California High Speed Rail Project Community Perspective

CARRD Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design Founders 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

Agenda Project Overview Regional & Local Focus Process Description Q&A

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

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

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

Bay Area to Central Valley 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! Need better map!

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

Structural & Operational changes Current Proposed Commuter + Freight Commuter + Freight + HSR Diesel engines Electric trains (freight trains remain diesel) 2 tracks; passing tracks; freight spurs 4 track system, freight spurs 47 grade level crossings Fully grade separated 12 trains/hr peak 20 HS trains/hr peak + 20 Caltrains/hr peak 79 mph max speed 125 mph max speed The 2035 service assumptions are as follows: 􀁸 Service Frequency o HST will operate up to 10 trains per hour in each direction (8 trains per hour in the 2030 Phase 1 Operating Plan, plus an allowance for 2 additional trains per hour when the full system serves Sacramento and San Diego), with system capacity of up to 12 trains per hour in 2035. o Caltrain will operate up to 10 trains per hour in each direction (per the Caltrain Draft 2025 timetable) 􀁸 Station Stops o HST will stop at San Jose Diridon, Millbrae and a Downtown San Francisco location. A potential additional Mid-Peninsula station is under consideration either at Redwood City, Palo Alto or Mountain View o Caltrain will provide service to existing stations 􀁸 Operating Pattern o HST will operate a mix of express trains that would not stop between San Jose and San Francisco and other trains that would stop either at Millbrae, at the potential Mid-Peninsula station or at both

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

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

Vertical Alignments Type Design Avg Width Above Grade Berm 85 ft Viaduct 79 ft At Grade Road over/under pass 96 ft Below Grade Open Trench Cut & cover (trench) Bored tunnel Aerial Viaduct – 79 feet 􀁸 Berm – 85 feet 􀁸 At Grade – 96 feet 􀁸 Open Trench – 96 feet 􀁸 Covered Trench/Tunnel – 96 feet

HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing Visualization HSRA Concept Video of Churchill Crossing

Berm Alignment

Viaduct Alignment

At Grade (Overpass/Underpass)

Open Trench

Closed Trench (Cut & Cover)

Deep bored tunnel

Palo Alto Alternatives Carried Forward

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 The Aerial Viaduct, At Grade, and Open Trench options may result in the loss of two traffic lanes on Alma Street. A stacked configuration (2 tracks over 2 tracks) could minimize right-of-way requirements.

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

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

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

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

San Francisco – San Jose Project EIR 2009 2011 Purpose and Need for HST Project SCOPING OUTREACH PUBLIC COMMENT 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 Prepare SF to SJ HST Draft EIR/EIS Formally Adopt San Francisco to San Jose HST Final EIR/EIS PUBLIC & AGENCY OUTREACH 2010 Circulate Draft EIR/EIS Assess Environmental & ROW Constraints and Impacts

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

Getting Involved With HSRA With your community 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

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

Three ways to send comments Regular U.S. mail to: California High-Speed Rail Authority c/o Dan Leavitt 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: 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

Comment basics Include Submit it before the deadline. 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

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.

Areas of Study 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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Democracy is not a spectator sport! 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!

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