Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20221118smRCfinalRAIL COMMITTEE ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 16 Special Meeting November 18, 2022 The Rail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 1:00 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Cormack Present Remotely: Kou Absent: None Vice Mayor Kou Called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. City Clerk Leslie Milton stated two were present, and there was a quorum. Oral Communications Elizabeth Alexis had put forward one of the alternatives regarding Charleston and Meadow and had sent in some comments. She questioned if the alternatives of leaving the intersection as it was should be considered because she believed it would fail to meet the purpose and intent of the project with regard to improved traffic flow and would have long-lasting implications for bikes and pedestrians. She asked if turning the intersections into roundabouts would improve that. She thought the underpass would be great, but was concerned that the bike community rejected it because it was a work in progress. She had given the Committee a handout which would be helpful in understanding how different alternatives would perform. Ron Roth lived near the Alma train crossing and University Avenue Caltrain Station, and the frequent train whistle interfered with his life. He understood the whistle was no longer required for safety purposes and requested its elimination. Yvonne lived on Alma Street and found it difficult to sleep with the noise of the train and the whistle and would be grateful if the project reduced the noise. Bruce Arthur was present on behalf of the Palo Alto Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, a subcommittee set up to deal with rail crossings in South Palo Alto, and had sent an email. He detailed concerns related to ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 the underpass plan putting all pedestrians and cyclists on one side of the crossing of Meadow and Charleston and recommended the City build a separate bike and pedestrian path in some area of South Palo Alto. He provided recommendations for a safe crossing in South Palo Alto during the construction process. Adrian Brandt addressed Caltrain being part of electrification and circuits not being compatible with electrification. He explained the chosen solution of dual-speed check (DSC), which should be installed by the end of the year. He addressed Caltrain’s plan of a second round of signal improvements with a wireless system, which there would be almost a year’s time between the implementation of DSC and the wireless system. He stated the latest staff report to the board indicated problems and complaints with the DSC circuits that had been installed at six crossings, which they had deactivated and continued to work on improvements. Action Items 1. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities A. Caltrain – No update provided B. VTA - No update provide C. City Staff Transportation Director Philip Kami provided a City update. He commented on seeking grant funding and applying for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), and conversation had been initiated with VTA on the application. They planned on Meadow and Charleston being the first priority. A middle-of-the road approach would be taken for the funding sought as they did not know which alternative would be selected. They had followed up with Caltrain staff and were waiting on a response regarding the San Francisquito bridge project, which it was reiterated an alternative analysis was needed for rehabilitation and strengthening of the bridge, and a cost benefit analysis for the alternatives had been requested. Caltrain hired Kimley-Horn to perform the Caltrain Corridor Strategy on grade separations, and the scope and stakeholder engagement plan was in process. There would be monthly meetings with City/County Staff Group, LPMG, and other stakeholders, and a stakeholder advisory team would be developed, which would provide recommendations. Two diagnostic meetings were being scheduled with CPUC and the Joint Powers Board staff for the Quiet Zone Study for Palo Alto Avenue. Mayor Burt expressed regarding the Caltrain Corridor Study that a consulting team had been engaged, and there had been two presentations at the LPMG meeting. They were receptive to input in terms of including additional ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 criteria and methodology for decision-making. The concept of a corridor-wide study seemed promising. Related to the San Francisquito Creek bridge and Caltrain not moving forward aggressively with replacement of the bridge preceding the Committee developing a preferred alternative, several years ago there had been an extensive study of the El Palo Alto Tree, which publishing of the study had not been completed, but he understood it would be done. He mentioned some of what the study showed. VTA had an Ad Hoc Committee on grade separation. It came out in the first meeting that Caltrain had agreed to Mountain View’s assertion that four tracks at the Castro Station could not be integrated. He indicated the Committee needed to take a more aggressive position with Caltrain for four track in certain areas of the corridor. Transportation Director Kami remarked that staff had asked Caltrain about the four tracking and was anticipating more information. Mayor Burt specified the Committee should ask for the documents submitted to Caltrain by Mountain View and make assertions to Caltrain in a manner similar to Mountain View’s. He did not believe permission was needed to do that. He asked to be notified if there was no response. Vice Mayor Kou indicated if there was documentation from one city that affected another city staff should iterate to Caltrain that material should be shared with the affected city so there could be a conversation. Transportation Director Kami noted they requested from Kimley-Horn and Caltrain staff coordination and communication with all the cities. Nadia Naik of CARRD added that Mountain View’s City Council had taken the position of voting on the four tracks and sending the message to Caltrain, so consideration may need to be given to scheduling. Vice Mayor Kou stated the Committee was still waiting for information, but if Mountain View was placing this on their calendar to vote on and submit to Caltrain, then the Committee needed to start a conversation with Mountain View soon or something needed to be on the Committee’s calendar. Transportation Director Kami declared that Mountain View had already taken that action, so staff would reach out to Mountain View to determine the path they took that provided them with a response from Caltrain, and staff would take a similar path. Council Member Cormack inquired if that could be an agenda item for the December meeting, which there could be a discussion and a recommendation, if appropriate, to City Council. ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Transportation Director Kami believed Mountain View conducted a feasibility analysis, which Palo Alto needed to do in order for Council take action, but Council would also need to weigh in on doing a feasibility study. Vice Mayor Kou was concerned timing was a factor and wanted Caltrain to wait for the Committee’s considerations before making a determination. She asked if it was possible to get a timeline of where Mountain View or Caltrain were in their approval process and what would be coming up for approval, so the Committee could reprioritize or re-look at the planning in order to be on a similar timeline and so Caltrain would have both cities to consider. She wanted to see timelines provided with emphasis on the matters that would have an impact on Palo Alto in terms of decisions, approvals, or requests made by Mountain View to Caltrain, which would allow Palo Alto time to provide a request. Transportation Director Kami expressed that Mountain View was moving forward, and it seemed Caltrain and Mountain View City Council had approved it, although they were waiting on confirmation. As far as timing, staff would not be able to have a report for the Rail Committee Meeting in December, but they could provide an update at the meeting. They would work on getting Mountain View and Caltrain’s timeline. They were significantly further ahead of Palo Alto in their project and were in final design and nearing construction. Mayor Burt requested it be agendized in a way that a referral could be made to Council. Council Member Cormack asked if Mountain View was ahead on Rengstorff. Sharing schedules with everyone would be helpful. Transportation Director Kami answered it was not as far ahead as Castro but much further ahead than Palo Alto. Mayor Burt did not think Mountain View was ready for construction due to having to apply for additional funds, so the timeline was not known. Nadia Naik requested a link to the last VTA Ad Hoc meeting be put on the agenda for the Rail Committee. Mountain View and Sunnyville had presented the full alternatives, cost, etc., and those cities had an MOU with Caltrain, which she believed Caltrain would ask Palo Alto for next month. She suggested policymakers watch the meeting before the next Committee meeting when an MOU may be requested. Council Member Cormack requested it be sent to the Committee in advance of the next meeting, so it could be reviewed. ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Public Comment Item 1 Gregory Conlin had been on the Rail Committee in Atherton for 20 years. He addressed the quiet zone and quad gates. He was an advocate of grading the right of way and a trench from Palo Alto through Atherton, although Atherton was not receptive to it. He offered to help with the plan. 2. Study Session to review comments received from various stakeholders to refine conceptual plans for Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. (Continued from Oct 19, 2022) Senior Engineer Ripon Batia noted there was a correction from a previous conversation [inaudible 50:58] cross section at Kellogg Avenue with the train section. AECOM Consultant Peter DeStefano stated the minimum lane width required for fire vehicle access was a minimum of 16 feet, not 10½ feet. This would require roadway widening and removal of a landscape strip and some of the trees. An exhibit was provided. Senior Engineer Batia mentioned it was the same width on Seale, Kellogg, and Churchill Avenues and would have the same impacts to the roadway and pedestrian structures. Council Member Cormack believed that losing trees with the 16 feet argued for a steeper slope. Discussion ensued regarding a 10-foot versus 12-foot ped/bike ramp, removing the landscaping strip, removing trees and community feedback, and replanting. It was concluded that 10 versus 12 feet would not make a difference for the landscape since 16 feet was needed for the lane width; the trees were on the City right of way, but community feedback may have been solicited; and the only opportunity for replanting would be relocating the sidewalk further into private property. Mayor Burt opined that more time should not be spent on the Kellogg option as issues had been raised at the City/School Liaison Committee meeting in reference to the landing area for the underpass taking land from the Paly High School, and there had been no discussion with Paly. He inquired why this location was being considered if Seale or that vicinity was a better location for a landing in Peers Park, etc. ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Transportation Director Philip Kami noted the issue existed at Seale and Kellogg and believed they would create concepts for Seale as well as Kellogg. Nadia Naik of CARRD questioned how the 16-foot lane width was missed previously, if it was a requirement, and if it would be more cost effective to buy smaller fire trucks than fix the City. Regarding Kellogg and Seale, both corners of Seale and Alma were RM30 properties and Kellogg was not zoned RM30, so there would be less impacts on neighbors at the Seale property and would allow the City to build housing. Council Member Cormack proposed not ruling either out until both were researched and the pros and cons of each evaluated. Transportation Director Kami anticipated more information would be available soon regarding pros and cons of both locations. A request had been made for dot maps. He was not sure how the 16-foot lane width was missed, but part of the nexus for the consideration came from car-free streets dealing with 16-foot requirements from the Fire Department. Whether it would be cheaper to buy smaller fire trucks would be another discussion, but they had the same conflict with the car-free streets and dealing with an emergency fire lane and was more than Transportation expected. The 16- foot lane width was a requirement. It could be negotiated, although there was no authority to do so. Vice Mayor Kou stated the issues were on the east side of Alma on Kellogg and Seale and on Kellogg. She asked if there would be a problem on the west side of Seale since it was Palo Alto’s land. Transportation Director Kami voiced it would not necessarily be a problem, but the implications of using park land for a bike path would be discussed with Legal. He did not think a vote or a rededication would be a hurdle. Senior Engineer Batia remarked Item 163, which was on the comments spreadsheet, could be discussed toward the end of the discussion of design attributes related to the peak pedestrian traffic for signalized intersections. Council Member Cormack thought it addressed bicycles, and the queues needed to be designed and agreed to for peak usage. She questioned if bikes being grouped at queuing was a concern. Senior Engineer Batia explained how queues worked. Free-flowing crossings were currently at Meadow and Charleston, and there were no recommended traffic control [inaudible 1:08:45], but it was suggested that a HAWK or RFB signal or some improvement be considered, which they would explore. He ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 explained how bikes and pedestrians would be prioritized to have a continuous flow, so there would be a minimum amount of stop time. Extra storage could be looked into for being stopped at a crossing. A study had not been done for pedestrian and bike traffic peak usage. Transportation Director Kami clarified what would happen as far as grouping with a light queuing at an intersection, but there would be no grouping with free-flowing. Assistant Transportation Director Sylvia Star Lack described how the tunnel would work. Council Member Cormack asked if the design meant grouping would not happen in the future. Transportation Director Kami confirmed that was correct. AECOM Consultant Millette Litzinger moved to Slide 18 of the presentation regarding intersection layouts and vehicle turning radiuses on Alma and Charleston. She addressed the design and widths of the intersections and recommended leaving the conceptual design as it was. AECOM Consultant DeStefano explained why it was relatively wide. Discussion ensued regarding lane widths, elevations, turning radiuses, pedestrian and bike crossings and paths, sidewalks, parking strips, private versus City property, fencing, shifting of turning lanes and eliminating a right-hand turn lane, and alternatives related to the design focusing on larger (40-foot) vehicles. It was decided measurements would be considered in future phases. Utilizing property of San Antonio to East Meadow as an off- road bike path would not be possible. The fencing would have to be modified to relocate the sidewalk. Eliminating the right-hand turn lane could be discussed with Gary Black and shifting of the roadway discussed with Caltrain. Future slides would be labeled with directional arrows to avoid confusion and would also include information related to potential private property impacts. AECOM Consultant Litzinger presented Slide 19 related to options for safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists at the Alma and Charleston intersection and referenced shorter crosswalk lengths and turning movements. Consideration could be given to improvements in the next phase of the design to help with pavement width and making pedestrian crossings shorter. ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Discussion arose referring to the options for the area being used as a mountable curb for busses, etc., and an area for pedestrians with shorter crosswalks, which may have been applied at some point. Staff recommended this type of improvement be considered at a future stage of planning. AECOM Consultant DeStefano continued with Slide 20 with regard to roadway grade/slope and discussed grade percentages. Due to contrasting comments received regarding flattening versus steepening grades, various considerations were contemplated, which he presented. One of the first things done in the layout was determining the design speed, and based on that they would try to minimize the cost and the footprint for that design speed. Discussion ensued related to the slope of the bike and pedestrian ramp and roadway grades of 10% and 12%. Bike and pedestrian ramps were determined to be 5% or less. AECOM Consultant DeStefano furnished examples of 5% to 8% grades and would return to the Committee with the grade of Oregon Avenue. Discussion occurred related to bridge thickness, grades, and federal and state grant requirements in terms of design speeds. AECOM Consultant DeStefano did not recommend a lower speed and steeper grade but keeping the design profiles as they were, which provided a balance of design, speed, safety, and cost, and staff recommended keeping the proposed design speed and grade at this phase of the conceptual design. Public Comment Item 2 Greg Conlin referred to there being much traffic and bicyclists at the Charleston intersection and requested an explanation of Slide 20 regarding the train, the grade, the underpass, and bicyclists. AECOM Consultant DeStefano provided clarification of Slide 20. He proceeded with Slide 21 regarding signage for pedestrians and bicyclists, which several comments from stakeholders had been received. It was an important part of the design and would develop in more detail in subsequent phases of the project. Council Member Cormack opined signage with larger images and smaller lettering was easier to comprehend. Vice Mayor Kou wanted ground signage to be considered. ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 AECOM Consultant DeStefano remarked they would try to design for pavement markings as well. He proceeded with Slide 22 related the loss of the landscape strip, which concerned some stakeholders. He addressed loss of the landscape strip and the proposed condition removing the landscape strip on Alma, similar to Kellogg and Seale. Discussion ensued regarding a buffer, barrier, and/or visual deterrent, which AECOM was requesting direction on modifying the design layout, being cognizant of bike handlebars with a taller structure, for the approximate 1/4-mile stretch on Churchill, which included right-of-way impacts. A potential design solution would be to slow the design speed to 25 MPH starting earlier on Northern California Avenue. There could not be a continuous barrier due to the curb cuts. ADA compliance also needed to be considered. Transportation Director Kami inquired if the concepts needed further refining to include the buffer. The Committee agreed further refining was needed. Council Member Cormack indicated it should be done at a later stage in the process. AECOM Consultant Litzinger noted the Committee already selected this alternative, so it would be refinement of the selected design versus the ones from Meadow and Charleston with the trench and the hybrid. AECOM Consultant DeStefano continued with Slide 23 concerning the two- lane roundabout on Charleston, which a lot of stakeholders were concerned with bicyclists traversing through and had asked if a single-lane roundabout would suffice. He explained why the traffic engineer recommended a two- lane roundabout. AECOM recommended performing a more detailed review of the roundabout geometry to possibly refine the diameters slightly and proposed widening the bike/ped path on the north side. Senior Engineer Batia noted an email was received from Elizabeth Alexis regarding extending the bike path to the Carlson intersection, but it would remove the landscaping strips. He expressed why he recommended extending only to Mumford. Public Comment Item 2 Elizabeth Alexis commented she assumed the bike/ped path would go to Carlson and voiced her reasoning for it being an opportunity. The project ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 was presented one way to the Bike/Ped Committee, and they could have been more effective if shown different options. Bruce [Arthur 2:19:06] expressed his reasoning for the two-lane roundabouts and the existing crosswalks not being good designs. He and most of the bike community did not like the plan, and moving the crossing to Charleston would not improve it. The plan should be optimized for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, not just vehicles. Rachel Croft stated she had not been aware Council had chosen the partial underpass for Churchill and was not aware closure was no longer an option. She was against removing all the trees on Alma. Going back to the first recommendation of putting the through northbound traffic along with the southbound lanes may have been a way to retain some of the trees and eliminate putting the sidewalk next to traffic. Eric Holm from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) commented the widening of the right of way on Kellogg for the bike path was not a viable option as it would require removal of the bleachers for the football field, which would require moving the football field. Vice Mayor Kou asked if a request had been submitted to PAUSD for the dot maps. Transportation Director Kami remarked staff was requesting dot maps. Eric Holm declared they would provide them. Nadia Naik of CARRD commented the underpass design was the only one that passed the traffic studies, and the other designs left Meadow and Charles with a greater F intersection rating than the underpass. There was a lot of consternation on XCAP regarding the two-lane roundabout, but that made it work in the traffic study. She inquired if it was possible to reduce it to a one-lane traffic circle and see if it would pass the traffic study. The two- lane was not first choice for the cyclists but was the only one that offered cyclists and pedestrians not stopping at Alma. Transportation Director Kami commented that Gary Black said it failed with the one-lane roundabout. Senior Engineer Batia specified there was discussion about weaving length required to merge traffic, and the two-lane roundabout was needed. ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Nadia Naik of CARRD wanted to make sure everyone watching understood a selection had been made by Council and recommended more community outreach be done through the process. Mayor Burt requested the slide from last month be pulled up related to the impacts on the Paly side of the Kellogg crossing to make sure everyone understood. Discussion arose that Slide 8 presented last month avoided encroaching on the bleachers for Paly High School, but the updated configuration impacted the bleachers and was another case for Seale versus Kellogg. Mayor Burt questioned if from a process standpoint the Committee needed to recommend to the Council focusing on Seale rather than Kellogg for bikes and pedestrians. Transportation Director Kami noted they were collecting the dot maps and doing initial analysis under the BPTP and expected information soon, which would help in the decision of Kellogg versus Seale. As far as being agendized in December enabling a referral to Council, they were prepared to make a concept for Seale, and no additional direction was needed currently. The item was needed this week for the December Rail Committee, and there would be nothing new in the meantime. Mayor Burt was interested in comparisons of the one- versus two-lane roundabout and wanted to see the basis for the two-lane roundabout decision. Transportation Director Kami proposed it could be evaluated further if the alternative should progress. Elizabeth Alexis expressed that it needed to be determined if the one-lane option would work and suggested taking the approach of being in a constrained environment and going backward to see what could be changed to make it work, such as a steeper grade, a dedicated right-hand turn lane, adjusting light signals, etc. If there was no acceptable combination, it may have to be two lane. She indicated it was more of a turnaround facility than a roundabout, and questioned if the concept of the road having many short merges would facilitate faster merging. Mayor Burt also considered it more of a turnabout rather than a roundabout with traffic coming from four directions and wanted to ensure the traffic flow was looked at that way. ACTION MINUTES Page 12 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Transportation Director Kami thought staff’s recommendation would be to consider ways to reduce the size of the roundabout in future phases. Regarding the slope being increased, he suggested cyclists use the underpass instead of crossing the street several times. Having a bike/ped path on both sides would restrict movement. Discussion ensued regarding two bike/ped underpasses inhibiting [inaudible 2:43:20]. Council Member Cormack stated regarding the turnabout there would be little traffic coming from the left and should help traffic flow. She questioned if the plan was optimizing for vehicles and making sure it worked for bicycles and pedestrians or if it was something else. AECOM Consultant DeStefano proceeded with Slide 24, which stakeholders had concerns of breaking north/south continuity for cyclists at Park Boulevard. He provided suggestions to remove the circuitous movement and recommended keeping the configuration as it was to minimize property acquisitions and recommended keeping the grade as it was using a 25 MPH design for reasons described on Slide 20. Nadia Naik of CARRD thought a suggestion made by XCAP was to move the bike path from Park Boulevard to Wilkie Way. Discussion ensued regarding moving the bike path to Wilkie Way. AECOM Consultant Litzinger furnished Slide 25 regarding bridge depth thickness. She noted what the concept designs were based on. There had been suggestions to fine-tune the structured depth to reduce the footprint. It was recommended the current depth remain as presented to allow for flexibility as design decisions were made. Discussion occurred regarding bridge depth flexibility and structure type to minimize bridge depth. Vice Mayor Kou voiced the alternative was being considered, not determined to be the path forward and suggested leaving it open for consideration as stages of the project developed. Transportation Director Kami remarked the aspirational goal was to reduce as much as possible the length of the roadway, property acquisition, and depth thickness. AECOM Consultant Litzinger presented Slide 26 related to vertical clearance, which there had been suggestions to reduce clearance to ACTION MINUTES Page 13 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 lessen the project footprint. She referenced Caltrans’ clearance requirements and recommended keeping the clearances as they were because they met the standards. The slide indicated it was Caltrain’s standards, but it was actually Caltrans’ standards. Vice Mayor Kou asked if Caltrans’ standards had to be followed. [AECOM Consultant Litzinger 3:06:29] confirmed Caltrans’ standards had to be followed. AECOM Consultant DeStefano thought Caltrain’s standards had to be followed. If guidance was based on Caltrans, that is what they would use. There was no flexibility with roadway vertical clearance but there was with pedestrian vertical clearance. Caltrans desired 10 feet for pedestrian clearance, but 8 feet was minimum. Mayor Burt was inclined to use the flexibility for the pedestrian clearance. AECOM Consultant Litzinger displayed Slide 27 related to aesthetics, and there had been suggestions to enhance the aesthetics of the alternatives as shown in the renderings. She recommended keeping the alternatives as they were. After selection of a preferred alternative, consideration could be given to the iterations of updating the renderings meeting the desired aesthetics. AECOM Consultant DeStefano presented Slide 28 regarding raising the rail, which some had suggested raising the rail profile to reduce the extent of the roadway lowering, which could reduce the project footprint and the grades. While acknowledging there would be benefit and advantages of that, he furnished reasons for keeping the rail at the existing elevation and recommended no change to the rail profile for the underpass options. Transportation Director Kami provided Slide 29 in reference to the summary of refinements and covered what was listed on the slide. Direction was not needed regarding this, and they could proceed if there were no issues. Under Council direction, they were to collect feedback and proceed with design refinements for the underpass alternative. Nadia Naik of CARRD opined there should be no refinement to the alternative of the Charleston and Meadow underpass separating the bike path to each side of the street. ACTION MINUTES Page 14 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Mayor Burt recommended no work be done with regard to Kellogg until receipt of the dot maps and not proceeding on Kellogg unless the maps showed it was a superior location. Transportation Director Kami noted they could hold on the refinement of Kellogg until Seale was determined. Nadia Naik of CARRD inquired if feedback was being gathered and then AECOM would provide an estimate or if AECOM was proceeding with the refinements, and asked how it interlaced with Caltrain’s technical requirements. She had a phone call, which indicated Caltrain might have something as early as February regarding the things they were aware of, so she questioned how that would change the alternatives, including alternatives the Committee did not talk about. Transportation Director Kami declared the current contract with AECOM was to do the design refinements, which could be initiated after the Committee meeting. He provided Slide 29 from the last Rail Committee meeting noting the items requiring the Rail Committee’s direction. Council’s direction was to proceed with stakeholder feedback and refine the designs, so without additional scope they could proceed. They were developing updated plans, exhibits, and renderings for the underpass alternatives. AECOM was working on geotechnical studies for subsurface conditions to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed trenching, etc. A peer review cost estimate and design assumptions for the trench alternative was in progress. Completion of that was anticipated by the summer of 2023 at which time the Rail Committee could review and recommend to City Council preferred alternatives for the other crossings. The caveat was technical issues and design criteria were pending. At some point, the Committee needed to make a determination regarding whether to proceed with the information currently available or if the timeline should be extended in order to wait for Caltrain’s criteria, which they may or may not get in February. Caltrain wanted to discuss a service agreement with the Committee at the next meeting. They could proceed with some of the refinements, but some of the alternatives could be impacted by Caltrain’s responses. Mayor Burt asked if the Committee needed to identify the design standards that mattered most to the Committee and in a targeted discussion with Caltrain get their responses and see if there should be more alignment before making a decision of what to proceed with. Transportation Director Kami expressed that was reasonable. Caltrain would be at the next meeting. ACTION MINUTES Page 15 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Vice Mayor Kou inquired if it would be limited to an agreement. Decisions were in flux, and Caltrain would have to formulate and analyze all the standards before coming back to the Committee with answers. Transportation Director Kami did not think the corridor-wide strategy would be finalized by Caltrain at the next meeting. The meeting would be related to the service agreement needed to move forward with selecting [an LPA 3:23:27], etc. Mayor Burt mentioned Caltrain wanted an MOU, and the Committee wanted answers. Vice Mayor Kou asked what was needed from the Committee. Transportation Director Kami indicated no action was needed. They needed to know if refinements should be proceed with or if they should wait for Caltrain’s schedule. Moving on Caltrain’s schedule would delay what was currently scheduled. Mayor Burt wanted to see the mapping of the design refinements that mattered the most to the Committee and then have a discussion with Caltrain, not necessarily at the next meeting, to get a sense of where they would be headed before giving an official position. Transportation Director Kami shared they had mentioned to Caltrain many times (including a formal letter) the things delaying the City. Nadia Naik of CARRD highlighted that Caltrain’s answer to the four-tracks for South Palo Alto may take longer than an answer to Churchill, even though the Committee had prioritized Meadow and Charleston above Churchill, so part of it was perhaps having a visualization of if something cannot be moved forward, then moving forward with something else. It would be helpful to know the impacts of each design, understanding they may have to be taken in a different order. Transportation Director Kami stated the City’s designs required some Caltrain right of way, and he expected Caltrain would be very protective of that right of way. Senior Engineer Batia would develop a list of five or six items [inaudible 3:36:32], look at how they would be applicable, and develop a matrix providing [inaudible 3:26:41]. Mayor Burt noted the bike path behind Paly was in the Caltrain right of way. ACTION MINUTES Page 16 of 16 Rail Committee Meeting Action Minutes: 11/18/2022 Nadia Naik of CARRD asked when the geotechnical information was expected, as it would be helpful for the decisionmakers to understand when work already asked for was anticipated so it could be agendized appropriately. Transportation Director Kami commented the tasks he mentioned earlier were expected to be completed by the summer of 2023, including the geotechnical. The refinements of the alternatives was one of the tasks. Public Comment Item 2 Adrian Brandt commented regarding the buffer/sidewalk topic that 35 MPH traffic should be avoided. He recommended a short wall preventing vehicles from climbing the curb but still having [open ends for] [inaudible 3:28:52]. He addressed bridge thickness and raising the train tracks. He urged a viaduct, which would address grades, traffic movement, etc. Vice Mayor Kou asked Transportation Director Kami if they could talk about the agenda for December. She requested community input and feedback regarding Item 2. Next Steps and Future Agendas Discussion and a recommendation, if appropriate, to City Council voting on the four tracks at the Castro Station. Dot maps and initial analysis under the BPTP in reference to the decision of Kellogg versus Seale for the bike/ped path impacting the bleachers of Paly High School. Discussion of a service agreement with Caltrain. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:22 P.M.