Pcl Letter Re Budget Bill

Regional Vice Presidents Elisabeth Brown Jan Chatten-Brown Phyllis Faber Rick Hawley Fran Layton Doug Linney David Mogavero Stephanie Pincetl Lynn Sadler Teresa Villegas Terry Watt Bill Yeates

President Bill Center President Emeritus Sage 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 Alan Lowenthal California State Senate State Capitol, Rm 2032 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg, President Pro Tem California State Senate State Capitol, Rm 205 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Joe Simitian California State Senate State Capitol, Rm 2080 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Karen Bass, Speaker California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm 219 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Noreen Evans California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm 6026 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Denise Ducheny California State Senate State Capitol, Rm 5035 Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Robert Blumenfield California State Assembly State Capitol, Rm 6011 Sacramento, CA 95814

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 the system 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 the Peninsula 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] This letter is printed on 60% recycled fiber, 30% post consumer waste, acid free paper.

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 protect their 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 or they didn’t 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 Stimulus funding. 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. The consultants 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