California High Speed Rail Project

1. California High Speed Rail Project Burlingame Parent Ed HSR-PREP May 25, 2010

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, Sara Armstrong, Elizabeth Alexis, Rita Wespi • 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. Presentation Additional Overview Information Community Engagement Using the CSS Tool-kit Q&A Reminder for Upcoming Meetings Agenda

4. California HSR 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 State bond funds • Senate Transportation & Housing - Lowenthal • Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 – Simitian • Legislative Analysts Office • Peer Review Committee • 8 appointed members (5 of 8 so far) • No budget, no staff, no meetings (yet)

5. 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 (we only get it if we make the deadlines) Plan calls for $3 Billion in Federal funding every year for 6 yrs

6. Environmental Review Process • Mandated by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Administrative, linear process • Applicant studies impacts, mitigations, alternatives • Lead Agency certifies the studies • Responsible for enforcing CEQA: you! • You must participate in the process to have any recourse if you don’t like the final decision

7. Bay Area - CentralValley 2008 Statewide EIR 2005 San Jose - Merced Merced - Fresno Bakersfield - Palmdale San Francisco - San Jose Palmdale – Los Angeles Los Angeles - Anaheim Fresno - Bakersfield Tiered Approach to CEQA Ridership Study / Analysis / Model

8. Cumulative Impacts Altamont + Pacheco Ridership Claims New Altamont route proposal Union Pacific Position Bay Area to Central Valley

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

10. Structural & Operational changes

11. Burlingame • Right of Way • 2 additional tracks • Constrained width south of Howard • Grade Separations • Broadway, Oak Grove, North Lane (near station), Howard, Bayswater, Peninsula • Caltrain Station Re-Design

12. Burlingame Considerations • Burlingame High School • Tree Canopy among the densest along the corridor • Historic Resources • Business District • Community cohesion & connectivity • City’s official preferred alternative is below grade in a tunnel or cut & cover

14. Community Engagement How can I get involved and make a difference?

15. Climate • Incredibly ambitious & complex project • Technical, funding, political, environmental, procedural challenges • Recognized benefits • Tremendous costs • Bunker mentality • Community Skepticism • Extent of impacts • Lack of specificity • Change is painful • Economic meltdown, budget crisis

16. Grassroots Landscape Groups throughout the State – each with their own focus Common theme: Serve to educate elected officials & public on the issues Act as watchdogs for process – request information and access to data used for decisions Speak publicly at Senate, Assembly, City meetings, Transit Authorities, etc.

17. CARRD Approach • Process focus  • Collaborative, open, constructive approach • We do NOT advocate for a particular implementation or route • Engage community and encourage participation • Wisdom of crowds, creative solutions • Tools for self-advocacy • Watchdogs for • Transparency – push to get more information public • Accountability – demand professionalism, accuracy • Oversight – encourage State Senate, Peer Review

18. Getting Involved • With HSRA • Officially  via comments to the Environmental Review process • As a Stakeholder • With your community • Grassroots groups • City Council • County Representatives • Caltrain Representatives (Joint Powers Board) • Elected Officials – Testify, Send Letters • Media

19. Organizations • Statewide • High Speed Rail Authority • CARRD, CC-HSR, CA4HSR • Regional • Peninsula Rail Program • Peninsula Cities Consortium • Counties, Caltrain, SamTrans • Burlingame focus • City of Burlingame • HSR-PREP • Don’t Railroad Us

20. Context Sensitive Solutions and the Tool Kit

21. 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

22. Context Sensitive Solutions Steps

23. CSS Toolkit • Available at Caltrain/Peninsula Rail Program Website • Seeks community feedback on all alignment options • Serves as a framework • Do not feel confined by the template – you can elaborate • You can write your comments too!

24. 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

25. Identify Impacts & Mitigations • Identify the specific impact in question • Explain the significance of effect • Consider ways to avoid or reduce severity • Describe additional mitigation measure(s) needed • Recommend changes in proposed mitigations • Support your recommendations • Quantify your concerns whenever possible

26. 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

27. 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 information in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts of the project on the environment

28. 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

29. 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!

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

31. Vertical Alignments

32. Altamont Corridor Project