D R A F T
January 19, 2022
California High Speed Rail Authority
Attn: Burbank to Los Angeles Final EIR/EIS Comment
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90071
RE: City of Burbank Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report / Final Environmental Impact Statement for the California High Speed Rail System – Burbank to Los Angeles Section
Dear Members of the Authority,
The Burbank City Council wants to thank you for allowing the Ci ty to provide additional comments for the Authority’s cons ideration as it considers whether to certify the Project Level Final Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS) for the Burbank to Los Angeles segment of the California High S peed Train System. As the City of Burbank is located along the proposed corridor and would have a station located within the city, we are committed to ensuring that the proposed project is constructed in a manner that meets state and regional transport ation objectives while ensuring that the interests of Burbank’s residents and business e s a r e p r o t e c t e d f r o m environmental impacts caused by its construction and operation. As you know, the City of Burbank has held extensive, ongoing communication with the Authority as this project has progressed from the Program E IR/EIS phase, two NOP periods in 2007 and 2014, participation in several Alternatives Analyses, and through rev iew of the Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement. With the release of the FEIR/FEIS, the City has reviewed the Authority’s comments and responses to issues the City raised as part of the DEIR/DEIS. The City of Burbank woul d like to submit the following additional comments to the Authority Board as it considers whether to certify the final environmental documents.
Project Alignment Alternatives between Hollywood Burbank Airpor t and Downtown Burbank not Considered to Reduce Identified Noise, Vibration, and Land Use Impacts
City of Burbank continues to believe that the single Project Build Alternative does not present an adequate range of alter natives to fully analyze the proposed project, specifically with regard to noise, vibration, and land use impacts that will occur along the project alignment between the south end of the tunnel alignment near Hollywood Way / Empire Avenue and Downtown Burbank. The Project Build Alternative is proposed to be constructed mostly at grade and, while it lies within established rail corridors, it will impact sensitive residential land uses near the alignment, will exacerbate the existing rail corridor as a barrier between establishe d communities, and will further separate the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station from existing and potential housing opportunities in Downtown ATTACHMENT 1-1
D R A F T
Burbank. As stated in our previous comments, staff believes the Authority should analyze a project alternative that encompasses the following features:
Include a project alternative or mitigation measure that exten ds the tunnel and trench sections further east of the planned daylighting locatio n near Hollywood Way to 1) Victory Place and 2) south of Downtown Burbank near the I-5 rail grade separation at Providencia Avenue.
Include a project alternative or mitigation measure that places conventional tracks adjacent to the proposed high speed tracks in the same trench or tunnel. Include a “blended” project alternative that places high speed trains and conventional trains on the same set of tracks by electrifying the conventional trains to reduce the project’s footprint and environmental impacts to Burbank. Include a reduced station footpr int design alternative that reduces private property acquisition, surface parking area, and associated urban heat island effects.
The Authority’s response indicates that previous Alternatives A nalysis technical reports analyzed several additi onal project alternatives and satisfies the requirement under environmental law to study an adequate range of alternatives. However, the portion of the alignment noted above was onl y identified as part of the mo st recent Alternatives Analysis prepared in 2016, and only considered one surface alignment profile. This single alignment profile was included in the DEIR/DEIS. Given the project along this section of the project has significant and unavoidable impacts, and will f urther divide established communities by expanding the surface-grade railroad corridor through Burbank, the City of Burbank requests that the Authority analyze an alternative a lignment profile through this section of the project as described above.
Construction Impacts are not Fully Disclosed or Analyzed
The City’s comment letter identified several construction impac ts that were not fully disclosed or analyzed. In response to the City’s comment, the Authority again reiterated that construction impacts will be mitigated with non-specific I mpact Avoidance and Mitigation Features (IAMF) to the project, but does not substan tiate how the IAMFs identified in the response would avoid extreme and unacceptable construction congestion delays during roadway closures. In addition, the improvements identified for consideration in Mitigation Measure TRAN-MM#1 involve changes to intersection configuration on local streets, but does not document that those improvements are consistent with the local jurisdictions’ general plan a nd transportation network and that they would reduce construction impacts to less than significant.
In addition, the City’s comment letter stated that construction i m p a c t s a r e m e a s u r e d against 2015 conditions rather t han conditions that are more cl osely related to actual conditions expected once construction begins. Since project co nstruction has been delayed pending necessary envir onmental clearance and approvals , project buildout or operation should be adjusted accordingly. Assumptions used for the analysis of transportation systems is based on population and employment growth. Accordingly, the later the project is implemented, the transportation analysis would tend to underestimate ATTACHMENT 1-2
D R A F T
the impacts due to the increase in population and employment gr owth, which is one of the primary factors for determi ning transportation construction impacts. In addition, Section 15125 of the CEQA Guideli nes states that “[W]here exist ing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e practically possible of the project’s impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are s upported with substantial evidence. In this case, the City has provided data regarding its current roadway network in some of the comments.
Accordingly, the empirical evid ence the City has provided overr ides the outdated parameters used in the DEIR/DEIS.
The City’s comments included a c oncern that Avon Street – a two -lane connector between Hollywood Way and Empire Avenue – would require closure for cut-and-cover tunnel construction. Given its proximity to the Hollywood Way railroad underpass (which must also be closed), the City requests clarification on the de tour requirements for this roadway. The Authority’s response to this comment referenced Hollywood Way, and not Avon Street.
The City’s comments expressed a concern over impacts caused by the closure of Victory Place between Lake Street and just south of Empire Avenue, but the Authority’s comments did not address this closure (the comments referenced Victory Boulevard).
Given the lack of detours for th is facility and its proximity t o a regional shopping center, the FEIR/FEIS does not adequately identify construction impacts caused by this closure.
The City included a comment that the proposed construction impa ct mitigation at the Hollywood Way / Victory Boulevard intersection would actually worsen delay at the intersection, and the Authority’s response to this comment did not provide evidence that the proposed mitigation will actually improve conditions during construction.
The City included a comment that the proposed construction impact mitigations at the Buena Vista / San Fernando, Buena Vista / Victory, Magnolia / Victory, Olive / First, intersections intersection woul d actually worsen delay at the intersection, and the Authority’s response to this comment did not provide evidence t hat the proposed mitigation will actually improve conditions during construction . Furthermore, certain changes that the Authority did make to these mitigations were not reflected in the FEIR/FEIS.
As stated in the City’s previous comments, the FEIR/FEIS must e xplicitly identify how construction impacts and impacts to emergency access will be ad dressed because the nature of the road closures needed for construction (e.g., those roads that cross existing rail lines or freeways) means that reasonable detour routes may not be available to adequately address construction impacts. Given this lack of specificity, the City continues to believe that unidentified significant construction impacts will be caused by the project.
Because of this, the FEIR/FEIS did not consider an adequate ran ge of additional mitigation measures. Additional m itigation measures that were not considered include explicitly identifying a construction phasing program to avoid multiple road closures, ATTACHMENT 1-3
D R A F T
identifying alternative means o f construction to keep roadways partially opened during construction, and providing alternative means for local agencies to redeploy their police, fire, and emergency services to account for multiple extended road closures. These should not be IAMFs but should be mitigation measures so that they may be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The City continues to believe that explicit mitigation measures (not IAMFs) to address impacts to City streets should id entify the explicit mechanism whereby the Authority or the City may enforce the obligation for the contractor to abide by the mitigation measures and repair damaged streets. This could include requiring the c ontractor to be bound by permit conditions by the City of Burbank that guarantees the repair of roadways, providing a financial set-aside to repair damaged City infrastructure, or by requiring the repair or repaving of streets that will lik ely be damaged, particularly all streets that abut the proposed project construction footprint, and all detour routes. By including the mitigation measures as IAMFs, and by omitti ng an mechanism to enforce comp liance by the contractor, the FEIR/FEIS does not adequately address construct ion impacts to city roadway infrastructure caused by construction.
Clarification on Mitigation to Active Transportation Network Impacts
The City’s DEIR/DEIS comment letter identified impacts to the f uture San Fernando Bikeway between Lake Street and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. The San Fernando Bikeway is a regional Class I bikeway identified on th e City of Burbank2035 General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Complete Streets Plan. The project is currently funded and is in the design phase. The original DEIR/DEIS prop osed a mitigation measure to reroute the class I bike path onto Lake Street as a class II bike path, which concerned the City because of the reduced protection a class II bike path provides versus a class I path, and because the proposed route was discontinuous. This comment was also discussed during the City’s Section 4(f) Consultation with the High Speed Rail Authority. Based on the City’s comments and the Section 4(f) Consultation follow-up, the City and Authority have identified an alternative mitigation to the San Fernando Bikeway that would be constructed as a Class IV bike path on Victory Boulevard, consistent with the City’s Complete Streets Plan. The City would like to further clarify that this mitigation – if required to replace the future San Fernando Bikeway – shou ld be constructed as a raised, sidewalk-level, protected class IV bike path consistent with the City’s complete Streets Plans.
Proposed Project Further Divides Established Neighborhoods, Imp acts TOD Opportunities, and Does not Consider Conventional Rail Improvements that Help Restore Divided Neighborhoods
The City’s comment letter identified several project features that will further divide neighborhoods and preclude existing and future TOD opportunitie s. The FEIR/FEIS response to these City comments reiterated several features or IAMFs that are included to reduce or eliminate these land use impacts. However, the City remains concerned that the project’s expansion of the existing rail corridors through Downtown Burbank, both in ATTACHMENT 1-4
D R A F T
physical size as well as intensity of use, is note adequately addressed in the FEIR/FEIS.
The proposed project would exac erbate and further divide Downtown Burbank and separate the Downtown Burbank Me trolink Station from the core land uses of the Downtown. The exacerbation of this divide cannot be adequately mitigated with the construction of two pedestrian ov ercrossings and reconstruction of Metrolink station parking lots. The FEIR/FEIS shoul d consider how making improve ments to the Olive Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard Bri dges could lessen the impacts that the project has on dividing Downtown Burbank. The FEIR/FEIS does not fully ana lyze how the construction of a surface-grade high speed train will impact the City’s need to build more housing in Downtown Burbank and connect that housing to regiona l transit at the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. It also fails to address impacts caused by removal of significant amounts of priva te land around the Downtown Burb ank Metrolink Station and along the rail corridor between Burbank Boulevard and Provi dencia Avenue, including undeveloped land immedi ately to the west of the stati on, and lower-intensity industrial uses south of the stat ion along Flower Street that h ave future potential to be developed as more intense TOD.
The City continues to be concerned that the project proposes to create a series of surface parking lots around the proposed Burbank Airport Metrolink Stat ion, which significantly reduces TOD opportunities around the station and encourages mor e local automobile traffic to access the station. As discussed in the City’s prev ious comments, the DEIR/DEIS should identify project features or mitigation measur es that can encourage TOD and discourage automobile use a round the station, including constructing parking that is underground or consolidated in structures to make more land available for TOD, situating the station portal and circulation so that there is m ore direct access to non- motorized transportation networks on Hollywood Way, and reinfor cing the connection between the proposed station and the Burbank Airport terminal.
As stated in the City’s previous comments, the FEIR/FEIS should include an analysis of offsetting its effects on dividing the City of Burbank with project features that restore these divisions. The project proposes to construct a new grade separation at Victory Place, but does propose to reconstruct the adjoining 80-year old conventional rail grade separation nearby. The project should offset potential land use impacts t hat further divide established neighborhoods by consolidating these two rail bridges into one common rail corridor overpass that improves connectivity across the combined corridor.
The City’s comments also suggested grade separating the immedia tely adjacent conventional rail tracks when the high speed rail grade separation at Buena Vista Street is constructed. This would have the effect of offsetting the impacts caused by the project by improving the conditions of the adjacent conventional corrid or. In the Authority’s response to comments, the response indicated that such an option would not meet UPRR design standards, and would require condemning additional prope r t y , b u t d i d n o t substantiate these claims. Fully separating all trains in this corridor would improve safety, offset the project’s impacts to further divide communities, and would take advantage of ATTACHMENT 1-5
D R A F T
an opportunity to construct needed conventional rail improvements during the highly- disruptive high-speed rail construction period.
Mitigations to Noise and Vibration Impacts are not Identified As discussed in the City’s DEIR/D EIS comments, the Authority ha s identified moderate and severe land use impacts (due to noise), noise impacts, and vibration impacts to residential properties located ad jacent to the proposed project between Buena Vista Street and Victory Place. However, the DEIR/DEIS identified onl y a general mitigation measure to implement program-wide noise mitigation guidelines t o attempt to mitigate these impacts, including constructing sound walls, applying noise-reducing improvements to nearby homes, or acquiring noise easements or condemnations of affected properties.
The City’s comments suggested t hat this programmatic approach t o mitigation was insufficient, and requested that t he Authority identify specific mitigation measures for these impacts.
In the FEIR/FEIS, the Authority provides additional clarification on its proposed approach to sound and vibration mitigation, including a discussion of various, cost and effectiveness screening criteria for when sound and vibration mitigations will be implemented. However, this additional discussion does not address the specific noise and vibration impacts that were raised in the City’s comment letter. Specifically, the FEI R/FEIS does not propose any sound barrier or other miti gation between Hollywood Way and V i c t o r y P l a c e , particularly along Vanowen Street east and west of Beachwood Dr i v e , w h e r e t h e alignment transitions from a tr ench to at-grade and where at ma ny more than 10 residences are located within 300 feet of the tracks. Figure 3. 4-7 of the Final EIR/EIS identifies this area to have severe and moderate impacts although it is not clear from the figure how many residences are severely affected or moderately affected.
In addition, CEQA requires the i dentification of each location where mitigation is not feasible and where impacts remain significant. If the analysis does not identify which locations would be significantly i mpacted after implementation of all feasible mitigation, then the document fails to adequat ely disclose the significant environmental impacts of the project, and the public is denied the ability to comment on a significant impact.
Also, the means by which the noise attenuation is achieved at each location is important as sound walls and other physical or structural mitigation tech niques have their own potential environmental impacts . If the community does not know what type of noise mitigation improvement is to be utilized, the community cannot comment on the potential environmental impacts of such improvements.
The City’s DEIR/DEIS comment letter included a concern that impacts from the proposed project may impact the existi ng Olive Avenue and Magnolia Boule vard bridges, but the Authority’s response in the FEIR/FEIS indicated that the project would not create vibration impacts that exceed thresholds for damage. However, Section 3. 4.6.3 of the Draft EIR/EIS and the Final EIR/EIS identified operational vibration that would exceed impact criteria that would result in permanent impacts. Mitigation Measures N&V-MM#4 through ATTACHMENT 1-6
D R A F T
N&V-MM#6 were proposed to reduce operational vibration to less-than-significant levels.
Given this information, the City requests the Authority provide substantiation that vibration impacts caused by the operation of the project would not requir e mitigations to these bridges.
Certain City Transportation Facilities to be Impacted and/or Relinquished The City’s comment letter stated that the proposed project will heavily impact significant roadway, sewer, storm drain, and other municipal infrastructure throughout the City of Burbank, and that the project would be subject to permit requirements that the City would need to consider as a Responsible Agency. The Authority’s resp onse to this comment indicates that the Authority is not required to obtain permission to work on local roads, but that fee-owned city streets would be subject to acquisition in accordance with SOCIO- IAMF #2. Pursuant to Burbank M unicipal Code Section 7-1-202, t he Authority and its contractors may not perform any excavation or construction with in any City street, whether owned by the City in fee or easement, without first obt aining a permit to do so.
Caltrans complied with this code provision during construction of the Empire Interchange, and the Authority must do so as well. A roadway or utility easement is an irrevocable interest in land, as real as fee ownership. Therefore, the Authority must follow the same acquisition and relocation procedures for any impacted City easements.
Further, to the extent potentiall y significant impacts to City infrastructure have not been sufficiently identified and miti gated in the FEIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(e)(3), the City’s issuance of construction and/or excavation permits may be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sectio n 15162. The City will have to assess whether changes in the project or changes to the environment since certification of the FEIR, or new information which was not discussed in the FEIR, reveal either new potentially significant impacts to the environment would occur, or there could be a substantial increase in the severity of previously identif ied significant impacts for which mitigation has not been incorporated into the project. A responsible agency’s authority to impose additional mitigation measures when issuing permits for a project was recently affirmed in Santa Clara Valley Water District v. San F r a n c i s c o B a y R e g i o n a l Water Quality Control Board, (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 199.
Inconsistency Noted in Response for Impacts to City Street Tree Canopy The City’s comment letter requested that the project ensure that any impacts to the City’s tree canopy be fully mitigated th rough replacement of trees in either City right-of-way or Project right-of-way. In respons e, the Authority indicates tha t the construction footprint has been minimized to avoid impacts to all trees, and that trees within the construction zone would be protected. However , this statement contradicts t he DEIR/DEIS and FEIR/FEIS. If the construction footprint has been minimized to avoid impacts to all trees, then the FEIR/FEIS needs to make revisions to Impact BIO #6 to acknowledge that tree removal would no longer occur. If tree removal is still necessa ry, the Authority should revise the response to avoid the contradiction.
ATTACHMENT 1-7
D R A F T
Mitigating Factors for Infrastructure Maintenance Costs The City’s comment letter request ed that impacts and mitigating factors be identified to infrastructure maintenance costs as a result of the project. In response, the Authority indicates that the provision of a high-speed rail station located within the City of Burbank would provide offsetting benefits to residents and businesses i n the City with improved mobility. The provision of a hi gh-speed rail station in the Cit y is not a mitigating factor.
Please identify specific impacts to the City’s infrastructure maintenance (e.g., roadways, waste disposal, new improvements to Burbank’s infrastructure, and stormwater system) and benefits to offset such impacts.
Electrical Power Requirements for Station not Identified In the City’s DEIR/DEIS comment letter, a concern was raised that the DEIR/DEIS did not disclose the electric power needs of the proposed Burbank Airpo rt Station and therefore does not adequately identify if a significant impact to the City’s electrical utility system will occur as part of the project. This comment was not addressed in the FEIR/FEIS. The City remains concerned that the e lectric power requirements for the station are not disclosed to enable the City to determine if its public utility can meet the demands of the proposed project.
Thank you again for providing an opportunity to comment on the FEIR/FEIS for the Burbank to Los Angeles segment l ocated in the City of Burbank. We trust that the Authority takes the City’s continued comments and concerns abou t the project into consideration as it considers whether to certify the Project’s FEIR/FEIS and approve the project alignment.
Sincerely,
________________________________
Jess A. Talamantes, Mayor
________________________________
Konstantine Anthony, Vice Mayor
________________________________
Bob Frutos, Council Member
ATTACHMENT 1-8
D R A F T
________________________________
Sharon Springer, Council Member
________________________________
Nick Schultz, Council Member
ATTACHMENT 1-9