Community groups and local officials urge delay and greater transparency on 2026 business plan; raise TIF, data-center and station-siting concerns

A coalition of community groups, local elected officials and city staff used the board———June 1 public-comment period to press the California High‑Speed Rail Authority to pause adoption of its 2026 business plan or to provide more time for local review.

Lety Valencia of Faith in the Valley read a multi-organization letter asking the board to "reject the draft 2026 business plan and technical appendices, or at the very least, postpone the vote to allow for robust public participation and dialogue on the significant changes proposed and to remedy its numerous deficiencies." The letter asserted the plan "proposes to diminish the scale and scope of the high-speed rail project in the Central Valley" and said the staff materials lacked sufficient detail on revenue proposals and land-use authority.

Local officials from Merced, Kern and Bakersfield urged continued engagement. Jay Schlosser of the Kern Council of Governments said staff outreach had improved but asked that the business plan or the Kern section be held for more time for engineering-level review; Frank Quintero, Merced deputy city manager, requested previews of station-area design at the proposed South Merced location and more meetings with Authority staff.

Several commenters raised environmental and public-health concerns tied to the business plan———specifically proposals discussed in the plan to pursue ancillary revenue streams. Norma Cardona, a Merced resident, criticized potential battery-storage systems and data centers along the corridor, warning of "thermal runaway fires" and water use risks and urging the Authority to identify alternatives that do not "ask the San Joaquin Valley to bear the environmental cost of California's progress." Noe Paramo of California Rural Legal Assistance also criticized plan elements that would streamline CEQA review for assets like data centers, arguing that would reduce transparency and mitigation opportunities.

League of California Cities and the California Special Districts Association both flagged legal and fiscal concerns about any attempt to create a compulsory tax-increment financing mechanism. Damon Conklin (League of California Cities) told the board the proposed value-capture framework "raises profound legal, fiscal and policy concerns for local governments" and urged that any local-tax revenue strategies be collaborative.

Authority staff and board members responded on the record that the capital numbers shown in the business-plan tables do not assume tax-increment financing and that any use of EIFDs or similar local tools would require local participation and separate approvals. CEO Ian Choudri said the plan presents concepts for potential monetization (e.g., fiber, power corridors) but that the Authority does not build data centers and would pursue local partnership on any value-capture approach. Senator Anna Caballero and other directors said they intend to continue outreach with local governments to explain legislative concepts and address concerns.

The board adopted the 2026 business plan at the same meeting; community speakers and several local governments said they will continue to press the Authority for additional details and participation as the plan is implemented.