California High-Speed Rail Project Overview: A Community Perspective

1. California High Speed Rail Project Community Perspective

2. CARRD • Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design • Grassroots volunteer organization • Process focus  • Engage community and encourage participation • Watchdog for transparency • Do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or route • Founders • Nadia Naik, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi, Sara Armstrong • Palo Alto base, State wide focus • We are not transportation experts, we are not lawyers • Contact info  • website: www.calhsr.com • email: info@carrdnet.org

3. Agenda • Project Overview • Regional & Local Focus • Process Description • Q&A

4. California High Speed Rail Project • November 2008 - Prop 1A authorized State Bond Funds • plan, construct and operate a High Speed Train system from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim • Governance • High Speed Rail Authority • 9 appointed Board members • less than dozen state employees • 4 tiered web of consultants / contractors do the bulk of the work • Legislature – controls bond funds • Peer Review Committee • 8 appointed & confirmed members

5. 800 mile network Electric powered trains via overhead contact wires Maximum speed of 220 miles per hour Fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment HSR System

6. Funding Plan • Backbone System Cost: $42.6 billion • Federal Grants $17 - $19 billion • State Bond Funds $9 billion (Prop 1A) • Local Contributions $4 - $5 billion • Private Investors $10 - $12 billion • Awarded $2.25 billion stimulus funds • Plan calls for $3 Billion in Federal funding every year for 6 yrs

7. Program Level analyzed two routes East Bay via Altamont Peninsula via Pacheco Pacheco Route along Caltrain Corridor Selected Litigation challenged the decision EIR decertified and re-circulated Deadline: April 26! Bay Area to Central Valley

8. Caltrain Corridor Caltrain + HSRA = Peninsula Rail Program Caltrain and Freight will continue operations during construction San Francisco to San Jose

9. Structural & Operational changes

10. Palo Alto • Additional 2 tracks • Minimum 79 feet of ROW • Grade Separations • Alma, Churchill, Meadow, Charleston • Potential HSR Station • Station design options • Local requirements & contributions • Selection Process

11. 96 ft 85 ft 79 ft Alma Cal Ave University San Antonio Peers Park Charleston Embarcadero Meadow Palo Alto Right of Way* *Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram.

12. Vertical Alignments

13. Visualization HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing

14. Berm Alignment

15. Viaduct Alignment

16. At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

17. Open Trench

18. Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

19. Deep bored tunnel

20. Palo Alto Alternatives Carried Forward

21. Palo Alto Alternatives Eliminated • Berm/Retained fill eliminated • Where: throughout Palo Alto • Why: community objection • Open Trench, Closed Trench, Viaduct • Where: Alma • Why: El Palo Alto & San Fransisquito Creek, Historic Train Station • Underground Station & deep tunnel Caltrain • Where: corridor wide • Why: cost constraints

22. Mid Peninsula Station • One or none of • Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View • Palo Alto has second highest Caltrain ridership (followed by Mountain View) • Station designs currently being studied • Local requirements • Parking, transit facilities • Funding support • City of Palo Alto has not taken a formal position

23. Process How we got here & how you can help

24. Environmental Review Process • Mandated by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives • Lead Agency certifies the studies • Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you! • HSRA Environmental Reports • 2005: Statewide Program EIR • 2008: Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR. But decertified & reopen now • Segmented into 9 Geographic Project level teams • San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR – now in “Alternatives Analysis” phase

25. Re-circulated Program Level EIR • Revised Draft of Program Level EIR released March 11 • www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov website • CHSRA requested comments focus only on revised material • CARRD encourages stakeholders to submit comments on the *full* record to provide up-to-date information • How to Comment - Anyone can comment! • Subject: “Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments”  • Attn: Dan Levitt, California High Speed Rail Authority • 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 • comments@hsr.ca.gov • fax to (916) 322-0827 • Deadline: April 26, 2010

26. 2011 2010 2009 • Alternatives Analysis: • Develop Alternatives and Design Options • Assess the Environmental and ROW Constraints and Impacts • Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS • Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report • Alternatives Analysis: • Develop Alternatives and Design Options • Assess Environmental & ROW Constraints and Impacts • Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS • Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report • Alternatives Analysis: • Develop Alternatives and Design Options • Assess the Environmental and ROW Constraints and Impacts • Select Alternatives to be Included in the EIR/EIS • Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report Circulate Draft EIR/EIS Prepare SF to SJ HST Draft EIR/EIS Formally Adopt San Francisco to San Jose HST Final EIR/EIS PUBLIC & AGENCY OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT Purpose and Need for HST Project SCOPING OUTREACH San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR

27. Context Sensitive Solutions • Collaborative approach • Involves all stakeholders • Works by consensus • Balance transportation needs and community values • Proven Process • Adopted by Peninsula Rail Program for SF-SJ • First time it is being used on a Rail Project • “Toolkit” to collect community information

28. Getting Involved • With HSRA • Officially  via comments to the Environmental Review process • As a CSS Stakeholder • With your community • PAN and other grassroots groups • City of Palo Alto   • Palo Alto HSR Subcommittee meetings (1st & 3rd Thurs 8:30 am) • Peninsula Cities Consortium  • www.peninsularail.com

29. Why make a comment? • Only official way to communicate concerns • Anyone can comment • EIR is like a full disclosure document • Goal is to gather the most accurate data to based the analysis • Help identify what they need to mitigate • Do not assume HSRA knows your community • Do not assume the City of Palo Alto will comment for you • This is a once in a lifetime project and you can help make it better! • If you write a comment – it MUST be considered and addressed. • No comment means you forgo rights to any recourse in the future

30. Three ways to send comments • Regular U.S. mail to: • California High-Speed Rail Authority c/o Dan Leavitt925 L Street, Suite 1425Sacramento, CA 95814Attn: Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments • Via email to: comments@hsr.ca.gov • Copy to: Plandiv.info@cityofpaloalto.org • Subject line “Bay Area to Central Valley Revised Draft Program EIR Material Comments” • Fax to: (916) 322-0827

31. Comment basics • Include • Valid name & address • Reviewing agencies or organizations should include the name of a contact person, who would be available for questions or consultation, along with their comments • Title of EIR you are commenting on • Submit it before the deadline. • Send your comments in early, so they have time to consider your concerns • Keep a copy of your comments • Send a copy to your city

32. Tips on writing a good comment • Be Objective and Specific • Whenever possible, present facts or expert opinions. • If not, provide personal experience or your personal observations. Don't just complain • Separate your concerns into clearly identifiable paragraphs or headings. Don't mix topics.

33. Air Quality Noise / Vibration Traffic and Circulation Land Use, Development, Planning, & Growth Biological Resources Wetlands / Waters of the U.S. Flood Hazards, Floodplains, and Water Quality Visual Quality & Aesthetics Parks & Recreational Facilities Historic / Archeological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Community Impacts / Environmental Justice Construction Impacts Cumulative Impacts Areas of Study

34. Content • Cataloging community assets • Identifying impacts & mitigations • Suggesting alternatives • Correcting any inaccuracies, omissions, errors in the record

35. Catalog community asset • Identify “sensitive” areas • Historic Resources • Natural Resources • Open space, trees, wildlife, wetlands/creeks • Sensitive areas • Schools, hospitals, places of worship, funeral homes • Parklands • Business Interests • Describe community values

36. Identify Impacts & Mitigations • Consider ways to avoid impacts or enforceable ways to reduce the severity of impacts • Quantify your concerns whenever possible • Identify the specific impact in question; • Explain why you believe the impact would occur; • Explain why you believe the effect would be significant; • Explain what additional mitigation measure(s) or changes in proposed mitigations you would recommend. • Explain why you would recommend any changes and support your recommendations. • Don’t let the fear of not having supporting data keep you from commenting.

37. Suggest Alternatives • Offer specific alternatives • Describe how they meet the requirements of the project • Can be on specific alignments, operations, financing, etc • Suggest different analysis methodologies

38. Help provide accurate record • Point out any inconsistencies in the document or the data • Point out outdated information or • Errors in logic • Focus on the sufficiency of the EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts of the project on the environment

39. Example – Noise Pollution • Provide inventory of sensitive areas • assume most impactful alternative • 900 feet on either side of tracks • 1/4 mile radius from Stations • Be Specific • document location, population, hours, layout • reference standards (City, Federal, WHO, etc) • request specific analyses and mitigations • Identify any omissions, inaccuracies and errors in the document

40. CSS Toolkit • Available at Caltrain/Peninsula Rail Program Website • Seeks community feedback on all alignment options • Early participation is the best way to ensure your ideas and concerns are incorporated

41. Remember • Don’t be overwhelmed • You know your community – just write about it • The burden of proof is on the Authority – not you! • If you don’t offer ideas, we miss a chance for “Best Practices” Democracy is not a spectator sport!

42. Thank You! For more information:www.calhsr.com info@carrdnet.org