Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20220615smRCsmRAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Special Meeting June 15, 2022 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 1:00 p.m. Present: Kou (Chair), Burt, Cormack Absent: Oral Communications There were none. Action Items 1. Review and Recommend Proposed Rail Committee Work Plan and Guiding Principles to the City Council for Approval MOTION by Council Member Cormack seconded by Mayor Burt to recommend to the Council to accept the Rail Committee 2022-2023 work plan with the following revisions: a. Focus Area A: Consider the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the 2012 Rail Plan, and the SCAP plan in the review of the grade separation selection criteria b. Focus Area C: Modify the language to add technical standards and change "that add" to "in order to reduce" c. Focus Area D: Staff to revise language to indicate that the Rail Committee work will be in parallel with that of the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan d. Focus Area E: In the time frame, include end of life for Embarcadero Alma project. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 MOTION PASSES: 3-0 Philip Kamhi, Transportation Director, described the items currently within the scope of or previously referred to the Rail Committee and items that could be delegated to the Rail Committee. Public Comment: 1. Nadia Naik stated she submitted a lengthy public comment that flagged some technical issues for the Committee. She felt it was something to get a jump on since Caltrain is working imminently on it. She offered to go through anything related to XCAP during the discussion. Mayor Burt wanted to clarify Focus Area C, "Seek changes to rail design criteria that add cost and uncertainty," to reflect that it was not intended to add cost and uncertainty but rather change the current criteria that add cost. He suggested using the term "technical standards" rather than "design criteria" under Focus Area C. He asked if the near-term options for Embarcadero Alma included the bicycle and pedestrian near-term upgrades. Mr. Kamhi stated it referred to reviewing the prior CIP project and looking at possibilities moving forward in the near term. Mayor Burt recalled part of the consideration of closing Churchill and upgrading Embarcadero was how close Embarcadero is to its end of life. He wanted to keep that on the agenda because the actual expense of Embarcadero being a complete rebuild rather than an upgrade would influence the consideration of a Churchill closure. Like the San Francisquito Bridge has bearing on where to eliminate the 4-track alternative, the tracks that go from the bridge to the University Station are still not straight as a result of a bridge construction that never got straightened out. He stated this needs to be part of the discussion with Caltrain. Mr. Kamhi stated that was included in the letter to Caltrain regarding the technical standards. Mayor Burt felt that under Focus Area A and Rail Committee actions, it was important to review the grade separation criteria along with existing relevant policies, including the Comprehensive Plan, the 2012 Rail Corridor Plan, and the current Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Council Member Cormack stated in Focus Area C, talking about the final EIR for High-Speed Rail, these documents have helped identify the plans and impacts in the past. She hoped to hear more about it today. She suggested SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 rewording Focus Area D for clarity to say that the Committee would work in parallel with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Vice Mayor Kou wanted to make sure the 7 technical issues listed in Ms. Naik's letter were to provided to Caltrain. Mr. Kamhi confirmed that the questions were sent to Caltrain after the EIR came out. Vice Mayor Kou asked if there was a report on Focus Item C, "Advocate Caltrain review and revision of design criteria through LPMG." Mr. Kamhi did not have an update on that and thought that would be potentially a role for the LPMG member. Mayor Burt stated that was a process Caltrain had committed to with the intention that the cities on the corridor grappling with similar issues would meet with Caltrain as a group rather than 8 cities separately. He asked if the Rail Committee received the letter to Caltrain. Mr. Kamhi believed the letter was going out today because it contains information from the EIR that just came out. He believed it was requested that the City be included as stakeholders and participants in the study. Vice Mayor Kou stated the technical groundwater analysis was approved to be referred to move forward. She also asked if jack box construction method and having the Long Island Railroad discuss different grades they have were part of the approval. Mr. Kamhi stated those items were already delegated to the Rail Committee and would fall under geotechnical studies, presentations from outside agencies, and construction technologies review. Vice Mayor Kou stated engaging with PABAC is also part of the plan but questioned if the pedestrian and bicycle pathways that did not get done would be discussed with them and the school community. Mr. Kamhi stated PABAC, Safe Routes to School, and the Traffic Safety Committee are significant contributors to the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Vice Mayor Kou asked if this will be put in a timeline to look at top priorities when going to Council. Mr. Kamhi stated the anticipated time frame was shown in the third column, but some things are outside of the City's control, waiting for Caltrain. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 Mayor Burt stated most of this work plan has already been referred to the Rail Committee. He questioned if things in the XCAP report are within the purview of the Rail Committee by virtue of Council direction. Mr. Kamhi felt those would be within the Rail Committee's purview. Molly Stump, City Attorney, asked if the Committee wanted to do some of that work in advance of the Council because the Council will have an opportunity to look at it. Mayor Burt stated the Committee wanted to be unencumbered on pursuing the rail items the Council has already given policy direction on. Mr. Kamhi stated there might be concern that some of the things in the XCAP report pertain to other committees' or Council's purview. Ms. Stump stated she would need to look at the XCAP report in more detail. Mayor Burt wanted to make sure new authorizations from the Council versus things in the work plan already authorized were delineated. There has been an issue of the purview the Rail Committee has so far based on Council delegation. From March until at least August, the Rail Committee has not been able to take some actions they might have wanted to because of this ambiguity. Ms. Stump stated she would give full perspective on the XCAP report and how that relates to the Committee's delegated purview at the next meeting. Mr. Kamhi noted that most, if not all, of the things contained in this are items identified through the XCAP process. He asked Ms. Naik if there were specific things staff could add that would be helpful rather than the whole plan. Nadia Naik stated in list of things pulled out of XCAP's reports in her public comments, the only one that was not simply a technical question but a policy position was the quiet zones issue. XCAP wrote to work with Caltrain to eliminate horn noise at grade crossings for the biggest overall noise reduction. She stated the Council had never talked about whether quiet zones for the entire city is something to pursue. The only other item was that some of the bike and ped crossings should be advanced before building grade separations. She did not know if that needed explicit backing from Council. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 Mr. Kamhi stated one quiet zone is being worked on currently, which will be the test case to see what the study finds that can potentially be applied to other crossings. That falls within this committee's purview already. Ms. Naik stated the most effective way for the Rail Committee to communicate with LPMG was to write a letter to ensure it enters Caltrain's paper system. She asked that the letter then be made public. Mr. Kamhi noted that fit perfectly within "Advocate Caltrain review and revision of design criteria through LPMG." Mayor Burt stated the impact of freight has always been a consideration in vertical curve and vertical grade. MTC staff and Caltrain are now starting to look into the issue and how much it affects grade separation cost throughout the corridor and how to fund and accomplish this as a whole. In recent discussions, upgrading technical standards and removing cost for everybody was discussed. If there was an analysis to look at the cumulative cost reduction benefit of reducing freight speed, some fraction of that savings could be potentially offered in negotiations to UP, whereas any individual city would not have that bargaining power. Another aspect that may give additional leverage is that it is loaded freight cars that require a graded curvature, and he was unsure that UP operates loaded cars at the freight limit. He felt aligning the standard with the practice is an easier barrier than a new practice. He stated there might be the discretion to limit freight rail speed and suggested this be researched more. While it is technically true that High-Speed Rail does not need 4 tracks per their EIR, he understood their presence on the corridor meant Caltrain needed 4 tracks to operate at the capacity and speed intended. Council Member Cormack asked Mayor Burt what things he wanted the Committee to do that were not captured in the work plan. Mayor Burt stated one thing was to have greater refinement on the aspect of these technical standards that are part of the work plan. Kiely Nose, Assistant City Manager, suggested adding a third bullet under Focus Area C to articulate that piece. Ms. Naik stated another way was to use the guiding principles, which could be broader without being nailed down as a tasked item in a work plan that has to have a due date. Ms. Nose encouraged the Committee to added specific items from the XCAP report not addressed in this work plan to provide some clarity for Council so they know what they are approving when it comes before them. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 Vice Mayor Kou asked if further direction was needed in regard to the letter being sent to Caltrain also being sent to LPMG. Mr. Kamhi stated Ms. Naik had recommended Rail Committee to send a letter to LPMG as opposed to the letters being sent to the executive director. A lot of these issues will be helpful for other LPMG members and agencies. There was an upcoming meeting with Caltrain staff, and Rail Committee would be informed on everything learned from that meeting. Ms. Naik stated the job at LPMG is to talk to other cities about why these standards matter to them, and the letter could weave in some examples. She stated in her role with Friends of Caltrain, she was working on a presentation for elected officials, particularly in San Mateo County, to make everybody aware that these issues are impacting costs and it may be possible to value engineer a way for them to cut costs. She recommended putting in a bullet that specifically calls out that letter with a different focus so it is clear to Council what is happening. Mr. Kamhi stated he felt the bullet in Focus Area C, "Advocate…LPMG," would be adequate. Council Member Cormack asked if any amendments were needed. There was discussion on finalizing amendments previously discussed. MOTION by Council Member Cormack seconded Mayor Burt to recommend that the City Council adopt the guiding principles for the Rail Committee as amended per the guidance below and in cooperation with a delegated member of the Committee: • Consolidate for redundancies, for example Items 5, 6, and 7 • Update Item 10 to include "work with LPMG and any potential technical committees" • Add "and ensure stakeholder and community engagement" in Items 8 and 10 • Add "participation in regional activities with any opportunities to improve the planning, design, and/or eventual construction of grade separations" • Update to provide history of the Committee for context SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 • Update funding agencies and categories in Item 7, including but not limited to regional, state, and federal • Palo Alto will advocate at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) for reviewing and updating any design and operation standards that improve grade separation alternatives for the Caltrain corridor MOTION PASSES: 3-0 Mr. Kamhi presented the Rail Committee Guiding Principles. Vice Mayor Kou requested comments from the public. There were none. Council Member Cormack stated the purpose should be rewritten to include some history for context. She was unsure if 5 should be adjusted with a more concrete description of what should happen and felt 10 needed more work. Mayor Burt stated 5 and 6 should somehow be combined. The Committee would not seek funding just to analyze but to design and construct. Funding sources in 6 and 7 needed to be reconciled. Since these were created, Caltrain came out with their long-range business plan, needing grade separations of High-Speed Rail. Mr. Kamhi stated the context of timing was important because that was the primary concern at the time and the 2040 Caltrain Business Plan Service Vision has changed that. Mayor Burt stated that in the list of funding sources, Santa Clara County should be VTA as there were not other prospective county dollars. The ones not listed, like state and federal dollars, are the highest candidates today but were not previously. For guiding principes, he favored categorically listing regional, state, and federal. He suggested rewriting 10 to reflect that the joint effort through LPMG or otherwise working with Caltrain on technical standards is the primary focus. Council Member Cormack asked if there was anything missing that the Committee would want to add. Ms. Naik reminded everybody that getting this approved by Council as quickly as possible was needed to allow the Committee to do the work it needs to do. She liked Council Member Cormack's idea of putting in the history for someone reading this for the first time. She felt Item 6 needed to include Palo Alto continuing to say that Caltrain needs to be the lead SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 agency on the corridor related to High-Speed Rail and that High-Speed Rail would need to pay for the study and construction of any potential passing tracks or modifications to grade separations. She also suggested adding that Palo Alto will actively participate in any opportunities to improve the planning, design, and eventual construction of grade separations, including actively engaging with Caltrain's corridor-wide grade separation study and any technical design and operating standard studies. She added a bullet that Palo Alto will advocate at all levels of government, federal, state, and local for reviewing and updating any design and operating standards that improve grade separation alternatives for the Caltrain corridor. Council Member Cormack stated there was not a lot of dispute amongst the Committee members and suggested delegating one member to work with staff and Ms. Naik on this item. Mayor Burt stated part of that process was comparing if there was anything in attachment B that would not be authorized under the guiding principles or that would need a little more clarity. For instance, engaging the Palo Alto community in rail planning activities was not there. He suggested leaving 8 as is and adding "and stakeholders" under 10. There was more discussion about outreach and the CSS process. Vice Mayor Kou stated it was the Committee's consensus for an ad hoc to work with staff and Ms. Naik to come up with the guiding principles and also update the preamble and purpose of the Committee. There was discussion on wording changes and additions for the motion. There was discussion of this being a consent item versus an action item. The Committee agreed with going on consent. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities 2. Updates from Caltrain, VTA, and City Staff A. Caltrain – No update provided B. VTA – No update provided C. City Staff Philip Kamhi, Transportation Director, stated there was no one from Caltrain or VTA present. Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer, stated staff met with VTA regarding project funding and they were willing to accept additional studies into the grade SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 separation program. Staff will work with them and bring back the agreement for review. Staff had a scheduled conversation later the same day with VTA for grade separation funding for ped-bike crossings. Staff has met with Caltrain in regards to discussion on the 4-tracking as well as the standard technical criteria for them to review. Staff will follow up with the letter and would incorporate any changes from this meeting if the letter had not gone out yet. There was a meeting scheduled with Caltrain later this week regarding the San Francisquito Bridge for them to share analysis on the bridge report. California High-Speed Rail released their final EIR on June 10, and the Board is considering adoption and approval on August 17 and 18 meeting. They will accept public testimony only on August 17, and they will be doing the deliberation on August 18. Any comments can be sent in writing and/or brought to that meeting, which will be hybrid. Regarding quiet zones, staff is working with Menlo Park in finalizing the consultant contract. Menlo Park may be ready to go to the Council in mid July. That will include Palo Alto Avenue. Staff is trying to kick off additional authorized studies with the AECOM consultants, which will start with outreach and meeting with different stakeholders to get their review and feedback to incorporate in the next steps. The 3 major stakeholders are PABAC, Stanford, and PAUSD. When that is brought to the Rail Committee, it will be another opportunity for the public to provide their feedback and comments. Vice Mayor Kou asked if part of the engagement is also with neighboring cities. Mr. Bhatia stated staff had been communicating with the neighboring cities but not as part of this effort. Mr. Kamhi stated there are several different touch points for that communication between cities. Mayor Burt wanted to make sure that, in the discussion with VTA on whether Measure B dollars could be used for bike and ped only crossings related to vehicular crossing reconstruction, the parallel to what they have already approved for Castro in Mountain View is drawn. VTA, MTC, and others have also said this is an exceptional period of time with state and federal dollars for active transportation. Pursuing those for bike and ped crossings would be a priority except the design is part of the Bike and Ped Master Plan and not yet begun. That could jeopardize those big dollars. He wondered if the Council might want to move forward with the preliminary design and location selection before the whole Bike and Ped, to allow the City to be a candidate for funding. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 Mr. Kamhi noted the challenges are that the Bike and Ped Plan is intended to identify an integrated network for the bicycle and pedestrian network and that staff would need to do a lot of work to advance those projects, which the Office of Transportation does not have the resources for without stopping all other projects. Staff will be talking with VTA about whether the Measure B funding would be available for these projects. He anticipated VTA would push back on the necessity of these crossings. Mayor Burt stated the crossing near Loma Verde is in the existing Bike and Ped Plan. In the south as part of the Churchill mitigations, there is the necessity to separate and tentatively add Seale. These are not fleshed out but not from ground zero either. He stated it seemed sequentially that the outreach with AECOM needs to come first. High-Speed Rail projected an operating speed of 110 MPH on the peninsula and in San Jose to Gilroy and will provide for 0 grade separations as a result. He believed the City should object to the EIR on that basis. He felt a corridor with 60-something at- grade crossings would have severe environmental and public safety impacts. Mr. Kamhi stated concerns about speed and safety were included in the letter to them in 2020. He was interested to see their response. Mayor Burt stated there was a similar argument of whether Caltrain would be able to operate at 110 MPH on this corridor without grade separations. He stated that is not done anywhere in the country and stated the Brightline system in Florida has had at lot of fatalities at a lower speed. Ms. Naik stated they are legally allowed to operate at 110 unless they increase to 3 or 4 tracks. CPUC would then require them to make a grade separation. Mr. Bhatia stated if the speed goes above 125, that triggers grade separation. Council Member Cormack stated the Council had agreed to wait for the full plan. The reason the Loma Verde crossing is not done is that it was pulled out of that portion of the bike plan, which is an example of why this integration is so important. She felt it was unfortunate that no projects were ready to put forward for the federal funding but that things needed to be done in an integrated, prioritized manner. She felt these grade crossings would probably have a decent priority. Mayor Burt started since the Council last took that up last April, 2 things have changed. The timeline for completion of the Bike and Ped Master Plan has been pushed out, and the funding opportunities have emerged. He SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 suggested placing a recommendation to the Council. He questioned how to bring that up if the whole item is going to be on consent. Council Member Cormack stated it was not agendized to have that discussion today. ____ stated the current item was Verbal Update on Interagency Activities, updates from staff. He suggested if the Committee wanted to have the Council reconsider whether to pursue certain grade crossings ahead of finishing the Bike and Pedestrian Plan, it should be agendized for discussion and would be a topic for another day. Mayor Burt wanted to have the item agendized for the next Rail Committee meeting in August. Vice Mayor Kou requested comments from the public. Public Comment: 1. Adrian Brandt stated 110 MPH is 31 miles an hour faster than Caltrain already travels. The high death or incident rate on Florida's Brightline is very well documented but is a cultural problem in that area. The public there is not familiar with trains running on that line, and every incident was the result of somebody inebriated, racing the trains, etc. They do not have quad gates. The High-Speed Rail Authority is proposing for the peninsula to do quad gates at all the remaining at- grade crossings, which precludes anyone from trying to bypass the gates. He stated that is not a problem on the Caltrain line and could not recall any incident of anyone driving around the gate in a car and being hit. The only difference from a crossing-user's perspective would be the speed at which the train goes through the crossing. The gates would come down with the same amount of warning time because that is scaled to the train speed. He stated it does not matter from a practical perspective whether the train is going at 110 or 79 as it would be fatal either way. 2. Nadia Naik pointed out High-Speed Rail has a history of dumping EIRs on the City of Palo Alto in the summer, and the City has always requested an extension with the understanding that staff is away in the summer and it is unfair to respond to such an enormous document during this time period. She felt the City should get with other cities to make that request. She believed this was supposed to be their final EIR, so answers to previous complaints should be in the back of the giant document. She was interested that High-Speed Rail is going to do quad gates the entire length of the peninsula because quad gates SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 12 (Sp.) Rail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes 06/15/2022 are a requirement for quiet zones. She suggested advocating with elected officials in Sacramento doing budget negationsto pay for the quad gates now. She suggested using the City's rail list and PAN list to let them know the High-Speed Rail EIR has come out as there would be a lot of comments from members of the community. Regarding the bike projects, she stated the Loma Verde project was pulled out because it was supposed to be part of NVCAP's discussion. It was not related to Ross Road, although the timing was similar. She also recalled that part of the reason the bicycle-pedestrian grade crossing issue was considered to be part of the Bike Plan was because certain council members did not want to give AECOM more bike-ped work. Vice Mayor Kou wanted to make sure to communicate the final EIR to the community so they are aware. Future Meetings and Agendas Mayor Burt requested to include the discussion on the prioritization of the bike and ped crossings as they relate to grade separation. Vice Mayor Kou wanted an update on the San Francisquito Creek to be added to the agenda. Mayor Burt stated that Mr. Bhatia referred earlier to a few updates that are likely, including a response to the letter to Caltrain and a VTA response on Measure B latitude for bike and ped crossings. He stated that could be done under the usual staff update. Next meeting August 9, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.