HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7931
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7931)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/11/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Rail Committee Charter
Title: Adoption of an Updated Rail Committee Charter and Guiding Principles
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
The Rail Committee recommends that the City Council review and adopt an updated
Rail Committee charter and guiding principles (Attachment A) to guide the Committee’s
work in 2017 and 2018.
Executive Summary
The City Council’s Rail Committee was originally established to monitor the California
High Speed Rail project and provide related policy recommendations to the full City
Council. A set of “guiding principles” served as the committee’s charter and were most
recently revised in 2013 (Attachment B).
The Rail Committee was re-established in 2015 with the goal of advancing the City’s
objectives regarding grade separations. The Committee briefly discussed their goals for
2017 at a meeting on March 1, 2017, and committee members expressed an interest in
developing a revised charter that does not pre-judge the outcome of a Context
Sensitive Solutions (CSS) public engagement and decision making process. On March
22, 2017, the Committee unanimously adopted the draft in Attachment A with the
expectation that it would be forwarded to the full City Council for adoption on their
Consent agenda.
Background
Notwithstanding the recent deferral of a federal funding decision, with the approval of
Caltrain modernization, developing a preferred approach and design for grade
separations in Palo Alto will be important whether or not High Speed Rail proceeds.
This is because Caltrain electrification will enable increased train service, increasing the
number of times gates come down to halt traffic each hour, thereby continuing at-grade
rail safety concerns and increasing traffic congestion on local streets that cross and
parallel the train corridor.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
In addition, passage of Santa Clara County Measure B in November 2016 means there
will be funding available for some pre-construction (environmental review and
engineering) and construction expenses associated with grade separations. To obtain
some of this funding, Palo Alto will need to identify a project or projects that it wishes
to pursue.
Finally, Palo Alto has long advocated for a “context sensitive solution” process for High
Speed Rail, and has contracted with a consultant team to undertake a similar context
sensitive alternatives analysis for Palo Alto grade separations this year. The consultant
team, led by the firm Mott McDonald has also been contracted to support the work of
the Rail Committee and conduct a circulation study, as previously directed by the City
Council.
The proposed update to the Committee charter in Attachment A would reflect
anticipated work of the Committee in 2017 and 2018, including:
Undertaking a context-sensitive alternatives analysis to engage the Palo Alto
community in an evaluation of potential grade separation alternatives without
pre-judging any one solution;
Advocating for funding for Palo Alto grade separations;
Monitoring activities of the California High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain;
Monitoring other relevant activities in the rail corridor, including Dumbarton rail;
and
Recommending specific comments/actions to the full Council.
Policy Implications
The proposed charter is a concise statement of the City’s policy positions and objectives
related to the Caltrain rail corridor.
Environmental Review
The requested action is not a “project” requiring review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Recommended Rail Committee Charter.pdf
Attachment B: 2013 Rail Committee Charter
DRAFT Rail Committee Charter
[Not Yet Adopted]
Page 1
March 22, 2017
Preamble
The City of Palo Alto supports transportation and urban design solutions for the Caltrain
corridor that are compatible with community values and that complement the goals and
policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Caltrain corridor has long been a physical constraint to east-west movement in Palo
Alto, and the current grade crossings create traffic congestion and pose safety and noise
challenges that will get worse as the frequency of train service increases. As a result,
the City actively participates in planning for the rail corridor, and supports changes that
improve and do not exacerbate impacts to the Palo Alto community.
Purpose of the Committee
The City Council’s Rail Committee was re-established in 2015 to analyze and advance grade
separated crossings for all modes of travel (bicycles, motor vehicles, transit, and pedestrians).
While the Committee in the past has focused on High Speed Rail, Caltrain grade separations and
electrification will be the essential focus of the Committee for 2017-2018.
Guiding Principles
1. Palo Alto seeks to improve east-west connectivity, traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle
movements, safety, and the noise environment along the Caltrain corridor.
2. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the improved commuter rail service that will come
as a result of modernization (including electrification).
3. Palo Alto will continue to work with Caltrain to ensure that all potential impacts of
modernization are addressed and adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
4. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain
corridor.
5. Palo Alto has long had concerns about the potential impacts of High Speed Rail and believes
that the project should be terminated. If the project proceeds, CHSRA should provide
funding for affected cities to analyze potential impacts.
6. Palo Alto believes that CAHSRA should fund grade separations and should not commence
service until they are complete.
DRAFT Rail Committee Charter
[Not Yet Adopted]
Page 2
March 22, 2017
7. Palo Alto will advocate strenuously for its fair share of County Measure B funding for grade
separations and actively seek additional funding from Caltrain, CAHSRA, Santa Clara County,
and other external funding sources.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for High Speed Rail
and grade separations and will structure a CSS process to engage the community in
selection of a preferred grade separation alternative for the corridor.
9. Palo Alto seeks modernization of freight operations in the corridor and will seek flexibility
from the UPRR to pursue desired improvements in the Caltrain corridor.
10. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern, including grade separations.
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Background (not shown in redline format, as Background section was completely revised)
In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for
High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco
segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now
proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right-of-way and
track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains,
partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended
system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated.
The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at
approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost
estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition
1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also
continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not
address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business
plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and
environmental review of the HSR system.
Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In
July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal
money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California
commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as
part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains
necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important
funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to
final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex,
blended San Jose to San Francisco segment.
Guiding Principles
The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the
actions of the Committee:
The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following
reasons:
1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters
under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly
underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated
fares. The voters also required that HSR could operate without a subsidy and that
funding sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior
to construction of an Initial Operating Segment.
2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected
ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that
the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary
to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California.
The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make
HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR,
however, that have not yet been studied or decided.
Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding
Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR:
1. The City supports a non-elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto.
2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade.
3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall
be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be
proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies.
4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central
Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should
reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route.
5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the
HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s
Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of
sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR.
6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review
Committee authorized by AB 3034.
7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our
economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision.
HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and
Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA.
9. The CHSRA should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire
experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to
capture their concerns and suggestions.
10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide
both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help
provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts.
11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or
improved levels of service.
12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. However, whether the City supports
electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied
and suitable mitigation measures are implemented.
13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the
Caltrain corridor.
14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and
Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities
Consortium.
15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and
pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train
service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for
the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements
must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding sources.
16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must
be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1)
exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2)
reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct
a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential
impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently
required by law.
17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental
Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The
second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for
HSR operation in the corridor.
18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain
ridership. Additionally, such revisions should be made at or prior to a ballot measure
seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one occur.
19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted
written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case of any
conflict in policies the most recent language prevails.
Last updated: June 24, 2013
Previously updated: December 19, 2011
October 12, 2011
May 17, 2010