Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-16 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Regular Meeting April 16, 2024 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 2:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt (chair), Lauing, Lythcott-Haims Present Remotely: Absent: Call to Order Chair Burt called the meeting to order. Roll was called with all present. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain Navdeep Dhaliwal, Caltrain Government and Community Affairs Officer, stated Caltrain has successfully tested and energized all of the corridor from San Francisco to San Jose. The last step will be making sure the trains are fully tested and certified before being put into service later this year. She discussed the process of testing. She explained they were coordinating with schools and Safe Routes to School Associations along the corridor to get rail safety messages out to students and residents. They plan to table at East Meadow Crossing and Churchill Crossing in early May to share rail safety messages with students utilizing those crossings which she described. She provided the link www.caltrain.com/safety for more information. She announced the next public train tour to be May 11 at San Carlos Station and provided the link www.caltrain.com/tour for information. She said they were working with the City and Stanford to hold an additional electric train tour at Palo Alto Station, tentatively June 1 to be confirmed within the week. Chair Burt added they were looking for a date to have a tour of the new electrified trains. The date they are planning to fully electrify is tentatively September 26. In advance of that event, work is being done by the agencies who share responsibility to spruce up the station. He described SB 1031 stating Caltrain, VTA and SamTrans have all taken a position of oppose unless significantly amended. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 B. VTA Jason Kim, VTA Senior Transit Planner, described a study that would be starting within the next handful of months. Chair Burt stated it was his understanding that process was to begin in the coming weeks, not months. That concerned him given they only have a limited number of months before the electrification launch. C. City Staff Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Officer, provided updates on the Quiet Zones project, the FRA grant, the Section 190 grant application, upcoming study session meeting on grade separation activities on April 29, 2024 and a public meeting on grade separation for potentially mid-May 2024. Chair Burt asked if the CPUC response would be to the City giving feedback on criteria. Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer, discussed comments made at a public hearing held by California Public Utilities Commission where he made a comment raising concern to include sensitivity to bicycle and pedestrian traffic to be considered for this kind of prioritization criteria. They have indicated that it is valuable but the process is longer and comprehensive and it has to go through the full legislature process in order to do the modifications. As a part of the next evaluation, they can consider the process and bring it to the management for further refinement. Chair Burt talked about Caltrain’s corridor crossing strategy stating every crossing has a concern over the criteria. He thought Caltrain may want to engage with CPUC on that. He brought up the VTA Grade Crossing Ad-Hoc Committee who could engage on that, as well. Vice Mayor Lauing queried if the grant for Churchill was applicable to all three crossings in any proportion that they want. Mr. Kamhi explained they had requested that they be somewhat equally distributed amongst the three parts. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked for more information about where the Rail Safety Tabling at Meadow and Charleston are envisioned. Ms. Dhaliwal answered they are currently working with their External Affairs Manager, Brent Tietjen and Chief Safety Officer Mike Meador on the logistics of the event. She offered to follow up with additional information via email. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 Items heard out of order. Item 2 heard before Item 1 Action Items 1. Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration of Caltrain's Staff Comments; Provide Feedback and Direction to Staff; and Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s) for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase. On March 19, 2024 the Committee received Presentations and Public Testimony; the item was continued to April 16, 2024 for Committee Deliberation and Action – No Public Testimony Will be Heard on April 16, 2024. Item 1 Public Comment: 1. Michael Wessel (zoom) asked Council to consider including a contingency plan that prioritizes a group of single family homes for the families on Charleston Road due to the losses that would be experienced if the underpass for roundabout is selected for grade separation on their street. 2. Kyu Lee (zoom) explained why she felt the closure of Churchill Crossing was the most favorable option. She urged City Council to prioritize the option recommended by ExCap. 3. Patrice Banal (zoom) did not agree with eminent domain in the City of Palo Alto. She opined other creative ways and existing infrastructure could be found to move traffic. She discussed the financial devastation that would be faced by her neighbors and her in being displaced. 4. Adrian Brandt (zoom) discussed Caltrain’s analysis of the viaduct alternative. He explained how to construct it without taking half of Alma. He demanded coming up with a design that fits in the right of way. 5. Elizabeth Alexis (zoom) spoke in favor of continuing study on the underpass at Charleston and Easy Meadow but still needed a lot of fine tuning and work. She was concerned that they were not moving forward with a selection process for a consultant and engineers to work with them that are more bike focused. 6. M Muk Sreenivasan (zoom) urged the Committee to make a beneficial decision regarding grade separation. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 7. B Riley (zoom) talked about safety issues the proposed Churchill Partial Underpass would pose. Council Member Lythcott-Haims was intrigued by the conversation about viaduct being brought back onto the table in the interest of avoiding a permanent shoofly. She discussed how it could be flipped. She wanted to understand the merits of that approach to a viaduct. It was her understanding that the flip would be a six and a half foot encroachment. She recalled being told if they went with the viaduct option as analyzed by Caltrain, someone said they would want to keep the existing shoofly track. She asked if she was correct in assuming that would mean they would not have that impediment going forward. She was interested in the analysis because of the concerns they were hearing about taking of property with the underpass option, the utilities impacts, the traffic rerouting impacts and the bike/ped impacts. She felt that the complexity and possibility of the viaduct was not sufficiently studied. Michael Rabinowitz, Caltrain, stated if they did that the viaduct would be closer to the private property side. There was no guarantee about what that would look like. They did not want to send the idea of where the shooflies would be or how much they would encroach. It could be explored in preliminary engineering. He thought the six and a half foot encroachment was just an initial estimate but could be more or less. He stated anything that would encroach onto Alma would not be permitted. He said the other aspect would need to be further studied. Edgar Torres explained this could be very similar to hybrid but needed to be evaluated in more detail. He added if the shoofly is to go toward Alma, the constraining limit is the center line of what is known as MT1. Vice Mayor Lauing asked for comment on the idea that Caltrain was sandbagging one alternative. He wanted to know the differences between Meadow and Charleston. He suggested they might should be doing two out of the three. He asked which would be the one they would not do in that case. He asked if he was correct in understanding that there were no full houses being planned to be taken down. Mr. Rabinowitz thought it stemmed from a desire from the railroad to fully actualize the utility of its right of way. He said that would be taken into review if it gets to Preliminary Engineering. Mr. Kamhi noted it would be very unlikely that they construct all three at the same time. The reason for the project and the process they set out in determining a grade crossing is to eliminate the future traffic congestion that would be caused by additional and more frequent trains. They could grade separate one of the crossings and get a benefit but there would still be congestion, issues and incidents that occur at the other crossings that are not grade separated. The ultimate goal for this project has been to grade separate all the locations. The choice between Meadow and Charleston depends on the alternative but likely would be done together because of their proximity. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 Ms. Naik explained why Meadow and Charleston would have to be done together. She talked about a traffic analysis done starting in 2013. Mr. Bhatia added that it was clarified that the traffic volumes on both of them are sufficient to justify their own crossing. There would be some constructability challenges regarding having both projects being done simultaneously. They would also have to look managing traffic operations during and after construction. He stated there were some full takes of houses on the Charleston Road Crossing and at Meadow. Chair Burt noted one area discussed in the greater roundabout location was whether two lanes would be needed and they may want to have additional study on ways to mitigate that in order to reduce the property impacts. Vice Mayor Lauing mentioned a February 20 report that listed 12 in Meadow and 28 in Charleston that would be “directly impacted”. He opined they should do a couple of analyses to determine if and why that would be essential. He supposed a roundabout might work alternatively. Mr. Bhatia explained regarding the roundabout they did model the traffic volumes and looked at all the diverted traffic and a simple intersection would not be able to handle it. He added regarding building the two locations separately, the partial underpass does have the ability to be built separately. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked for clarification on how many actual negotiated acquisitions were anticipated associated with Meadow and Charleston. She did not think the visual of a viaduct was attractive. She stated they would have to make the case for building beautiful and functional structures. She thought that might lessen the concerns of the public. She expressed great concern about the possibility of negotiated acquisitions and wondered if that would be considered in the more stately neighborhoods. She wanted to know the number of partial or complete negotiated acquisitions that would be required at Churchill. Mr. Bhatia answered there is a summary on their matrix of evaluation that was presented at the February Rail Committee meeting that listed the exact number of acquisitions that would be required. He talked about laws and regulations they would conform to for fair market value evaluations and negotiations with the property owners. Chair Burt asked if he was correct in recalling one of those acquisitions to be a small apartment complex in which most of the property would not be utilized and could then be reconstructed. He commented that the policy direction had been to pursue alternatives that would minimize property acquisitions at all locations. He noted that the number of properties impacted are based upon the current design but not the potential refinements as they move forward in the next stages of engineering with the intention to come up with designs that would further reduce the impacts. He remarked that it is not uncommon to have properties impacted with major transportation projects. The desire was to have the best designs and balance of priorities SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 to minimize that. He recalled public comments assuming the viaduct would be the least expensive which was not the case. He discussed and compared the estimated costs of the hybrid, the underpass and the viaduct. He was most skeptical of the hybrid number that was estimated. He provided a construction time estimate of all options. He talked about the prospect of having a bike and ped crossing in the vicinity of Loma Verde that would precede construction and would benefit the residents, Safe Routes to School and the huge number of workers on Stanford University. Ms. Naik stated the access to that apartment complex as it exists today marks it as an acquisition at this early stage of engineering but as the next level approaches, it is possible there would be another way to have an access point which means it might be removed from the list. She noted that a lot of the partial acquisitions are impacted by the current very wide bike lanes that exist. There was discussed about how that could be refined. She clarified that ExCap spent a lot of time looking at building the alternatives with the least impact. She discussed that the traffic analysis revealed whether it is the hybrid, viaduct or trench, all traffic movements remained an F. It was their perspective that it was a waste of money to go through all this stuff and end up with intersections that still stink. That was the reason for the underpass conversations. She discussed and compared the estimated costs of the three options. She provided a link to the ExCap meeting where property acquisitions and compensation was discussed. City Manager Ed Shikada thought it was fair to note that with Council and other cities discussions of improvements needed along San Francisquito Creek also might require property acquisitions. Mr. Kamhi discussed the reason they use the term negotiations rather than eminent domain or takes and the potential property impacts that could happen at each location. He mentioned they had recently hired a senior planner that was starting to work on the additional bike/ped crossings; however, his work was put on hold so that he could address the Council-directed work on El Camino Bikeways Project. Chair Burt started a discussion about the possible recommendations the Committee might offer regarding grade separation alternatives. Vice Mayor Lauing suggested providing some conceptual images of the different options. Mr. Kamhi talked about issues with the roundabout that had been identified by the traffic consultant. Ms. Naik pointed out that they had different renderings on the Connecting Palo Alto website but they were missing some of the viaduct renderings and thought they might want to put more of those up for the public. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 Mr. Bhatia agreed to look into adding more viaduct renderings. He added they would refine the roundabout further to see if they could reduce impact of the size as they move along in the design. Council Member Lythcott-Haims wanted to understand why they were talking about the hybrid as a preferred option. She would like to see underpass and viaduct as the preferred option. Chair Burt remarked that was the Council preferred alternative. The question was if they want to make a different recommendation. Mr. Rabinowitz pointed out that it was more that they wanted to preserve what the City’s process had been with the alternative. Ms. Dhaliwal thought the flip might provide additional benefit but would still be a rather large impact to the homeowners. She said it could be studied but the critical concern with the viaduct has always been the obstruction and the cost. Chair Burt discussed the upcoming meeting schedule and wondered if there would be time for Caltrain to study the flip before their next meeting in May. Mr. Rabinowitz and Mr. Torres agreed a month would not be sufficient time to study the flip. Ms. Naik provided a reminder that procedurally the Council voted to remove the viaduct alternative in 2021 and asked what that would mean in terms of the number of procedural steps needed. Chair Burt answered it would be a recommendation of the Committee that Council would have to act on and agree to. Council Member Lythcott-Haims expressed concern that the materials they were reviewing on the viaduct did not have the flipped alternative. She wanted to know if the study session they would be going into capitulates that there is a flip alternative that Caltrain mentioned, said they had not been asked to study and said it was less impact on Alma and potentially feasible. She discussed the impacts on private property of hybrid, underpass and viaduct which she thought was an important value question she would like to see put to Council. Mr. Bhatia agreed to add some language in the report to reflect that information. Chair Burt compared the cost estimates of each option. MOTION: Vice Mayor Lauing moved, seconded by Chair Burt to advance the underpass and hybrid alternatives at Charleston and East Meadow as preferred alternatives for preliminary engineering. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 MOTION PASSED 2-1, Lythcott-Haims no MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Lauing to recommend the following to the City Council: 1. Re-confirm Partial Underpass as the preferred alternative for Churchill. 2. Eliminate Trench alternative. 3. Advance Underpass and Hybrid as LPAs for FRA grants. 4. The following are refinements for proceeding to 15% Engineering with alternatives. Regarding East Meadow/Charleston Underpass: • Seek ways to reduce property impacts. • Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings. • Where feasible, improve connections to bike infrastructure beyond the study area to improve the network. o Improve connections to Park Blvd. o Explore modifications/refinements to the Bike Blvd along Park to improve overall bike network. • Further refine whether traffic circle on Charleston can be reduced to one lane to reduce property impacts. • Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mitigations needed during the lengthy construction process. MOTION PASSED 3-0 2. Review additional analysis to evaluate the merits of the Kellogg Avenue and Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings, and discuss next steps in providing a recommendation from the Rail Committee to the City Council for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing location associated with the Churchill Avenue Underpass Alternative. Mr. Kamhi provided a slide presentation reviewing the potential crossing locations for the Churchill Partial Underpass which included a crossing assessment, proposed layouts of Kellogg Avenue and Seale Avenue, renderings for Kellogg Avenue alternative and the next steps. Chair Burt explained how a strong case had been presented as to why Seale is the preferred location. He questioned if they had ever gotten any information from PAUSD. Mr. Kamhi said they did get that information but the challenge is that it changes on a year-to- year basis which is why they looked at the school catchment area as a better basis for where students could come from. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 Chair Burt discussed what he thought to be the best way to analyze it. Vice Mayor Lauing wanted clarification on “peds and bicycles would no longer be able to cross the track at Churchill and would need to go to either Seale or Embarcadero”. He asked if that would be intentional. He asked if the reference to it being a right of way issue was because it was a school right of way. He commented that exiting in Peers Park would be a plus. Nadia Naik clarified it is a partial underpass so only on the east side could bikes go north or south on Alma. Mr. Kamhi explained how they would not be able to cross on Churchill but would be able to enter from Alma and go down into the underpass and act as a vehicle. He stated the spatial issue was the school football stadium, the space they have on the existing bike path and the Caltrain right of way. With input received from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and reviewed at this Committee, they redesigned the pathway in order to better accommodate bicyclists not exiting right into the pathway of bikes and peds that might already be traveling on that and that is when issues were encountered of encroaching into the school right of way. Ms. Naik pointed out the original concept versus how it is now impacted by Caltrain’s right of way incursions is part of what is pushing it toward the bleachers. She added one of the benefits of Seale coming up in the park is that any bicycle/pedestrian paths are considered a park improvement and do not require going to the voters. Chair Burt added that if it Seale would not only be a safe route for biking for PALY students but also for the broader community to connect to the Park Boulevard Path in a safe way and would provide access to Peers Park for Old Palo Alto. Council Member Lythcott-Haims was struck by the public comment against Kellogg as the proper location and the lack of comment raising concerns about Seale. She wondered if they had typically had a balance of concerns about Seale and Kellogg in terms of resident opinion. She wanted to know to what extent the people accustomed to Peers Park as their neighborhood park were aware of this funnel potential of all of the PALY students coming to their park. She wondered the extent to which the Southgate Community is onboard with this rerouting of all of these PALY bikes through their residential neighborhood. Mr. Kamhi did not recall any specific unbalanced concern from the different locations. They heard concern and support for both locations as they were initially discussed. He thought they would potentially get more feedback as they send out targeted mailers to those that would be within the affected areas. He explained the geometry was very similar to both locations. He stated the Southgate Community is already one of the highest use bicycle boulevards. Ms. Naik commented the majority of ExCap voted for the closure. Among the minority, they had everyone supporting Seale over Kellogg but since that did not move forward as an alternative, they did not make it that far. She stated it does need to have more community SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 outreach. She added that according to Caltrain’s technical review, there is no space at Kellogg and if they chose a partial underpass, Seale would be the only alternative. Chair Burt did not think the public was really attuned to the residents on Seale and Southgate who might have concerns on that. They would have to have that outreach and should anticipate there would be concerns raised even if they believe it looks to be the better location. Item 2 Public Comment: 1. Yoichiro Taku pointed out the fact that Kellogg was on the table was a misinformed decision because it happened to be a convenient place. He discussed some issues with the Kittelson memo regarding Kellogg versus Seale that have not been addressed. 2. Eric Nordman explained why Seale is the clear choice over Kellogg. He declared it is critical to start design for Seale and the Matadero Creek Bike Ped Crossings so they can be completed before the existing crossings are disrupted by construction. 3. Steve Rosenblum (zoom) MOTION: Chair Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Lauing to recommend that Seale Ave be the preferred alternative for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing location associated with the Churchill Avenue Underpass Alternative. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Future Meetings and Agendas: Chair Burt commented Council will have these actions going into the Study Session. There would be a workshop. They will have made the recommendations and had the Study Session before the workshop. He asked to what extent is the workshop to influence decisions. Mr. Kamhi stated the idea was to catch members of the public up on the activities of the Rail Committee and information learned to provide them opportunity to ask questions, look at individual alternatives and to provide feedback that could inform Council. He added the next Rail Committee meeting would need to be rescheduled because it conflicts with the current Finance Committee schedule. The clerk’s office will find another date. He noted there would be challenges finding a date that works for everyone. Chair Burt stated they would prospectively have the meeting on the 22nd or 23rd. He asked what the perspective agenda items would be if they had one. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 11 Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 4/16/24 Ms. Naik expressed concern about how they would be able to do outreach on what has gone on because the images they have do not match what Caltrain has given back. She thought having a Study Session which allows public feedback and a second meeting to have a decision was the best idea. Mr. Kamhi agreed that this would be discussed with their communications team. Regarding future agenda items, one item might be an FRA agreement. Council Member Lythcott-Haims queried how fairly reliable estimates of each option could be brought forward before a decision is made. Mr. Bhatia answered they are doing exercises to see how they could do updates to the cost estimates. The hope is to bring them to the Council meeting by the June 3 meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:43 P.M.