Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13543 City of Palo Alto (ID # 13543) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/1/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Grade Separations Title: Review Three Grade Separation Design Alternatives for Churchill Avenue and Confirm Which Alternative(s) Continue Towards Selection of Preferred Alternative, and Direction to City Staff for Conducting Additional Studies for Consideration of Final/Preferred Alternative; and Authorize Staff to Negotiate with AECOM for Additional Scope of Work for Amendment to the Contract From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Department EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With the completion of the XCAP review of rail grade separation options and presentation to the City Council, the City Council directed staff at the April 26, 2021 Council meeting to come back with a detailed review of the design alternatives still under consideration at each of these rail crossings and to then provide direction on additional studies/next phase of the project. The City Council’s current discussion follows more than 18 months of engagement and deliberation by the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP). While many divergent issues were discussed, the XCAP ultimately recommended for closure of Churchill Avenue with six of nine members in favor of Churchill Avenue closure at this grade crossing. Option 2 with pedestrian/bike crossing that runs down the middle of Churchill Avenue east of Alma, which then proceeds under Alma and railroad tracks was the preferred option voted by seven of the nine members. In addition, XCAP recommended closure of Churchill Avenue to consider additional mitigations and studies. On August 23, 2021, the City Council reviewed the details on the design alternatives under consideration for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad crossings (CMR 13435) and eliminated the viaduct option for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road from further consideration. At this meeting, Council also provided direction on additional studies to be pursued for Meadow and Charleston alternatives under consideration that may provide greater information in narrowing these alternatives further. 15 Packet Pg. 358 City of Palo Alto Page 2 This staff report provides detailed information on Churchill Avenue design alternatives and seeks Council direction in pursuing additional studies that could assist further in selecting preferred alternative(s). The Discussion section of this staff report contains: • Detailed Review of Charleston Road and Meadow Drive Grade Separation Alternatives o Layout (Vehicular, Bike, Pedestrians) and Right of Way o Traffic Circulation o Noise & Vibration Analysis o Outreach o Construction & Engineering Challenges o Project Cost • Additional Studies, as described below • Next Steps The additional studies listed in this report for Churchill Avenue are identical to those presented for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Crossing as these studies have a similar scope of work and there are cost efficiencies due to economy of scale. However, staff is seeking Council guidance on the scope of additional studies that may be relevant to Churchill Avenue crossings for consideration of the final alternative(s) to design and construct grade separation. Below is a brief list of issues of interest previously identified by the City Council Members, the XCAP, and community for consideration. Further details on each of these can be found under “Additional Studies” in the report. It should be noted that many of these studies are typically conducted later in a construction project development process and focused on a primary rather than multiple alternatives. This is reflected in the associated costs. In addition, conclusions from these studies must be considered preliminary, since responsible agencies such as Caltrain will provide limited guidance and feedback at the current conceptual design stage. Nonetheless, to the extent these studies provide community stakeholders greater confidence in decision-making, the costs involved represent a small percentage of the ultimate costs of grade separation construction. • Track Review and Caltrain Coordination (estimated $90,000-$110,000): Palo Alto has been identified in the Caltrain Business Plan as a potential location for high-growth capacity improvements, including 4-tracks. To date, alternatives developed for the Rail Program have only been evaluated for 2-tracks. Work to further define the ability of grade separation alternatives to accommodate four tracks includes: Gather Data from Caltrain, Evaluate Alternatives, Meet with Caltrain, Prepare memorandum report. • Traffic Study Update (2040) (estimated $45,000-$55,000): Update to traffic analysis to reflect a future forecast year of 2040 rather than the year 2030 forecasts will require the 15 Packet Pg. 359 City of Palo Alto Page 3 following specific tasks: Work to Model Land Use, Model Forecasts, Traffic Calculations, Documentation. • Design Refinement of Underpass Alternatives (estimated $125,000-$150,000): Refinement of the Underpass Alternative at Meadow and Charleston requires additional iteration of review to ensure that input from the PABAC and school committees should be incorporated to further refine this alternative. As such staff requested the Consultant for their support to develop the estimated costs and scope as follows: Enhance Alternatives, Update Exhibits, Update Renderings, Update Cost Estimates, Update Miscellaneous Items. • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations (estimated $130,000-$160,000): Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical, Field Investigation – Two CPT Borings, Memorandum Report – Draft and Final. • Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study (estimated $350,000- $600,000): Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical, Construction Methodology Evaluation, Construction Phasing / Sequencing, Cost Estimate, 3D Animation, Memorandum Report. • Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review) (estimated $20,000-$25,000): 3D Model Development, Shadow Study Analysis, Study Document Production and Final Report. • Additional Noise Study (estimated $55,000-$65,000): Expand Study Area/Measurements, Expand Analysis for Future Growth, Analyze Structural Noise/Vibration, Update Noise Study Report. • Storm Drainage Infrastructure (estimated $200,000 – $250,000): Evaluate Trench Storm Drain Alternatives, A rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost will be developed for both options. Evaluate Underpass Storm Drain Alternatives, Prepare Memorandum Report. • Additional Outreach (estimated $15,000-$20,000): Conduct Meetings with Additional Stakeholders, Prepare Meeting Notes. • Urban Designer (estimated $100,000-$125,000): Urban Design / Public Realm Opportunity Mapping opportunities for public realm improvements for each of the three (3) alternatives and constraints urban design plan diagram will be created for each of the three alternatives, Urban Design / Public Realm Design Enhancements conceptual site plan for each alternative will be updated with the proposed public realm design features, and Meetings. • Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing at Seale And Loma Verde (estimated $80,000-$100,000): Conceptual Layouts, Cost Estimates, 3D Renderings, and Miscellaneous Public Outreach Materials. • Sustainability (estimated $50,000-80,000): Sustainability Strategy Plan strategy to identify major categories where sustainable materials and practices can be incorporated into the final design of alternatives, and Bike/Ped Usage improvement in relation to the grade separation alternatives. 15 Packet Pg. 360 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Note: The estimated scope and fee listed above for various studies is inclusive of work anticipated for all three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road). Most of these studies can be performed independently for each of the alternatives at these crossings. However, there is a general economy of scale in performing similar work for a greater number of alternatives and crossings. In addition, some of the studies such as Noise Study update and Traffic Study Update for 2040, if conducted will be tied to update models for all crossings concurrently. Box Jacking evaluation also us BACKGROUND With the proposed California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) using the Caltrain corridor and the planned electrification of the Caltrain corridor that will increase the frequency of trains along this corridor, the delays to the at-grade crossings are expected to increase significantly. Therefore, City initiated the plan to consider grade separation at all four of the existing at-grade crossings in Palo Alto. For the past decade, City engaged the public to help develop and evaluate potential grade separation options at each of Palo Alto’s four Caltrain rail crossings. Since 2017, the City’s focus has been mainly on the three existing grade crossings of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. The crossing at Palo Alto Avenue was separated, to be integrated with the Downtown Coordinated Area plan. The planning process for the development of alternatives at the three crossings of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road was led by staff and consultants with public input coming through community meetings. In 2018, City Council created a Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) for advising staff and consultants on developing alternatives and improving community outreach and communications efforts. Later in 2019, City Council formed an Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) for the evaluation of the Connecting Palo Alto railroad grade separation at these three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road) along the Caltrain corridor and to achieve greater community input for selection of the preferred alternative at these three crossings. The XCAP group met diligently over eighteen (18) months and completed the review of a total of nine (9) alternatives and prepared a Final Report providing their recommendations to the Council on March 23, 2021 (CMR 11797). At this study session, Council received the final XCAP report and discussed major recommendations and findings from the report. Considering the environmental challenges and the estimated costs for the South Palo Alto Tunnel alternatives, the XCAP unanimously recommended that the Council remove the tunnel alternatives from further consideration. After the review of the XCAP report and considering the XCAP recommendation, the City Council on April 26, 2021, removed the two tunnel alternatives 1) South Palo Alto Tunnel (Passenger and Freight) 2) South Palo Alto Tunnel (With At-Grade Freight) from further consideration for grade separation. 15 Packet Pg. 361 City of Palo Alto Page 5 For Meadow Avenue and Charleston Road crossings, City Council on August 23, 2021 discussed the alternatives in detail and directed the following actions: • Eliminate viaduct alternative. • Establish a policy to engage with Caltrain on 4-tracks by City Council, Staff, and LPMG representatives. • Conduct preliminary geotechnical studies. • Design refinements of Underpass alternatives to address current shortcomings including the size of the roundabout, bike/ped connections, and right of way • Continue work on the bike plan in parallel with consideration of construction time and interaction with grade crossing plans; • Obtain the cost for a second cost opinion of the Trench option, in particular to a company with experience of trenches, underground or subterranean methods in parallel to the geotechnical studies. The current six (6) alternatives in consideration at these three crossings are as follows: Churchill Avenue Churchill Avenue Closure with Mitigation - Option 1 & 2 Churchill Avenue Viaduct Churchill Partial Underpass Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Meadow Charleston Trench Meadow Charleston Hybrid Meadow Charleston Underpass DISCUSSION This agenda item presents a detailed review of the alternatives in considerations at Churchill Avenue Crossings. Staff seeks City Council direction on whether to further narrow alternatives by eliminating any of the current alternatives under consideration and any additional studies desired for the selection of a preferred alternative. Layout (Vehicular, Bike, Pedestrians) & Right of Way Below is a summary of the layout and right of way that would result in each of the four alternatives. Further explanation and details can be found below this summary table organized by alternative (trench, viaduct, hybrid, and underpass). 15 Packet Pg. 362 City of Palo Alto Page 6 TABLE 1: Summary of Layout & Right of Way Closure with Mitigation (option 1) Closure with Mitigation (option 2) Viaduct Partial Underpass Ve h i c u l a r Closed to through Traffic at tracks. The traffic will be routed to other streets. Closed to through Traffic at tracks. The traffic will be routed to other streets. No change to traffic movements. Same as existing • WBT, EBT, SBL, and WBL are not permitted at Churchill and Alma. • Intersections on Alma Street at Kellogg Ave and Coolidge Ave will be limited to right-in and right-out only Pe d e s t r i a n The pedestrians will use the traffic signal at Alma to cross Churchill Avenue and use ramps that will run parallel to RR tracks and crossing under tracks north of Churchill Avenue The pedestrians will use an undercrossing that will be crossing both Alma Street and RR crossing. This crossing will be in the middle of Churchill Avenue. The pedestrian facilities will be provided along the roadway and cross under the viaduct on existing grade. The pedestrian and bike crossing will be provided at Kellogg Avenue. No pedestrian crossing can be made at Churchill Avenue Bi k e • The bicycles will use traffic signals at Alma to cross Churchill Avenue and use ramps that will run parallel to RR tracks and crossing under tracks north of Churchill Avenue. • Ninety (90) degrees bends to provide minimum ramp slopes meeting ADA requirements. The bicycles will use the undercrossing that will be crossing both Alma Street and RR crossing. This crossing will be in the middle of Churchill Avenue. The bicycle facilities will be provided along the roadway and cross under the viaduct on existing grade. • The pedestrian and bike crossing will be provided at Kellogg Avenue. No pedestrian crossing can be made at Churchill Avenue • Ninety (90) degrees bends to provide minimum ramp slopes meeting ADA requirements. Ot h e r ROW impacts for mitigations were not identified, however may likely require some additional ROW from fronting properties. ROW impacts for mitigations were not identified, however may likely require some additional ROW from fronting properties. Churchill Avenue will require widening Will require partial property acquisitions. 15 Packet Pg. 363 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Closure with Mitigation For the Mitigation closure alternative, the railroad tracks will remain at their existing location and at existing elevation. All existing traffic movements that occur by crossing over the railroad tracks will be prohibited under this alternative. Churchill Avenue becomes a T-intersection with Alma Street on the east side and ends at Mariposa Avenue on the west side. The vehicular movements for eastbound (through, left, right) and westbound through movement will be prohibited at this intersection with this alternative. These movements will be directed to other roadways and therefore anticipated to affect other intersections, for which a traffic study was conducted. The Traffic Circulation section of this report provides details on impacts. A pedestrian/bike only undercrossing will accommodate pedestrian and bike traffic in this alternative. Two options are proposed with this alternative based on the configuration and layout of pedestrian/bike undercrossing. Option 1: In this alternative the pedestrian and bike traffic cross the intersection of Alma Street at the signalized intersection. The pedestrian bike crossing then runs parallel to the railroad tracks and crosses under the railroad tracks on the north side of Churchill Avenue, then ramps up on the other side of the railroad tracks. The pedestrian/bike ramps on both sides of the tracks for the underpass at Churchill Avenue will require surface encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way. Option 2: In this alternative option the pedestrian and bike undercrossing begins to ramp down on the west side of Churchill Avenue (within the roadway) and uses undercrossing to crosses under both the railroad tracks and Alma Street. It then ramps up on the other side of the railroad tracks to meet at grade and connects to pedestrian and bike facilities along Churchill Avenue Ramps and stairs in varying configurations will provide access to the undercrossing for pedestrians and cyclists. However, the grade on the pedestrian/bike ramp will not exceed 8% with 5-foot landings. The pedestrian/bike ramp is planned to be 8-10 feet in width. Partial ROW take may be needed for the intersections identified as part of the mitigations. These impacts are not identified at this time. Viaduct For the viaduct alternative, the railroad tracks will be elevated on a structure over Churchill Avenue. The new electrified railroad tracks will be built at the existing railroad alignment and will begin rising north of Homer Avenue, remain elevated over Churchill Avenue, and return to the existing elevation before California Avenue Station. The Stanford Game Day station will be eliminated. The maximum railroad grade for this alternative will be 1.6% which will also require a Caltrain design exception. The railroad tracks will be approximately 20 feet above the existing street at Churchill Avenue Crossing. 15 Packet Pg. 364 City of Palo Alto Page 8 The Churchill Avenue will remain at its existing grade and have a similar configuration to what exists today, with the addition of Class II buffered bike lanes. This addition will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the underpass of the railroad and to accommodate the new column supporting the railroad structure. Partial Underpass The partial underpass alternative retains the Caltrain tracks at the current grade. The Caltrain tracks will be supported on a new rail bridge spanning across a lowered Churchill Avenue at approximately its current location. This alternative will grade separate Churchill Avenue, however, as this is a partial underpass, not all the traffic movements will be feasible with this grade separation alternative. The through traffic movements in both eastbound and westbound directions, the westbound left turn, and the southbound left turn at this intersection will no longer be permitted. In addition, certain side streets intersecting Alma street will be limited to right-in and right-out movements. The movements of traffic along these approaches are described below. Eastbound Traffic: Traffic on Churchill Avenue from the Paly Road/Castilleja Avenue intersection will descend and pass under the railroad and terminate at a lowered, signal- controlled, forming a T-intersection at Alma Street where vehicles can make a left turn onto northbound Alma Street or a right turn onto southbound Alma Street. These lanes will then ascend and return to grade along Alma Street. Westbound Traffic: Traffic on Churchill Avenue from Emerson Street will terminate at Alma Street. Right turns only (onto northbound Alma Street) will be permitted. Similarly, westbound traffic on Kellogg Avenue and Coleridge Avenue approaching Alma Street will be permitted to make right turns only onto northbound Alma Street. Traffic on northbound Alma Street will be split near Coleridge Avenue. 15 Packet Pg. 365 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Northbound Traffic: The vehicles in the northbound lane will bear right to continue going north and will remain at grade on existing Alma Street. This traffic will be permitted to make right turns onto all connecting streets (Coleridge Avenue, Churchill Avenue, Kellogg Avenue, etc.) approaching Emerson Street. Vehicles bearing left to make a northbound left turn will descend to the T-intersection with Churchill Avenue and be permitted to make left turns (under the railroad) onto westbound Churchill Avenue approaching Paly Road/Castilleja Avenue and El Camino Real. Southbound Traffic: Traffic on southbound Alma Street will operate as it does today, however it will descend to meet at the T intersection formed by a partial underpass and then come back up to meet at grade on Alma Street. Due to grade differential, the southbound left turns onto Churchill Avenue cannot be permitted at this location. In addition, left turns on southbound Alma Street onto Kellogg Avenue and Coleridge Avenue will also not be permitted. With this alternative, the pedestrian and bike crossing will be provided at Kellogg Avenue. From westbound Kellogg Avenue, a 10-foot wide path will descend at the center of the road, at which point widens to 20 feet and crosses under both Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and conforms at the Embarcadero Bike Path adjacent to Palo Alto High School. The pedestrian/bike ramp on each side is approximately 220 to 250 feet long with width ranging from 10 to 20 feet, and a maximum grade of 8% with 5-foot landings spaced 35 feet apart. Multiple partial acquisitions of residential properties will be required to accommodate this alternative. In addition, modifications to several driveways on Alma Street will also be needed with this alternative. The southbound lane/shoulder on Alma Street and the pedestrian/bike ramps on the west side of the tracks for the underpass at Kellogg Avenue will also require surface encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way. Traffic Circulation To review the traffic circulation, a traffic study was conducted by Hexagon Traffic consultants. The study evaluated the existing traffic conditions based on the traffic counts conducted in October 2019. The future traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic forecasts based on the 2016 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for future (Year 2030) conditions. The study analyzed traffic operations during the weekday AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak commute hours. The traffic study focuses on vehicular traffic operations; however, bicycle and pedestrian circulation have been accounted for in the traffic analysis. Closure with Mitigation As described above, for the Churchill closure alternative, all existing traffic movements that occur by crossing over the railroad tracks will be prohibited under this alternative. Therefore, a Traffic Study was conducted to evaluate the impacts of the closure of Churchill Avenue across 15 Packet Pg. 366 City of Palo Alto Page 10 the railroad tracks. With the closure of Churchill Avenue west of the railroad tracks, Churchill Avenue would no longer provide an east-west connection for vehicles across Alma Street. The study indicated that the intersection of Alma and Churchill Avenue would operate at an acceptable LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours with existing and future traffic volumes with the Churchill Closure Alternative with Mitigations (Table 2 & 3). Table 2: Alma and Churchill Grade Separation Alternatives – Existing Traffic Volumes Table 3: Alma and Churchill Grade Separation Alternatives – Future Traffic Volumes However, the Closure Alternative would cause the existing traffic using the Churchill railroad crossing to reroute to other crossings, creating traffic impacts on Embarcadero Road, Alma El Camino Real, and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road. The impacts on the intersections on these corridors were further studied to identify mitigation measures. To evaluate existing trip patterns that currently use Churchill Avenue, an origin-destination (O-D) analysis was conducted within the study area. The objective of this task was to determine how traffic would be rerouted with Churchill closed. Data for a typical Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for the morning and afternoon hours during 2017, while schools in Palo Alto were in session (using the Street Light Data platform) was used for evaluating trip patterns through the Alma Street and Churchill Avenue intersection. Following six (6) intersections were identified to be impacted by the rerouting of traffic due to Churchill Closure. The existing and future LOS for these intersections is shown in Table 4 15 Packet Pg. 367 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1. Alma Street/Lincoln Avenue 2. Alma Street/Embarcadero Road 3. Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue 4. El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road 5. El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road 6. Alma Street/Oregon Expressway Table 4: Churchill Closure – Impacted Intersections LOS Mitigation Measures: Potential mitigation measures were identified for the intersections that were shown to be impacted as described below. Alma Street Intersections (Intersection # 1, 2, and 3) - See Figure 1 for conceptual layout • Restrict the intersection of Alma Street/Lincoln Street to right-in/right-out only movements. • Divert left-turning traffic off of Lincoln Avenue by adding a left-turn lane to the Embarcadero Road slip ramp to facilitate left-turns onto Alma Street. • Install traffic signals at the Alma Street/Embarcadero Road slip ramp and Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue with one controller. • Install a traffic signal at the Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue intersection to allow left turns from Kingsley Street onto westbound Embarcadero Road. • Provide a 75 to 100-foot left-turn pocket on southbound Alma Street at Kingsley Avenue. • Provide two northbound travel lanes on northbound Alma Street at Kingsley Avenue. 15 Packet Pg. 368 City of Palo Alto Page 12 In addition, providing two northbound travel lanes on Alma Street at Kingsley Avenue would require widening of the Alma Street bridge over Embarcadero Road, as the existing width of the bridge can only accommodate three travel lanes on Alma Street. Therefore, widening would be required and will include extensive modification or potential replacement of the existing bridge structure. However, no additional right-of-way needs are anticipated on Alma Street, south of Embarcadero Road. Figure 1: Mitigation Measures (Conceptual layout for Alma Street Intersections - Lincoln, Kinsley, & Embarcadero) El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road (Intersection # 4) The analysis showed that at the Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection of El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road, significant traffic impacts would occur due to reassigned traffic. It is recommended that an additional westbound left-turn lane and a northbound right- turn lane be provided along with signal optimization at this intersection. With these improvements, the intersection of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road would operate at acceptable LOS E during both peak hours under existing and Year 2030 traffic volumes. El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road (Intersection # 5) El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road, also a CMP intersection, the traffic analysis identified significant traffic impacts due to reassigned traffic. The report recommended a westbound right-turn lane from Oregon Expressway to northbound El Camino Real along with optimizing the signal timing. With these improvements, the intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions. Under Year 2030 traffic conditions, the analysis shows that the intersection would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS F with the proposed improvements. However, the intersection delay 15 Packet Pg. 369 City of Palo Alto Page 13 during both the AM and PM peak hours is projected to be lower than the intersection delay without these improvements. Alma Street & Oregon Expressway (Intersections # 6A and 6B) The traffic analysis identified significant impacts to the intersections of Alma Street/Oregon Expressway with the reassignment. The analysis determined that these intersections currently meet the peak hour signal warrant and recommends traffic signals at both the on and off-ramps With the proposed traffic signals at both the ramp locations, the intersections of Alma Street and Oregon Expressway are projected to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during both peak hours under existing and Year 2030 traffic conditions The study indicated that these intersections in existing conditions and future conditions with no improvements will be at LOS F. however with the implementing the proposed mitigation measures, the LOS on these intersections for the future 2030 conditions will improve at most locations. The future LOS for these intersections is shown in Table 5 below. Table 5: Churchill Closure – Impacted Intersections LOS (Future 2030 Conditions) Viaduct Based on the traffic study for the Viaduct Alternative, the intersection of Alma/Churchill operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours with or without Caltrain electrification project, considering no additional improvements are performed at the grade crossing. However, as Table 3 shows, the Viaduct Alternative will bring the intersection operations to LOS D during the AM and LOS E during PM peak hours. 15 Packet Pg. 370 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Partial Underpass This alternative proposes to separate Caltrain from Churchill Avenue but preserve access to Alma street by keeping Churchill Avenue partially open via a modified underpass as described in the layout section earlier in the report. The most significant traffic-flow change is that no through traffic would be possible on Churchill Avenue across Alma Street. This alternative also would separate the bicycle and pedestrian traffic crossing Alma Street from vehicular traffic by providing a bridge over Churchill Avenue that connects to the bike trail next to Palo Alto High School. Because through traffic and some turning movements at Churchill would not be possible, some traffic would reroute to other streets. The following traffic movements would need to reroute: • Eastbound through traffic on Churchill – 90% of the traffic is expected to reroute to turn left on Alma and travel north to use Embarcadero Road or one of the neighborhood cross streets. 10% of the traffic is expected to turn right at Alma and use one of the neighborhood cross streets. • Westbound through traffic on Churchill Avenue – All traffic is expected to make a right turn on Alma and travel north to use Embarcadero Road. • Westbound left-turn traffic on Churchill Avenue – All traffic is expected to use another of the neighborhood streets to access Alma. • Southbound left-turn traffic on Alma Street – All traffic is expected to turn left into one of the other neighborhood streets. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the signalized intersection of Alma Street and Churchill Avenue would operate at acceptable LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hour periods with the existing and future traffic volumes. Noise & Vibration Analysis Noise Analysis As part of the evaluation, a noise study was conducted to better understand the relative benefits or penalties of the grade separation alternatives. A noise survey was conducted in the study area to establish existing conditions in a variety of locations throughout the project. The noise measurement locations were selected to represent a variety of noise-sensitive land uses in the study area with an emphasis on residential land uses. Most measurement locations were conducted at publicly accessible areas that were similar in distance and acoustical setting to nearby residential locations with an emphasis on first and second-row homes (typically within about 300 feet of the rail line and about 1500 feet of a grade crossing). Both short- and long- term noise measurements were conducted to evaluate the noise study. For each alternative, the noise levels were predicted for generalized locations of the first row and second row of homes on both east and west side of the tracks. It was expected that at 15 Packet Pg. 371 City of Palo Alto Page 15 locations beyond second-row homes, train events may still be audible, but calculated noise levels would be much closer to (or lower than) existing ambient noise levels. The following table provides a summary of how the relative contributions of rail and road noise sources may be expected to change as a function of proposed alternatives. Most noise source levels will be reduced by most alternatives as they introduce more noise-reducing features such as increased shielding from noise barriers or structures, however, it is noted that engine noise viaduct alternative could increase slightly since the increased elevation of the rail path may reduce the effectiveness of first-row shielding at second-row homes. TABLE 6: Noise Source Changes by Alternative In order to provide a quantitative comparison of relative acoustical benefits for these alternatives, future noise levels were calculated for representative residential locations at typical first and second-row homes to the east and west of the rail line. These calculations followed the methodology and calculation methods presented in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) and assumptions were based on the Caltrain data provided in their environmental documents. In addition to the alternatives in consideration, the noise study reviewed the additional scenario with a beneficial 6-foot tall parapet barrier that was assumed for the viaduct alternatives for the grade crossing closure and underpass alternatives. The following table provides a summary of the results of the noise reduction based on the prediction analysis for each alternative and each generalized receiver location 15 Packet Pg. 372 City of Palo Alto Page 16 TABLE 7: Predicted Noise Reduction Relative to Existing Condition by Alternative (dBA) The study indicated that the biggest noise reduction would come from eliminating horn soundings in the vicinity of grade crossings with typical reductions of 9 to 14 dBA (as demonstrated by the “Existing vs. Closure” scenario). While all the studied alternatives will provide the acoustical benefit of ending horn soundings, some will provide smaller additional benefits. Viaduct and hybrid alternatives will provide the additional benefit of reducing wheel/rail noise at all receivers and the hybrid alternative will also help reduce Alma street road noise for homes to the west of the rail line. The trench alternative will both provide significant reductions for engine and wheel/rail noise. Vibration Analysis The movements of rail vehicles generate ground-borne vibration. According to FTA guidelines, a passenger/freight rail line would have to pass within less than 20 feet of a typical residential structure to potentially cause structural damage which would not be an issue with this project. However, human perception of, and potential annoyance to ground-borne vibration could be triggered in homes within 150-200 feet from the tracks. Under the current/existing conditions, many of the first-row homes to both the east and west of the track are already within 200 feet of the tracks and may already be experiencing perceptible vibrations from train pass-by events. The vibration study conducted a relative qualitative assessment of changes in ground-borne vibration level by proposed alternatives based on FTA guidance. The following table provides a brief summary of the qualitative assessment. 15 Packet Pg. 373 City of Palo Alto Page 17 TABLE 8: Potential Change in Ground-Borne Vibration by Alternative As indicated in the table above, most of the proposed alternatives would either create no significant change or perhaps a slight improvement in ground-borne vibration. The viaduct alternative may provide a significant improvement. However, a more detailed ground vibration engineering analysis for the selected alternative at each of the crossings will need to be completed to develop a more detailed vibration impact assessment with detailed recommendations for vibration mitigation features to be incorporated into the final design. Outreach During the XCAP process, community represented participated and provided feedback and comments. The city staff and Consultant provided support at the XCAP meetings and conducted studies, performed analysis, and provided additional technical information for the review of the alternatives. Earlier in 2020, before the pandemic began, the City hosted two well-attended Rail Town Hall meetings and smaller neighborhood specific open house meetings to gain community input on the rail alternatives and answer community questions. Staff also developed and released online surveys and used social media, the City’s website, and electronic newsletters to inform, answer questions and gain feedback from the community on this important City priority. In addition, to further engage the community, City staff hosted a Virtual Town Hall from August 19, 2020 to September 14, 2020 gaining over 1,000 unique visitors to the online platform. This virtual platform was designed to inform the community and seek feedback on the proposed alternatives for grade separation at the three grade crossing locations of Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. A summary report of Virtual Town Hall was provided as an informational report to the City Council on November 30, 2020 (CMR 11759). Staff and XCAP also provided project updates and related information to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), City’s School Liaison Committee, and City School Traffic Committee. A shift 15 Packet Pg. 374 City of Palo Alto Page 18 to the Virtual Town Hall format was a direct result of the pandemic and the opportunity to further community engagement through this project phase. Construction & Engineering Challenges: There are several Construction and Engineering challenges with each of these alternatives. These challenges are described below and are summarized in the table to show the impact on each alternative. - Conformance of railroad grade with preferred maximum grade by Joint Peninsula Board (JPB)/Caltrain. With the current design, the viaduct alternative on Churchill Avenue exceeds Caltrain’s maximum preferred railroad grade. Therefore, it will require a design exception from the JPB/Caltrain. - Four Tracking of Caltrain: during the later stages of the conceptual plan development, JPB/Caltrain indicated a need for four (4) tracking of its railroad line within the vicinity of south Palo Alto may be needed to accommodate future Caltrain demands. As a result, these designs shall accommodate the need of these future four tracks. These concepts as planned has not been designed to accommodate these four (4) tracking requirement. As such a future review and coordination with Caltrain will be needed. - Underground Structure Conflicts: Installation of underground structures will impact the underground facilities with the Closure and Partial Underpass Alternative. - Ground Water Conditions: Due to the groundwater conditions partial underpass will require pump stations for dewatering which will increase long-term maintenance costs and risk of flooding due to pump stations. The partial underpass alternatives will require dewatering near the intersections where improvements are constructed. In addition, some dewatering will be required to construct footings for viaduct structures. - Utility Relocation: Utility relocations will be required to remove any conflicts with foundations and for any lowered construction conditions. For Closure with Mitigation and partial Underpass Alternatives, the utility relocation will be encountered generally at the pedestrian crossing locations, however, for the partial underpass alternative, such utility relocations will be at the intersection also. In addition, for Viaduct, any utility conflict within the foundations and pier structure will need relocation. - Shoo-Fly/Temporary Rial System: Shoo-Fly /Temporary Rail system included temporary electrification of the tracks will be required to accommodate all alternatives except for the Closure with Mitigation Alternative based on the current design. For the Partial Underpass alternative, the XCAP members shared an alternative methodology “Box Jacking” that may be feasible. Such technique will require further evaluation and Caltrain acceptance before determination of applicability for Underpass Alternative. 15 Packet Pg. 375 City of Palo Alto Page 19 - Traffic During Construction: For both Viaduct and Partial Underpass Alternatives, Alma Street will be reduced to a two-lane roadway to accommodate shoofly. However, for Underpass Alternative, during part of the construction, only one lane for northbound direction will remain open. In addition, the west leg of Churchill Avenue will be closed for part of the construction time period to perform sub-structure work to provide intersection improvements for Partial Underpass Alternative. - Construction Time Period. Both Churchill Avenue Closure with mitigation options and Viaduct Alternatives are anticipated to take two (2) years to construct, whereas the Partial Underpass Alternatives is anticipated to take two and a half years (2-1/2) to three (3) years. The construction duration for the Partial Underpass Alternative, however, may change depending upon the construction means and methods. TABLE 9: Summary of Construction and Engineering Challenges LOCATION/ DESCRIPTION CLOSURE W/MITIGATIONS VIADUCT PARTIAL UNDERPASS Construction Period 2 Years 2 Years 2.5-3 Years Railroad Grade - 1.6% - Shoo-Fly /Temp Rail System NO Yes Yes /Alt Tech Utility Relocation Yes, at Ped/Bike Crossings Yes, Conflicts with Foundations Yes, at Crossings and Ped Bike Crossing Closure on Alma - Reduced to 2 lanes, No turn lanes Reduced to 2 lanes, 1NB lane only during part of construction Intersection Closures/impacts - Minor Widening West Leg of Churchill will be closed during part of construction Dewatering & Excavation - - Yes, significant at intersection Long term dewatering - - Pump Station Project Cost The high-level cost breakdown based on the current designs is shown in the following table. 15 Packet Pg. 376 City of Palo Alto Page 20 TABLE 10: Summary of Project Cost LOCATION/ DESCRIPTION CLOSURE W/MITIGATION VIADUCT PARTIAL UNDERPASS Roadway & Railroad Items $22M to $24M $55M to $73M $70M to $86M Structure Items $4M to $9M $115M to $152M $8M to $10M Right-Of-Way & Utilities $4M to $7M $16M to $20M $24M to 30M Support Costs $11M to $14M $60M to $80M $28M to $36M Escalation To 2025 Dollars $9M to $11M $54M to $75M $30M to $38M Total Project Costs $50M to $65M $300M to $400M $160M to $200M Construction Period 2 Years 2 Years 2.5 - 3 Years Additional Studies With the presentation of the XCAP Final Report to the City Council at the study session on March 23, 2021 and final recommendations on April 26, 2021, several concerns were brought up by the City Council and the XCAP that would require additional studies and consultant support in order to fully address in reviewing the alternatives. Subsequently, staff requested the project Consultant AECOM to provide estimated scope and costs for the additional studies and revisions that may be helpful in further reviewing the alternatives in consideration for the selection of the preferred alternative(s). These additional studies were identified for all alternatives including Meadow Drive and Charleston Road grade separation alternatives. On August 23, 2021 staff presented the details of the additional studies and staff recommendations. Similarly, for Churchill Avenue, these studies are presented again to seek direction from the Council on additional studies that would help in further narrowing the alternative selection. It should be noted that many of these studies are typically conducted later in a construction project development process and focused on a primary rather than multiple alternatives. This is reflected in the associated costs. In addition, conclusions from these studies must be considered preliminary, since responsible agencies such as Caltrain will provide limited guidance and feedback at the current conceptual design stage. Nonetheless, to the extent these studies provide community stakeholders greater confidence in decision-making, the costs involved represent a small percentage of the ultimate costs of grade separation construction. The additional studies with estimated scopes and fees are listed below. It is worth noting, when considering further studies to be conducted, the distinct roles of City staff and our consultant team. As noted above, many of the studies described below are typically conducted later in project development. As such, neither staff nor our consultants are advocating for advancing these studies at this time. At the same time, the consultant team 15 Packet Pg. 377 City of Palo Alto Page 21 brings the subject matter expertise and resources needed to provide the additional analysis desired to support decision-making. Staff will negotiate with our consultants on study scopes and fees based on Council direction. Should Councilmembers believe that further studies would more appropriately be conducted by independent organizations, staff would like to discuss any concerns. The schedule, cost effectiveness, and workload effect of such direction should be considered, while recognizing that ultimately staff could pursue separate procurements for the required services. Overall, the estimated scope and fee listed above for various studies is inclusive of work anticipated for all three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road). In general, these costs are not directly proportional to the number of crossings. Depending upon the City Council direction, if a particular item needs exclusion from further study at any of the crossings, the scope will be reviewed and negotiated with the consultant. Discussion and direction from the Council on priorities within these potential additional studies will help staff manage project costs and ensure continued progress on the evaluation of the alternatives within resources. Track Review and Caltrain Coordination: Estimated fee* $90,000-$110,000. JPB/Caltrain has adopted the moderate-growth improvement program as outlined in its Business Plan (https://caltrain2040.org/). However, JPB also indicated that the high-growth improvement program should not be precluded. Palo Alto has been identified in the Business Plan as a location for the high-growth improvements, including 4-tracks. To date, alternatives developed for the Rail Program have been evaluated for 2-tracks. Identifying the implications of each alternative with 4-tracks will require additional engineering analysis. • Gather Data from Caltrain: Meet with Caltrain to gather more information about what the limits of the 4-track alignment would be and what the typical section would be along the limits and at the stations. • Evaluate Alternatives: Conduct a high-level analysis of the impacts of 4-tracks for each alternative still under consideration (MC Viaduct, MC Hybrid, MC Trench, MC Underpass, CH Viaduct, CH Underpass, and CH Closure) by overlaying Caltrain’s 4-track geometry over the proposed 2-track. Identify a list of significant impacts for each alternative. Determine if the alternatives are still feasible with 4-tracks or does not preclude 4-tracks in the future. Note: This task assumes no animations or photo simulations or updates to existing exhibits. • Meet with Caltrain: Meet with Caltrain to review the evaluation of alternatives and gather additional feedback on the feasibility and impacts of each. • Prepare memorandum report: Prepare a draft and final memorandum report that documents the evaluation of the 4-track alignment and feedback received from Caltrain. Incorporate one-set of consolidated comments from the City and Caltrain on the draft technical memorandum. 15 Packet Pg. 378 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Traffic Study Update (2040): Estimated fee* $45,000-$55,000 During the study session and the XCAP recommendations, there was a discussion to review the traffic conditions with the future forecast of 2040 rather than the 2030 forecasts that have been used in the traffic study. While explained that the forecast reflects Comprehensive Plan buildout rather than a specific year, additional land use forecasts could be incorporated in order to update the traffic model. The update to traffic analysis to reflect a future forecast year of “2040” rather than the year 2030 forecasts will require the following specific tasks. • Model Land Use: Palo Alto has not identified any growth beyond 2030, which is considered the horizon for the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, for the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) within Palo Alto, the land use data will be the same as the 2030 forecasts. Outside of Palo Alto, Hexagon will update the land use data to year 2040 using the latest version of the VTA model. • Model Forecasts: Consultant (Hexagon) will run the Palo Alto model and produce traffic volume forecasts for the major streets in Palo Alto in the study area. These forecasts will be used to calculate growth factors, and the growth factors will be applied to the existing intersection turning movement counts from the prior traffic study. This will yield an estimate of intersection turning movement counts for 2040. • Traffic Calculations: The 2040 forecast intersection turning movements will be used to recalculate intersection levels of service for the project alternatives. There are 11 project alternatives, and calculations will be done for the AM and PM peak hours. Thus, 22 scenarios will be included in the study. • Documentation: Consultant (Hexagon) will prepare a revised traffic report that updates the long-range analysis to year 2040. The existing conditions analysis will remain unchanged. Design Refinement Of Underpass Alternatives: Estimated fee* $125,000-$150,000 The XCAP in their presentation to the City Council recommended that the Underpass Alternative at Meadow and Charleston undergo an additional design iteration to incorporate input from the PABAC and school committees. As such staff requested the Consultant for their support to develop the estimated costs and scope as follows: • Enhance Alternatives: Refine the three underpass alternatives (Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston) by including input received by the XCAP, the school committees, and the ped/bike advisory committees (PABAC, etc.). Note: This task assumes the railroad profiles remains at-grade. • Update Exhibits: Update the plan, profile and typical section exhibits for each of the three alternatives. • Update Renderings: Update the 3D CAD model and still image renderings to include all refinements, including those not captured previously (U-turn at Alma Plaza, for example). Note: This task does not include animations or photo simulations. 15 Packet Pg. 379 City of Palo Alto Page 23 • Update Cost Estimates: Update the quantities, and cost estimates for each alternative. Note: If the unit costs get updated, then additional time will need to be added to update all other alternatives too for consistency. • Update Miscellaneous Items: Update the Evaluation Matrix, Fact Sheets, website materials and VR room materials/exhibits based on the refinements. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations: Estimated fee* $130,000-$160,000 The XCAP in their presentation to the City Council recommended that the review of the subsurface conditions will provide a better understanding of the groundwater condition for the design of underground structures. As a result, staff requested the consultant to provide scope for the preliminary geotechnical investigation. • Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical: Collect available geotechnical and groundwater data from adjacent projects. This could include data from Santa Clara Water District channel projects, Caltrans Local Bridges, and other sources. • Field Investigation – Two CPT Borings: Once the existing available data has been collected and reviewed, a recommendation to conduct a limited geotechnical field investigation to confirm data closer to proposed bridge and retaining wall structures. For this effort, two Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) borings are anticipated. Recommendations for further detailed geotechnical field investigations will be evaluated but deferred to the next level of design. The purpose of this limited geotechnical investigation is to confirm design assumptions made during this design phase. • Memorandum Report – Draft and Final: The data collected in the stated tasks above will be summarized in a memorandum. The memorandum will also discuss further investigation needed for detailed design as well as confirm assumptions used for bridge and retaining walls foundations. 15 Packet Pg. 380 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Box Jacking System/Geotechnical Investigation & Feasibility Study: Estimated fee* $350,000- $600,000 The XCAP in their presentation to the City Council recommended an additional review of the newer more advanced technologies such as “Box Jacking” could expedite the project and may also eliminate the need of shoofly thereby reducing the construction costs. Based on this recommendation, staff requested the consultant to provide scope for evaluating the feasibility of such a system. The scope for this work includes the preliminary geotechnical investigation and described below. • Data Collection and Review – Groundwater and Geotechnical: The scope described in the task above for Preliminary Geotechnical investigation for data collection and field investigations is also be included in this task. In addition to the CPT described in the task above, one exploratory boring would be taken at each crossing location to supplement the data collected from the CPT. • Construction Methodology Evaluation: Data collected in the above task will be used to determine the feasibility of a relatively long-span (40-60 feet or possibly longer) box culvert-like structure to support the various loading conditions (dead load, live load, lateral and vertical seismic loads, and buoyancy due to groundwater). • Construction Phasing / Sequencing: In this task, the various components involved with the set up and operation of a box jacking system will be evaluated, such as dewatering of the excavation pit, the size of the pit and the extent of the temporary shoring, utility conflicts and the potential need for relocations, the maintenance of vehicular traffic and Caltrain’s overhead contact system. • Cost Estimate: Prepare a rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost for the box jacking system. • 3D Animation: Prepare a 3D animation of the steps anticipated to complete the installation of a box culvert-like substructure via a box jacking system. • Memorandum Report: The information in the tasks stated above would be summarized in a technical memorandum. It also includes the incorporation of one round of comments is (one Draft and one Final report). Cost Details: Geotechnical Investigation $120,000-$150,000; Structural Analysis $230,00- $450,000 Shadow Analysis (Light Plane Review): Estimated fee* $20,000-$25,000 • XCAP recommended that the shadow of the overhead structures may impact the residential properties adjacent to the tracks and shall be studied for such alternatives. Staff requested the consultant to provide the scope and fee for such work. The proposed scope by the consultant is as described below: 3D Model Development - Collect geolocation info (Lat/Long and Elevation data) for correct sun angle - Complete topology and surface conditions o Note: This does not include a Lidar scan, it’s assumed that 3D information from public sources (i.e., Google Earth) are used 15 Packet Pg. 381 City of Palo Alto Page 25 - Complete object 3D model (features that will cast shadows) - Complete subject 3D model (features that will receive shadows) - Model other details, as needed (trees, etc.) • Shadow Study Analysis - Shadow Study Analysis o Note: One specific day of the year will be selected for the analysis - Organization and Preparation: Study imagery combined with analytics - Add Legend/Icons/Notes • Study Document Production and Final Report - Image and document post-production using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop - Combine multiple studies using Adobe InDesign - Address comments and complete final report Assumptions for these studies: • Three sites (Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston) and two alternatives (Viaduct at each and a Hybrid at Meadow and Charleston) will be studied. • Each site has three proposed subjects (buildings) to be analyzed. • Each site will have several buildings that can be used to extrapolate shadow study analytics for that area. Structures predicted to receive the most shading will be the subjects for study. • The estimate includes one study at Churchill (Viaduct), two studies each at Meadow and Charleston (Viaduct and Hybrid). • Fifteen (15) shadow analyses will be completed; three (3) at Churchill, six (6) at Meadow, and six (6) at Charleston. Each one will include an analysis of shadow impact on the target structure and a visual of the shadow path, sun angles, and other simulation details. Studies for each site will be combined and annotated according to any given constraints. For example, a pass/fail system based on a maximum number of shade hours a target structure is allowed to receive. 15 Packet Pg. 382 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Additional Noise Study: Estimated fee* $55,000-$65,000 The XCAP and community members were concerned with the lack of the extent of the noise study. As a result, staff requested the consultant to provide scope for the expanded study area and to include future growth of Caltrain as part of this study. The proposed scope by the consultant is as described below: Expand Study Area/Measurements: Conduct additional noise measurements, going further back into the adjacent residential neighborhoods (perhaps 3 or 4 rows in a few locations near grade crossings) to determine the contribution of existing train noise relative to non- train ambient noise levels at these locations and incorporate these findings into the evaluation of the various grade separation alternatives. • Expand Analysis for Future Growth: Expand the noise analysis to consider the comparative influence of the future growth scenarios (see table below) on the projected relative effectiveness of the proposed grade-crossing design alternatives. TABLE 9: Trains per Day, Caltrain Corridor Scenario Year (Est.) Type of Train Comment Caltrain Freight HSR Existing 2020 92 3 0 All diesel Locos Electrification 2024 114 3 0 All EMU (used in current analysis) Baseline growth 2040 174 3 130 Per Caltrain Business Plan Moderate growth 2040 268 3 130 High Growth 2040 348 3 130 Source: Caltrain Business Plan • Analyze Structural Noise/Vibration: Conduct a limited literature review to collect data and support technical conclusions regarding the relative acoustical contribution of modern viaduct structures such as those proposed for use in the viaduct alternative. • Update Noise Study Report: Update the technical noise report document to incorporate all three of the preceding expanded analyses and present the result (remotely) at a City Council meeting and incorporate one round of comments into a final report document. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: Estimated fee* $200,000 – $250,000 • This item is primarily covering the major storm drainage infrastructure that will impact the trench alternative for Meadow Charleston and therefore not applicable for Churchill Avenue. • Evaluate Trench Storm Drain Alternatives: An evaluation of a siphon or a lift station options will be performed for the creek crossing based on the trench grade separation alternative. The following items will be considered: - Environmental issues/concerns (e.g., impact to creek habitat) 15 Packet Pg. 383 City of Palo Alto Page 27 - Permit requirements (RWQCB, SCVWD, FEMA, USACE, Department of Fish and Game) - Flooding potential and impacts - Maintenance issues and long term requirements - Design Options and conceptual details (depth of siphon, entrance/exit slope and length, etc.) - Utility conflicts and impacts - Temporary shoring requirements - Traffic impacts during construction - Right-of-way impacts - Groundwater and aquifer impacts A rough order-of-magnitude (ROM) cost will be developed for both options. • Evaluate Underpass Storm Drain Alternatives: Drainage requirements for the underpass alternatives will be determined. For example, the size of the pump station, and the location of a motor control center (MCC) building, and potential right-of-way impacts, will be considered. A ROM cost will also be included. • Prepare Memorandum Report: The information from the evaluation will be summarized in a technical memorandum. Incorporation of one round of comments is assumed (one Draft and one Final report). Additional Outreach: Estimated fee* $15,000-$20,000 • Conduct Meetings with Additional Stakeholders: Conduct separate virtual meetings with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Stanford, and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to review the alternatives still under consideration (MC Viaduct, MC Hybrid, MC Trench, MC Underpass, CH Viaduct, CH Underpass, and CH Closure). A total of three meetings with the stakeholder are anticipated. • Prepare Meeting Notes: Prepare draft and final meeting notes for each that document the feedback received from each stakeholder. Develop a list of revisions to be considered at the next phase of design. Incorporate one-set of consolidated comments from the City and Caltrain on the draft technical memorandum. Note: This task does not include revising/updating any previously prepared exhibits or changing the location of the ped/bike undercrossing. 15 Packet Pg. 384 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Urban Designer: Estimated fee* $100,000-$125,000 The XCAP members asked the staff to explore the possibility to bring in the urban designer for review of the alternatives. Staff requested the consultant to provide scope for such services. The scope of work is described as follows: • Urban Design / Public Realm Opportunity Mapping: Identify opportunities for public realm improvements for each of the three (3) alternatives that considers landscaping, public art, pedestrian, and bicycle network enhancements and other placemaking strategies that benefit the community as well as the environment. An opportunities and constraints urban design plan diagram will be created for each of the three alternatives. • Urban Design / Public Realm Design Enhancements: Building on the analysis in opportunity mapping task, the layout of potential public realm enhancements that provide co-benefits to the community will be prepared. Strategies that will be considered includes urban greening, integration of public art, aesthetic character of walls and hardscape, and an overall human-centric approach to design that enhances the experience for the public. A conceptual site plan for each alternative will be updated with the proposed public realm design features. Note: This task does not include renderings, animations or photo simulations. • Meetings: Two (2) team members to attend up to eight (8), virtual team coordination meetings. Conceptual Design for Ped/Bike Undercrossing At Seale And Loma Verde: Estimated fee* $80,000-$100,000 The XCAP in their presentation to the City Council indicated concerns about the limited pedestrian bike crossings across the Caltrain corridor. The interest of the XCAP was to provide for these facilities prior to construction of grade separation alternatives so that there is adequate mobility across the corridor. As a result, staff requested the consultant to provide scope for such services. The scope of work is described as follows: • Conceptual Layouts: Develop plan, profile and typical section exhibits for a ped/bike undercrossing at two locations: Seale Ave/Peers Park and Loma Verde Ave. • Cost Estimates: Develop a conceptual-level cost estimate at each location to the same level of detail that was done for the previous alternatives. • 3D Renderings: Create a 3D CAD model of the conceptual designs and provide up to six (6) computer-generated renderings and two (2) photo simulations at each location. • Miscellaneous Public Outreach Materials: The two concepts will be added to the Evaluation Matrix. Fact Sheets for each will be provided, and exhibits will be uploaded to the website. In addition, the VR room will be updated accordingly. This Council discussed and directed the staff to continue work on the bike plan in parallel with consideration of construction time and interaction with grade crossing plans. 15 Packet Pg. 385 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Sustainability: Estimated fee* $50,000-$80,000 The community members and the City Council indicated interest in the sustainability factors for these alternatives. As a result, staff requested the consultant to provide scope for such services. The scope of work is described as follows: • Sustainability Strategy Plan: All of the alternatives developed to date can incorporate sustainability practices into the design. This task will develop a strategy to identify major categories where sustainable materials and practices can be incorporated into final design of alternatives. • Bike/Ped Usage: Lowering greenhouse gases usage factors into the sustainable design of an alternative. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities factor into reduced greenhouse gases. This task would evaluate how bike/ped facilities can be improved in relation to the grade separation alternatives. *The estimated scope and fee listed above for various studies is inclusive of work anticipated for all three crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road). Most of these studies can be performed independently for each of the alternatives at these crossings. However, there is a general economy of scale in performing similar work for a greater number of alternatives and crossings. In addition, some of the studies such as Noise Study update and Traffic Study Update for 2040, if conducted will be tied to update models for all crossings concurrently. Box Jacking evaluation also us. Therefore, these costs are not directly proportional to the number of crossings. Depending upon the City Council direction, if a particular item needs exclusion from further study at any of the crossings, the scope will be reviewed and negotiated with the consultant. Next Steps • Following the City Council's review of alternatives in detail and possible narrowing of alternatives and direction from the City council on the additional studies, staff will negotiate with AECOM Consultants, the final scope and fee for this additional work. Staff will then return to Council for approval of an amendment to the existing consultant contract for expanded scope of work needed to accomplish additional work. • Perform additional studies of selected alternatives as directed at each of the locations and bring back additional information for Council consideration. • Rail Committee to discuss the financial consideration, when substantive information from the additional studies becomes available. • Direction from the City Council on the final selection of the preferred alternative at each of the three crossings. • Direction to staff for preparing the initial Project Study Report (PSR) that provides the summary of actions and demonstrates the purpose, need and provides the scope of the project which is necessary to complete studies and the work needed for project approval and environmental design. 15 Packet Pg. 386 City of Palo Alto Page 30 The selection of preferred alternatives will therefore lead to the development of preliminary engineering and preparation of environmental documents including the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The completion of Environmental documents will better position the City to seek grant funding from Federal and State programs for such projects. Depending upon the timing and funding availability, after the approval of EIR, the project will move towards completion of final design documents and then followed by construction of project improvements. RESOURCE IMPACT Preliminary scope and cost estimates to conduct additional studies were developed for all three rail crossings (Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road) for Council’s review and consideration for further staff direction. The recommendation to perform additional studies needed to select the preferred alternative will result in direct resource impact. Amendment to the Consultant Contract for performing these additional studies will be brought forward for Council approval. Funding for the grade separation project of $2.3 million is programmed in the FY 2022 Adopted Capital Improvement Budget for Railroad Grade Separation Project (PL-17001) that includes funding from 2016 Measure B Local Streets and Roads. The anticipated costs of the all the studies for these crossings is estimated to range between $1.25M to $1.73M. Funding for future years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process. Direction from the City Council regarding further work, outside those recommended in this report, on the grade separation projects may lead to future resource impacts. As City Council direction is provided, corresponding budget adjustments will be brought forward for approval as appropriate. Rail grade separation projects are historically funded by the General Capital Improvement Fund through funding sources such as Measure B, SB1 and in or through General Fund support. Additional funding allocations will need to be taken into consideration of competing needs and limited funding remaining as part of the general Capital Improvement Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to approve the construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to CEQA and require the preparation of an environmental analysis. Environmental review and design for the grade separation project will be performed in the subsequent steps of the project development. 15 Packet Pg. 387