:

 Salinas Valley Chamber

 San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce

 San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner

No Response

We Consultants also reached out to the following agencies to offer a briefing on the 

project, but did not receive a response:

 California Department of Fish and Wildlife

 United States Forest Service: Santa Lucia unit of Los Padres National Forest1

5.5 TRIBAL OUTREACH

The project team performed a Sacred Lands File and Native American Contacts List 

Request through the NAHC. On July 1, 2013, the NAHC responded to the records 

search, noting that the search indicated the possible presence of Native American 

traditional cultural place(s) in the proposed project area. NAHC recommended that 

tribal governments and individuals be contacted to determine potential impact of 

any cultural place(s), and follow up within two weeks of initial contact via telephone 

call. NAHC provided contact information for 25 individuals from several tribal 

organizations traditionally affiliated with lands in the project area.

In response to NAHC’s request, and pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) FRA reached out to the identified individuals 

to advise about the project. 

 

1

As noted in Chapter 4, in August 2014 the consultant team preparing this document sought and 

obtained information from a ranger within US Forest Service regarding land uses in the vicinity of the 

Cuesta Grade/proposed second main line. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-7

Initial contact was made via letter, sent certified mail on September 17, 2013. As 

recommended by NAHC, the project team made follow up phone calls to the tribal 

government contacts on September 24, 2013. All answered calls indicated receipt 

of FRA’s letter. 

5.6 OTHER AGENCY OUTREACH

The project team has worked closely with the California State Historical Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) to ensure that all necessary outreach processes occur to ensure to 

mitigate any potential disruption of historic properties. 

Agency Conference Calls and Correspondence

 Conference Call with FRA and Circlepoint, November 7, 2013

 Delivered updated outreach efforts report per SHPO’s June recommendations.

 Email Correspondence with between SHPO and Circlepoint: October 3, 2013

 SHPO acknowledged receipt of 9/3/2013 FRA letter initiating Section 106 

consultation.

 Conference Call with Circlepoint, June 27, 2013

 Discussed the background, purpose & need, and key stakeholders of the 

project, as well as the Tier 1 EIS/EIR. 

 Project team requested SHPO feedback on appropriate parameters for the 

Cultural Records search; SHPO supported 1⁄4 mile buffer zone around project 

alignment as appropriate boundary for cultural resources analysis. 

 SHPO expressed importance of conducting NAHC consultation as early as 

possible.

5.7 DRAFT PROGRAM EIS/EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST

A Draft Program EIS/EIR was circulated to the public to provide an opportunity to 

review the EIR/EIS and provide comments. The comment period began November 

14, 2014 and closed January 7, 2015. As previously described, scoping meetings 

were held to provide an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the 

scope of environmental topics that are analyzed in this Program EIS/EIR. 

Approximately 25 people attended the scoping meetings and/or submitted 

comments during the scoping period. Sign in sheets were provided for attendees 

with the option of including a mailing/email address so that they could be added to 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-8

the project mailing list. All persons, agencies, and organizations listed below were

informed of the availability of and locations to obtain the Draft Program EIS/EIR, as 

well as the timing of the public review period. Libraries listed below have received 

both hardcopy and electronic copies of the Draft Program EIS/EIR document and 

appendices. Federal, state, and local agencies and other officials and organizations 

listed below have received a hard copy of the Summary and electronic copies of the 

document and appendices. All other people (approximately 6,000 addresses along 

the Corridor) have been mailed a notification that includes information on how to 

obtain a copy of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, the timing for the public comment 

period, and notice on public hearing dates, times, and locations. This information 

was also conveyed in both English and Spanish language newspapers in the Corridor 

(the Salinas Californian, El Sol, and the San Luis Obispo Tribune). 

The project team held four public meetings, in the cities of Salinas and Soledad on 

December 3, 2014, in the City of King on December 8, 2014, and in San Luis Obispo 

on January 7, 2015. The meetings began with a presentation by the team covering 

the project’s purpose and need, the various project components, the project 

timeline, and next steps in the environmental review. Following the presentation, 

the public was invited to provide oral public comments, which are transcribed and

included herein.

5.7.1 LIBRARY LOCATIONS

Monterey County 

Salinas Public Library, 350 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, CA 93901

Gonzales Branch Library, 851 5th Street, Gonzales, CA 93926

Soledad Branch Library, 401 Gabilan Drive, Soledad, CA 93960

Greenfield Branch Library, 315 El Camino Real, Greenfield, CA 93927

San Luis Obispo County 

Paso Robles City Library, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446

Atascadero Public Library, 6850 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422

San Luis Obispo City/County Library, 995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

5.7.2 FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo

U.S Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Los Angeles

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco & Washington, D.C.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-9

5.7.3 STATE AGENCIES

California Department of Transportation, Chief Deputy Director, Sacramento

California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo

California Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary for Environmental 

Protection, Sacramento

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California State Parks

California State Water Resources Control Board

5.7.4 ELECTED OFFICIALS

Federal Elected Officials

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator for California

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator for California

The Honorable Sam Farr, 20th Congressional District

The Honorable Lois Capps, 24th Congressional District

State Elected Officials

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor

The Honorable Bill Monning, 17th Senate District

The Honorable Luis Alejo, 30th Assembly District

The Honorable Katcho Achadjian, 35th Assembly District

County and Local Officials

Mr. Louis Calcagno, Chair, Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Bruce Gibson, Chair, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors

Mayors of Corridor Cities

The Honorable Mayor Joe Gunter, Salinas

The Honorable Mayor John Huerta, Greenfield

The Honorable Mayor Maria Orozco, Gonzales

The Honorable Mayor Fred Ledesma, Soledad

The Honorable Mayor Robert Cullen, King City

The Honorable Mayor Duane Picanco, Paso Robles

The Honorable Mayor Tom O’Malley, Atascadero

The Honorable Mayor Jan Howell Marx, San Luis Obispo
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-10

5.7.5 REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC)

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST)

San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD)

San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority

Coast Rail Coordinating Council

5.7.6 ORGANIZATIONS

Amtrak, Public and Governmental Affairs, Oakland

Planning and Conservation League, Sacramento

Rail Passenger Association of California, San Francisco

Train Riders Association of California, Sacramento

Union Pacific Railroad, Sacramento

5.8 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT 

PROGRAM EIS/EIR

FRA and SLOCOG, as the lead federal and state agencies, received comments from 

elected officials, agencies and organizations, and individuals (Table 5-5) including 

comments received at four public meetings held in the cities of Salinas, Soledad, City 

of King, San Luis Obispo. The public was invited to provide oral public comments at 

these meetings, which are transcribed and included herein. 

Many of the comments received were on the same topic or expressed similar 

concerns. Rather than repeat the same response to each of those comments, the 

lead agencies prepared the following “Master Responses,” each of which addresses 

broad issue areas or topics. The comment letters are included as Appendix 2 of the 

Final Program EIS/EIR. If a Master Response was used to respond to an individual’s 

comment, the commenter is directed to that Master Response in the response 

section corresponding to their comment letter.2

 

2

Although not presented in an underline format, all text in this chapter after Section 5.8 is new text 

since publication of the Public Draft Program EIS/EIR and includes the responses to public comments.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-11

Table 5-4 Index of Master Responses

Number Topic

1 Curve Realignments and Atascadero Water Resources in San Luis Obispo County 

2 City of King Passenger Station; Siding Extension

3 Conceptual Nature of Proposed Components

4 Outreach Efforts

5 Coast Starlight Ridership

5.8.1 MASTER RESPONSES

Master Response 1: Curve Realignments in San Luis 

Obispo County

SLOCOG held a public hearing on the Coast Corridor Draft Program EIS/EIR as part of 

its board meeting on January 7, 2015. The main focus of the public comments was 

curve realignments proposed for various locations in San Luis Obispo County. 

Commenters stated that the curve realignments have the potential to result in 

property acquisitions, split parcels, and other adverse environmental and 

socioeconomic effects. 

While SLOCOG retains discretion as to which, if any, rail improvement projects it will 

fund (including the curve realignments), the Board adopted a motion requesting 

SLOCOG staff drop from further consideration curve realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County. These are:

1. McKay/Wellsona

2. Wellsona/Paso Robles 

3. Templeton/Henry 

4. Henry/Santa Margarita 

As reflected in the Preferred Alternative identified by FRA, SLOCOG, and Caltrans

DOR, the Preferred Alternative does not include any of these San Luis Obispo 

County curve realignments. Therefore, these curve realignments are not eligible for 

FRA funding unless and until the curve realignments undergo separate NEPA review. 

It is further anticipated that SLOCOG as CEQA lead agency will adopt the Preferred 

Alternative as the approved project, thus depriving the curve realignments (outside 

the Preferred Alternative) from any CEQA clearance as a result of the Draft and Final 

Program EIS/EIR. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-12

Exclusion of these curve realignments from the Preferred Alternative would not 

substantially compromise future on-time performance of passenger and freight 

trains as other improvements modeled by Caltrans were found to result in 

satisfactory performance. In its own modeling, UPRR identified a number of other 

improvements it deemed necessary to expand passenger service, which did not 

include these curve realignments. Excluding the curve realignments would 

eliminate or substantially reduce several potential adverse environmental effects s, 

including: 

 Land Use: The Preferred Alternative would require fewer property acquisitions 

than the Build Alternative. 

 Agricultural Lands: The Preferred Alternative would require substantially less 

conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use than the Build 

Alternative. 

 Air Quality: Construction-period emissions (fugitive dust, diesel equipment) 

would be lower under the Preferred Alternative than under the Build 

Alternative. 

 Noise and Vibration: The Preferred Alternative would generally retain the 

existing railroad alignment through San Luis Obispo County. In the Build

Alternative, the curve realignments would alter the railroad alignment closer to 

the location of sensitive receptors. 

Additionally, several individual commenters and the Atascadero Mutual Water 

Company (AMWC) noted that two AMWC water wells in Atascadero were within the 

area surveyed for potential implementation of the Henry/Santa Margarita curve 

realignment. Exclusion of the Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment from the 

Preferred Alternative would eliminate the need to acquire the land that includes

these wells. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effect on 

these wells. See Section 3.8 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a detailed discussion. 

SLOCOG as CEQA lead agency is anticipated to certify this EIR and follow by 

approving the Preferred Alternative as the proposed project. CEQA does not 

require SLOCOG to recirculate the Draft EIR in order to effect this change. Per CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15088.5, a recirculation of an EIR prior to certification would only 

be required if a new significant impact were to be identified, the severity of a 

significant impact were to increase substantially, or a new mitigation measure is 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-13

added.3 As noted above, these changes would substantially reduce potential 

environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative when compared to the Build 

Alternative. For the purposes of this programmatic review, no new avoidance, 

minimization, or mitigation strategy is required as exclusion of the curve 

realignments because it serves to reduce potentially significant environmental 

impacts. Therefore, recirculation is not warranted. 

Master Response 2: Changes Requested by the City of 

King following publication of the Draft EIS/EIR

The City of King provided extensive written comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR, 

advising that the City had updated its draft plans for the City of King passenger 

station and the related siding extension since the publication of the Draft EIS/EIR. 

Siding Extension

Draft EIS/EIR Analysis: As noted on page 2-9 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, no 

precise plans for new sidings or siding extensions had been identified when analysis 

for the Draft Program EIS/EIR commenced. Accordingly, the analysis in the Draft 

EIS/EIR made assumptions regarding existing sidings proposed to be extended. It 

was understood that sidings extension would result in sidings of 10,000 feet in 

length. The analysis in the Draft Program EIS/EIR assumed that this desired length 

could potentially be achieved by adding all needed track to either the northern or 

southern end of the siding. In effect, the Draft Program EIS/EIR examined a larger 

total area for the sidings than would have been necessary to achieve the desired 

10,000 foot length. 

The existing King City siding extends from MP 159.19 to MP 160.64, about 1.45 

miles in length. The Draft Program EIS/EIR analyzed siding extensions between MP 

158.5 and 159.19, and 160.64 and 161.19. Either the northern or southern 

extension would have been sufficient to result in a 10,000-foot-long siding. 

Revised Draft Plans from City of King: As noted in the City’s comments, the City of 

King engaged a railroad engineer (RailPros) to consider modifications to rail facilities 

in the area. The RailPros study prepared for and endorsed by the City of King 

proposed that the siding extension be greater than 10,000 feet in length and that 

 

3

Similarly to CEQA Guidelines, the FRA Environmental Procedures (for NEPA) Section 13 (17)(e) states 

that if a significant change is made which would alter (worsen) environmental impacts, or where 

significant new information becomes available regarding an environmental impact, a supplement to 

the original Draft or Final EIS would be prepared. FRA determined that the removal of the curve 

realignments would not trigger a need to supplement the original Draft EIS. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-14

the extension would most feasibly be achieved by extending the siding on the north 

side. The RailPros study considered extending the siding from MP 156.38 to 159.19, 

resulting in a siding 2.81 miles or about 14,800 feet in length. 

Passenger Station

Draft Program EIS/EIR: As noted on page 2-11 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the analysis in 

the Draft EIS/EIR used conceptual plans from adopted City documents that 

proposed a station site near the intersection of First Street and Broadway. 

Operating details were assumed to include a station building, parking, and bus pull 

out areas. 

Revised Draft Plans from City of King: As noted in the City’s comments, the RailPros

plan shows a similarly sized (slightly smaller) passenger station in generally the same 

part of downtown, with similar features, as well as an area set aside for military 

personnel transfers. The RailPros plan also calls for the relocation of an existing atgrade crossing (at Pearl Street) to move about one block to Broadway.4

 

The revised draft plans would have similar or lesser environmental effects as the 

plans analyzed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR and would not introduce any entirely 

new impacts or the need for new mitigation strategies. Based on the foregoing and 

the City of King’s expressed interest in moving forward the revised draft plans (as 

expressed through several of the City’s comments), the Preferred Alternative in this 

Final Program EIS/EIR reflects the relocated King City siding extension and the 

revised passenger station. The siding extension and the station area as analyzed in 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR as part of the Build Alternative are retained as part of the 

Build Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR. 

Technical sections of the Final Program EIS/EIR include analysis of the Preferred 

Alternative and discuss the comparative effects of the No Build, Build, and Preferred 

Alternatives. 

FRA has determined that no supplemental environmental documentation is 

required to effect these modifications. These modifications were requested by the 

local jurisdiction in which the improvements would be implemented and reduce 

potentially adverse environmental effects compared to that which was disclosed in 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. In addition, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

 

4

Such a relocation would be subject to an approval by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-15

strategies included in the Draft Program EIS/EIR remain relevant without 

modification to the Preferred Alternative and are incorporated in the Final Program 

EIS/EIR. 

In terms of CEQA review, SLOCOG as the CEQA lead agency is anticipated to certify 

this EIR and follow by approving the Preferred Alternative as the proposed project. 

CEQA does not require SLOCOG to recirculate the Draft EIR in order to effect this 

change. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of an EIR prior to 

certification would only be required if a new significant impact were to be 

identified, the severity of a significant impact were to increase substantially, or a 

new mitigation measure were to be added. As noted above, the changes requested 

by the City of King would substantially reduce several potential environmental 

impacts identified in the Draft Program EIS/EIR as part of the Build Alternative. No 

new significant impact has been identified. Existing avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation strategies included in the Draft Program EIS/EIR and carried forward 

without modification into the Final Program EIS/EIR remain adequate to guide

future project-level environmental review of any specific components of the 

Preferred Alternative. Therefore, recirculation is not warranted.

Master Response 3: Conceptual Nature of Build 

Alternative Components

Several individual commenters expressed concern that certification and approval of 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR would lead to immediate construction and operation of 

physical components and the associated environmental effects noted in the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR. 

As discussed throughout the Draft Program EIS/EIR, the document represents a 

program level of environmental review. A Program environmental document is 

used to analyze broad conceptual alternatives to accomplish the goals of a project. 

In this case, the overall goals of the Coast Corridor Improvements Project are to 

enhance the existing rail corridor with safety improvements, increase rail capacity, 

increase on-time performance, etc. (see page 1-4 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR). As 

noted in the Draft Program EIS/EIR, there is substantial disagreement between the 

parties preparing this analysis and UPRR, the owner of the railroad, as to the extent 

of physical components needed to initiate expanded passenger rail service (Coast 

Daylight) amidst existing and projected future freight rail traffic. 

Additional environmental review will be conducted at the project-level when 

specific project components are chosen to move forward. At that point, detailed 

plans for each component would be known and a project-level analysis would be 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-16

completed. Construction of the project components ultimately chosen to move 

forward will not begin until the certification and approval of the appropriate

project-level environmental review.

The Coast Corridor Program EIS/EIR does not attempt to resolve the question of 

which components are needed. Rather, the action alternatives considered in the 

Program EIS/EIR include a wide variety of conceptual components promulgated over 

the last 15 years by a number of different parties (Amtrak, Caltrans, UPRR). This 

Program EIS/EIR provides an initial assessment of the types and magnitude of 

potential environmental effects that would likely occur from implementation of the 

physical components, and identifies a number of strategies to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate significant impacts. 

Since the proposed components are conceptual, by necessity, the Program EIS/EIR 

made informed assumptions regarding the size, location, and other elements of 

most components of the action alternatives. 

To this end, the Draft Program EIS/EIR assumed generous “buffer” or envelope

areas into which project components could ultimately occur. Buffers were up to 

500 feet in some circumstances, although a typical railroad ROW area is 50 feet or 

less. For many components, the buffer “envelope” examined in the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR included up to many times more land than would ultimately need to be used

to implement any specific components. The Program EIS/EIR analyzed potential 

impacts within these conservative envelopes in order to conduct a conservative or 

“worst-case” assessment and to allow for flexibility if the components location 

(identified only conceptually) were to shift as a result of future design 

studies/refinement efforts. Buffer areas should not be considered equal to the 

amount of land that would ultimately be used to implement a particular rail 

component. 

Many commenters expressed concerns that their respective properties are located 

within these buffer areas and their property valuations have already or will decrease 

because the information in the Draft Program EIS/EIR purports a “pending” 

acquisition. As noted above, none of the components evaluated at the programlevel include exact design/engineering plans and there is considerable uncertainty 

as to which if any components will ultimately be deemed necessary to implement. 

Additionally, the amount of land needed for any specific components will be far less 

than the “buffer” areas identified in the Program EIS/EIR for the purposes of the 

impact analysis. 

These comments regarding potential decreases in property valuations were made 

by property owners in the vicinity of curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County. 

As discussed in Master Response 2 above, these curve realignments were not 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-17

carried forward into the Preferred Alternative. Assuming that SLOCOG similarly 

selects the Preferred Alternative as the approved project under CEQA, there would 

be no CEQA clearance for the San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. The SDP 

was similarly revised to eliminate the San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. 

They are no longer among the list of physical components to initiate and maintain 

passenger rail service (Coast Daylight).

Master Response 4: Outreach Efforts

Several commenters expressed concern and confusion about public notification of 

the project and the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Section 5.1 through 5.7 of this chapter

summarizes the notification and outreach efforts that occurred for the project. 

Master Response 5: Coast Starlight Ridership

A number of commenters asserted or questioned the level of ridership on the 

existing Coast Starlight trains in considering the merits of potential increases to 

passenger service in the corridor.

The existing Coast Starlight train service provides one daily round trip between 

Seattle and Los Angeles. Table 3.1-6 in the Program EIS/EIR, Section 3.1 (Traffic and 

Travel) describes existing Coast Starlight ridership, as provided below. In 2012, the 

Coast Starlight carried just over 454,000 passengers.

Table 3.1-6 Coast Starlight Ridership: Existing and Forecast 

Service

Existing Year 2012

(Seattle to Los 

Angeles)

Forecast Year 2020 

(San Jose to San Luis 

Obispo)

Forecast Year 2040 

(San Jose to San Luis 

Obispo)

Annual Ridership

Coast Daylight N/A 124,000 274,000

Coast Starlight 454,4431105,000 150,000

SUBTOTAL 454,443 229,000 424,000

1

Ridership forecasts are available for the segment from San Jose to San Luis Obispo, existing ridership for the 

Coast Starlight is only reported for the entirety of the Coast Corridor (Seattle to Los Angeles).

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, Chapter 8; Amtrak, 2012b.

As described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR, Chapter 1.0 (Purpose and Need) the 

existing Coast Starlight is often fully booked during peak travel periods. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-18

5.8.2 RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS

This section provides responses to individual comments received during the public 

review period for the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Table 5-5 lists the public agencies, 

private organizations and individuals who provided comments on the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR. Additionally, this section provides copies of written comments received, 

and responds to those comments. As discussed, multiple comments received on the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR raised the same topic or concern. Rather than repeat 

responses to duplicative comments, a comprehensive master response is provided

in Section 5.8.1, Master Responses, and the commenter is referred to the 

applicable master response 

As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), these responses to 

comments address significant environmental issues raised by commenters during 

the review period (PRC Section 21091[d]; CEQA Guidelines §15088[a and 15132). 

The lead agencies have addressed concerns and suggestions regarding the adequacy 

and accuracy of the Draft Program EIS/EIR that were raised by commenters after the 

review period closed (PRC §21091[d]) and provided responses to all commenters 

prior to consideration of the Final EIR for certification (PRC §21092.5). 

List of Commenters

Table 5-5 lists comments by elected officials, agencies and organizations, and 

individual members of the public. Comment letters are organized in the following 

order: state agencies, local agencies, and members of the public (individuals). An 

alpha-numeric indicator was assigned to each comment letter. The alpha indicator 

describes the commenter’s organization (i.e., E = elected official, A = 

agencies/organizations, and I = individual) and the numeric indicator reflects the 

order the comment letter was received. Each individual comment (within a 

comment letter) is numbered to correspond to the alpha-numeric indicator (i.e., E1.1, E-1.2, E-1.3, etc.). Accordingly, each response within this chapter corresponds 

to comment letter’s alpha-numeric indicator. For example, Letter E-1, Comment E1.1 is addressed in response E-1.1. 

Table 5-5 Index of Comments

Number Commenter

Elected Officials - Oral Discussions at Public Hearings on the Draft Program EIS/EIR

E-1 City of King City Council 

E-2 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Board of Directors 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-19

Number Commenter

E-3 City of Soledad City Council 

E-4 Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) Board of Directors 

Agencies/Organizations

A-1 Atascadero Mutual Water Company

A-2 California State Clearinghouse 

A-3 City of King

A-4 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District

A-5 Santa Maria Valley Railroad Company

A-6 U.S. Department of Interior

A-7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Individuals

I-1 Bauke, John (oral comment – City of King, CA public hearing)

I-2 Bradley, Myrna (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing) 

I-3 Brooks, Leanne (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-4 Claire, Paulette (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-5 Edgecombe, Anne 

I-6 Edgecombe, Anne (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-7 Edgecombe, John 

I-8 Edgecombe, John (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-9 Evans, Ellen 

I-10 Giueici, Francis (oral comment – City of King, CA public hearing)

I-11 Gomes, Val (oral comment – Soledad, CA public hearing)

I-12 Greening, Eric (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-13 Hayden, Celine 

I-14 Jensen, Ross (oral comment – Salinas, CA public hearing)

I-15 Kemp, Christine 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-20

Number Commenter

I-16 Kemp, Christine (oral comment – Salinas, CA public hearing)

I-17 Kirkland, Gary (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-18 Lyon, Christopher (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-19 May, Rachel 

I-20 McLoughlin, Arthur (oral comment – Salinas, CA public hearing)

I-21 Melendrez, Chantal Georis

I-22 Salter, Bettina (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

I-23 Schneiderhan, Barbara 

I-24 Thompson, Nancy 

I-25 Veek, Edward (oral comment – Atascadero, CA public hearing)

Note: Notes from public hearings are included as Appendix 2. Comments that are not noted as oral comments, 

were written comments. Transcripts/summaries of oral comments are included in this chapter.

Source: Circlepoint, 2015
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-21

Responses to Comment E-1: 

City of King City Council (oral discussion) 

E-1.1 As reflected in the transcription of the December 8 public hearing (refer to 

Appendix 2), members of the City of King City Council public asked factual questions 

about the project and the environmental review process. Staff from TAMC and 

SLOCOG responded directly to these questions at the same public hearing, as 

reflected in the transcript. The Councilmembers asked that these discussions be 

included in the record. None of the questions or comments addressed the 

adequacy of the environmental document or the characterization of any specific 

potential effect. No further response is required. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-22

Responses to Letter E-2: 

San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 

Board of Directors (oral discussion)

E-2.1 As reflected in the transcription of the January 7 public hearing (refer to 

Appendix 2), members of the SLOCOG Board asked factual questions about the 

project and the environmental review process. The main focus of the discussion 

was on curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County. As reflected in the minutes, 

this culminated in a motion to ask staff to remove the curve realignments from the 

document. As discussed in this Final Program EIS/EIR, the Preferred Alternative 

does not include any of the curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County that were 

part of the Build Alternative. None of the questions or comments addressed the 

adequacy of the environmental document or the characterization of any specific 

potential effect. No further response is required. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-23

Responses to Comment E-3: 

City of Soledad City Council (oral discussion)

E-3.1 As reflected in the transcription of the December 3 public hearing (refer to 

Appendix 2), members of the City of Soledad City Council asked factual questions 

about the project, including existing Coast Starlight ridership and the potential 

benefits of the project. Staff from TAMC responded directly to all of these questions 

at the same public hearing, as reflected in the transcript. Master Response 5 

provides regarding response to Coast Starlight ridership. None of the questions or 

comments addressed the adequacy of the environmental document or the 

characterization of any specific potential effect. No further response is required.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-24

Responses to Comment E-4: 

Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) 

Board of Directors (oral discussion)

E-4.1 As reflected in the transcription of the December 3 public hearing (refer to 

Appendix 2), members of the TAMC Board asked factual questions about the 

project and the environmental review process. Staff from TAMC and SLOCOG 

responded directly to all questions at the same public hearing, as reflected in the 

transcript. Master Response 5 provides regarding response to Coast Starlight 

ridership. None of the questions or comments addressed the adequacy of the 

environmental document or the characterization of any specific potential effect. No 

further response is required.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-25

Response to Comment Letter A-1: Atascadero Mutual 

Water Company

A-1.1 The commenter asserts that the proposed Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment 

could potentially affect two existing water well resources that serve 488 properties 

within the nearby area. See Master Response 1 regarding proposed curve 

realignments within San Luis Obispo County. The Preferred Alternative does not 

include the Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment. Accordingly, the Preferred 

Alternative would have no effect on these two existing wells. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-26

Response to Comment Letter A-2: California State 

Clearinghouse

A-2.1 The commenter acknowledges that the lead CEQA agency has complied with the 

State Clearinghouse review requirements for the Coast Corridor Draft Program 

EIS/EIR. No further response is necessary.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-27

Responses to Comment Letter A-3: City of King, 

California

A-3.i See Master Response 2.

A-3.ii The City states “Participation by Fort Hunter-Liggett in the King City Station is not 

mentioned in the document.” Please refer to pages 5-4 through 5-5 (Stakeholder 

Outreach). These sections describe SLOCOG/TAMC’s meetings with the City of King 

and Fort Hunter-Liggett. The summary of the meetings reflects Fort Hunter-Liggett’s 

support for the project and potential use of City of King passenger station for troop 

movement. This comment does not result in any need to modify the text of the 

document nor does it identify any new environmental effects not previously 

disclosed. Also see Master Response 2. 

A-3.iii The description of the Preferred Alternative included in Section 2.2.4.1, page 2-18 in 

this Final Program EIS/EIR describes the relocation of the at-grade crossing at Pearl 

Street to Broadway Street to implement the City of King passenger station. Also see 

Master Response 2. 

A-3.iv See Master Response 2.

A-3.1 See Master Response 2.

A-3.2 The City notes the presence of fiber optic cables along the rail alignment within 

Monterey County and possible plans for a utility hub to be located in the City of 

King. Certain text in the Draft Program EIS/EIR was unclear on the full extent of 

existing fiber-optic cables alongside the rail corridor. Section 3.8 of this Final 

Program EIS/EIR incorporates the text modifications in response to the comment. 

A-3.3 FRA and SLOCOG note the City’s preferred nomenclature. However, FRA and 

SLOCOG also acknowledge that among the general public the name “King City” is 

widely used and widely understood as the City’s name. To this end, several of the 

documents provided to FRA and SLOCOG by the City along with its comments use a 

mix of “King City” and “City of King” depending on circumstances (see comment A3.4, A-3.22, etc.). 

Since the nomenclature has no bearing on any of the conclusions of the 

environmental document, FRA and SLOCOG see no need to make individual text 

revisions. However, this Final Program EIS/EIR uses the preferred term (“City of 

King”) where feasible. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-28

A-3.4 See Master Response 2, the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final Program 

EIS/EIR includes siding extension and station area plans reflecting the City of King’s 

latest draft plans. Chapter 2.0 of this Final Program EIS/EIR describes the Preferred 

Alternative; analysis in the individual sections of Chapter 3.0 discusses impacts of 

the Preferred Alternative in comparison to the No Build and Build Alternatives. 

A-3.5 The City recites comments from a member of the public recorded during the scoping 

period for the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The City appears to interpret this scoping 

comment as a component of the Build Alternative. The action alternatives do not 

include any plan for long-term parking or storage of train cars at any location

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The commenter is referred to a minimization 

strategy drafted specifically to reduce the potential for visual effects from 

sidings/siding extensions (see page 3.6-18 of the Final Program EIS/EIR). 

A-3.6 The City notes the need for an editorial clarification to text that summarizes the 

description of the No Build Alternative. Chapter 2.0 of the Final Program EIS/EIR 

includes clarifying text that the No Build Alternative does not include any of the 

physical components associated with the Build or Preferred Alternatives. This 

clarifying text does not alter any of the conclusions of the environmental document. 

A-3.7 See response to comment A-3.ii.

A-3.8 As reflected in Master Response 2, the Preferred Alternative identified in this Final 

Program EIS/EIR includes the City of King’s latest draft passenger station and siding 

extension plans.

See Master Response 2 for a more complete discussion of changes to the document 

resulting from FRA and SLOCOG’s inclusion of the revised City of King siding 

extension. 

A-3.9 See Master Response 2 and the response to comment A-3.7.

A-3.10 See Master Response 2.

A-3.11 The City is correct that the existing Spreckels Road at-grade crossing is not located 

within the corporate limits of the City of King. The at-grade crossing is located 

approximately 3 miles north of the City of King. The City also states that the “Lyons 

Street” grade crossing should be named Bitterwater Road. Chapter 2.0 and Section 

3.1, Traffic and Travel, of this Final Program EIS/EIR reflects these modifications. 

These editorial clarifications do not have any bearing on any conclusion of the 

Program EIS/EIR. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-29

A-3.12 See Master Response 2. 

A-3.13 See Master Response 2.

A-3.14 The comment refers to page 3.1-13 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR; the full comment 

reads “Pearl Street/Broadway Street Crossing even without train station.” The City

appears to imply that the description of the No Build Alternative in the traffic and 

transportation analysis should be revised. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, the RailPros 

plan also calls for the relocation of an existing at-grade crossing (at Pearl Street) to 

move about one block northwest to Broadway Street under the Preferred 

Alternative. However, the No Build Alternative in this Program EIS/EIR represents 

the continuation of existing passenger service, PTC systems, and signaling 

improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed passenger station and 

modifications to the at-grade crossings are not analyzed under the No Build 

Alternative. 

A-3.15 and A-3.16

The City asks for confirmation of screening distances for noise and vibration analysis 

shown in Tables 3.3-1 and 3.3-2 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. As stated in Master 

Response 2 and A-3.8 and A-3.11 above, FRA and SLOCOG did not receive the City of 

King’s revised draft siding or station area plans until presented as a comment on the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR. As reflected in Master Response 2, the Preferred Alternative 

incorporates the City’s revised draft plans for the siding and station area. 

As noted in Master Response 2, the revised draft plans for the siding extension call 

for the extension to occur entirely to the north of the existing siding, including an 

area beyond the study area analyzed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Section 3.3 of 

this Final Program EIS/EIR includes analysis of the Preferred Alternative, including a 

discussion of how the relocated siding extension reduces environmental effects 

compared to the Build Alternative in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

A-3.17 The City appears to state that “at-grade crossings” should be added to a partial list 

of project components that could result in construction-period noise effects. The 

cited list was not intended to be exhaustive but to merely list types of components

that could result in noise or vibration during construction. FRA finds that the text’s 

discussion of potential construction period noise effects of the Build Alternative is 

adequate. No modification to the text is necessary, and none of the environmental 

conclusions in the Draft Program EIS/EIR require modification. 

A-3.18 See response to comment A-3.15.

A-3.19 See response to comment A-3.15.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-30

A-3.20 The City is referred to Section 3.10, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Table 

3.10-2, which lists potential historic architectural resources by element of the Build 

Alternative. This list of resources was developed from searches of relevant cultural 

resource databases. Page 3.10-14 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR states that these 

resources have not necessarily been deemed eligible for listing on any federal, state, 

or local register of historic resources, but are identified in this screening analysis as 

potentially eligible and appropriate for formal evaluation as warranted in one or 

more future project-level environmental reviews. 

The second part of this comment about the Coast Starlight appears to be an 

unrelated and possibly erroneous comment. Coast Starlight trains do not stop in 

the City of King nor is there any plan for those trains to stop there. No further 

response is necessary.

A-3.21 The City asserts that Caltrans’s projections of ridership for the Coast Daylight “fail to 

include Fort Hunter-Liggett ridership demands.” 

Ridership estimates for the Coast Daylight were based on the SDP for the Coast 

Corridor. FRA and SLOCOG’s outreach to Fort Hunter-Liggett as part of the 

preparation of the Draft Program EIS/EIR found that the base primarily transports 

troops by bus from the Mineta San José International Airport (SJC) to the Fort. 

During the outreach meeting, Fort personnel expressed interest in moving troops 

via train, but the comment does not present evidence to FRA and SLOCOG with 

actual numbers of troops that might be transported by train. In the absence of data

or other information that Caltrans’s ridership projections in the SDP Plan are in 

error, no modification to the energy analysis conclusions in the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR are warranted. Even accepting the proposition that the ridership estimates 

are understated, this would mean that potential energy benefits of the action 

alternatives are understated. Should more troops be transported by train instead of 

van, the region would see a greater the reduction in VMT and the corresponding

reduction in energy use. 

A-3.22 While FRA and SLOCOG agree that it is laudable that the City of King has advanced 

its draft plans for its station area to include multi-model transit connections, there is 

no need to modify Minimization Measure TRA-6 in response to the comment. See 

Master Response 2.

A-3.23 See Master Response 2 and the discussion of the environmental consequences of 

the Preferred Alternative in Section 3.5 of the Final Program EIS/EIR. 

A-3.24 See Master Response 2 and response A-3.23 above. 

A-3.25 The City asserts that avoidance strategy LU-1 is “not factual” because the City of 

King has advanced its draft plans for the passenger station and siding extension 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-31

beyond a schematic stage (and provided those plans to FRA and SLOCOG after 

publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, as noted in Master Response 2). 

However, avoidance strategy LU-1 is broadly applicable to all elements of the action 

alternatives. The strategy suggests the need for careful planning to minimize the 

need for property acquisition and land use displacement. The City of King’s revised 

draft plans for its passenger station and siding extension follow the spirit of this 

measure. While the “more than conceptual” status of the City’s draft plans is 

acknowledged, FRA and SLOCOG note that the avoidance strategy remains 

applicable to the numerous other elements of the action alternatives and that this 

document remains a program-level evaluation. No modification to the text is 

warranted.

A-3.26 The City notes that its revised draft plans for the passenger station (incorporated 

into the Preferred Alternative as noted in Master Response 2) reflect the intent of 

minimization strategy LU-4. FRA and SLOCOG appreciate that the City’s revised 

draft station area plans reflect a high degree of sensitivity to potential community 

barrier impacts. FRA and SLOCOG note that the minimization strategy remains 

applicable to numerous other elements of the action alternatives and that this 

document remains a program-level evaluation. Because the minimization strategy 

applies to all of the components in the action alternatives, no modification to the 

minimization strategy is warranted by the comment.

A-3.27 and A-3.28

The City asserts a number of errors in Figures 3.5-1c and 3.5-2c of the Program 

EIS/EIR. The asserted errors are entirely related to differences in the revised draft 

station area and siding extension plans that the City furnished to FRA and SLOCOG

as a comment on the Draft Program EIS/EIR. See Master Response 2, the revised 

draft siding and station area plans have been incorporated into the Preferred 

Alternative, including analysis of these revised features, which is evaluated in this 

Final Program EIS/EIR. There is no change to the Build Alternative described in the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR. Therefore, no revisions to Figure 3.5-1c and 3.5-2c are 

warranted. 

A-3.29 See Master Response 2. 

A-3.30 See Master Response 2, and responses to comments A-3.15 and A-3.16, and the 

environmental consequences discussions of the Preferred Alternative in the Final 

Program EIS/EIR, which addresses the revised draft siding extension plans described 

in the comment. The cited text remains applicable to the discussion of the Build 

Alternative as described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Therefore, no modifications 

are warranted.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-32

A-3.31 See Master Response 2, which reflects that the Preferred Alternative incorporates 

the revised station area plan cited by the commenter. Section 3.6 of the Final 

Program EIS/EIR includes analysis of the Preferred Alternative as a whole, which 

includes the revised station and siding extension plans prepared by the City of King. 

It should be noted that the Final Program EIS/EIR remains programmatic in nature 

(see Master Response 3) and that future project-level environmental review of 

detailed plans is required prior to construction and operation of the components. 

The inclusion of the City of King’s revised draft station area and siding extension 

plans is programmatic. NEPA and CEQA decisions for the Preferred Alternative will 

not eliminate the requirements for project-level analysis of the City of King station 

area and siding extension. 

A-3.32 The City appears to address text on page 3.3-16 (not 3.13-16 as cited) about noise. 

See the response to comments A-3.15 and A-3.16 above.

A-3.33 The City appears to address text on page 3.5-16 (not 3.15.16 as cited) about

environmental justice impacts. See Master Response 2 and Section 3.5 of this Final 

Program EIS/EIR, in which the discussion of environmental consequences of the 

Preferred Alternative includes the revised draft siding extension plans cited by the 

commenter.

A-3.34 The City appears to note a City of King policy regarding trains on sidings with respect 

to minimization strategy VIS-3. The comment refers to Chapter 10.28 of the City of 

King Municipal Code, which seeks to prohibit any train from blocking any City of King 

street for more than 10 minutes. FRA notes that railroad operations are under the 

jurisdiction of federal law, not local ordinances. 

A-3.35 The City states that the photo on page 3.6-2 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR is “not 

representative of location of station.” While the comment is acknowledged, the 

photo was not presented in the Draft Program EIS/EIR as a depiction of the station 

area; it is used to depict the visual landscape. As described in Master Response 3, 

the Program EIS/EIR evaluates a range of potential physical components at a 

conceptual level and future project-level analysis of specific project components will 

be conducted prior to construction and operation of these components. 

A-3.36 through A-3.38

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.7 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a discussion 

of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which includes the 

revised draft siding extension plans cited by the commenter. The discussion and 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-33

figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain applicable to

the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR incorporates the revised draft 

plans submitted by the City of King.

A-3.39 and A-3.40

The City states that information about existing water and wastewater services for 

the City of King is “out of date.” The comment does not provide any updated 

information nor does the comment identify any specific deficiency in in description 

of the affected environment or environmental consequences. No further response 

is warranted. 

A-3.41 through A-3.43

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.8 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a discussion 

of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which includes the 

revised draft siding extension plans cited by the commenter. The discussion and 

figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain applicable to 

the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR incorporates the revised draft 

plans submitted by the City of King.

A-3.44 See Master Response 2 and Section 3.9 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a discussion 

of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which includes the 

revised draft siding extension plans cited by the commenter. The discussion and 

figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain applicable to 

the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR incorporates the revised draft 

plans submitted by the City of King.

A-3.45 As noted in Master Response 2, the revised draft plans for the City of King passenger 

station were not provided to FRA, SLOCOG, Caltrans DOR or TAMC until 

accompanied by this and other written comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

The comment notes that one of the changes inherent in the City’s revised draft 

plans would entail building demolition at a specific location. Page 3.9-6 of the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR expressly identifies the potential for Build Alternative components

to “require the demolition of existing facilities or structures” and the potential to

encounter “asbestos or lead-based paint materials.” The discussion goes on to note 

that subsequent project-level environmental analysis would determine the level of 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-34

risk and appropriate management/remediation efforts for any specific components

carried forward. This is reinforced in minimization strategies HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, both 

of which are applicable to the Preferred Alternative, which includes the modified 

City of King station area plan.

A-3.46 and A-3.47 

See the response to comment A-3.44.

A-3.48 through A-3.50

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.10 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a 

discussion of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which 

includes the revised draft station area and siding plans cited by the commenter. 

The Draft Program EIS/EIR discussion cited in the comment is applicable to the Build 

Alternative as described in the Chapter 2.0 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The 

Preferred Alternative in this Final EIS/EIR incorporates the revised draft plans 

submitted by the City of King. As noted in the comment, the revised draft station 

area plan may require the acquisition/demolition of a building. The Draft Program 

EIS/EIR acknowledged the possibility of any station area requiring the potential 

demolition/relocation of historic buildings. The avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation strategies included in this Program EIS/EIR will inform subsequent 

project-level review of any components selected to move forward for 

implementation. 

A-3.51 The City states that one of the avoidance strategies for cultural resources does not 

include a determination of historical significance. However, Section 3.10.6 of the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR and Section 3.10.4 of the Final Program EIS/EIR discuss the 

anticipated approach for project-level review of individual components of the action 

alternatives. See Master Response 3 explaining the program-level analysis in this 

environmental review.

A-3.52 and A-3.53

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.11 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a 

discussion of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which 

includes the revised draft siding extension plans cited by the commenter. The 

discussion and figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain 

applicable to the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR. The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR 

incorporates the revised draft plans submitted by the City of King.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-35

A-3.54 through A3.58

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.12 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a 

discussion of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which 

includes the revised draft siding extension plans cited by the commenter. The 

discussion and figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain 

applicable to the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR. The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR

incorporates the revised draft plans submitted by the City of King. As noted in the 

comment and as reflected in Section 3.12 of the Final Program EIS/EIR, the revised 

siding extension included in the Preferred Alternative would generally result in 

fewer hydrology and water resources impacts than the siding extension studied as 

part of the Build Alternative. 

A-3.59 through A-3.63

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.13 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a 

discussion of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which 

includes the revised draft siding extension plans cited by the commenter. The 

discussion and figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain 

applicable to the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR. The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR 

incorporates the revised draft plans submitted by the City of King. As noted in the 

comment and as reflected in Section 3.13 of the Final Program EIS/EIR, the revised 

siding extension included in the Preferred Alternative would generally result in 

fewer impacts to biological resources than the siding extension studied as part of 

the Build Alternative. 

A-3.64 through A-3.66

See Master Response 2 and Section 3.14 of this Final Program EIS/EIR for a 

discussion of environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, which 

includes the revised draft station area plan cited by the commenter. The discussion 

and figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR cited in the comment remain applicable 

to the discussion of the Build Alternative as described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

The Preferred Alternative incorporates the revised draft plans submitted by the City 

of King. As noted in the comment and as reflected in Section 3.14 of the Final 

Program EIS/EIR, the revised station area plan included in the Preferred Alternative 

would generally result in no difference in growth effects compared to the station 

area that was studied as part of the Build Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-36

A-3.67 The City states that the cumulative analysis did not specifically reference or 

incorporate an EIR certified by the City of King for the Downtown Addition Specific 

Plan Final EIR. FRA and SLOCOG modified the Final Program EIS/EIR to include this 

specific plan as part of the discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 3.15 of this Final Program EIS/EIR). As noted in 

the comment, the Downtown Addition Specific Plan was contemplated with the 

assumption of the future implementation of a City of King passenger station. It calls 

for transit-oriented development to be constructed in proximity to the proposed 

passenger station. The Preferred Alternative in this Final Program EIS/EIR would be 

consistent with the adopted Downtown Addition Specific Plan. 

See Master Response 2 about the characteristics of the Preferred Alternative. 

A-3.68 The comment is acknowledged and Section 3.15 of this Final Program EIS/EIR 

reflects the comment. The comment provides helpful additional information to 

readers, but does not identify any new or worsened environmental impact. 

A-3.69 The City states that the discussion of cumulative transportation/traffic effects “fails 

to include any discussion of the King City station.” The King City station is 

mentioned on page 3.15-9 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR as part of the suite of Build 

Alternative components. In addition, Section 3.15 of the Final Program EIS/EIR 

includes a discussion of potential cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative. 

The station is part of the larger project being evaluated for potential cumulative 

effects. No further response is warranted. 

A-3.70 See Master Response 2 and the responses to comments A-3.54 through A-3.58

above. As reflected in the discussion of environmental consequences of the 

Preferred Alternative in Section 3.12 of this Final Program EIS/EIR, the revised draft 

siding extension would avoid many of the hydrology/water resources impacts 

identified for the Build Alternative. Section 3.15 of the Final Program EIS/EIR 

includes a discussion of potential cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 

A-3.71 See Master Response 2 and the responses to comments A-3.59 through A-3.63. As 

reflected in the discussion of environmental consequences of the Preferred 

Alternative in Section 3.13 in this Final Program EIS/EIR, the revised draft siding 

extension would avoid many of the biological resources impacts identified for the 

Build Alternative. Section 3.15 of the Final Program EIS/EIR includes a discussion of 

potential cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative. 

A-3.72 The City asserts incorrectly that the discussion of cumulative Build Alternative 

growth impacts in the Draft Program EIS/EIR “fails to include any discussion” of the 

City of King station area. The discussion on page 3.15-29 of the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR considers potential growth and transit-oriented development that could 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-37

occur as a result of the “proposed new stations” - referring to the Soledad and City 

of King components of the Build Alternative. The commenter asserts that greater

beneficial impacts of the City of King passenger station may be realized. The 

Government Accountability Office study cited in the comment is notable for 

examining transit-oriented development in several major metropolitan areas of the 

US, including greater San Francisco, Washington D.C., Houston, Charlotte, and 

Baltimore, among others. The study notes that one of the key elements of 

successful transit-oriented development is “efficient access to jobs and centers of 

activity.” While FRA and SLOCOG applaud the City of King’s efforts to encourage 

transit-oriented development, the distance of the City of King from major job and 

activity centers are likely to limit the potential for substantial amounts of transitoriented development in the vicinity. However, as noted on page 3.15-29 of the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR, there is potential for more visitor-serving growth to occur 

around the station area. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, project-level 

environmental review will evaluate the potential for any component of the 

Preferred Alternative carried forward to result in adverse or beneficial growth 

effects.

A-3.73 through A-3.76

The discussion in Section 3.17 of this Final Program EIS/EIR has been expanded to 

include a summary discussion of the Preferred Alternative. Consistent with the 

comment’s assertion, the additional discussion in Section 3.17 concludes that the 

Preferred Alternative would result in fewer unavoidable adverse impacts than were 

identified for the Build Alternative. 

 Because the Final Program EIS/EIR remains a program-level review (see Master 

Response 3), subsequent project-level environmental review of any specific 

components carried forward for construction is assumed. Moreover, text on page 

3.17-1 of this Final Program EIS/EIR states that at the program level, it is assumed 

that any potential impacts identified may be avoided or minimized through design 

refinements. FRA and SLOCOG understand that the revised draft plans submitted by 

the City of King with its comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR are just that -

revised draft plans, potentially subject to further refinement and then, as 

appropriate, project-level review under CEQA and/or NEPA.

A-3.77 through A-3.79

The City restates comments made in several previous comments, including A-3.73 

and A-3.54 through A-3.58. See responses to those comments and Master 

Responses 2 and 3. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-38

A-3.80 and A-3.81

The City refers to summary descriptions of the Build Alternative included in the 

Section 4(f) evaluation as part of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. This Final Program 

EIS/EIR expands the Section 4(f) evaluation to include a discussion of potential 

effects of the Preferred Alternative (see Master Response 2). The cited discussion 

and figures from the Draft Program EIS/EIR remain applicable to the Build 

Alternative as described in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-39

Responses to Comment Letter A-4: San Luis Obispo 

County Air Pollution Control District

A-4.1 The commenter refers to potential beneficial impact of the Build Alternative as 

noted in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. FRA and SLOCOG note that the Preferred 

Alternative would result in similar beneficial impacts. No further response is 

warranted.

A-4.2 The commenter recommends that future implementation of the project consider 

promoting services like the SLO Car Free program as a further means to reduce 

regional (VMT and emissions of air pollution. The comment is noted.

A-4.3 The commenter suggests inclusion of additional information about construction 

emissions. As noted in Section 3.2.2 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, the extent of 

physical components that may actually move forward to construction is unknown. 

Moreover, the Build Alternative components are generally conceptual in nature, and 

precise estimates of construction period emissions separately as well as collectively

would be speculative. 

Section 3.2.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR states that project-level analysis will be necessary

to evaluate any specific components, consistent with the APCD’s procedures as set 

forth in its CEQA Handbook and potentially also with General Conformity 

Requirements under the Federal Clean Air Act. FRA and SLOCOG agree that any 

project-level review should incorporate on-site mitigation to the greatest extent 

feasible. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation strategies included in Section 

3.2.5 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR are generally consistent with the APCD 

construction phase mitigation measures and can serve as the basis for project-level 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in subsequent environmental 

documentation.

See Master Response 3 explaining the programmatic nature of this environmental 

review.

A-4.4 The commenter suggests the potential need for future project-level review of diesel 

particulate matter emissions and the incorporation of appropriate mitigation 

measures. As noted in Section 3.2.6, the Draft EIS/EIR identifies a health risk 

assessment as a likely element of future project-level environmental reviews. 

A-4.5 See the response to comment A-4.3.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-40

A-4.6 The commenter cites state regulations about naturally occurring asbestos. FRA and 

SLOCOG understand that any components of the Preferred Alternative that may be 

carried forward for construction will be subject to these and all other pertinent 

regulatory requirements. Project-level environmental review will be necessary to

determine if adherence to these requirements would be sufficient in controlling 

potential exposure to naturally occurring asbestos or if additional, project-specific 

mitigation would be necessary.

A-4.7 The commenter cites federal regulations about demolition activities that could 

expose asbestos containing material. FRA and SLOCOG agree with the commenter 

that this is a pertinent regulation to which components of the action alternatives

would be subject as any one or more moves forward for construction. The 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies in Section 3.9.3 of the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR also require surveys of structures prior to demolition, grading, or 

construction. 

A-4.8 The commenter asserts that construction can generate fugitive dust and suggests 

inclusion of additional information regarding construction emissions mitigation 

strategies. Both the Draft and Final Program EIS/EIR disclose potential constructionperiod impacts, including fugitive dust emissions, exhaust emissions, and 

evaporative emissions. As discussed in response to comment A-4.3, the extent of 

components that will actually move forward to construction is unknown; therefore, 

it is premature at the program level to calculate construction period emissions. FRA 

and SLOCOG agree that any project-level review should incorporate on-site 

mitigation to the greatest extent feasible. 

A-4.9 The commenter asserts that idling limitations for diesel engines could help reduce 

the emissions impact of diesel locomotives. Accordingly, idling control techniques 

could be implemented to help reduce impacts, especially within 1,000 feet of 

sensitive receptors. It should be noted that a key objective of the action 

alternatives is to reduce emissions and increase overall operational efficiency, as 

discussed on page 3.2-18 of the Final Program EIS/EIR. Therefore, proposed siding 

extensions and new sidings and other components included in the action 

alternatives would help to reduce idling time of trains in some areas.

A-4.10 The commenter cites minor factual errors regarding ambient air quality standards 

for ozone within San Luis Obispo County shown in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. These 

errors do not affect the analysis in the Draft Program EIS/EIR, but merely clarify that 

the eastern portion of the County (which does not include the Coast Corridor) is in 

non-attainment for certain air pollutants. Please see Section 3.2.1 of the Final 

Program EIS/EIR where these modifications have been implemented. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-41

Responses to Comment Letter A-5: Santa Maria Valley 

Railroad Company

A-5.1 The commenter asserts that the Draft Program EIS/EIR does not accurately capture 

the investment UPRR has made to maintain safety and reliability within the past 

several decades. FRA and SLOCOG agree that UPRR has made steady improvements 

to the rail infrastructure and acknowledge these efforts in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, 

page 2-7 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR: “The UPRR has made and continues to make 

infrastructure upgrades consistent with FRA Standards.”

However, the existing Coast Corridor continues to be characterized by single-track 

operations with short (or limited) sidings, manually-thrown switches, and inefficient 

automatic block system (ABS) signaling system. Collectively, these conditions 

contribute to lower speeds and safety concerns. 

A-5.2 The commenter takes issue with an assertion that freight rail volume in the project 

area (Salinas to San Luis Obispo) is relatively low since the Coast Corridor is 

considered a “secondary” or “relief” line to UPRR’s Central Valley line. The 

commenter further notes that the Santa Maria Valley Railroad interchanges only 

with the Coast Corridor (about 25 miles south of San Luis Obispo) and that requests 

to UPRR for Santa Maria Valley Railroad to receive railcars from the north have been 

denied. 

The Draft Program EIS/EIR considered freight rail traffic as reported in the SDP. The 

SDP reported on and analyzed freight traffic north of San Luis Obispo. Moreover, as 

acknowledged on page 1-1 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, the portion of the Coast 

Corridor south of San Luis Obispo is part of the Pacific Surfliner or “LOSSAN” 

corridor, with different patterns of train traffic than points north of San Luis Obispo. 

The Draft Program EIS/EIR considered the potential for cumulative effects to occur 

from projected future growth in freight rail traffic, including the Phillips 66 rail spur 

project that the commenter cites. Please see Section 3.15 of this Final Program 

EIS/EIR (Cumulative Analysis) for an updated discussion, including potential 

cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-42

A-5.3 FRA and SLOCOG acknowledge the commenter’s statement that Santa Maria Valley 

Railroad hopes to expand its operations and facilities along its ROW. The 

commenter cites one project that would rebuild part of the San Luis Obispo rail yard 

to create a facility that would include a maintenance facility and a private passenger 

car storage area, among other components. The commenter asserts that if created 

this project would have a direct and positive impact on passenger rail ridership. 

Given the programmatic level of analysis in this environmental document, FRA and 

SLOCOG included Santa Maria Valley Railroad expansion within the cumulative 

projects list shown in this Final Program EIS/EIR to ensure that any future, projectlevel environmental reviews take into consideration as appropriate any specific 

expansion projects undertaken by the Santa Maria Valley Railroad that could 

increase rail traffic on the Coast Corridor. 

A-5.4 The commenter states that it would like to see adequate capacity built into the line 

to accommodate rising freight traffic. See Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, of the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR. While the project is expressly focused on expanding 

passenger rail service, the Program EIS/EIR and the SDP acknowledge potential 

growth in freight traffic along the Coast Corridor by the year 2040. Freight rail 

traffic growth has been considered in the analyses in both this Program EIS/EIR and 

the SDP. Future project-level environmental reviews will revisit freight rail growth 

projections. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-43

Responses to Comment Letter A-6: U.S. Department 

of Interior

A-6.1 The comment affirms that the Department of the Interior has reviewed the Coast 

Corridor Draft Program EIS/EIR and has no comments. No response is necessary.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-44

Responses to Comment Letter A-7: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency

A-7.1 The commenter requests that a copy of the Coast Corridor Final Program EIS/EIR 

and associated future project-level environmental documents. A copy of the Coast 

Corridor Final Program EIS/EIR will be distributed to this address (and all other 

agency/organizations that commented on the Draft Program EIS/EIR). 

A-7.2 The commenter recommends that FRA and SLOCOG use the existing memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) for the National Environmental Policy Act/Clean Water Act 

Section 404/408 Integration Process for the California High-Speed Train Program 

Memorandum of Understanding) between EPA, USACE, FRA, and the Authority as a 

model for project-level coordination for the Section 404 permitting process. 

Future project-level environmental review will include the consideration of required 

mitigation to offset impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the United States. FRA and 

SLOCOG will reference the Final Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring 

Guidelines established by the USACE South Pacific Division (December 31, 2014), as 

EPA notes. 

A-7.3 The commenter recommends that FRA and SLOCOG commit to meeting or 

exceeding the EPA Tier IV non-road engine emissions standard for construction of 

any of the physical components. As the commenter previously states, the physical 

components analyzed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR are conceptual. Therefore, the 

construction equipment that would be used is not known at this time. Future 

project-level environmental documentation will include more detailed construction 

information and design plans. At that time, it will be possible to evaluate the 

feasibility of using Tier IV standards based on the type of physical component, 

intensity of construction activities, and location. FRA and SLOCOG note this 

recommendation and will take the EPA Tier IV non-road engine emissions standard 

into consideration during future environmental documentation.

Additionally, the commenter recommends that FRA and SLOCOG explore the 

possibility of electrifying the Coast Corridor rail alignment. Chapter 2.0 includes a 

brief description of alternatives that were considered but dismissed from 

further analysis due to cost, likely significant environmental impacts, or overall 

feasibility. Electrification of the Corridor, along with express buses, increased air 

travel, and other passenger stations, were among the alternatives considered.

A-7.4 The commenter cites the rail spur extension to the Philips 66 Nipomo Mesa oil 

refinery proposed in San Luis Obispo County, as discussed on page 1-3 of the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR. This project would potentially allow for the transport of 5 trains of 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-45

80 cars of crude oil per week. The commenter recommends that the environmental 

document describe how physical components of the Build Alternative will increase 

public safety with respect to transportation of hazardous materials along the Coast 

Corridor. Additionally, the commenter requests a discussion of the Build Alternative 

and No Build Alternative would enhance public safety within the Corridor. Public 

safety considerations for both the No Build and action alternatives are discussed in 

Section 1.2.2, Need. 

The commenter cites two NTSB safety recommendations regarding rail transport. 

FRA notes that the two cited recommendations call for a variety of actions pertinent 

to the movement of oil or other hazardous materials by rail. These 

recommendations include consideration of the rerouting of trains carrying 

flammable materials away from populated and sensitive areas; auditing the 

response plans of rail carriers of petroleum products to ensure adequate safety and 

security plans are in place. These recommendations are targeted at rail carriers of 

oil products or other hazardous materials; they do not include any specific 

recommendations about the physical components of the rail system. 

Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, of the Draft Program EIS/EIR discusses the main 

challenges on the Coast Corridor. Page 1-7 describes the necessity for safety 

components. Moreover, one of the express purposes of the project is to allow for 

expanded passenger service without substantial disruption to existing and projected 

future freight operations. FRA and SLOCOG concur that any freight moved on the 

Coast Corridor is subject to a variety of regulations regarding transport and 

emergency response. However, none of the physical components being considered 

are being considered for the purpose of transport of crude oil and other substances. 

Neither FRA nor SLOCOG can speak to freight provider’s consistency with the 

referenced safety and spill response rules other than to say they freight railroads 

are expected to comply with all applicable regulations. For the Philips 66 rail spur 

project, the consistency analysis would be provided in its project-level 

environmental documentation. 

A-7.5 The commenter encourages proposed new passenger stations to incorporate

multimodal connections and livability. As the commenter notes, both cities have 

included plans for these stations in city planning documents and support rail, bus, 

bicycle, and passenger connections. In particular, the proposed City of King station 

is adjacent to the Downtown Addition Specific Plan area that is being planned by the 

City to capitalize on its proximity to the rail station. The City of King station would 

provide a transit link for US Army members to the Fort Hunter-Liggett base. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-46

Responses to Comment I-1: 

Baucke, John (oral comment)

I-1.1 In oral comments at the December 9, 2015 public hearing, the commenter cites City 

of King efforts to advance conceptual plans for its station and that these efforts 

were not accurately portrayed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. As reflected in the 

meeting transcript, SLOCOG staff addressed the commenter’s points during the 

same public hearing. Notably, the commenter raises several points similar to those 

in the City of King’s written comment letter (which is A-3 of this response to 

comments document). Responses to the City’s comments are included in this 

Chapter, as well in Master Response 2. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-47

Responses to Comment I-2: 

Bradley, Myrna (oral comment)

I-2.1 The commenter expresses concern that the Build Alternative would require

acquisition of private property. As reflected in Master Responses 1 and 3, the 

component of concern to the commenter (a curve realignment in San Luis Obispo 

County) is not part of the Preferred Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-48

Responses to Comment I-3: 

Brooks, Leanne (oral comment)

I-3.1 The commenter expresses concern that the Build Alternative would require the 

acquisition of private property. As reflected in Master Responses 1 and 3, the 

component of concern to the commenter (a curve realignment in San Luis Obispo 

County) is not part of the Preferred Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-49

Responses to Comment I-4: 

Claire, Paulette (oral comment)

I-4.1 See Master Response 4 about public outreach efforts undertaken since August 2012 

as part of the NEPA/CEQA review. 

I-4.2 The commenter expresses concern that the Build Alternative would require the 

acquisition of private property. As reflected in Master Responses 1 and 3, the 

component of concern to the commenter (a curve realignment in San Luis Obispo 

County) is not part of the Preferred Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-50

Responses to Comment I-5: 

Edgecombe, Anne 

I-5.1 The commenter questions the public comment period and efforts to notify the 

public. See Master Response 4 for clarification about public outreach efforts 

conducted pursuant to CEQA and NEPA.

I-5.2 The commenter expresses concern that the Build Alternative to require the 

acquisition of private property. As reflected in Master Responses 1 and 3, the 

component of concern to the commenter (a curve realignment in San Luis Obispo 

County) is not part of the Preferred Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-51

Responses to Comment I-6: 

Edgecombe, Anne (oral comments)

I-6.1 The commenter questions the public comment period and efforts to notify the 

public. See Master Response 4 about public outreach efforts conducted pursuant to 

CEQA and NEPA.

I-6.2 The commenter asserts that the Draft Program EIS/EIR has resulted in or will result 

in lowering assessed values of properties in the vicinity of certain components of the 

Build Alternative. See Master Response 3.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-52

Responses to Comment I-7: 

Edgecombe, John 

I-7.1 See Master Response 3.

I-7.2 and I-7.3

The commenter states that a portion of the buffer area identified as a potential 

location for part of the multiple-segmented Henry-Santa Margarita curve 

realignment is located within a flood hazard zone. This statement is consistent with 

conclusions of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, as reflected in Table 3.12-2. The 

commenter further asserts that some of the buffer area includes wells operated by 

the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. 

As noted in Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes 

all of the San Luis Obispo County curve realignments including the referenced curve 

realignment at Henry-Santa Margarita. The Preferred Alternative would not result 

in any of the adverse impacts identified by the commenter. 

I-7.3 The commenter notes that the Henry-Santa Margarita curve realignment was not 

projected to substantially increase the range of top train speeds through this area. 

As noted in Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA and 

SLOCOG excludes all of the San Luis Obispo County curve realignments, including 

the referenced one at Henry-Santa Margarita. 

I-7.4 The commenter questions the top train speeds made in the SDP, the Amtrak 20-

Year Plan, and UPRR’s 2011 recommendations for improvements to the Corridor. 

The commenter asserts that certain excerpts from the SDP about speeds and 

railroad classifications are erroneous. 

FRA and SLOCOG appreciate these detailed remarks. The commenter does not have 

a specific comment on the adequacy of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The Draft 

Program EIS/EIR provides a screening-level evaluation of the conceptual physical 

components identified in the Amtrak 20-Year Plan and in UPRR’s 2011 

recommendations. It should also be noted that the Amtrak 20-Year Plan (prepared 

in 2001) assumed higher top speeds in the Coast Corridor than are now planned as 

part of the SDP. Specifically, the SDP assumes components to maintain the Coast 

Corridor as an FRA Class IV railroad, which establishes a top speed of 90 mph for 

passenger trains. As correctly asserted by the commenter, potential increases in 

allowable top speeds throughout the Corridor would require substantial railroad 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-53

modifications and specialized train equipment. As discussed throughout the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR, there is uncertainty regarding which (if any) of the identified 

physical components will accommodate additional passenger rail service without 

resulting in delays to freight rail operations. 

I-7.5 The commenter notes that proposed curve realignments would be of limited benefit 

to freight rail operations. See the response to comment I-7.4 above and Master 

Response 1. 

I-7.6 The commenter notes that the potential for increased rail movement of oil from 

North Dakota would not necessarily influence UPRR towards the construction of 

curve realignments. See the responses to comments I-7.4 and I-7.5 above. 

I-7.7 The commenter questions the need for rail service components along the Coast 

Corridor in light of the ongoing CA HSR project under construction in the Central 

Valley. See Section 1.4 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, which describes the 

relationship between Coast Corridor and the CA HSR system. 

I-7.8 The commenter notes that sales of electric cars are increasing so it is possible in the 

future that train travel (assuming diesel locomotives) might not produce the air 

quality and/or energy savings benefits identified in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The 

assertions are noted but are based s on speculation about the percentage of fleet 

vehicles that would need to change from gasoline-powered to electric-powered in 

order to reduce mobile-source (tailpipe) emissions. Moreover, while electricpowered vehicles do not have tailpipe emissions, these vehicles require electric 

charging; electricity generation requires consumption of fossil fuels whose 

combustion results in air pollutant emissions. In California as of 2013, about 52 

percent of all electricity generated was from natural gas and coal-fired power 

plants.5 

I-7.9 See the response to comment I-7.7 above. 

I-7.10 The commenter refers to existing conditions along the railroad near property the 

commenter owns. The comment is noted. It does not address the adequacy of the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR. No response is required. The information offered is noted 

for the record.

 

5

California Energy Almanac, 2014, accessed January 27, 2015 at 

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-54

Responses to Comment I-8: 

Edgecombe, John (oral comment)

I-8.1 The commenter orally restated several of the comments he provided in written

form (comment I-7 above). See Master Responses 1 and 3 and the responses to 

comments I-7.1 through I-7.10 above. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-55

Responses to Comment I-9: 

Evans, Ellen

I-9.1 The commenter asserts that the Draft Program EIS/EIR has resulted in or will result 

in lowering assessed values of properties in the vicinity of a curve realignment that,

if constructed, could require property acquisition outside the railroad ROW. As 

noted in Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes all 

of the San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. See also Master Response 3.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-56

Responses to Comment I-10: 

Giueici, Francis (oral comment)

I-10.1 The commenter states that his company owns a property that may be potentially 

impacted by one of the physical components included as part of the Build 

Alternative. See Master Response 3. Additionally, the commenter wishes to be 

contacted directly as more specific project-level information becomes available. Per 

conversation outlined in the City of King public hearing transcript (refer to 

Appendix 2), the commenter’s contact information was collected.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-57

Responses to Comment I-11: 

Gomes, Val (oral comment)

I-11.1 It appears that the commenter would like more information about the financing for 

the project. Chapter 11 of the Coast Corridor SDP (Appendix C) includes more 

information about funding. The SDP makes some general assumptions about 

relative capital costs, operating costs, and costs for different project components. 

None of the mid- and long-range components have been funded at this time. 

Approximately $25 million in funding from the STIP and Proposition 1B is 

programmed to fund corridor-wide track and signaling upgrades. The financial 

status of the physical components has no bearing on the conclusions presented in 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

I-11.2 It appears that the commenter would like to know if a cost/benefit analysis will be 

conducted for the project. Similarly to response to comment I-11.1, the requested 

financial information has no bearing on the conclusions presented in the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR; however, the SDP makes some general assumptions about relative 

capital costs, operating costs, and costs for different project components. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-58

Responses to Comment I-12: 

Greening, Eric (oral comment)

I-12.1 The commenter asserts that property acquisitions would be required to implement 

the curve realignments that were included in the Build Alternative. The commenter 

further asserts that other alternatives, including tilt train technology and restoring 

previous sidings, would be less disruptive and would still accomplish more efficient 

rail service. With regard to safety, the commenter notes that geological conditions 

are unstable in some areas. 

As noted in Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA and 

SLOCOG excludes all of the San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. Therefore, 

the cited property acquisitions would not occur in San Luis Obispo County. 

Chapter 2.0 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR (Alternatives) includes FRA and SLOCOG’s 

rationale for identifying the components that are evaluated in the environmental 

document. 

Section 3.11, Geology, Soils, and Minerals, of the Draft Program EIS/EIR analyzes 

the geological environment with study area for the physical components. While 

susceptibility to geological hazards varies throughout the Corridor, it is important to 

note that the Coast Corridor already exists and operates passenger and freight rail 

service on a daily basis. Project components do not deviate far from the existing 

alignment, and are located within the same geologic setting. Avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation strategies are proposed to lessen potential impacts. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-59

Responses to Comment I-13: 

Hayden, Celine

I-13.1 FRA and SLOCOG appreciate the commenter’s support for expanding passenger 

service on the Coast Corridor with the proposed Coast Daylight. The commenter 

asserts that the engine noise from the existing Coast Corridor service (via Coast 

Starlight) is loud when it idles in an existing siding near the commenter’s property 

on Leff Street in San Luis Obispo. Likewise, the commenter requests that FRA 

include sound mitigation measures within this area to reduce the noise. 

The commenter appears to be expressing concern about existing operations rather 

than one the adequacy of the analysis of project. FRA and SLOCOG will take this 

comment into consideration. To the extent project-level environmental review is 

needed for any physical components in the area, FRA and SLOCOG will consider 

possible noise reduction measures to address any significant impacts. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-60

Responses to Comment I-14: 

Jensen, Ross (oral comment)

I-14.1 FRA and SLOCOG acknowledge the commenter’s concern. See Master Response 3.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-61

Responses to Comment I-15: 

Kemp, Christine

I-15.1 The commenter asked specific questions regarding the digitized aerial mapping 

(Google Earth) depicting the proposed alignment (available online). The specific 

questions were addressed via correspondence with Christina Watson at TAMC (a 

responsible agency of the project). See Appendix 2 for more details. No further 

response is required. See Master Response 3 regarding the conceptual nature of 

physical components.

I-15.2 Similarly to response to comment I-15.1, the commenter’s specific question 

regarding proposed components between Salinas and Soledad was addressed via 

separate correspondence with Ms. Watson.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-62

Responses to Comment I-16: 

Kemp, Christine (oral comment)

I-16.1 The commenter expresses concern regarding loss of agricultural land. Additionally, 

the commenter asserts concern about the public notification process. See Master 

Responses 3 and 4.

FRA has selected a Preferred Alternative consistent with its responsibility as the lead 

federal agency under NEPA. SLOCOG may, after certification of the EIR, choose to 

adopt the Preferred Alternative as the project under CEQA. These actions would 

provide program-level environmental clearance at both federal and state levels. As 

discussed in Master Response 3, if particular projects are carried forward and 

proposed for construction, project-level environmental review would need to be 

conducted at that time. The various components comprising the Build Alternative 

would require different approvals or permits to construct from a variety of federal, 

state, and local entities, as well as various federal and/or state permits. Local 

funding of many of the physical components would most likely be incorporated into 

the regional transportation plans prepared by TAMC and SLOCOG. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-63

Responses to Comment I-17: 

Kirkland, Gary (oral comment)

I-17.1 In response to the commenter’s question of who owns the railroad, the UPRR owns 

the railroad tracks between San Jose and San Luis Obispo, as discussed in Chapter 

1.0 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR (Purpose and Need). See Master Response 3 for 

clarification on the conceptual nature of Build and Preferred Alternative 

components. 

The commenter also speaks to the merits of the project, but does not have a specific 

comment on the adequacy of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. No further response can 

be provided due to the non-specific nature of the comments. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-64

Responses to Comment I-18: 

Lyon, Christopher (oral comments)

I-18.1 See Master Response 3 for clarification on the conceptual nature of the proposed 

components and railroad ROW.

I-18.2 See Master Response 4 for more information on public outreach efforts. See 

Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes all of the San 

Luis Obispo County curve realignments.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-65

Responses to Comment I-19:

May, Rachel

I-19.1 See Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes all of the 

San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. See also Master Responses 3 and 5 

regarding the conceptual nature of the environmental document and existing Coast 

Starlight ridership. 

I-19.2 See Master Response 1 regarding the Atascadero Municipal Water District 

resources. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-66

Responses to Comment I-20: 

McLoughlin, Arthur (oral comment)

I-20.1 FRA and SLOCOG appreciate the commenter’s support for the project. The 

comment is noted.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-67

Responses to Comment I-21: 

Melendrez, Chantal Georis

I-21.1 FRA and SLOCOG appreciate the commenter’s support for the project. The 

comment is noted.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-68

Responses to Comment Letter I-22: 

Salter, Bettina (oral comment)

I-22.1 See Master Response 1 and Master Response 4. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-69

Responses to Comment I-23: 

Schneiderhan, Barbara

I-23.1 See Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes all of the 

San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. 

I-23.2 FRA and SLOCOG agree with the commenter that short siding areas can contribute 

to delays and congestion when passenger trains have for freight trains to pass, as 

discussed on page 1-6 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Passengers traveling on the 

existing Coast Starlight can often experience significant delays, owing to a largely 

single-track railroad with few sidings of the length necessary to accommodate the 

longer freight trains. As a result, the Build and Preferred Alternative components 

include potential siding extensions and switching/signaling components that if 

implemented would help reduce delays. 

I-23.3 See Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes all of the 

San Luis Obispo County curve realignments.
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-70

Responses to Comment I-24:

Thompson, Nancy

I-24.1 See Master Response 4 regarding public outreach efforts.

I-24.2 See Master Response 1, the Preferred Alternative selected by FRA excludes all of the 

San Luis Obispo County curve realignments. 

I-24.3 This comment is noted. See Master Response 4 regarding public outreach efforts.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 5.0 Comments and Coordination

5-71

Responses to Comment I-25: 

Veek, Edward (oral comment)

I-25.1 The commenter speaks to the merits of the project, but does not have a specific 

comment on the adequacy of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. No response is required. 
Coast Corridor

5.0 Comments and Coordination Final Program EIS/EIR

5-72

Page intentionally left blank