Joint Powers Board has a significant role to play
If, sometime in the future, highspeed rail actually becomes a reality on the Peninsula, most of the real estate it would utilize belongs to the taxpayers of San Mateo County, Santa Clara County and San Francisco County.
What is now the Caltrain route through Silicon Valley and its environs was acquired from the former Southern Pacific Railroad a generation ago. The decision saved the existing commuter rail line.
The Caltrain system is controlled by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board of Directors, a ninemember body with three seats for each involved county. It’s a body that rarely receives much scrutiny from the public. That’s a mistake.
High-speed rail officials, in concert with their Caltrain counterparts, are preparing plans to share the local right-of-way with the existing commuter system.
However, as has been well-documented, HSR authorities assert that they should not be required to go through a traditional environmental impact process regarding their engineering plans. Instead, they are seeking what they term an expedited arrangement in order to speed up any necessary approvals.
On the Peninsula, the ramifications could be significant, particularly when you consider HSR’s stated needs for a huge train storage/ maintenance facility (targeted for Brisbane) and at least one lengthy section of new passing tracks starting near Ninth Avenue in San Mateo and heading south to Whipple Avenue in Redwood City, a stretch of about six miles.
The Brisbane yard would embrace about 100 acres of property in what is now known as the Baylands development area, 660 acres located on the eastern side of Brisbane along the Caltrain corridor.
At one time, that locale was dominated by a huge Southern Pacific maintenance and freight storage facility; there was a longtime landfill operation there as well. It is estimated that the cost of cleaning the Baylands would be at least $200 million.
As envisioned, the ambitious Baylands project, spearheaded by the Universal Paragon Corp., would include 4,400 housing units, about 7 million square feet of commercial space and other amenities. Roughly half the acreage would be dedicated to open space.
High-speed rail maps indicate that there two options for a site for the yard, one on the west side of the Caltrain tracks, the other on the east side. Development maps provided by Brisbane authorities do not show either alternative.
As John Swiecki, the town’s community development director, put it last week in an email, “In the event the (HSR) project moves forward, it is unknown at this time whether (HSR) will purchase or condemn the maintenance yard site.”
Condemnation, if it were to come to that, would indicate the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary land.
Hastening the environmental review exercise as desired by HSR officials (and the state’s governor) could put local propertyowners in a time-bind. Their expected lifeline in this regard would be the Joint Powers Board.
There is an important precedent that could bear on this situation. Years ago, the HSR planners presented a highly controversial preferred Peninsula construction alternative as a solution to what they saw as a reasonable implementation of their system here.
It involved (at least) two new separate tracks running the length of the Caltrain corridor; an unsightly berm/viaduct would be constructed through most of the area to separate the tracks from motorists. There was an immediate outcry.
Months went by and, finally, a compromise was reached: HSR would share Caltrain’s rails (with passing tracks) and, in large measure, the disruptive berm/viaduct eyesore would be shelved for much of San Mateo County. Further, HSR money would be used to electrify the Caltrain system. That cash, close to $700 million, is scheduled to be forthcoming soon.
Let us hope that the pending outlay does not compromise the Joint Powers Board’s oversight of its right-of-way. In other words, no caving to the demands of HSR _ if it should come to that.