Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-23 Rail Committee Summary MinutesRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Special Meeting May 23, 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. The Clerk called roll and declared all were present. Oral Communications There were no public speakers. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain B. VTA C. City Staff Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia announced that Caltrain and VTA staff were not present at the meeting. He provided an update of recent Caltrain activities. The electrification project was going forward. The electric train tour at the station in San Carlos on May 11 had been well attended. They were planning a train tour in Palo Alto later for in the fall. Regarding the Quiet Zone, 70% design plans had been completed for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, which had been forwarded to FRA, Caltrain, and CPUC for data review comments. Once feedback was received, final plans would be made for permitting from Caltrain, CPUC, and [inaudible] requirements. An initial assessment had been done for the Churchill Meadow and Charleston Crossing Quiet Zone, and information would likely be shared at the next Rail Committee meeting. They were planning to schedule a diagnostic meeting with CPUC, FRA, and Caltrain. They had heard that the Governor’s office was proposing to rescind the grant funding for the high priority grade separation projects in California, but it still had to go through the legislature. He understood that Council members were reaching out to state senators and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 representatives to save the grant. The FRA grant was on track. Staff had a report on the review of the FRA agreement and a recommendation to Council as Action Item Number 1. He noted that the Rail Committee recommendations made on April 16 would be discussed and acted upon at the June 10 Council meeting. Chair Burt stated that the Caltrain electrification event had been rescheduled to allow a more thorough event. It would likely be in late September, just before the full launch of the electrified trains. Regarding the $23M grant that had been awarded to Palo Alto for going into the engineering design on grade separations, the governor proposed zeroing out those dollars for all cities that received a grant, so the cities and agencies were pushing the legislature to delay the funds instead of eliminating them. If the funds were restored, it would probably not be necessary to make a decision on June 10, so Council and the Rail Committee needed to deal with the implications of that change. Action Items 1. Review the Funding Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for $6 million of grant funds and recommend City Council approval. Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia voiced that the City applied for a federal grant in October 2022 seeking federal assistance toward the preliminary engineering and environmental phase of the project. The City had been awarded $6M with a match of $14M from VTA Grade Separation Railroad funds for this phase in June 2023. Since then, City staff and FRA staff had been working to develop a funding agreement, which would allow for the terms of the timeline, budget, and scope of the project. He discussed the scope of the project being in line with the original application. It was anticipated that Council would forward the projects into preliminary engineering and environmental phase and utilize the $6M. The anticipated timeline for the project was three years. Staff expected Council to review the agreement based on the recommendations of the Rail Committee, and FRA was expected to execute the agreement in July. Public Comment There were no speakers. Vice Mayor Lauing asked if the $14M matching funds were still committed. Senior Engineer Bhatia acknowledged that the $14M was appropriated for Palo Alto, and they were working on an agreement with VTA. Ex-Officio Committee Member Nadia Naik inquired if it would take 3 years to get to 15% engineering if the work was completed and if it could be applied to any phase within it. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 Senior Engineer Bhatia answered that the preliminary engineering would be up to 35% along with environmental clearance. Preliminary engineering would generally be done to a good level of detail, then environmental studies and other reviews could be started concurrently, and then finish off 35% preliminary engineering design and finalize environmental certifications. Chair Burt specified that Charleston and East Meadow was at a conceptual design and then there would be a percentage of preliminary engineering. Senior Engineer Bhatia explained there would be a stop at 15% to bring it back to the Rail Committee and Council, and approvals would be sought, and then the final phase of the preliminary engineering design would be moved into, which would take it to 35%. MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Lythcott-Haims to recommend that the City Council adopt the staff recommendation. MOTION PASSED/FAILED: 3-0 2. Review Updated Materials for Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Grade Crossings Chair Burt provided some contextual comments to help frame all the details that would be provided by Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia. He noted that they had recognized potential impacts to properties, but no determinations had been made. He spoke of 2021 and the Rail Committee and Council's selections of underpasses and priorities for grade and bicycle and pedestrian crossings. He detailed why there had been an acceleration in the focus in the last six months. He discussed that over the last year and a half Caltrain had been reviewing conceptual plans, which had impacts on what the City wanted to do at certain locations, and a lot of the issues had been resolved but not all. Some decisions may need be made at the Caltrain Board level to allow for exceptions to their standard rules. He commented that at the beginning grade separations had been considered fairly urgent, but the urgency had diminished. He spoke of construction costs essentially doubling in the last four years and the City facing a more constrained ability to fund all three grade separations that had been considered. The property impacts were not yet known, but Council had set a priority to minimize them. Staff would provide updates on property acquisitions. Office of Transportation Senior Engineer Ripon Bhatia declared that AECOM Consultants Peter DeStefano and Millette Litzinger were present. He stated he would share slides that would cover the purpose and background of the project and provide information on the project planning and the updated plan profiles and renderings that had not been updated since the last meeting. The updated plans would reflect some of Caltrain and other stakeholders' comments during the technical reviews. He would also share next steps for the project. The main purpose was to review updated grade separation materials that were available. He would highlight changes that had been done over the last few weeks. He furnished some background on the project. He noted that the project was in a very early stage of development even though a lot of work had been done over the last several years. They were looking at concept plans to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 understand the scope, cost, and alternatives to get into the next level of details and to secure funding for the next phases so informed decisions could be made related to the conceptual design, the preliminary engineering phase, the final design, and then into the construction. Each stage would require detailed studies for each element to proceed forward. He addressed what was required for the next phase of project planning. Staff had been directed to reduce property impacts, which they were working on. He supplied slides and spoke of elements included in the evaluation criteria and technical review and alternatives under Council consideration. The project had gone through various iterations with input and feedback from the community, PABAC, and Stanford, and improvements had been recommended, which led to adding buffer zones, reducing lane widths, and improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities, maneuverability, and turning radiuses. He outlined how staff had engaged with Caltrain. He remarked that Caltrain was working toward the California Avenue Station for the four tracking bypass location between Churchill Avenue and Meadow Drive, and Palo Alto was required to accommodate the designs to allow for the four tracking. Caltrain also provided several technical comments, which he elaborated on, and Palo Alto's project had to comply with their requirements. He mentioned that Seale Avenue was the preferred crossing location for pedestrians and bicyclists, which would be recommended to Council. There had been and will continue to be engagement with the community concerning property impacts. Staff intended to recognize the properties that may be involved, although the project was at only 5% of the development stage. Staff had been directed to reduce impacts to properties as the design was defined in the next phase of preliminary engineering. He noted that as far back as 2021 staff indicated that multiple partial acquisitions of residential properties would be required, which would include Churchill and Meadow and Charleston as well as some full property acquisitions at Meadow and Charleston. He explained eminent domain and stated it would be the last resort and last step in the right of way acquisition process. In the preliminary engineering phase, there would be development of the alternatives to afford the level of detail, which would be brought back to the Rail Committee and Council so there would be opportunity to provide feedback and make changes. The project had federal and state funding, and the City had strict requirements for property acquisition processes, which he detailed. He provided links to frequently asked questions about the right of way acquisition negotiation process. He explained why staff could not address details of each property owner at this time. AECOM Senior Transportation Engineer Peter DeStefano displayed a slide outlining Caltrain's comments related to Churchill. He summarized Rob Barnard's message about preservation of the utility right of way. He touched on the basis of the bridge and road geometry updates, and he thought Caltrain concurred verbally with the geometry. He presented slides with the revised road profiles for Churchill. Senior Engineer Bhatia noted that one lane was being considered for Alma Street north of Coleridge, which would be reviewed in the preliminary engineering phase. Chair Burt asked if the southbound shoulder width was five feet. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano replied it was five feet northbound, and he displayed Slide 22 for details. Council Member Lythcott-Haims queried if there was a depressed and an upper lane on northbound Alma in the referenced area. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano confirmed that was correct. He continued his presentation. There was nothing new to report regarding property impacts on Churchill. He presented slides with the revised road profiles for Meadow and a slide summarizing Caltrain's comments. He mentioned that Slide 33 contained an error in that the maintenance road should have been shown on the east side of the tracks, not the west side, and this would be updated before the June Council meeting. He displayed a slide summarizing property acquisitions, which had not changed. He furnished slides with the updated road profiles for Charleston. Slide 44 also showed the maintenance road on the wrong side of the tracks, which would be corrected for the next meeting. There were no changes related to property acquisitions on the west side of the tracks. On the east side of the tracks, there were two acquisitions that had not been included previously. Council Member Lythcott-Haims asked for the total number of property acquisitions for Charleston. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano believed there were 30 partial acquisitions and 3 full acquisitions. He presented slides and discussed the Meadow/Charleston Hybrid and a slide with Caltrain's comments. He discussed changes made to the renderings of the retaining wall and embankment east of the tracks, and on the west side, the wall would be set 10 feet off the right of way line. They took the liberty to try to improve and reduce the profile limits. Hybrid meant the tracks would be partially raised in elevation and the road partially lowered in elevation. Chair Burt wanted all to understand that the term partially meant that the intention would be an earthen wall. He queried how much the road would be lowered how much the tracks would be raised. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano believed in this case the rail would be raised 15 to 17 feet and the road lowered 6 feet. He continued with his presentation of the updated renderings. Senior Engineer Bhatia supplied a slide with the estimated cost, which had increased from the 2018 estimate. The slide reflected an increase of 102% for the Meadow/Charleston Hybrid and an increase of 107% for the Meadow/Charleston Underpass, but the numbers had been transposed. Vice Mayor Lauing inquired if 2031 was the first feasible date to start construction, if the preliminary numbers were basically irrelevant, and what was included in the cost. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 Senior Engineer Bhatia remarked that 2031 was the first feasible date to start construction; the preliminary numbers were basically irrelevant; and the cost was for the entire project but not previous costs, such as that paid to consultants, etc. Chair Burt asked what the date was on the previous estimate. Senior Engineer Bhatia responded that the date on the previous estimate was 2018, which was 2025 projected. Ex-Officio Committee Member Nadia Naik queried if, for example, the cost included box jacking in the event of electrified shoofly tracks not being used and if the estimates could change based on design changes once the 15% engineering was reached. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano answered that all estimates included an assumed shoofly. Box jacking could increase the cost. Senior Engineer Bhatia discussed what had been recommended by the Rail Committee at the April meeting, so there would be more specific requirements on further refinements going into the preliminary engineering phase. The next steps were to seek Council's direction on June 10 for the Meadow and Charleston alternative and for the preferred pedestrian crossing for Churchill. The FRA agreement was on the horizon for Council approval. Council Member Lythcott-Haims queried if there were any full or partial property acquisitions associated with the hybrid option and why a property such as 4097 Park would necessitate a full property acquisition as opposed to working with the property owner to reduce the footprint. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano confirmed there were no acquisitions associated with the hybrid option, although there would probably be some permanent construction easements for driveway modifications. He shared Slide 36 and explained why a property might necessitate a full acquisition. He detailed why 4097 Park required a full acquisition. Senior Engineer Bhatia added that a property structure in the right of way would require a full acquisition. Discussion ensued regarding what might constitute a full acquisition and a partial acquisition. Council Member Lythcott-Haims questioned why the hybrid was not the obvious option as it would not require acquisitions and would be the least expensive. She asked if there was an objective sense from an engineering perspective of the impacts of partial versus full property acquisitions. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano stated they tried to avoid full property acquisitions, and it was a last resort. He explained that each partial acquisition was not created equal. The SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 greatest downside of the hybrid was not grade separating the pedestrians and bicyclists from Alma Street. Senior Engineer Bhatia stated, regarding the hybrid option, that staff had received several public comments related to poor visibility. There was a matrix of adopted criteria that compared the alternatives on the Connecting Palo Alto website, and the website would be updated next week with the information presented at this meeting. Regarding impacts of partial versus full property acquisitions, there was a number associated with the amount of square footage of property impacted, and there were subjective matters, such as fair use, and both would be considered in the right of way negotiation acquisition process. It had to be studied on a property-by-property basis and would be done after the refinements when there was more information on property impacts. Ex-Officio Committee Member Naik added that the hybrid would provide for F intersections in the future. Vice Mayor Lauing referenced Slide 36 and the splitting of 4101 and the property marked in red and suggested negotiating with the property owners to see if they could reach a decision, that one might be amenable to an acquisition, etc. He declared that a lot of options needed to be considered and that nothing should be automatic. Senior Engineer Bhatia replied the project determined the right of way needs, not negotiations with property owners. Chair Burt referenced Slide 60 and questioned why the berm was so wide. He stated the berm width was Caltrain's preference, not a need. Regarding Churchill, he asked how much impact there would be on the properties on Alma under the current conceptual design. He stated additional direction did not need to be provided to Council for the June 10 meeting unless some of the new developments were to be incorporated in the recommendations. Senior Engineer Bhatia explained the width of the berm on Slide 60. They could wrestle with Caltrain for a narrower berm. Regarding Churchill and the property impacts on Alma, he displayed Slide 20 and spoke of shifting the sidewalk four feet into private properties and a buffer of about four feet for plantings, undergrounding utilities, etc. Senior Transportation Engineer DeStefano presented Slide 22 related to the property impacts on Alma. Vice Mayor Lauing addressed finances and queried if three alternatives should be considered, if it should be reduced to two, or if something should be pushed out for a year. Chair Burt declared that the Rail Committee should have a discussion and possible recommendations to the Council. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 Senior Engineer Bhatia commented that Council needed to decide on the alternatives on June 10 as the preliminary engineering and environmental, per FRA, was typically allowed on only one alternative moving forward. The deadline was the same for federal funds. Council Member Lythcott-Haims requested the Committee's discussion be as succinct as possible to allow as much time as possible for public comments. Chair Burt allotted each member of the public up to three minutes to speak. He welcomed speakers echoing prior statements to hopefully allow time for the Committee to have a discussion in order to provide recommendations to Council. Item 2 Public Comment Kathleen J. spoke of her opposition to eminent domain of neighborhood homes and why she had lost confidence in City Council. Helen T. gave a brief history of the house at the corner of Churchill and Alma and asked that it not be removed. Neva Y. built on Kathleen J's comments and provided information that was given to a neighbor by the Planning Department regarding setbacks. She opposed eminent domain. She spoke of the anticipated Castilleja remodeling and two construction jobs happening simultaneously in the same area of town. Brette H. discussed possibly losing up to 20 feet of her property along Alma in the preferred Churchill grade separation. She highlighted a letter that she and her husband submitted earlier in the day. She requested consideration be given to all possible designs that would not take private property. Catherine V. claimed there was a lack of transparency and a number of errors on a presentation that had been mailed to Helen T. recently, which concerned her. She expected greater dissemination of information to those affected. She outlined why she opposed the partial underpass option. Eric N. provided slides and addressed the updated plans possibly precluding the use of jack boxing and there being merging issues. He provided some potential options to avoid some partial property acquisitions. Sean H. voiced why he thought consideration should be given to removing the partial underpass as an alternative for Churchill and stated that the focus should be on the bike path and getting students safely from Old Palo Alto to Paly. Janice L. seconded Sean H's comments and agreed with Kathleen J and Neva Y's comments. She was concerned about traffic issues and what she felt to be a lack of transparency. She SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 questioned why only one conceptual design had been presented. She spoke of property value and eminent domain and being in the least expensive area of Palo Alto. Amanda B. opposed any alternative that would involve property acquisitions and terms such as sliver acquisitions, which could be a significant percentage of certain properties. She discussed her concern about facts around potential property acquisitions provided to the community and decisionmakers. She asked that the assumptions be revisited and that design alternatives considered include only those that would have zero property impacts to the homes along Alma, including the option to close Churchill, and that property impacts be distributed equitably. Sabrina L. stated she had received no notification concerning a rental property she owned, and she thought about 50% of the lot would be impacted. She requested property owners be notified. She wanted to understand how the underpass and hybrid options would be compared and how efforts to reduce traffic on neighborhood streets was being evaluated. If needed, she wanted to know who to follow up with offline to better understand the processes. Brigit R. (zoom) opposed the Churchill partial underpass proposal. She indicated that when the decision was made to move forward with the conceptual partial underpass design the proposal was incomplete and had inaccurate data, which she outlined. She discussed safety and traffic concerns and partial property takes being high. She urged the Committee to reevaluate the cost associated with the viaduct. Philip Y. spoke of an accident at Alma and Embarcadero on May 15 and an accident on May 2 at Alma and Churchill. He opined that a partial underpass would not improve safety. The marketed partial takings of property on Alma did not appear accurate and seemed to be for a lane due to fire code. He discussed safety and traffic concerns. Gary G. (zoom) was interested in the proposed Seale Avenue pedestrian underpass. He had heard about the possibility of this only in the past few days, and he thought improved community outreach was needed. He was concerned about the impact on property values, acquisitions, income from rental units, safety, traffic, and parking. He requested more clarity and wanted to know the justification for doing this. Michael W. (zoom) understood the need for grade separation, but he discussed why he strongly opposed the Charleston underpass and roundabout option. He preferred the hybrid option. He considered the underpass option feasible without the roundabout, and he provided options to avoid a roundabout. Patrice B. (zoom) requested that any grade separation choice forcing housing acquisitions be rejected. She asked that the hybrid or viaduct designs be prioritized. She explained that fair market value would not be enough compensation for full property takes. She urged the Committee to prioritize a housing plan that would prioritize families facing housing takes. She asked that traffic be moved, not families. Catherine (zoom) discussed setbacks and stated codes should be obeyed. Traffic concerned her. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 Linda (zoom) did not see the advantage of an underpass option compared to a hybrid option. She hoped the City would seriously consider two aspects, property owners' voices, the cost and effect of each option, and the duration of each project. Chair Burt asked if there would be a referral to Council on June 10 for Churchill and if there were any insights on the standard setback for homes. He discussed buffers and thought that in the past the Committee unanimously wanted a buffer. He discussed why there could not be a design before selecting a preferred alternative. Senior Engineer Bhatia responded that no additional referral was needed for either if the Committee had none. As for setbacks, he understood that variances may be required and, if needed, work could be done with property owners and the City to provide the variances. Staff would do due diligence to reduce impacts. Vice Mayor Lauing thought the focus should be on the June 10 consideration, although there were bigger issues that needed to be discussed at a later date. Chair Burt thought the new business plan would scale back long-term projections for Caltrain, but there was no information and it was not imminent. The design for Churchill would be refined, but he thought there was a good chance it would not happen soon or never happen. He discussed why a bike and pedestrian crossing was being considered. He spoke of the possible need for an additional signal at California Avenue. Council Member Lythcott-Haims discussed why she was concerned about process, transparency, notice to individual homeowners, and diminution in home values due to a home being on the list and pictured in red or yellow on the slides. She asked what efforts had been made to notify potentially impacted property owners. Senior Engineer Bhatia replied that the City had made recent attempts to provide a mailer to all the fronting property owners within the project boundaries, and a notification card for the April 29 meeting, this meeting, and the June 10 meeting had been sent to people within 1,000 feet of the project boundaries. The Rail Committee meeting was public and provided opportunity for community feedback. The meetings were noticed and Brown Acted, and all meeting minutes were published. Those who subscribed to the meetings received regular mail notifications. During the XCAP meetings, there were notifications to all that had requested to be on the list. The Transportation Connect newsletter provided project updates on a regular basis. Council Member Lythcott-Haims thought people wanted more information. She acknowledged that a public commenter stated they were told the maps/slide with potential acquisitions listed should not have been published because the City would have a hard time getting anything done. She expressed there needed to be regular conversation with people whose properties were potentially impacted. She sensed that the City could and needed to do better. She added that some in the room may have found it upsetting that slides depicting homes partially or fully impacted were quickly run through as well as this conversation as it would impact people's SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 11 Rail Committee Special Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/23/24 homes, assets, gardens, families, and future. Moving forward toward narrowing options and putting homes on the map as full or partial acquisitions, she felt folks could speak with consideration for those involved. She acknowledged the painful nature of this process for the community. Chair Burt stated that even with the hybrid people along Park may have a 16-foot earthen wall up against them. There were tradeoffs in all the alternatives. He inquired if attempts were being made to notice owners of rental properties as opposed to resident renters. Senior Engineer Bhatia believed notices were being sent to the property addresses, so the resident could inform the owner. Moving to the next stages, it would be more deliberate. Chair Burt added that there was not yet an active rental registry, so he do not know how the City would know which properties were rentals. He suggested an attempt be made to solicit through the City's communications any property owners who did not reside at the properties to give their contact information to ensure notice would be given to the renter resident and the owner. He declared that the June 10 Council meeting would focus on narrowing Charleston Meadow to two alternatives. Vice Mayor Lauing mentioned staff needed to do that for the other grant, which was independent of what would happen in the next couple years given the lack of state budget. NO ACTION TAKEN Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. Vice Mayor Lauing thanked all for attending.