APPENDIX B 

Summary of and Brief Response to 

Comments on the Final Bay Area to Central Valley 

High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS
Staff Summary of and 

Brief Response to 

Comments on the 

Final Bay Area to Central Valley 

High-Speed Train 

Program Environmental Impact Report/ 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Prepared by: 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

925 L Street, Suite 1425 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Contact: Mr. Dan Leavitt 

916/324-1541 

July 9, 2008 
California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2008. Staff Summary of and Brief 

Response to Comments on the Final Bay Area to Central Valley HighSpeed Train Program Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental 

Impact Statement. July 9. Sacramento, CA. 
Page 1

Staff Summary of and Brief Response to 

Comments on the Final Bay Area to 

Central Valley High-Speed Train Program 

EIR/EIS

1.1 Introduction 

This attachment to the Staff Report for the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed 

Train (HST) Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIR/EIS) summarizes comments received on the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. 

1.2 Summary of Comments Received on the 

Final EIR/EIS 

1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on the 

Final Program EIR/EIS. The EPA encourages continued regulatory and resource 

agency coordination during the Tier-2 project-level analysis of the Preferred 

Pacheco Pass Network Alternative to inform design choices that are most 

protective of the natural environment. 

Integration of Clean Water Act and NEPA Requirements 

The EPA submitted recommendations for future Preferred Pacheco Pass Network 

Alternative project-level Tier 2 analysis related to wetlands and other waters and 

requested that this future analysis be focused on a more accurate estimate of 

potential impacts and opportunities for reducing impacts to waters from the project. 

It was also recommended that interagency coordination among resource and 

regulatory agencies occur as part of this future analysis. The EPA has stated that 

they are available to discuss the mitigation framework for the project. 

Direct and indirect impacts identified in the Final Program EIR/EIS will be further 

minimized through project design features. The Pacheco Pass Network Alternative 

would include tunnels and elevated structures to minimize impacts on streams, 

water bodies, wetlands, wildlife movement corridors, and sensitive species and 

habitat. The alignment along Henry Miller Road, for example, would extend 

approximately 3 miles on elevated structure, which could potentially reduce total 
Page 2

direct and indirect impacts on wetlands. More detail both in project refinement and 

specific on-the-ground information would be developed in the Tier 2 process that 

would allow for greater estimate of impacts and avoidance. The Authority and FRA 

will continue coordination with all agencies and organizations involved to identify 

specific issues and develop solutions that avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential 

impacts. The Authority and FRA also have committed to investigating site-specific 

location and design alternatives, including avoidance and minimization alternatives, 

during the Tier 2, project-level environmental review. This includes evaluating 

design alternatives to the north and south of the current proposed Henry Miller 

alignment alternative. 

The Authority also made a commitment to acquire agricultural, conservation and/or 

open space easements encompassing at least 10,000 acres and generally located 

along or in the vicinity of the Grassland Ecological Area (GEA) to mitigate for 

impacts. This measure would reduce impacts to and support conservation of 

wetlands and sensitive ecological areas, as well as limit urban encroachment in the 

vicinity of the HST through the GEA and other areas. The focus for these 

easements would be in areas undergoing development pressures, such as the 

areas around Los Banos and Volta, and/or areas that would be most appropriate 

for ecological conservation or restoration. The eventual locations and total 

acreage for these easements would be determined in conjunction with the Tier 2 

project-level environmental analysis and decisions addressing the Gilroy to Merced 

portion of the HST system and in consultation with the California Department of 

Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Grassland Water 

District. 

Growth-related Impact Analysis

The EPA reiterated comments it made on the Draft Program EIR/EIS regarding 

potential growth-related impacts associated with station locations. EPA 

recommended that the FRA’s Record of Decision (ROD) include additional 

information about growth inducing impacts by county with upper and lower 

potential ranges of impacts illustrating the role of station selection in the amount of 

growth that may be induced. The EPA further recommended that mitigation 

measures be adopted to address an offset growth inducement of the high speed 

train, including a growth mitigation plan. 

Chapter 5 of the Final Program EIR/EIS and Standard Response 4 describe the 

potential for the HST system to induce growth and to create secondary impacts to 

the environment associated with urbanization. Section 5.5 discusses relative 

differences in impacts depending on the alignment alternatives and station 

locations, and uses Stanislaus County to illustrate the urbanization differences 

between a downtown station (Modesto) and a suburban station (Amtrak 

Briggsmore). The illustration, which is based on analysis in the Statewide HST 

Program EIR/EIS, is intended to underscore the fact that locating stations in 

downtown core areas will lead to fewer urbanization effects than locating stations 

in suburban areas. 

This relative difference in growth-inducing effects between a downtown and a 

suburban station location should not be construed as a description of the absolute 

impacts of either station location. As explained in the responses to comments in 

the Final Program EIR/EIS, it is not possible to associate specific levels of 
Page 3

population/employment growth, urbanization, and indirect impacts with individual 

stations. Individual stations draw ridership from a broad catchment area that does 

not necessarily follow county boundaries, which form the basis for the growth 

inducement and secondary impact analysis. The relationships considered in the 

growth inducing impacts analysis are simply too numerous and complex to state 

that a particular station will lead to a particular amount of growth. The EIR/EIS 

therefore offered a qualitative assessment of potential differences between the 

alignment alternatives and noted those counties expected to experience the 

highest level of growth with the HST. 

Both NEPA and CEQA require that an EIS or EIR discuss a project’s impacts, 

including the potential for a project to induce urban growth. The Final Program 

EIR/EIS offers the public and decision makers information about the potential for 

the HST to fuel population and economic growth in the Bay Area to Central Valley 

study region, including the potential magnitude, location, and nature of that growth. 

The EIR/EIS also characterizes the potential indirect effects of HST-induced 

growth by resource area and discusses how these effects will be evaluated more 

specifically with project-level studies. 

The analysis concludes that growth will be higher with the representative Altamont 

Network Alternative than with the representative Pacheco Network Alternative. For 

both networks, the greatest magnitude of secondary impacts will occur in Madera 

and Merced counties. Alignment and station locations that serve existing urban 

and community centers, rather than less-developed outlying areas, would be 

expected to result in lower ecological and natural resources impacts, but higher 

community and social impacts, both positive and negative. And the extent of 

secondary impacts will be highly dependent on local land use plans and policies. 

The Final Program EIR/EIS includes numerous mitigation strategies designed to 

avoid and minimize the physical environmental impacts of the HST system. These 

mitigation strategies include conservation easements to permanently protect 

farmlands, easements to protect and preserve open space and the unique 

biological resources of the Grassland Ecological Area, and measures to promote 

dense urban growth around HST stations that will serve as transportation hubs. 

These mitigation strategies will also address any secondary effects of urbanization 

and ensure that they are less than significant. The Authority proposes to work with 

local governments, which are the entities that make local land use decisions about 

the extent and location of urban growth within their jurisdictions, to establish 

policies and principles that promote transit-oriented development, provide 

incentives for smart growth and infill development around stations, and limit urban 

expansion into new areas. 

Design, Mitigation, and Coordination Measures Deferred to Future Project-Level 

Analyses 

The EPA commended the Authority and FRA for identifying multiple measures for 

future project-level analyses and appreciated the compilation of mitigation 

measures in one location. They further recommend that the Mitigation Monitoring 

and Reporting Program (MMRP) be included with the FRA’s Record of Decision 

(ROD). The FRA will include the MMRP as part of the ROD. 
Page 4

1.2.2 Siegfried Macheleidt 

Siegfried Macheleidt submitted a letter on June 6, 2008 in response to the 

publication of the notice of the Final Program EIR/EIS. This letter was submitted 

with other letters attached to U.S. Senator Henry Reid, California Governor Arnold 

Schwarzenegger, and the Editor of the San Jose Mercury News. Mr. Macheleidt 

supports maglev technology over a rail-wheel system and identifies potential safety 

concerns. The Authority eliminated maglev technology from further investigation 

in the Final Program EIR/EIS for the California High-Speed Train System in 2005. 

1.2.3 Jack F. Munro 

Jack Munro submitted a letter received on June 16, 2008 in response to the 

publication of the notice of the Final Program EIR/EIS. The issues raised by Mr. 

Munro are in addition to Mr. Munro’s comments on the Draft Program EIR/EIS 

(Comment Letter I007 dated August 27, 2007). These new comments do not raise 

new issues concerning the Final Program EIR/EIS. Mr. Munro’s comments cover a 

variety of areas including alignments, shared-use of the Caltrain corridor, FRA 

compliance, phasing of construction, and a request that passenger trains be added 

on the existing Union Pacific coast route. 

• Mr. Munro states that the alignments look like a “bowl of spaghetti”. The HST 

system described and analyzed in the Final Program EIR/EIS included a 

number of alignment alternatives and station location options. As described in 

Chapter 8, only those alignments and station location options associated with 

the Preferred Network Alternative would move forward into project-level 

environmental review. 

• Mr. Munro states that the use of the Caltrain track should be considered 

temporary. The Authority plans for four tracks that include two express and two 

local tracks to be shared by HST and Caltrain and would not hinder HST 

performance. 

• Mr. Munro states that the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) currently uses the 

San Jose to San Francisco track and is FRA compliant and that by the HST 

using this track, HST would have to also be FRA compliant which would reduce 

performance. There is currently temporal separation between freight service 

and Caltrain. The Program conceptual design assumes that the freight service 

will not utilize the same tracks as the HST and the Caltrain Express trains. It 

also assumes that temporal separation would continue between Caltrain local 

service and freight on the local tracks. 

• Mr. Munro presumes that the first section built would be from San Francisco to 

Los Angeles with remaining routes constructed in order of expected ridership. 

He states that the Authority could best serve the San Francisco to Los Angeles 

market by using passenger trains on the UPRR coast route. The Authority 

considered but rejected the Coast route between San Francisco and Los 

Angeles in the Statewide Program Level Document. 
Page 5

1.2.4 Charles Cameron 

Charles Cameron submitted a letter received on June 21, 2008 in response to the 

publication of the notice of the Final Program EIR/EIS. Mr. Cameron had 

previously responded on the Draft Program EIR/EIS in an individual comment 

(#I013) and at the San Francisco Public Hearing (PH-SF14-1). In responding to 

Mr. Cameron’s public hearing comment, he was erroneously referred to the 

response of another comment. The response for PH-SF14-1 should have referred 

to Response to Comment Letter I013. 

1.2.5 Laura R. Cohen, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

Laura Cohen, Director Western Region Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, submitted a 

letter dated June 16, 2008 in response to a June 4, 2008 meeting with Authority 

staff. Ms. Cohen requested that the Authority include a bicycle and pedestrian 

path (“rail with trail”) parallel to the HST right-of-way as part of project level 

planning and that a Citizens Advisory Committee be formed to facilitate this 

request. For safety and other reasons, the HST system would be operated on a 

completely grade-separated, controlled access right-of-way designed to fully 

prohibit access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and larger animals to the HST tracks 

using fences or grade separation. Thus any trails that would enable any incursion 

onto the HST tracks would not be permitted. 

That said, there may be occasion when the HST right-of-way would provide an 

opportunity for trails along side but outside of the controlled right-of-way, and the 

Authority is encouraging development of HST stations with enhanced pedestrian 

and bicycle access. During the project level review, the Authority will work with the 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and other related organizations as well as local 

jurisdictions to determine if such opportunities exist and possible funding for such 

improvements. 

1.2.6 Robert S. Allen 

Mr. Allen suggests in his letter dated June 26, 2008 that BART and Caltrain be 

merged. The issues raised by Mr. Allen are in addition to Mr. Allen’s comments on 

the Draft Program EIR/EIS (Comment Letters I002, I012, I022, I025, and PH-SJ31 

dated June 27, September 6, 19, and 24, and August 24, 2007 respectively). He 

proposes that Caltrain be grade separated, electrified, and widened for four tracks 

(two local and two express) and that BART use the local tracks between San Jose 

and Millbrae. Mr. Allen proposes double tracking and grade separating UPRR’s 

Mulford line to expedite Capitol Corridor and ACE trains, and that Caltrans widen 

parts of I-580, SR 4, and I-80 allowing for an at-grade BART to Livermore 

Greenville Rd), Antioch (Hillcrest Ave.) and Crockett. Mr. Allen suggests other 

improvements to the BART system including extensions in San Francisco to the 

Golden Gate Bridge; over Altamont to the Central Valley; beyond Antioch toward 

Stockton; and to the North Bay. He proposes a West Oakland by-pass with an 
Page 6

intermodal station with the Amtrak/Capitol Corridor. Mr. Allen suggests that BART 

should loop the Bay and point to the North Bay and Central Valley. 

The Authority has consistently pursued opportunities to locate HST stations to 

maximize intermodal connections with other transit providers. The Preferred 

Alternative identified in the Final Program EIR/EIS includes such station locations. 

The HST Preferred Alternative in the Final Program EIR/EIS includes 

improvements to the Caltrain Corridor, including provision of four tracks (express 

and local) to be shared with Caltrain service operating compatible equipment. Use 

of the local tracks by BART would require the track improvements to be designed 

to BART specification (e.g., third rail electrification and a wider track gauge) and 

would preclude joint use of the Corridor tracks for light equipment Caltrain and HST 

trains. 

The other proposed BART improvements, the possible merger of BART and 

Caltrain, and improvements to the Capitol Corridor system are beyond the purview 

of the HST Authority, although the Authority did participate in the development of 

the adopted MTC Regional Rail Plan and is working with regional stakeholders on 

possible commuter rail improvements in the Altamont Corridor. 

1.2.7 Robert S. Allen 

Mr. Allen submitted a letter received on July 2, 2008 in response to the publication 

July 9, 2008 Authority Board Meeting agenda. The issues raised by Mr. Allen are 

in addition to Mr. Allen’s comments on the Draft Program EIR/EIS (Comment 

Letters I002, I012, I022, I025, and PH-SJ31 dated June 27, September 6, 19, and 

24, and August 24, 2007 respectively) and the Final Program EIR/EIS noted 

above. 

This letter is noted. This is for Agenda item 10 and not related to the Final 

Program EIR/EIS. 

1.2.8 Stuart M. Flashman 

Mr. Flashman, on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League, TRANSDEF, 

and the California Rail Foundation, submitted a letter dated June 2, 2008 in 

response to the publication of the notice of the Final Program EIR/EIS. The issues 

raised by Mr. Flashman are in addition to his comments on the Draft Program 

EIR/EIS (Comment Letter O007 dated October 25, 2007). Mr. Flashman 

references a letter received by the Authority from the UPRR dated May 13, 2008 

and raises the issue of the HST being within the right-of-way of the UPRR. Mr. 

Flashman states that the Altamont and Pacheco alternatives analyzed in the Final 

Program EIR/EIS are predicated on the use of the UPRR right-of-way for 

significant portions. He further states that given the UPRR’s opposition to use of 

its right-of-way likely makes infeasible major portions of the alignments, and he 

requests that new alignments be analyzed. Mr. Flashman also states that the 

UPRR’s opposition will require reassessment of major portions of the routing 
Page 7

between San Francisco and Los Angeles that were addressed in the previous 

statewide program EIR/EIS, including the Palmdale area. He also states that the 

environmental analysis for these previously approved portions of the alignment be 

reopened to address the changed circumstances before those portions can 

proceed to project-level decisions. 

Mr. Flashman states that since changes in circumstances, not considered in the 

Final Program EIR/EIS and which the public has not had the opportunity to 

comment on, the Final Program EIR/EIS needs to be withdrawn and a revised 

Draft Program EIR/EIS be prepared and circulated. 

Authority staff do not concur with the characterization of the right-of-way issues in 

this comment letter or the letter’s suggestion that the Final Program EIR/EIS needs 

to be revised and recirculated. 

To minimize potential environmental impacts from the HST system, the Authority’s 

objective has been to maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and 

rights-of-way for the HST system. Consistent with this objective, extensive 

portions of the alignment alternatives were described and analyzed as if they were 

placed within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on 

new alignment. Evaluations for the previous statewide HST system program EIR 

and for the current Final Program EIR/EIS prepared for the Bay Area to Central 

Valley have consistently shown a potential for fewer significant environmental 

impacts along existing transportation facilities than on new alignments through both 

developed and undeveloped areas. 

At the same time that the Authority has attempted to minimize environmental 

impacts by locating alignment alternatives within or adjacent to existing 

transportation rights-of-way, the EIR does not assume or rely on the availability of 

existing transportation rights-of-way for its analysis. Figures 2.3-6, 2.3-7, and 2.3-8 

in the Final Program EIR depict typical cross sections for HST facilities at grade, on 

an elevated structure, and where twin tunnels might be necessary. These figures 

show maximum proposed rights-of-way of 100 feet, 50 feet, or 120 feet for these 

facilities, respectively. At the programmatic level, this EIR has analyzed the 

impacts of constructing and operating the HST system along the proposed 

alignment alternatives conservatively, by evaluating direct and indirect impacts 

within a wide band that exceeds the maximum proposed HST right-of-way, whether 

in an existing transportation right-of-way or adjacent to it. For example, for 

biological impacts, the EIR defines the study area for direct biological impacts as 

50 feet on either side of the alignment, and for indirect impacts as 1,000 feet in 

urban areas and 0.25 mile in rural areas on each side of the alignment. At the 

project level, when detailed field conditions, resource data, and site-specific facility 

design information become available, certain impacts disclosed in the Program EIR 

are expected to be far less in those circumstances when the actual final footprint of 

HST track can be located within existing rights-of-way, rather than adjacent to 

them. 

Recirculation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act when there 

is “significant new information” that arises prior to certification of a final EIR. 

“Significant new information” is limited to circumstances involving: 
Page 8

(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from 

a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. 

(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result 

unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of 

insignificance. 

(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different 

from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental 

impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. 

(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory 

in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 

(Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 

1043) 

(CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1) 

Because the environmental analysis in the Final Program EIR/EIS is not dependent 

on the availability of any railroad right-of-way, the analysis remains accurate even 

in light of the May 2008 letter from UPRR to the Authority. A revision and 

recirculation of the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS is therefore not 

necessary. 

1.2.9 Josue Castellanos-Mejia 

Mr. Castellanos-Mejia submitted a letter dated June 12, 2008 to the UPRR and 

copied the Authority. Mr. Castellanos-Mejia states that the UPRR should partner 

with the State to the benefit of UPRR. He states that by adding four tracks, the 

Authority would be expanding capacity for UPRR at no expense to UPRR. 

The letter is noted. The Authority appreciates receiving a copy of this 

correspondence. 

1.2.10 Ken Norwood, Shared Living Resource Center 

Mr. Norwood submitted a letter received on June 24, 2008 in response to the 

publication of the notice of the Final Program EIR/EIS. Mr. Norwood suggests that 

the Authority has made an error by not selecting Altamont as the preferred 

alignment because it would avoid environmental intrusion and discourage 

speculative development of agriculture and open space lands, and better serve 

northern San Joaquin Valley cities. 

The comment is noted. The Final Program EIR/EIS compares the environmental 

impact differences between the Preferred Pacheco Pass Network Alternative and 

the Altamont Pass Network Alternatives. As stated in the document, the choice of 

overall network involves a balancing of different types and degrees of 

environmental impact in different locations. Both networks would involve impacts 

on agricultural land and open space and both would involve growth. The Final 

Program EIR/EIS includes numerous mitigation strategies to address these 

impacts and reduce then to a less than significant level wherever feasible. The 

information in the Final Program EIR/EIS is adequate for the Authority members to 
Page 9

make a final decision to select a preferred network, alignment alternatives, and 

station location options for the Bay Area to Central Valley region. 

1.2.11 Scott D. Moore, Union Pacific Railroad 

Mr. Moore submitted a letter received on July 7, 2008 in response to the 

publication of the notice of the Final Program EIR/EIS. Issues raised include 

limited railroad rights-of-way to meet future freight transportation needs of the 

state. The San Jose to Gilroy rights-of-way is narrow and bounded by a major 

arterial highway and the UPRR cannot give up an exclusive right-of-way to HST. A 

loss of 50 feet of the UPRR right-of-way along the Central Valley line would render 

future freight rail expansion impossible and disrupt rail-served businesses and 

prevent serving new industries from locating on one or both sides of the rail. The 

UPRR does not own the right-of-way for the Caltrain corridor between San 

Francisco and San Jose but has a freight easement. Imposing two exclusive 

tracks for HST would end the UPRR’s ability to provide freight service to 

customers, including the Port of San Francisco. The UPRR also has the same 

issue between Sylmar and Los Angeles. The Authority Board should not 

jeopardize UPRR’s ability to provide such freight service by assuming the HST will 

have no impact. The UPRR urges the Board to carefully consider corridor routes 

that do not utilize our rights-of-way. 

To minimize potential environmental impacts from the HST system, the Authority’s 

objective has been to maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and 

rights-of-way for the HST system. Consistent with this objective, extensive 

portions of the alignment alternatives were described and analyzed as if they were 

placed within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on 

new alignment. Evaluations for the previous statewide HST system program EIR 

and for the current Final Program EIR/EIS prepared for the Bay Area to Central 

Valley have consistently shown a potential for fewer significant environmental 

impacts along existing transportation facilities than on new alignments through both 

developed and undeveloped areas. 

At the same time that the Authority has attempted to minimize environmental 

impacts by locating alignment alternatives within or adjacent to existing 

transportation rights-of-way, the EIR does not assume or rely on the availability of 

existing transportation rights-of-way for its analysis. Figures 2.3-6, 2.3-7, and 2.3-8 

in the Final Program EIR depict typical cross sections for HST facilities at grade, on 

an elevated structure, and where twin tunnels might be necessary. These figures 

show maximum proposed rights-of-way of 100 feet, 50 feet, or 120 feet for these 

facilities, respectively. At the programmatic level, this EIR has analyzed the 

impacts of constructing and operating the HST system along the proposed 

alignment alternatives conservatively, by evaluating direct and indirect impacts 

within a wide band that exceeds the maximum proposed HST right-of-way, whether 

in an existing transportation right-of-way or adjacent to it. For example, for 

biological impacts, the EIR defines the study area for direct biological impacts as 

50 feet on either side of the alignment, and for indirect impacts as 1,000 feet in 

urban areas and 0.25 mile in rural areas on each side of the alignment. At the 

project level, when detailed field conditions, resource data, and site-specific facility 
Page 10

design information become available, certain impacts disclosed in the Program EIR 

are expected to be far less in those circumstances when the actual final footprint of 

HST track can be located within existing rights-of-way, rather than adjacent to 

them. 

The Program EIR/EIS does not assume use of the UPRR right-of-way between 

San Jose and Gilroy. In the Central Valley, the assumption was predominately that 

the alignment would be adjacent to the UPRR right-of-way. Between San 

Francisco and San Jose, the configuration assumed shared operations with 

Caltrain express services, but would not share tracks and would not impact freight 

operations. A considerable amount of aerial structure is assumed to be needed 

within or adjacent to the UPRR to avoid impacts to industry along the railroad. 

This will be looked at in more detail at the project level. 

1.3 Summary of Comments Received on the 

Final Program EIR/EIS at the July 8, 2008 

Authority Board Meeting 

1.3.1 Individuals Supporting the Project 

The following individuals provided oral comment at the July 8, 2008, Authority 

Board Meeting that supported the project and Final EIR certification. 

• Mayor Reed, City of San Jose (read by Christina Fernandez) 

• Mayor Gavin Newsom, City of San Francisco 

• Mr. Brian Dykes, Transbay JPA (selection of Transbay Transit Center) 

• Mr. Dean Chu, Commissioner representing MTC 

• Mr. Kurt Evans, Santa Clara VTA 

• Mr. Robert Doty, representing SAMTRANS, Caltrain JPB, San Mateo County 

Transportation Authority 

• Mr. Aaron Peskin, President San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

• Ms. Bena Chang, Silicon Valley Leadership Group 

• Mr. Bruce Gwynne, California Department of Conservation 

• Mr. Jim Lazarus, President, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 

• Mr. Adam Montgomery, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors 

• Mr. Eugene Skoropowski, Managing Director, Capitol Corridor/JPA 

• Mr. John Diamante, Friends of the Railway (North Bay) 

• Mr. Mark Herbert, representing Congresswoman Pelosi 

• Ms. Emily Rusche, CALPIRG 

• Mr. Jim Bigelow, Redwood City/San Mateo Chamber of Commerce 

• Ms. Mary Renner, self 

• Ms. Anna Stern, self 
Page 11

• Mr. Roger Bazeley, self 

• Ms. Barbara Pierce, Redwood City Council Member, representing self 

• Mr. David Snyder, SPUR 

1.3.2 Individuals with Concerns 

The following individuals provided oral or written comment at the July 8, 2008, 

Authority Board Meeting expressing concerns regarding the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. 

Mr. Tim Frank, Sierra Club (California) 

• The Sierra Club still has concerns regarding the comparison of Altamont and 

Pacheco. They believe that there could be a more fair comparison. The 

Authority staff do not agree with this statement. The analysis in the Final 

Program EIR/EIS analyzed both network alternatives equally and did not favor 

one over the other. 

• The Sierra Club supports mitigation for the Grassland Ecological Area. 

Comment noted. 

• The Sierra Club supports mitigation for farmland. Comment noted. 

• The Sierra Club suggest that HST move forward to help with global warming 

and noted that the HST is included in CARB’s blueprint for meeting AB32. 

Comment noted. 

Mr. Daniel McNamara, California Rail Foundation 

• Mr. McNamara doesn’t understand how we could choose Pacheco since 

Altamont has shorter travel time and Altamont has the busiest freeways. See 

Chapter 8 and Standard Response 3. 

• Mr. McNamara states that the Authority forgot to ask UPRR for their 

permission, and UPRR opposes use of their right-of-way; therefore Pacheco 

Pass is infeasible. The feasibility of Pacheco Pass is not contingent on the use 

of UPRR right-of-way. Please see discussion of right-of-way adjacent to or 

within transportation rights-of-way discussion in Section 2.3 in the CEQA 

Findings. 

• Mr. McNamara states that the Authority did not study an abandoned SP route 

or I-580 route for Altamont Pass. The I-580 alignment option was considered 

and rejected as documented in the Final Program EIR/EIS. Between 

Livermore and Pleasanton, the old SP alignment is generally adjacent to the 

UPRR line and is in fact now owned by the UPRR. In Pleasanton, portions of 

the old SP alignment were sold and now have urban development. Thus, there 

is no viable rail right-of-way alternative other than the UPRR alignment through 

downtown Livermore and downtown Pleasanton to connect the Central Valley 

to the Bay Area. 

Mr. Len Conly, Sierra Club and Friends of BRT 

• Mr. Conly can’t understand why the Authority selected Pacheco Pass when it 

would create sprawl (see TRAC’s “follow the lights” figure). This was 
Page 12

responded to in Standard Response 3 and Chapter 8 of the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. 

Mr. Stuart Flashman, Lawyer, representing Planning Conservation 

League, Bay Rail Alliance, California Rail Foundation, TRANSDEF, 

Mountain Lion Foundation 

Mr. Flashman questions the location and the width of the corridors evaluated in the 

Final Program EIR/EIS and whether the environmental analysis has accurately 

depicted the impacts of the HST system. Mr. Flashman’s comment letter has 

images attached that are reproduced from Google Maps to illustrate the comments. 

The comment further questions the feasibility of the Pacheco Pass network 

alternatives in light of recent correspondence from Union Pacific indicating its 

objections to the HST using or occupying any of its right-of-way. 

Mr. Flashman further suggests the responses to comments in the Final Program 

EIR/EIS are inadequate, that the document inappropriately fails to acknowledge 

the potential for a shift in travel mode from automobile to other modes based on 

high petroleum costs, and that therefore the ridership studies need to be redone. 

The comment also questions whether the cost of grade separation and other 

construction needs were factored in to the comparison of Pacheco and Altamont. 

Authority staff disagrees with the comments characterizing UPRR’s recent 

correspondence as rendering the preferred Pacheco Pass network alternative 

infeasible. There are locations in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region 

where the environmental analysis is based on a conceptual alignment for the HST 

within the UPRR right-of-way. The selective placement of the HST system within 

the UPRR right-of-way, or other rights-of-way, has been part of the Authority’s 

strategy to minimize environmental impacts. At the same time, in most locations 

the conceptual HST alignments have been placed adjacent to the transportation 

rights-of-way, rather than within them. This is illustrated in the profiles and cross 

sections contained in Appendix 2. If future circumstances preclude the use of the 

UPRR right-of-way, it is feasible to place the HST adjacent to the right-of-way. 

We further disagree that the issue of the UPRR right-of-way availability renders the 

EIR inadequate. As explained in the response to Mr. Flashman’s letter of June 2, 

2008 (section 1.2.8 above), the EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the 

HST system based on a geographic scope that exceeds the maximum HST rightof-way needed. 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission undertook a sensitivity analysis 

which assumed higher automobile and air transportation costs, similar to the 

conditions being experienced with the substantial recent increase in oil prices. 

(Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study 

[Cambridge Systematics, July 2007].) These assumptions and data were used in 

the Final Program EIR/EIS to help define the potential impacts of the HST. The 

EIR concluded that both the Altamont and Pacheco Pass network alternatives have 

high ridership potential and that ridership was not a determining factor for 

identifying the preferred alternative. The focus of the HST system is to serve 

longer distance travel between major metropolitan areas rather than commuter 

trips. 
Page 13

The responses to comments comply with CEQA. CEQA requires that a Final EIR 

include responses to the most significant environmental issues raised, and offer a 

good-faith, reasoned analysis supported by substantial evidence. The combination 

of the standard responses to the most frequently raised issues and the individual 

responses complies with CEQA requirements. 

The costs of grade separation were adequately considered. Appendix 4-A 

includes, among other things, costs for earthwork, structures/tunnels/walls, grade 

separation, rail and utility relocation, right-of-way acquisition, and environmental 

mitigation. This appendix provides appropriate information for comparison of the 

alternative HST networks. 

Mr. Arthur Ringham, self 

• Mr. Ringham stated that HST would share tracks with Caltrain. He wanted to 

know who would schedule trains. This is an issue that is beyond the program 

level and will be addressed at the project level. The Authority has an MOU with 

Caltrain JPB to work cooperatively in the corridor. 

• Mr. Ringham stated that HST needs dedicated and more tracks. Dedicated 

tracks in the Caltrain corridor were considered but rejected in Final Program 

EIR/EIS. See Chapter 2 of the EIR/EIS. The Preferred Alternative assumes a 

four track system between San Jose and San Francisco. 

• Mr. Ringham suggests use of elevated structures on US 101 or I-280. These 

were considered but rejected as part of the Final Program EIR/EIS. See 

Chapter 2 of the EIR/EIS. 

• Mr. Ringham stated ridership was overly optimistic. Comment noted. 

Ms. Rosemary Maulbetsch, self 

• Ms. Maulbetsch stated that more attention needs to be made to residential 

areas; did not look closely at visual and noise impacts. These comments were 

addressed in other responses on the Draft Program EIR/EIS. See Response to 

Comment L014. 

• Ms. Maulbetsch stated that this project would be a duplication of service (with 

Caltrain). The HST and Caltrain serve different markets and are complimentary 

services. 

• Ms. Maulbetsch stated had concerns about separating communities. This was 

addressed in Section 3.7 of the Final Program EIR/EIS and is discussed in the 

CEQA Findings. 

Mr. James Janz, Mayor of Atherton 

• Mr. Janz expressed local concerns through Atherton and said that a high berm 

would be devastating. See Response to Comment L014 in the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. 

• Mr. Janz wants the Authority to look at I-280 to I-380 to San Francisco and US 

101. These were considered but rejected in the Final Program EIR/EIS. See 

Chapter 2 of the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

• Mr. Janz expressed concern about the capacity of Caltrain tracks. This was 

considered as part of the engineering for the Final Program EIR/EIS. The 
Page 14

program level conclusion is that a four track system between San Jose and 

San Francisco would provide adequate capacity for both Caltrain and HST. 

• Mr. Janz stated that if using Caltrain, then a trench should be selected. This 

will be evaluated in the project level environmental analysis. See Response to 

Comment L014 in the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

• Mr. Janz wanted to know why there is a stop on the peninsula. There is a 

preferred station at Millbrae to provide access to SFO and a potential station at 

either Redwood City or Palo Alto. Whether or not there will be a mid-peninsula 

station, will be determined at the project level. If there is a stop, it will be based 

on increased connectivity and other benefits, as well as ridership and revenue 

potential. 

Mr. David Schonbrunn, TRANSDEF 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims the Final Program EIR/EIS is a hack political job. The 

Authority staff do not agree with this comment. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims the Final Program EIR/EIS is intellectually dishonest. 

The Authority staff do not agree with this comment. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims the Response to Comments were defective; rehashing 

of positions and did not address the substance of comments. The Authority 

staff do not agree with this comment. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn states the Final Program EIR/EIS did not show red-lined text. 

This is not a requirement of CEQA or NEPA. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn states that there was no agreement with UPRR. Agreements 

regarding right-of-way are premature at the program level. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims there was a false statement in the Staff Report related 

to transportation corridors being used to minimize environmental impacts. The 

Authority staff do not agree with this statement. Use of transportation corridors 

include and go beyond use of existing transportation rights-of-way and that 

being in or adjacent to existing transportation rights-of-way does, in fact, 

minimize environmental impacts. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims Altamont Pass was discarded without full analysis. The 

Altamont Pass was fully considered in this Program EIR/EIS. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims the Final Program EIR/EIS minimizes differences 

between the alternatives, but ridership was the primary basis for the choice of 

Pacheco. The Authority staff do not agree with this comment. Ridership was 

not a determining factor in the selection of the Preferred Alternative, and was 

not included as an argument for the selection of the Pacheco Pass Network 

Alternative. See Chapter 8 of the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims that the Final Program EIR/EIS did not evaluate 

alignments adjacent to rail lines and highways. See response to 1.2.8, above. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn claims the Final Program EIR/EIS is inadequate and needs to 

be redone. The Authority staff do not agree with this comment. 

• Mr. Schonbrunn states that the Staff Report indicates that the Authority would 

pursue agreements with railroads. Mr. Schonbrunn claims that this is a false 

statement because there are no agreements. Agreements regarding right-ofway are premature at the program level and would be pursued at the projectlevel. 
Page 15

Mr. Andy Cohen, Mayor of Menlo Park 

• Mr. Cohen stated that the city visioning process overwhelmingly supports a 

trench and the opportunity for a trench should be kept open. Use of a trench 

and other design variations will be considered during the project level review. 

See Response to Comment L014 in the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

Mr. Martin Engel, self 

• Mr. Engel prefers trench through Menlo Park. See Response to Comment 

L014 in the Final Program EIR/EIS. Use of a trench and other design 

variations will be considered during the project level review. 

Mr. Walter Strakosch, self 

• Mr. Strakosch has issue with responses to previous comments related to cost 

comparisons. Refer to Response to Comment PH-S9-3. Note that the 

reference to Table S.9-1 should have been Table S.8-1 in the Final Program 

EIR/EIS. The segment south of Stockton through Merced was included with 

both the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass to provide for a fair comparison of 

capital costs. 

• Mr. Strakosch has issue with responses to previous comments related to the 

Sacramento market. Standard Response 3 in the Final Program EIR/EIS does 

discuss the superior travel times between Sacramento/Northern San Joaquin 

valley and the Bay Area, and that there is great potential for serving longdistance commuters in this corridor. 

• Mr. Strakosch has issue with responses to previous comments related to 

logistical and seismic issues. Standard Response 3 discusses these issues 

and their influence in the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

• Mr. Strakosch has issue with responses to previous comments related to 

ridership numbers. The ridership numbers in Table S.8-1 should have been 

updated in the Final Program EIR/EIS. Ridership was not a determining factor 

in the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

• Mr. Strakosch has issue with responses to previous comments related to 

catchment areas. See Standard Response 3 and Chapter 8 of the Final 

Program EIR/EIS. 

Kenneth Gusting, Executive Director, Transportation Involves 

Everyone (TIE) 

The written comment suggests that the Addendum/Errata to the Final Program 

EIR/EIS lacks sufficient attribution for it to be considered by the Board, and also 

contains significant new information that triggers recirculation of the Program EIR. 

The comment also suggests the response to a comment fails to acknowledge the 

potential for species such as California condor to expand their range into areas that 

may be affected by this project. The comment claims that the Addendum/Errata is 

not compliant with a settlement between the California Attorney General and the 

County of San Bernardino over the County’s general plan update and greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

The Addendum/Errata was prepared by HST staff with input from consultants. The 

basis for the Addendum/Errata is explained on the first page of the document. The 
Page 16

new information contained in the document does not trigger recirculation of the EIR 

because it does not raise any new or more severe impacts, but rather clarifies the 

level of environmental benefit the project offers in the areas of reducing vehicles 

miles traveled, air pollution, and energy consumption. 

The Final Program EIR/EIS recognizes the potential for California condor to fly 

over the HST, but notes that no critical habitat would be affected by the Pacheco 

Pass network alternatives. More detailed study of potential impacts to wildlife 

movement and habitat will occur at the project level of environmental review. 

The referenced settlement agreement regarding greenhouse gas emissions is not 

relevant to the current environmental process. The HST system, both statewide 

and in the Bay Area to Central Valley study region, is part of the State’s solution to 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Jacques Gulbenkian, P.E., Prestress Service International 

• Mr. Gulbenkian states that both branches north of Merced should be 

constructed. The identified Preferred Alternative includes the Union Pacific 

alignment but commits to further review of the BNSF Alignment in the project 

level analysis. Mr. Gulbenkian states that there should be either a 220 mph 

train rail system or faster maglev system. The Authority considered and 

rejected a maglev system for HST in California as part of the program 

environmental process for the California HST system in 2005. The choice of 

rail technology is not at issue in this environmental review process. 
Responses to Letters Submitted to FRA 

September 2008
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE 














































LETTERS PROVIDED BY FRA 

SEPTEMBER 2008