Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-24 City Council Agenda Packet  HSR City Council Committee  ___________________________________________________________ Members         Special Meeting  Larry Klein ‐ Chair        Tuesday, August 24, 2010  Pat Burt         8:30 am – 10:00 am  Nancy Shepherd        City Council Conference Room   Gail Price         Civic Center                                                                                                  250 Hamilton Avenue                                                                                                  Palo Alto, CA  Agenda  1. Public Comment     2. Approval of July 1, July 15, and July 29, 2010 Minutes    July 01, 2010  July 15, 2010  July 29, 2010    3. Discussion of California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental  Alternative Analysis Report (SAAR)   STAFF REPORT     ATTACHMENT  ATTACHMENT  ATTACHMENT    4. Discussion of draft High Speed Rail ‐ Economic Development Analysis     5. Updates and Informational Items   Contract budget update   Legislative update   Legislative services update   Property value analysis Request for Qualifications (RFQ) released    6. Discussion of draft letter from Mayor Pat Burt to Roelof Van Ark, Chief  Executive Officer, California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)     ATTACHMENT    7. Future Meetings and Agendas   September 2nd and September 16th  8. Adjournment  1 7/1/2010 HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE Regular Meeting July 15, 2010 Council Member Price called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Burt, Shepherd, Price Absent: Klein 1. Oral Communications Herb Borock spoke regarding Brown Act rules in relation to the category of “Other Business” on agendas. He said there was an item on an upcoming City Council meeting regarding two High Speed Rail contracts that the High Speed Rail Committee should review prior to Council, though the agenda did not indicate such a review would take place. Unless that item was under “Other Business.” He said that was not an adequate agenda item according to the Brown Act, which requires a meaningful description of topics to be discussed. Hinda Sack requested a dual conversation regarding the options of Caltrain with High Speed Rail and Caltrain without High Speed Rail. She said that if High Speed Rail does not materialize the discussion still needs to take place regarding Caltrain. 2. Discussion of Caltrain Electrification Status and Related Issues Mark Simon, Caltrain Executive Officer for Public Affairs offered a general overview of the electrification project and its status. He said that Caltrain was in a partnership with three other transit agencies, which make up the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), these agencies are Samtrans, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. The JPB has never been a permanent source of funding for Caltrain, and provides only about 40% of the funding. Another 44% comes from fares. 2 7/1/2010 A permanent funding source would help provide the needed money. He spoke regarding the impacts of potential service cuts, and the JPB’s policy to avoid further cuts to Samtrans, a policy that will affect Caltrain. He said they do anticipate further reductions. One method for improving Caltrain’s fiscal issues would be through a permanent funding source, or a fare policy that generates better revenue. One method to consider is electrification, which would reduce the deficit by about half. The critical element would be increased ridership and running efficiencies. He said that the operating and capital budget issues have stalled the process. Capital project funding can come from sources such as High Speed Rail, which would use Caltrain’s right-of-way, for a price. They had a Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but the board still had to certify it. Mayor Burt asked if part of the EIR certification would include bifurcating the two elements that would allow Palo Alto to address the impacts of the grade separation and eminent domain status on lateral streets. Mr. Simon said the anticipated EIR did not include a grade separated railroad as it wouldn’t be an operational improvement for the system. However, it is the number one safety upgrade that could be made. Trains may not travel faster than 79 miles per hour unless the tracks are grade separated. Grade separation will increase ridership because the trains can run faster, even if, as mentioned earlier, it would not be an operational improvement. Mayor Burt asked for clarification regarding the difference between operational improvement and increased ridership. Mr. Simon said he was referring to revenue per passenger. Mayor Burt said that no grade separation was an alternative that would impact traffic. Since the original EIR was issued there had been traffic pattern changes, which have not been studied. The certification should allow Caltrain to move forward with capturing some of the pre-work funds, but there should be a second opportunity to capture the new traffic pattern information. Council Member Price asked what the biggest challenges were for the next two to five years. Mr. Simon said the most difficult hurdle would be money, whether or not the infrastructure changes could be funded. He said that since 1875 the schedules had not changed very much. Stops had been eliminated during the last economic downturn to create trains that travel from San Francisco to San Jose 3 7/1/2010 with only four stops in less than one hour. He said those trains were very popular. The number of passengers is often used as a formula to determine success rate in the industry. Caltrain prefers to use the number of miles traveled. Caltrain averages 27 miles, which gets a lot of people off the road, and purchasing premium tickets. With fully built out electrification, they could go from San Francisco to San Jose in one hour and eight minutes, but with 14 stops instead of the current 4. He said this corridor could be the answer to the regions requirements regarding SB375 and AB 32 for housing density, eliminating trips, and transit travel. Council Member Shepherd asked for information about a dual system. She said the corridor study was about an efficient way to move people up and down the corridor. Mr. Simon said that since High Speed Rail first came asking for endorsement of the ballot measure, Caltrain has viewed this as an opportunity. The JPB owns the right-of-way and they hold it in trust for the members of the communities they serve. High Speed Rail wants to use the right-of-way, they will not be allowed to unless Caltrain approves their plan and its impacts on Caltrain. He said the key word is interoperability, they will share the tracks. It is their opinion that the best course would be to build it in phases. A third rail could be installed allowing them to run their trains with a passing track. He said that Caltrain would then get the improvements they were looking for. Mayor Burt said there were areas where a four track system would be convenient and not impact the right-of-way. The High Speed Rail Authority agreed to evaluate a six train per hour system between Los Angeles and Anaheim. The projection for the Peninsula was driving the four track system. He said it was encouraging to hear Caltrain talk about three track systems. He said that the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) and the City of Palo Alto have worked to have the language in the MOU changed to eliminate the four track system. He said that a four track system creates much greater conflict among the interests involved. Mr. Simon said he thought the language prohibited four tracks. Caltrain was comfortable with the current compromise. Mayor Burt confirmed that the Caltrain position was that a three rail system may be able to accommodate Caltrain, High Speed Rail, and freight. Mr. Simon said that this was a moving target none of the plans were finalized. 4 7/1/2010 Mayor Burt said he was hopeful that with a new Chief Executive Officer, High Speed Rail go back and look at everything. He was hoping they would review the Berkeley study with some detachment. Mr. Simon reiterated that none of this was confirmed. He said there were many options. Caltrain was preparing their response to the alternatives analysis, one of their suggestions will be a phased implementation. Council Member Price asked if Caltrain was already in discussions about interoperability. Mr. Simon said that it was a term and condition of the project. He said the issue was there was competition for the money. They were trying to put themselves in the best position possible so that some of the early funds will be able to go to Caltrain. Council Member Price asked for a copy of the letter Caltrain wrote as a response to the alternatives analysis. She asked if the model for electrification was the overhead wires. Mr. Simon said it was. Council Member Shepherd asked for information about what that would look like. She said that if High Speed Rail did not come to Palo Alto, this would be on the current right-of-way. She also asked what the power station in Green Meadow would look like and she said she thought CBOSS was not what High Speed Rail decided to use. She asked how compatible Caltrain’s system will be with High Speed Rail. Mr. Simon said the overhead wire system was intended to be unobtrusive. It would be no taller than the tallest trees on the right-of-way. He said he would have to review the EIR for specific information. Council Member Shepherd asked for information on the operating system that had been chosen by High Speed Rail and how difficult it would be for Caltrain to use it. Mr. Simon said there was no national standard at this time. In the absence of that, there was no reason to think High Speed Rail couldn’t find a way to adjust to Caltrain’s system. He said that there seemed to be a leaning toward CBOSS as a national standard. 5 7/1/2010 Council Member Price asked for some examples of successful, attractive, electrified, fixed rail systems currently operating elsewhere in the country. Mr. Simon said he would provide that information at a later date. Mayor Burt said that the impacted cities had been presented a preferred scenario by High Speed Rail and that was the cause of much of their reaction. High Speed Rail’s preferred scenario was an elevated, earthen or concrete berm. Mr. Simon said that Caltrain is aware of the communities concerns. Mayor Burt said that from the design side, they will hear some better alternatives. Many different alternatives existed because the CEQA analysis included everything. He said this was encouraging. He said the funding for these alternate designs was a shared issue if they were relying on it. At the PCC meeting, they stated that Caltrain will not be able to figure out its own future without electrification. Mr. Simon agreed. He said the JPB does not consider itself in conflict with High Speed Rail. He said he was aware that some groups wanted Caltrain to consider what would happen if High Speed Rail never came. They were not at this time doing that. Council Member Price said that Staff would contact him regarding the items he said he would get back to them. Jack Ringham spoke regarding alternative options for electrification of Caltrain without High Speed Rail. He emphasized if High Speed Rail did not route down the Peninsula there were other alternatives to electrification, which would be more cost effective. He said that Caltrain should consider diesel powered operations systems. He said that it would cost more to convert the trains, but savings would be found in the lower cost for the system upgrades. He said that it didn’t make sense for Caltrain to electrify without knowledge of future compatibility with High Speed Rail. Mr. Simon said that Caltrain disagrees with the feasibility of diesel. Tony Carrasco said he had three issues; 1) The EIR was obsolete regarding traffic, 2) money to electrify may be wasted if they chose a different alignment, and 3) he said that train stations being at different heights would not be compatible with interoperability. 6 7/1/2010 Andy Chow said he supported systems that maximized interoperability. He said that electrification was the ideal option, regardless of High Speed Rail. He said another reason for electrifying would be that it is the only option for underground. 3. Discussion of Legislative Contract for 2010-2011. Herb Borock said the contracts should be reviewed in detail by the Committee and the full Council. He expressed concern about following the Brown Act with this item. He said the Council Agenda description does provide information and should be used as a guide. High Speed Rail Project Manager Rob Braulik spoke regarding the Draft CMR. Staff suggested the Committee consider entering into a new contract with Capitol Advocates, Inc. for a total contract amount of $30,000 for High Speed Rail Legislative Advocacy Services. He said Staff also recommended approval of a contract with Hatch Mott and MacDonald in the amount of $50,000 for on-call engineering services related to High Speed Rail. He stated the Hatch Mott MacDonald figure was an estimated figure subject to additional refinement. Council Member Shepherd asked if there were any suggestions about using the CARRD group for assistance with legislation. Mayor Burt said it would be a conflict with CARRD’s mission. He asked how the Hatch Mott MacDonald contract fit within the existing High Speed Rail budget. Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie said it fits within the planned budget. Council Member Price said she was concerned that Capitol Advocates represents several different cities. She wanted to reexamine the amount and reduce the conflict. Mr. Emslie said Staff would do additional review and bring back this matter at a future meeting. Council Member Price said she wanted a clear understanding of the value added for these services. She also asked when the next meeting was scheduled. Mr. Emslie said the next meeting was scheduled on August 5, 2010. Mayor Burt said the period for the legislative advocacy extension was six months, though it was originally anticipated to be one year. 7 7/1/2010 Mr. Emslie said the change was because of the changing and dynamic nature of High Speed Rail. Council Member Price said she would suggest they discuss this again prior to sending it to Council and that they schedule another meeting in July. Council Member Shepherd agreed. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Mayor Burt that the High Speed Rail Committee review the proposed contracts with Capitol Advocates, Inc., and Hatch Mott and MacDonald in greater detail at a meeting to be scheduled on July 29, 2010. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 4. Legislative Update Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie said that they had provided copies of the CARRD legislative update and the Committee could ask questions as they see fit. 5. Updates and Informational Items None. 6. Future Meetings and Agendas Council Member Price said the next meeting would be on July 29th, where they would discuss the Capitol Advocates, Inc and Hatch Mott and McDonald contracts in further detail. She asked what the planned topics for the August 5th meeting were. Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie said Staff will present a report on HSR station criteria. Council Member Price asked if Staff could report on some of the early EIR work. She requested a memo in advance. Council Member Shepherd asked about the Staff meeting with the City of Menlo Park. 8 7/1/2010 Mr. Emslie said the major issue was crossing San Francisquito Creek, which would have to be done via a tunnel and would likely separate the grade between Palo Alto and Menlo Park. He said the north end of Palo Alto and Menlo Park would be underground. He said there was no evidence of it being cap and cover yet. Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff had met with the City of Mountain View. Mr. Emslie said Staff had one meeting with City of Mountain View staff. The City of Mountain View indicated they were in the very preliminary stages of considering a potential station location in the City. No data was available to present and no decisions had been made. Council Member Price asked for a written summary of those meetings. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m. CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: High Speed Rail Committee FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITYMANAGER DATE: August 24, 2010 SUBJECT: California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report (SAAR) Recommendation Staff recommends that the High Speed Rail (HSR) Committee provides staff with policy guidance regarding the CHSRA SAAR report. Specifically, staff is seeking direction on policy issues staff should address ina HSR report to be presented to the City Council at their meeting on September 13, 2010. 3 Background and Discussion The CHSRA held their last meeting in San Francisco on Thursday, August 5th• At this meeting they discussed the SAAR prepared by staff for the San Francisco to San Jose HSR corridor. The SAAR updated a previously published Preliminary Alternative Analysis Report (P AAR) released in April 2010. The Committee may recall that the City submitted comprehensive comments on the PAAR on June 30, 2010. Staff has provided for reference the SAAR executive summary and the Palo Alto Section map (Subsection 6) from the full SAAR (please see attachments). The SAAR addressed current CHSRA options for HSR alignments through the Peninsula from San Francisco to San Jose. As referenced in a recent City HSR news release, staff contends there remain many unresolved issues, which could have significant impacts on City of Palo Alto residents and businesses. These issues include project phasing, the location of a Mid-Peninsula station, interoperability between a future HSR line and an electrified Caltrain line, continued CHSRA consideration of aerial, trench and at-grade options for HSR construction, project funding, and other related matters. Report rmdings include: Station locations under consideration. HSR stations are still planned for San Francisco at the Transbay Terminal, Millbrae, and San Jose. The CHSRA is still considering a HSR Mid- Peninsula location. Alternatives include Mountain View,' Redwood City, and Palo Alto. The Palo Alto station location under consideration is located at University A venue. The potential Mountain View station location is in their downtown near Castro Street. CHSRA is not considering or evaluating any station locations in Palo Alto at California Avenue, nor are they considering a San Antonio station location in Mountain View. However, they are Page 1 of 8 reviewing the potential of moving the existing San Antonio Caltrain station north of its current location. According to CHSRA and HNTB, (i.e., HNTB is an architectural, engineering, planning and construction services firm providing professional consulting services to the CHSRA on the Peninsula) they plan to hold a series of public workshops on the station design, criteria, and options during the last three weeks of September 2010. HNTB staff has stated that a proposed Mid-Peninsula station would total 67,000 square feet and require the construction of 3,000 parking spaces within a three-mile radius of the station. The projected number of daily station boarding's is 7,800. CHSRA would pay the cost of the station, rail line, platform, and other rail . station related improvements. They do not plan to pay the cost to build the necessary parking. They envision the parking would be paid by the respective city, possibly including a partnership of private developers. Staff estimates, based on conservative assumptions and experience (e.g., Bryant Street parking garage in Palo Alto), that the cost to build a parking garage could be $150 million or more based on a cost of $50,000/parking space. Considerations and Questions • Does the Committee want the City to continue to be considered for a Mid-Peninsula . station location given the parking requirements and that the cost burden at this time would be on the City and/or a private development interest? If no, staff would suggest the City consider sending a formal letter to the CHSRA stating the City's position that Palo Alto would not like to be considered further for a Mid-Peninsula station location. • If yes, does the Committee want HNTB and the CHSRA to consider additional station location options in the City such as California Avenue? If yes, then it will also be necessary according to HNTB for the City to send a formal letter requesting analysis of the California Avenue station location. Also, if the Committee wants to consider a station location, staff would suggest we add this component into analysis of HSR property value and economic development impacts in Palo Alto. HSR track configuration changes. HSR options have been narrowed down to three within two major design options (i.e., Design options A and B, Bl). These three HSR design options that will be analyzed in depth all inchide horizontal four-track configurations which include: 1. 4-track Aerial 2. 4-track At-Grade 3. 4-track Open Trench A principal CHSRA rationale for the above alternatives is that these options require much less right-of-way, approximately 80' , versus up to 135' as previously indicated in the PAAR released in April. This narrower right-of-way is also possible due to designing the tracks so Caltrain operates on the outside two tracks and HSR on the insides two tracks due to the Federal Railroad Page 2 of 8 Administration (FRA) agreeing to use a two percent grade for HSR versus the previously required one percent grade. Palo Alto Corridor Subsection 6 covers the approximately four mile section of HSR track in the City. The SAAR identifies four major Palo Alto corridors labeled 6A to 6D (i.e., 6A is the northern boundary with Menlo Park and 6D is the southern boundary with Mountain View). CHSRA is considering the following HSR track configuration options for each section as follows: 6A 6B 6C 6D Design Option A At-Grade Aerial At-Grade Aerial Design Option B Open trench Open trench At-Grade Aerial Design Option Bl Open trench Open trench Open trench Open trench CHSRA did not identify the covered trench/tunnel option for further consideration. However, they left open the possibility that partially or completely covered trench or short tunnel sections may be needed due to narrow right-of-way or environmental concerns. For example, San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto could require a short tunnel or covered trench. CHSRA staff referenced at the San Francisco meeting that it was likely that the trench option would be used for the rail section near the creek due to the proximity of EI palo Alto tree and the deepness of creek. Partial covers of the open trench could be accomplished as long as they do not trigger the need for additional life safety and ventilation features. CHSRA made it clear (discussion of Design Option B) that cities would be responsible for the cost of covering an HSR trench configuration. HSR Design Option Costs The SAAR included an outline of preliminary costs for the proposed alternatives. These costs do not include right-of-way costs. CHSRA staff referenced at the San Francisco meeting that they will not have detailed cost figures until February 2011. The CHSRA will be presented with a business plan during that same month (i.e., February 2011). Staff has prepared a sample worksheet that summarizes the cost figures shown for the four major Palo Alto corridors labeled 6A to 6D. The attached spreadsheet shows: Overall Costs • The at-grade option has the lowest cost at $234M, the next lowest cost is aerial -$252M, then open trench -$765M and covered trench/tunnel at nearly $1.9B. CHSRA then provided costs for a deep tunnel high speed train (HST) at $1.2B and hybrid cost option $2.4B. The hybrid option cost is higher due to greater retaining walls, drainage, ventilation and life safety features. Page 3 of 8 Palo Alto Specific Costs • The cost for sections 6A to 6D using the aerial or at-grade options for each segment totals between $234M and $252M(this assumes the at-grade option for 6A). The cost for sections 6A to 6D using the open trench option for each segment totals $765M, a difference of $513M to $531M (or more than 200% greater). • The cost for sections 6A to 6D using the covered trench/tunnel option not under consideration is $1.874B; $1.623B higher or 647% greater than the least cost option and $l.lB higher, 338% greater than the open trench option. Considerations and Questions • Does the Committee support any of the Design Options A, B or B I? If no, what if any Design Option is supportable? Are any Design Options supportable? If yes, which one may be supportable? • If a Design Option(s) is supportable then does the Committee support using one Design Option for North Palo Alto and another for South Palo Alto? For example, Design Option B has an open trench in Sections 6A and 6B and then at-grade in 6C and aerial in 6D. Option Bl offers the same Design Option, open trench, through the entire Palo Alto corridor. Does the Committee have a preference? • If the Committee wants a Design Option not under further consideration (e.g., Covered Trench/Tunnel) would the Committee direct staff to communicate to CHSRA they should add back the covered trench/tunnel Design Option? Does the Committee want to communicate to the CHSRA that they should be responsible for paying the cost? • There is a real possibility that whatever HSR option is executed by the CHSRA, that the project will be constructed in phases. CHSRA recently submitted in their most recent Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ARRA funding application discussion of a 4- track grade separated HSR line from San Francisco at 4th and King Streets to Redwood City, then a 2-track non-grade separated section for the six miles through Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, and then a 4-track grade separated section of rail from Mountain View to Sunnyvale into San Jose. The entire track would be electrified and have positive train control. What is the position of the Committee on this potential alternative? Another alternative could be trenching North Palo Alto first and keeping the rest of the line at-grade until sufficient funds were available to trench all the way through the City. Yet another alternative could be building a HSR system at-grade throughout the entire City corridor with trenching to come later. Is the Committee willing to consider any of these options? Would the Committee only consider an option that completed an open trench along the entire Palo Alto corridor iri one phase vs. multiple phases to minimize property, construction and community impacts? Page 4 of8 • The criteria the CHSRA used to evaluate alternatives included: "Meet community needs by addressing alternatives that would not visually divide communities and are responsive to concerns about noise and vibration impacts." An additional consideration is the "ability to meet the project purpose and support by public agencies." Does the Committee think the CHSRA met these criteria? Additional issues include: • The City has not yet developed a vision for what it wants along the existing rail corridor. This future vision, whatever it may be, will likely have a major impact on what position the Committee and the City takes on HSR. • The current focus is on the SAAR and the future Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIRIEIS) to be published in December of 2010. However, even assuming this proceeds as planned by the CHSRA, significant funding issues remain to build HSR. • Caltrain electrification while related to HSR is a completely separate and distinct project with its own policy, financial, and long-term economic and operational viability issues. • What economic development and property value impacts are there from construction of a HSR line because so little analysis is available regarding the economic impacts of HSR in North America? Should the City seek out its own economic analysis to provide a basis for positions on HSR alignments? • The ridership numbers for HSR still remain in question. Current Activity and Next Steps CHSRA The CHSRA's focus is to complete the project level DEIRIEIS by December 2010. This includes continuing with engineering design work on the three HSR design alternatives. The next milestone is to complete 15% design work. Also, the CHSRA contin\les to apply for available American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds for the HSR line. The most recent request was for an additional $lB to match $2.25B in funds already awarded. ARRA funding does not by itself determine the HSR alignment nor the ultimate preferred alternative. The results of the environmental analysis will determine these factors. In addition, the CHSRA will continue to evaluate a potential Mid-Peninsula station location. Once the environmental review process is completed next year the CHSRA plans to focus on HSR funding. City of Palo Alto The City Council recently agreed to the completion of a rail corridor study including the formation of a community based task force. This study will evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the rail corridor. This study is expected to cOmqlence in September of this year. In addition, staff recently released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit professional expertise to assist the City in evaluating HSR property value impacts on Page 5 of 8 residential and commercial properties along the rail corridor. Staff anticipates selecting a firm in September and getting this work done in the fall. In addition, staff is also working on a scope of work to either have the same firm selected for the property value impact analysis or a separate company to evaluate potential HSR economic development impacts. Staff also continues to participate fully in the Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings associated with HSR to ensure Palo Alto's position on the various technical alternatives are weighed, considered, and evaluated for a future HSR line along the corridor. Potential Palo Alto Alternatives Staff suggests the following policy positions for the Committee to consider: 1. Status quo. This alternative includes continuation of the present course to gather, analyze and evaluate the information on HSR and at the appropriate time make a formal policy recommendation to the City Council. Support for this alternative is based on awaiting the results of the rail corridor study, the property value and economic development analysis, and the draft CHSRA environmental impact report work. There is a great deal of quantitative data yet to be published that will have a bearing on the ultimate position the Committee may recommend to the-City Council. 2. Pass a ResolutionlWrite a Letter. The Committee may want to recommend to the City Council it pass a resolution or write a formal letter in favor or opposing the HSR project based on the current SAAR design options under consideration. This alternative would officially convey to the CHSRA and to the legislature, which has project oversight authority, that the SAAR does or does not meet the City's design requirements and could list alignments or conditions that would enable the City to support HSR. A resolution or letter opposing the project might say all current design options are unacceptable and for this reason alone the City opposes the project. 3. Lobbying Focus. Palo Alto, along with the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park, engages the services of a lobbying firm to provide legislative advocacy services. The Committee could recommend to the City Council the City legislative advocacy services take a much stronger position with the legislature and the CHSRA relative to a desired HSR design option including asking the legislature not to release HSR funds in the Peninsula until design options are put in place that meet the needs of the respective cities. This letter could also reinforce that the City wants a certain design option even if such option(s) cost more. This alternative would be stronger if we could secure similar support from our neighboring cities (e.g., Atherton and Menlo Park) and other Peninsula cities. 4. Oppose the CHSRA FRA Application The City could send a letter to the FRA opposing the recent CHSRA $lB grant application since the proposed phasing of the improvements in that application could be detrimental to Palo Alto as it calls for no grade separations or other improvements. Caltrain Impacts Page 6 of8 What is not' factored into this discussion of the SAAR is Caltrain and its long-term viability as a commuter rail service along the Peninsula. Caltrain and the public agencies that financially support Caltrain operations are including HSR and the potential funding into their capital and operational plans to upgrade and modernize Caltrain service including track electrification, installation of new positive train control systems and purchase of new electric train units to replace the old diesel locomotives. Consideration of HSR and HSR design options has an impact on Caltrain modernization. Assuming Caltrain finds the funds to modernize its rail line and electrify the line exclusive of HSR the new line will likely be built on the existing at-grade alignment. The catenary system to . support the Caltrain electrified trains, including the poles, could be up to 50' high. This will create adverse visual impacts similar to those expected with an at-grade HSR alignment. However, if the HSR line were to built using the open trench design the same catenary system used to support HSR would be used by Caltrain. Thus, there would not be the same adverse visual impacts. A question the Committee needs to consider is do you think it is likely if HSR goes away Caltrain could secure the necessary funds to electrify their line, purchase and install a modem positive train control system, modernize their train fleet, and fund the construction of an open trench (assuming this was an acceptable design option) through the City? Prior to the passage of Proposition .1A, timing for Caltrain electrification was very uncertain and below numerous other transportation priorities. Recommended Alternative The City should complete the rail corridor study, the property value and economic reports, and evaluate the current and future technical and other documents published by CHSRA and their consultants. This includes evaluation of the environmental documentation to be published late this year. The results of this information will assist the Committee and ultimately the City Council. We also suggest the Committee make a formal recommendation to the City Council either supporting or not supporting any of the current rail configuration options including a Mid- Peninsula HSR Station in Palo Alto. Attachments • Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, Executive Summary • Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, Subsection 6, Palo Alto • Spreadsheet sample ROB K. BRAULIK Project Manager Page 7 of 8 STEVE EMSLIE Deputy City Manager JAMES KEENE City Manger Page 8 of 8