Burbank City Council
January 11, 2022

ATTACHMENT 4-1
Attachment 4
Previous Sent Letters/
City Council Staff Reports
ATTACHMENT 4-2
ATTACHMENT 4-3
ATTACHMENT 4-4
ATTACHMENT 4-5
ATTACHMENT 4-6
ATTACHMENT 4-7
ATTACHMENT 4-8
ATTACHMENT 4-9
ATTACHMENT 4-10
ATTACHMENT 4-11
)A-,I=<I3<.=@;)B4=<I+=<B)4<-,I3<IB2-I
$

%I)AIE-88I)AIB2-I
I>-@+-<BI+=<+->BC)8I
>8)<AI>@=D4,-,I*GIB2-ICB2=@4BGIB2-I>@=>=A-,I>@=5-+BI+=C9,I>=B-<B4)88GI4;>)+BI;)<GI(#I -9-+B@4+)8ICB484BGIAGAB-;AI &2-I
$

%IA2=C8,I4,-<B4.GI>=B-<B4)8IA40<4.4+)<BI4;>)+BAIB=I
>C*:4+I-8-+B@3+ICB484B4-AI)<,I4,-<B3.GI;4B40)B3=<I;-)AC@-AIB=I=..A-BIB2=A-I4;>)+BAI &2-I
$

%I,=-AI<=BI,4A+8=A-IB2-I-8-+B@4+I>=E-@I<--,AI=.IB2-I>@=>=A-,IC@*)<7I 4@>=@BI%B)B4=<I)<,IB2-@-.=@-I ,=-AI<=BI),-?C)B-9GI4,-<B4.GI4.I) IA40<4.4+)<BI3;>)+BI B=IB2-I 4BG
AI-8-+B@4+)8ICB384BGIAGAB-;IE489I=++C@I)AI>)@BI=.IB2-I>@=5-+BI&2-I $

%IA2=C8,I*-I
@-D4A-,IB=IA2=EIB2-I-8-+B@4+I>=E-@I@-?C4@-;-<BAI=.IB2-I>@=5-+BIB=I -<AC@-IB2)BIB2-I 4BGAI >C*84+ICB484BGI+)<I;--BIB2-I,-;)<,AI=.IB2-I>@=>=A-,I>@=5-+BI C@B2-@I,-B)48-,I>@=5-+BI+=;;-<BAI B=I)3,IB2-ICB2=@4BGI4<I-<AC@4<0IB2)BI>@=5-+BI4;>)+BAI )<,I;4B40)B4=<AI@-8)B-,IB=I-8-+B @4+)9I CB484BGIAGAB-;AI )@-I3,-<B4.4-,I )<,I 4<+8C,-,I)AI BB)+2;-<BIIB=IB24AI+=;;-<BI9-BB-@I
&2-I
$

%IA2=C8,I-<AC@-IB2)BI)88I>@=5-+BI-8-;-<BAI3<+8C,4<0IB2-I>@=>=A-,IC@*)<7I 4@>=@BI%B)B4=<I)@-I+=<AB@C+B-,I4<I+=<.=@;)<+-IE3B2I)88I)>>94+)*8-IAB)B-I)<,I8=+)9I.3@-I)<,I

84.-IA).-BGI+=,-AI -B)48-,I>@=5-+BI+=;;-<BAI@-9)B-,IB=I [email protected]).-BGI)@-I4<+8C,-,I)AI BB)+2;-<BIIB=IB24AI+=;;-<BI9-BB-@I
&2-I>@=5-+BI,-A+@4>B4=<IABC,3-,I3<IB2-I
$

%I4AI)IA40<4.4+)<BI,->)@BC@-IB=IB2-I>@=5-+BI
,-A+@4>B3=<I,3A+8=A-,I4<IB2-I

I!"#I.=@IB2-IC@*)<7IB=I=AI<0-8-AI)840<;-<B I 4D-<I B2-IA4H-I=.IB24AI>@=5-+BIB2-IA4FG-)@IA>)<I=.IB4;-I*-BE--<IB2-I!"#I)<,IB2-I $

%I
B2-I+2)<0-I=.I)840<;-<BI3<IB2-I>@=6-+BI,-A+@4>B3=<I*-BE--<IB2-I!"#I)<,IB2-I $

%I
)<
,IB2-IA40<4.4+)<BI*@-),B2I=.I
$

%I4<),-?C)+4-AI4,-<B4.4-,I3<IB2-I4BGAI+=;;-<BAI
B2-I4BGI@-?C-ABAIB2)BIB2-I
$

%I*-I@-+4@+C8)B-,I)/-@IB2-ICB2=@4BGI@-A>=<,AIB=I)88I
+=;;-<BAI@-+-4D-,I=<IB2-I
$

%I
.IB2-I
$

%I4AI@-+3@+C9)B-,IB2-ICB2=@4BGI
A2=C8,I>@=D4,-IAB)7-2=8,-@AI)I
,)GI>C*84+I+=;;-<BI>-@4=,I4<I=@,-@IB=I>@=D3,-I),-?C)B-I B4;-IB=I @-D4-EIB2-I -FB-<A3D-I<-EI 4<.=@;)B4=<I+=<B)4<-,I4<IB2-I  $

%I &24AI
@-+4@+C8)B4=<I)<,I-FB-<,-,I+=;;-<BI>-@4=,IE489I>@=D3,-I)88IAB)7-2=9,-@AIB2-I=>>=@BC<4BGI B=I@-D4-EIB2-IC>,)B-,I,=+C;-<BIB=I,-B-@;4<-I4.IB2-ICB2=@4BGI2)AI),-?C)B-8GI),,@-AA-,I B2-I,-.4+4-<+4-AI3,-<B4.4-,I4<IB2-I
$

%I
&2)<7IG=CI)0)4<I.=@I>@=D4,4<0I)<I =>>=@BC<4BGIB=I+=;;-<BI=<IB2-I @).BI $

%I.=@IB2-I
C@*)<7IB=I =AI<0-8-AIA-0;-<BI8=+)B-,I3<I B2-I3BGI=.IC@*)<7I .IG=CI2)D-I)<G I
?C-AB3=<AI@-0)@,4<0IB2-I+=<B-<BAI=.IB24AI8-BB-@I>8-)A-I.--8I.@--IB=I+=<B)+BI)D4,I @3A7-I
AA4AB)<BI =;;C<4BGI -D-8=>;-<BI 4@-+B=@I E4B2I B2-I =;;C<3BGI -D-9=>;-<BI ->)@B;-<BI)BI


I=@ID3)I-;)48I)BI,7@4A7-*C@*)<7+)1=DI
=*I@CB=AI'4+-I )G=@I
;49GI)*-8C,,GI=C<+48I -;*-@I
BB)+2;-<BAI
ATTACHMENT 4-12

CITY OF BURBANK
Community Development Department

STAFF REPORT

DATE: July 28, 2020

TO: Justin Hess, City Manager

FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director BY: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Approval of a Comment Letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority’s Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority’s Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (Attachment 1) and direct staff to submit it to the Authority by the close of the public comment period on July 31, 2020.

BACKGROUND
The California High Speed Rail project is a proposed high speed train system that would connect the major metropolitan centers of California. One branch of the proposed project would extend south from Sacramento and San Francisco through the Central Valley to Los Angeles, while a second branch would extend northward from San Diego to Los Angeles via the Inland Empire. A third branch would connect Anaheim and Orange County to Los Angeles. All three branches would meet at Los Angeles Union Station.

The pur pose of this project is to provide an alternative intercity transportation system between the major cities in California. A number of intermediate stops are planned along this rail system including a proposed stop in the City of Burbank near the Hollywood Burbank Airport. A map of the proposed statewide alignment is attached as Attachment 2, and a map of the alignment for the project segment through Burbank to Los Angeles is attached as Attachment 3.

The High Speed Rail project would be constructed as a conventional, steel -wheel-on- steel-track, electrically-powered “bullet-train” system operating at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour. As proposed, the system would address projected increases in statewide, intercity travel by augmenting both commercial air carrier service and the state highway ATTACHMENT 4-13
network. If implemented, the system would provide intercity travel times that would be competitive with air travel, with a trip from Downtown Los Angeles to Downtown San Francisco taking two hours 40 minutes and priced similar to or less than a commercial airline ticket. The project is being implemented by the California High Speed Rail Authority, an agency of the State of California. The project cost, currently estimated at $68 billion, is not fully funded, and the Authority proposes to use a combination of Federal, State, and Private funds to build and operate the system. The system would be built and operated in phases, with initial service occurring in the Central Valley and later extending north to San Francisco and then south to Los Angeles. The map on Attachment 2 illustrates the proposed phasing for the project.

Significant environmental review and alignment studies have been conducted throughout the development of the project. The Authority completed a state wide Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement in 2005, and conducted several alignment studies for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Segment that would affect Burbank. In 2014, the Authority announced that it was beginning the projec t-level environmental review for the project and released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact State ment (DEIR/DEIS) for two project segments in Burbank: the Palmdale to Burbank section and the Burbank to Los Angeles Union Station section. The NOP provides the opportunity for individuals and agencies to provide input on what should be studied in the DEIR/DEIS. Also, the Authority is required to update a project Business Plan to disclose how they propose to build and operate the project and last updated this plan in 2018. The City of Burbank provided input during various stages of the project’s environmental review, including comments on the Program EIR/EIS in 2005, a prior NOP in 2007, an Alternatives Analysis in 2010, the most recent NOP in 2014, and a major update to the Business Plan in 2016. A more detailed history of the comments previously submitted to the Autho rity at these project stages is included in staff reports prepared when the City Council approved a NOP comment letter in 2014 and a Business Plan letter in 2016 (Attachment 4).

During these project development activities, the City Council has not taken a formal position on the project. However, over the years the City Council has provided formal input on certain aspects of the project, including its preference for a station location at the Airport versus Downtown Burbank, a concern over Burbank acting as an interim “terminus” during any phased construction, and concerns over different project alignment characteristics and environmental concerns.

DISCUSSION
Since the 2014 NOP, the Authority has been working to prepare draft environmental documents for both project segments. On May 29, 2020, the Authority announced the release of a DEIR/DEIS for the Burbank to Los Angeles section, which covers the segment of the project between the Hollywood Burbank Airport in northwest Burbank ATTACHMENT 4-14
south to Los Angeles Union St ation. They also announced a 45- day public comment period, which was subsequently extended to 60 days and closes on July 31, 2020. The DEIR/DEIS comment period provides the opportunity for the City of Burbank, as well as other interested parties, to review the document and provide comments on the Authority’s findings on the project’s impacts and mitigation measures. Since its release, staff from various city departments have reviewed the DEIR/DEIS to see that the City’s 2014 NOP comments were addressed and to see how environmental topics important to the City and its infrastructure have been discussed in the document.

Project Description and Features
As part of the DEIR/DEIS, the Authority has included a detailed project description of the proposed project as it would pass through the City. The document identifies several important project features affecting Burbank that are being proposed as part of the DEIR/DEIS:

Project Alignment
The Authority is proposing a modified project alignment through the City of Burbank that differs from the alignment proposed in 2014. The Authority proposes to swing the high speed rail alignment southward from the existing Metrolink Antelope Valley Line near the Burbank Airport North Metrolink Station in a new tunnel generally travelling south along Hollywood Way and turning east to intercept the Metrolink Ventura rail line between Hollywood Way and Buena Vista Street, just north of Vanowen Street. The purpose of this new alignment is to avoid constrained railroad right of way on the Antelope Valley Line near the Empire Center, which would require constructing an elevated rail viaduct through the City. It also allows the proposed Burbank Airport high speed rail station to be located immediately adjacent to the site of the relocated Hollywood Burbank Airport passenger terminal. This alignment would also require the project to tunnel under the east-west airport runway near Hollywood Way. East and south of this new tunnel, the project alignment would gradually rise to grade level through the rest of the City. It would follow the Metrolink Ventura Line east towards the Empire Center, where it would then turn south near Victory Place and re-enter the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line corridor. It would then travel south along the existing rail corridor through Downtown Burbank, passing under Burbank, Magnolia, and Olive bridges, and would exit the City along the rail line at Alameda Avenue. A more detailed project alignment is included as Attachment

5. Burbank Airport Station Location
The Authority proposes to construct a high speed rail station at the site of the current Avion project currently under construction. The station would be located underground with a station portal to the surface located in the middle of the Avion project. The project ATTACHMENT 4-15
would require the Avion site to be demolished for construction staging, and later for the construction of surface parking lots surrounding the station. A layout of t he proposed station is included as Attachment 6.

Downtown Burbank Station
The project would pass by the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station on the west side of the station, but trains would not stop there (based on prior City Council comments to the Authority). The project would leave the Metrolink Station platforms intact, but would require the parking lot on the west side of the station to be demolished and reconfigured.

Underground or overhead pedestrian crossings would be built to provide connectivity across the new high speed tracks.

Construction Impacts to Burbank Infrastructure
The project would impact several rail crossings, streets, and bridges within the City of Burbank. It would require constructing a new rail grade separation at the Buena Vis ta Street / Vanowen Street rail crossing (the conventional Metrolink and freight trains would not be grade separated) and next to the existing Victory Place rail grade separation (the existing rail grade separation would remain). It would require the west side of the Burbank Bridge overpass (between Front Street and Five- Points) to be demolished and reconstructed. It would also require a modification to the Alameda Avenue rail underpass.

It would also require the Five-Points intersection of Victory Blvd / Victory Place / Burbank Blvd to be reconstructed. Finally, the construction of the project and the necessary roadway and bridge improvements would require long-term street closures of Hollywood Way, Buena Vista Street, Victory Place, Burbank Boulevard, and Empire Avenue. The Authority estimates construction could take 10 years.

Right of Way Impacts
While the project is proposed to be constructed generally within existing railroad rights - of-way, the project would nonetheless require additional right of way from City and private property owners. The project would require the acquisition of the entire Avion development project site for construction staging and station infrastructure. It would require underground easements fr om public and private property near Hollywood Way and Empire Avenue for the new tunnel section. It would require various smaller parcels along the existing railroad right of way near Buena Vista Street / Vanowen Street, Victory Place near Lake Street, portions of the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station, and private industrial properties along Flower Street south of the Metrolink Station. The project would also likely impact several city and private electrical, water, sewer, storm drain, and other utilities.

ATTACHMENT 4-16
Proposed Comment Letter
Staff from relevant City departments have reviewed the DEIR/DEIS and related technical reports to evaluate the Authority’s assessment of the project’s environmental impacts and proposed mitigations. Staff focused on the broad areas of concern the City Council identified in 2014 as well as other issues that may arise after reviewing the full project description. Below is a summary of some of the issues identified by staff to be included in the City’s comments to the Authority.

• Project Alternatives: Staff believes the new project alignment mitigates several concerns brought up in 2014 by avoiding large overhead structures that magnify noise, vibration, and aesthetic impacts. However, staff believes the DEIR/DEIS does not pose an adequate range of alternatives of the selected alignment to fully investigate possible mitigation measures to identified construction, land use, noise, and vibration impacts, as well as impacts to city infrastructure. The document should explore alternative project design features such as, enclosing more of the project alignment in a tunnel or subterranean trench, or to consider “blending” high speed rail operations with conventional trains to lessen the impacts to Burbank. • Transportation: Staff has identified several concerns with the transportation analysis done for the proposed station’s impacts to Burbank streets including concerns over certain aspects of the study’s methodology and assumptions. Staff has also identified significant concerns over the lack of mitigation proposed for construction impacts including impacts on several concurrent long -term detours and damage to city roadways during the 10-year construction timeline. • Land Use: Staff is concerned that the proposed project will cause significant land use impacts due to the way it will exacerbate the division of existing communities by further reinforcing the railroad corridors in Burbank as barriers. Staff also believes the project conflicts with important state and local housing and tra nsit- oriented development policies by reducing opportunities for the City to build housing near transit. Staff also believes that the project will remove significant amounts of land from productive use, particularly around the proposed Burbank Airport sta tion. The lack of alternatives in the DEIR/DEIS minimizes the opportunity to mitigate these impacts.
• Noise and Vibration: The DEIR/DEIS identifies significant and unavoidable noise and vibration impacts to land uses near the proposed project, and does not explore potential mitigation measures to these impacts. The DEIR/DEIS does not consider the potential to impact future housing opportunities in Downtown Burbank • Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources: The project does not document why there are no seismic impacts to the project, despite portions of the project being located in seismic fault and liquefaction zones.

ATTACHMENT 4-17
• Public Infrastructure: Staff proposes to provide comments asking that the project mitigate any impacts to public infrastructure including roadways and utilities.

Further, the project will potentially be a heavy user of electric power but the environmental document does not identify electric power needs that could impact the City’s electrical utilities.

Staff recommends the City Council review the proposed comment letter and provide any further staff direction for what to include in the City’s comments. Submitting a comment letter as part of the DEIR/DEIS is important because it requires the Authority to address any potential deficiencies in the draft document and conduct additional analysis to respond to the City’s comments prior to preparing the final EIR/EIS. It also ensures that the environmental document paints an accurate picture of the potential environmental impacts so that the public, and ultimately the California High Speed Rail Authority Board, can make an informed decision about the project. Finally, including comments in the public record as part of the DEIR/DEIS process ensures that the City can take further legal actions should the project be approved without ensuring that the City’s interests and infrastructure are protected.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City should the City Council wish to submit comments as part of the DEIR/DEIS. Providing comments will help ensure that the high speed rail project’s impacts are fully disclosed and that mitigation measures to these impact s are fully explored.

CONCLUSION
The California High Speed Rail Authority has released a DEIR/DEIS for the Burbank to Los Angeles project segment which lies within the City of Burbank. The City and other interested parties have an opportunity to review the draft document and provide comments for the Authority to consider as it finalizes its environmental document. The DEIR/DEIS provides a more complete project description for where the Authority proposes to construct the project through Burbank, and docu ments the potential project impacts and possible mitigations to different environmental factors. Staff requests that the City Council review the proposed comment letter and provide any additional comments to be included, and then direct staff to submit the comments by the July 31, 2020 deadline. Submitting comments is important so that the High Speed Rail Authority Board has a complete picture of the project’s impacts prior to making a decision about the project.

ATTACHMENT 4-18

ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Draft DEIR/DEIS Comment Letter
Attachment 2 – Overall Project Alignment and Phasing
Attachment 3 – Project Alignment for Burbank to Los Angeles Section Attachment 4 – Previous City Council Staff Report for 2014 Notice of Preparation Attachment 5 – Detailed Project Alignment in Burbank
Attachment 6 – Proposed Burbank Airport High Speed Rail Station Layout ATTACHMENT 4-19
July 31, 2020

California High Speed Rail Authority
Attn:  Burbank to Los Angeles Draft EIR/EIS Comment
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA  90071

RE:  City of Burbank Co mments on Draft Environmental Impact Report / Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the California High Speed Rail System – Burbank to Los Angeles Section

Dear Members of the Authority,
On behalf of the Burbank City Council, I want to thank you for  allowing the City to comment on the Draft Project Level Environmental Impact Report / Draft Environmental Impact Statement (t he DEIR/DEIS) for the Burbank to Los Angeles segment of the California High Speed  Train System.  As the City of Burbank is located along the proposed corridor and would have a station lo cated within the city, we are committed to  ensuring  that  the  proposed  project  is  constructed  in  a  manne r  that  meets  state  and  regional transportation  objectives  while  ensuring  that  the  interests  of Burbank’s  residents  and  businesses  are protected from environmental impacts caused by its construction and operation.  The City of Burbank has held  extensive,  ongoing  communication  with  the  Authority  as  this  project  has  progressed  from  the Program EIR/EIS phase in 2004, two NOP periods in 2007 and 2014, the development of project Business Plans in 2016, and participation in several Alternatives Analys es.  With the release of the  DEIR/DEIS, the City would like to submit the following comments to ensure that the Project’s environmental impacts are fully analyzed, considered, and mitigated.

Insufficient Range of Project Alternatives Analyzed

The DEIR/DEIS limits the alterna tives analysis to corridor and  alignment alternatives but fails to analyze reasonable alternative track profiles or cross sections within  the preferred alignment that could satisfy the project objectives and reduce or avoid many significant impacts.  The City of Burbank appreciates that the Authority is no longer considering proposed aerial structur e alignments that would have run along San Fernando Boulevard from the northern city limits to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station.  These a e r i a l  a l i g n m e n t s  w o u l d  l i k e l y  h a v e  i n t r o d u c e d  s i g n i f i c a n t  n o i se,  vibration,  and  aesthetic  impacts,  and would require extensive property acquisitions along San Fernando Boulevard. An aerial structure running laong  San  Fernando  Boulevard  would  also  have  required  a  Burbank A i r p o r t  S t a t i o n  l o c a t i o n  t h a t  w a s disconnected  from  the  Burbank  Airport’s  proposed  relocated  Pass enger  Terminal  and  would  have required constrained ground transportation connections.

Nonetheless, the City of Burbank believes that the single Proje ct Build Alternative does not present an adequate range of alternatives required by both CEQA and NEPA to fully analyze the proposed project.

The  Project  Build  Alternative  does  not  include  a  reasonable  ran ge  of  cross  section  and  alignment alternatives to address potential traffic, construction, noise, vibration, and land use impacts.  The Project B u i l d  a l t e r n a t i v e  i s  p r o p o s e d  t o  b e  c o n s t r u c t e d  m o s t l y  a t  g r a d e  a n d  w o u l d  t h e r e f o r e  f u r t h e r  d i v i d e established communities.  It would greatly expand the footprint of the existing rail corridor in Downtown DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 4-20
Burbank  and  further  separate  the  Downtown  Burbank  Metrolink  Station  from  existing  and  potential housing opportunities in Downtown Burbank.  It would introduce  significant and unavoidable noise and vibration  impacts  to  established  single  family  residential  neig hborhoods,  and  further  separates communities located along the Union Pacific (UPRR) / Metrolink  Coast Line by failing to grade separate existing conventional railroad tracks as part of the project.  It fails to study a range of potential mitigation measures  to  several  environmental  effects.    The  inadequacy  of  th e  D E I R / D E I S  t o  i d e n t i f y  i m p a c t s  a n d mitigations is documented in the remain der of this letter.  But, specifically, the DEIR/DEIS should include a reasonable range of project alternatives that encompass the following features:

 Include a project alternative or  mitigation measure that extend s the tunnel and trench sections further east of the planned daylighting location 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 footprint design alternative that red uces private property acquisition, surface parking area, and associated urban heat island effects.

Finally, NEPA and the Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts applicable to this DEIR/DEIS require that impacts related to projects and alternatives be fully  discussed under each area of impact in the NEPA analysis.  This requirement was clearly not followed, as there is only  one  build  alternative  presented  and  analyzed.    The  DEIR/DEIS  does  not  sufficiently  analyze  the project’s  potential  significant  i mpacts,  and  potential  mitigati o n  m e a s u r e s ,  b y  f a i l i n g  t o  p r e s e n t  a reasonable  range  of  project  alternatives,  such  as  increased  tun n e l i n g ,  w h i c h  c o u l d  e n h a n c e  t h e environmental quality or avoid some or all adverse impacts of the proposed action.

Transportation Analysis is Internally Inconsistent

The DEIR/DEIS identifies LOS congestion impacts due to both construction and operation of the proposed project, based on LOS significance thresholds.  It also identifies various feasible mitigation measures, and i d e n t i f i e s  i m p a c t s  t o  b e  s i g n i f i c a n t  a n d  u n a v o i d a b l e  i f  m i t i g a t i o n s  a r e  n o t  i m p l e m e n t e d .   T h e  C i t y  o f Burbank takes issue with how this analysis was conducted and believes that the DEIR/DEIS does not reveal the  full  scope  of  potential  congestion  impacts.  The  reasons  for  this  are  documented  in  the  comments below.  However,  the  DEIR/DEIS  also  includes  high‐level  statements  that  indicate  that  LOS  is  no  longer considered  an  impact  under  CEQA  per  the  implementation  of  SB‐743,  and  therefore  these  congestion effects caused by the project are not significant impacts.  Thi s conclusion is internally inconsistent with other portions of the DEIR/DEIS which state that these congesti on effects are impacts.  The DEIR/DEIS should  be  updated  to  remove  this  internal  inconsistency  because i t  i s  n o t  c l e a r  w h i c h  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n significance thresholds are being used for different parts of t he document.  It is also unclear if certain portions of the transportation analysis apply only to NEPA and  not to CEQA, or how certain impacts and mitigation measures might only be applied to one or the other.   Further, while LOS and vehicle delay are no longer considered transportation impacts under CEQA, projects that cause intersection LOS to exceed the level specified in the Burbank 2035 General Plan may cause a significant land use impact, because this congestion is contrary to the goals and policies of the Burbank2035 General Plan.  The DEIR/DEIS should be updated to reflect how increased congestion and delay may impact Burbank’s General Plan.

ATTACHMENT 4-21
Transportation Analysis Assumptions, Methodology, and Thresholds are Inadequate

Traffic forecasts utilize the SCAG 2008 RTP/SCS for 2015 baseline conditions, and SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS for opening year 2029 conditions.  The SCAG RTP/SCS has been updated three times since 2008 (in 2012, 2016 and 2020) and therefore the assumptions used to develop the baseline and horizon year traffic forecasts are relying on significantly outdated land use and transportation assumptions.   Further, it is unclear why two versions of the SCAG RTP/SCS were used for the transportati on analysis.  Specifically, the 2008 and 2012  RTP/SCS  do  not  incorporate  the  land  use  and  transportation  assumptions  in  the  Burbank2035 General Plan.  Therefore, the an alysis of impacts and mitigatio n measures that rely on these old SCAG RTP/SCS versions could understate these impacts and mitigations .  The DEIR/DEIS should be updated to include  the  2016  or  later  SCAG  RTP/SCS  assumptions,  or  the  City   of  Burbank’s  local  land  use  and transportation assumptions should be used for transportation analysis in the City of Burbank.

The report lists the following street segment capacities (Table 3.2‐8):
 two‐lane road 26,400 to 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd)  four‐lane road 65,400 to 72,000 vpd
 five‐lane road 93,600 vpd
 six‐lane road 118,200 vpd

These segment capacities are significantly higher than are typi cally used in a transportation analysis for urban roadways.  These capacities cannot be justified for the s treets in Burbank given the number and spacing of traffic signals located along the City’s major corridors. Because the capacity assumptions are so high, the DEIR/DEIS under‐reports the number of locations wh ere project traffic increases congestion to levels that are inconsistent with the Burbank2035 General Pl an because the DEIR/DEIS assumes that many  more  vehicles  can  be  accommod a t e d  o n  a  g i v e n  s t r e e t  s e g m e nt  than  can  actually  be  given  the presence  of  closely‐spaced  signalized  intersections.    It  is  likely  that  the  locations  on  Table  3.2‐14  that exceed  the  LOS  threshold  are  under‐representative  of  the  actual  locations  that  will  see  significantly‐ increased congestion as part of the project.  In the City’s 2014 Notice of Preparation comment letter, it was requested that the Authority consult with the City on the applicable significance thresholds to use for the transportation analysis in the City of Burbank so that the  analysis was consistent with the City’s local standards.  Therefore the DEIR/DEIS analysis is insufficient to determine if the project conflicts with local plans and policies addressing the roadway circulation system.

significant  impact  criteria  used  by  the  City  of  Burbank  (Table 3.2‐2).    The  DEIR/DEIS  does  not  directly disclose that it is using a more permissive LOS significance th reshold than the thresholds used by all the local  jurisdictions  within  the  study  area  (Burbank,  Glendale,  Lo s  A n g e l e s ) .   B e c a u s e  a  p e r m i s s i v e  L O S significance threshold is used, the DEIR/DEIS is understating the number of locations where project traffic increases congestion to levels that are inconsistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan.  The DEIR/DEIS should  be  updated  to  utilize  congestion  parameters  that  are  closer  to  those  used  by  the  jurisdictions within the project study area.  It is likely that the locations on Table 3.2‐14 that exceed the LOS threshold are under‐representative of the actual locations that will see significantly‐increased congestion as part of the project.  Therefore the DEIR/DEIS analysis is insufficient to determine if the project conflicts with local plans and policies addressing the roadway circulation system.

The study identifies that freeway off‐ramps are significantly impacted if project traffic is expected to cause a  ramp  queue  length  to  exceed  the  95
th  percentile  under  the  project  build  alternative  when  it  is  not exceeded under the no‐project condition (Page 3.2‐31).  It is u nclear if a project impact is identified for ATTACHMENT 4-22
ramps that exceed the 95 th percentile queue length under the no project condition and tha t condition is further  exacerbated  by  the  project  build  alternative.    The  repo rt  states  that  the  project  does  not significantly impact any freeway ramps in the study area after conducting a “preliminary analysis.”  This is inconsistent with several traffic impact studies conducted by the City of Burbank.  In particular, the I‐5 SB ramp at Hollywood Way has been identified to be significantly impacted by several development projects as well as the Hollywood Burbank Airport Terminal Relocation EIR.  The analysis does not provide sufficient information to determine if the project substantially increases hazards caused by stopped vehicles backing onto the mainline freeway.  The DEIR/DEIS should be revised to include a more detailed analysis of ramp queues at I‐5 / Hollywood Way, I‐5 / Buena Vista, I‐5 / Empire Avenue, and I‐5 / Burbank Blvd.

The DEIR/DEIS lists transit servi ces near the Burbank Airport S tation that were not current as of 2019, which is listed in the footnote of Table 3.2‐11.  In particular, there Empire‐Downtown route was eliminated in 2018 and was replaced by a circulator service that operated  beginning in May 2018 until November 2019.    Currently  there  is  no  BurbankBus  Service  serving  the  existing  Burbank  Airport  North  Metrolink Station which is the most proximate rail station to the proposed High Speed Rail Station.  In addition, the DEIR/DEIS omits the  Metro 165 service, which provides frequent  east‐west  connectivity  to the Airport Station area via the Burbank Airport Regional Intermodal Transportation Center.

Construction Impacts are not Fully Disclosed or Analyzed

The impacts of construction are measured against Year 2015 conditions.  However, construction is not likely  to  take  place  until  Year  2022  to  2025  or  later.    Thus,  the  base  condition  for  the  assessment  of construction  impacts  should  be  updated  to  a  more  appropriate  ye ar  that  is  closer  to  the  actual c o n s t r u c t i o n .   T h e  D E I R / D E I S  t h e r e f o r e  d o e s  n o t  a d e q u a t e l y  i d e n t i f y  t h e  p o t e n t i a l  f o r  s i g n i f i c a n t construction impacts.

The DEIR/DEIS Section 3.2.6.3 refers to the separate Transportation Technical Report for the construction road closures that would be required for the Project.  That rep ort identifies that road closures would be needed on the following streets:
 Buena Vista Street at Vanowen Street
 Burbank Boulevard at I‐5
 Empire Avenue west of Buena Vista Street
 Victory Place north of Burbank Boulevard

The  DEIR/DEIS  and  the  accompanyi ng  Technical  Report  identifies  several  intersections  where  LOS i n c r e a s e s  t o  E  o r  F  d u r i n g  p r o j e c t  c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  d u e  t o  n e c e s s a r y  d e t o u r s  n e e d e d  f o r  t h e  p r o j e c t ’ s construction.    However,  the  manner  in  which  this  detour  traffic  was  applied  to  the  street  network  to identify construction impacts is not documented in the DEIR/DEIS.  The number of street closures needed for the project is significant, and the DEIR/DEIS assumes that  all street closures will occur at once (Page

3.2‐60).    Therefore,  all  of  the  City’s  north/south  arterial  roadways  west  of  I‐5  could  be  closed  at  once during project construction (Victory Place, Buena Vista Street, Hollywood Way), and two major east‐west streets that cross I‐5 will be closed at once (Empire Avenue and Burbank Boulevard).  These simultaneous c l o s u r e s  w o u l d  c a u s e  e x t r e m e  a n d  u n a c c e p t a b l e  c o n s t r u c t i o n  c o n gestion  delay  and  would  impact  the delivery  of  emergency  services.    The  construction  impact  analysis  does  not  clarify  if  multiple  street closures  were  considered,  or  if  closure  phasing  was  considered,  o r  i f  o t h e r  m e a n s  t o  s e q u e n c e construction  to  minimize  delays  was  included  in  the  analysis.    A s  a  r e s u l t ,  t h e  D E I R / D E I S  d o e s  n o t adequately study and address construction impacts.

ATTACHMENT 4-23
The DEIR/DEIS claims that by introducing several Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Features (IAMF) to the project,  that  the  project  will  not  have  an  impact  on  Circulation  and  Emergency  Access.    The  project features considered to offset the construction impacts that are  identified in the DEIR/DEIS consist of the project  contractor  developing  tr affic  management  plans,  detour  plans,  outreach  plans,  staggered construction shifts, and minor roadway restriping.  The DEIR/DEIS also proposes a blanket IAMF that states emergency  access  will  be  maintained  at  all  times,  but  does  not document  how  this  will  occur.    The DEIR/DEIS must explicitly identify how emergency access will be  maintained because the nature of the road closures needed for constru ction (e.g. those roads that cross existing rail lines or freeways) means that reasonable detour routes to preserve emergency access may  not be feasible due to the length of these required detours.  Therefore, it is likely that a signifi cant construction impact will be caused by the project.    Because  of  this,  the  DEIR/DEIS  did  not  consider  an  adequate  range  of  additional  mitigation measures.    Additional  mitigation  measures  that  were  not  considered  include  explicitly  identifying  a construction  phasing  program  to  a v o i d  m u l t i p l e  r o a d  c l o s u r e s ,  identifying  alternative  means  of construction to keep roadways partially opened during construction, and providing alternative means for local agencies to redeploy their police, fire, and emergency se rvices to account for extended, multiple 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.  Further, t he feasibility of each measure must be analyzed, as required by CEQA.

Table 3.2‐16 of the main DEIR/DEIS only identifies a street closure at Hollywood Way near Empire Avenue, which is ostensibly needed to construct the project tunnel section between the proposed Burbank Airport Station and the existing UPRR/Me trolink Coast Line railroad tracks.  However, the other street closures identified  in  the  Technical  Report  (Buena  Vista,  Empire,  Victory  Place,  Burbank  Boulevard),  are  not reflected in this Table.  For instance, the closure at Hollywoo d Way appears to assign detour traffic to intersections  along  Buena  Vista  Street,  but  this  roadway  is  als o  s u b j e c t  t o  a  s t r e e t  c l o s u r e .   T h i s inconsistency in DEIR/DEIS suggests that the sequencing of mult iple closures was not addressed in the analysis,  or  that  the  assumptions  used  for  these  closures  is  not  properly  documented.  Therefore  the project’s construction impacts are not adequately studied.

The project 15 percent conceptual design plans provided by the Authority requires the reconstruction and re‐profiling of the Burbank Boulevard / Victory Boulevard intersection to raise the roadway profile of the Burbank  Bridge,  which  must  also  be  demolished  and  reconstructed.    This  will  likely  cause  full  street closures of the three arterials that lead into the City’s “5‐points” intersection at this location.  These likely closures are not identified in the DEIR/DEIS.

Figure 3.2‐3 illustrates the street detour routes in Burbank needed to construct the project.  These detour routes are not consistent with the scope of the closures requir ed to construct the project.  For instance, the detour route needed for project construction at Hollywood Way is routed to Buena Vista Street, which itself will be closed for construction.  Several detour routes lead into the Burbank Blvd / Victory Blvd / Victory Place “5‐Points” intersection, which will likely also need to be closed due to the reconstruction of the Burbank Boulevard Bridge.  Also, several identified detour  routes of major arterial streets are routed onto  small  collector  roadways  that  are  located  in  residential  neighborhoods  that  will  not  be  able  to accommodate detour traffic (e.g. Mariposa Street, Thornton Aven ue, Chandler Boulevard).  This detour map also identifies a route between Empire Avenue and Victory P lace, which is grade separated and has no direct access.  The major inconsistencies and inadequacies of the proposed detour routes suggests that the  construction  impact  analysis   in  the  DEIR/DEIS  is  inadequate   and  does  not  properly  identify construction impacts.

ATTACHMENT 4-24
The DEIR/DEIS concludes that by introducing an IAMF for the con tractor to limit construction traffic to specified  detour  routes,  to  minimize  the  movement  of  construction  vehicles,  and  to  repair  pavement caused  by  construction,  there  will  be  no  significant  impact  caused  by  construction.    However,  these measures  should  be  included  as  mitigation  measures  so  that  they  may  be  included  in  the  Mitigation Monitoring  and  Reporting  Program.    The  mitigation  measure  should  identify  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 contractor 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 repa ir or repaving of streets that will likely 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  omitting  an  mechanism  to  enforce compliance by the contractor, the DEIR/DEIS does not adequately  address construction impacts to city roadway infrastructure caused by construction.

Mitigations to Transit and Active Transportation Network Impacts are not Fully Documented

The  DEIR/DEIS  identifies  that  several  transit  and  bicycle  routes  will  be  impacted  by  construction  and identifies  a  general  IAMF  that  includes  developing  a  construction  plan  to  address  these  disruptions.

However,  given  the  nature  of  the  closures  and  lengthy  detours  r equired,  the  DEIR/DEIS  does  not demonstrate that this IAMF is feasible.  The DEIR/DEIS should e xplicitly identify a plan for how to detour transit and cyclists during construction to ensure that the project does not cause a significant construction impact.

The  DEIR/DEIS  concludes  that  the  project  would  permanently  disru p t  a  0 . 2 8  m i l e  s e g m e n t  o f  t h e  S a n Fernando Bikeway  between Lake Street and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station.  The San Fernando Bikeway is a regional Class I bikeway identified on the City of  Burbank2035 General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Complete Streets Plan.  The project is currently funded and is in the design phase.  The DEIR/DEIS proposes a mitigation measure to reroute the class I bike path  onto Lake Street as a class II bike path between Burbank Boulevard and Cypress Avenue.  This mitigation measure is inadequate because 1) Lake Street ends at a cul‐de‐sac just north of the Burbank Wye freig ht spur and does not close the gap in the San Fernando Bikeway caused by the project and 2) replacing a p rotected Class I facility with an in‐street Class II bike lane facility does not adequately mitigate the disruption to the City’s Class I bikeway network and  is  therefore  incompatible  with  Burbank’s  local  General  Plan,  Bicycle  Master  Plan,  and  Complete Streets Plan.  An alternative mitigation measure that should be considered in the DEIR/DEIS is to construct a Class IV raised, protected Bike Lane along Victory Boulevard in existing sidewalk right of way between Lake Street and Cypress Avenue, and a Class IV raised, protected two‐way cycle track on the north side of Cypress  Avenue  between  Victory  Boulevard  and  the  Burbank  Wester n  Channel.    This  alternative m i t i g at i on  me asu r e  w ou l d  b e  c on si st en t  w i th  t he  Ci t y ’s l oc al  p lans.    This  comment  was  also  discussed during the City’s 4(F) Consultation with the High Speed Rail Authority on June 24, 2020.

The  DEIR/DEIS  concludes  that  the  project  would  temporarily  disrupt  the  planned  Chandler  Bikeway Extension  between  Victory  Boulevard  and  the  Burbank  Western  Channel.    The  Chandler  Bikeway Extension is planned to be constr ucted as a Class I bikeway bet ween Mariposa Street and point midway between  Mariposa  Street  and  Victory  Boulevard,  where  it  will  transition  to  raised,  protected  Class  IV bikeway.  The reason the proposed Chandler Bikeway transitions to an in‐street facility is because a Class I bikeway would conflict with the existing Union Pacific Railro ad freight spurs near Victory Boulevard.  As part of the High Speed Rail Project, these freight spurs would  be permanently removed.  In concert with this removal, the project should reconstruct the Chandler Bikew ay extension not as a Class IV facility but ATTACHMENT 4-25
relocated as a separated, Class I bike path between Victory Boulevard and the Burbank Western Channel along the right of way acquired to remove the freight spurs.    This would improve the City’s Class I bike path network consistent with its Bicycle Master Plan and Genera l Plan, and would provide a productive re‐use of the right of way remaining after the freight spurs are removed for the High Speed Rail Project.

This comment was also discussed during the City’s 4(F) Consultation with the High Speed Rail Authority on June 24, 2020.

The  DEIR/DEIS  concludes  that  the  project  would  permanently  disru p t  a  s m a l l  p o r t i o n  o f  t h e  B u r b a n k Channel Bikeway that is currently under construction.  The permanent disruption is located where the bikeway  intersections  Flower  Street  at  a  rail  bridge  that  is  being  repurposed  for  the  Burbank  Channel Bikeway Project.  The disruption would block access between the  bikeway and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink  Station  and  would  require  a  lengthy  re‐route  of  the  f acility  on  local  streets.    It  would permanently  disrupt  an  important  link  in  the  regional  bikeway  network  by  disconnecting  the  Burbank Channel Bikeway from the Downtown Metrolink Station and the Chandler Bikeway Extension.  This would cause a significant impact because it would conflict with the B urbank Bicycle Master Plan, General Plan, and Complete Streets Plan.  The project should ensure that the bikeway connection at Flower Street is re‐ routed  or  reconstructed  as  part o f  t h e  p r o j e c t  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  the  Class  I  bike  path  is  maintained  after construction.

Proposed  Project  Further  Divides  Established  Neighborhoods  and Permanently  Eliminates  Existing  and Future TOD Opportunities
Proposed  project  would  construct  a  high  speed  train  through  the C i t y  o f  B u r b a n k  v i a  c o m b i n a t i o n  o f tunnel, trench, and at‐grade alignments.  The alignment would occur both within existing transportation corridors as well as via construction of a new corridor.  The p roject would expand the footprint of the existing rail transportation corridor through Downtown Burbank  along the existing UPRR/Metrolink rail line between Victory Place and the Southern City Limits.  The e xpansion of this transportation corridor, b o t h  i n  p h y s i c a l  s i z e  a s  w e l l  a s  i n t e n s i t y  o f  u s e ,  w a s  n o t  s t u died  in  the  DEIR/DEIS.  In  particular,  the proposed  project  would  exacerbate  and  further  divide  the  City  of  Burbank,  particularly  in  Downtown Burbank.  It would further divide the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station from the core land uses of the Downtown. The Burbank2035 General Plan and Burbank Center Specific Plan both rely on the connection between the Downtown Burbank land uses to the Downtown Burbank  Metrolink Station as a means to enhance and encourage non‐motorized travel.  Further, the City  of Burbank is required to accommodate nearly  9,000  housing  units  as  part  of  the  latest  Regional  Housin g  N e e d s  A s s e s s m e n t  i n  o r d e r  t o  h e l p address the State of California’s severe housing shortage.  Given existing land use plans as well as planning efforts currently underway, most of this new housing will be located in Downtown Burbank, and will need to be connected to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station.  The  DEIR/DEIS does not disclose how the construction of a surface‐grade high speed train will conflict with the City’s local land use policies as well a s  t h e  S t a t e  o f  C a l i f o r n i a ’ s  h o u s i n g  m a n d a t e s .   I t  d o e s  n o t  i d entify  the  potential  for  the  project  to permanently disrupt planned housing development in Downtown Burbank.  Therefore the DEIR/DEIS does not adequately address the potential land  use impacts to the Ci ty of Burbank as well as conflicts with adopted plans and documents.

W h i l e  t h e  P r o j e c t  w o u l d  c r e a t e  a  n e w  T r a n s i t  O r i e n t e d  D e v e l o p m ent  (TOD)  opportunity  around  the proposed  Burbank  Airport  Stationit  removes  existing  TOD  opportunities  around  the  existing  Burbank Airport North and Downtown Burbank Metrolink Stations, which is not served by the project.  It removes ATTACHMENT 4-26
significant amounts of private land around the existing station, particularly undeveloped land immediately to the west of the station, as well as lower‐intensity industrial uses south of the station along Flower Street that  have  future  potential  to  be  developed  as  more  intense  TOD.    The  project  will  also  reduce  TOD opportunities throughout Downtown Burbank by further dividing t he Downtown Metrolink Station from the  rest  of  Downtown  Burbank.  The  DEIR/DEIS  It  does  not  identify  the  potential  for  the  project  to permanently disrupt planned TOD development in Downtown Burbank.

T h e  p r o j e c t  p r o p o s e s  t o  c r e a t e  a  s e r i e s  o f  s u r f a c e  p a r k i n g  l o t s  around  the  proposed  Burbank  Airport Metrolink Station, which significantly reduces TOD opportunities around the station and encourages more local automobile traffic to access the station.  The DEIR/DEIS should identify project features or mitigation measures  that  can  encourage  TOD  and  discourage  automobile  use  a round  the  station,  including constructing parking that is underground or consolidated in str uctures to make more land available for TOD,  situating  the  station  portal  and  circulation  so  that  there i s  m o r e  d i r e c t  a c c e s s  t o  n o n ‐ m o t o r i z e d transportation  networks  on  Hollywood  Way,  and  reinforcing  the  connection  between  the  proposed station  and  the  Burbank  Airport t e r m i n a l .   T h e  D E I R / D E I S  d o e s  not  address  the  project’s  likelihood  to reduce  TOD  opportunities  in  the  City  of  Burbank  in  a  manner  that  i s in c on si st e n t w it h  l ocal  p l an s an d policies.

The  project  requires  heavy  trench  and  tunnel  construction  immediately  adjacent  to  single  and  multi‐ family  neighborhoods,  particularly  along  Vanowen  Street,  Empire   Avenue,  Ontario  Street,  and  the neighborhoods north of Victory Boulevard and east of Buena Vista Street.  The DEIR/DEIS does not identify the potential for this construction activity to significantly impact these sensitive land uses.  The DEIR/DEIS proposes  general  IAMFs  to  mitigate  construction  impacts,  but  these  measures,  as  well  as  additional measures, should be identified as mitigations so that they may  be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

The  DEIR/DEIS  does  not  adequately  investigate  a  range  of  potential  project  alternatives  or  mitigation measures  to  offset  significant  land  use  impacts  to  surrounding land  uses,  or  to  mitigate  permanent divisions of existing and established communities.  The DEIR/DEIS should include an analysis of mitigation measures or project alternatives that consider placing more of  the project below grade (in a trench or tunnel section).  Incorporating this project feature or mitigation measure could reduce land use, noise, and  vibration  impacts  to  less  than  significant.    By  not  including  this  range  of  project  alternatives  or mitigation measures in the DEIR/DEIS, the document does not fully disclose the environmental effects of the project.

The  DEIR/DEIS  should  include  an  analysis  of  offsetting  its  effects  on  dividing  the  City  of  Burbank  with project features that restore these divisions.  For example, th e project proposes to grade separate the High  Speed  Rail  tracks  at  Buena  Vista  Street,  but  does  not  consider  grade  separating  the  immediately adjacent conventional rail tracks in the same grade separation.  This would have the effect of offsetting the  impacts  caused  by  the  project  by  improving  the  conditions  of  the  adjacent  conventional  corridor.

Similarly, 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 that further divide established neig hborhoods by consolidating these two rail lines into a single corridor that improves connectivity across the combined corridor.

The  Project  DEIR/DEIS  does  not  adequately  disclose  the  required   condemnation  of  single  family residences immediately adjacent to the project east of Buena Vista Street.  These acquisitions could cause ATTACHMENT 4-27
land  use  impacts  by  disrupting  established  residential  neighborhoods.    In  addition,  the  project  would result in the demolition and condemnation of the Avion project located at the proposed Burbank Airport station.   The project would result in the potential loss of 1 million square feet of industrial space; 142,000 square feet of office space; and 15,475 sq. ft. of retail space .   In addition, the project may result in the loss  of  improvements  provided  by  the  Avion  project  including  shade  trees,  bike  lanes,  expanded p e d e s t r i a n  p a t h w a y s ,  a n d  p a r k i n g  f o r  t h e  a d j a c e n t  M e t r o l i n k  S t a t i o n  a n d  o t h e r  p u b l i c l y  a c c e s s i b l e amenities.

Mitigations to Noise and Vibration Impacts are not Identified The  DEIR/DEIS  identifies  moderate  and  severe  land  use  impacts  (due  to  noise),  noise  impacts,  and vibration impacts to residential properties located adjacent to the proposed project between Buena Vista S t r e e t  a n d  V i c t o r y  P l a c e .   T h e s e  a r e  r e s i d e n t i a l  l o c a t i o n s  a d j acent  to  a  proposed  trench  section  and proximate to the tunnel portal of the underground portion of the project near the Burbank Airport Station.

The  DEIR/DEIS  identifies  a  general  mitigation  measure  to  implement  a  program‐wide  noise  mitigation guidelines  to  attempt  to  mitigate  these  impacts,  including  cons tructing  soundwalls,  applying  noise‐ reducing improvements to nearby homes, or acquiring noise easem ents or condemnations of affected properties.    However,  the  project  does  not  consider  other  reasonable  project  features  or  mitigation measures,  such  as  constructing  portions  of  the  alignment  that  impact  sensitive  residential  land  uses underground.    For  example,  given  the  significant  number  of  established  residential  uses  immediately adjacent to the project between Hollywood Way and Victory Place, the DEIR/DEIS should analyze a project alternative or mitigation measure to extend the underground or below‐grade alignment eastward from Hollywood Way to at least Victory Place.  The project should al so analyze if  the application of specific measures in the Noise Mitigation Guidelines can mitigate the specific impacts identified in the DEIR/DEIS, and include these measures as mitigations in the Mitigation Mon itoring and Reporting Program, rather than deferring mitigation to a future application of the guidel ines on specific properties outside of the environmental review process.  Because the DEIR/DEIS does not adequately analyze an appropriate range of  alternatives  or  mitigation  measures,  it  is  inadequate  in  analyzing  the  potential  noise  and  vibration impacts caused by the project.

The DEIR/DEIS does not consider planned future residential land  uses identified in Downtown Burbank that will be located immediately adjacent to the project.  This  includes an approved residential project planned at 777 Front Street immediately adjacent to the propose d project, as well as mixed‐use projects that are allowed in the Burbank Center Specific Plan in Downtow n Burbank,  where the  project will be constructed  at‐grade.  The  DEIR/DEIS  should  analyze  the  effects  of  noise  on  existing  and  planned residential developments in Downtown Burbank that are adjacent to the at‐grade section of the proposed p r o j e c t ,  a n d  c o n s i d e r  p r o j e c t  a l t e r n a t i v e s  t h a t  p l a c e  t h e  p r o j ect  below  grade  or  underground  through Downtown Burbank.

The DEIR/DEIS does not explain why there are no identified vibr ation impacts to existing land uses that will be located directly on top of the proposed underground tunnel section of the project between the Burbank Airport Station and the planned tunnel portal east of Hollywood Way.

Per section 3.4 Noise and Vibration, impacted structures may need vibration and displacement mitigation, and since the Olive Avenue Bridge and Magnolia Boulevard Bridge columns and supports are close to the new HSR rails, vibration generated by the rail system will have great impact and is a serious concern since the bridge railings are sub‐standard and will need to be upgrad ed by this project to keep pedestrians on ATTACHMENT 4-28
the  bridges  safe  from  increased  vibrations  and  displacements  caused  by  the  rail  system.  Also,  seismic retrofit of the bridges is highly recommended and should be completed prior to construction of the rail system.  The City can provide the latest bridge inspection repo rts upon request.  Given the age of the structures, the need to retrofit the bridges to accommodate Hig h Speed Rail, and the project’s land use impact  by  further  dividing  Downtown  Burbank  from  it’s  primary  transit  center,  the  Authority  should consider replacing both structures as part of the project and i mproving the crossings of both streets for all travel modes consistent with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan and Complete Streets Plan.

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources Analysis is Incomplete Pag e  S ‐ 59 of t h e DE IR /DE IS , S ec t i on S. 11 c l aim s t h at th e p r oj e ct  does  not  cause  significant  impacts  to Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontological Resources. Howev er, the liquefaction and fault trace map shows areas of the High Speed Rail within the said map zone.  The DEIR/DEIS should substantiate the claim that the project does not create significant seismic impacts de spite being located within these fault and liquefaction areas.

Public Infrastructure Impacts must be Addressed in DEIR/DEIS, City is Responsible Agency The proposed project will heavily impact significant roadway, s ewer, storm drain, and other municipal infrastructure throughout the City of Burbank. The project may  result in the loss of infrastructure at the Avion  project  including  shade  trees,  bike  lanes,  expanded  pedestrian  pathways,  and  parking  for  the adjacent Metrolink Station.  In ad dition to the comments provided above, detailed comments related to city infrastructure and traffic detour phasing is included as Attachment A.

The City of Burbank will be a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the project for all work that occurs within City public right of way.  The project will also be subject to  the City’s permit requirements for any work that must occur within City right of way that could include the  requirement to obtain an encroachment permit  and/or  excavation  permit.    The  DEIR/DEIS  should  disclose  that  the  project  is  subject  to  City  of Burbank construction permit requirements and should include the  requirement to obtain these permits as a mitigation measure (additional detailed permit comments in cluded in Attachment A).  Note that the City  as  a  Responsible  Agency  may  not  be  able  to  issue  these  required  permits  if  the  project  results  in significant and unavoidable impacts that are not properly discl osed and analyzed in the DEIR/DEIS.  Also, as many city right of way are owned in fee, there may be additi onal temporary and permanent right‐of‐ way impacts to City streets that are not addressed in the DEIR/DEIS.

T h e  p r o j e c t  s h o u l d  e n s u r e  t h a t  a n y  i m p a c t s  t o  t h e  C i t y ’ s  t r e e  canopy  be  fully  mitigated  through replacement of trees in either City right‐of‐way or Project right‐of‐way.  Any tree replacements should be coordinated with the City of Burbank to ensure consistency with its Street Tree Master Plan.

Public Utility Impacts and Mitigations not Fully Disclosed Based on the information contained in the DEIR/DEIS as well as the 15 percent conceptual plans provided by the Authority, the proposed p roject could potentially impact  many Burbank Water and Power (BWP) pressurized  potable  and  recycled  water  mains  along  the  proposed t r a i n ’ s  r o u t e  o n  b o t h  t h e  s u r f a c e portion and the underground portion. The DEIR/DEIS should ident ify significant impacts to public water utilities and identify mitigation measures to offset those impacts, including:

 Water mains in conflict with the proposed projects shall be rel ocated while the existing mains remain active in order to provide uninterrupted service.

ATTACHMENT 4-29
 The preferred method for water main relocation (while maintain  existing mains in service) is the Jack & Bore method per Metrolink Engineering Standard #2201.  The  HSR  Authority  shall  prepare  the  plans  for  BWP  review  and  ap proval.  All  design  and specifications shall be per BWP and AWWA standards.
 Geotechnical  report,  design  and  construction  costs  for  any  utility  relocations  or  modifications shall be paid for by the HSR Authority.
 Recycled  water  shall  be  used  for  construction  purposes  and  dust  control  for  all  construction activities.

Based on information contained in the DEIR/DEIS as well as the  15 percent conceptual plans provided by the Authority, the proposed project could potentially impact ma ny BWP electrical utility systems.  The DEIR/DEIS should identify potential significant impacts to publ ic electric utilities and identify mitigation measures to offset those impacts.

The DEIR/DEIS does not disclose the electric power needs of the proposed Burbank Airport 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.  The DEIR/DEIS should be revised to sho w the electric power requirements of the project to ensure that the City’s public utility can meet the demands of the proposed project.

Further detailed project comments to aid the Authority in ensur ing that project impacts and mitigations related to electrical utility systems are identified are included as Attachment B to this comment letter.

The DEIR/DEIS should ensure that all project elements including  the proposed Burbank Airport Station, are  constructed  in  conformance  with  all  applicable  state  and  loc al  f i r e an d l if e  saf e t y c ode s.   De t ai le d project comments related to fire life safety are included as Attachment C to this comment letter.

The  project  description  studied  in  the  DEIR/DEIS  is  a  significant  departure  to  the  project  description disclosed in the 2014 NOP for the Burbank to Los Angeles alignm ent.  Given the size of this project, the s i x ‐ y e a r  s p a n  o f  t i m e  b e t w e e n  t h e  N O P  a n d  t h e  D E I R / D E I S ,  t h e  c hange  of  alignment  in  the  project description between the NOP and the DEIR/DEIS, and the signific ant breadth of DEIR/DEIS inadequacies identified in the City’s comments, the City requests that the DEIR/DEIS be re‐circulated after the Authority responds to all comments received on the DEIR/DEIS.  If the DEIR/DEIS is recirculated, the Authority should provide stakeholders a 90‐day public comment period in order to  provide adequate time to review the extensive new information contained in the DEIR/DEIS.  This recirculation and extended comment period will  provide  all  stakeholders  the  opportunity  to  review  the  upd ated  document  to  determine  if  the Authority has adequately addressed the deficiencies identified in the DEIR/DEIS.

Thank you again for providing an opportunity to comment on the  Draft EIR/EIS for the Burbank to Los Angeles segment located in the City of Burbank.  If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter,  please  feel  free  to  contact  David  Kriske,  Assistant  Community  Development  Director  with  the Community Development Department, at 818.238.5269 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Sharon Springer, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 4-30
&,7<2)%85%$1.
&$/,)251,$+,*+63(('5$,/352-(&7
%85%$1.72/26$1*(/(6'(,5'(,6
&200(17/(77(5
$77$&+0(17$
ATTACHMENT 4-31

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 10, 2020

TO: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director

FROM: Daniel J. Rynn, Chief Assistant Public Works Director – City Engineer

SUBJECT: California High Speed Rail Pro ject Draft Environmental Impact Report Comment Letter

Project Description:

On May 29, 2020 the California High Speed Rail Authority releas e d i t s D r a f t Environmental Impact Report / Dr aft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR / DEIS) for the segment for the Burbank to Los Angeles Segment. The California High Speed Rail Project would construct a new, dedicated high speed rail corrid or between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles, with future segments extending to Sacramento and San Diego. The California High Speed Rail Authority is performing environmental review for the project in separate segm ents. Two of those segments affect Burbank: 1) the Palmdale to Burbank Segment and 2) the Burbank to Los Angeles S egment. The Burbank to Los Angeles segment extends from the Hollywood Burba nk Airport and extends south through Downtown Burbank to Glendale and Los Angeles Union Station.

A station is proposed next to the Hollywood Burbank Airport located approximately at the intersection of Hollywood Way and San Fernando Boulevard. The proposed project would construct an entirely new rail alignment through the City of Burbank at various profiles including at-grade and below-grade and would require the construction of several new grade separations, relocation of City streets, and tunneling under public and private property.

ATTACHMENT 4-32

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  2

ENGINEERING DIVISION

General Requirements:

 Applicant shall protect in place all survey monuments (City, County, State, Federal, and private). Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 8771, when monuments exist that may be affected by the work, the monuments shall be located and referenced by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer legally a uthorized to practice land sur veying, prior to construction, and a corner recor d or record of survey of the re ferences shall be filed with the county surveyor. A permanent monument shall be reset or a witness monument or monuments set to perpetuate the location if any mon ument that could be affected, and a corner record or record of survey shal l be filed with the county surveyor prior to the recording of a certificate of completion for the project.

 No building appurtenances for utility or fire service connections shall encroach or project into public right-of-way (i.e. streets and alleys). Lo cations of these appurtenances shall be shown on t he building site plan and the off-site improvement plans [BMC 7-3-701.1].

 No structure is permitted in any public right-of-way or any public utility easements/pole line easements [BMC 7-3-701.1, BMC 9-1-1-3203].

 Any work within the public right -of-way must be permitted and a pproved by the Public Works Department before construction can commence. All construction work in the public right-of-way must comply with Burbank Standard Plans and must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A Pub lic Works EXCAVATION PERMIT is required. The excavation permit requires a deposit acceptable to the Public Works Director to guarantee timely construction of all off- site improvements. Burbank Standard Plans can be accessed at;

http://file.burbankca.gov/publicworks/OnlineCounter/main/index.htm

 Off-site improvement plans (in t he public right-of-way) must be approved by the Public Works Director. Plans mus t be submitted in City of Burb ank Standard format and as-built plans must be submitted on mylar paper.

 Submit site drainage plans to P ublic Works Department for revie w . O n - s i t e drainage shall not flow across t he public parkway (sidewalk) or onto adjacent private property. It should be conveyed by underwalk drains to the gutter through the curb face [BMC 7-1-117, BMC 7-3-102].

 Plans should include easements, e levations, right-of-way/proper ty lines, dedication, location of existing/proposed utilities and any encroachments.

 Construction impacts to adjacent streets that are impacted by the high speed rail construction shall require paving restoration.

ATTACHMENT 4-33

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  3

For additional information or questions, please contact Anthony Roman, Civil Engineer Associate, at (818) 238-3945.

Checked by: ___Anthony Roman D a t e : _ _ J u l y 7 , 2020 __________

WATER RECLAMATION AND SEWER

Wastewater Requirements:

 Any City or privately owned sewer facility that needs to be rel ocated due to the subject project will be at the project developer’s expense to the satisfaction of the respective facility owner. Please note that the majority of sewer facilities located in Burbank are gravity flow lines and as such any relocation must not negatively impact existing flow capacities. Additionally, sewer services m ust remain uninterrupted during all construction activities.

 Any underground boring or tunneling activities will require both a pre-construction and post-construction Closed Circuit Televised (CCTV) inspectio n and potholing of any sanitary sewers crossing the project’s alignment extending at least 20 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure that no facilities are damaged during construction. The CCTV inspections must be submitted to the Cit y for review and approval. The project’s developer will be responsible for repai ring any damages caused to City-owned or privately-owned sewer facilities to the satisfaction of the respective facility owner.

 Should any sewer pump stations need to be installed for sewer facilities relocated due to the subject project, they will be constructed and maintained at the expense of the developer or project owner for the life of the project. In addition, sewer service must remain uninterrupted at all times.

 Should any temporary or permanent construction staging or improvements impact the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant (BWRP) as a result of the s ubject project, then all costs will be at the expen se of the developer or proje ct owner for the life of the project. In addition, the wastewater treatment process m ust remain uninterrupted at all times, and t he subject project must not im pact the future expansion of the BWRP. In addi tion, the BWRP will be clearly delineated and labeled on the project drawings.

 Landscape improvements need to take into consideration the loca tion of sewer facilities to prevent tree/plant roots from entering/obstructin g or damaging the sewer facilities. An obstructed or damaged sewer facility can result in a sanitary sewer overflow, and costly repairs, fines, and claims. It is highly recommended that either a 15-foot clearance for trees and large shrubs is maintained from the location of the City sewer main (7.5 feet on either side of the City sewer main), or a root barrier control system is employed for each tree/plant.

ATTACHMENT 4-34

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  4

 Any construction related grit, debris, or hazardous waste is prohibited from being discharged into the sanitary sewer system.

Stormwater Requirements:

 Any City or LACFCD owned storm dr ain facility, including the Burbank Western Channel, that needs to be relocated due to the subject project will be at the project developer’s expense to the satisfaction of the respective facility owner. Please note that the majority of storm drain facilities located in Burbank are gravity flow lines and as such any relocation must not negatively impact existing flow capacities.

Additionally, storm drain services must remain uninterrupted during all construction activities.

 Any underground boring or tunneling activities will require both a pre-construction and post-construction CCTV inspection and potholing of any storm drains crossing the project’s alignment extending at least 20 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure that no facilities are damaged from construction activit i e s . T h e C C T V inspections must be submitted to the City for review and approv al. The project’s developer will be responsible for repairing any damages caused to City-owned or privately-owned storm drain facilities to the satisfaction of t he respective facility owner.

 Should any storm drain pump stations be required to be installed or relocated due to storm drain facilities impacted by to the subject project, t hen they will be constructed and maintained at the expense of the developer, or project owner, for the life of the project. Storm drain service must remain uninterrupted.

 Effective July 1, 2010, any construction activity that results in soil disturbances greater than one acre is subject to the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Ac tivity Permit Order 2009-0009-DW Q (2009 Construction General Permit) – see:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits. shtml.

Additionally, if the construction activity less than one acre i s part of a larger common plan of development that encompasses a total of one or m ore acres of soil disturbance or if there is significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity, it is subject to the 2009 Construction General Permit.

 Per BMC 9-3-407, Best Management Practices shall apply to all construction projects and shall be required from the time of land clearing, demolition or commencement of construction until receipt of a certificate of occupancy.

 Discharges from essential non-emergency firefighting activities (i.e., fire sprinkler system testing) is a conditionally allowed non-storm water discharge into the storm ATTACHMENT 4-35

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  5 drain system, provided appropriat e Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented.

 Certain construction and re-construction activities on private property will need to comply with post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), which include Sections 8-1-1007 and 9-3-414.D of the BMC authorizing the City to require projects to comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan provisions and the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance. For questions on these requirements, please contact the City’s Building Division at (818) 238-5220.

 Dewatering an area where water accumulates (i.e., crawl space, foundation, or basement) is now considered a prohibited discharge into the sto rm drain system.

As such, private property app licants have the following options for dewatering accumulated volumes of water:

 Depending on the volume and having controls in place to keep t he discharge on-site, direct the dewatering discharge to a planted/vegetated area located on private property; or

 Apply for an individual NPDES permit with the Regional Board t o allow the dewatering discharge into t he storm drain system through ORDER NO. R4- 2013-0095: pages 8 and 9 of this Dewatering Order state that temporary dewatering including subterr anean seepage dewatering, requires individual coverage and is no longer covered/allowed under the MS4 permit. Questions need to be directed to the Regional Board at (213) 576-6600.

For additional information or questions, please contact Kenneth Kozovich at (818) 238- 3932.

Checked by: __Stephen Walker_________ Date: __July 1, 2020____ ______

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

Comments:

 The City requests to change the crossing for Metrolink and UPRR tracks to also be grade-separated and below Buena Vista Street. (Page 2-52)

 Grade separation may be accomplished using a -2.00% slope from STA 3215+72.96 to STA 3245+00. (Sheet TT-D1201, 1202, 1203)

 Grade separation may result in a -0.30% slope from STA 3245+00 to STA 3291+65.95. (Sheet TT-D1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207)

ATTACHMENT 4-36

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  6  Grade separation would require construction using a joint trenc h for Metrolink, UPRR, and HSR tracks and therefore the shoofly must be extended to allow rail operations.

 The shoofly extension will require additional right of way impacts, including parcels 2462002036, 2462002009, 2462002006 ( Sheet RW-M4104) , parcels 2462002002, 2462002003, 2462002004, 2462002005, 2462002006, and Pacific Avenue ( Sheet RW-M4105) , parcels 2462012900, 2462017011, and Pacific Avenue (Sheet RW-M4106, 4107).

 The shoofly extension and additional right of way impacts would m o d i f y Construction Sequencing Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 (Sheet CV-I6107, I6110, I6113).

 The grade separation joint trench for Metrolink, UPRR, and HSR tracks would modify Construction Sequencing Phase 4 (Sheet CV-I6113).

 Vanowen Street must be narrowed at Buena Vista Street for shoof ly extension in modified Construction Sequencing Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4 (Sheet CV- I6107, I6110, I6113).

 Hollywood Way northbound must be cl osed between Avon Street and Valhalla Drive during Construction Sequenc ing Phase 3 for cut and cover construction.

Detour the northbound traffic to use Vanowen Street eastbound t o Buena Vista Street northbound. (Sheet CV-I6110, TN-C4002, Page 3.2-54, 60)

 Avon Street must be closed betw een Hollywood Way and Empire Ave nue during Construction Sequencing Phase 3 for cut and cover construction. Detour traffic to Vanowen Street. (Sheet CV-I6110, TN-C1003, Page 3.2-54, 60).

 Empire Avenue must be closed at Avon Street during Construction Sequencing Phase 3 for cut and cover construction. Detour traffic to Vanowen Street and Thornton Ave. (Sheet CV-I6110, TN-C1003, Page 3.2-54, 60).

 Buena Vista Street must be closed between Empire Avenue and Vanowen Street during Construction Sequencing Phase 4 and 5 for grade separation. Detour traffic to Victory Blvd, Hollywood Way, and Thornton Ave ( Sheet CV-I6113, I6116, ST- H1102, ST-K1021, Page 3.2-54, 64).

 Burbank Blvd must be closed betw een Victory Blvd and Front Stre et during Construction Sequencing Phase 12, 13, 14 and 15. Detour traffi c to (Sheet CV- I6137, I6140, I6143, I6146, CV-16137, Page 3.2-54, 64).

 Victory Place must be closed bet ween Lake Street and Walmart dr iveway during Construction Sequencing Phase 12, 13, 14 and 15 (Sheet CV-I6137, I6140, I6143, I6146, CV-T1032, ST-K1031, Page 3.2-54, 64).

ATTACHMENT 4-37

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  7  Correct all detour routes and detoured traffic volumes based on the earlier comments (Transportation Technical Report Page 6-63, 6-64, Appendix E-1 and E-2)

 Page 3.2-56: Correct the directionality of streets. Any street parallel to Interstate 5 is north/south and any street crossing the freeway is east/west.

 Page 3.2-56: Hollywood Way SB at San Fernando Road . The mitigation measure will reduce capacity by pr ohibiting Right Turn on Red. Justify how capacity is increased with this measure. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Hollywood Way at Victory Blvd. The mitigation measure will reduce capacity by re-striping two left turns lanes because the protected- permissive phasing must be changed to protected only. The right turn lane has an existing green overlap. Justify how capacity is increased with this measure. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Buena Vista St at San Fernando Blvd . The existing signal cycle length is 120 to 140 seconds and runs free. Correct your parameters and update your analysis.

 Page 3.2-56: Buena Vista St at Thornton Avenue-Provide addition al minor restriping on the southbound approach. The mitigation measure is vague.

What is the recommendation? The existing curb lane is 19 feet and there is a defacto right turn lane. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Buena Vista St at Vanowen Street . See comment for Page 3.2- 54, Buena Vista Street will be closed for the open trench, deck, and abutment work.

The City assumes Vanowen and Buena Vista will be restriped to b e a continuous street. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Buena Vista St at Victory Blvd. The mitigation measure will reduce capacity by re-striping two left turns lanes because the protec ted-permissive phasing must be changed to protected only. In fact, the City d id the opposite because average delay was reduced with single lane and protecte d-permissive phasing. Justify how capacity is increased with this measure. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Burbank Blvd at San Fernando Blvd. The City changed the signal phasing and lane confi gurations of this intersection in 2019. Correct your parameters and update your analysis. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Burbank Blvd at Victory Blvd. The traffic signal uses split phasing for Victory Blvd and the existing signal cycle length is 140 to 150 seconds and runs free. Southbound Victory Blvd approach already has two through lanes and one right lane. See comment for Page 3.2-54. Victory Place will be closed for the HSR ATTACHMENT 4-38

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  8 bridge and re-profiling of the str eet. Correct your parameters and update your analysis. [Check Technical Report analysis]

 Page 3.2-56: Magnolia Blvd at First St . The mitigation measure will reduce capacity by re-striping two left turns lanes because the protec ted-permissive phasing must be changed to protected only. Justify how capacity is increased with this measure. The existing width of the receiving lanes is 30 feet, not 35 feet and therefore an additional right turn lane cannot be added . The existing signal cycle length is 120 seconds. Correct your parameters and update your analysis.

 Page 3.2-56: Magnolia Blvd at Victory Blvd. The mitigation measure will reduce capacity by re-striping two left turns lanes because the protec ted-permissive phasing must be changed to protected only. Justify how capacity is increased with this measure. The existing width of the receiving lanes is less than 30 feet on 3 of 4 approaches and therefore an additional lane cannot be added . The existing signal cycle length is 120 seconds. Correct your parameters and update your analysis.

 Page 3.2-56: Olive Ave at 1 st St. There is no right turn only lane on 1 st Street westbound (City northbound) . There is an existing right turn o verlap on the 1 st Street eastbound (City southbound). Correct your parameters and update your analysis.

 Page 3.2-57: Olive Ave at Victory Blvd . The mitigation measure will reduce capacity by re-striping two left turns lanes because the protec ted-permissive phasing must be changed to protected only. The geometry of the intersection also requires a lead/lag because of left turn path conflicts created by your mitigation measure. Justify how capacity is increased with this measure. A right turn overlap cannot be implemented for Olive northbound (City eastbound) because there is no right turn lane. The existing signal cycle length is 120 seconds. Correct your parameters and update your analysis.

 Page 3.2-59 Table 3.2-20. Per Table 3.2-16, Hollywood Way will be closed during construction at Avon and Empire. Therefore, how can the volume s exceed capacity? Correct your parameters and update your analysis.

 Tables 6-4, 6-6, 6-18, 6-23, 6-31, and 6-32 do not show results for all intersections.

Correct the tables (Transportation Technical Report Page 6-7, 6-15, 6-37, 6-52, 6-69, 6-70)

For additional information or questions, please contact Jonathan Yee, Assistant Public Works Director – Traffic, at (818) 238-3969.

Checked by: Jonathan Yee Date: __June 24, 2020_________

ATTACHMENT 4-39

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  9

CAPITAL PROJECTS

Comments:

 The dimensions for Magnolia Blvd bridge overpass (24.5’) and Ol ive Ave Bridge (26.54’) shown below shall be conf irmed in person at those exac t stations, and also provide answers to the following:

o What is the minimum clearance required (and needed during cons truction) at Olive Ave Bridge overpass? And at Magnolia Blvd Bridge overpass?

o Are the existing field measured and verified clearances sufficient? If not, how will this be addressed and mitigated?

 Per section 3.4 Noise and Vibrati on, impacted structures may need vibration and displacmeent mitigation, and since the Olive Ave Bridge and Magnolia Blvd Bridge ATTACHMENT 4-40

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  10 columns and supports are close to the new HSR rails, vibration generated by the rail system will have great impact and is a serious concern since the bridge railings are sub-standard and will need to be upgraded by this project to keep pedestrains on the bridges safe from increas ed vibrations and displacements caused by the rail system. Also, seismic retrofit of the bridges is highly recommeneded and should be completed prior to construction of the rail system. We can provide the latest bridge inspection reports upon request.

General Comments:

 All construction activity within the public right-of-way to be approved by the City’s Public Works Department which will assess access and service is sues of that proposed project.

For additional information or questions, please contact Artin Megerdichian at (818) 238- 3942.

Checked by: Omar Moheize ______ Date: _July 1, 2020_____________

FIELD SERVICES

Comments & Questions:

 The project will increase traffic loading on Burbank roadways. W h a t a r e t h e projected impacts to Burbank’s roadway infrastructure? In the efforts of Economic Sustainability, what will the impact be to roadway maintenance costs as a result of the project? What are the mitigating factors to offset increased costs?

 The project will result in subst antial impacts to City services . Including an increased demand for infrastruc ture maintenance and the potenti al to create the need for additional staffing or f acilities. What will the proj ected impact be to Burbank’s infrastructure maintenance? In the efforts of Econom ic Sustainability, what are the projected impacts to City services maintenance cos ts as a result of the project? What are the mitigating factors to offset increased costs?

 Waste disposal will be significantly affected by the project. What will the projected impact be to Burbank’s waste disposal staffing, infrastructure and programs, including the impact this has on State mandated programs? In t he efforts of Economic Sustainability, what are the projected impacts to City waste disposal costs as a result of the project? What are the mitigating factors to offset increased costs?

 The project will include the additi on of right-of-way infrastru cture such as, bike lanes, intersection improvements and pedestrian friendly infras tructure. What projected impacts do these new improvements have on Burbank’s infrastructure? ATTACHMENT 4-41

C:\Dkriske\Hsr\Deir\DEIR_Commentletter_07142020\Departmentcomments\ATTACHMENT A ‐ EIR California High Speed Rail Project PW Review ‐ Ken.Docx  11 In the efforts of Economic Sust ainability, what will the impact be to maintenance costs as a result of these new improvements? What are the miti gating factors to offset increased costs?

 The City of Burbank maintains a separate storm water system. What is the impact on Burbank’s storm water system? Is there consideration for designs to allow for the retention and infiltration of storm water on-site? What st orm water infrastructure upgrades will be necessary to reduce the impacts of the project. In the efforts of Economic Sustain ability, what will the impact be to maintenance costs as a result of these new improvements? What are the miti gating factors to offset increased costs?

For additional information or questions, please contact Public Works Field Services at (818) 238-3800.

Checked by: John Molinar ______ Date: _June 26, 2020________ __

ATTACHMENT 4-42
ATTACHMENT 4-43
ATTACHMENT 4-44
ATTACHMENT 4-45
ATTACHMENT 4-46
ATTACHMENT 4-47
ATTACHMENT 4-48
ATTACHMENT 4-49
ATTACHMENT 4-50
ATTACHMENT 4-51
ATTACHMENT 4-52
ATTACHMENT 4-53
ATTACHMENT 4-54
ATTACHMENT 4-55
ATTACHMENT 4-56
ATTACHMENT 4-57
ATTACHMENT 4-58
ATTACHMENT 4-59
ATTACHMENT 4-60
ATTACHMENT 4-61
ATTACHMENT 4-62
ATTACHMENT 4-63
ATTACHMENT 4-64
&,7<2)%85%$1.
&$/,)251,$+,*+63(('5$,/352-(&7
%85%$1.72/26$1*(/(6'(,5'(,6
&200(17/(77(5
$77$&+0(17%
ATTACHMENT 4-65
Department Burbank Water and Power (Electric)
DR # N/A
Project Name California High Speed Rail Draft Environment Impact Report Comment Letter
Location N/A
Checked by: Bobola Akerson 6/23/2020
Senior Electrical Engineer
Approved by: Bobola Akerson 7/8/2020
Senior Electrical Engineer
General Requirements
Plan Information

1. The following information shall be included on the construction plans:
a. Location of the existing electric service panel, if applicable. b. Dimensions/location of existing/proposed public improvements adjacent to project.
c. The width and the location of all the existing and proposed easements. d. Fully dimensioned building elevations showing height of structure from natural grade.
e. Proposed location of the electric service panel/meters. f. Proposed location of the pad-mount transformer

2. Plan approval will not be given until an electric service confirmation is obtained. Contact BWP Engineering at (818) 238 -3575. The plans must show the pertinent information related to the method of service as specified on the confirmation.

Load Requirements

3. A load schedule and single-line diagram will be required to determine the extent of the electrical load requirements. An electronic copy of a plot plan of the site, showing all the existing and proposed substructures, complying with BWP AutoCAD standards should also be provided to BWP Electrical Engineering to aid the electrical design. BWP will provide full comments after the electrical sheets are provided. A meeting should be scheduled between the developer, project architect, electrical engineer, and BWP Electrical Engineering early in the design stage of each phase of the project to discuss all the issues and to finalize the location of the facilities.

4. Loads below 5MW will be fed from the existing system but will require upgrades to accommodate the new development, at the developers cost.

ATTACHMENT 4-66

5. Loads 5MW or greater will require a new substation. The developer must provide the necessary space (a minimum of 125’ x 120’, with two 20’ access roads on two sides), if a substation is required. Please contact BWP Engineering at (818) 238-3575 for details if the projected load will exceed 5MW.

Substructure

6. Overhead BWP electrical facilities traversing the development are to be c onverted to underground at the developer’s cost. The developer will be responsible for costs involved in converting existing overhead electric services to underground for any customers impacted by this underground conversion.

7. The proposed development will require the installation of pad -mounted switches and transformers. The pad-mounted switches will be looped on the line side.

8. The proposed development will require transformer and switch pads, which have a vault underneath them. No structures are allowed to be constructed underneath these vaults.

9. The installation of pad-mounted transformers and switches will require the use of a crane or boom truck. To facilitate this installation, a vertical clearance of 40’ from the transformer or switch pad level should be maintained. Any design that would restrict vertical access clearance to a level below 40’ shall be subject to BWP approval.

10. Provide a minimum 14’ x 18’ clear accessible area at grade level on undisturbed soil with easy crane access 20-foot wide for each three phase pad-mount transformer facility.

11. Provide a minimum 10’ x 17’ clear accessible area at grade level on undisturbed soil with easy crane access 20-foot wide for each single-phase pad-mount transformer facility.

12. The proposed development will require the installation of 4’ x 6’ primary pull-boxes.

13. The proposed development will require the installation of 8’ x 14’ primary manholes.

14. Additional conduits may be required to provide for future needs.

15. The developer will provide 5’ wide recorded easement for the new underground system from the property line to the switch and a minimum 25’ x 15’ clear accessible easement for a pad -mount switch. The develop er’s surveyor will provide a legal description of the easements, which will be reviewed by Burbank Water and Power and then processed by the Community Development Department (contact 818-238-5250 for recording).

16. No permanent structures are allowed within the easement.

17. The developer’s contractor will provide as -built drawings showing the exact location of underground substructure installed to serve the property.

18. All substructure work including transformer pads, switch pads, pull boxes, grounding systems, primary conduits and secondary conduits are the responsibility of the developer ATTACHMENT 4-67
and shall be done in accordance with Burbank Water and Power drawings and specifications.

19. Any existing and proposed substructure on-site and off-site, which may affect the location of the new underground electrical system and any other improvements shall be identified and shown on the final plans in order to avoid a potential conflict with other substructure.

20. BWP will provide the following items at the developer’s cost:
a. Construction drawings for all substructure work
b. Engineering support during construction
c. Inspection of the work performed by the developer’s contractor to ensure the work is done per the plans provided by BWP and per BWP specifications d. Installation of all transformers, switches, primary cables, and metering devices e. Termination of the secondary cables at the transformer

21. The developer’s contractor shall install secondary conduits, pull cable from the transformer to the switchboard, and terminate the secondary cables on the switchgear.

22. Depending on the location of the switchgear (whether it is outside or inside the building), secondary conduits and cables will be inspected and approved by both the BWP inspector and the Building Inspector (switch gear inside the building) or by the BWP inspector (switchgear outside the building).

23. The Building Inspector will provide structural inspection of secondary conduits for compliance with the Building code-concrete encasements, fire walls, support of the conduit package, etc. The BWP inspector will inspect the amount and size of secondary conduits and cables.

Safety/Clearances

24. The State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95 requires that no building or structure be allowed to encroach within the envelope 12’ vertical and 6’horizontal from any existing high voltage lines within project boundary. The actual height and location of the conductor attachment has to be surveyed and shown on the plans.

25. The State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95 requires that no building or structure be allowed to encroach within the envelope 8’ vertical and 3’ horizontal from any existing low voltage lines wi thin project boundary. The actual height and location of the conductor attachment has to be surveyed and shown on the plans.

26. The State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95 requires that no temporary scaffolding, platforms or supporting framework upon which men may work be ATTACHMENT 4-68
allowed to encroach within the required clearance envelopes as stated in the previous two comments.

27. Burbank Water and Power Rules and Regulations require that no open patios or balconies will be erected underneath any high voltage overhead conductor regardless of vertical clearance.

28. Plans must be revised to avoid encroachment into the envelope as commented above.

Building elevations will show the existing power poles, their height from natural grade, conductor atta chment heights and locations (all surveyed), and the described above envelopes clear from any portion of the building per BWP drawing S-708 (attached).

29. The developer’s contractor is responsible for protecting any existing Burbank Water and Power facilities in place. Power poles must be protected in place to prevent any movement of the pole butt during excavation. Anchors must also be protected to prevent slippage or exposure that could result in the reduction or loss of holding power. If these requirements cannot be met, then no excavation will be allowed within three feet from the face of poles and five feet from anchors.

30. The developer’s contractor is responsible for protecting any existing Burbank Water and Power underground facilities from damage dur ing construction. No crane imposed loads will be allowed on any existing manhole or pullbox structures.

31. Any excavation that restricts vehicular access to existing BWP facilities may require the relocation of such facilities at the developer’s cost.

Aid-in-Construction

32. The Burbank Water and Power fees for providing electric service are Aid-in-Construction (AIC) charges set forth in Section 3.26 of BWP’s Rules and Regulations for Electric Service. AIC charges are to recover the actual cost of:
a) Providing and installing new facilities to serve the customer; b) Conducting feasibility studies and engineering;
c) Relocating existing overhead or underground facilities.

33. Actual costs vary from project to project and AIC examples can be found in the Burbank Water and Power “Guide for Electric Service”.

34. If any portion of the existing BWP facilities needs to be upgraded or relocated due to the subject project, it will be done at the developer’s expense.

Metering/Service

35. All electrical installations must confo rm to the Burbank Water and Power Rules and Regulations for Electric Service (latest revision).

ATTACHMENT 4-69

36. For multi-metered services all numbering must be completed in a permanent manner at all individual units and meter sockets before service can be energized. Se e BWP Rules and Regulations, Section 2.68 (c) for acceptable labeling (stenciling or riveted tags required, permanent marker is unacceptable). Contact Public Works Engineering for unit designations.

37. The service switchboard rating shall be limited to 3000 A mps. Five copies of EUSERC drawings of the switchboard shall be provided to BWP for approval prior to submittal to the manufacturer. Service shall not be energized unless these drawings are provided.

38. Outdoor meter locations are preferred. When adequate exterior wall space is not available, a separately locked, clearly labeled meter room is acceptable. All meter rooms must be located on the ground floor and have two exit doors equipped with panic hardware. At least one door must lead directly outside . BWP m ust be supplied an access key to the room, which will be installed in a lock box adjacent to the door. The developer shall consult BWP for approved location and obtain a service confirmation prior to any installations.

39. All new metered services require a path for meter communications to BWP communication networks. Installation of meters that fail to continuously communicate with BWP communication networks will require additional BWP approved equipment to be installed at the developer’s expense in order to create the appropriate communications path.

Street Lighting

40. The developer is responsible for the street lighting system traversing the project. The street light system is required to be underground fed with LED luminaires. If existing lighting conditions do not satisfy this requirement, modification will have to be made at the developer’s expense. Standards and luminaries will be supplied by BWP at the developer’s expense. A plot plan of the site must be submitted to BWP during the initial planning stage of the project for street light design.

41. Any construction that impacts existing streetlight standards or infrastructure will require relocation at the developer’s cost.

Fiber/Communication

42. Burbank Water and Power offers high -speed, high -quality fiber o ptics-based services through its ONE Burbank program. Fiber service is available to the project if desired. For further information, email [email protected] or call (818) 238-3113.

43. Contact AT&T at (866) 577-7726 for any phone company facility conflicts. Contact Charter Communications at (818) 847-5013 for any cable T.V. facility conflicts.

Landscaping

44. Any trees planted in the area adjacent to the street/alley will be of a type that will not grow into the existing power lines and will also have sufficient clearance from the streetlight facilities.

ATTACHMENT 4-70

45. All equipment locations and screening structures will be indicated on the plans and must meet the Community Development Department and BWP Equipment Screening Guidelines. The plans will include the proposed screening method, height of screening, material finish, and color or species of vegetation. All screen walls, which are a part of, or adjacent to, the proposed building will be shown on t he building elevations. All screen walls detached from the building will be included as a separate elevation. Verification of submittal requirements and recommendations for screening requirements shall be by the CDD Director or his designee.

46. BWP landscaping requirements for transformer pads and switch pads:

Due to the natural maturation of trees and other landscaping elements, the following requirements are to be adhered to:
a) New plantings within three feet of the back or sides of the pad and within eight feet of the front shall be of a groundcover type. This is considered the working zone.
b) Outside of the working zone, shrubbery is acceptable within eight feet of the pads, bu t trees must be beyond an eight -foot radius to lessen future root conflicts.
c) Landscaping grade shall be a minimum of five inches below the grade level of the top of transformer pads.
d) All irrigation and sprinkler systems shall be constructed so that water shall not be directed onto the switch, the transformers, or the concrete pads.

Additionally, surface water shall drain away from the concrete pads.

Landscape plans shall adhere to the above requirements, showing proper working clearances for electrical facilities on L-sheets.

Energy Efficiency

47. The electrical design shall comply with Califor nia Building Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and shall use, wherever practical, surge suppressors, filters, isolation transformers, or other available means to preserve a quality of power of its electrical service and to protect sensitive elec tronic and computer -controlled equipment from voltage surges, sags, and fluctuations. BWP also recommends the use of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) and a standby generator for critical loads.

48. Power factor correction to a minimum of 90% will be requested to minimize kVA demand as well as energy use. The developer must use California Nonresident Building Standard to consider and implement energy efficient electrical equipment and devices for minimizing peak demand and wasteful energy consumption.

Electric Vehicle Charging

49. At least 6% of the total parking spaces shall be capable of supporting future Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE). Plan design shall be based on Level 2 EVSE or ATTACHMENT 4-71
greater, at maximum operating ampacity. Only underground racew ays and related underground equipment per Burbank Water and Power standards are required to be installed at the time of construction. Plans shall include the locations and type of EVSE, raceway method(s), wiring schematics and electrical calculations to v erify that the electrical system has sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all the electrical vehicles at all designated EV charging spaces at their full rated amperage. The electrical service panel shall include capacity to simultaneously charge a ll EVs at their full-rated amperage and shall identify the overcurrent protective devices space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE.” The future EV charging stations shall be placed at multiple convenient and visible locations within the new parking facilities. This requirement may be superseded by future state building mandates.

50. As part of our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance customer service, Burbank Water and Power’s Electric Vehicle Char ging program promotes the use of electric vehicles by providing rebates for the installation of Level 2 (240V) charging equipment. BWP also installs and maintains a public electric vehicle charging network, consisting of 27 Level 2 chargers and 1 DC Fast C harger (480V), with new stations added each year depending on budget and availability. For more information on the rebates and the charging network, please contact Drew Kidd, EV Program Manager at 818 -238-3653 or [email protected]. Additional ly, information can be found at https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/electric-vehicles.

Additional Comments

51. Any High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) station within the City of Burbank shall be served from the City of Burbank Water and Power’s electric system.

52. HSRA shall submit plans that show the required electric power needs for the proposed Burbank Facility Power Substation and Traction Power Paralleling Station.

53. All new construction of electric lines to serve the HSRA’s power needs will be required to be underground lines.

54. HSRA shall protect-in-place all BWP electric and streetlight facilities within the HSRA’s construction zone.

55. HSRA will be responsibl e for a ll costs associated with relocating any of BWP’s electric and streetlight facilities that are deemed to be in conflict with the proposed HSR line or facilities.

56. Current plans show relocation of BWP’s electric transmission and distribution lines.

BWP will need to conduct extensive feasibility studies, at the project’s cost, to determine the impact of this proposed work before final plans can be approved.

57. Current HSRA plans show several of BWP electric lines labeled as SoCal Edison Lines.

HSRA is required to correct this in all plans and obtain proper records of electric facilities from BWP Electrical Engineering division.

ATTACHMENT 4-72

58. HSRA shall be required to implement dust abatement in any construction areas in close proximity to BWP electrical substations.

For additional information or questions please contact Bobola Akerson, Senior Electrical Engineer, BWP at (818) 238-3570 or [email protected].

Attachments:

A. BWP Specifications for the Construction of Underground Electrical Systems B. S-330 Three-phase 6' x 8'-6" Transformer Pad Details C. S-458 Barrier Post Detail
D. S-461 Primary Riser Pole Grounding Requirements
E. S-462 7’ x 10.5’ Padmounted Switch Pad Details
F. S-464 4’ x 4.5’ Single-Phase Transformer Pad Details G. S-708 GO-95 Clearances
H. S-723 Three-phase 8' x 10' Transformer Pad Details
I. S-724 Clearances for Three phase 6'x 8'-6" Transformer Pad J. S-725 Clearances for Three phase 8' x 10' Transformer Pad K. S-729 4’ x 6’ x 6’ Traffic Rated Pullbox Details
L. S-732 7’ x 10.5’ Padmounted Switch Clearances
M. S-794 8’ x 14’ Precast Manhole Details

ATTACHMENT 4-73
ATTACHMENT 4-74
ATTACHMENT 4-75
ATTACHMENT 4-76
ATTACHMENT 4-77
ATTACHMENT 4-78
ATTACHMENT 4-79
ATTACHMENT 4-80
ATTACHMENT 4-81
ATTACHMENT 4-82
ATTACHMENT 4-83
ATTACHMENT 4-84
ATTACHMENT 4-85

CITY OF BURBANK

BURBANK WATER AND POWER

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL

SYSTEMS INCLUDING DIVISIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY

1. SCOPE OF WORK

All work involving the construction of the electrical underground conduit system, which will include the following: securing excavation permit; cutting and removal of existing pavement; installation of concrete-encased duct sections; excavating for and installing precast electric manholes and other substructures; trenching (including shoring); backfilling; traffic control (including signs and barricades); temporary paving; permanent pavement; restriping of traffic lanes; and all items called for in these specifications whether specifically mentioned in this paragraph or not.

2. WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CITY OF BURBANK

The following work shall be performed by the City of Burbank:

a. Design, layout, and, if in the public right-of-way, surveying and horizontal control

b. Inspection of overall job

c. Restriping of traffic lanes only for projects under the Annual Contract.

d. Pulling and installing all electric primary cables and wire

e. Relocation of water services that interfere with manhole installations (at the contractors expense). Contact BWP Water Division at (818) 238-3500.

3. CODES AND STANDARDS

a. The contractor shall perform his work in accordance with these specifications and all standards referred to herein. The installation of conduits shall be in accordance with Section 5 entitled "Conduit Work."

b. All work shall be in accordance with the applicable section of the latest edition of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction," and all the latest supplements thereto, except as herein called for in these Specifications or except as called for in related standards of the City of Burbank Public Works Department.

These standards can be purchased at the Public Works Department, 150 N. Third ATTACHMENT 4-86
St. P.O. Box 6459, Burbank, 91510.

4. NOTICE FOR STARTING WORK

The following City of Burbank departments shall be notified by the contractor at least 48 hours in advance of beginning any work in the public right-of-way:

Police, Traffic Bureau (818) 238-3100
Fire, Dispatcher's Office (818) 238-3473
Public Works, Traffic Engineer (818) 238-3965
Public Works, Inspector (818) 238-3955
Burbank Water and Power, Electrical Dist. (818) 238-3590 Underground Service Alert, Inc. (800) 227-2600

5. CONDUIT WORK

a. Prior to any installation, contractor will contact the BWP inspector at least 48 hours in advance at 818-238-3590.

b. The contractor shall furnish and install all conduits, fittings, spacers, and other appurtenances necessary to fulfill the requirements of these specifications.

c. The PVC conduit furnished hereunder shall be minimum Schedule 40 for the pad- mount projects and DB100 for any other projects, with heavy wall and rated for 90°C, in accordance with ASTM Standard F-512 for utilities duct. The conduit shall be Carlon or approved equal. Horizontal sweeps should be as specified on the plans with a minimum 48" radius for 4" conduit and 60" radius for 5" and 6" conduits.

d. Pipe joints must be made in accordance with standard practice for making solvent-cemented joints with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe and fittings as described in ASTM Standard D2855 or its latest revision. A suitable primer must be used before the cement is applied.

e. Plastic spacers shall be used to maintain the required minimum 3" clearance between and around the conduits. The spacers shall be placed at intervals not exceeding 6 feet and shall be Carlon or approved equal.

f. Construction joints in the concrete envelope surrounding the duct package shall be so located that duct joints do not occur closer than one (1) foot from said construction joint.

g. All conduits shall be installed by the contractor according to the details on the drawings. Stakes or rods shall be driven into the soil at intervals of eight (8) feet and wired at the top to hold conduits in alignment during pouring of the concrete enclosure.

ATTACHMENT 4-87
 A minimum 36" cover is required for all high voltage duct banks installed in City right-of-ways and in private property.
 A minimum 24" cover is required for all low voltage (below 600V) duct banks installed in City right-of-ways and in private property.

h. The conduit package shall be encased with a red concrete mix that consists of the following batch weights per cubic yard of concrete:

Cement (3.5 sacks) 329 lbs.
3/8" aggregate 1,618 lbs.

Sand 1,637 lbs.

Red oxide 7.5 lbs

i. Concrete mix shall be delivered and poured no later than 1 ½ hours from the time the concrete truck leaves the concrete plant. Any concrete delivered past this time limit will be rejected.

j. In placing concrete around the conduit, adjust the delivery chute so the fall of concrete into the trench is minimal. Use a splash -board to divert the flow of concrete away from the trench sides to avoid dislodging soil and stones. When placing concrete, encase from one end of the duct bank toward the other end.

Do not encase from each end of the duct bank toward the center.

k. All conduit stubs shall be terminated with an approved type cap/plug.

l. All temporary and permanent conduit terminations shall be sealed tightly during non-working hours.

m. After sand and slurry backfill is completed, the contractor shall rod all conduits in the presence of a City of Burbank representative to ascertain that all conduits are clean and free. A conduit brush shall be pulled through the conduit first with a mandrel of approved size to follow. Any blocked conduit shall be cleared and repaired at the contractor's expense.

n. All conduit which is extended from existing stubs shall be brushed and mandrelled for the entire length. If any new conduit is blocked, conduit shall be cleared and repaired at the contractor’s expense.

o. A 1/4-inch polypropylene pull rope shall be installed in each conduit run and secured at both ends.

p. Where applicable, precast manholes, switch pads and enclosures, as well as compatible hardware and grounding shall be installed by the contractor and must conform to all requirements called for on the City of Burbank drawings. The contractor shall adjust manhole covers and pads to appropriate grade.

ATTACHMENT 4-88
q. For most applications, the conduit sweeps at the riser pole shall be Schedule 80 PVC, with a minimum 48” radius bend for 4” conduits and a minimum 60” radius bend for 5” and 6” conduits. The contractor shall extend each conduit up the riser pole, 10 feet above the elbow couplings, also using Schedule 80 PVC. For details of this type of installation, refer to City of Burbank Drawing S-461F.

6. SWITCH AND TRANSFORMER SLAB BOX INSTALLATION

a. Prior to any installation, the contractor will contact the BWP inspector at least 48 hours in advance at 818-238-3590.

b. Slab-box for switch and transformer will be placed on a minimum of 6 inches of crushed rock. Excavation around it will be filled with slurry. The contractor will install the ground rods and grounding system while in the presence of the BWP inspector and to the satisfaction of the requirements detailed in the latest version of the National Electric Code, Articles 250-83 and 250-84.

c. The contractor must install protective barrier posts around any transformer or switch pad installation that is subject to vehicular traffic or as deemed necessary by BWP. See BWP Drawing S-458.

d. Pad-mount switches shall rest on a 10’-6” x 7’ x 8” reinforced concrete pad with an 8’-6” x 5’ vault below the pad. A 5 ’ minimum working clearance is required directly in front of a switch pad; an 8 ’ minimum working clearance is required directly in the back of the pad and a 3 ’ minimum from both sides. Vertical clearance must be 14’ minimum from the switch pad level. See BWP Drawing S- 462. For the combined pad-mount switch/transformer pad required clearances and orientation see BWP drawings S-600 through S-606.

e. For three-phase transformer installations the contractor is required to install either a 6’ x 8’-6”x 6” or 8’ x 10’ x 6”reinforced concrete pad as dictated by BWP with a 4’ x 7’ vault below the pad. A 5’ minimum working clearance is required directly in front of the pad and 3’ minimum from both sides and back. Vertical clearance must be 14’ minimum from the transformer pad level. Details are shown on BWP Drawings S-330 and S-723.

f. For single-phase transformer installations, the contractor must install a 4’-6” x 4’ x 4”reinforced concrete pad with 2’ x 3’ pull box without a floor below the pad. The contractor must also install a 3 ’ x 4 ’ x 4 “ maintenance pad in front of the transformer pad. An 8’ minimum working clearance is required directly in front of the pad and a 2’ minimum from both sides and back. Vertical clearance must be 12’ minimum from the transformer pad level. See BWP Drawing S-464.

7. PULL BOXES

a. Pull boxes will be placed on a minimum of 6 ” of compacted rock or gravel.

ATTACHMENT 4-89
Excavation around the pull box will be filled with slurry. Prior to any installation, contractor will contact the BWP inspector at least 48 hours in advance.

b. Pull box covers will be marked “Burbank Electric” and will have a pull box I.D. number permanently attached to the cover. The contractor will provide to the manufacturer at the time of order the I.D. number obta ined from BWP Engineering and will allow at least three weeks lead time for delivery.

c. Traffic rated pull box covers will be galvanized steel, slip resistant, and spring assisted. Non-traffic rated (parkway and sidewalk use) pull boxes will be spring assisted. Covers for pull boxes installed in parkways and sidewalks where there is a potential exposure to traffic will be traffic rated.

d. Pull boxes will be installed per applicable specifications: S-460, S-615, S-670, S- 726, and S -729. The appropriate specification number will be shown on the construction drawing.

8. MANHOLES

a. Manholes will be placed on a minimum of 6” of compacted rock or sand.

Excavation around the manhole will be filled with sand slurry. Prior to any installation, contractor will c ontact the BWP inspector at least 48 hou rs in advance.

b. Manholes will be supplied per applicable specifications: S-730, S-731, and S-794.

A detail drawing for each manhole will be provided by BWP Engineering.

. 9 CONSTRUCTION METHODS

a. Removals shall be perfo rmed per Subsection 300 -1.3 of the Public Works Standard Specifications. If the pavement edges are not clean, straight lines in the opinion of the Public Works Inspector, the contractor shall saw cut the edges at no extra cost.

b. Concrete curb, walks, gutters, cross gutters, driveways, and alley intersections shall be replaced in accordance with the standards of Burbank Public Works and per Subsection 303-5 of the Standard Specifications. The Public Works Inspector shall be notified at least one day in advance of the fieldwork requiring inspection at 818- 238-3955.

c. Excavations shall be supported in the manner set forth in the rules, orders, and regulations prescribed by the Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California. Trenches and manhole pits shall be to the depths shown on drawing and shall be flat on the bottom. The trench width shall not be wider than the width of the concrete envelope plus one foot. Such extra excavation shall be filled to the correct subgrade with 3.5 sack con crete. When cutting pavement, the ATTACHMENT 4-90
contractor shall avoid points and slivers. The minimum width of pavement remaining between trenches shall be five feet for asphalt and three feet for PCC.

d. Backfill shall be one-sack sand slurry and shall be done in the following manner:
on pavement, backfill to subgrade in accordance with Subsection 301-1 of the standard Specifications; on landscaped areas backfill to one foot below grade.

Backfill around manholes shall be brought up uniformly on all sides and be done in such a manner that there is no damage to the structure.

e. Shoring shall be in accordance with the latest revision of Title 8, Industrial Relations, of the California Administrative Code . The contractor shall assume responsibility for his work, ma king good any damage caused by improper supports or failure of shoring in any respect. Where trenches are four feet or more in depth, the contractor shall submit notification of work to be performed to the district office of the California Division of Industrial Safety with a copy for the engineer. If the contractor elects to use a shoring plan that differs from the State shoring system standards, the contractor shall submit a plan for approval to the City that is prepared by a registered civil engineer. Submission of such a plan does not allow the use of a shoring system less effective than the construction safety orders.

f. Placement of the ducts shall be such that the horizontal deviations shall not exceed 1" from the control points as furnished by the City surveyors.

g. Resurfacing of the trench shall be in accordance with Sections 306-1.5.1 and 306-1.5.2 of the Standard Specifications and City of Burbank Public Works Department "Asphaltic Concrete and PCC Street Repair Standards." Contact Public Works to obtain resurfacing requirements. Generally, permanent paving shall be the same type as existing and same thickness plus one additional inch.

Temporary resurfacing shall be installed and maintained for at least 14 days but no longer than 30 days be fore permanent resurfacing. The Public Works Inspector shall be notified at least one day prior to start of permanent resurfacing at 818-238-3955.

10.. WARRANTY OF RESURFACING

By acceptance of this contract, the contractor warrants backfill, compaction and pavement for a period of five years from the date of completion. If, in the judgement of the Public Works Director of the City of Burbank, any resurfacing fails due to defects in workmanship of the backfill, compaction or paving during that five -year period, the contractor shall repair such defects and any subsequent damage and shall install new pavement, all at the contractor's expense and without cost to the City. Such repair must be made to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.

11. PERMITS
ATTACHMENT 4-91

The contractor shall be responsible for securing all permits required and for obtaining a business tax registration from the City of Burbank Building Division. Call 818- 238-5220.

12. INSPECTION

The work of the contractor shall at all times be subject to inspection by the City of Burbank to make certain the installation is in accordance with these specifications and with current practice for this type of installation. The presence or absence of an inspector does not in any way relieve the contractor o f any of his obligations or liabilities under this contract. Negligence to obtain any required inspection may result in removal of substructure and reinstallation with proper inspection.

a. High voltage and low voltage conduits will be inspected by the BWP inspector.

Call BWP at 818-238-3590 to discuss BWP requirements and to schedule inspection.

b. Low voltage conduits will be inspected by the BWP inspector up to the service entrance pull section.

c. Building Division will be responsible for :
 Structural inspection inside the building and compliance with the Building Code (concrete encasements, fire walls, support of the conduit package, etc.)  Inspection of conduits beyond the underground pull section. Call the Building Division at 818-238-5220 to schedule inspection.

d. Public Works will inspect pavement resurfacing. Call Public Works at 818-238- 3955 to schedule inspection.

13. QUALIFICATIONS AND SUPERVISION

The contractor must have experience in underground electric conduit work. In the case of work performed in the public right-of-way, the contractor must have sufficient experience in performing such work. The contractor may be required or should be able to provide appropriate references and documentation . The contractor or his authorized representative, who mus t be technically competent to supervise and direct the progress of work, shall be in personal attendance during its performance, and such representative shall be authorized to act for the contractor in all matters relating to the work.

14. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND CLEANUP

The contractor shall not discharge or permit to be discharged to any street, channel, river, storm drain, or any appurtenances thereof, any non-rain water or other fluid substance from the project or from operations pertaining to the project site without ATTACHMENT 4-92
first securing a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit unless the discharge is specifically listed as exempt or conditionally exempt in the current list issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board , Los Angeles Region. In such case, the Contractor shall implement all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that any conditionally exempt discharge meets all current requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Burbank. Furthermore, he s hall at all times keep the premises free from accumulation of waste material or rubbish caused by his employees during the performance of work, and upon its completion, shall remove all his rubbish, tools, shoring, and surplus materials from and about the work area, leaving the site "broom clean."

15. TRAFFIC CONTROL

Traffic safety is of primary importance. Traffic control shall be as required by the City of Burbank Traffic Engineer at 818-238-3965, in accordance with Subsection 7-10 of the Standard Specifications and the latest work area traffic control handbook. To ensure public safety, the Traffic Engineer may at any time order changes in traffic control. The contractor will immediately comply with the Traffic Engineer requirements. For large scale projects, Public Works will require an engineered traffic control plan. The contractor will need to submit the plan before an excavation permit can be pulled from the Public Works Department and before the pre - construction meeting.

16. RECORDS

The contractor will provide as -builds marked clearly on the construction drawing, showing all necessary dimensions.

ATTACHMENT 4-93
&,7<2)%85%$1.
&$/,)251,$+,*+63(('5$,/352-(&7
%85%$1.72/26$1*(/(6'(,5'(,6
&200(17/(77(5
$77$&+0(17&
ATTACHMENT 4-94

1 Memorandum

TO: David Kriske

FROM:

Mark Hatch, Fire Marshal
By: Daniel King

DATE: 6/12/2020

RE: High Speed Rail

ALL NOTED INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHALL BE

SHOWN ON PLANS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW FOR APPROVAL.

While there are no significant fire code requirements for this project, the owner and the owner’s architect and/or contractor are responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of fire life/safety codes. Failure to cite a specific code requirement in this preliminary document does not relieve the applicant of such responsibility.

All items reviewed are based on information provided at time of review. The comments provided do not limit or relieve the owner and the owner’s architect and/or contractor from the responsibility of ensuring compliance with all applicable provisions of fire/life safety codes. Such compliances may include but are not limited to fire department access for fire fighting, including fire department vehicle access, fire water supplies and appurtenances. Further reviews may require additional requirements or limitations as the project develops and is not limited to the requirements provided in these comments.

NOTE: All references are in acco rdance with the 2020 Edition of the California Fire Code (CFC) and the California Building Code (CBC) as amended by the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC).

ALL NOTED INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHALL BE

SHOWN ON PLANS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW FOR APPROVAL.

For additional information or questions contact the Deputy Fire Marshal or Fire Marshal at (818) 238-3473.

BURBANK FIRE DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT 4-95
Attachment 2
Overall Project Alignment and Phasing

ATTACHMENT 4-96
Attachment 3
Project Alignment for
Burbank to Los Angeles Section

ATTACHMENT 4-97
ATTACHMENT 4-98
ATTACHMENT 4-99
ATTACHMENT 4-100
ATTACHMENT 4-101
ATTACHMENT 4-102
ATTACHMENT 4-103
ATTACHMENT 4-104

DATE: August 26, 2014

TO: Mark Scott, City Manager

FROM: Joy R. Forbes, Community Development Director
Via Carol D. Barrett, Assist ant Community Development Director By David L. Kriske, Deputy City Planner

SUBJECT: City of Burbank Comments on Notice of Preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement fo r the California High Speed Rail System – Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles Segments

RECOMMENDATION

Direct staff to submit a comment letter (Exhibit A) to the Cali fornia High Speed Rail Authority in response to the updat ed 2014 Notice of Preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report / En vironmental Impact Statement fo r the Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles project segments.

BACKGROUND

The California High Speed Rail project is a proposed high speed train system that would connect the major metropolitan cent ers of California. One branch of the proposed project would extend south from Sacramento and San Francisco through the Central Valley to Los Angeles, while a second branch would extend north ward from San Diego to Los Angeles via the Inland Empire. A third branch would connect Anaheim and Orange County to Los Angeles. All three branches would meet at Los Angeles Union Station. The purpose of this proj ect is to provide an alternat ive intercity transportation system between the major cities i n California. A number of intermediate stops are planned along this rail system including a proposed stop in the City of Burbank near the Bob Hope Airport. Within the city the project is planned to ru n generally along the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line along San Fernando Boulevard, Victory Place, and through Downtown Burbank. A map of the proposed alignment betw een Palmdale and Los Angeles, including Burbank, is attached as Exhibit B.

The High Speed Rail project would be constructed as a conventio nal, steel-wheel-on- steel-track, electrically-powered “bullet-train” system operati ng at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour. As proposed, t he system would address projecte d increases in statewide, intercity travel by augmenting both commercial air c arrier service and the ATTACHMENT 4-105
2 state highway network. If im plemented, the system would provid e intercity travel times that would be competitive with ai r travel, with a trip from Dow ntown Los Angeles to Downtown San Francisco taking two hours 40 minutes and priced similar to or less than a commercial airline ticket. T he project is being implemented by the California High Speed Rail Authority, an agency of the State of California.

The project cost, currently est imated at $68 billion, is not fu lly funded. In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion state bond for the project, and this was combined with about $3.3 billion in federal funding. Additional funding is expected to come from annual greenhouse gas cap-and-trade fundi ng, additional federal funds, and funding from private investment. A $6 billio n project for an initial projec t segment in the Central Valley is currently under construction, and the Authority recently announced plans to prioritize the next segment from Bakersfield to Burbank, which would close a major passenger rail gap in California. The Authority intends to ope n an “initial operating segment” to provide revenue serv ice between Burbank and Merced and connect this initial segment with regular commuter rail service on either en d. Later project phases would build out the remainder of the network to create a full H igh Speed Rail link from Los Angeles Union Station to Embar cadero Center in San Francisc o. The map on Exhibit C illustrates the proposed phasing for the project.

The Authority has already conduc ted extensive environmental analysis and project alignment studies in development o f the project, and will be pr eparing additional analysis as the project progresse s. This includes completion o f a statewide Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (E IR/EIS) in 2005, and three alignment studies for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Segment that would affect Burbank. The City of Burbank pro vided input during various stages of the project’s environmental review, including comments on the Program EIR/EIS in 2005 (Exhibit D), comments on the Notice of Preparat ion (NOP) of the Project EIR/EIS for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Segment in 2007 (Exhibit E), and comments to the High Speed Rail Authority in 2010 during development of the first Alternatives Analysis Report on alignments and station alternativ es (Exhibit F). The Authority also hosted community meetings in 2010 and 2014, and made presentations to the City C ouncil on several occasions during development of alignment alternatives.

During these project development activities, the City Council h as not taken a formal position on the project. However, in 2010 the Council directed staff to request that the Authority include a station alternative adjacent to the Bob Hop e Airport in the Golden State area in addition to several station locations located near Downtown Burbank. The Council at the time
expressed concerns that a Downtown Station would have significant project impacts, and felt that loc ating a station closer to the Airport could have superior land use, traffic, and transit and air travel connectivity bene fits. This request eventually led the Authority to drop the Downtown location alternative and study the current station location near Bob Hope Airport.

ATTACHMENT 4-106
3 DISCUSSION

Given the extensive study of project alignments between Palmdale and Los Angeles, and the recent announcement by the Authority to focus the next stage of project development on the passenger rail gap between Bakersfield and L os Angeles, the Authority recently released a se cond, revised NOP for project s egment in Burbank (Exhibit G) to reflect the signi ficant changes in the project s ince the original NOP in 2007. In addition, the Authority intends to break up analysis of the Palmdale to Los Angeles segment into two separate projects – a Palmdale to Burb ank Segment and Burbank to Los Angeles Segment – representing new focus on buil ding the system initially to Bob Hope Airport. W ith these new project alignmen t changes, restarting of public meetings and a new NOP, a resolution of several project lawsuits in favor of the project, and the recent announcement that annual cap-and-trade funds will be added to the budget, the Council may wish to begin more earnest discussions with the Authority and with the Burbank community on how to shape a significant in frastructure project that is closer to becoming reality than it has been before.

The first step in this renewed discussion would be to provide t he Authority with a new comment letter (Exhibit A) on the revised NOP for the (now) two project segments in Burbank. The purpose of a NOP is for the lead agency of a proj ect to describe the analysis it intends to conduct for a project’s EIR/EIS and soli cit input from affected cities, agencies, and community members to provide input on the subjects to be studied in the EIR/EIS. Comments receiv ed during this period help the lead agency to define the scope and subject matter of the EIR. After comments are received, the lead agency begins preparation of the EIR/EI S, which will lead to further o pportunities to comment once this analysis is complete. The draft comment letter inclu ded with this report outlines several areas of concer n identified by staff and expre ssed by the Council, the Council’s appointed subcommittee, and members of the community. In addition, Council recently directed staff to work with the Transportation Commission to review the High Speed Rail project and provi de their input. This input, r epresented as a matrix of project issues, is attached as Exhibit H.

There are several areas of concern that staff believes should b e thoroughly analyzed in the EIR/EIS. These include traffi c impacts of the proposed station, a more specific site analysis of the station and how it relates to the street networ k, transit, and the airport, land use compatibility with existing and proposed development, the extent of right-of- way acquisitions required for the project, noise and vibration impacts, aesthetic effects on surrounding land uses, and construction impacts. Further, careful analysis should be included that characterizes the impacts of Burbank operating as an interim terminus for the entire statewide system for t he period of time before the s ystem is ultimately connected to Los Angeles. The Transportation Commission has al so recommended that the City request the Authorit y to identify alternatives to making Burbank the interim terminus. Alternatives could include a “blended system” of oper ation where trains between Burbank and Los Angeles operate on common tracks tempor arily until final
buildout of the network is achieved. Staff requests the City C ouncil review the attached ATTACHMENT 4-107
4 comment letter and provide additional feedback as necessary. C omments on the NOP must be submitted by August 31, 2014.

In addition to authorizing submittal of a NOP comment letter, staff would like to develop a framework for seeking further input from the Council, the Tra nsportation Commission, and the community on various deta ils of the High Speed Rail pro ject and its effects on Burbank. Further discussions with the Authority on issues such as the alignment cross section and its impact on privat e property, elevated versus at- grade or trenched track configurations, the specific loc ation of the station, and inter faces with the local and regional transportation network should all take place to help p repare the Council for ultimately taking a position on the project once the draft EIR/ EIS is prepared. Staff will be returning to the City Council in the fall with recommendatio ns for beginning more detailed discussions.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no immediate fiscal impact to the City in submitting p ublic comments to the Authority. Once substantial project development is underway fo r two segments in Burbank, additional costs for staff and consultant resources could be needed to respond to the High Speed Rail Authority as they begin more detailed pl anning for the proposed station and project alignment. Currently, existing budgeted st aff resources are being utilized to follow project development and respond as required.

CONCLUSION

The California High Speed Rail project is an extensive public infrastructure improvement that, if built, will have tremendous effects on statewide trave l as well as localities in which the system will pass through. Project development has been proceeding for many years, but recent decisions by the Authority to focus on the Palmdale to Burbank project segment and the state alloca tion of annual cap-and-trade fundin g to High Speed Rail makes completion of the project into Burbank more likely. While there are many uncertainties that remain with High Speed Rail, the large scope of the project and its potential impact to Burbank makes early involvement in the next phases of analysis critical to ensuring the City’s in terests are preserved as this project develops.

Submitting comments in response to the Authority’s NOP is the first step in this effort.

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: Comment Letter to Authority
Exhibit B: High Speed Rail Proposed Alignment – Palmdale to Los Angeles and Burbank Station Location
Exhibit C: High Speed Rail Statewide Rail Modernization Plan / Proposed Project Phasing
Exhibit D: 2004 Burbank Comments on the Statewide Program EIR/EIS Exhibit E: Burbank Comments on the 2007 NOP for the Palmdale to L o s A n g e l e s Segment
ATTACHMENT 4-108
5 Exhibit F: 2010 Burbank Comments on the First Alternatives Anal ysis Report for Palmdale to Los Angeles
Exhibit G: High Speed Rail Authority Revised NOP – Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles
Exhibit H: Transportation Commission Matrix of Benefits, Concer ns, and Questions for the High Speed Rail Project

ATTACHMENT 4-109

High Speed Rail Proposed Alignment – Palmdale to Los Angeles

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014 ATTACHMENT 4-110

High Speed Rail Proposed Burbank Station Location

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014

ATTACHMENT 4-111

High Speed Rail Statewide Rail Modernization Plan / Proposed Project Phasing

ATTACHMENT 4-112
Exhibit A-1

ATTACHMENT 4-113
Exhibit A-2

ATTACHMENT 4-114
Exhibit A-3

ATTACHMENT 4-115
Exhibit A-4

ATTACHMENT 4-116
Exhibit A-5

ATTACHMENT 4-117
Exhibit A-6

ATTACHMENT 4-118

High Speed Rail Proposed Alignment – Palmdale to Los Angeles

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014 Exhibit B-1

ATTACHMENT 4-119

High Speed Rail Proposed Burbank Station Location

Sourc
e: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014

Exhibit B-2

ATTACHMENT 4-120

High Speed Rail Statewide Rail Modernization Plan / Proposed Project Phasing

Exhibit C-1

ATTACHMENT 4-121
Exhibit D-1

ATTACHMENT 4-122
Exhibit D-2

ATTACHMENT 4-123

        


        
 
  


  

      


      






  

   

    
!  " #

     

     $  "

 
 %
    

! " &  $
' ' ( ) 


%


 

# 


  






    
 
   )
'
 
 *      

   +  


   
% %
     

 (          




    , ( -  .   

   /    #    
0 1
2 0 1
   

 


%


    # 


  



%
     




      






   ' 

 



 
%





     3   4

 * 

  

  

  






%
  

  +    
 
 




      

   +  

  



    + 

      


    +   * +  



  

    


     

       




  /    

  





   /    #    
0 1
2 0 1


 



+   
% %
    
     

 



    

   

 %
#    
0 1
2 0 1
     $  



     

 
 


%


            

  

  
  


 


 
  /    
 

+  +       *   

 

   

 



    

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

3    +

 


%
   

 

 


 





      

   

   

   

 

  

 



 



)
   /     

%
  

 

 

     
'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
     

  5 

      

  


 


 

 

%
     4    

        



     3   4

 *

         

     

    

   





      
 

    

      +


4   

  

     

'

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

     

    


 


    

     

 
     

  

   



 



  

       
%
  

      

  


 


 

 

%
    

  

     

 
   

  



%
  

'



   

         
 





             

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
    
  

   


 


  

 


 






   

 3   
 6




           

 


 +

 + 



 

%
   +      

            7 

  



 






   


 3   4

 * 3     

  



   

3     

  

  -         

8  

    



              

  



   




%
4    
9  2

       * :
1 "  

%
  

  

1    



  "

  

  



 +    +  3   4

 *

       *



         




    

   

     

   



 





    
%



 

    +

   
%

  


4  

  

  

  -         

 



     +  

 

    ' 



  

   
1 %

   
%
  

'



     5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
  

   


     



  

    
%

   
%
  

  


1    



  "         4   +   

    +    ;



  -         

'



 
%

   
%
  

      




    

 


 






   

 3   
 6




     ,

 

4    . 

  +


 






     

 



0 %

        

   7   

   +      
 
1    



  "   




 


 
 



          



 


%
   

  7 

  


   


   +




    



 
%

   
%
  

 

  7 

  

Exhibit E-1

ATTACHMENT 4-124
9  2



      +    4      

   +  

  

  


   +

  

  
% %
 

  

     +



%

   
%
  

'


  /   
0 1
2 0 1

           




  /   

+

   

 

  


 

%
  
  

     

    

   

  




 

1 

        4  





  

  



   
   


' 



  

     

     ,

' .
 
 

 
   4      





 
        




1 4  * 




 
4    

     

 

   


   +



 /

     


8   

   3   


 
6        

 

'



  
 



            
    

    






  



   # 
%
 



  



     # 


  

 


  

    

      

4      




  

   

  


   +

   



 
% 


 
 
 
 





 
 7     





        



  


'



     3   4

 *   5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1  
   






 4       

4      




  

        

         

 + 







    

 
 




%





     





     

' 

   

 

    

   
'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1  
  ( -   

   4 


 


 



      4    

  

 



 +    + 
3   4

 *

       *



   

;    5  

 
 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
      

  

     

   



 



  

      




 


 



    +    
 
   

 /     

         

     



 
      





 



  


  /     

 
      


     
  





     
 
    

   
 



  

   
%
  

;    5  

 
 
 

  

       

   +  

  



     

   
 
   



%



  

 


  


        
 
  

     

 

   

    
%



 



  
 

%
  


   

  

 

%



 

4       
 



    







    

 
  /   

'



 

 


  



 4 
      
  

  

     
    5  



1 

        


0 1
2 0 1

          


     
  /     



 *  
   



 

     







    

 

8  

   

 



         

   

   


   
      





 



 
  

  



  4                

   

   
 
 


 


 



    

+              

 /     


  



   



  

      

 
% 
7 
%
 <     


      





   
+  





        
 
% %
   

        

   

     

 

  



  



 +    + 



     



       


    4 
        

  
  
%

    

  

  

    *




4   +    


 


 



      

 + 



    
1    



  "

  



 +    +  

  






  
1    



  "

#

 
9 
'



     3   4

 *

      


 %
  
%
     

 =    

  


 

          



 

 

 



 +    +  3   4

 *

       *



   




 

       

       



 

             

%
   

  


      


   
                

%
     

 

 /

      





      




 4  
 



               

%
  
  /   

'



     5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
       

 

   


 
     

 
%



 

  



4               


   

 

     


 


 



    

 

   


 


 4       



     

+  



 3   4

 *

      



  



   >

=    


 



(  



 
6  4 

   
'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
         

 


  



     3   4

 * 
 
       7
       ?



 @
 
?
%
   
% @
  



    4 

    
%



 

;    5  

 
 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
      
 %
  
  

   



 



  

   

      



 
%



 


  

     

     

 

     

  



 
 

 

     

   


4  

  





  




 *



 

 

      
% %
   

 4 

  



,

 
 

   
       

    

   

.

 

 


  ?



 @
  ?
%
   
% @

%



 


          
%
  


   
Exhibit E-2

ATTACHMENT 4-125
%



  

         7


     





 

     

  



 

   

   


    4 
     

 



 /     


     

   

 

     

 


       

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

        
%
 

 
0      
%
  

 A 

   
1  

'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
          




 4         
%



 

    +

   
%
   


4  

  

  

  -           

  

        




%
4    
9  2

       * :
1 "

 

%
  

'



  
  5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
   

          




     

 
%



 


         
%
  


   



     

 

   



  3  4


  
  
'





    

 % 0 1
2 0 1
    
%



  




     

 3  4


  
      


 


  
        








    

 



 
%
  



 
  



 
  

 +      

   

   

 %
0 1
2 0 1
  

  





      
%
  





 



     






  







    

 



 
%


          
  



 
  

 



     3   4

 *   5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

   


 + 







    

 



 
%
+    4             3  4


  
      

  

4                4   +     
  



   

      
% 
 


  

   





 

   

  

   


  




 


 





    

 



 
%

'
 
 *   



    
      




     3   4

 * 

 

           
% %
     

 (       
  




       




      






   ' 

     /   

;     *    +

    +   *  
+  




 

       



  /   

1    
 
 

     

  5  

   

    5         
% 
      



   >


%



  

 


  

   

   





 




 


              

 
%


 &  &

 B &

"  C !    


% 
 

  *  

*  D  

4   4

 *






        
 
   E  

* 

      

     ' 



  

   

     3   4

 *


% %
    

    

%
  




 
%
  
Exhibit E-3

ATTACHMENT 4-126

March 26, 2010

Mr. Dan Tempelis
Hatch Mott MacDonald
16027 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 501
Los Angeles, CA 91436

RE: COMMENTS ON CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT – LA UNION STATION TO PALMDALE

Dear Mr. Tempelis:

Thank you for your presentation to the Burbank City Council on February 2, 2010 where you provided an update on design activities related to the California High Speed Rail Project. As you know the City Council further discussed this issue at their March 2, 2010 meeting and directed city staff to provide you with comments on some of your conceptual design work. It is hoped that these comments can be incorporated into the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report that you will present to the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors.

The City of Burbank strongly believes that the Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Los Angeles to Palmdale segment must include analysis of a station location near the Bob Hope Airport, such as was originally envisioned in the 2005 Program EIR/EIS. While we understand the reason for locating a station south of the Burbank Junction is to capture local Metrolink riders from both the Valley and Coast lines, the City believes there is a compelling advantage in locating a station close to the Bob Hope Airport to capture plane-to-rail connections. Further, an airport station alternative may have superior land use and traffic circulation benefits over the other two station locations being considered by the Authority. An airport station alternative also presents less constrained opportunity to redevelop underutilized land adjacent to the Bob Hope Airport into transit-oriented development to serve the future station. We believe that a full analysis of an airport station as one of the station alternatives is necessary for the Authority and local stakeholders to make an informed decision about the optimal location for this large transportation facility.

Conversely, while a southern high speed rail station north of Alameda Avenue and closer to Downtown Burbank could have merit for consideration as a potential station option, locating a southern station south of Alameda Avenue is considered unacceptable to the City. This location will likely have significant traffic impacts to local streets while having no land use benefits to Burbank. The City believes that the Authority should not include a southern station location south of Alameda Avenue in the EIR / EIS.

The City is very concerned that the Authority is considering relocating the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station outside of the Downtown area should a high speed rail station be constructed.

Exhibit F-1

ATTACHMENT 4-127
The Downtown Burbank Station consolidates a significant number of important local bus routes in addition to serving some of the highest regional rail ridership in Los Angeles County. The City relies upon this transit service to help serve the transportation needs of its Downtown area, and has invested significant land use and transportation resources in the area with the assumption that frequent transit service will continue to be available. Relocating the City’s major transit center outside of Downtown Burbank would have significant effects on its local transportation network. We believe that preserving the location of the City’s Metrolink station is critical to successfully implementing high speed rail in this area. We are strongly opposed to any plan for high speed rail that moves the location of the City’s current Downtown Metrolink station.

In light of the importance of Burbank’s Downtown Metrolink Station, constructing a high speed rail station in the same location could meet the goal of co-locating high speed rail with local Metrolink service, while allowing the City to preserve its existing Downtown transit service.

The Authority has previously indicated that a station located on a curved alignment (as is present in Downtown Burbank) is not possible. The City would like clarification on the technical or operational reasons why this is the case. It may be that curved stations are possible but bring with them right of way or train speed limitations. The City is interested in knowing what the tradeoffs are in constructing a high speed rail station on a curve. The City is interested in further pursuing the option of locating a Downtown station alternative at the existing Metrolink station location.

The City of Burbank is currently in the design phase of its portion of a regionally-significant bike path project that would connect the Sylmar neighborhood of Los Angeles with Downtown Burbank. Metro has identified this corridor as a regionally significant bicycle facility in its Countywide Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan, and has committed over $6 million of the total $8.3 million project for the Burbank segment of this project. In addition, the City of Los Angeles has already constructed portions of this facility, and is preparing to extend the bike path to the Burbank city limits. The path is planned to be routed in a portion of the existing Metrolink right of way in both cities, and as such would be in conflict with the high speed rail project. The EIR / EIS should identify how this important bike path will be relocated or otherwise accommodated by the proposed project.

Regardless of where a high speed rail station is built, the City of Burbank believes that an evaluation of how to connect high speed rail to the Bob Hope Airport should be included as a component of the project. Success of high speed rail will partially depend upon how it integrates with other transportation modes including air travel. Connecting a future high speed rail station to Bob Hope Airport will lessen local vehicle trips on Burbank streets and improve the ability for regional passengers to transfer between air and rail. Further, state transportation law (Government Code Section 14036.7) prioritizes policies that enhance connections between intercity rail service and commercial air service; this policy should be extended to the development of high speed rail. The City and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority are currently collaborating on ways to connect a planned regional transit facility on the Ventura rail line to a future high speed rail station on the Valley line to facilitate transfers between local rail, high speed rail, and air passengers. The importance of connecting high speed rail to airports provides additional justification for studying an airport station alternative in the EIR/EIS.

Exhibit F-2

ATTACHMENT 4-128

The City of Burbank is concerned by the possible noise and vibration impacts of the proposed high speed train on adjacent land uses. We expect that the EIR/EIS will fully analyze noise and vibration issues and identify mitigations to address any identified impacts. The Authority should consider reduced train speeds as a method for reducing any potential impacts.

Thank you again for allowing the City to comment on plans to construct high speed rail through the City of Burbank. If you have any questions about our initial comments, please feel free to contact me at 818.238.5269 or via email at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

David Kriske
Principal Planner, City of Burbank Community Development Department

cc: Alexander Clifford, Metro Executive Officer, High Speed Rail Exhibit F-3

ATTACHMENT 4-129
Exhibit G-1

ATTACHMENT 4-130
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

FRA is the federal lead agency for the National Envi ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will publish a NOI in the Federal Register, announcing the FRA’s amendment of their 2007 NOI and their intention to initiate the federal environmental review process for the Palmdale to Burbank Section of the Authority's proposed HSR System.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, FRA and the Authority started a tiered environmental review process for the Statewide HSR System. In 2005, the Authority certif ied a Program EIR/EIS for the statewide California HSR System (Refer to Exhibit 2) (Statewide Program EIR/EIS) as the first-phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Statewide Program EIR/EIS analyzed an HSR System for intercity travel in California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.

The approved HSR System would be approximately 800-miles long, with electric propulsion and steel- wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of operating speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on a dedicated system of fully grade-separated, access-controlled steel tracks with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, communication, and automated train control systems.

In approving the HSR System at the Program level, the Authority and FRA also selected corridors/general alignments and station location options throughout most of the System, including a corridor between Palmdale and Los Angeles. Based on the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the agencies selected the Soledad Canyon Corridor and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)/Metrolink right-of-way for the HSR routes from Palmdale to Los Angeles with station location options in the City of Palmdale, the San Fernando Valley, and the vicinity of Los Angeles Union Station.

Tiering from the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Auth ority issued an NOP for the HSR Palmdale to Los Angeles Section project-level EIR on March 12, 2007 (SCH No. 2007031066). The NOI to prepare a project-level EIS for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Sect ion was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2007.

Since the 2007 NOP, several alternatives analyses have been conducted to refine project-level alternatives. A Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (J uly 2010) addressed alignment alternatives and station options throughout the Palmdale to Los Angeles Se ction. Three Supplemental Alternatives Analyses (“SAA”) have also been prepar ed. The first SAA (March 2011) addressed supplemental alignment alternatives and station options for the Los Angeles to Sylmar subsection. The second SAA (April 2012) addressed supplemental alignment alternatives for the Sylmar to Palmdale subsection and redefined the subsection into two new subsections: the Santa Clar ita subsection, extending from Sylmar to two miles east of Lang Station Road, and the Palmdale subsection, extending from two miles east of Lang Station Road to Palmdale.

The third SAA (May 2014) discusses the concept of evaluating Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles as two sections in light of, among other factors, the IOS concept (with its interim terminus in the San Fernando Valley/Burbank) introduced in the 2012 and 2014 Business Plans. The May 2014 SAA refined the alignment alternatives and station options, including identifying the Palmdale Transportation Center Station Option at the northern end and the Bu rbank Airport Station as the southern limit of this Palmdale to Burbank Section.

The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and all SAAs included public outreach activities, including community meetings, stakeholder meetings, and public official outreach. The Preliminary Alternatives Exhibit G-2

ATTACHMENT 4-131
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Analysis and SAA documents include a description of pu blic outreach activities conducted. All alternatives analyses documents have been available for public review and comment as part of the alternatives analysis process, like all alternative analyses developed in this geographic area. (See http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/Project_Sections/palmdale_losangeles.ht ml for copies of these AA documents). The work and information contained in the Palmdale-to-Burbank portions of those alternatives analyses documents, will inform the Authority in developing (and inform the public in commenting on) the Palmdale to Burbank EIR/EIS and its development.

As discussed further in the May 2014 SAA, it would be beneficial to address the environmental effects of the HSR System from Palmdale to Burbank in one EIR/EIS and from Burbank to Los Angeles in a separate EIR/EIS. This would provide for more effective planni ng and public outreach in these highly populated areas. Each of these sections has logical termini and independent utility, as discussed further below.

These two sections are of sufficient length to addr ess environmental matters on a broad scope. They have logical termini, which means that their end poin ts are rational for transportation improvements and for the review of environmental impacts. Additionally , each section has independent utility, which means that the HSR System can function properly within each section, independent of additional improvements elsewhere. The assessment of HSR alternatives in th e Palmdale to Burbank Section will assure adequate opportunity for the consideration of alternatives for this section and adjacent sections of the HSR system.

The preparation of the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will involve the development of preliminary engineering designs and the assessment of potent ial environmental effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the HSR System in this section.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Palmdale to Burbank HSR EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Public scoping meetings are scheduled from August 5, 2014 to August 19, 2014 as noted below. All comments received during the scoping period will receive equal consideration as the comm ents received during the March to April 2007 scoping period for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Section EIR/EIS.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope should be sent to Mark A. McLoughlin, Director of Environmental Services, Attention: Palmdale to Bu rbank Section EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 700 North Alameda Street, Room 3-532, Lo s Angeles, CA 90012, or via email with subject line "Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS" to: palmda [email protected]. Comments may also be provided orally or in writing at scoping meetings scheduled at the following locations:
 SANTA CLARITA: Tuesday, August 5, William S. Hart Regional Park, 24151 Newhall Avenue, Newhall, CA 91321
 BURBANK: Wednesday, August 6, Buena Vista Branch Library, 300 N. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91505
 PALMDALE: Thursday, August 7, Chimbole Cultural Center, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale CA, 93550
 ACTON/AGUA DULCE: Monday, August 11, Acton-Agua Dulce Library, 33792 Crown Valley Road, Acton, CA 93510
 SYLMAR: Tuesday, August 12, Sylmar Public Library, 14561 Polk Street, Sylmar, CA 91342 Exhibit G-3

ATTACHMENT 4-132
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

 LAKE VIEW TERRACE: Thursday, August 14, Lake View Terrace Recreation Center, 11075 Foothill Boulevard, Lake View Terrace, CA 91342
 DOWNTOWN LA: Tuesday, August 19, Los Angeles Union Station Fred Harvey Room, 800 N.

Alameda Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
All scoping meetings will be held from 5:30pm to 7:30pm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark A. McLoughlin at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and development of a propos ed statewide HSR network that is fully coordinated with other public transportati on services. As required by state law, the Authority adopted a Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewe d the economic feasibility of an 800-mile-long HSR System capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on a dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of- the-art track. The Authority released updated Business Plans in November 2008, December 2009 (addendum in April 2010), April 2012, and April 2014. These Business Plans, which are subject to a separate public review process, are an important part of the statewide planning process for HSR.

In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed the Statewid e Program EIR/EIS as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Authority certified the Statewide Program EIR under CEQA and approved the proposed HSR System, and FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA for the Statewide Program EIS. This Statewide Program EIR/EIS esta blished the purpose and need for the HSR System, analyzed an HSR System, and compared it with a No Project/No Action Alternative, and with a Modal Alternative (i.e., expansion of freeways and airports ). In approving the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the HSR Alternative, se lected general corridors/alignments and general station locations for further study, incorporated miti gation strategies and design practices, and specified further measures to guide the development of the HSR System during the site-specific project environmental review to avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts.

The HSR Alternative as described in the Statewid e Program EIR/EIS provides a broad planning and conceptual outline of the proposed train system. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will allow for the consideration of alignment alternatives within this section at a greater level of detail. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will tier from the Statewide Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15152, 15168). The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will build upon all previous work prepared for, and incorporated in, the Statewide Pr ogram EIR/EIS, including the state planning process incorporated into the Authority’s Business Plans. In addition, the selection of alternatives to be included in the Palmdale to Burbank EIR/EIS will consider comments that were received from the agencies and the public during the public outreach process on the alternatives analyses conducted since the 2007 Palmdale to Los Angeles NOP.

The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will be carri ed out in accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will follow the Integration Process for the California High-Speed Train Program as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding among FRA, the Authority, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will also address, as necessary, other applicable statutes, regulations, and executive orders, includin g (but not limited to) the Clean Water Act, Section Exhibit G-4

ATTACHMENT 4-133
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.

The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental impacts, will identify specific mitigation measures to address those impacts, and will incorporate design features to avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of the proposed project elements will be described as a basis for determining whether the impacts are potentially significant and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible alignmen t alternatives along the corridor selected in the Programmatic EIR/EIS, as well as addressing alternatives that may meet project objectives while potentially reducing environmental effe cts as identified during the alternatives analysis process and the scoping process. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will also identify and evaluate station options and evaluate the potential impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the HSR System in this section. Information and documents regarding this HSR environmental review process will be made available through the Authority's internet site: www.hsr.ca.gov.

Project Description/Alternatives
The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will consider a No Project Alternative and HSR Alternatives for the Palmdale to Burbank Section.

No Project Alternative: The No Project Alternative (No Action or No Build) represents the conditions in the Palmdale to Burbank Section as they exist in 2014, and as they would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable projects through 2040, taking into account the following sources of information: the State Transportation Improvement Program, Regional Tran sportation Plans for all modes of travel, airport plans, intercity passenger rail plans, and city and county plans.

HSR Alternatives: HSR Alternatives to be evaluated as part of the proposed project from Palmdale to Burbank involve various potential horizontal and ve rtical alignments between Palmdale and Burbank within the two horizontal corridors identified in Exhibi t 1, and various potential station configurations at the Palmdale Transportation Center and the Burbank Ai rport section terminus points. The purpose of this NOP is to solicit input about those potential alignments and configurations and their potential impacts, so as to inform the preparation of the Palmdale to Burbank EIR/EIS.

The Authority proposes to construct, operate, and ma intain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HSR System, approximately 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds up to 220 mph on dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train control systems.

Work on this System is underway in the Central Valley. This proposed project would continue this effort between Palmdale and Burbank.

The HSR Corridor that was selected by the Authorit y and FRA in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS follows Soledad Canyon from the City of Palmdale to the community of Sylmar in the City of Los Angeles and then follows the Metro/Metrolink Railroad line to Bu rbank Airport and Los Angeles Union Station. The corridor is relatively wide in the area that includ es both the State Route 14 and Union Pacific Railroad alignments between the Antelope Valley and Santa Clar ita. In addition, in response to stakeholder and public feedback, the Palmdale to Burbank Section EI R/EIS will address potential alignment alternatives that provide a more direct connection between the Palmdale station and the Burbank Airport station.

Exhibit G-5

ATTACHMENT 4-134
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Specific station configuration options also will be evaluated in the the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS, so as to support station area developmen t policies to encourage transit-friendly development near and around HSR stations. The potential to prom ote multi-modal uses, higher density, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development around the st ations will guide the selection of the station alternatives. In addition, station option selection will evaluate sites with potential to function as a terminal station in the IOS. Potential sites for a terminal stor age and maintenance facility will also be evaluated in the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS.

Project Location
See attached map (Exhibit 1).

Probable Effects
The purpose of the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/ EIS process is to explore in a public setting the effects of the proposed project on the physical, hu man, and natural environme nt. Impact areas to be addressed as potentially containing probable effects in clude transportation impacts; safety and security; EMI/EMF; land use and zoning; cumulative impacts; agri cultural land impacts; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on historical and archaeologic al resources and parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; natural resource impacts including air quality, biological resources and wetlands, hydrology and water resources, noise, vibration, and energy. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate all adverse impacts w ill be identified and evaluated. A copy of the Initial Study is available for review at the following link:
http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/project_sections/palmdale_burbank.html.

Scoping and Comments
Public scoping meetings are an important component of the scoping process for the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS. The Authority encourages broad pa rticipation in the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS process and review of the resulting environme ntal documents. The Authority invites comments and suggestions from all interested agencies and the public at large to ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives are addressed and that all significant issues are identified. Comments are also sought regarding alte rnatives addressed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and the SAAs, as noted above. Public agenci es with jurisdiction are requested to advise the Authority and FRA of the applicable permit and envir onmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public scoping meetings have been scheduled as an important component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal environmental review.

The scoping meetings described in this Notice will be advertised locally and included in additional public notification.

Exhibit G-6

ATTACHMENT 4-135
Exhibit G-7

ATTACHMENT 4-136
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Exhibit 1
Palmdale to Burbank Section
Exhibit G-8

ATTACHMENT 4-137
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Exhibit 2
Proposed California HSR Statewide System
Exhibit G-9

ATTACHMENT 4-138
California High Speed Rail Project – Matrix of Benefits, Concerns, and Questions City of Burbank Transportation Commission – AUGUST 2014

Project Benefit to Burbank Issue of Concern to Burbank Questions to High Speed Rail Authority Economic development opportunities in the Airport
Area, incentive for employers to relocate to
Burbank to be near the station.

Regional transit/transportation investments in
Burbank caused by high speed rail.

Transfer of polluting / noisy air travel trips to clean high speed rail trips (though air trips may just shift
from short-hop to intermediate-hop trips with no
reductions).

Improved Metrolink service (especially if project is
built with an interim terminus in Burbank).

Opportunity for transit occupancy tax, parking tax,
and concessions from the station. Opportunity for
increased property tax due to rising land values
near the station.

Traffic Impacts of station, impacts of interim
terminus configuration versus completed project.

Aesthetic Impacts of viaducts and bridges. City
should advocate reducing or eliminating above-
grade structures to minimize impacts and noise.

Noise Impacts caused by the noise created by the
high speeds of the trains.

Construction disruption to adjoin land uses and
transportation facilities.

Authority should not depend on local station
revenue to finance the construction or operation of
the system. This revenue should flow to local
agencies to offset impacts caused by the station.

Seismic issues, especially related to long tunnel and
viaduct sections proposed, and particularly with
regard to the direct Angeles Nat. Forest alignment.

Concern over lack of local/regional transit provided
by Metro and others to divert majority of HSR trips
away from autos and into transit. City should
advocate for extensive local/regional transit
connectivity to HSR, especially if Burbank is an
interim terminus.

Ensure that the station has maximum connectivity
to transit, bike, pedestrian, and other modes, and
integrates with surrounding land uses.

Is it possible to implement a blended system
between Burbank and LAUS to avoid the interim
station, or to tow trains between Burbank and
LAUS?

What are the ridership forecasts for the interim
terminus versus final build out? Are there ridership
assumptions for different phases of project
construction?

What are the right-of-way needs for the HSR tracks
and station bypass tracks, especially near the
station? Will right of way be acquired along SF
Blvd? What about adjacent land uses?

What are the different right of way impacts for
alternative alignments (e.g. direct Palmdale to
Burbank route) or alternate station locations?

What additional revenue sources is the Authority
planning on finding to build to Burbank (e.g. public
private partnerships)?

Exhibit H-1

ATTACHMENT 4-139
ATTACHMENT 4-140
ATTACHMENT 4-141
ATTACHMENT 4-142

DATE: April 12, 2016

TO: Ron Davis, Interim City Manager

FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director By: David L. Kriske, Assistant C ommunity Development Director

SUBJECT: 2016 High Speed Rail Business Plan Comment Letter

RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to submit a comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) (Exhibit A) regarding the Authority’s draft 2016 Business Plan.

BACKGROUND
The Authority released a draft of their 2016 Business Plan on F ebruary 18, 2016 for public comment (Exhibit B) 1. State law requires the Authority to update a business plan e very two years that outlines how it proposes to implement High Speed Rai l service in California that incorporates the funding availab ility for the project and align s with the High Speed Rail Proposition 1A ballot initiative that was approved by voters in 2008. With the release of the draft Business Plan, the Authority also opened a 60 day public comment period to receive input. The public comment period closes April 18, 2016.

DISCUSSION
The 2016 Business Plan offers a plan for constructing High Spee d Rail that differs from the previous plan in several ways. Most importantly, the Authority has changed the phasing of the project so that the initial operating segment would be cons tructed to the north, from Bakersfield to San Jose (“Central Valley to Silicon Valley”). Previously, the Authority had proposed constructing the initia l segment to Southern Californi a from Merced to Burbank.

This change is proposed so that a portion of the system can beg i n o p e r a t i n g a s s o o n a s possible in order to bring benefits to the state earlier and to attract private sector participation to help build later segments. It also allows the state to begin operating a useful transportation connection sooner using funding that has already been committed to the project. It saves the more complicated and technical c onstruction of the system south from Bakersfield until later when additional funding is identif ied. The initial operating segment would begin operations in 2025. A map of the new proposed phasing is attached as Exhibit C.

In exchange for shifting early inv estment away from the Burbank section and focusing on the northern part of the project, the Authority is proposing to inv est $4 billion in Southern California to improve the Bur bank-to-Anaheim corridor. These i nvestments would be made

1 The Authority’s Draft Business Plan can also be found online a t the Authority’s website located at http://hsr.ca.gov/about/business_plans/draft_2016_Business_Plan.html. Members of the public who wish to comment may do so at the above website by April 18, 2016.

ATTACHMENT 4-143
2 concurrent with construction of t he initial operating section t o make near-term investments to conventional rail in Southern California that would later be us ed to bring the High Speed Rail system to Los Angeles. Also, the Authority remains committed t o continuing with required environmental studies and public out reach in California to comp lete environmental clearance for the project sections from Bakersfield to Anaheim including the two project sections in Burbank. The Authority expects to finalize environmental work in the Burbank area by 2017.

The Business Plan itself does not affect the environmental revi ew the Authority is required to conduct under state and federal law.

In response to the 2016 Business Plan, staff has prepared a com ment letter addressing issues about the plan that affect Burbank. This letter reflects input that the Transportation Commission gave to staff about the proposed Business Plan that was discussed at their meeting on March 21, 2016. Their comments are incorporated int o staff’s letter. Staff requests that City Council consider the attached letter, provide any further input on the City’s comments, and direct staff to submit the comment letter by the close of the Authority’s comment period on April 18, 2016.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City in sending comments on th e 2016 Business Plan. The comment letter requests assurances that existing and proposed Authority funding sources that the City has planned on using to conduct planning studies and support for environmental work continue to be offered to the City in the new Business Plan.

CONCLUSION
The Authority’s draft 2016 Business Plan proposes a shift in the phasing of the High Speed Rail Project that affect when and how the project would be cons tructed through Burbank.

The plan proposes to shift early construction of the system to the north – away from Burbank – but still proposes early inves tment that could improve region al commuter rail service in Burbank in the meantime. The pr oposed comment letter would giv e the City an opportunity to provide input on this important planning and funding document.

EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Proposed Comment Letter
Exhibit B: High Speed Rail Auth ority 2016 Draft Business Plan Exhibit C: New High Speed Ra il Project Phasing Map
ATTACHMENT 4-144
Attachment 5
Detailed Project Alignment in Burbank

ATTACHMENT 4-145
Detail of New Project Tunnel Near Hollywood Burbank Airport

ATTACHMENT 4-146
Attachment 6
Proposed Burbank Airport High Speed Rail Station Layout

ATTACHMENT 4-147
ATTACHMENT 4-148
ATTACHMENT 4-149
ATTACHMENT 4-150
ATTACHMENT 4-151
ATTACHMENT 4-152
ATTACHMENT 4-153
ATTACHMENT 4-154

DATE: August 26, 2014

TO: Mark Scott, City Manager

FROM: Joy R. Forbes, Community Development Director
Via Carol D. Barrett, Assist ant Community Development Director By David L. Kriske, Deputy City Planner

SUBJECT: City of Burbank Comments on Notice of Preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement fo r the California High Speed Rail System – Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles Segments

RECOMMENDATION

Direct staff to submit a comment letter (Exhibit A) to the Cali fornia High Speed Rail Authority in response to the updat ed 2014 Notice of Preparation of a Project Environmental Impact Report / En vironmental Impact Statement fo r the Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles project segments.

BACKGROUND

The California High Speed Rail project is a proposed high speed train system that would connect the major metropolitan cent ers of California. One branch of the proposed project would extend south from Sacramento and San Francisco through the Central Valley to Los Angeles, while a second branch would extend north ward from San Diego to Los Angeles via the Inland Empire. A third branch would connect Anaheim and Orange County to Los Angeles. All three branches would meet at Los Angeles Union Station. The purpose of this proj ect is to provide an alternat ive intercity transportation system between the major cities i n California. A number of intermediate stops are planned along this rail system including a proposed stop in the City of Burbank near the Bob Hope Airport. Within the city the project is planned to ru n generally along the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line along San Fernando Boulevard, Victory Place, and through Downtown Burbank. A map of the proposed alignment betw een Palmdale and Los Angeles, including Burbank, is attached as Exhibit B.

The High Speed Rail project would be constructed as a conventio nal, steel-wheel-on- steel-track, electrically-powered “bullet-train” system operati ng at speeds of up to 220 miles per hour. As proposed, t he system would address projecte d increases in statewide, intercity travel by augmenting both commercial air c arrier service and the ATTACHMENT 4-155
2 state highway network. If im plemented, the system would provid e intercity travel times that would be competitive with ai r travel, with a trip from Dow ntown Los Angeles to Downtown San Francisco taking two hours 40 minutes and priced similar to or less than a commercial airline ticket. T he project is being implemented by the California High Speed Rail Authority, an agency of the State of California.

The project cost, currently est imated at $68 billion, is not fu lly funded. In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion state bond for the project, and this was combined with about $3.3 billion in federal funding. Additional funding is expected to come from annual greenhouse gas cap-and-trade fundi ng, additional federal funds, and funding from private investment. A $6 billio n project for an initial projec t segment in the Central Valley is currently under construction, and the Authority recently announced plans to prioritize the next segment from Bakersfield to Burbank, which would close a major passenger rail gap in California. The Authority intends to ope n an “initial operating segment” to provide revenue serv ice between Burbank and Merced and connect this initial segment with regular commuter rail service on either en d. Later project phases would build out the remainder of the network to create a full H igh Speed Rail link from Los Angeles Union Station to Embar cadero Center in San Francisc o. The map on Exhibit C illustrates the proposed phasing for the project.

The Authority has already conduc ted extensive environmental analysis and project alignment studies in development o f the project, and will be pr eparing additional analysis as the project progresse s. This includes completion o f a statewide Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (E IR/EIS) in 2005, and three alignment studies for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Segment that would affect Burbank. The City of Burbank pro vided input during various stages of the project’s environmental review, including comments on the Program EIR/EIS in 2005 (Exhibit D), comments on the Notice of Preparat ion (NOP) of the Project EIR/EIS for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Segment in 2007 (Exhibit E), and comments to the High Speed Rail Authority in 2010 during development of the first Alternatives Analysis Report on alignments and station alternativ es (Exhibit F). The Authority also hosted community meetings in 2010 and 2014, and made presentations to the City C ouncil on several occasions during development of alignment alternatives.

During these project development activities, the City Council h as not taken a formal position on the project. However, in 2010 the Council directed staff to request that the Authority include a station alternative adjacent to the Bob Hop e Airport in the Golden State area in addition to several station locations located near Downtown Burbank. The Council at the time
expressed concerns that a Downtown Station would have significant project impacts, and felt that loc ating a station closer to the Airport could have superior land use, traffic, and transit and air travel connectivity bene fits. This request eventually led the Authority to drop the Downtown location alternative and study the current station location near Bob Hope Airport.

ATTACHMENT 4-156
3 DISCUSSION

Given the extensive study of project alignments between Palmdale and Los Angeles, and the recent announcement by the Authority to focus the next stage of project development on the passenger rail gap between Bakersfield and L os Angeles, the Authority recently released a se cond, revised NOP for project s egment in Burbank (Exhibit G) to reflect the signi ficant changes in the project s ince the original NOP in 2007. In addition, the Authority intends to break up analysis of the Palmdale to Los Angeles segment into two separate projects – a Palmdale to Burb ank Segment and Burbank to Los Angeles Segment – representing new focus on buil ding the system initially to Bob Hope Airport. W ith these new project alignmen t changes, restarting of public meetings and a new NOP, a resolution of several project lawsuits in favor of the project, and the recent announcement that annual cap-and-trade funds will be added to the budget, the Council may wish to begin more earnest discussions with the Authority and with the Burbank community on how to shape a significant in frastructure project that is closer to becoming reality than it has been before.

The first step in this renewed discussion would be to provide t he Authority with a new comment letter (Exhibit A) on the revised NOP for the (now) two project segments in Burbank. The purpose of a NOP is for the lead agency of a proj ect to describe the analysis it intends to conduct for a project’s EIR/EIS and soli cit input from affected cities, agencies, and community members to provide input on the subjects to be studied in the EIR/EIS. Comments receiv ed during this period help the lead agency to define the scope and subject matter of the EIR. After comments are received, the lead agency begins preparation of the EIR/EI S, which will lead to further o pportunities to comment once this analysis is complete. The draft comment letter inclu ded with this report outlines several areas of concer n identified by staff and expre ssed by the Council, the Council’s appointed subcommittee, and members of the community. In addition, Council recently directed staff to work with the Transportation Commission to review the High Speed Rail project and provi de their input. This input, r epresented as a matrix of project issues, is attached as Exhibit H.

There are several areas of concern that staff believes should b e thoroughly analyzed in the EIR/EIS. These include traffi c impacts of the proposed station, a more specific site analysis of the station and how it relates to the street networ k, transit, and the airport, land use compatibility with existing and proposed development, the extent of right-of- way acquisitions required for the project, noise and vibration impacts, aesthetic effects on surrounding land uses, and construction impacts. Further, careful analysis should be included that characterizes the impacts of Burbank operating as an interim terminus for the entire statewide system for t he period of time before the s ystem is ultimately connected to Los Angeles. The Transportation Commission has al so recommended that the City request the Authorit y to identify alternatives to making Burbank the interim terminus. Alternatives could include a “blended system” of oper ation where trains between Burbank and Los Angeles operate on common tracks tempor arily until final
buildout of the network is achieved. Staff requests the City C ouncil review the attached ATTACHMENT 4-157
4 comment letter and provide additional feedback as necessary. C omments on the NOP must be submitted by August 31, 2014.

In addition to authorizing submittal of a NOP comment letter, staff would like to develop a framework for seeking further input from the Council, the Tra nsportation Commission, and the community on various deta ils of the High Speed Rail pro ject and its effects on Burbank. Further discussions with the Authority on issues such as the alignment cross section and its impact on privat e property, elevated versus at- grade or trenched track configurations, the specific loc ation of the station, and inter faces with the local and regional transportation network should all take place to help p repare the Council for ultimately taking a position on the project once the draft EIR/ EIS is prepared. Staff will be returning to the City Council in the fall with recommendatio ns for beginning more detailed discussions.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no immediate fiscal impact to the City in submitting p ublic comments to the Authority. Once substantial project development is underway fo r two segments in Burbank, additional costs for staff and consultant resources could be needed to respond to the High Speed Rail Authority as they begin more detailed pl anning for the proposed station and project alignment. Currently, existing budgeted st aff resources are being utilized to follow project development and respond as required.

CONCLUSION

The California High Speed Rail project is an extensive public infrastructure improvement that, if built, will have tremendous effects on statewide trave l as well as localities in which the system will pass through. Project development has been proceeding for many years, but recent decisions by the Authority to focus on the Palmdale to Burbank project segment and the state alloca tion of annual cap-and-trade fundin g to High Speed Rail makes completion of the project into Burbank more likely. While there are many uncertainties that remain with High Speed Rail, the large scope of the project and its potential impact to Burbank makes early involvement in the next phases of analysis critical to ensuring the City’s in terests are preserved as this project develops.

Submitting comments in response to the Authority’s NOP is the first step in this effort.

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: Comment Letter to Authority
Exhibit B: High Speed Rail Proposed Alignment – Palmdale to Los Angeles and Burbank Station Location
Exhibit C: High Speed Rail Statewide Rail Modernization Plan / Proposed Project Phasing
Exhibit D: 2004 Burbank Comments on the Statewide Program EIR/EIS Exhibit E: Burbank Comments on the 2007 NOP for the Palmdale to L o s A n g e l e s Segment
ATTACHMENT 4-158
5 Exhibit F: 2010 Burbank Comments on the First Alternatives Anal ysis Report for Palmdale to Los Angeles
Exhibit G: High Speed Rail Authority Revised NOP – Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles
Exhibit H: Transportation Commission Matrix of Benefits, Concer ns, and Questions for the High Speed Rail Project

ATTACHMENT 4-159

High Speed Rail Proposed Alignment – Palmdale to Los Angeles

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014 ATTACHMENT 4-160

High Speed Rail Proposed Burbank Station Location

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014

ATTACHMENT 4-161

High Speed Rail Statewide Rail Modernization Plan / Proposed Project Phasing

ATTACHMENT 4-162
Exhibit A-1

ATTACHMENT 4-163
Exhibit A-2

ATTACHMENT 4-164
Exhibit A-3

ATTACHMENT 4-165
Exhibit A-4

ATTACHMENT 4-166
Exhibit A-5

ATTACHMENT 4-167
Exhibit A-6

ATTACHMENT 4-168

High Speed Rail Proposed Alignment – Palmdale to Los Angeles

Source: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014 Exhibit B-1

ATTACHMENT 4-169

High Speed Rail Proposed Burbank Station Location

Sourc
e: California High Speed Rail Authority Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report – May 2014

Exhibit B-2

ATTACHMENT 4-170

High Speed Rail Statewide Rail Modernization Plan / Proposed Project Phasing

Exhibit C-1

ATTACHMENT 4-171
Exhibit D-1

ATTACHMENT 4-172
Exhibit D-2

ATTACHMENT 4-173

        


        
 
  


  

      


      






  

   

    
!  " #

     

     $  "

 
 %
    

! " &  $
' ' ( ) 


%


 

# 


  






    
 
   )
'
 
 *      

   +  


   
% %
     

 (          




    , ( -  .   

   /    #    
0 1
2 0 1
   

 


%


    # 


  



%
     




      






   ' 

 



 
%





     3   4

 * 

  

  

  






%
  

  +    
 
 




      

   +  

  



    + 

      


    +   * +  



  

    


     

       




  /    

  





   /    #    
0 1
2 0 1


 



+   
% %
    
     

 



    

   

 %
#    
0 1
2 0 1
     $  



     

 
 


%


            

  

  
  


 


 
  /    
 

+  +       *   

 

   

 



    

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

3    +

 


%
   

 

 


 





      

   

   

   

 

  

 



 



)
   /     

%
  

 

 

     
'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
     

  5 

      

  


 


 

 

%
     4    

        



     3   4

 *

         

     

    

   





      
 

    

      +


4   

  

     

'

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

     

    


 


    

     

 
     

  

   



 



  

       
%
  

      

  


 


 

 

%
    

  

     

 
   

  



%
  

'



   

         
 





             

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
    
  

   


 


  

 


 






   

 3   
 6




           

 


 +

 + 



 

%
   +      

            7 

  



 






   


 3   4

 * 3     

  



   

3     

  

  -         

8  

    



              

  



   




%
4    
9  2

       * :
1 "  

%
  

  

1    



  "

  

  



 +    +  3   4

 *

       *



         




    

   

     

   



 





    
%



 

    +

   
%

  


4  

  

  

  -         

 



     +  

 

    ' 



  

   
1 %

   
%
  

'



     5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
  

   


     



  

    
%

   
%
  

  


1    



  "         4   +   

    +    ;



  -         

'



 
%

   
%
  

      




    

 


 






   

 3   
 6




     ,

 

4    . 

  +


 






     

 



0 %

        

   7   

   +      
 
1    



  "   




 


 
 



          



 


%
   

  7 

  


   


   +




    



 
%

   
%
  

 

  7 

  

Exhibit E-1

ATTACHMENT 4-174
9  2



      +    4      

   +  

  

  


   +

  

  
% %
 

  

     +



%

   
%
  

'


  /   
0 1
2 0 1

           




  /   

+

   

 

  


 

%
  
  

     

    

   

  




 

1 

        4  





  

  



   
   


' 



  

     

     ,

' .
 
 

 
   4      





 
        




1 4  * 




 
4    

     

 

   


   +



 /

     


8   

   3   


 
6        

 

'



  
 



            
    

    






  



   # 
%
 



  



     # 


  

 


  

    

      

4      




  

   

  


   +

   



 
% 


 
 
 
 





 
 7     





        



  


'



     3   4

 *   5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1  
   






 4       

4      




  

        

         

 + 







    

 
 




%





     





     

' 

   

 

    

   
'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1  
  ( -   

   4 


 


 



      4    

  

 



 +    + 
3   4

 *

       *



   

;    5  

 
 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
      

  

     

   



 



  

      




 


 



    +    
 
   

 /     

         

     



 
      





 



  


  /     

 
      


     
  





     
 
    

   
 



  

   
%
  

;    5  

 
 
 

  

       

   +  

  



     

   
 
   



%



  

 


  


        
 
  

     

 

   

    
%



 



  
 

%
  


   

  

 

%



 

4       
 



    







    

 
  /   

'



 

 


  



 4 
      
  

  

     
    5  



1 

        


0 1
2 0 1

          


     
  /     



 *  
   



 

     







    

 

8  

   

 



         

   

   


   
      





 



 
  

  



  4                

   

   
 
 


 


 



    

+              

 /     


  



   



  

      

 
% 
7 
%
 <     


      





   
+  





        
 
% %
   

        

   

     

 

  



  



 +    + 



     



       


    4 
        

  
  
%

    

  

  

    *




4   +    


 


 



      

 + 



    
1    



  "

  



 +    +  

  






  
1    



  "

#

 
9 
'



     3   4

 *

      


 %
  
%
     

 =    

  


 

          



 

 

 



 +    +  3   4

 *

       *



   




 

       

       



 

             

%
   

  


      


   
                

%
     

 

 /

      





      




 4  
 



               

%
  
  /   

'



     5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
       

 

   


 
     

 
%



 

  



4               


   

 

     


 


 



    

 

   


 


 4       



     

+  



 3   4

 *

      



  



   >

=    


 



(  



 
6  4 

   
'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
         

 


  



     3   4

 * 
 
       7
       ?



 @
 
?
%
   
% @
  



    4 

    
%



 

;    5  

 
 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
      
 %
  
  

   



 



  

   

      



 
%



 


  

     

     

 

     

  



 
 

 

     

   


4  

  





  




 *



 

 

      
% %
   

 4 

  



,

 
 

   
       

    

   

.

 

 


  ?



 @
  ?
%
   
% @

%



 


          
%
  


   
Exhibit E-2

ATTACHMENT 4-175
%



  

         7


     





 

     

  



 

   

   


    4 
     

 



 /     


     

   

 

     

 


       

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

        
%
 

 
0      
%
  

 A 

   
1  

'

   

 % 0 1
2 0 1
          




 4         
%



 

    +

   
%
   


4  

  

  

  -           

  

        




%
4    
9  2

       * :
1 "

 

%
  

'



  
  5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1
   

          




     

 
%



 


         
%
  


   



     

 

   



  3  4


  
  
'





    

 % 0 1
2 0 1
    
%



  




     

 3  4


  
      


 


  
        








    

 



 
%
  



 
  



 
  

 +      

   

   

 %
0 1
2 0 1
  

  





      
%
  





 



     






  







    

 



 
%


          
  



 
  

 



     3   4

 *   5  




 
 

    /   
0 1
2 0 1

   


 + 







    

 



 
%
+    4             3  4


  
      

  

4                4   +     
  



   

      
% 
 


  

   





 

   

  

   


  




 


 





    

 



 
%

'
 
 *   



    
      




     3   4

 * 

 

           
% %
     

 (       
  




       




      






   ' 

     /   

;     *    +

    +   *  
+  




 

       



  /   

1    
 
 

     

  5  

   

    5         
% 
      



   >


%



  

 


  

   

   





 




 


              

 
%


 &  &

 B &

"  C !    


% 
 

  *  

*  D  

4   4

 *






        
 
   E  

* 

      

     ' 



  

   

     3   4

 *


% %
    

    

%
  




 
%
  
Exhibit E-3

ATTACHMENT 4-176

March 26, 2010

Mr. Dan Tempelis
Hatch Mott MacDonald
16027 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 501
Los Angeles, CA 91436

RE: COMMENTS ON CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT DRAFT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT – LA UNION STATION TO PALMDALE

Dear Mr. Tempelis:

Thank you for your presentation to the Burbank City Council on February 2, 2010 where you provided an update on design activities related to the California High Speed Rail Project. As you know the City Council further discussed this issue at their March 2, 2010 meeting and directed city staff to provide you with comments on some of your conceptual design work. It is hoped that these comments can be incorporated into the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report that you will present to the California High Speed Rail Authority Board of Directors.

The City of Burbank strongly believes that the Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Los Angeles to Palmdale segment must include analysis of a station location near the Bob Hope Airport, such as was originally envisioned in the 2005 Program EIR/EIS. While we understand the reason for locating a station south of the Burbank Junction is to capture local Metrolink riders from both the Valley and Coast lines, the City believes there is a compelling advantage in locating a station close to the Bob Hope Airport to capture plane-to-rail connections. Further, an airport station alternative may have superior land use and traffic circulation benefits over the other two station locations being considered by the Authority. An airport station alternative also presents less constrained opportunity to redevelop underutilized land adjacent to the Bob Hope Airport into transit-oriented development to serve the future station. We believe that a full analysis of an airport station as one of the station alternatives is necessary for the Authority and local stakeholders to make an informed decision about the optimal location for this large transportation facility.

Conversely, while a southern high speed rail station north of Alameda Avenue and closer to Downtown Burbank could have merit for consideration as a potential station option, locating a southern station south of Alameda Avenue is considered unacceptable to the City. This location will likely have significant traffic impacts to local streets while having no land use benefits to Burbank. The City believes that the Authority should not include a southern station location south of Alameda Avenue in the EIR / EIS.

The City is very concerned that the Authority is considering relocating the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station outside of the Downtown area should a high speed rail station be constructed.

Exhibit F-1

ATTACHMENT 4-177
The Downtown Burbank Station consolidates a significant number of important local bus routes in addition to serving some of the highest regional rail ridership in Los Angeles County. The City relies upon this transit service to help serve the transportation needs of its Downtown area, and has invested significant land use and transportation resources in the area with the assumption that frequent transit service will continue to be available. Relocating the City’s major transit center outside of Downtown Burbank would have significant effects on its local transportation network. We believe that preserving the location of the City’s Metrolink station is critical to successfully implementing high speed rail in this area. We are strongly opposed to any plan for high speed rail that moves the location of the City’s current Downtown Metrolink station.

In light of the importance of Burbank’s Downtown Metrolink Station, constructing a high speed rail station in the same location could meet the goal of co-locating high speed rail with local Metrolink service, while allowing the City to preserve its existing Downtown transit service.

The Authority has previously indicated that a station located on a curved alignment (as is present in Downtown Burbank) is not possible. The City would like clarification on the technical or operational reasons why this is the case. It may be that curved stations are possible but bring with them right of way or train speed limitations. The City is interested in knowing what the tradeoffs are in constructing a high speed rail station on a curve. The City is interested in further pursuing the option of locating a Downtown station alternative at the existing Metrolink station location.

The City of Burbank is currently in the design phase of its portion of a regionally-significant bike path project that would connect the Sylmar neighborhood of Los Angeles with Downtown Burbank. Metro has identified this corridor as a regionally significant bicycle facility in its Countywide Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan, and has committed over $6 million of the total $8.3 million project for the Burbank segment of this project. In addition, the City of Los Angeles has already constructed portions of this facility, and is preparing to extend the bike path to the Burbank city limits. The path is planned to be routed in a portion of the existing Metrolink right of way in both cities, and as such would be in conflict with the high speed rail project. The EIR / EIS should identify how this important bike path will be relocated or otherwise accommodated by the proposed project.

Regardless of where a high speed rail station is built, the City of Burbank believes that an evaluation of how to connect high speed rail to the Bob Hope Airport should be included as a component of the project. Success of high speed rail will partially depend upon how it integrates with other transportation modes including air travel. Connecting a future high speed rail station to Bob Hope Airport will lessen local vehicle trips on Burbank streets and improve the ability for regional passengers to transfer between air and rail. Further, state transportation law (Government Code Section 14036.7) prioritizes policies that enhance connections between intercity rail service and commercial air service; this policy should be extended to the development of high speed rail. The City and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority are currently collaborating on ways to connect a planned regional transit facility on the Ventura rail line to a future high speed rail station on the Valley line to facilitate transfers between local rail, high speed rail, and air passengers. The importance of connecting high speed rail to airports provides additional justification for studying an airport station alternative in the EIR/EIS.

Exhibit F-2

ATTACHMENT 4-178

The City of Burbank is concerned by the possible noise and vibration impacts of the proposed high speed train on adjacent land uses. We expect that the EIR/EIS will fully analyze noise and vibration issues and identify mitigations to address any identified impacts. The Authority should consider reduced train speeds as a method for reducing any potential impacts.

Thank you again for allowing the City to comment on plans to construct high speed rail through the City of Burbank. If you have any questions about our initial comments, please feel free to contact me at 818.238.5269 or via email at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

David Kriske
Principal Planner, City of Burbank Community Development Department

cc: Alexander Clifford, Metro Executive Officer, High Speed Rail Exhibit F-3

ATTACHMENT 4-179
Exhibit G-1

ATTACHMENT 4-180
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

FRA is the federal lead agency for the National Envi ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will publish a NOI in the Federal Register, announcing the FRA’s amendment of their 2007 NOI and their intention to initiate the federal environmental review process for the Palmdale to Burbank Section of the Authority's proposed HSR System.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, FRA and the Authority started a tiered environmental review process for the Statewide HSR System. In 2005, the Authority certif ied a Program EIR/EIS for the statewide California HSR System (Refer to Exhibit 2) (Statewide Program EIR/EIS) as the first-phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Statewide Program EIR/EIS analyzed an HSR System for intercity travel in California between the major metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in the north, through the Central Valley, to the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.

The approved HSR System would be approximately 800-miles long, with electric propulsion and steel- wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of operating speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on a dedicated system of fully grade-separated, access-controlled steel tracks with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, communication, and automated train control systems.

In approving the HSR System at the Program level, the Authority and FRA also selected corridors/general alignments and station location options throughout most of the System, including a corridor between Palmdale and Los Angeles. Based on the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the agencies selected the Soledad Canyon Corridor and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)/Metrolink right-of-way for the HSR routes from Palmdale to Los Angeles with station location options in the City of Palmdale, the San Fernando Valley, and the vicinity of Los Angeles Union Station.

Tiering from the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Auth ority issued an NOP for the HSR Palmdale to Los Angeles Section project-level EIR on March 12, 2007 (SCH No. 2007031066). The NOI to prepare a project-level EIS for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Sect ion was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2007.

Since the 2007 NOP, several alternatives analyses have been conducted to refine project-level alternatives. A Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (J uly 2010) addressed alignment alternatives and station options throughout the Palmdale to Los Angeles Se ction. Three Supplemental Alternatives Analyses (“SAA”) have also been prepar ed. The first SAA (March 2011) addressed supplemental alignment alternatives and station options for the Los Angeles to Sylmar subsection. The second SAA (April 2012) addressed supplemental alignment alternatives for the Sylmar to Palmdale subsection and redefined the subsection into two new subsections: the Santa Clar ita subsection, extending from Sylmar to two miles east of Lang Station Road, and the Palmdale subsection, extending from two miles east of Lang Station Road to Palmdale.

The third SAA (May 2014) discusses the concept of evaluating Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Los Angeles as two sections in light of, among other factors, the IOS concept (with its interim terminus in the San Fernando Valley/Burbank) introduced in the 2012 and 2014 Business Plans. The May 2014 SAA refined the alignment alternatives and station options, including identifying the Palmdale Transportation Center Station Option at the northern end and the Bu rbank Airport Station as the southern limit of this Palmdale to Burbank Section.

The Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and all SAAs included public outreach activities, including community meetings, stakeholder meetings, and public official outreach. The Preliminary Alternatives Exhibit G-2

ATTACHMENT 4-181
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Analysis and SAA documents include a description of pu blic outreach activities conducted. All alternatives analyses documents have been available for public review and comment as part of the alternatives analysis process, like all alternative analyses developed in this geographic area. (See http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/Project_Sections/palmdale_losangeles.ht ml for copies of these AA documents). The work and information contained in the Palmdale-to-Burbank portions of those alternatives analyses documents, will inform the Authority in developing (and inform the public in commenting on) the Palmdale to Burbank EIR/EIS and its development.

As discussed further in the May 2014 SAA, it would be beneficial to address the environmental effects of the HSR System from Palmdale to Burbank in one EIR/EIS and from Burbank to Los Angeles in a separate EIR/EIS. This would provide for more effective planni ng and public outreach in these highly populated areas. Each of these sections has logical termini and independent utility, as discussed further below.

These two sections are of sufficient length to addr ess environmental matters on a broad scope. They have logical termini, which means that their end poin ts are rational for transportation improvements and for the review of environmental impacts. Additionally , each section has independent utility, which means that the HSR System can function properly within each section, independent of additional improvements elsewhere. The assessment of HSR alternatives in th e Palmdale to Burbank Section will assure adequate opportunity for the consideration of alternatives for this section and adjacent sections of the HSR system.

The preparation of the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will involve the development of preliminary engineering designs and the assessment of potent ial environmental effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the HSR System in this section.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Palmdale to Burbank HSR EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Public scoping meetings are scheduled from August 5, 2014 to August 19, 2014 as noted below. All comments received during the scoping period will receive equal consideration as the comm ents received during the March to April 2007 scoping period for the Palmdale to Los Angeles Section EIR/EIS.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope should be sent to Mark A. McLoughlin, Director of Environmental Services, Attention: Palmdale to Bu rbank Section EIR/EIS, California High-Speed Rail Authority, 700 North Alameda Street, Room 3-532, Lo s Angeles, CA 90012, or via email with subject line "Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS" to: palmda [email protected]. Comments may also be provided orally or in writing at scoping meetings scheduled at the following locations:
 SANTA CLARITA: Tuesday, August 5, William S. Hart Regional Park, 24151 Newhall Avenue, Newhall, CA 91321
 BURBANK: Wednesday, August 6, Buena Vista Branch Library, 300 N. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91505
 PALMDALE: Thursday, August 7, Chimbole Cultural Center, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale CA, 93550
 ACTON/AGUA DULCE: Monday, August 11, Acton-Agua Dulce Library, 33792 Crown Valley Road, Acton, CA 93510
 SYLMAR: Tuesday, August 12, Sylmar Public Library, 14561 Polk Street, Sylmar, CA 91342 Exhibit G-3

ATTACHMENT 4-182
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

 LAKE VIEW TERRACE: Thursday, August 14, Lake View Terrace Recreation Center, 11075 Foothill Boulevard, Lake View Terrace, CA 91342
 DOWNTOWN LA: Tuesday, August 19, Los Angeles Union Station Fred Harvey Room, 800 N.

Alameda Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
All scoping meetings will be held from 5:30pm to 7:30pm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark A. McLoughlin at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and development of a propos ed statewide HSR network that is fully coordinated with other public transportati on services. As required by state law, the Authority adopted a Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewe d the economic feasibility of an 800-mile-long HSR System capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on a dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of- the-art track. The Authority released updated Business Plans in November 2008, December 2009 (addendum in April 2010), April 2012, and April 2014. These Business Plans, which are subject to a separate public review process, are an important part of the statewide planning process for HSR.

In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed the Statewid e Program EIR/EIS as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process. The Authority certified the Statewide Program EIR under CEQA and approved the proposed HSR System, and FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA for the Statewide Program EIS. This Statewide Program EIR/EIS esta blished the purpose and need for the HSR System, analyzed an HSR System, and compared it with a No Project/No Action Alternative, and with a Modal Alternative (i.e., expansion of freeways and airports ). In approving the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the HSR Alternative, se lected general corridors/alignments and general station locations for further study, incorporated miti gation strategies and design practices, and specified further measures to guide the development of the HSR System during the site-specific project environmental review to avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts.

The HSR Alternative as described in the Statewid e Program EIR/EIS provides a broad planning and conceptual outline of the proposed train system. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will allow for the consideration of alignment alternatives within this section at a greater level of detail. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will tier from the Statewide Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15152, 15168). The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will build upon all previous work prepared for, and incorporated in, the Statewide Pr ogram EIR/EIS, including the state planning process incorporated into the Authority’s Business Plans. In addition, the selection of alternatives to be included in the Palmdale to Burbank EIR/EIS will consider comments that were received from the agencies and the public during the public outreach process on the alternatives analyses conducted since the 2007 Palmdale to Los Angeles NOP.

The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will be carri ed out in accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will follow the Integration Process for the California High-Speed Train Program as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding among FRA, the Authority, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will also address, as necessary, other applicable statutes, regulations, and executive orders, includin g (but not limited to) the Clean Water Act, Section Exhibit G-4

ATTACHMENT 4-183
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.

The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental impacts, will identify specific mitigation measures to address those impacts, and will incorporate design features to avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of the proposed project elements will be described as a basis for determining whether the impacts are potentially significant and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible alignmen t alternatives along the corridor selected in the Programmatic EIR/EIS, as well as addressing alternatives that may meet project objectives while potentially reducing environmental effe cts as identified during the alternatives analysis process and the scoping process. The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will also identify and evaluate station options and evaluate the potential impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the HSR System in this section. Information and documents regarding this HSR environmental review process will be made available through the Authority's internet site: www.hsr.ca.gov.

Project Description/Alternatives
The Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS will consider a No Project Alternative and HSR Alternatives for the Palmdale to Burbank Section.

No Project Alternative: The No Project Alternative (No Action or No Build) represents the conditions in the Palmdale to Burbank Section as they exist in 2014, and as they would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable projects through 2040, taking into account the following sources of information: the State Transportation Improvement Program, Regional Tran sportation Plans for all modes of travel, airport plans, intercity passenger rail plans, and city and county plans.

HSR Alternatives: HSR Alternatives to be evaluated as part of the proposed project from Palmdale to Burbank involve various potential horizontal and ve rtical alignments between Palmdale and Burbank within the two horizontal corridors identified in Exhibi t 1, and various potential station configurations at the Palmdale Transportation Center and the Burbank Ai rport section terminus points. The purpose of this NOP is to solicit input about those potential alignments and configurations and their potential impacts, so as to inform the preparation of the Palmdale to Burbank EIR/EIS.

The Authority proposes to construct, operate, and ma intain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HSR System, approximately 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds up to 220 mph on dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train control systems.

Work on this System is underway in the Central Valley. This proposed project would continue this effort between Palmdale and Burbank.

The HSR Corridor that was selected by the Authorit y and FRA in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS follows Soledad Canyon from the City of Palmdale to the community of Sylmar in the City of Los Angeles and then follows the Metro/Metrolink Railroad line to Bu rbank Airport and Los Angeles Union Station. The corridor is relatively wide in the area that includ es both the State Route 14 and Union Pacific Railroad alignments between the Antelope Valley and Santa Clar ita. In addition, in response to stakeholder and public feedback, the Palmdale to Burbank Section EI R/EIS will address potential alignment alternatives that provide a more direct connection between the Palmdale station and the Burbank Airport station.

Exhibit G-5

ATTACHMENT 4-184
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Specific station configuration options also will be evaluated in the the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS, so as to support station area developmen t policies to encourage transit-friendly development near and around HSR stations. The potential to prom ote multi-modal uses, higher density, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development around the st ations will guide the selection of the station alternatives. In addition, station option selection will evaluate sites with potential to function as a terminal station in the IOS. Potential sites for a terminal stor age and maintenance facility will also be evaluated in the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS.

Project Location
See attached map (Exhibit 1).

Probable Effects
The purpose of the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/ EIS process is to explore in a public setting the effects of the proposed project on the physical, hu man, and natural environme nt. Impact areas to be addressed as potentially containing probable effects in clude transportation impacts; safety and security; EMI/EMF; land use and zoning; cumulative impacts; agri cultural land impacts; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on historical and archaeologic al resources and parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; natural resource impacts including air quality, biological resources and wetlands, hydrology and water resources, noise, vibration, and energy. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate all adverse impacts w ill be identified and evaluated. A copy of the Initial Study is available for review at the following link:
http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/project_sections/palmdale_burbank.html.

Scoping and Comments
Public scoping meetings are an important component of the scoping process for the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS. The Authority encourages broad pa rticipation in the Palmdale to Burbank Section EIR/EIS process and review of the resulting environme ntal documents. The Authority invites comments and suggestions from all interested agencies and the public at large to ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives are addressed and that all significant issues are identified. Comments are also sought regarding alte rnatives addressed in the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis and the SAAs, as noted above. Public agenci es with jurisdiction are requested to advise the Authority and FRA of the applicable permit and envir onmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public scoping meetings have been scheduled as an important component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal environmental review.

The scoping meetings described in this Notice will be advertised locally and included in additional public notification.

Exhibit G-6

ATTACHMENT 4-185
Exhibit G-7

ATTACHMENT 4-186
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Exhibit 1
Palmdale to Burbank Section
Exhibit G-8

ATTACHMENT 4-187
770 L Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324-1541 • F: (916) 322-0827 • www.hsr.ca.gov

Exhibit 2
Proposed California HSR Statewide System
Exhibit G-9

ATTACHMENT 4-188
California High Speed Rail Project – Matrix of Benefits, Concerns, and Questions City of Burbank Transportation Commission – AUGUST 2014

Project Benefit to Burbank Issue of Concern to Burbank Questions to High Speed Rail Authority Economic development opportunities in the Airport
Area, incentive for employers to relocate to
Burbank to be near the station.

Regional transit/transportation investments in
Burbank caused by high speed rail.

Transfer of polluting / noisy air travel trips to clean high speed rail trips (though air trips may just shift
from short-hop to intermediate-hop trips with no
reductions).

Improved Metrolink service (especially if project is
built with an interim terminus in Burbank).

Opportunity for transit occupancy tax, parking tax,
and concessions from the station. Opportunity for
increased property tax due to rising land values
near the station.

Traffic Impacts of station, impacts of interim
terminus configuration versus completed project.

Aesthetic Impacts of viaducts and bridges. City
should advocate reducing or eliminating above-
grade structures to minimize impacts and noise.

Noise Impacts caused by the noise created by the
high speeds of the trains.

Construction disruption to adjoin land uses and
transportation facilities.

Authority should not depend on local station
revenue to finance the construction or operation of
the system. This revenue should flow to local
agencies to offset impacts caused by the station.

Seismic issues, especially related to long tunnel and
viaduct sections proposed, and particularly with
regard to the direct Angeles Nat. Forest alignment.

Concern over lack of local/regional transit provided
by Metro and others to divert majority of HSR trips
away from autos and into transit. City should
advocate for extensive local/regional transit
connectivity to HSR, especially if Burbank is an
interim terminus.

Ensure that the station has maximum connectivity
to transit, bike, pedestrian, and other modes, and
integrates with surrounding land uses.

Is it possible to implement a blended system
between Burbank and LAUS to avoid the interim
station, or to tow trains between Burbank and
LAUS?

What are the ridership forecasts for the interim
terminus versus final build out? Are there ridership
assumptions for different phases of project
construction?

What are the right-of-way needs for the HSR tracks
and station bypass tracks, especially near the
station? Will right of way be acquired along SF
Blvd? What about adjacent land uses?

What are the different right of way impacts for
alternative alignments (e.g. direct Palmdale to
Burbank route) or alternate station locations?

What additional revenue sources is the Authority
planning on finding to build to Burbank (e.g. public
private partnerships)?

Exhibit H-1

ATTACHMENT 4-189
ATTACHMENT 4-190
ATTACHMENT 4-191
ATTACHMENT 4-192

DATE: April 12, 2016

TO: Ron Davis, Interim City Manager

FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director By: David L. Kriske, Assistant C ommunity Development Director

SUBJECT: 2016 High Speed Rail Business Plan Comment Letter

RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to submit a comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) (Exhibit A) regarding the Authority’s draft 2016 Business Plan.

BACKGROUND
The Authority released a draft of their 2016 Business Plan on F ebruary 18, 2016 for public comment (Exhibit B) 1. State law requires the Authority to update a business plan e very two years that outlines how it proposes to implement High Speed Rai l service in California that incorporates the funding availab ility for the project and align s with the High Speed Rail Proposition 1A ballot initiative that was approved by voters in 2008. With the release of the draft Business Plan, the Authority also opened a 60 day public comment period to receive input. The public comment period closes April 18, 2016.

DISCUSSION
The 2016 Business Plan offers a plan for constructing High Spee d Rail that differs from the previous plan in several ways. Most importantly, the Authority has changed the phasing of the project so that the initial operating segment would be cons tructed to the north, from Bakersfield to San Jose (“Central Valley to Silicon Valley”). Previously, the Authority had proposed constructing the initia l segment to Southern Californi a from Merced to Burbank.

This change is proposed so that a portion of the system can beg i n o p e r a t i n g a s s o o n a s possible in order to bring benefits to the state earlier and to attract private sector participation to help build later segments. It also allows the state to begin operating a useful transportation connection sooner using funding that has already been committed to the project. It saves the more complicated and technical c onstruction of the system south from Bakersfield until later when additional funding is identif ied. The initial operating segment would begin operations in 2025. A map of the new proposed phasing is attached as Exhibit C.

In exchange for shifting early inv estment away from the Burbank section and focusing on the northern part of the project, the Authority is proposing to inv est $4 billion in Southern California to improve the Bur bank-to-Anaheim corridor. These i nvestments would be made

1 The Authority’s Draft Business Plan can also be found online a t the Authority’s website located at http://hsr.ca.gov/about/business_plans/draft_2016_Business_Plan.html. Members of the public who wish to comment may do so at the above website by April 18, 2016.

ATTACHMENT 4-193
2 concurrent with construction of t he initial operating section t o make near-term investments to conventional rail in Southern California that would later be us ed to bring the High Speed Rail system to Los Angeles. Also, the Authority remains committed t o continuing with required environmental studies and public out reach in California to comp lete environmental clearance for the project sections from Bakersfield to Anaheim including the two project sections in Burbank. The Authority expects to finalize environmental work in the Burbank area by 2017.

The Business Plan itself does not affect the environmental revi ew the Authority is required to conduct under state and federal law.

In response to the 2016 Business Plan, staff has prepared a com ment letter addressing issues about the plan that affect Burbank. This letter reflects input that the Transportation Commission gave to staff about the proposed Business Plan that was discussed at their meeting on March 21, 2016. Their comments are incorporated int o staff’s letter. Staff requests that City Council consider the attached letter, provide any further input on the City’s comments, and direct staff to submit the comment letter by the close of the Authority’s comment period on April 18, 2016.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City in sending comments on th e 2016 Business Plan. The comment letter requests assurances that existing and proposed Authority funding sources that the City has planned on using to conduct planning studies and support for environmental work continue to be offered to the City in the new Business Plan.

CONCLUSION
The Authority’s draft 2016 Business Plan proposes a shift in the phasing of the High Speed Rail Project that affect when and how the project would be cons tructed through Burbank.

The plan proposes to shift early construction of the system to the north – away from Burbank – but still proposes early inves tment that could improve region al commuter rail service in Burbank in the meantime. The pr oposed comment letter would giv e the City an opportunity to provide input on this important planning and funding document.

EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Proposed Comment Letter
Exhibit B: High Speed Rail Auth ority 2016 Draft Business Plan Exhibit C: New High Speed Ra il Project Phasing Map
ATTACHMENT 4-194