|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 8:49 AM
City expands list of high-speed-rail concerns
Dozens of 'scoping' concerns over proposed train line listed by city, including a possible threat to El Palo Alto
|
|
by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff
A century-old bridge, a row of "storybook" houses on Mariposa Avenue and the famous El Palo Alto redwood tree could all be imperiled by a proposed high-speed train system, according to a new city report.
These are three of eight historic sites that staff and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) said could be adversely impacted by the proposed rail line, which California voters approved in November.
The HRB discussed the rail line's potential impact on these sites during a Wednesday morning meeting. The board agreed to integrate its concerns into a letter the city plans to send to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the agency charged with building the new system.
Cities and the public have until April 6 to submit questions and concerns that will be included in a comprehensive environmental-impact review of the Peninsula segment of the rail project.
The city's "scoping comments" to the authority list issues the city wants the agency to explore in upcoming Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the San Francisco-to-San Jose section of the 800-mile line.
The list has been swelling in recent weeks, as residents, City Council members and commissioners have come forth with a myriad of fears and anxieties over the controversial project.
A draft letter, presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on Wednesday night, included 47 items the city wants the rail authority to explore in its analysis, including the rail line's impacts on traffic, vegetation, the San Francisquito Creek and air quality.
And that's before the planning commission began contributing its own comments.
Both the council and the commissions said the agency should seriously consider the rail line's impacts on El Palo Alto. The draft of the city's letter notes that the tree is 1,100-years-old and that it has a life expectancy of 300 more years.
The tree -- the oldest living California Historic Landmark -- stands close to the Caltrain corridor, through which the agency plans to run high-speed trains at speeds of 125 mph.
"The tree is healthier today than it was 100 years ago," city Arborist Dave Dockter said. "It does, however, hang in a delicate balance."
Because the rail authority is more than a year away from deciding whether the rail line would go underground or overhead, city officials don't know how the project could impact El Palo Alto or any of the other local historic sites.
But officials said they want to make sure the authority thoroughly explores these possible impacts before it chooses its preferred design.
Dennis Backlund, the city's historic preservation planner, and the HRB also pointed to seven other historic sites that could be impacted by the project: the steel railroad bridge next to El Palo Alto that dates back to 1902; the University Avenue and Embarcadero underpasses (built in 1941 and 1936, respectively); the downtown Caltrain depot, the Mariposa Avenue section of the Southgate neighborhood; a home at 3905 Park Avenue (built around 1905); and the "Hostess House" (designed in 1918 as part of the U.S. Army's Camp Fremont and currently housing MacArthur Park Restaurant) adjacent to the University Avenue Caltrain depot.
On Mariposa Avenue, the rail would threaten a row of storybook-style homes quaint, Tudor-style houses that date back to the 1920s. The rail line passes by these houses and could cut into their yards if the right of way were expanded.
HRB member Beth Bunnenberg said the entire Southgate neighborhood should be looked at as a historical site, not just the Mariposa Avenue stretch near the tracks.
"Southgate, I think, is an extremely important area," Bunnenberg said. "You don't just talk about one street, or one side of the street, being affected.
"Whatever change happens to the pieces along the railroad will affect also all of the district," she said. "The district has context."
The board unanimously agreed to ask the rail authority to study the proposed rail line's potential impact on these historic sites.
The planning commission, meanwhile, had its own suggestions. At a Wednesday night meeting, commissioners offered a host of comments for the agency to consider in the EIR, including the rail system's potential impact on utilities, aquifers, noise and urban sprawl.
Commissioner Arthur Keller proposed a detailed plan for the line: a combination of trenching and tunneling that ascends around Redwood City.
Commissioner Lee Lippert argued in favor of sending the rail line underground.
The city has to submit its comments to the rail authority by April 6. The rail authority expects to complete the EIR by summer or fall of 2010.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Howard, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 8:55 am Flogging the idea that a rusting old bridge could possibly be a reason to prevent the HSR will cause Palo Alto to lose all credibility in this debate. With the exception of the tree, likewise for many of the other supposed "historic" considerations listed above.
|
|
Posted by observer, a resident of Menlo Park, on Mar 19, 2009 at 10:08 am Having watched the Transportation and Housing committee meeting last evening, I was extremely impressed with the effort Palo Alto is putting into this much needed letter. I could only wish that Menlo Park, of which I am a resident would have put forth 1/10 the effort in the letter they are about to send.
Its too bad, Palo Alto didn't much earlier recognize the problems that this grand scheme of HSR was going to impose on the community. But its never too late and your City Council and planning bodies are certainly getting up to speed rapidly.
Excellent work by your commissions, staff and council.
|
|
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 10:11 am Once again I ask--why didn't Kishimoto and Klein consider these issues before they wrote a colleague's memo asking the entire city council to support HSR and also encouraging local voters to support the tax on last novermber's ballot.
Maybe they were too busy worrying about a plastic bag band or planning a run for higher office
|
|
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 10:44 am Run the HSR like the present bullet trains over the existing tracks and start the 200 mph south from San Jose.. Will save billions. Electrify the commute trains and they can use the same tracks and overhead electricity. AMTRAK does that on the Northeast Corridor from Boston to DC. How many trains are planned to go to LA? This whole thing is a green boondoggle. There are lots of major cities along the Northeast corridor. Not here. What will be the ridership on this HSR line? What effect, if any, will it have on SFO and SJC and LAX? How many people in the Valley like Fresno want to ride to San Francisco in under two hours? The Northeast Corridor is jammed with people who ride trains because major cities are close together and major universities. Popular with students. . But not here. And going through the Pacheco Pass? That's insane.
|
|
Posted by resident, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 10:56 am I thought the Weekly just reported HSR ran out of money...
|
|
Posted by James Harrison, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 11:29 am Exactly Marvin. The city council signed off on something they knew nothing about and encouraged others to do the same. The Proposition positions itself as a "green" savior so, of course the council is going to go along.
But they'll mull over a shopping plaza, plastic bags, mall expansion, public art, leaf blowers and most other minor item that comes across their desk for months on end before coming up with a suggestion.
Clueless.
|
|
Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 12:05 pm Shouldn't safety be listed in there somewhere? I mean, how safe is it to have trains blowing by our high school and residences at 125 miles per hour on top of a 20 foot wall? What happens in case of an earthquake or derailment?
|
|
Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10 pm James--if only they would spend on the shopping plazas--Alma Plaza is in year 12 or 13 and Edgewood Plaza in in year 2 or 3.
When it comes to things that will further their personal agendas and/or bulk up their resumes (i.e. plastic bag bans) they are johnny-on-the-spot. Also when it comes to spending money (senior game sponsorships, color of PA, website, Destination PA campaigns, payout sto Enron) they cannot write the check fast enough.
|
|
Posted by Lisa, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm I agree with Bob - have the trains run @ normal speeds up the Peninsula, and go fast in the wide open Central Valley spaces. The perfect is the enemy of the good. I'm appalled that the HSR would uproot trees, old bridges, MacArthur Park, the Mariposa st. homes and many other things that make our town so special! So say no to HSR going fast on the Peninsula -
Lisa
|
|
Posted by Seth, a resident of another community, on Mar 19, 2009 at 12:36 pm Since Palo Alto will need a sea wall soon, why not run the line along the Bayshore?
Web Link
|
|
Posted by menloparkarrogance, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 1:32 pm I guess Stanford is not a major university...
|
|
Posted by Alice Danielson, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 4:22 pm BY-PASS! When new Freeways have been built, they have by-passed cities. The high speed rail should not go through Palo Alto, Redwood City & Menlo Park. It appears to me that the High Speed Rail should by-pass cities and follow Highway 280 or I-5 or open space. Either a wall or a tunnel has the potential to ruin our Peninsula cities. With glaciers melting and oceans rising, a tunne; might be flooded in the near future. BY-PASS! - Alice
|
|
Posted by HBR, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Mar 19, 2009 at 5:04 pm The March 10,2009 entry on the California High Speed Rail Blog gives the reasons that CHSRA “selected a preferred route via Riverside county that adds around 30 miles”:
“An HSR alignment along the coast ROW was ruled out because that is too narrow to support four tracks south of Fullerton in Orange County, because of the visual clutter an overhead catenary system would bring to San Clemente and Del Mar in particular and, because of concerns about weather-related and geological hazards that NCTD has had to deal with in the past.” Web Link
Apparently CHSRA considers “visual clutter” a good reason for a 30 mile detour in southern California. Perhaps equal consideration could be given to northern California?
|
|
Posted by Build The Tunnel, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2009 at 10:50 am Folks: The route was decided last summer. The CalTrain ROW was selected with good reason. see: Web Link
|
|
Posted by wary traveler, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2009 at 11:06 am Build The Tunnel,
As it turns out, the route was decided back in 1999. Web Link The "good reasons" were dug up after the fact. BTW, I like your name.
|
|
Posted by Jay Tulock, a resident of another community, on Mar 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm You aren't listening. A tunnel will be paid for by Palo Alto, and residents will not pay for it. Your letter will be responded to by CHSRA and they will make it sound good but it will mean nothing. Menlo Park did the right thing, instead of concentrating on a letter, they sued. You cannot play nice in this game. The only way to win over these sinister scoundrals is to destroy their route choice creds. That means lawsuit.
--Jay Tulock, Vacaville
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of another community, on Mar 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm When it comes to the RR tracks, today and HSR, what is wrong with you people. Those tracks were there BEFORE the houses on Mariposa, and 95% of what you claim as HISTORIC. Get a life!!!!!!! Years ago you, Palo Alto residents, complained that the CalTrain horns were making too much noise, especially those of you that live near the RR tracks. Were you blind when you moved in, didn't you see the tracks!!!!!! Give it a break, you folks are like a bunch of spoiled kids and CRY to the city council, that can't make up their minds about anything without a year long study session.
Some folks refer to your area as the "Independent State of Palo Alto"!!!!!
|
|
Posted by MeMe, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2009 at 8:36 pm Shame on you people! Didn't you know 30 years ago that HSR would be coming? What's the matter, were your crystal balls and Ouija boards all broken? You should have been able to see 30 years into the future. You should have known!
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of another community, on Mar 21, 2009 at 3:00 pm MeMe,
How in heck do you expect residents of Palo Alto to look into the future, even by a week, the cannot see the TRACKS that history left over 100 years ago?????????????
|
|
Posted by MeMe, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2009 at 12:25 am You're Steve now.
It was a joke, Steve, intended to point out the absurdity of trying to look 100, 30 or 10 years into the future.
<< How in heck do you expect residents of Palo Alto to look into the future, even by a week, the cannot see the TRACKS that history left over 100 years ago????????????? >>
|
|
Posted by TyrL172, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Mar 22, 2009 at 3:01 pm Wouldn't it make better sense to route a bullet train along an existing transportation corridor. Couldn't the bullet train system be constructed above the 101Freeway?
|
|
|
| |
2007 Awards from the California
Newspaper Publishers Association
Palo Alto Weekly
First Place
Local News Coverage
Local Breaking-News Story
Feature Story
Second Place
Feature Story
Environmental Reporting
Sports Coverage
General News Photo
Photo Essay
Freedom of Information
The Almanac
First Place
Environmental Reporting
Editorial Pages
Lifestyle Coverage
Second Place
Environmental Reporting
Mountain View Voice
Second Place
General Excellence
Editorial Comment
Front-Page Design
|
|
|
Send this story
Print this story
