Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-15 Rail Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 13 Special Meeting February 15, 2023 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 1:00 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Kou, Lauing Present Remotely: None Absent: Veenker Call to Order Chair Burt stated that Council Member Veenker was not able to attend the meeting and Mayor Kou was filling in. He stated the focus of the meeting would be the 2022 to 2023 Work Plan. Public Comment 1. Bob Lian of 101 Alma Street discussed the loud honking and horn blasting at the train crossing several times per hour from early morning until midnight. He felt it was an unhealthy and disturbing environment to live in and the continuous honking affected the health and wellbeing of residents. He stated there were enough safety measures in place to know a train was coming and felt creating a healthier environment for residents was just as critical. 2. Penny Ellson asked Staff to explain how the project timelines for grade separation planning and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update would be aligned to enable the BPTP to inform the grade separation process. 3. Laura Granka appreciated the Quiet Zone Study being done. She stated it would be challenging to get a pedestrian underpass in the vicinity of Kellogg or Churchill with the partial underpass option and underscored the importance of that intersection for pedestrians and cyclists, for both the neighborhood community and the high school. She requested creating success criteria in a time-bound manner to come to a decision sooner rather than later on that crossing. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain – There was no one present from Caltrain. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 B. VTA - There was no one present from VTA. C. City Staff Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi described a grant submitted for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program with CalSTA on February 10, a funding request for final design and right-of-way acquisition phase at the Meadow, Charleston, and Churchill crossings. Caltrain and City Staff met on site at the San Francisquito Creek Bridge project to review impacts of the recent storm on the embankments and bridge conditions. Staff followed up with Caltrain to reiterate the interest in alternative plans for rehabilitation and strengthening of the bridge and a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best path. Caltrain was still reviewing that request. Regarding the Caltrain Corridor Study, Caltrain has had meetings with different stakeholders groups, the City/County Staff Coordination Group (CSCG), and LMPG. The consultant, Kimley- Horn, shared the project objectives and timeline and is reviewing case studies of similar projects in the area. The Embarcadero Road bike improvement, previously a large CIP project, has been re-scoped into a much smaller project, looking at the Emerson Avenue to Alma Street portion of Embarcadero Road. BKF Engineers, the consultant that had previously prepared the plans to nearly 100%, was now on board to review the plans. Staff was working with Menlo Park and the consultant for the Quiet Zone Study at Palo Alto Avenue. An outreach meeting was scheduled for March 23 at 6 p.m. at the Arrillaga Family Recreation Center Oak Room, 701 Laurel Street in Menlo Park. Chair Burt was glad things were proceeding on the Embarcadero bike and ped section between Alma and Emerson. He asked if there was an opportunity for input on prospective designs or feedback on the tentative design developed by the consultant. He questioned the design role of the consultant versus construction implementation. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated the project was at essentially 100% design, past the point of getting comments on prospective designs. Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated the project was being reviewed to make sure the proposed improvements were in line with current standards and requirements and to make any revisions or changes. The project has been finalized for a long time, and the community outreach will be to familiarize and refresh people's minds, especially those in the fronting affected by that project. Staff welcomed input and feedback, but it was hoped these would be in a project- ready format. Chair Burt recalled changes made in 2016 from the southeast to northwest side of Embarcadero. He requested that the details be shared with the Committee as he had not seen them previously. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi responded that Staff would be happy to bring that to the Committee. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Chair Burt discussed that Caltrain had proposed to charge the City their full cost for design review and project management. VTA has been interested in their role since, through Measure B, they are the primary funding source. Caltrain has not historically had staff with this capacity and expertise, but Palo Alto and other cities have not been happy with the MOU understanding. An ad hoc committee was created for VTA with Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto around grade separation issues, but Caltrain has no funding to do this themselves. He asked if Staff was familiar with the earmark Congresswoman Eshoo had set aside for this purpose and the specifics on how it could be used to meet these needs. City Manager Ed Shikada recalled sending a letter of support at the time that earmark was requested. He believed the grant recipient was VTA and that a conversation should be held with them as to how to leverage that. Chair Burt mentioned the LPMG meeting coming up, with Council Member Lauing as the representative. Caltrain has a technical team on the grade separation and have engaged with Kimley-Horn who have developed an extensive engagement and outreach plan. He was encouraged by the design, how they are proceeding, and the capabilities and vision of those staff members. Caltrain, like most transit agencies, is facing a fiscal cliff with ridership down and the revenue from fare box recovery having tanked. Palo Alto had the second highest boardings in the system prior to the pandemic and the highest in the pandemic period. Caltrain passes were a condition of approval of the the Hospital Development Agreement in 2011. Stanford expanded beyond that to include all employees. The TMA focused on providing VTA or Caltrain passes to small, lower-income-paying service businesses downtown whose employees needed the help. That then expanded to include lower-income riders. The City provided passes for the City Hall area employees. With remote work and companies pushing employees to have greater number of days at the office, these passes may be a real inducement to come back to work, especially with the new downtown subway connection in San Francisco and the new electrification with faster, more modern trains. He suggested Palo Alto describe this as a model to offer to Caltrain to try to propagate it up and down the corridor to drive ridership. Nadia Naik believed some of the bike improvements on Embarcadero were related to money for improvements due to Stanford going over their numbers. It was approved by Council and has now come back after being dropped during COVID budget cuts. The previous argument for limiting the improvements to only the bicycle part along Embarcadero was because the Council had not yet decided on Churchill improvements. Now that the preferred alternative has been decided for a partial underpass at Churchill, she asked if the Council needs to look at the improvements at Embarcadero that were already approved by the previous Council in 2016. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated there were multiple reasons the El Camino portion was dropped and that Staff was currently trying to tackle a small portion fitting within the BPTP implementation, without the need to seek an additional CIP. No action taken; updates provided SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Action Items 1. Rail Committee to Review and Provide Direction for the Development of the 2023 Rail Committee Work Plan. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi reviewed the update on the Work Plan approved by City Council on August 8, 2022, to provide context for the planned work items. He listed and discussed the items and expected time frames at a high level: to review and approve the conceptual plan refinements based on the discussions of 2 study sessions in 2022; results of the geotechnical studies; to receive the peer review of cost estimates for the trench alternative and discuss implications of the alternatives; to review the Caltrain Service Agreement for possible recommendations to City Council; to receive Caltrain's update on the San Francisquito Creek Bridge rehab and replacement; ongoing staff updates on funding and legislative information and opportunities; to receive the Caltrain Corridor Crossings Strategy (CCS); Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and considerations for the new east and west bike-ped crossings for possible recommendations to City Council; to review and provide feedback on the improvements for the implementation of quiet zones at California Avenue; Rail Committee recommendation to City Council for the implementation of quiet zones; Rail Committee to provide a recommendation to City Council for narrowing or selection of alternatives for grade separation. Chair Burt added that the Work Plan gives much greater detail on the focus area, Rail Committee activities, time frame, and a progress report, which gives a greater understanding of what was summarized. Nadia Naik mentioned the importance of the pending report of the El Palo Alto Tree. She questioned how the BPTP bike crossings item lines up with outreach that may be needed for these things, particularly Seale. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated the El Palo Alto Tree was tied to the San Francisquito Creek Bridge issue. The BPTP project was expected to begin soon. Outreach was the first portion of the project. There was also a request to get the PAUSD dot maps, which show where students travel from in order to get to Paly. In the refinement process, there are versions of crossing at Seale and at Kellogg as part of refinements for the underpass alternatives. Chief Burt believed the Committee voted not to have any further work done on Kellogg. Engineer Ripon Bhatia stated that it was mentioned in the study session that any concepts prepared for Kellogg would be applicable to Seale because they have the same cross section, width, etc. It would be used as a comparison to show the benefits. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Chair Burt wanted to ensure the public knew Kellogg was not actively being pursued. Ms. Naik suggested obtaining the dot maps be flagged for the City/School Liaison Committee to address. Public Comment: 1. Penny Ellson felt the timelines did not align. Staff anticipates starting to integrate BPTP information into the planning process in November, but according to the Work Plan, the process does not get approved until October. She wanted more detail on what needs to be prioritized in the BPTP process in order to inform the Rail Committee in a timely way. She stated the South Palo Alto bicycle situation during and after construction will be worse than what exists in North Palo Alto because there are no existing grade separations. She was very concerned about kids commuting to school by bicycle from South Palo Alto and the increase in car traffic if kids are not able to commute by bicycle. 2. Laura Granka inquired about the criteria by which the Quiet Zone Study would be expanded beyond Palo Alto Avenue as quiet zones would be a significant improvement to the community given that grade separation seems to be a long way off. She also wanted to ensure that ongoing safety improvements for other intersections, notably the sidewalk expansion at Churchill Avenue, were still on the table and wondered if there was an opportunity to improve the design for pedestrians. Chair Burt encouraged committee members to go through the list in depth as it would be important to make sure the year's agenda was set to reflect the priorities and sequencing. Council Member Lauing wanted the overall messaging to be clear that it would be another year before the Rail Committee could make recommendations to Council and Council could act on it. He asked Staff to itemize some of the dependencies affecting the timeline. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi agreed but clarified that the Rail Committee could make a decision that any one of the items on the list was the deciding factor. For example, if the trench alternative cost estimate came back very high, the Rail Committee might decide to eliminate the trench from consideration. He stated the challenge was in predicting when it could all complete. Council Member Lauing asked if, for example, a decision was made on the Churchill partial bypass, it could be done in June before other recommendations at end of year. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi responded that that was a great example because the Council had already selected a preferred alternative for Churchill. Mayor Kou asked if it was possible to determine approximate funding for some of the plans, for example, a ballpark figure about what a trench or underpass would cost. She also asked about Caltrain's committee to review the questions for the designs. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated there were cost estimates for all the existing alternatives and a matrix with a comparison of all the costs on the Connecting Palo Alto website. He also stated Caltrain's Corridor Crossing Strategy was a study for the entire corridor but could answer some of those questions. Mayor Kou wanted people to understand that Caltrain would be coming back late with these answers while Palo Alto was trying to move ahead. There was responsibility with Caltrain for not providing some of the answers. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated Kimley-Horn was leading the project and has a good process set up to get the project going. Council Member Lauing stated not all residents understand that and felt the messaging was important. Chair Burt discussed further historical context of Caltrain approving design differences from the limited existing technical design standards. With Palo Alto's corridor being narrow and built out on either side, the grade crossings are more challenging than most of the rest of those in the corridor, so Palo Alto needs to pursue a series of exceptions. Caltrain has acknowledged that most of those exceptions will likely be built into new technical standards. He would like to look at Staff composing a draft of explanation of this for the public. Regarding the item "Peer review, cost estimates of trench alternatives and their implications," he stated the trench was not a viable option for Churchill or Palo Alto Avenue, only for Meadow and Charleston. Caltrain requires a passing track section of 3 to 4 miles from South Mountain View to the north edge of Palo Alto. North Palo Alto is amongst the narrowest in the entire corridor, and Caltrain has acknowledged it is not likely they will choose the area of Churchill and north of Oregon as part of those 3 to 4 miles, though they have not officially ruled it out. Charleston and East Meadow are likely areas Caltrain will need to reserve the possibility of a 4-track. The alternatives do not have to be built for 4 tracks but cannot preclude a future 4-track. A 4-track trench was infeasible from a fit standpoint and construction impact, and he suggested there may be no point in further pursuing the trench alternative. He questioned how to proceed with recommendations to Council. There was further discussion about the requirement for 4 tracks. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated if the Committee believed the trench was no longer viable at any point, there was value in removing that from consideration as more time could be focused on the alternatives with more merit or likelihood of success. Chair Burt wanted to resolve the 4-track issue, especially as it relates to the trench option, as soon as possible and then perhaps move forward on dropping that from the list. Ms. Naik stated that because the viaduct was eliminated from the alternatives, PABAC was only giving feedback on the remaining alternatives, trench, hybrid, and underpass. She felt it made sense to discuss the viaduct, both for the bike community and because it takes much less SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 construction time. The first bullet on attachment A is "Review grade separation selection criteria for any revisions." That criteria has not been looked at since 2017, and now would be a good time to think about what is being optimized for because the cost estimates from the consultants do not account for all the disruption. Chair Burt asked if there was anything active in the process of additional work on the peer review cost for the trench alternative. He questioned if the Committee should give guidance on a recommendation to hold off on those expenses until there is an answer on the 4-track. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated all that is being done is reviewing bids for that. The vendor has not been selected, so that has not started. He stated the Council had directed Staff on this but did not feel there was harm in holding on that. Chair Burt stated it could be added to the early recommendations of the Committee to the Council to do early this year. Mayor Kou was concerned about outreach to South Palo Alto as there is a large number of people who are quite vocal about a trench. It is not clear what the underpass is going to look like, especially with the U-turn, the circle, and the potential of housing being taken away. This will require quite a lot of communication and clarity for people in South Palo Alto. Chair Burt wondered about Congresswoman Eshoo's earmark potentially covering the cost to have Caltrain pursue this as exception without costing the City. Ms. Naik stated part of the challenge was the only work done has been on 2-track alternatives, not 4 tracks. She suggested letting it be known to Representative Eshoo's office that Palo Alto is unable to use the money secured because of not getting an answer from Caltrain about the location of the 4 tracks, which might help speed things up. If 4 tracks need to be allowed for, this can be done as a design exception to the 2-track alternatives. Chair Burt stated the decision-making should be based on criteria and felt there should be a review of the criteria at the next meeting, as a starting point to reflect the current best understandings. Council Member Lauing and Mayor Kou agreed. Chair Burt asked about inclusion of quiet zones in other locations than just Palo Alto Avenue as it could be many years before the grade crossings are constructed. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated Palo Alto Avenue would be used as an example to apply to the other crossings. Senior Engineer Bhatia added there was a plan to have an RFP by the end of the year to get a consultant on board to do the 3 other crossings. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Chair Burt asked to have it reflected in the Work Plan that Palo Alto Avenue was the impetus for the other crossings, to help people all of them are being looked at. Mayor Kou about the status of the Palo Alto Avenue Quiet Zone. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated the original study was in the outreach phase, seeking feedback from the community on March 23. That information will be brought to the Rail Committee in April, another opportunity for the public to provide input. The concept plan would be finalized based on the Rail Committee's input and direction and then recommended to the City Council for implementation, which starts with approval from CPUC and construction of the improvements. Once the improvements are complete, installation of the quiet zone by FRA would be requested. Chief Transportation Officer Kamhi stated it would be in front of Council for recommendation to implement August or September. Mayor Kou asked if that outreach is being done by Menlo Park or Palo Alto. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated the first community outreach meeting will be in collaboration with Menlo Park but Palo Alto will be meeting virtually with different stakeholders with opportunity for the Rail Committee, constituents, and stakeholders to provide feedback. Chair Burt suggested contacting the leadership of the resident association at 101 Alma to do an outreach. He also suggested that, because the quiet zone evaluation at Palo Alto Avenue will potentially lead into Churchill, East Meadow, and Charleston, the outreach for the March meeting in Menlo Park should include those interested in those other 3 grade crossings. Chief Transportation Officer Kamhi stated 101 Alma would be included in outreach and there would be a separate outreach once the process for the other crossings is started. Chair Burt explained that the massive construction project for the vehicular grade crossings would disrupt the ability of kids to go to and from school by bike; therefore, moving forward with dedicated bike and ped crossings ahead of the vehicular ones has been considered. It was also explained last year by multiple agencies that there is a lot of funding available for this type of construction, and additional funding sources have been opening up at the federal and state levels. It would be ideal to go forward in parallel with the new BPTP rather than waiting another year or two to get the plan to begin the process, which would hold up the sequencing of grade crossings and potentially make Palo Alto less eligible for funding. There are currently 4 grade crossings north of Oregon and none south of Oregon, and this was also a priority for the community. A Work Plan priority to look at integrated safe systems for cars, bikes, and pedestrians was referred by the Council. At-grade crossings are high on the list of risks to safety, yet they are more complicated and expensive to solve. He encouraged the Committee to look at the decision to pursue bike and ped grade separations in South Palo Alto sooner rather than later. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated that mitigations for bicycles and pedestrians, even on a temporary basis, would be ensured during construction of any alternative selected for Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill. One dependency for starting additional crossings is figuring out whether the rail is going up or down, if it is a tunnel or overcrossing. Chair Burt stated the crossing in the vicinity of Loma Verde would be outside either elevating or depressing tracks. South of there, the way bike and peds were dealt with will be tied in with the design for vehicular separation. There were concerns about whether that addresses the needs. He thought separated could be completed on a more accelerated basis at Loma Verde and conceivably at Seale, but he felt Seal was a lower priority. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated the Council had directed to use the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan to look at the possibility for new east-west crossings. Public engagement would be necessary even for Loma Verde. There is also a need to look at the bicycle and pedestrian network as a whole. One of the first parts of work on the BPTP will be community outreach. Chair Burt stated the east-west need was looked into in 2015 with considerable work pursued at that time. He listed several parallel paths east and west of Caltrain and stated the lack of perpendicular routes had been well established as a significant gap in the bike system. The exact path was another question. City Manager Ed Shikada stated another issue was the lack of staff bandwidth to do the work and whether to organize it as part of grade separation work or part of the BPTP work. Chair Burt felt if the situation was a need to sequence and a rare set of opportunities for very significant capital dollars but lack of internal capacity, it should be conveyed to the Council what it would take to accomplish. The Council could then make a decision on whether or not to do it. If it was something to be prioritized in the May budget, Staff needs that decision soon enough to fold into the budget, at least as an alternative if not a recommendation. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi agreed that resources were a major constraint but Staff was planning to include a request in the budget for someone to work on this and would be in a good position to apply for funding for additional crossings. Chair Burt discussed the Measure B dollars and questioned if some of those funds were potentially available for internal staffing purposes. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi was not sure if that covered staff time and would look into it. He added that additional staffing would not be for this alone but also for other projects that resources are not currently available for. Chair Burt proposed bringing a recommendation sooner rather than later on sequencing of bike and ped crossings, with the prospect of the one in the vicinity of Loma Verde being the most unconstrained and highest priority. The Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeways Project was SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 already moving forward, and even though that did not answer the question of the ultimate grade separated crossing, it was a significant improvement already in the CIP. Loma Verde stood out as the one where construction dollars could be tapped into and construction done sooner rather than later, with real impacts on the community. It was not dependent on another item on a critical path and had a well-established need in that approximate location. Issues had been raised with Caltrain regarding the San Francisquito Creek Bridge replacement and the degradation of the bridge. Regarding the item, "Updates on funding and legislative information and opportunities for grade separations," he stated there was certain funding to help with furthering the selection and preliminary design, the prerequisites to tap into the big dollars. Breaking that down, the questions were the funding to proceed on the selection of preferred alternative, the preliminary design, the construction dollar pursuit, and legislative aspects. He asked Staff to speak about available dollars for proceeding on design alternatives and then for preliminary design. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi listed Measure B grade separation dollars, which VTA has agreed can be used to pursue additional studies as part of the conceptual design phase in order to help complete the selection, and the Measure B Local Streets and Roads dollars, which can be used for congestion-relieving activities. This item was intended for any other funding sources that may come into play, such as the Mega federal grant program, INFRA federal grant program, TIRCP, Section 190 funds. Prioritizing and getting to a selected alternative for all locations would make the City more competitive in applying for grants. Chair Burt stated it was unlikely the City would get construction dollars to cover all 3 at once and suggested getting to a preferred alternative and preliminary design on one of them. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi believed Council had prioritized Meadow-Charleston, so that was how Staff was applying currently. Chair Burt added that narrowing the alternatives for Churchill was probably farther along but the higher priority was Charleston-East Meadow. Ms. Naik added that this plan does not include looking at alternatives for Palo Alto Avenue. The City was pushing back on Caltrain that the replacement of the San Francisquito Creek Bridge should be a rehabilitation, and she felt there was a chance Caltrain could decide it was a safety issue with a need to replace the bridge. That would put options for Palo Alto Avenue in jeopardy. She wanted to be sure this was part of the conversation for the ad hoc committee for Stanford, as Stanford owns the station area. Chair Burt wanted to add a placeholder to the list for lower-priority, lower-sequence projects like the Creek Bridge replacement, Palo Alto Avenue, and the intermodal station. He stated the intermodal station was outdated and had the highest boardings in the Caltrain system. It has been recognized for decades as a critical part of county transportation and Caltrain. There was a question of whether there were still Measure A dollars or other funding sources to be tapped into. VTA has talked about helping with MTC, and more recently Caltrain had an action item on SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 negotiation guiding principles for the downtown intermodal station. That is racing forward because it potentially has massive federal dollars in funding and huge political support. He wanted to keep in mind that it was on the future list and that having preliminary involvement with it may tee up funding that needs to be discussed with various agencies. It was not the most immediate priority but was of high importance. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi explained that the internal strategy was to get one of the other locations into the next phase so Staff had the capacity to take on Palo Alto Avenue. Chair Burt felt it was important to get it on the list for strategizing as opposed to staff resources. Ms. Naik added there was a team on the Caltrain side taking every opportunity to get replacement money and the bridge qualified under the State of Good Repair. It may pop up unexpectedly if Caltrain make an aggressive move because it is high on their list. She worried that Caltrain could replace that bridge without Palo Alto having a say in it. She felt one thing that allowed the City to have an impact on that was the El Palo Alto Tree. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi stated Staff has been working closely with the people working on the El Palo Alto Tree report, and Caltrain is awaiting that. He agreed that Ms. Naik was right about the State of Good Repair money and hoped that the word repair in the title of the funding meant it did not have to be a replacement. Council Member Lauing asked the legality Caltrain saying the tree was in the way. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi thought that would be difficult because of the tree's historic impacts. Chair Burt wanted to ensure the tree had adequate designation and concluded his list of questions and input on the plan. Mayor Kou asked what kind of legislative information was expected. She asked if there was a reason to do lobbying for funding during the National League of Cities. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated that was added as a catchall in case something becomes available. City Manager Shikada clarified that lobbying was separate from the NLC. Chair Burt stated there was a differentiation between legislative advocacy versus advocacy through agencies that already have this unprecedented funding. He wanted to ensure the agencies knew where Palo Alto was in the process and understood how high the grade separations were on the safety hazard ranking. He added that the need to grade separate the Caltrain corridor was a high priority because the state budget and surpluses in the last 2 years have been driven by the economic engine served by the Caltrain line. The entire state budget SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 and a real impact on the U.S. economy resides in this corridor. He felt the argument to carry forward at the state and federal level and regionally with MTC was that it is in their interest to prioritize this. He asked if the Committee had answered the questions well enough to help refine the year's agenda. Mayor Kou questioned if jack boxing was still being looked into as she did not see that included. Chair Burt explained that was within the construction method part of technical standards and there were a couple of construction method elements that were not necessarily design standards that intersect. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi added that Caltrain committed to providing information about alternative construction techniques. Chair Burt stated it also fit into the service agreement, with questions on having Caltrain review designs as one-offs versus under the Corridor Crossing Strategy. This was all related to getting a refinement and constructing things with better designs, at lower cost, or at lower construction impact to the community. There were several paths to take to get to that endpoint. Ms. Naik stated it would be great to have a Caltrain presentation on jack box construction prior to the Council deciding on a trench, viaduct, or hybrid. Chair Burt asked about interest on Caltrain or VTA presenting at future meetings, as having them present gets their attention and causes them to move more quickly on Palo Alto's priorities. Chief Transportation Official Kamhi responded that some of it ties into the standard agreement. Caltrain had committed to talking about alternative construction methods, which they can do outside of either the study or the service agreement. Chair Burt suggested asking them to come to the March meeting or even asking them to a series of meetings on different subtopics. Council Member Lauing stated that of the 4 projects, Churchill was not the highest priority. He felt that if the proposal with the partial underpass was found to work, Churchill should proceed forward even though Meadow was a higher priority. Chair Burt did not want to decide that at this point but felt there may be a crunch point when that decision could be made. Council Member Lauing agreed. Ms. Naik clarified that there were technically 3 projects because Meadow and Charleston were considered one project and had to be done together, which qualified for different funding than a regular grade separation. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 13 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/15/2023 Chief Transportation Official Kamhi stated for the next meeting, Rail Committee was to review selection criteria and Staff would try to get Caltrain to talk about alternative construction techniques, specifically jack boxing. He asked the attorney if an action was needed for the list of items. Assistant City Attorney Tim Shimizu stated it was up to the Chair if he wanted to do a formal motion about making changes but it did not sound like there was much question about the topics. Chair Burt felt Chief Transportation Official Kamhi and he could work together on the agenda plan and then have an opportunity for the Committee to review it. Ms. Naik described that XCAP's report has a section on suggestions for the updates to the criteria. The report referenced the fact that there was conflicting criteria, and she suggested looking at that for the staff report, discussing having several policy documents that seem to contradict each other when thinking about priorities. Chief Transportation Official Philip Kamhi added Staff would have a temporary hold on doing the cost peer review on the trench alternative until it gets back to Council. City Manager Shikada suggested reporting this out to the full Council at the next Council meeting, if not more formally. Chair Burt wanted to consider a discussion in March about the most immediate things to take back to the Council for affirmation. No action taken Next Steps and Future Agendas Next tentative meeting is March 15, 2023. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:39 P.M.