pcl letter re budget bill

8/14/2019 PCL Letter Re Budget Bill

1/2

Regional Vice PresidentsElisabeth Brown

Jan Chatten-Brown

Phyllis Fabe

Rick Hawley

Fran Layton

Doug Linney

David Mogaver

Stephanie Pincet

Lynn Sadle

Teresa Villega

Terry Watt

Bill Yeate

PresidentBill Center

President EmeritusSage Sweetwood

John Van De Kamp

Senior Vice President

Kevin Johnson

Secretary/Treasurer

Bill Leimbach

July 10, 2009

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor of California

State Capitol Building

Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg, President Pro Tem

California State Senate

State Capitol, Rm 205


The Honorable Karen Bass, Speaker

California State AssemblyState Capitol, Rm 219


The Honorable Denise Ducheny




The Honorable Alan Lowenthal




The Honorable Joe Simitian




The Honorable Noreen Evans

California State AssemblyState Capitol, Rm 6026


The Honorable Robert Blumenfield

California State Assembly



RE: High Speed Rail Language in the proposed Budget bill Strong Support

The Planning and Conservation League supports High Speed Rail in California. We are working to ensure the

new High Speed Rail system is built cost effectively and in a way that is sensitive to environmental and

community concerns. We want a train that benefits the whole state; therefore, we are pushing to ensure thesystem is built right.

We applaud the legislature for insisting that the High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) do a complete review of

the Bay Area segment, and we strongly urge you to keep this important language in the budget. Since passage of

Proposition 1A, the Authority has indicated that they do not intend to do a complete review of alignment

alternatives for the Bay Area segment. Unfortunately, failure to review these alternatives will delay the process,

create even more opposition from local residents, and increase project costs in the long run.

The Authority is taking the time necessary to study various alignments for other segments throughout the state.

Their failure to do so for the Bay Area segment is a clear demonstration that they are choosing expediency over

thoroughness. Californians did not vote for High Speed Rail so the Authority could build the train as quickly as

possible. We expect them to do it right. That requires a complete review of alternatives. Residents along thePeninsula are acutely aware that, despite the devastating impacts to their communities, the Authority is moving

forward in the absence of a complete review of less destructive alternatives. The failure of the Authority to

review alternatives is at the core of community concerns. A fair and thorough process will help ensure that

community members have the opportunity to voice their concerns and judge the relative merits of various

options. Without this process, residents will continue to feel like this project was rammed through their

communities without their input.

1107 9th Street, Suite 360, Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-444-8726 Fax: 916-448-1789

Website: www.pcl.org Email:[email protected] letter is printed on 60% recycled fiber, 30% post consumer waste, acid free paper.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

8/14/2019 PCL Letter Re Budget Bill

2/2

As opposition mounts in the face of a deficient review process, the project will face greater delays and

obstacles. We have seen in other parts of the state that passionate communities will do what it takes to protecttheir livelihoods and make their voices heard. We can avoid this type of battle only if the Authority conducts a

fair and complete review.

Also, the Legislature and the Governor should insist that the Authority do as comprehensive a review for the

Bay Area segment as they have planned for the rest of the state. This requirement should be included in the

budget because doing so will save the state money. If the Authority continues to short-change the review

process, they will be faced with another lawsuit. The Authority claims that they analyzed the alternatives

alignments during the program level review conducted as part of the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA). However, they did an inadequate job in the review analyzing impacts. The Authority, in response to

our CEQA lawsuit on the program level Environmental Impact Review (EIR), has claimed that a comprehensive

review at the program level was not necessary as it is just the program level and not the project level. They can

not have it both ways. Either the impacts were studied enough to make a fair determination on the alignment orthey didnt have to be and were not.

If the Authority fails to study alignment options in a complete and comprehensive way, they will face another

lawsuit, there will be further delays, and the state will be forced to pay more. This can and should be avoided.

The language in the budget bill requires the Authority to do up front what they will be forced to do anyway

pursuant to CEQA.

Lastly, we would like to rebut several false claims made recently by the Authority. First, the Authority has made

the claim that forcing them to do a thorough review of the Bay Area segment will cost the state Stimulusfunding. This is not true. Work on the San Francisco to San Jose segment, beyond electrification of the existing

tracks and work on the Transbay Terminal, will not qualify for stimulus funding since the environmental review

is not currently scheduled to be done in time, even without a complete review of alternate alignments. Theconsultants conducting the review as well as High Speed Rail staff have made this clear and that is why staff did

not recommend seeking Stimulus funding for this segment. Second, Director Ron Diridon has claimed that the

language in the budget requires the Authority to reopen the Program Level EIR. This also is not true. The

language clearly says, As part of the project-level design and environmental review activities, the Authority

shall analyze alternative alignments to that identified as the preferred alignment in the certified program

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisco-San Jose corridor.

The Authority should be required to do the study right the first time. There is nothing to lose and much to gain.

The state will save money in the long run. I strongly urge the Budget Conference Committee and the Governor

to keep this important language in the budget package.

Sincerely,

Tina Andolina

Legislative Director

2

pcl letter re budget bill

Documents